I feel...

[Case]

You may delete

Case--

[Stone]

I think that instead of trying to find something to believe in, why not investigate why you feel the need for something to believe in. It seems like you are agnostic but don't want to be. I'd understand why you don't want to be agnostic. If you can't find a religion to believe in, then why not believe in atheism. Atheism, unlike agnosticism isn't a lack of belief because you have to believe that there is no god. Look up Richard Dawkins. His books are great for persuading people to the atheist side. Pretty boring if you are already atheist though.

[Case]

May Delete

Case--

[Stone]

Believing in a human spirit requires faith just as believing in a god does. There is no proof there is a spirit, there is not proof there isn't a spirit.

[Case]

You may delete! =P

Case--

[headcase]

Look up the New Age movement. It's best I just link to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age) then try to define it myself.

In short, it stresses the importance of mind and consciousness. It has no strict rule-book, you can pick and choose what appeals to you from it. I've fought between athiestic, agnostic and pantheistic beliefs for a while, and after a few rather bizarre and consciousness raising experiences (near death experience, out-of-body experience, synchronicity and the like), I've kind of settled for New Age(ism?). Without demanding belief from myself or hopelessly throwing in the towel (which I always thought of agnisticism), I accept that the complexity of the cosmos is beyond my understanding and see what comes.

Psychedelic drugs played no small part either.

[odin_dax]

Where some see coincidence, others see providence.

There is nothing to convince you, if you already have a bias, to yield to the opposing side of the religious argument. You say being an atheist is ignorant, yet you dismiss Stone's suggestion without reading it. I admit, bias. I fight with that bias a lot.

I disagree with Stone, if he's an atheist. I disagree with anyone's argument that A god can be proven to NOT exist, if only from a purely logical standpoint.

To be Christian, for example isn't to be religious. Religions were created by man. Nobody needs a religion, a set of dogma to be freely accepted without pursuit of personal truth.

I'm spiritual, but I find myself moving further and further away from the status quo. I've had bad experiences at churches, mainly the fakeness of it all, but that was my own pursuit, my own experience.
I have a friend who is overly religious and uses religion not to confide in me as a friend because I believe in premarital sex and drinking occasionally (though I gave good arguments - I don't mean be a lush or a slut). They were dismissed, of course, but not by logic. I even argued once so well I made him doubt his own faith, which surprised me. I've always had a problem with religious people who purport they're better than non-religious people, or better than other religious people. In the case of my friend, he would never consciously think he's a better person than someone like me, but the whole "equally yoked" argument says otherwise. Churches also tend to be full of people who gossip and spread rumors, or people who try to act like leaders and lend an ear. It's funny, especially true of the last college-aged group I was in. (What do a bunch of kids know anyhow?) Of course, not everybody is like that, but every church has some, and they will probably disgust you.

The point is, nobody can help you, you have to help yourself. You will find your niche, as I have. People will love it, hate it, reject it, accept it.

There are many bigots out there against religion, any religion, so ignore them. Good luck.

[Stone]

I disagree with Stone, if he's an atheist. I disagree with anyone's argument that A god can be proven to NOT exist, if only from a purely logical standpoint.

I never said that it has been proved there is not god. That is putting words in my mouth. It cannot be proved that there is no gods just like it cannot be proved that there is a god(s).

Personally I find it hard to believe in an all-powerful being who exists everywhere at once and outside of time (to create time he obviously has to exist outside of it). But that's me. Others would see it differently. For me the logical stance is that there is no god and that is what I believe, but I never say that I know for 100% sure that there isn't a god, because it hasn't been proved.

Many people who follow religions are led by blind faith. Atheism requires a level of faith too. But not blind faith. A priest will say that he is 100% sure that there is a god, that there has never been anything so definate. An atheist takes that more logical standpoint and say 'I believe that there is no god but it is a possibility'. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous and outspoken atheist in the world. He goes as far as to say that christinings, first communions, etc, are child abuse. Yet even he says that while he believes there is no god, it hasn't been proved so he doesn't discount the possibility.

People don't choose atheism because people tell them to, or because men in robes say they will suffer for all eternity if they don't. They ignore the social stigma related to it. They choose it by free will. They choose it because it is the most logical answer. That is how the human brain works if it doesn't know the answer, it tries to figure out the answer logically from the information it has. Each person interprets the information differently and therefore some will have different 'logical' answers and that is why there is so much variety between the thoughts of people. I'm not saying that any religion is wrong, I'm not saying that any religion is right. I'm just saying that the logical explanation to me is that there isn't any god.

This is why your statement if only from a purely logical standpoint doesn't fit in the context of this arguement. Computers are great for working out logical answers from supplied information and they will always give the right logical answer. Our brains are totally different and 'logical answers' can be relative to the person and the question.

[hatal]

I find buddhism very satisfactional. The practices they have like meditation (ofcourse there is more then one kind of it) helps you to improve your mind, control your emotions. The tibetan tradition has incorporated many of the old BON religions shamanic practices so there is a plenty of mysticsm in it to explore. Certainly you are not allowed to harm or hurt anybody except self-defence. But why would you hurt anyone just because (unless your a sadistic butt-wipe). Drinking alcohol is allowed but not encourage (drugs and alcohol hinder or change the even flow "energy" in the "chakras"). Only buddhist-monks are not allowed to drink booze. Aside from all that you can't just become a buddhist, you have to try to be one your whole life. If you make mistakes, no matter, as long as you know you made one, you can forth on the path and try not to repeat it. Get it. But the most important is karma and reincarnation.
Buddhism has produced a plenty of magnificent things >> buddhistic martial arts, various forms of meditation and mind control techniques (trans, pohva, dzogchen) etc.

Almost forgot they don't believe in God, like the Almighty One and Only kind. They have gods which are the unconscious manifestation of postive and negative forces in this world (like 59 furious and 49 peacefull gods )

[Esophagus]

I never said that it has been proved there is not god. That is putting words in my mouth. It cannot be proved that there is no gods just like it cannot be proved that there is a god(s).

Personally I find it hard to believe in an all-powerful being who exists everywhere at once and outside of time (to create time he obviously has to exist outside of it). But that's me. Others would see it differently. For me the logical stance is that there is no god and that is what I believe, but I never say that I know for 100% sure that there isn't a god, because it hasn't been proved.

Many people who follow religions are led by blind faith. Atheism requires a level of faith too. But not blind faith. A priest will say that he is 100% sure that there is a god, that there has never been anything so definate. An atheist takes that more logical standpoint and say 'I believe that there is no god but it is a possibility'. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous and outspoken atheist in the world. He goes as far as to say that christinings, first communions, etc, are child abuse. Yet even he says that while he believes there is no god, it hasn't been proved so he doesn't discount the possibility. Actually, this would make you and Richard Dawkins agnostic. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic chooses not to, as it can't be proved.

[headcase]

Richard Dawkins does describe himself as agnostic (but in the same way as he is agnostic about the existence of the toothfairy).

[Esophagus]

I know. I'm just telling Stone.

[odin_dax]

I never said that it has been proved there is not god. That is putting words in my mouth. It cannot be proved that there is no gods just like it cannot be proved that there is a god(s).

Personally I find it hard to believe in an all-powerful being who exists everywhere at once and outside of time (to create time he obviously has to exist outside of it). But that's me. Others would see it differently. For me the logical stance is that there is no god and that is what I believe, but I never say that I know for 100% sure that there isn't a god, because it hasn't been proved.

Many people who follow religions are led by blind faith. Atheism requires a level of faith too. But not blind faith. A priest will say that he is 100% sure that there is a god, that there has never been anything so definate. An atheist takes that more logical standpoint and say 'I believe that there is no god but it is a possibility'. Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous and outspoken atheist in the world. He goes as far as to say that christinings, first communions, etc, are child abuse. Yet even he says that while he believes there is no god, it hasn't been proved so he doesn't discount the possibility.

People don't choose atheism because people tell them to, or because men in robes say they will suffer for all eternity if they don't. They ignore the social stigma related to it. They choose it by free will. They choose it because it is the most logical answer. That is how the human brain works if it doesn't know the answer, it tries to figure out the answer logically from the information it has. Each person interprets the information differently and therefore some will have different 'logical' answers and that is why there is so much variety between the thoughts of people. I'm not saying that any religion is wrong, I'm not saying that any religion is right. I'm just saying that the logical explanation to me is that there isn't any god.

This is why your statement doesn't fit in the context of this arguement. Computers are great for working out logical answers from supplied information and they will always give the right logical answer. Our brains are totally different and 'logical answers' can be relative to the person and the question.

You misunderstand, those are two statements. 1. If you're an atheist, I disagree with your beliefs. 2. A negative can't be proven; thus, my second statement you quoted makes sense from a logical standpoint.

Yes, having any kind of religious belief is a leap of faith. Like I said, where people see coincidence, some see providence. Divine knowledge or human observation. Chance or fate, etc, etc, etc.

[odin_dax]

Richard Dawkins does describe himself as agnostic (but in the same way as he is agnostic about the existence of the toothfairy).

Wait, the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist?!

[Stone]

Actually, this would make you and Richard Dawkins agnostic. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic chooses not to, as it can't be proved.

No, an agnostic is somebody who doesn't have a belief on whether there is a god or not. They can't make up their mind.

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that if you ask both the question "is there a god?"
Atheist: No
Agnostic: Maybe

An atheist isn't driven by blind faith. If god does exist and shows himself to us and is able to prove he is god then you'd see that Atheists will then believe. Proof, hard evidence, is what an Atheist would need.

Richard Dawkins does describe himself as agnostic (but in the same way as he is agnostic about the existence of the toothfairy).

That's a great way of putting it.

[Stone]

A negative can't be proven; thus, my second statement you quoted makes sense from a logical standpoint.

The point I was making is that when it comes to religion, logic is relative and subjective to individual people's thoughts. I see the facts the same as you but we both process them and interpret them differently and then come to different conclusions, with each other labeling our own answers as logical.

[Esophagus]

No, an agnostic is somebody who doesn't have a belief on whether there is a god or not. They can't make up their mind.

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that if you ask both the question "is there a god?"
Atheist: No
Agnostic: Maybe

An atheist isn't driven by blind faith. If god does exist and shows himself to us and is able to prove he is god then you'd see that Atheists will then believe. Proof, hard evidence, is what an Atheist would need.When I said "chooses not to" I didn'rt so much mean a belief in god. An agnostic chooses not to be religious, as its something that can't be proved. So you saying that you are an atheist who doesn't believe it can be proved, would basically make you an agnostic. I see where you are comnig from though, in that an agnostic takes no stance on the issue.

[Stone]

No atheist can say that god cannot be proved true because then that would require faith, the same type of faith that religious types have in their belief in god.

[headcase]

Exactly, that's why 99% of people are agnostic, to one extent or the other. Unless you are 100% certain (in your own head) that there is no god, then you're agnostic. Athiesm is a blind faith, of a kind.

People confuse agnosticism for "sitting on the fence" and having no conviction either way. Really, it's admitting at least a grain of uncertainty. For example, we are all agnostic about the existence of life on other planets, but regardless I have a strong bias towards the positive. That doesn't make me any less agnostic on the issue.

[Case]

Wow I'm glad my thread has sparked such discussion. Please continue,

AS for my part, I simply believe alot of athiests I know are simply too lazy to do anything.

I'm not saying the majority of atheists are lazy, but the majority of atheists I personally have spoken too just tend to be of that kind. I think they're lazy, so they just say 'Nope. No God'

Although I understand this is not why, for instance, Stone; is Atheist.

=]

Case--

[Esophagus]

I can't recall the name for that, but Atheists who do it out of convenience are a religion all to their own. I used to be that way. Mine wasn't so much convenience as religion never came up in family life, or school life (public school kind of avoids it, other than holidays), so I never put any thought to it. Now I believe in the power of the individual. Not quite atheist though. I think there could be some sort of cosmic reasoning to what happens, you know, "do good, good comes to you" type deal, but I don't think there's a god.

[odin_dax]

I can't recall the name for that, but Atheists who do it out of convenience are a religion all to their own. I used to be that way. Mine wasn't so much convenience as religion never came up in family life, or school life (public school kind of avoids it, other than holidays), so I never put any thought to it. Now I believe in the power of the individual. Not quite atheist though. I think there could be some sort of cosmic reasoning to what happens, you know, "do good, good comes to you" type deal, but I don't think there's a god.

My only point on this matter is, who or what is God? If God exists, an entity such as that we couldn't comprehend. Yes, we associate God with a human form, even the sex of male, but for all we know, God, in His true form, can be a sponge or some massless being the human mind can't grasp.

[Stone]

The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell.

Armand Salacrou, 1943

[Stone]

Exactly, that's why 99% of people are agnostic, to one extent or the other. Unless you are 100% certain (in your own head) that there is no god, then you're agnostic. Athiesm is a blind faith, of a kind.

People confuse agnosticism for "sitting on the fence" and having no conviction either way. Really, it's admitting at least a grain of uncertainty. For example, we are all agnostic about the existence of life on other planets, but regardless I have a strong bias towards the positive. That doesn't make me any less agnostic on the issue.

Atheism is an absence of belief in god or deities. As I have said earlier though, if god were to appear and prove that he is god then atheists will no longer be atheists. I believe there is no god and that will not change until god, if he does exist, decides to prove it. Agnostics on the other hand just say that they don't know and don't want to commit to a decision.

Even the structure of the words explain the difference...

Theism = Belief in the existence of god. As such, monotheism is the belief in only one god, polytheism is the belief in many gods, atheism is the belief in no god(s).

Gnosis = Greek for knowledge.
A = Greek for without.
Agnostic = Without knowledge. Although as you say Agnostic can be applied to beliefs in many different things, it is most commonly used in reference to religion. Agnostic means that the person doesn't have enough knowledge on the subject and is undecided on what belief to hold.

Atheist and Agnostic, contrary to popular opinion are not the same thing. That is just ignorance from the people who make that assumption.

[Esophagus]

It's not necessarily that they don't have enough knowledge on the subject, as much as they believe no one does. Or what you said.

[headcase]

Atheism, defined as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. In its broadest definition, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, sometimes called nontheism.

Looks like it's a little of column A and a little of column B.

[Esophagus]

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledgeI guess I was basing my opinion off of the definition of agnostics, without knowing the whole definition of atheism.

[headcase]

As of right now, Athiesm is Wikipedia's featured article. Nice of them to acknowledge us.

[Stone]

Ah fuck it. Who cares... Let's just get drunk and have fun. At the end of the day, we're all going to die anyway and ya might as well enjoy life while we have it, 'cos if there is no afterlife then you've wasted your time on this planet worrying if your going to spend all of eternity in hell, even though god has said he forgives everybody for everything, even killing his only son [sic].

[Esophagus]

He said that? I'm glad I took part in stoning Jesus then. =p

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

*Just on a personal note, I believe that there is more than 1 kind of atheism. I remember reading in an article somewhere that atheism could be classified in two ways:

A.)Positive/Strong Atheism
Positive Atheism is the assertion that God or any such concieved deity is nonexistent but lacking any given proof.

B.)Negative/Weak Atheism
Negative Atheism is the conclusion that God or any such concieved deity is nonexistent for lack of proof.

...headcase is making arguments based on the former..
...Stone seems to talk about the latter..

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

-Suppose your friend claims that a "mystical red gremlin" appeared before him.. And told him that everyone would go to heaven upon death if they would only worship said gremlin.

Negative atheism tells us that we should not believe that because of lack of proof, and also because it is complete rubbish.

You may say that it may be a "leap of faith" to be an atheist, but since when does nonbelief become faith?


Christianity, collective insanity.
:scool:

[icharianchem]

except for the fact that red gremlin is not really a well kown historical figure like say, Jesus, or Muhammad, Siddarthah(wow i mangled that) ect.

so these figures are slighlty more believable, if only slightly

also if all the accounts of jesuss' "miracles werefalse and seeing as how the gospeld were purpoted to be written a scant 10-25 years after Jesuss' death/resurrection/ascention would there be well circulated pamphlets from the apsotles contemporaries saying "hang on a minute...."?

[Armalite]

Why do people always use that faulty comparison of atheism and agnostic? They are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are dependent on each other. With the exception of positive atheists(assert positively there is not god), as opposed to negative or weak atheists(make no positive assertion, and simply point out the lack of reason to believe in god X), pretty much all non-theists(everyone in this category is also an atheist) must be agnostic.


In simpler words: theist and atheist together cover every possible position. You must be one or the other. Under which category does agnosticism fall? Certainly not under theism, which requires a positive assertion that one or more deities exist. So where then? Since it does not assert deity, perhaps then the category that requires only a lack of said assertion.

Atheism ≈ Agnosticism

[headcase]

The definition is actually pretty hazy. I take it to mean positive atheism inherently, because the difference bewteen weak atheism and agnosticism is subtle enough to warrent expansion in arguement (I'm an athiest, but I'm also a pantheist. - What?).

Probably best we specify exactly what me mean in whatever case.

[odin_dax]

Why do people always use that faulty comparison of atheism and agnostic? They are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are dependent on each other. With the exception of positive atheists(assert positively there is not god), as opposed to negative or weak atheists(make no positive assertion, and simply point out the lack of reason to believe in god X), pretty much all non-theists(everyone in this category is also an atheist) must be agnostic.


In simpler words: theist and atheist together cover every possible position. You must be one or the other. Under which category does agnosticism fall? Certainly not under theism, which requires a positive assertion that one or more deities exist. So where then? Since it does not assert deity, perhaps then the category that requires only a lack of said assertion.

Atheism ≈ Agnosticism

You make a good point. From my own experience, people say "agnostic" to mean people who are open to the belief a god or gods exist, but they need some kind of evidence or need further info to be convinced, not necessarily verifiable, scientific proof. When "atheist" is said, they usually mean "god never existed," and that any "evidence" can be "explained." Obviously, if the god of the Bible, for example, came out of the sky and started speaking, both atheists and agnostics would be convinced (that) God does exist.

Hair splitting, I know. But I would put forth there is a third option, a middle, for those that haven't decided or ever thought about the existence of any kind of god. Do those people exist? Maybe, but out of the 6-7 billion on earth, only one is needed to prove the statement, so I say yes.

[Armalite]

Once again dax, you managed to wrangle all the meaning out of the post and throw it away before replying.

As I pointed out, there are multiple flavors of atheism and agnosticism, but almost all of them overlap. Saying one is an atheist is really NOT commonly used to describe strong atheism, because it's not that common of a position. It's just as logically unsound as Christianity.

BTW people who are nonreligious by reason of ignorance are still, by definition, atheist.

[odin_dax]

Once again dax, you managed to wrangle all the meaning out of the post and throw it away before replying.

As I pointed out, there are multiple flavors of atheism and agnosticism, but almost all of them overlap. Saying one is an atheist is really NOT commonly used to describe strong atheism, because it's not that common of a position. It's just as logically unsound as Christianity.

BTW people who are nonreligious by reason of ignorance are still, by definition, atheist.

Only because you've interpreted my post as saying something counter to you. I was merely defining what others said in my own experience, not that it is my personal belief those are what the words mean or that I disagree with you. (Maybe you've wrangled the meaning out...)

Unless you have a different dictionary than I, your last point is incorrect because all definitions I've found say atheism is the [active] belief god doesn't exist. If a person was never posed the question or never thought about "Does god exist?" then there is a middle. There is no belief there is a god or not, certainly not an active one.

[Armalite]

A dictionary is a pathetic source of information. Great for spelling though.

And no, there is no middle. You are either a theist or an atheist.

Another negative, atheism does not require positive assertion of the nonexistence of deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[icharianchem]

A dictionary is a pathetic source of information. Great for spelling though.

And no, there is no middle. You are either a theist or an atheist.

Another negative, atheism does not require positive assertion of the nonexistence of deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

wikipedia: nerds opinions presented as facts

[Heavy_'TalMeMan]

wikipedia: nerds opinions presented as facts
WTF? Ever heard of "supporting material"?

Once again you present your lack of intelligence. *applause*

[icharianchem]

my respect for research done ON THE INTERNET is in its proper place

[odin_dax]

A dictionary is a pathetic source of information. Great for spelling though.

And no, there is no middle. You are either a theist or an atheist.

Another negative, atheism does not require positive assertion of the nonexistence of deities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

This is clearly an issue of semantics. Your links supports my position as well as yours, since I made it clear that I was speaking from a philosophical view. In this case, it all depends who you're talking with. All dictionaries clearly state an active belief, so I will stick with those definitions. Wikipedia is definitely not without bias.

[Armalite]

Dictionaries do not have in depth subject matter. They only show common usages. And they don't explain context.

And the bit about philosophy is gibberish. The whole topic is philosophical. But that doesn't mean you can say something wrong and get away with it.

The vast majority of atheists define atheism as the alternative to theism. The further breakdown of atheist positions is also mostly supported in the way I present. The only people smearing strong atheism on all atheists are the religious apologists. Strong atheism is illogical, so by redefining atheism as an illogical concept, the religious gain a great weapon. It's a strawman. And you have bought into.