New religion is old again

rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
New religion is old again

There does not seem to be anything new under the sun with this website. Creation of your own religion only shows your ability to copy those who came before you. Why not create a truly unique belief system, rather than copying from established religions.
By the way, it took 4.34 minutes to get to this point on your website. Your server, or your software lacks the ability to handle any amount of traffic. I would love to debate issues with people, but spending such long wait times is boring (or is boring one of your mantras?)


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: rr are

MrRage wrote:
rr are religous bigots wrote:

I think it important to determine the separation between the two. An atheist who does not believe in God, period, would totally disagree that someone who is agnostic can also be an atheist (I have come across some). The intent of ones thoughts separates the two. I don't believe in God but I might if given enough proof appears to be the stance of agnostics, whereas an atheist would not entertain that thought.

You're still using the more colloquial meanings of atheist and agnostic. If you want to have any discussions here, you better get used to the philosophical definitions. This is simply an issue of terminology, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you insist in using the colloquial meanings.

I  am using the more literal sense of both words, you may be interpreting them as colloquial, but that is not the intent.

rr are religous bigots wrote:
 

Which one is capable of better reasoned thought (on the topic of God)? I would say the agnostic. In mrrage's example, he says believing God exists would be akin to bigfoot - in the sense that given enough proof, he would believe either could exist. Therefore, I think the agnostic would be more capable of reasoned thought by not ruling out all options in their entirety.

If you mean a strong atheist is less capable of reasoned thought, then I agree. The whole bit about can't-prove-a-universal-negative is a big problem for them.
rr are religous bigots wrote:
History has proven that people who took atheistic type stances are at greatest risk of being proven wrong - eg Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Charles Lindberg. History proved them all wrong regarding some of their beliefs.

I'm not familiar with your Ghengis Khan / Charles Lindberg reference. I fail to see how what Hitler did was a direct consequence of a disbelief in god. This sort of thing has been talked about ad nausem around here, so read around for more details.

I was using the phrase atheistic type stances as an example of people who are one minded on an issue or set of issues (using atheism as a colloquial term here). 

rr are religous bigots wrote:

My example of the light bulb was similar. Many people, even after seeing it, could not believe it was real. This is the fate of atheists - they create an absolute that may some day be proven wrong.

The strong atheist may be proven wrong, and that might be devastating to them. I would not be so incredulous. 

I have trouble with saying strong vs weak atheist.  To me that is using more colloquial terminology.  The very literal meaning of athiest is one who does not believe God exists.  From WW2, the saying came there are no atheists in foxholes - more likely no agnostics.  Hitler, Khan, and Lindberg all believed with certainty they were not wrong.  Hitler believed the third reich would last a thousand years, Khan believed he could live forever, Lindberg was certain Germany would take over Europe (among other things).

rr are religous bigots wrote:
A similar example are the people that still believe the world is flat. To this day, given all the evidence that science can muster, they still refuse to believe the earth is round.

People can be atheistic in nature about any topic. These are the ones I sometimes ignore on those points they are so cocksure about. Seeing is believing would never be enough.

Don't be so fast in making these judgments about people on this site. They might be emphatic about their views, but it's not true that all of us would refuse to believe in god even if there were outstanding evidence for it. For instance, if Jesus returned to earth just like the bible claims he will, that would convince me.

 I am not saying everyone on this site would discount any claim even with proof.  I said people who were atheistic in nature about any topic.  I was providing a general statement that I sometimes avoid getting into debates with people who will never give in, even in the midst of rational proof.

rr are religous bigots wrote:

My diatribe about not believing something exists as a belief was not wasted. I know it has ticked some off but we all go through life with certain beliefs (everchanging at times of course). We also tend to be like, as the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. It is no different in our beliefs.

Groups of people tend to seek out those who agree with them. They also tend to build together on their commonalities. So much so at times, that their words and actions could be construed as being that of a religion. You may not agree with me, but I believe that is the case of this website. I hope we can at least agree to disagree without involving personal emotions.

I will be looking for the divergent views of people on this site. I will especially be looking for the varying views as separated by age. I believe (there's another belief) as we age, our viewpoints change toward moderation. Time will tell, and it might even lead to a paper on the topic some day.

I welcome any poking and prodding. I don't mind having my views challenged. But couldn't you have done it without coming across as an asshole? If you want some disagreement, I'm not convinced that Jesus was mythical. This is held by at least one of the founders of this site.

 I could say the same of your attitude in responses to my questions/assertions.  I tend to believe people are not always comfortable when they think they are being attacked.  My intent was not to attack but opine on what I saw and clarify the stance of people. 

 As a side note, I have been reading some other topics in this website.  I do see there are some people who outright say that God does not exist.  There is an interesting mix of agnostics and atheists here.  I will try and keep up with their debates. 


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: rr are

todangst wrote:
rr are religous bigots wrote:

mrrage, as pointed out to sapient, I am trying to determine whether people with your beliefs are more akin to atheists or agnostics.

The free online dictionary defines agnostic as

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.Based on the above, I would think that you may be (and founders of this website) might be agnostics moreso than atheists.

Ah, the online dictionary, THE Source (tm) for rigorous philosophical definitions of terms!Seriously, dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people use...this means that they provide colloquial definitionsn along with philosophically sound definitions. In other words, they do not exist to provide philosophical or theological defenses of how the word is actually used in philosophical or theological discourse.So if you want colloquial definitions, then you can pick a defintion like number 2 from your list.But if you want an accurate definition of agnosticism and atheism, here they are:a-theism - a lack of belief in theism. That's it.Agnosticism - not a belief position at all, but a 'knowledge position' - the belief that one cannot have 'gnosis' or 'knowledge' of gods.From this it follow that all non believers are atheists... in that they do not believe. Butmost of us here are 'agnostics' in the colloquial sense of the word, in that we are not strong atheists - we don't claim that gods cannot exist. We simply lack the belief. This makes us 'weak atheists'Theism is the belief of an existence of God(s)  ergo atheism is the non-belief of an existence of God(s).  Agnostics believe God(s) may or may not exist.  An atheist has no belief in the existence of God(s).  What is the purpose of agnostics trying to fit in with atheism?  Either you believe the possibility that God(s) might exist or you believe God(s) do not exist.  Why do some people have difficultly in being in one camp or the other?  Do some people think it is cool to be known as an atheist as opposed to being agnostic?  I don't know, but I think people should seriously consider where they stand, and not fence sit by having it both ways.  On my farm, there were weak and strong sheep.  When looked at as a whole, they were still sheep.  Similarly with pigs, but one pig in amongst the sheep was readily detectable (what discourse that pig created!).  Unlike people though, these animals could not change their skin, therefore this separates animals from all of humankind (another thread, another day).Seriously, I dont' know why theists don't accept the term, you'd think you all would have a field day calling us 'weak' atheists....


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:
Theism is the belief of an existence of God(s) ergo atheism is the non-belief of an existence of God(s).
Yep. A lack of belief.
Quote:
Agnostics believe God(s) may or may not exist.
No. The proper definition of agnosticism is an epistemological position. It is a position on 'gnosis' or 'god knowledge'
The colloquial definition of 'agnostic" is a doubter of theism.... i.e. a weak atheist.
Quote:
An atheist has no belief in the existence of God(s).
Neither does an 'agnostic' in the colloquial sense of the term.
Quote:
What is the purpose of agnostics trying to fit in with atheism?
Because 'agnostics' in the colloquial sense of the term are atheists... they don't accept theism...
Quote:
Either you believe the possibility that God(s) might exist or you believe God(s) do not exist.
RIGHT! Which means you can't believe and not believe at the same time. So this is why 'agnostics' in the colloquial sense are atheists.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:
I could say the same of your attitude in responses to my questions/assertions .I tend to believe people are not always comfortable when they think they are being attacked. My intent was not to attack but opine on what I saw and clarify the stance of people.

I was only getting angry after you started twisting my words trying to make me into a theist. Before that I was just being blunt. You weren't attacking, you were making a couple equivalence fallacies and misrepresenting what I, and others, said.

rr are religous bigots wrote:
As a side note, I have been reading some other topics in this website. I do see there are some people who outright say that God does not exist. There is an interesting mix of agnostics and atheists here. I will try and keep up with their debates.

Let me say it again for the last time. You're going to get bothered about your usage of agnostic and atheist over and over again if you don't use their philosophical definitions. In my case, it's not a matter of me thinking being called an atheist is cool, but not an agnostic. It's a matter of being correct with your terms. Anyway, I'd rather be called a "bright" than an atheist, because atheist has strong negative connotations in the U.S..


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:rr are

MrRage wrote:
rr are religous bigots wrote:
I could say the same of your attitude in responses to my questions/assertions .I tend to believe people are not always comfortable when they think they are being attacked. My intent was not to attack but opine on what I saw and clarify the stance of people.
I was only getting angry after you started twisting my words trying to make me into a theist. Before that I was just being blunt. You weren't attacking, you were making a couple equivalence fallacies and misrepresenting what I, and others, said.
rr are religous bigots wrote:
As a side note, I have been reading some other topics in this website. I do see there are some people who outright say that God does not exist. There is an interesting mix of agnostics and atheists here. I will try and keep up with their debates.
Let me say it again for the last time. You're going to get bothered about your usage of agnostic and atheist over and over again if you don't use their philosophical definitions. In my case, it's not a matter of me thinking being called an atheist is cool, but not an agnostic. It's a matter of being correct with your terms. Anyway, I'd rather be called a "bright" than an atheist, because atheist has strong negative connotations in the U.S..

I guess it all depends on what you mean by colloquial vs philisophical meaning.  Where does the literal meaning of the word athiest and agnostic come in then.?  I am really trying to grasp your usage of the terms.

 The literal meaning of atheist (from what I have checked in multiple dictionaries) one who says God(s) does not exist (as opposed to theism which is the belief God(s) does exist). 

 The literal meaing of agnostic is one who says God may or may not exist.

 I tend to use the words in the literal sense (how that becomes a colloquialism is beyond me).

 The two camps are mutually exclusive, unless some people have decided to change the dictionary definitions of the words.  Having agnostic type thoughts (not knowing whether God exists or not) and saying one is a weak atheist does not make sense to me.   How can one who says God may or may not exist then try to associate themselves(by name) with someone who says God does not exist?  Using the literal terms, it does not exist - obviously someone must have changed the meaning of the words to make this mutually exclusive arrangement defunct.  Why don't people get off the fence and say they stand on one side or the other? 

That being said, using the literal meaning of the words:  Can an athiest be an agnostic?   If so, please tell me the words to identify this person with.

 Can an agnostic be an athiest?  Likewise please tell me the words to identify this person with. 

Why would people have a problem with me using the literal definitions of the word?   By using literal meanings, there can then be no doubt as to what a person is saying.  This is how most conversations in life occur.  Sure colloquialisms are used, but the basis of human conversation are with literal meanings as defined in dictionaries.

 I do find it important to find this out.  Debating a person in one camp when they are actually in another would be a frustrating affair.  The meaning of words is important for both sides to be able to understand the other. 

 I appreciate your patience with this and hope you can clear the air for me on this.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I don't know what more to

I don't know what more to say beyond what todangst and I already wrote. I'd just be repeating myself.

I think your misunderstanding is in thinking that everyone in every discipline of study uses words in the same way. For instance in every day usage the words "sequence" and "series" mean basically the same thing. But when these terms are used in mathematics, they have very precise meanings which makes them have slightly, but important, differences in meaning. Going further, when musicians speak of sequences they mean something different than mathematicians do. I'm sure there's other usages, but I hope you get the idea. I can give you these meaning are if you're interested.

The way you're using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" is more way people use them informally, not the way philosophers use it. If you go into a philosophical discussion, and still persist in using the informal, colloquial versions, your not going to get very far. Moreover, if you persist in using the informal meaning, you will be suspected of using an equivalence fallacy. You must learn to use the terminology the way it's used in that field in order to communicate.

Am I making sense?


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:
Spewn wrote:

MrRage wrote:
You're full of bullshit. I'm not going to answer anymore of your post if you continue this way, because you're just wasting my time. I think you're a troll, and if you are trolling, bugger off!
I think you're definately right on the first point, but not necessarily on the second. His line of reasoning is not intended to cause discord, moreover it is a common method of "conversion" employed by Christians(Most notably, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort on their television show.) Their intent is to prove to us that we really do believe in god, we just don't know it. This of course has the unfortunate side effect of making people angry, because it supposes that we aren't smart enough to figure out what we believe for ourselves.

I have never seen their TV show (didn't know they had one -never heard of Ray Comfort). I am trying to determine if people are agnostic or atheist (and attempting to classify this phenomena as a religion or not - from the outset it has seemed like it, need to study it more).

Whether or not you've seen their show is irrelevant; they didn't come up with the idea, they're just on TV so I used them as an example. I could have used the example of that guy I met downtown, but he's not exactly popular enough for my purposes. The fact is simple; I did not contend without reason that you were attempting to suggest belief upon someone, mrrage himself said he felt that you were doing just that.

 

Want more?

 

rr are religious bigots wrote:

sapient,

It would appear you believe God exists. With rational thought, prove God's existence. I take it you would not consider other's belief in God as a rational explanation, but you have your own tangible evidence.

rr are religious bigots wrote:

The founders are obviously not atheists. In order to accept or deny something or someone, there is always a thought process that entails a thought of its existence.

rr are religious bigots wrote:

So, when you claim there is no God, you are fooling yourself. You implicitly and explicitly agree God does exist with your own words

 

Would you still like to claim that you're not trying to tell anyone they don't believe what they think they believe? I'm really not sure how you expect to be able to engage in an argument here and not have glaring contradictions like this pointed out. In the immutable words of Our Lady Judge Judy "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."

 

rr are religious bigots wrote:

Personal experience, coupled with those wiser than I, have proved valuable in being a more reasoned and compassionate person (although I am still a work in progress).

 

The fact that this can be posted under a name such as yours is tantamount to ironic. Compassionate? You've called the Rational Response squad "religious bigots" within your name. That's compassionate? Please, please, try harder. I have no personal issue with you, I only have issue with the things you've said, and I'm not alone.


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: I don't know

MrRage wrote:
I don't know what more to say beyond what todangst and I already wrote. I'd just be repeating myself. I think your misunderstanding is in thinking that everyone in every discipline of study uses words in the same way. For instance in every day usage the words "sequence" and "series" mean basically the same thing. But when these terms are used in mathematics, they have very precise meanings which makes them have slightly, but important, differences in meaning. Going further, when musicians speak of sequences they mean something different than mathematicians do. I'm sure there's other usages, but I hope you get the idea. I can give you these meaning are if you're interested. The way you're using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" is more way people use them informally, not the way philosophers use it. If you go into a philosophical discussion, and still persist in using the informal, colloquial versions, your not going to get very far. Moreover, if you persist in using the informal meaning, you will be suspected of using an equivalence fallacy. You must learn to use the terminology the way it's used in that field in order to communicate. Am I making sense?

I guess I would understand better if you would answer my original questions using the literal versions of the two words.  Then you could answer the same questions using the philisophical meanings of the words, and then explain exactly what the philisphical meanings of the words are.

 This way, there would be no doubt in my mind as to how you expect people to use the words other than literally.  Answering the questions in both literal and philisophical terms (separately), then providing your philisophical definitions of both words  would then give me the right way to communicate( with something other than the literal meanings of the words). 

 Thank you.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

MrRage wrote:
I don't know what more to say beyond what todangst and I already wrote. I'd just be repeating myself. I think your misunderstanding is in thinking that everyone in every discipline of study uses words in the same way. For instance in every day usage the words "sequence" and "series" mean basically the same thing. But when these terms are used in mathematics, they have very precise meanings which makes them have slightly, but important, differences in meaning. Going further, when musicians speak of sequences they mean something different than mathematicians do. I'm sure there's other usages, but I hope you get the idea. I can give you these meaning are if you're interested. The way you're using the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" is more way people use them informally, not the way philosophers use it. If you go into a philosophical discussion, and still persist in using the informal, colloquial versions, your not going to get very far. Moreover, if you persist in using the informal meaning, you will be suspected of using an equivalence fallacy. You must learn to use the terminology the way it's used in that field in order to communicate. Am I making sense?

I guess I would understand better if you would answer my original questions using the literal versions of the two words. Then you could answer the same questions using the philisophical meanings of the words, and then explain exactly what the philisphical meanings of the words are.

This way, there would be no doubt in my mind as to how you expect people to use the words other than literally. Answering the questions in both literal and philisophical terms (separately), then providing your philisophical definitions of both words would then give me the right way to communicate( with something other than the literal meanings of the words).

Thank you.

 

The problem is that it isn't clear to us what you mean specifically when you say "atheist" or "agnostic", so we give you the definition we find appropriate.  If you find it more appropriate to call me an agnostic because I don't believe specifically that there is no god, that's fine.  The only issue I take is that when using the word agnostic you, to most people, do a poor job of describing what I actually think.


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
spewn  Are you having

spewn

 Are you having problems understanding the dictionary definitions (that I supplied) of the two words?  

 Could you please tell me, to also clarify matters, what your definitions of agnostic and atheist are.


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

spewn

Are you having problems understanding the dictionary definitions (that I supplied) of the two words?

 

Are you?  Multiple definitions have been supplied, and you refuse to accept any except your own.

 

Quote:
 

Could you please tell me, to also clarify matters, what your definitions of agnostic and atheist are.

Absolutely.  Someone who is agnostic tends to think that the question can't be answered in the same way you would answer the question of "How far is it from here to New York?"; evidence does not apply in the same way, and thus one could never reasonably know one way or the other(at least while alive).  Some Agnostics do believe that evidence could apply, but since none in favor or against exists, it isn't possible to form an opinion on the matter at present.  That is an Agnostic. 

 

Someone who is an Atheist simply has no belief in a god.  Atheist does not mean "Against God" it means "Without God".

 

http://members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm 


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: rr are

Spewn wrote:
rr are religous bigots wrote:

spewn

Are you having problems understanding the dictionary definitions (that I supplied) of the two words?

 

Are you?  Multiple definitions have been supplied, and you refuse to accept any except your own.

 

Quote:
 

Could you please tell me, to also clarify matters, what your definitions of agnostic and atheist are.

Absolutely.  Someone who is agnostic tends to think that the question can't be answered in the same way you would answer the question of "How far is it from here to New York?"; evidence does not apply in the same way, and thus one could never reasonably know one way or the other(at least while alive).  Some Agnostics do believe that evidence could apply, but since none in favor or against exists, it isn't possible to form an opinion on the matter at present.  That is an Agnostic. 

 

Someone who is an Atheist simply has no belief in a god.  Atheist does not mean "Against God" it means "Without God".

 

http://members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm 

spewn

Wonderful, now I am getting a clearer idea of your definitions. 

 The definition of agnostic is in line what the dictionaries say. 

For atheists, does no belief in a God also include no belief that God exists?  The reason I ask is because the term 'no belief in a God' could be interpreted as one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist.  This would be the last bit of clarification to help me fully understand your meaning of the words.

 I am glad you are answering my questions on this.  Thank you.

 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

spewn

Wonderful, now I am getting a clearer idea of your definitions.

The definition of agnostic is in line what the dictionaries say.

For atheists, does no belief in a God also include no belief that God exists? The reason I ask is because the term 'no belief in a God' could be interpreted as one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist. This would be the last bit of clarification to help me fully understand your meaning of the words.

I'm an agnostic atheist: I haven't seen evidence for the existence of a god and so don't believe in one (atheist) but I can't say that a god doesn't exist (agnostic). If some god-like being started our universe rolling long ago and walked away, how could we know? On the other hand, given the claims of the Bible, I'm quite certain that, based on the evidence, that god does not exist. 

-Triften 


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:

spewn

Wonderful, now I am getting a clearer idea of your definitions.

The definition of agnostic is in line what the dictionaries say.

For atheists, does no belief in a God also include no belief that God exists? The reason I ask is because the term 'no belief in a God' could be interpreted as one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist. This would be the last bit of clarification to help me fully understand your meaning of the words.

I am glad you are answering my questions on this. Thank you.

 

 

"no belief in a god" and "no belief that god exists" are synonymous.  Any atheist short of a "hard" atheist(one who knows there is no god with the same conviction that a christian knows there is one) is "one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist."  Could I believe god exists?  Sure, but in my mind there is no rational reason to do so.


rr are religous...
Theist
Posts: 39
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: rr are

Spewn wrote:
rr are religous bigots wrote:

spewn

Wonderful, now I am getting a clearer idea of your definitions.

The definition of agnostic is in line what the dictionaries say.

For atheists, does no belief in a God also include no belief that God exists? The reason I ask is because the term 'no belief in a God' could be interpreted as one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist. This would be the last bit of clarification to help me fully understand your meaning of the words.

I am glad you are answering my questions on this. Thank you.

 

 

"no belief in a god" and "no belief that god exists" are synonymous.  Any atheist short of a "hard" atheist(one who knows there is no god with the same conviction that a christian knows there is one) is "one who does not believe in God but could believe God might exist."  Could I believe god exists?  Sure, but in my mind there is no rational reason to do so.

spewn,

 Thanks for the clarifications.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: What

todangst wrote:

What people really have a hard time with is rejecting the beliefs that they grew up with... even an atheist thinks twice about christianity, if he grew up a christian, yet both the atheist and the theist can hold hands while laughing at zeus claims.

Good insight.

People who are indoctrinated have the most trouble rejecting the faith that indoctrinated them.  I was never worried about ending up in the Muslim hell, but it took me a long time to flush the poisonous fear of the Christian hell from my system.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous

rr are religous bigots wrote:
There does not seem to be anything new under the sun with this website. Creation of your own religion only shows your ability to copy those who came before you. Why not create a truly unique belief system, rather than copying from established religions.


Which is ironic considering the many features of Christianity are almost identical to those found in Buddhism.

Look:

Mark 6:48: he went out to them walking on the lake.
Anguttara Nikaya 3:60: He walks upon the water without parting it, as if it were solid ground.

Mark 10:25: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enterthe kingdom of heaven.
Jatakamala 5:5 & 15: Riches make a man greedy and so are like a caravan lurching down the road to hell

Matthew 6:20: Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Khuddakapatha 8:9 Let the wise man do righteousness; a treasure that others cannot share, which no thief can steal, a treasure which does not pass away.


As for the matter of belief.


Theism: the belief that God exists.
Weak atheism: Lack of belief in God.
Strong atheism: the belief that God does not exist.

Agnosticism: I don’t KNOW if God exists. (Nothing to do with belief)

Agnosticism is not a separate position, but rather a ‘qualifier’ to theism and atheism. So one could say: “I don’t know if God exists, but I believe that one does” making them an agnostic theist. Or someone may say: “I don’t know if God exists, therefore I do not believe in one” making them a agnostic atheist.

Anyone who concedes that they do not or cannot know if God exists is agnostic. This applies to both theists and atheists alike. It does not affect their atheism or theism.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
rr are religous bigots

rr are religous bigots wrote:
Of course this is a religion. A definition of religion, from the Merriam Webster dictionary is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

We have a cause: true, we have principles: true, System of beliefs?  define belief, but the nail in the head that does not define atheists or this site as a religion is faith.  We lack faith.  I believe that is the one defining issue here.  None of us have faith.  Therefore, by definition we are not religious in manner.   

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.