What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Anglo-California]

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

Since that basically is my view (I'm normally untroubled by questions of religion), I second this point. I'm not sure categorisation into two (and only two) sides is easy/possible.

Dealing in absolutes (you're either with us or against us) also sets a dangerous precedent.

[Dyakovo]

Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

I don't agree with the bit you underlined.

If you don't agree with what you said, why did you say it?

And I think that is where we reach our fundamental disagreement.

Yes. I actually know what the words I'm using mean.

[Grave_n_idle]

No there isn't.

Respectfully, I think most agnostics would resist your attempts at putting them in either one camp or the other.

That's not actually relevant, though - since the definition of atheism is a lack of theism. If you're not a theist, whether you call yourself agnostic or not, you're an atheist.

As an agnostic atheist, I call myself agnostic because I don't know if there's a god or not for sure (hence a-gnostic), and I call my self atheist because I'm not a theist (a-theist).

[Duvniask]

Because that's how it works. If you believe a deity (or deities) exist you are a theist. If you don't, you are an atheist. There are no other positions.

There is the middle ground of Agnostics. They literally do not know if they believe in a God or not.

No. Agnosticism is a position that claims no knowledge regarding the existence of god(s). I may not know whether god exists, but I still do not believe in god.

[Paid To Troll]

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"

I think this is the issue at hand. If you don't believe, you lack belief. So you either are, or are not.

[New DeCapito]

No there isn't.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

Assuming you didn't want to know, this would make you ignorant.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Always have communist tendencies.

[Dyakovo]

No there isn't.

This is incorrect, communism or fascism. They have a middle ground known as centrists. The same applies to this, please stop being short sighted.

Knowing the meaning of words isn't "being short-sighted".

[Valerion]

Unless you are now just blatently trolling, sauce means giving a source for your information.

I'm not in General enough, obviously. Why not just say source? Anywho:

As I said in the original post, unless I am thinking of another post, you wouldn't believe anything I said. You'd probably just claim it was a coincidence, that it didn't happen or that I was hallucinating.

A good start to getting anyone believing anything is showing proof, something you currently aren't doing.

[Anglo-California]

Always have communist tendencies.

I beg to differ.

[Baiynistan]

Always have communist tendencies.

Tell that to the objectivists.

[Valaran]

I don't agree with the bit you underlined.

If you don't agree with what you said, why did you say it?

And I think that is where we reach our fundamental disagreement.

Yes. I actually know what the words I'm using mean.

I said I assumed that it was your view. You then underlined it and simply said "that's how it works." .... which is what I'm disagreeing with.

Gee, snark. Doesn't exactly offer a convincing argument - it jsut alienates who you are debating with and prevents common ground.

Its kinda a shame as usually I agree with you on a lot of stuff. But on this issue you are too uncompromising in your attempt to categorise everyone's views and stack them neatly into two camps.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Always have communist tendencies.

I beg to differ.

Atheists have the tendencies to be liberal progressives.

[Dyakovo]

No there isn't.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

It depends. Do you believe it exists?

[Valaran]

Since that basically is my view (I'm normally untroubled by questions of religion), I second this point. I'm not sure categorisation into two (and only two) sides is easy/possible.

Dealing in absolutes (you're either with us or against us) also sets a dangerous precedent.

Quite.

Although I do succumb to the lure of doing that from time to time, I try not to.

[Kalifati Arab shqiptar]

Always have communist tendencies.

I beg to differ.

A lot of Atheists that I know, are against Capitalism and always confuse God with power-hungry capitalist dictator.

[Anglo-California]

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

It depends. Do you believe it exists?

In reality, I do not. I've already stated I don't believe in a deity. However, in the case of this scenario, I simply just do not know.

[Anglo-California]

I beg to differ.

A lot of Atheists that I know, are against Capitalism and always confuse God with power-hungry capitalist dictator.

I beg to differ.

Atheists have the tendencies to be liberal progressives.

I am atheist. I am certainly not anywhere near communism or liberalism.

[Dyakovo]

No there isn't.

Respectfully, I think most agnostics would resist your attempts at putting them in either one camp or the other.

I really don't give a fuck. Whether they like it or not, whether they admit it or not, every agnostic is also either a theist or an atheist.

[Seaxeland]

Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

[Dyakovo]

Unless you are now just blatently trolling, sauce means giving a source for your information.

I'm not in General enough, obviously. Why not just say source? Anywho:

As I said in the original post, unless I am thinking of another post, you wouldn't believe anything I said. You'd probably just claim it was a coincidence, that it didn't happen or that I was hallucinating.

Try me. Show me this verifiable evidence that your deity has shown himself.

[Valaran]

Respectfully, I think most agnostics would resist your attempts at putting them in either one camp or the other.

That's not actually relevant, though - since the definition of atheism is a lack of theism. If you're not a theist, whether you call yourself agnostic or not, you're an atheist.

As an agnostic atheist, I call myself agnostic because I don't know if there's a god or not for sure (hence a-gnostic), and I call my self atheist because I'm not a theist (a-theist).

Its at the end of an extended argument... Dyakovo and I made a lot of posts on this thread, so we'd basically already explained our arguments to death/boredom.

I did say at the beginning there is a considerable overlap, but I would still contest all agnostics are atheists (and vica versa).

Since I define my beliefs on knowledge, and am without knowledge (or at least what I view as knowledge) on either the existence or non-existence of a deity, what then do I believe?

[The Alma Mater]

No there isn't.

Allow me to play devil's advocate. Suppose I don't know if a god exists, and I have no desire to know. What am I?

An agnostic.
But that says nothing whatsoever about your belief or lack thereof in said deity.

[Valerion]

Hypocrites.

They moan about how religions is "intolerant" and "discriminatory" towards others, yet they themselves discriminate and are intolerant of religion itself. They are the very definition of hypocrisy.

Because some of us criticise religion, all of us are hypocrites? It sounds like we found the real hypocrite here

[Creepoc Infinite]

I'm not in General enough, obviously. Why not just say source? Anywho:

As I said in the original post, unless I am thinking of another post, you wouldn't believe anything I said. You'd probably just claim it was a coincidence, that it didn't happen or that I was hallucinating.

Try me. Show me this verifiable evidence that your deity has shown himself.

He can't, Christianity is patently false!