Atheist

by **Conscentia** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:40 pm

Samuraikoku wrote:
Conscentia wrote:They have no knowledge = Agnostic.
No, that's a reason for being an atheist.
They have no belief = Atheist.
You got this bit correct.

Agnosticism is separate from belief, as has been explained many times.

Seemed to me that you were suggested that they were mutually exclusive...Whoops.

by **The USOT** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:41 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
They have no knowledge = Agnostic.

They have no belief = Atheist.

Agnostic would make more sense than atheist.

Please actually read peoples posts clearly.
It has been explained again and again that you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Agnostic merely refers to your position on knowledge. Thats all.

There is a recognisable spectrum that may help you understand

In this sense, all babies are agnostic atheists. They do not have a beleif and cannot have certainty.

by **Uiiop** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:41 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Samuraikoku wrote:
They have no knowledge = Agnostic.

They have no belief = Atheist.

Agnostic would make more sense than atheist.

imagine this: theism is a haircut
Atheism is bald
Agnostic is not knowing either your hairstyle is more likely to bring a better look with your mates. [somewhat bad metaphor but i hope you get the idea]

by **Vortropolis** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Vortropolis wrote:
Agnostic would make more sense than atheist.

Why?
They do not believe. = Atheist.
Agnostic is opposed to GNOSTIC.

A Gnostic Theist thinks they can prove god's existence.
A Gnostic Atheist thinks they can prove god's non-existence.
An Agnostic Atheist doesn't think they can prove it, but doesn't believe.
An Agnostic Theist doesn't think they can prove it, but does believe.

Babies DO NOT think they can disprove it, since they don't even know what "it" is.

I still disagree.

by **Samuraikoku** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm

Conscentia wrote:Seemed to me that you were suggested that they were mutually exclusive...Whoops.

I meant to say they have neither knowledge nor belief.

Therefore, they are agnostic and atheistic.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Why?
They do not believe. = Atheist.
Agnostic is opposed to GNOSTIC.

A Gnostic Theist thinks they can prove god's existence.
A Gnostic Atheist thinks they can prove god's non-existence.
An Agnostic Atheist doesn't think they can prove it, but doesn't believe.
An Agnostic Theist doesn't think they can prove it, but does believe.

Babies DO NOT think they can disprove it, since they don't even know what "it" is.

I still disagree.

Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

by **Xathranaar** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm

Divair wrote:
Vortropolis wrote:
So you'r telling me babies, are atheists because,they can't decide on atheism or theism, and they have no knowledge on god or atheism and they don't think about it, and they are atheist wether they know it or not, gotcha.

Knowledge is irrelevant. That's like saying someone isn't intelligent until they know about intelligence. Utter nonsense.

I see what you did there.

by **The Serbian Empire** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm

Mine has always been that way since I stopped going to church because I couldn't stay still in the pews. So I was no longer taken to church and as bad things happened in the world I started to doubt God more and more. At this point I consider myself more of an atheist than anything else. Then I read the Bible, and it only affirmed my believes all along. The book is filled with contradictory statements actually, 440 contradictory statements.

by **Divair** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm

The USOT wrote:
Vortropolis wrote:
Agnostic would make more sense than atheist.

Please actually read peoples posts clearly.
It has been explained again and again that you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Agnostic merely refers to your position on knowledge. Thats all.

There is a recognisable spectrum that may help you understand

In this sense, all babies are agnostic atheists. They do not have a beleif and cannot have certainty.

It's missing gnosticism. I prefer this one:

by **Ostroeuropa** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:43 pm

For the record i'm a Gnostic Atheist.
(With regard to almost every god.)

by **The USOT** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Divair wrote:
The USOT wrote:
Please actually read peoples posts clearly.
It has been explained again and again that you can have agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
Agnostic merely refers to your position on knowledge. Thats all.

There is a recognisable spectrum that may help you understand

In this sense, all babies are agnostic atheists. They do not have a beleif and cannot have certainty.

It's missing gnosticism. I prefer this one:

Ah had not noticed that. Yes that one is much better

by **The Multiversal Species Alliance** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:44 pm

I stopped worshipping the Abrahamic God at 13, then I was a Buddhist, than an Atheist, now a Harmonist. I stopped worshipping my first God when I studied the Bible and realized he was/is a brutish,sexist,homophobic,mass-killing hypocritical prick.

by **Vortropolis** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:45 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Vortropolis wrote:
I still disagree.

Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

by **Divair** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:45 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.
Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

Is a man not intelligent if he does not know about intelligence?

by **The USOT** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:46 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:
Why?
They do not believe. = Atheist.
Agnostic is opposed to GNOSTIC.

A Gnostic Theist thinks they can prove god's existence.
A Gnostic Atheist thinks they can prove god's non-existence.
An Agnostic Atheist doesn't think they can prove it, but doesn't believe.
An Agnostic Theist doesn't think they can prove it, but does believe.

Babies DO NOT think they can disprove it, since they don't even know what "it" is.

I still disagree.

Then wallow in ignorance... but since we are in a strange world now where we can change what words mean without any decent reason.
Jam telephone squabble doctor? Seriously?

by **Conscentia** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:46 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

You don't need knowledge.
Belief is independent of knowledge.
This has been explained many times.

by **Samuraikoku** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:47 pm

Ostroeuropa wrote:For the record i'm a Gnostic Atheist.
(With regard to almost every god.)

Almost?

by **Ostroeuropa** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:47 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:

Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

You are still completely missing the point.

by **Uiiop** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:47 pm

The Multiversal Species Alliance wrote:I stopped worshipping the Abrahamic God at 13, then I was a Buddhist, than an Atheist, now a Harmonist. I stopped worshipping my first God when I studied the Bible and realized he was/is a brutish,sexist,homophobic,mass-killing hypocritical prick.

How did you change from a atheist to a Harmonist?

by **The USOT** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:49 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:

Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT MATTER.
PLEASE. PLEASE READ THIS POST.

A baby is an atheist regardless of knowledge in the same way that a baby is a human without knowledge of humans.

In the same way that a baby is a mammal without any knowledge of mammals.

In the same way that a baby is a thinking entity regardless of knowing what thought is.[/u]

by **Vortropolis** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:49 pm

Conscentia wrote:
Vortropolis wrote:It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

You don't need knowledge.
Belief is independent of knowledge.
This has been explained many times.

I thought atheism wasn't a belief?

by **Divair** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Conscentia wrote:You don't need knowledge.
Belief is independent of knowledge.
This has been explained many times.

I thought atheism wasn't a belief.

It is a lack of belief. And since those babies do not have belief, they are atheists.

How hard is it for you to understand?

by **Xathranaar** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Vortropolis wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:

Based on what? You don't like the conclusion?

It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

Simplicity itself. You don't have to do anything to be an atheist, you have to do something to be a theist. Babies are not capable of doing that thing.

This is like saying that a baby can't be a citizen of a country until they learn the country's name.

by **Ostroeuropa** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Samuraikoku wrote:
Ostroeuropa wrote:For the record i'm a Gnostic Atheist.
(With regard to almost every god.)

Almost?

One or two have been proposed that technically fit the definition of a god by stripping them of all charteristics except the absolute bare essentials.
It prompted me to admit that yes, I cannot disprove such a god.

(Possesses the absolute maximum power allowable within any dimension without violating the rules of the universe, possesses the ability to move between dimensions in addition to the 3 we are used to, etc etc.)

At which point I shrugged and said ""Noone worships such a god."

by **Divair** » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:50 pm

Xathranaar wrote:
Vortropolis wrote:
It just doesn't make any sense, a baby has no knowledge on atheism, yet you call them atheist.

Simplicity itself. You don't have to do anything to be an atheist, you have to do something to be a theist. Babies are not capable of doing that thing.

This is like saying that a baby can't be a citizen of a country until they learn the country's name.

They can't be humans until they know they are humans, duh.

Atheist

Who is online