What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[New Socialist South Africa]

Really? Name these prominent atheists that committed extreme atrocities.

Stalin, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini, et cetera.

None of them committed the atrocities they did because they were atheists, they did so because they were nutjob, power-hungry dictators.

Their are lunatics, brilliant people and everyday people in every group. The difference between Atheism and certain religious groups however, is that certain religions have holy books that actively call for numerous atrocious actions, such as the the killing of homosexuals in the bible. To be fair though, most religious people these days distance themselves from the crazier bits of their holy books.

[Dyakovo]

Stalin, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini, et cetera.

Nice try but Stalin and Mao did not massacre people for being religious. That is an outright lie. Also, Mussolini worked with the Catholic church for personal gain.

To be fair, he didn't make that claim... Just that they were atheists that committed atrocities.

[Teemant]

You are clearly confusing Gnostic Atheism with all Atheism, that is to say forgetting about Agnostic Atheism, which is what every Atheist I have met is, and which I am myself.

Gnostic Atheist: There is no god. No amount of evidence to the contrary could change my mind on that.

Agnostic Atheist: There is no evidence that a god exists, thus I assume that one doesn't. If evidence were provided proving that god existed, them I would believe in him / her / it.

Unless the agnostic has absolute knowledge of all the possible evidences, he is still claiming to have absolute knowledge.

To say something doesn't exist, whether on the grounds of "not enough evidence" or otherwise, is to claim to have absolute knowledge.

Your argument is invalid.

It's funny how you expect atheist to have proof that god doesn't exist but don't provide evidence that god does indeed exist. Why we have to prove that something doesn't exist if the existance of it hasn't yet been proved?

[Chaunceys]

It doesn't make any sense to be an atheist.

First off, Atheists claim a god doesn't exist.

To put this into perspective, imagine that people were trying to determine whether an invisible pink unicorn exists. If someone found an invisible pink unicorn, then all he/she would have to do is inform everyone where the invisible pink unicorn is.

On the flip side, for someone to say that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist at all, they would have to have absolute knowledge.

See where this is going?

If an atheist honestly could say a god doesn't exist, he, by exposing the fact that he has absolute knowledge, would be a god, himself. If he, as a god, says no god exists, then he is really saying that HE doesn't exist.

Therefore, true atheists do not exist.

Ummm, that makes no seance what so ever, not all Atheists are educated and in order to even receive the title to be a God of a religion you'd need to have people follow you. Also no person can have absolute knowledge that a God or God doesn't exist so I am not sure where you're going with that.

[Domi concordia]

Stalin, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini, et cetera.

Nice try but Stalin and Mao did not massacre people for being religious. That is an outright lie. Also, Mussolini worked with the Catholic church for personal gain.

Ah, read my original post. I never stated they murdered for Atheism, I said they are examples of prominent Atheists who have commited atrocities.
Also I do believe either Stalin or Mao had Christians be killed...so yea. I don't know for sure I just think I read that sometime, I'm probably wrong about it.
"For personal gain" doesn't mean he isn't Atheist.

[Dyakovo]

You are clearly confusing Gnostic Atheism with all Atheism, that is to say forgetting about Agnostic Atheism, which is what every Atheist I have met is, and which I am myself.

Gnostic Atheist: There is no god. No amount of evidence to the contrary could change my mind on that.

Agnostic Atheist: There is no evidence that a god exists, thus I assume that one doesn't. If evidence were provided proving that god existed, them I would believe in him / her / it.

Unless the agnostic has absolute knowledge of all the possible evidences, he is still claiming to have absolute knowledge.

To say something doesn't exist, whether on the grounds of "not enough evidence" or otherwise, is to claim to have absolute knowledge.

Your argument is invalid.

Not even remotely accurate.

[Sacred Peoples]

Unless the agnostic has absolute knowledge of all the possible evidences, he is still claiming to have absolute knowledge.

To say something doesn't exist, whether on the grounds of "not enough evidence" or otherwise, is to claim to have absolute knowledge.

Your argument is invalid.

Not even remotely accurate.

In your opinion.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

It doesn't make any sense to be an atheist.

First off, Atheists claim a god doesn't exist.

To put this into perspective, imagine that people were trying to determine whether an invisible pink unicorn exists. If someone found an invisible pink unicorn, then all he/she would have to do is inform everyone where the invisible pink unicorn is.

On the flip side, for someone to say that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist at all, they would have to have absolute knowledge.

See where this is going?

If an atheist honestly could say a god doesn't exist, he, by exposing the fact that he has absolute knowledge, would be a god, himself. If he, as a god, says no god exists, then he is really saying that HE doesn't exist.

Therefore, true atheists do not exist.

"I find no compelling evidence for God.

God is thus not likely to exist, according to my current knowledge.

Thus, I do not believe God exist."

Agnostic is not some middle ground. It's part of a spectrum that goes with belief.

As far as I was aware;
an atheist is someone who does not believe the claims that a god or gods exist,
a theist is someone who does believe claims that a god or gods exist,
an agnostic is someone who does not know if the claims that a god or gods exist are true,
a gnostic is someone who does 'know' that the claims that a god or gods exist are true.

I thought that theism/ atheism dealt with belief, whilst gnosticism/ agnosticism dealt with knowledge?

[Banana Isle]

It doesn't make any sense to be an atheist.

First off, Atheists claim a god doesn't exist.

To put this into perspective, imagine that people were trying to determine whether an invisible pink unicorn exists. If someone found an invisible pink unicorn, then all he/she would have to do is inform everyone where the invisible pink unicorn is.

On the flip side, for someone to say that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist at all, they would have to have absolute knowledge.

See where this is going?

If an atheist honestly could say a god doesn't exist, he, by exposing the fact that he has absolute knowledge, would be a god, himself. If he, as a god, says no god exists, then he is really saying that HE doesn't exist.

Therefore, true atheists do not exist.

"I find no compelling evidence for God.

God is thus not likely to exist, according to my current knowledge.

Thus, I do not believe God exist."

Agnostic is not some middle ground. It's part of a spectrum that goes with belief.

Why is he unlikely? The universe is a big place?

And who's to say, if he exists, that he would even be in this universe?

It would be like me siting on a spec of dust in a closed cardboard box, telling you how light doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it.

There's no way anyone could tell you that light exists because it is impossible to see outside of the box, and if you look for that evidence of light in the closed cardboard box, you'll never find it.

This is why no one can explain the existence of God to an atheist, because if a god was to exist, he would be beyond naturalistic boundaries and comprehension.

[New Socialist South Africa]

You are clearly confusing Gnostic Atheism with all Atheism, that is to say forgetting about Agnostic Atheism, which is what every Atheist I have met is, and which I am myself.

Gnostic Atheist: There is no god. No amount of evidence to the contrary could change my mind on that.

Agnostic Atheist: There is no evidence that a god exists, thus I assume that one doesn't. If evidence were provided proving that god existed, them I would believe in him / her / it.

Unless the agnostic has absolute knowledge of all the possible evidences, he is still claiming to have absolute knowledge.

To say something doesn't exist, whether on the grounds of "not enough evidence" or otherwise, is to claim to have absolute knowledge.

Your argument is invalid.

No. You clearly know nothing about the way this works.

When someone makes a positive claim, such as "God exists", the onus is then on them to prove that statement.

Agnostic Atheism makes no positive claims, rather it states that their is is insubstantial evidence at the current time that any god exists. We do not need to know everything about everything to make that statement.

Going on your logic, we cannot say that there is insubstantial evidence that a giant pink bunny rabbit is floating in space because we do not have absolute knowledge.

[Banana Isle]

Unless the agnostic has absolute knowledge of all the possible evidences, he is still claiming to have absolute knowledge.

To say something doesn't exist, whether on the grounds of "not enough evidence" or otherwise, is to claim to have absolute knowledge.

Your argument is invalid.

Not even remotely accurate.

Prove it.

[Grave_n_idle]

It doesn't make any sense to be an atheist.

First off, Atheists claim a god doesn't exist.

To put this into perspective, imagine that people were trying to determine whether an invisible pink unicorn exists. If someone found an invisible pink unicorn, then all he/she would have to do is inform everyone where the invisible pink unicorn is.

On the flip side, for someone to say that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist at all, they would have to have absolute knowledge.

See where this is going?

If an atheist honestly could say a god doesn't exist, he, by exposing the fact that he has absolute knowledge, would be a god, himself. If he, as a god, says no god exists, then he is really saying that HE doesn't exist.

Therefore, true atheists do not exist.

Most atheists lack belief in god for the same reason they lack belief in pink unicorns. On that, at least, you are correct.

Most atheists don't go so far as to claim they actually know for a fact that there is no god. Some do say that because there's no good evidence, the logical conclusion is that there isn't a god.

[New Socialist South Africa]

"I find no compelling evidence for God.

God is thus not likely to exist, according to my current knowledge.

Thus, I do not believe God exist."

Agnostic is not some middle ground. It's part of a spectrum that goes with belief.

Why is he unlikely? The universe is a big place?

And who's to say, if he exists, that he would even be in this universe?

It would be like me siting on a spec of dust in a closed cardboard box, telling you how light doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it.

There's no way anyone could tell you that light exists because it is impossible to see outside of the box, and if you look for that evidence of light in the closed cardboard box, you'll never find it.

This is why no one can explain the existence of God to an atheist, because if a god was to exist, he would be beyond naturalistic boundaries and comprehension.

Do you believe that Osiris exists?

[New Socialist South Africa]

Not even remotely accurate.

Prove it.

There is insubstantial evidence that a giant pink bunny rabbit is floating around somewhere in space. Therefore, until evidence is provided to me proving its existence, I do not believe there is a giant pink bunny rabbit floating in space.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not even remotely accurate.

In your opinion.

No, by definition. Agnosticism literally means the state of not-knowing.

[Ashmoria]

my thought is that atheism is a good position to have since god(s) doesn't exist.

[CTALNH]

God is an atheist. He doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself.

Good thing we are gods then.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

In your opinion.

No, by definition. Agnosticism literally means the state of not-knowing.

Precisely. I think that they may have gotten agnosticism and gnosticism mixed up.
An agnostic =/= a gnostic.

[Chaunceys]

Not even remotely accurate.

Prove it.

There is not exact 100% proof that there is a God that being said someone saying the do not believe in God does not mean they suddenly know everything about everything. It is a simple opinion that does not imply that the person has absolute knowledge about if a God exist.

My question to you is this, if a child was grown up to be Agnostic and they were not exposed to any religion what so ever and they were asked if they thought a God existed and they said they don't know if one existed what then?

[Grave_n_idle]

"I find no compelling evidence for God.

God is thus not likely to exist, according to my current knowledge.

Thus, I do not believe God exist."

Agnostic is not some middle ground. It's part of a spectrum that goes with belief.

As far as I was aware;
an atheist is someone who does not believe the claims that a god or gods exist,
a theist is someone who does believe claims that a god or gods exist,
an agnostic is someone who does not know if the claims that a god or gods exist are true,
a gnostic is someone who does 'know' that the claims that a god or gods exist are true.

I thought that theism/ atheism dealt with belief, whilst gnosticism/ agnosticism dealt with knowledge?

That's about right, yes. If you believe, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist.

If you know (or think it's possible to know) if there's a god, you're gnostic. If you don't, you're agnostic.

e.g. If you lack belief, but don't think it's possible to know - you're an agnostic atheist.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Not even remotely accurate.

In your opinion.

No. According to logic.

[Chaunceys]

God is an atheist. He doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself.

Good thing we are gods then.

Does that mean I can finally have that really nice gaming computer by a snap of my fingers!?!

[Banana Isle]

Unless the agnostic has absolute knowledge of all the possible evidences, he is still claiming to have absolute knowledge.

To say something doesn't exist, whether on the grounds of "not enough evidence" or otherwise, is to claim to have absolute knowledge.

Your argument is invalid.

No. You clearly know nothing about the way this works.

When someone makes a positive claim, such as "God exists", the onus is then on them to prove that statement.

Agnostic Atheism makes no positive claims, rather it states that their is is insubstantial evidence at the current time that any god exists. We do not need to know everything about everything to make that statement.

Going on your logic, we cannot say that there is insubstantial evidence that a giant pink bunny rabbit is floating in space because we do not have absolute knowledge.

Do you understand what I just said?

The only way an agnostic could claim to have "insubstantial evidence" is if he knew all the evidence?

How is this wrong?

[Socialist Tera]

Nice try but Stalin and Mao did not massacre people for being religious. That is an outright lie.

Religion was private in the USSR, the Orthodox church was linked to the Tsar and it's primary interest was to preserve the tsardom. Orthodoxy was not banned but the Russian Orthodox church was disbanded. You could practice religion in private.

Nice try but Stalin and Mao did not massacre people for being religious. That is an outright lie. Also, Mussolini worked with the Catholic church for personal gain.

Ah, read my original post. I never stated they murdered for Atheism, I said they are examples of prominent Atheists who have commited atrocities.
Also I do believe either Stalin or Mao had Christians be killed...so yea. I don't know for sure I just think I read that sometime, I'm probably wrong about it.
"For personal gain" doesn't mean he isn't Atheist.

Stalin didn't kill for personal gain, if he did kill anyone it was for the stability of the USSR and to further the cause of Marxist Leninism. The idea that he killed for personal gain is a lie Trotsky came up with, Trotsky had a habit of lying a lot.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

Do you understand what I just said?

The only way an agnostic could claim to have "insubstantial evidence" is if he knew all the evidence?

How is this wrong?

Do you understand words?
To have insubstantial evidence for something means that they have not been presented with substantial evidence.