What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

That would make sense, since he (he?) seems to be claiming agnosticism could be compatible with absolute knowledge.

[Chaunceys]

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

That would make sense, since he (he?) seems to be claiming agnosticism could be compatible with absolute knowledge.

And I was thinking that the definition of Agnostic was not knowing, hmm I guess I am a self proclaimed God now.

[Grave_n_idle]

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?

If the police were involved in a murder investigation in your town, and they had compared your fingerprints with prints found at the scene of the crime...

...they would not have to see EVERY print of every person, just to rule you out.

They'd say 'hmm, there's no evidence you were there'.

Agnostics don't have to know everything to think it's impossible to know for sure whether there could be a god. Quite the contrary, in fact - given the fact that gods tend to be described in terms of ineffability, agnosticism is the default position. By definition, almost.

[Chaunceys]

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

*Head explodes from overload*

[Dyakovo]

Not even remotely accurate.

In your opinion.

An opinion backed by an actual understanding of the meaning of the words and a grasp of logic.

[Dyakovo]

Not even remotely accurate.

Prove it.

Okay.

[Banana Isle]

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 Atheist 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?

Your question is a poor one.

He still would either have to say one of three things:

1. There is not enough evidence to prove a god exists
2. Flat out say no god exists
3. God exists

Tackling the points head on...

1. There is not enough evidence to prove God exists.

To make this claim and honestly mean it, you have to admit that you have examined substantial evidences that have convinced you that god may or may not exist. This means that you are unsure (because you live in the cardboard box) This is normal, as all quests in the dark are like this.

HOWEVER, If someone were to explain how it is UNLIKELY, then he/she is lying, since there is, as far as we know (or shall I say "don't know"), infinite evidences. In this retrospect, the agnostic would be claiming to have access to, but not have, absolute knowledge, which doesn't make any sense.

Reminder: Being agnostic is logical. An agnostic who leans atheist is claiming to have access to absolute knowledge. The agnostic who leans towards a god would also be illogical due to the fact he has not yet met one, felt one, etc.

2. Flat out say a god doesn't exist

Saying no god exists = having absolute knowledge = you are god = you don't exist/you're lying

3. God exists

Unless you've met god, this stance is illogical.

Whole argument. Any questions?

[Sociobiology]

strong conviction regardless of evidence. thats to problem part. I never used the word absolute even if their are those that do so, however they are just the tip of the iceberg.
justifying by faith, justifying by nothing other than conviction is probably the most destructive way of thinking we have ever thought up, and most religions support it.

I support the equality of all people regardless of evidence. I have faith, not as a fact, but as a principle.

Whereas I have evidence that is the best way to treat people if you want a healthy, safe society.

That's what real faith is. Principle.

and their of plenty of people who take it on principle that minorities should not be treated equal and as long as they justify it by faith you have no claim that they are wrong because that is exactly what you are using.

And nowhere in any definition of faith does it say 'regardless of evidence'. There are a number of Christians who believe in evidence - and a number who believe in falsified evidence.

regardless of evidence = without concern to evidence in any way, I think you just proved my point.
and I can show that is how it is used with a single phrase.
"sometimes you just gotta have faith"

[Dyakovo]

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?

Easily. Your second sentence is based on a fallacious assumption.

[Banana Isle]

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

*Head explodes from overload*

God is the only atheist because he is the only person who could not believe in a higher power and the belief would actually be true.

[Sociobiology]

In your opinion.

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

which defines our stance on everything in and not in the universe, so completely useless.

[Banana Isle]

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?

Easily. Your second sentence is based on a fallacious assumption.

So my assumption's a lie? You're going to have to explain.

[New Socialist South Africa]

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?

No that's not how it works. "Insubstancial evidence" is based on what information we currently have available to us, not on every bit of information out there. Thus, before we gained evidence proving evolution, it would not have been unreasonable for a person to not believe in it due to there being no evidence to prove it. Now that there is evidence proving it only those who have not accessed this information, those who cannot grasp this information and those who reject this evidence based on numerous bullshit arguments do not believe in evolution.

[Grave_n_idle]

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

which defines our stance on everything in and not in the universe, so completely useless.

I don't think that's true. I think it's possible to know, for example, if you are on fire.

I mean you might have some doubts, maybe, but eventually the bacony-frying smell, the increasing crispyness of your fingertips, and the excessive unseasonable warmth would probably give it away.

[Dyakovo]

Easily. Your second sentence is based on a fallacious assumption.

So my assumption's a lie? You're going to have to explain.

If you were to ask me if I believed your shirt is blue, I wouldn't have to know whether or not it is blue to honnestly answer "I don't know". Your assertion ID that I would have to know.

[New Socialist South Africa]

*Head explodes from overload*

God is the only atheist because he is the only person who could not believe in a higher power and the belief would actually be true.

No. Theist = believes in the existence of a god or higher power. Atheist = does not believe in the existence of a god or higher power.

If god existed and was an atheist he would have to reject his own existence.

[Grave_n_idle]

God is the only atheist because he is the only person who could not believe in a higher power and the belief would actually be true.

No. Theist = believes in the existence of a god or higher power. Atheist = does not believe in the existence of a god or higher power.

If god existed and was an atheist he would have to reject his own existence.

Or have low self-esteem.

Like... He knows he exists, but he's not that great.

[Assorted Sucrose-Based Lifeforms]

No. Theist = believes in the existence of a god or higher power. Atheist = does not believe in the existence of a god or higher power.

If god existed and was an atheist he would have to reject his own existence.

Or have low self-esteem.

Like... He knows he exists, but he's not that great.

Hmmm. A god who doesn't consider themselves a god. Could be an interesting subject for a short story if it hasn't been done already.

[Banana Isle]

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?

No that's not how it works. "Insubstancial evidence" is based on what information we currently have available to us, not on every bit of information out there. Thus, before we gained evidence proving evolution, it would not have been unreasonable for a person to not believe in it due to there being no evidence to prove it. Now that there is evidence proving it only those who have not accessed this information, those who cannot grasp this information and those who reject this evidence based on numerous bullshit arguments do not believe in evolution.

Three things...

1. If you don't have all the evidence, you can make no claims unless you have personally witnessed it. (this doesn't just go with the "god" debate. either)

2. Evolution has never occurred as far as "evidence" is concerned. When I witness a creature going through the evolutionary processes, then I may rethink the whole thing. Unfortunately for you, that has never been done (not even in a specifically designed laboratory "made perfect" for the creation of life). (I'm an agnostic evolutionist, but that's not illogical, is it?)

3. No that's not how it works? Do you make the rules of logic, because last time I checked, none of us really know anything.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Or have low self-esteem.

Like... He knows he exists, but he's not that great.

Hmmm. A god who doesn't consider themselves a god. Could be an interesting subject for a short story if it hasn't been done already.

Or if god created the world and and then manifested as a human on it, and kept on reincarnating every time that human died, and didn't realise he was god and so might end up an atheist. With a little work and funding you have a decent startup religion there.

[Banana Isle]

God is the only atheist because he is the only person who could not believe in a higher power and the belief would actually be true.

No. Theist = believes in the existence of a god or higher power. Atheist = does not believe in the existence of a god or higher power.

If god existed and was an atheist he would have to reject his own existence.

Yes because their are higher powers than an atheist. Maybe not god, specifically, but higher powers (like nature and the universe, itself)

This is another reason why atheism makes no sense: Their will always be a higher power. Unless you're god, the only true atheist, if he exists.

[Kilobugya]

Well, believing everything happened for no reason by some rare chance and after we die we just die, is kind of Nihilistic.

Not at all. Denying a fact that you don't like won't make it go away, while by acknowledging it you may actually fix it. The "everything happened for no reason by some rare chance" is a complete misconception of the atheist view. On the other hand "after we die we just die" is very true (and claiming the opposite is being completely blind to the countless evidence we have about it), but it doesn't at all lead to nihilism - quite the opposite, it leads to actually _fixing_ it, via transhumanism. That's the less nihilist you can be. On the other hand, if there is an omnipowerful entity somewhere, then why do anything ? How does it matter ?

Also perhaps not in the name of Atheism, but some of the worst people that have commited extreme atrocities are prominent Atheists.

Atheists and non-atheists have committed horrible crimes in history, sure. But the difference is there : many religious people committed crimes _in the name_ of their religion and because of it. Atheists who did commit crimes didn't do it because of atheism.

No, honestly, you don't need super hard proof He exists, you either have faith or you don't. We have no proof the world even exists; it could just be in our minds.

And I'm the nihilist one ? So basically your claim is "we can't know anything for sure, so everything is equivalent" ? Or said otherwise "because there is no absolute black nor absolute white, there is a single shade of gray" ? And yet, when you're thirsty, you'll go to the fridge or tap, fill a glass of water, and drink it, right ? You won't waive a wooden stick yelling "Aguamenti !" ? Or even put the glass on top on the bottle and wait for the water to flow upwards ? Why ? Because even if you can't be 100% sure the water won't flow upwards, or you can't cast spells Harry Potter's way, or that there is water in the fridge/tap, or that drinking water is a good way to be less thirsty, or ... you still have collected way enough evidence during your life to know it's much more likely to work one way or another.

It's not because of speak of "God" you're suddenly allowed to disregard all evidence nor ways of reasoning you use in your daily life, ways that have been analyzed and mathematical proven under the various approximations of bayesian induction (like the scientific method). And those methods, universal and absolute, will tell you that "God exists" is less likely than "Argumenti !" giving you water.

Even if it was hindering Humanity like you say; in a way that's good. We need a bad to be able to see good. We need darkness to contrast light. If you remove the evil, you lose sense of the good.

Lol, and I'm the nihilist one, again ?

P.S: Uh, what? What religion believes in sky fairies? What?

That's what "god" is equivalent to, really.

[Stormaen]

As with all personal and political beliefs, opinions and ideas: I don't mind it as long as it isn't forced upon me. If I ask your opinion, please be direct, frank and full. Likewise, I'll do the same if you ask my opinion or thoughts.

That said, I like to say of myself, "I have an atheist head but a religious heart."

[Banana Isle]

No. Theist = believes in the existence of a god or higher power. Atheist = does not believe in the existence of a god or higher power.

If god existed and was an atheist he would have to reject his own existence.

Yes because their are higher powers than an atheist. Maybe not god, specifically, but higher powers (like nature and the universe, itself)

This is another reason why atheism makes no sense: Their will always be a higher power. Only a god could be an atheist, if he exists.

[Kilobugya]

Yes because their are higher powers than an atheist. Maybe not god, specifically, but higher powers (like nature and the universe, itself)

That doesn't make any sense. First, laws of nature aren't "powers". Then, there is no way to define "higher power", it's not like there is a universal absolute scale floating in the void.

Atheists believe the universe obey simple mathematical laws. Those laws aren't a god or an higher power in any way. They aren't entities with a will, desires, planing ahead, self-aware, ... but just laws applying blindly.

You're just doing fallacies by playing over the meaning of words, twisting them, using them with one meaning in a sentence and another meaning in the next.