Religion/Spirituality At what point in the Bible..

[Blackout]

Atheism is the default like 'not guilty' is the default for a juror. If you are not convinced the accused is guilty, then you must vote not guilty. You aren't saying the defendant is innocent, but rather you haven't been convinced of his guilt. The burden of proof has not been met for one to say, without having some doubt, that a god exists ... even less proof to say whether it's the christian god, muslim god, hindu god(s), etc.

You don't believe in those other gods, and yet they haven't been disproven, right? When you realize why you don't accept those god claims as truth, you'll understand why atheists don't accept yours.

Not guilty being the default for a juror doesn't apply to this because not guilty isn't a neutral option. Sure people call someone who hasn't went through the whole case not guilty but actually its inconclusive. Plus the are 3 options here not just two.

Agnosticism is the 3rd option aka the default in this case. Your giving atheism credit where it isn't due.

 

[Da King]

NOT IN THE BOLLEA HOUSEHOLD, BROTHER!

I still dapped it but I don't like the use of smileys with this gimmick. Much funnier when it's pure text for some reason.

shut the fukk up breh

 

[NoMayo15]

Not guilty being the default for a juror doesn't apply to this because not guilty isn't a neutral option. Sure people call someone who hasn't went through the while case not guilty but actually its inconclusive.

Agnosticism is the default in this case. Your giving atheism credit where it isn't due.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to what someone knows (or claims to know). (A)theism refers to what one beliefs (or a lack thereof). So someone can be an agnostic, but still believe in the existence of the Christian god.

I don't quite understand your first paragraph.

I agree that agnosticism is also the default, but for any given claim, one can either believe it's true, or not. In a trial, a juror either thinks the defendant is guilty or not. The juror is agnostic towards whether or not the person committed the crime. His decision is based on the prosecution's claim, and the evidence put forth to support that claim. The juror's ruling is his/her belief of the guilt of the defendant. If they cannot say without reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, then they are left with no third option -- not guilty is the default.

Atheism is exactly the same. Either the god claim is true or not. The evidence for a god is such that I think it's reasonable for someone to doubt it. Non-acceptance of the claim is only alternative. Non-belief in a god -- atheism.

*edit* And I also want to add that the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence. He doesn't even have to open his mouth in court.

 

[Blackout]

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. Agnosticism refers to what someone knows (or claims to know). (A)theism refers to what one beliefs (or a lack thereof). So someone can be an agnostic, but still believe in the existence of the Christian god.

I don't quite understand your first paragraph.

I agree that agnosticism is also the default, but for any given claim, one can either believe it's true, or not. In a trial, a juror either thinks the defendant is guilty or not. The juror is agnostic towards whether or not the person committed the crime. His decision is based on the prosecution's claim, and the evidence put forth to support that claim. The juror's ruling is his/her belief of the guilt of the defendant. If they cannot say without reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, then they are left with no third option -- not guilty is the default.

Atheism is exactly the same. Either the god claim is true or not. The evidence for a god is such that I think it's reasonable for someone to doubt it. Non-acceptance of the claim is only alternative. Non-belief in a god -- atheism.

*edit* And I also want to add that the defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence. He doesn't even have to open his mouth in court.

I'm aware of agnostic atheist and agnostic theist but you can be a full on agnostic.

Atheism can never be the default because atheism is rejection of the belief which makes it non neutral and separates it from being the same as full on agnosticism.

As for your not guilty argument that doesn't apply because there are only two options which is guilty and not guilty. In our situation there are 3 options as I've explained earlier which makes your example non applicable.

 

[NoMayo15]

I'm aware of agnostic atheist and agnostic theist but you can be a full on agnostic.

Atheism can never be the default because atheism is rejection of the belief which makes it non neutral.

As for your not guilty argument that doesn't apply because there are only two options which is guilty and not guilty. In our situation there are 3 options as I've explained earlier which makes your example non applicable.

No. Agnosticism isn't some neutral third option. It's avoiding the question all together.

It's like asking the juror guilty or not guilty, and them replying I don't know. Well no shyt you don't know, that's not wtf I asked you. The analogy fits because those that would claim agnosticism as this neutral option are misusing the label ...... mostly because of the stigma associated with atheism. With belief you either believe a claim, or you don't. No one's asking if you know the answer, or if the answer can be known.... we're asking your belief based on the evidence.

 

[Bondye Vodou]

Another religious fakkit making massive assumptions about things which he knows not. I love science and learning about things, the lack of science, logic and learning within the context of religion is what drove me away from it. It's 2013, if your dumbass still believes in human made organized religion you're a fukking retard of monumental levels. I'll give you a pass for believing in God, but a MAN MADE religion?

 

[Blackout]

No. Agnosticism isn't some neutral third option. It's avoiding the question all together.

It's like asking the juror guilty or not guilty, and them replying I don't know. Well no shyt you don't know, that's not wtf I asked you. The analogy fits because those that would claim agnosticism as this neutral option are misusing the label ...... mostly because of the stigma associated with atheism. With belief you either believe a claim, or you don't. No one's asking if you know the answer, or if the answer can be known.... we're asking your belief based on the evidence.

Well that's the thing there is no evidence so all we can say is I don't know. The thing about it through is that if you avoid or simply not care about the question and have no belief when it comes to the issue of Gods existence then your full on agnostic.

Agnostics do not reject or accept The existence of God. They just have no opinion on the issue whatsoever which separates it from atheism.

 

[NoMayo15]

Well that's the thing there is no evidence so all we can say is I don't know. The thing about it through is that if you avoid or simply not care about the question and have no belief when it comes to the issue of Gods existence then your full on agnostic.

Agnostics do not reject or embrace God existence. They just have no opinion in the issue whatsoever which separates it from atheism.

If you have no god belief, then you are a de facto atheist. Yes, by default. Because that's exactly what an atheist is ... someone who doesn't have a belief in god. Whether or not you care about it, or never thought about it has no bearing on it. You are either a theist or you are not.

They are also agnostic, but in your example they are also atheists. Whether or not they claim that title is their prerogative.

And a lot of people claim they DO know if god exists or not.

 

[Blackout]

If you have no god belief, then you are a de facto atheist. Yes, by default. Because that's exactly what an atheist is ... someone who doesn't have a belief in god. Whether or not you care about it, or never thought about it has no bearing on it. You are either a theist or you are not.

They are also agnostic, but in your example they are also atheists. Whether or not they claim that title is their prerogative.

And a lot of people claim they DO know if god exists or not.

Atheist have a belief that there is no God, Agnostics don't which separates them from atheists.

 

[NoMayo15]

Atheist have a belief that there is no God, Agnostics don't which separates them from atheists.

Meh. Semantics. Some agnostics believe there is no God, which is the point you're missing.

 

[Blackout]

Meh. Semantics. Some agnostics believe there is no God, which is the point you're missing.

If they beleive that there is no God then they are agnostic atheists not actual agnostics.

 

[NoMayo15]

If they beleive that there is no God then they are agnostic atheists not actual agnostics.

So what is an actual or full agnostic to you?

 

[Blackout]

So what is an actual or full agnostic to you?

They don't posses the belief that God exists nor do they posses the belief that God doesn't exist. They dont reject nor accept the existance of God. They remain neutral to the topic in its entirety.

 

[NoMayo15]

They don't posses the belief that God exists nor do they posses the belief that God doesn't exist. They dont reject nor accept the existance of God. They remain neutral to the topic in its entirety.

Well frankly I reject your narrow definition of atheism, as one does not have to make any positive claims on the non-existence of a God to still be an atheist. And I seriously doubt any adult can be neutral on this topic. Belief is an active ... thing. So if one isn't actively believing, they ... aren't believing.

 

[Blackout]

Well frankly I reject your narrow definition of atheism, as one does not have to make any positive claims on the non-existence of a God to still be an atheist. And I seriously doubt any adult can be neutral on this topic. Belief is an active ... thing. So if one isn't actively believing, they ... aren't believing.

You can reject it but looking at the word atheism itself which is "without god" it's grounded in rejection of belief which doesn't apply to full on agnostics so.

I mean what else can you say when it comes to defining a person who has conditions that go against theism and atheism.