Religion/Spirituality At what point in the Bible..

[NoMayo15]

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.

I don't think such a person exists.

 

[Blackout]

I don't think such a person exists.

I was a full on agnostic at one time so I found out first hand that such a person exist as I was that person.

 

[NoMayo15]

I was a full on agnostic at one time so I found out first hand that such a person exist.

Well, I said I was only an agnostic at one time ... but that was before I understood what atheism was. It's not just a belief that no gods exist. The only prerequisite for atheism is not being a theist. Just because someone says they're completely neutral, doesn't mean they actually are.

 

[Blackout]

Well, I said I was only an agnostic at one time ... but that was before I understood what atheism was. It's not just a belief that no gods exist. The only prerequisite for atheism is not being a theist. Just because someone says they're completely neutral, doesn't mean they actually are.

The prerequisite for atheism is also the rejection of the belief in God as well.

It's in the name.

They can say that they are neutral but aren't....i can agree on that....BUT I myself was neutral aka agnostic.

I'm speaking on first hand experiences here.

 

[NoMayo15]

The prerequisite for atheism is also the rejection of the belief in God as well.

It's in the name.

They can say that they are neutral but aren't....i can agree on that....BUT I myself was neutral.

Hmmm, well no not necessarily. For example, many Buddhists are also atheists because there is no creator god in their dogma. They don't reject the notion of god ... it's just not a part of their beliefs. They are "Without God" as you said.

"Without God" doesn't necessarily translate to "reject god" or "believe in the non-existence of god". It's just ... without god.

In what way were you neutral? Again, your definition of "full agnosticism" only makes sense if you assume atheism is this positive claim on the non-existence of god. That's not always the case.

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.

And let me go back to this definition........ Do you mean not accepting a belief is the same as rejecting it? What does it mean to reject belief?

 

[the mechanic]

If the Bible clearly states that, where does it say that, clearly?

The part in genesis where it says he made one man and then a rib woman from that man..(.ironically that would mean eve was cloned so her DNA would match his and she was his sister)

But anyway there are a ton of verses that say quite clearly we inherited original sin in our blood from adam and eve

Then we have the nasty little noahs ark incident where again the branches of the human family tree converges again when noahs grandkids had to fukk each other .

then abraham marries his sister...lot gets his daughters pregnant

its clear that god has no problem with incest PS this is why the bible should be kept away from children

 

[Blackout]

Hmmm, well no not necessarily. For example, many Buddhists are also atheists because there is no creator god in their dogma. They don't reject the notion of god ... it's just not a part of their beliefs.

"Without God" doesn't necessarily translate to "reject god" or "believe in the non-existence of god". It's just ... without god.

In what way were you neutral? Again, your definition of "full agnosticism" only makes sense if you assume atheism is this positive claim on the non-existence of god. That's not always the case.

Ill explain.

You see in the atheists view there is no god. It's not even like they don't know a god exists and he is out there. It's full on here is not out there no matter what. They don't know of he is out there and he isn't out there based on their view.

That's what the word without is.

Yet in the agnostics view he could be out there and he could not be out there its just that they don't care.

No atheist have him existing in their view whatsoever.

The difference between atheist and agnostic is there. Plain as day they separate from the strictly without view that atheism is made of.

Yet on the other hand they are not theist because while they haven't embraced god not existing they also haven't embraced him existing. So they are in a category of their own.

 

[NoMayo15]

Ill explain.

You see in the atheists view there is no god. It's not even like they don't know a god exists and he is out there. It's full on here is not out there no matter what.

That's what the word without is.

Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right here. Not all atheists think that.

The rest of the post is basura

You have too simplistic of a view of theists and atheists ... which is why your claims about agnosticism doesn't make sense.

 

[Blackout]

Yeah, I'm gonna stop you right here. Not all atheists think that.

The rest of the post is basura

They do if they are atheist. Unless their agnostic atheist.

The rest of the post is truth that shows that what your saying doesn't add up. But go ahead ignore truth like the religious nuts that you put down do.

 

[NoMayo15]

They do if they are atheist. Unless their agnostic atheist.

The rest of the post is truth that shows that what your saying doesn't add up.

Agnostic atheism is an sub-level of atheism. An agnostic atheist is still an atheist, and they don't believe exactly what you posted ... so you're wrong. What you were describing is a gnostic atheist. I thought you said you understood this earlier in this thread???

 

[Blackout]

Agnostic atheism is an sub-level of atheism. An agnostic atheist is still an atheist, and they don't believe exactly what you posted ... so you're wrong. What you were describing is a gnostic atheist. I thought you said you understood this earlier in this thread???

You know damn well that I'm addressing full on atheists not agnostic atheists. Stop reaching for a W.

You even acknowledged me telling you that I knew so going by that it shows that you knew what I meant.

 

[NoMayo15]

You know damn well that I'm addressing full on atheists not agnostic atheists.

Full on? You mean strong or gnostic atheists? Regardless, it still shows you don't understand these terms, because agnostic atheists ARE atheists, are they not?

You even acknowledged me telling you that I knew so going by that it shows that you knew what I meant.

This sentence makes no sense. Re-write it, and get back to me.

 

[Blackout]

Full on? You mean strong or gnostic atheists? Regardless, it still shows you don't understand these terms, because agnostic atheists ARE atheists, are they not?

By Full on I mean every type of atheists except for non agnostic atheists.

How can agnostic atheists not be atheists when their name has the word atheist in it.

As long as a person rejects the belief in a god they are atheists.

Agnostic atheists, normal atheists or gnostic theists as you call them are all atheists.

 

[NoMayo15]

How can agnostic atheists not be atheists when their name has the word atheist in it.

Exactly, so how can this statement from you, and I quote

You see, in the atheists view, there is no god. It's not even like they don't know a god exists and he is out there. It's full on "he is not out there no matter what"

be true when you admit there are SOME atheists that don't share this view? And if I call you out on it, then I'm somehow reaching for a win?


I'm not trying to reach for a win, you just literally lose me when you misuse terms. How am I suppose to know what you meant to say?

Atheism has a pretty broad definition, and many people can mean different things when they use it. It's the reason why terms like strong & weak atheism came about, because there's a broad spectrum of disbelief. Just like you have a broad spectrum of Christians, and you have several denominations of Christianity, and not all Christians believe exactly the same thing. Just like that, there are different types of atheism. So when you say "an atheist believes X", unless X is very broad or vague then you might be wrong. If I say "All Christians believe the Earth is 9000 years old", then I'm gonna be wrong too because although there are some that believe that, it's not true that they all believe it.

As long as a person rejects the belief in a god they are atheists.

Okay, so let me ask again. What do you mean by reject?

 

[Blackout]

Exactly, so how can the statement "You see, in the atheists view, there is no god." be a true statement, when you admit there are SOME atheists that don't share this view.

Okay, we need to back up. I'm not trying to reach for a win, you just literally lose me when you misuse terms. How am I suppose to know what you meant to say?

Okay, so let me ask again. What do you mean by reject?

Because in agnostic atheists view there is still no god. They are just smart enough to realize and admit that they don't know but that is a fact and the main focus of these terms are beliefs and their belief/view still is that there is no god.

As broad as atheism can be it all can still put into the groups of atheist and agnostic atheist. Anything else is either in the agnostic category or under the broad term of theism.