Religion/Spirituality At what point in the Bible..

[NoMayo15]

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.

Atheism is the overall term. Gnostic Atheists and Agnostic Atheists fall within the spectrum of types of Atheism. Where you mess up is when you equate atheists with gnostic atheism. Most prominent atheists fall under the agnostic atheism label. Dawkins, Hitchens, de Grasse Tyson and so on... I'm not sure about the general public, but I'd wager there are some strong atheists, but most aren't.

From my experience, people who only accept the agnostic label generally are skeptics towards religion, and tend to be irreligious.... They don't have a god belief, which makes them atheists as well as agnostic. There is no such thing as a full on agnostic because atheism only requires not accepting theistic claims as true. If you don't accept a god belief, then you're an atheist.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

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???

Son is incapable of actual thought. I should have given up on him when he said, "you cant disprove it"

the only thing more stupid wouldve been if he pulled out Pascals Wager... dudes whole belief as he describes it is basically Deism, which is even worthless to even argue

 

[Blackout]

Son is incapable of actual thought. I should have given up on him when he said, "you cant disprove it"

the only thing more stupid wouldve been if he pulled out Pascals Wager... dudes whole belief as he describes it is basically Deism, which is even worthless to even argue

Act your age.

You sound like a whiny kid. Ether add or contribute to the convo or sit the fukk down.

 

[Blackout]

Atheism is the overall term. Gnostic Atheists and Agnostic Atheists fall within the spectrum of types of Atheism. Where you mess up is when you equate atheists with gnostic atheism. Most prominent atheists fall under the agnostic atheism label. Dawkins, Hitchens, de Grasse Tyson and so on... I'm not sure about the general public, but I'd wager there are some strong atheists, but most aren't.

From my experience, people who only accept the agnostic label generally are skeptics towards religion, and tend to be irreligious.... They don't have a god belief, which makes them atheists as well as agnostic. There is no such thing as a full on agnostic because atheism only requires not accepting theistic claims as true. If you don't accept a god belief, then you're an atheist.

I know the difference between agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists though. You assuming that I mixing the two. Trust me I'm not. I'm also aware that they are all under the broad term of atheism. The name says it all.

You see as I've said atheism does require rejection of the belief in god and to posses the belief that god doesn't exist. You can't be an atheist without those conditions. There are people in which those dont apply as I've said many times but they are not theists either which is why they are called agnostics.

 

[NoMayo15]

I know the difference between agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists though. You assuming that I mixing the two. Trust me I'm not. I'm also aware that they are all under the broad term of atheism. The name says it all.

No. You're equating atheism with gnostic atheism. Not all atheists are positive in the non-existence of god. It's just not true.

You see as I've said atheism does require rejection of the belief in god and to posses the belief that god doesn't exist. You can't be an atheist without those conditions. There are people in which those dont apply as I've said many times but they are not theists either which is why they are called agnostics.

Sure...depending on how you define rejection of belief. I'm fine with that. I'm not so sure that an atheist must believe that god doesn't exist. Again, we're just getting into the semantics of these words, and it doesn't really matter that much. Who's an example of a vocal agnostic you can point to? I'd like to see what a full agnostic looks like.

 

[intilectual recipricol]

Son just doesnt understand that we can reject specific gods positively without rejecting the idea of deism, is what it boils down to. He doesnt understand how any god could be proven wrong because he lacks the fundamental thinking skills that wouldve stopped him from saying, "you cant prove it" because he wold know that these gods presented by people actually disprove themselves by their own definition and descriptions.

The example of the "married bachelor" comes to mind. Its impossible by definition. I dont even have to observe the "married bachelor" to disregard it. the god in the abrahamic religions do this. fella is clearly a myth and its shown in its own definition and description. No amount of "you cant understand gawd" can change that. Its true in the same way you cant understand a retarded kid sometimes and have to chalk up some of their actions to being retarded.

What kills me is his rush to save christianity based on his belief of "something might or might not be there and it might or might not do stuff" not even realizing that he thinks he's being scientific when if he was he would already have a conclusion from his observations.......and his belief already explains what he's observed of his higher power, its not there and it certainly doesnt do stuff.

 

[Fervid]

There's really no debate here (arguing semantics doesn't qualify). Most atheists are agnostic atheists, and people that claim "full on" agnostic likely don't even think the issue is important enough to discuss which is why they don't claim the atheist label.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

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

Pre Mosaic law allowed incest. This was ultimately outlawed. Lets be happy that you now disagree with it, because of Moses.

 

[Blackout]

No. You're equating atheism with gnostic atheism. Not all atheists are positive in the non-existence of god. It's just not true.

Sure...depending on how you define rejection of belief. I'm fine with that. I'm not so sure that an atheist must believe that god doesn't exist. Again, we're just getting into the semantics of these words, and it doesn't really matter that much. Who's an example of a vocal agnostic you can point to? I'd like to see what a full agnostic looks like.

Vocal agnostics aren't that vocal because they simply do not care about the matter whatsoever. It's what being neutral is all about. If you do not care about the matter why would you be vocal about the matter. Being vocal about the matter shows care. Same way I felt back when I was agnostic.

You can doubt that atheists must belief that God doesn't exist but it must be so for it to have consistency. The name says without God, agnostics have conditions to the that separate them from the definition of "without god" and agnostics can't be in the theists definition either because they don't have certain qualities that you need to be theist either.

^ All of those are issues with you pinning the atheist label on pure agnostics. All I want to see is some consistency because what your doing just doesn't add up.

Son just doesnt understand that we can reject specific gods positively without rejecting the idea of deism, is what it boils down to. He doesnt understand how any god could be proven wrong because he lacks the fundamental thinking skills that wouldve stopped him from saying, "you cant prove it" because he wold know that these gods presented by people actually disprove themselves by their own definition and descriptions.

The example of the "married bachelor" comes to mind. Its impossible by definition. I dont even have to observe the "married bachelor" to disregard it. the god in the abrahamic religions do this. fella is clearly a myth and its shown in its own definition and description. No amount of "you cant understand gawd" can change that. Its true in the same way you cant understand a retarded kid sometimes and have to chalk up some of their actions to being retarded.

What kills me is his rush to save christianity based on his belief of "something might or might not be there and it might or might not do stuff" not even realizing that he thinks he's being scientific when if he was he would already have a conclusion from his observations.......and his belief already explains what he's observed of his higher power, its not there and it certainly doesnt do stuff.

You can't read can you?

If you read and understood my posts you would of read that I'm not a Christian. Knowing that fact back when I told you that you cannot disprove it you should of figured out that I was referring to you not being able to disprove my belief which isn't tied much to the Christian belief. Not all Theists are Christians you know.

Reading is fundamental.

I am being scientific in that I understand my observation is inconclusive as is your observation.

 

[NoMayo15]

Vocal agnostics aren't that vocal because they simply do not care about the matter whatsoever. It's what being neutral is all about. If you do not care about the matter why would you be vocal about the matter. Being vocal about the matter shows care. Same way I felt back when I was agnostic.

You can doubt that atheists must belief that God doesn't exist but it must be so for it to have consistency. The name says without God, agnostics have conditions to the that separate them from the definition of "without god" and agnostics can't be in the theists definition either because they don't have certain qualities that you need to be theist either.

But the bottom line is if you lack a believe in a god, regardless of if you care about the matter or not, then you are an atheist.

There's a subtle difference between someone who's not a believer in god, and someone who believes god doesn't exist ... but there's still a difference. These are two different types of atheists, but both are still atheists. Even if you claim "full on agnosticism", if you don't have a god belief then you are by default also an atheist.

Again, "without God" does not mean belief that no gods exist. It also means they do not accept the god claim to be true. Agnostics generally do not accept the god claim, so they are atheists.

 

[Blackout]

But the bottom line is if you lack a believe in a god, regardless of if you care about the matter or not, then you are an atheist.

There's a subtle difference between someone who's not a believer in god, and someone who believes god doesn't exist ... but there's still a difference. These are two different types of atheists, but both are still atheists. Even if you claim "full on agnosticism", if you don't have a god belief then you are by default also an atheist.

Again, "without God" does not mean belief that no gods exist. It also means they do not accept the god claim to be true. Agnostics generally do not accept the god claim, so they are atheists.

Without God means that there is no God in the belief whatsoever. It basically means that nobody with the word atheism in their name should permit God to exist in their views. Without is lacking and in an agnostics world god can still exist it just that they don't care whether he exists or not. That alone separates them from the atheist label.

I don't know if you want more atheists in a numbers game or something but what you are saying still doesn't add up based on what I mentioned.

I mean look at it this way t see why what your saying doesn't add up:

If atheists are right then god doesn't exist. If theists are right then god exists. If agnostics are right then it can go both ways. Atheism doesn't go any way but him not existing so the both ways option that agnostics have doesn't exist under the atheist label no matter how broad it may be.

 

[NoMayo15]

Without God means that there is no God in the belief whatsoever. It basically means that nobody with the word atheism in their name should permit God to exist in their views.

No, it doesn't, because weak atheists still accept the possibility of a god! This is what you mean when you say full agnostic. We're talking about the same type of person.

I don't know if you want more atheists in a numbers game or something but what you are saying still doesn't add up based on what I mentioned.

It's not about having a larger number, it's about what words mean. If you are without a god belief, then you're an atheist. There's not a neutral option. There is no "guilty", "not guilty", and "I don't know". It's either guilty or not.

If agnostics are right then it can go both ways

This is utter nonsense. What does that mean 'can go both ways'?? That God can both exist and not exist? No, it can't go that way. A person cannot both believe and not believe in a god. In addition, they can't neither believe nor disbelieve, just like a person can't not exist and exist. Those terms are mutually exclusive. Either a person has the belief or doesn't. If they don't pray, go to church, tithe, think the universe could not exist without the existence of a god, etc... then they are atheists.

You need to forget whatever preconceived notions you have of what an atheist is. It's wrong.

 

[Blackout]

No, it doesn't, because weak atheists still accept the possibility of a god! This is what you mean when you say full agnostic. We're talking about the same type of person.

It's not about having a larger number, it's about what words mean. If you are without a god belief, then you're an atheist. There's not a neutral option. There is no "guilty", "not guilty", and "I don't know". It's either guilty or not.

All weak atheists do is not assert that there is no God. They still posses the belief that God doesnt exist.

Agnostics do not posses the belief that god doesn't exist therefore you can't even call full on agnostics weak atheists because they don't posses the belief that God doesnt exist. They posses no beleif whatsoever.

There is a neutral option in this case because, this is science not court. "I don't know" is the neutral option and is permitted in science. You say that's its guilty or not based on the judicial system that was designed only permitting two options yet in science there are 3.

We don't know if a higher power exists and we have no proof for or against it so I don't know is permitted in science for this scenario.

 

[NoMayo15]

They posses no beleif whatsoever.

No belief IS atheism. You don't need to believe a god doesn't exist.

There is a neutral option in this case because, this is science not court. "I don't know" is the neutral option and is permitted in science. You say that's its guilty or not based on the judicial system that was designed only permitting two options yet in science there are 3.

It's not science, if anything it's philosophy.

We don't know if a higher power exists and we have no proof for or against it so I don't know is permitted in science for that scenario.[/B]

If you don't have proof for something, you are not justified in believing it's true. That is the position of an atheist. They'll accept the god hypothesis if there is evidence for it, but until then, they don't believe the claim to be true.

 

[Blackout]

No belief IS atheism. You don't need to believe a god doesn't exist.

It's not science, if anything it's philosophy.

If you don't have proof for something, you are not justified in believing it's true. That is the position of an atheist. They'll accept the god hypothesis if there is evidence for it, but until then, they don't believe the claim to be true.

See that's where you wrong. No belief isn't atheism because the term without God. The term without god stops atheism from being connected to lack of beleif. Why? Because without god implies that there is no God whatsoever which is a belief no matter which way you look at it because as I've said nobody knows the truth so its inconclusive until then. Anything outside of inconclusive is opinion/beleif.

Let look at the meaning if belief anyway. Belief is an opinion. The term "Without god/no god" is an opinion which further shows how having no opinion cannot be connected to atheism.