Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp Oh please. This is very simple. I am an atheist. There is no evidence for the existence of god, whatever that vague concept may mean. Therefore I do not believe. I certainly reject all the specific deities representing the major religions I have encountered. I do not necessarily reject the possibility of almost anything. I have a finite range of knowledge. If see evidence in any form, shape or fashion, I will consider it. But without some sort of evidence I will not believe. I will not take it on faith. Bottom line, I don't believe in god. Frankly, I consider agnosticism to be a form of intellectual cowardice. You acknowledge the obvious while refusing to voice the rational conclusion which follows. Never made any sense to me.

You've failed to illustrate any proof against any god. You're simply rewording your believe to not include "I believe". Consider the following:

There's a box on the ground. There are several people telling that there is an apple in it, although they offer no proof. You can not open the box.

Whic of the following is the rational conclusion?

A. There is an apple in the box
B. There is no apple in the box
C. It is unknown if there is an apple in the box.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You've failed to illustrate any proof against any god. You're simply rewording your believe to not include "I believe".

You haven't given us anything to disprove yet.

[Kamehameha34]

[quote=Lullaby Chainer;329949]"God" is ambiguous. HOW is not even mentioned.. and is also ambiguous. Kame, buddy, there's a lot more to it.

"Creator of the universe" is not ambiguous. I didn't come here to combat blatant disregard for dictionary definitions. Let it go.

Sure, now if you can present to me a valid argument for the existence of god.. I will be responsible for defending the nonexistence of your god. You're more than welcome to do that, kame.

But I am not a theist. I am providing a rational argument as to why we don't know if there is a god.

What I'm not going to do is sit here with you and disprove every possible way in which a god can be fathomed.

So you will not sit here and disprove the dictionary definition of god?

It's very simple.

God = Creator of the universe. I've even added that it has conciousness. I don't claim to know if and what god exists, because I'm not a theist.

Until those "gods" are fathomed, and until they are presented in a valid argument, they are not even ADDRESSED in atheism.

Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god. atheism - Definitions from Dictionary.com

God is simply the "creator of the universe"
god - Definitions from Dictionary.com

If you have a problem, take it up with the good people at dictionary.com.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Because atheism rejects "every infinite idea of god". You aren't an atheist if you only reject a few specific definitions of god. Are hindus atheists for rejecting the Christian god? If you reject the concept of a creator of the universe, you should have evidence. If you don't have evidence as to why "every infinite idea of god" can not be correct, then you can not be atheistic without faith.

Over and over you repeat the same mantra as if it were a Buddhist chant.

I reject the "concept of a creator of the universe" because I have no evidence of such a creator. Simple enough, yet you claim that I must "have evidence". Evidence of what? Evidence that I have no evidence? This is a rhethorical house of mirrors. I means nothing whatsoever. Without evidence I will not believe. So far I have not even seen the possiblity of evidence. This has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with simple intellectual honesty.

Regarding your question - "Are hindus atheists for rejecting the Christian god?" Oddly enough, the answer is close to yes. As Stephen Roberts once said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer You haven't given us anything to disprove yet.

God.

Disprove god.

I'll list one of the many possibilities, if it will stop this trolling.


We were created in the laboratory of a scientist in a parallel universe. As soon as we started to expand, we seperated from that universe and became our own.

The scientist would be our "god".

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You've failed to illustrate any proof against any god. You're simply rewording your believe to not include "I believe".

Read my previous posts. I do not believe in god. I will not believe without a reason to believe. What part of that cannot you can't you understand?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "Creator of the universe" is not ambiguous. I didn't come here to combat blatant disregard for dictionary definitions. Let it go. But I am not a theist. I am providing a rational argument as to why we don't know if there is a god. So you will not sit here and disprove the dictionary definition of god? It's very simple. God = Creator of the universe. I've even added that it has conciousness. I don't claim to know if and what god exists, because I'm not a theist. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god. atheism - Definitions from Dictionary.com God is simply the "creator of the universe" god - Definitions from Dictionary.com If you have a problem, take it up with the good people at dictionary.com.

Kame, you still don't get it. "God" is an ambiguous term by itself. Atheists don't believe in any of the gods that have been presented to them. It's that simple. If you want to add a new god, you need to do so in a valid argument or else I don't even know what you're talking about.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 God. Disprove god. I'll list one of the many possibilities, if it will stop this trolling. We were created in the laboratory of a scientist in a parallel universe. As soon as we started to expand, we seperated from that universe and became our own. The scientist would be our "god".

Cool, only.. where's your evidence? Atheists are active skeptics. We only take in what is accompanied with evidence.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 God. Disprove god.

Disprove what? There is nothing there to disprove. You seem to take it as an article of faith that there is some reason to believe. There isn't. There is nothing to disprove.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp Over and over you repeat the same mantra as if it were a Buddhist chant.

Then you can imagine my confusion upon realization of the fact that you don't get it :confused:

I reject the "concept of a creator of the universe" because I have no evidence of such a creator. Simple enough, yet you claim that I must "have evidence". Evidence of what? Evidence that I have no evidence? This is a rhethorical house of mirrors. I means nothing whatsoever. Without evidence I will not believe. So far I have not even seen the possiblity of evidence. This has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with simple intellectual honesty.

No, evidence against such a being. If you reject a concept based on lack of proof for that concept, you are committing ad ignorantium.

I'll conceptualize it.

If I had a box that I can't open, I have no evidence as to what is in the box.

My friend proposes that money is in the box. He doesn't provide proof. Does that mean that there is no money in the box?

Regarding your question - "Are hindus atheists for rejecting the Christian god?" Oddly enough, the answer is close to yes. As Stephen Roberts once said, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I am not defending any god. Stop regarding me as a theist. I'm defending agnosticism.

And no. Atheism is the rejection of all gods. If you accept a god, you are not rejecting all gods.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp Disprove what? There is nothing there to disprove. You seem to take it as an article of faith that there is some reason to believe. There isn't. There is nothing to disprove.

God = Creator of the universe, with conciousness.

I've given you something to disprove. A definition I've been supporting since the thread's commencement. If you don't like how broad the definition is, then you shouldn't have called yourself an atheist, because atheists believe that no such being exists. That is the definition of atheism. I won't be redefining concepts for the sole purpose of making atheism more convenient.

And no, there is no reason to believe. We have no evidence to prove the existence, or non existence of a creator of the universe, thus, there's no reason to believe either way.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Cool, only.. where's your evidence? Atheists are active skeptics. We only take in what is accompanied with evidence.

No. AGNOSTICS only take what is accompanied with evidence.

If you think that my definition of god is too broad, then you mislabeled yourself as an atheist, or you mislabeled atheism as a non-faith.


Respond to the proof I've provided that atheism is a faith.

[Fonceai]

@Lullaby

Settle down. I meant humor, not rudeness.

I know it was 2 pages ago, but there is a difference between elephants in your bathtub and God. Different scale of existence.

You know I'm cool with you.

This whole couple pages is just too bad... I know in the other thread about this same thing I questioned the difference between opinion and fact.

Oh well.

[Kamehameha34]

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

god - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Thus, atheists propose the positive assertion that "the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe" does not exist.

Your need to change the definitions of multiple terms doesn't constitute an argument. Address the sources I provided, or concede.

[Jack]

There's a box on the ground. There are several people telling that there is an apple in it, although they offer no proof. You can not open the box.

Only if you tell me there's an apple under the box with incredible super powers does your example begin to approach the gods concept. Apples exist, we know that. There's no evidence gods do.

Thus, atheists propose the positive assertion that "the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe" does not exist.

This is what gets frustrating about this discussion:
(A)We're not debating you, we're debating a dictionary, which cannot possibly include every nuance of meaning of a term.
(B)You would rather accept a definition from a source that doesn't bother to tell you how it arrived at its conclusions over the definitions provided by real people who have lived and thought and studied in order to arrive at theirs.
(C)You have the audacity to tell us what we believe. If you wish to go through life with an incorrect/incomplete definition of an atheist, fine. But you have neither the right nor the insight to try to tell me where I stand on the issue of gods. If you want to be an agnostic, go for it. Even define yourself as you see fit. And while you may not agree with my definition of atheism, and I may not agree with your definition of agnostic, neither one of us can tell the other what they are.

So you're debating on behalf of a dictionary and using its authority to try to tell me what I think. I find that audacious and pointless. You've defended your opinion of agnosticism. That was the topic of this thread. You went too far when you decided to try to tell others what they thought.

[Jagged]

Sorry its long, but read it- methinks the argument improves in the meaty center.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. AGNOSTICS only take what is accompanied with evidence.

Agnostics are often agnostics because they simply dont care enough to think about these things, or they were simply raised to not care. They often dont accept evidence from either side. Hell, agnostics dont accept anything, so i fail to see how that translates in any form to being able to "take what is accompanied with evidence" of anything. The only way this would make sense is if you are proposing no amount of evidence exists on both sides. Is this what you are saying?

What? I have pretty much understood some of your argument until this point. Many atheists are atheists because they believe that there is logical evidence that contradicts many facts that are often bundled with the belief in god. (we obviously disagree about the evidence for/against god topic, because while atheists cannot offer evidence against god, we can offer the "pink unicorns existing on mars" argument which you dont accept/understand, so lets not go there). Yes, of course there has to be some sort of "faith" in knowledge and science and what others tell you, but this is simply because we have demonstrated many time on this board that neither side of the theist-atheist argument can be legitimately proven faultlessly. However, the importance lies not in the fact that evolutionists have to accept what is unproven (the faith you speak of), but that evolutionists seem to support a scientific method which calls for evidence and logic to corroborate a theory. No religions (or other religions, if you still wish to call atheism religion) seem to care for any such thing. So, while both theists and atheists may both have to rely on faith (albeit, on different levels), it is only the Atheists who truly rely solely on scientifically required evidence to support AND CREATE all of their beliefs, opposed to some religions which made the beliefs, and then called for scientific evidence (or did neither, and simply criticize atheists because there is no proof god does not exist in the same way atheists critisize theists for having no evidence whatsoever save for "atheism remains unproven"). As a result, some, (including me), call this religion/set of beliefs more logical than anything else.

Sorry about that, please excuse my interchanging the terms evolutionist and atheist, i think that few on this board are only one of those, though.

Anyways. This petty argument would solve nothing even if answered. I mean, if kam wins and people accept that atheism requires faith, he still wouldn't be able to use that fact against the set of atheistic beliefs because everybody else also requires faith. 50% agnostics... simply aren't on this board.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Faith is a belief for special reasons that don't concern whether or not evidence is even available. It's a more romantic way of belief. One which evidence doesn't effect.

Atheists don't believe in gods in the same way a scientist believes in the Bing Bang. A scientist simply believes there is more evidence for the big bang than against. An atheist simply believes there is more evidence against the existence of human-like conscious omnipotent beings than for. The difference is, faith doesn't care about evidence.. whether there is evidence or not. You may be inclined to believe that there is very little evidence for either.. and certainly no proof for either, but beliefs are concerned with what one feels the evidence says while FAITH is not concerned with what the evidence may or may not say. Faith is a belief for other reasons. Usually for religious reasons.. or for unexplainable reasons (whether or not one with faith can later justify his belief with evidence or not). That's why it's called "faith" at church. Faith is rewarded. Now why would seeing more evidence for god be rewarded? It isn't.. faith is about believing for OTHER reasons..

That's why LACK of evidence is said to TEST FAITH. The same cannot be said for beliefs.

[Jagged]

^ Thank you, that reiterates my point. Atheists, although they must accept something that is unproven, believe what they do because they think they know there is enough evidence for their case for it to be considered true. This is the opposite of faith.

[Kamehameha34]

[quote=Isherwood;329982]Only if you tell me there's an apple under the box with incredible super powers does your example begin to approach the gods concept. Apples exist, we know that. There's no evidence gods do.

This is what gets frustrating about this discussion: (A)We're not debating you, we're debating a dictionary, which cannot possibly include every nuance of meaning of a term.

Which proves you are just defining your concepts incorrectly.

(B)You would rather accept a definition from a source that doesn't bother to tell you how it arrived at its conclusions over the definitions provided by real people who have lived and thought and studied in order to arrive at theirs.

I concurred with the real definitions before I even looked them up. Infact, the only term I looked up before starting this thread was "god".

(C)You have the audacity to tell us what we believe. If you wish to go through life with an incorrect/incomplete definition of an atheist, fine. But you have neither the right nor the insight to try to tell me where I stand on the issue of gods. If you want to be an agnostic, go for it. Even define yourself as you see fit. And while you may not agree with my definition of atheism, and I may not agree with your definition of agnostic, neither one of us can tell the other what they are.

Fine, then I am a hippo, regardless of the fact that that statement contradicts the definition of "hippo".

So you're debating on behalf of a dictionary and using its authority to try to tell me what I think. I find that audacious and pointless. You've defended your opinion of agnosticism. That was the topic of this thread. You went too far when you decided to try to tell others what they thought.

I'm simply using definitions to categorize their way of thinking. Is someone telling me what I think if they call me a socialist? No. They are categorizing my thoughts.

Some people are wrong in calling their belief, atheism, as a non-faith. I was merely correcting them.

[Jack]

That's the audacious part. You can't correct me, because I do not accept your definition. I'm not saying it isn't accurate, I'm saying it's incomplete, it does not cover my personal experience. I have means to determine you're not a hippo. You have no such means to determine my opinions and attitudes beyond what I tell you. And then you refuse to listen to what I tell you, or respect the fact that what I think is the culmination of a life lived with these questions considered at length.
Where you are correct, it's in such a shallow way as to be essentially worthless.

I'm simply using definitions to categorize their way of thinking.

To what end? It's only of value to you if you accept it. I contend those definitions are both vague and incomplete.

Is someone telling me what I think if they call me a socialist? No. They are categorizing my thoughts.

If they're accurate, then the evidence you provided must have been sufficient for them to reach that conclusion. If inaccurate, then you expressed your thoughts poorly. Either way, they at least listened to your "thoughts" to reach a conclusion. They gave you credit for knowing yourself well enough to try and express it. That isn't happening here.

Which proves you are just defining your concepts incorrectly.

Come on. The dictionary knows what I think better than I do? Great, now both the Bible and the dictionary seem to know me better than I do.