Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Kamehameha34]

*Slaps head* I forgot! Statements have to be substantiated in a debate forum!

Darn.

[Cadre]

Only when we feel like it right!? Shit I missed the lesson on subjectivity.

[Kamehameha34]

Sadly, subjectivity doesn't apply to objectivity. This isn't burger king.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And there is no evidence for or against god, so believing that there is no god based on no proof is as much of a faith is believing that there is one.

That'd be incorrect.

I think you confuse "proof" and "evidence"? I don't believe there is any PROOF for anything at all. Now, there IS very solid evidence against God. For one, he is as nonsensical as square circles. Do I need to explain why we have evidence against square circles?

Later though you change it to "no proof." You confuse me.. please unconfuse yourself for me. :]

[Cadre]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Sadly, subjectivity doesn't apply to objectivity. This isn't burger king.

And you'll never be objectively sure of that.

[Jagged]

I have only read the first post of this topic, but here are my two cents.

Many will argue that Atheism takes "faith"- faith in science and knowledge that one believes to have been acquired through scientific and logical methods. Call it faith, call it belief, call it logic, or whatever. The definition is pretty much what i outlined above. However, the way you portray agnostics to be the only one without faith because they are undecided... in that, we / most of us are all partially agnostic. I think most here would consider anybody who claims themselves too be truly 100% immersed in their beliefs and to think that whatever they believe is right, and that there isnt and never will be a better way,... an arrogant person. "Trust not those who have found the truth, but those who seek it" Yet, we do not call ourselves agnostic.

Also, Atheists who are Athesists out of spite, and have nothing to do with evolution, probably dont have faith. The inability to have faith out of hatred should not be called agnosticism, it should be called atheism, because it is not characterized by the inability to choose. All in all, however, its silly to argue over classifications and what to call different people when we should just be scrutinizing their actual views individually... such things lead to prejudice and generalizations.

[Jack]

You propose that gods are impossible.

I propose that those who believe in gods have failed to present convincing evidence. I'm not obligated to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. I didn't say impossible. I did say gods are not necessary.

And yes, infact you were employing appeal to ridicule.

Are you an atheist in regards to fairies? There are many people who believe in their existence. I'm not one of them. In fact I regard the possibility and necessity of fairies on a par with that of gods. I also don't believe in the soul. There's no convenient term for people who don't accept the reality of fairies or souls. But there's no difference between my refusal to accept the concept of god and my refusal to accept the concept of fairies and souls. With no evidence to support any of those notions, what obligates me to believe?

[Jack]

The inability to have faith out of hatred should not be called agnosticism, it should be called atheism, because it is not characterized by the inability to choose.

I'd say it shouldn't even be called atheism. People who hate gods first have to believe they exist. Perhaps anti-theists would be appropriate.

[Fonceai]

I tried presenting that concept a while ago and no one could comprehend it.

That there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fonceai That there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism.

No, there isn't. As Chris accurately corrected you, the difference is just something theists have attempted to invent to further devide an already devided group.

Quote by: Kam *Slaps head* I forgot! Statements have to be substantiated in a debate forum! Darn.

Yes, they do. Since you've failed to support that atheism is a faith, why don't you try starting a thread where you substantiate that god is possible.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Z No, there isn't. As Chris accurately corrected you, the difference is just something theists have attempted to invent to further devide an already devided group.

Settle down.

I was stating that that idea had been presented here before and no one wanted to entertain discussing it.

Quote by: Z why don't you try starting a thread where you substantiate that god is possible.

That would be a stupid thing to do, I think.

It would require a specific definition for God, which then restricts the wider possibility of the concept.

[Jack]

No, there isn't.

You don't perceive a difference between those who don't accept the notion of gods at all and those who accept the premise of gods but hate them for some reason and become antagonistic toward religion because of that?
I would submit that someone who is antagonistic toward religion is not an atheist, as they believe in gods. I think anti-theist is a better tag for them.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That'd be incorrect. I think you confuse "proof" and "evidence"? I don't believe there is any PROOF for anything at all. Now, there IS very solid evidence against God. For one, he is as nonsensical as square circles. Do I need to explain why we have evidence against square circles? Later though you change it to "no proof." You confuse me.. please unconfuse yourself for me. :]

No, an explanation that circles are not squares is not needed or relevant. Explain to me the "evidence" against the existence of a being that created, and presides over our universe.

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, they do. Since you've failed to support that atheism is a faith, why don't you try starting a thread where you substantiate that god is possible.

I've actually explained very accurately as to why atheism is a faith. Your ignorant denial of it, and lack of evidence against any divinity won't accomplish much in the way of disproving that.

[Kamehameha34]

...

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood I propose that those who believe in gods have failed to present convincing evidence. I'm not obligated to believe in anything for which there is no evidence. I didn't say impossible. I did say gods are not necessary.

So you claim that the premise "Divinity exists" is unknown?

Are you an atheist in regards to fairies? There are many people who believe in their existence. I'm not one of them. In fact I regard the possibility and necessity of fairies on a par with that of gods. I also don't believe in the soul. There's no convenient term for people who don't accept the reality of fairies or souls. But there's no difference between my refusal to accept the concept of god and my refusal to accept the concept of fairies and souls. With no evidence to support any of those notions, what obligates me to believe?

1) I don't regard parallel universes as necessary, but that doesn't answer any questions regarding their possible existence. The necessity of a concept is quite irrelevant as per its validity.

2) Nothing obligates you to believe. If you believed, you'd be a theist.

I'll conceptualize the three stances:

There is a lead box that can't be opened.


Atheists claim that there is nothing in the box because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.

Theists claim that there is something in the box. Some theists say it is a muffin, some say it is an elephant. Disproving the possibility that there is an elephant inside the box does not disprove the possibility of something being in the box.

Agnostics claim that they don't know what's in the box.



Where do you fall?

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I've actually explained very accurately as to why atheism is a faith. Your ignorant denial of it, and lack of evidence against any divinity won't accomplish much in the way of disproving that.

I'll bite since so many people are caught up within their own imagination.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There are many who claim to be atheists because of a lack of proof for theism.

I agree. So when the first human ever came up with the notion of god, what would you say to them?

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Without proof for a complete lack of divine presence

why do I need to prove something that presently does not exist?


I can imagine and believe in the hocas pocas of god, but it stops there and only there. Why?

the concept of god is not even a theory or hypothesis! the concept of god can not even be tested, observed, or verified!

So as of now it stays at an imaginative concept, in which some like to hope for its existence. If you can get it through your skull, I as an atheist, do not hope that god does not exist, nor do I have hope that it does exist. Why exactly does there need to be 4 threads as to why you demand that I hope god does not exist?

If you have problems with the words I used such as:
hope
belief
observation
imagination
verification

then we need to start at square one.

[Fonceai]

You know I'm cool with you, but I read this and had to play Devil's Advocate just a bit.

Quote by: rez the concept of god is not even a theory or hypothesis! the concept of god can not even be tested, observed, or verified!

When you right "concept of god" are you also including the rejection of that concept?

If one defines "faith" as "belief without proof" then couldn't one suggest that there is as much proof against the concept of god as for the concept of god?

[rez]

Quote by: Fonceai You know I'm cool with you, but I read this and had to play Devil's Advocate just a bit. When you right "concept of god" are you also including the rejection of that concept? If one defines "faith" as "belief without proof" then couldn't one suggest that there is as much proof against the concept of god as for the concept of god?

haha I do not want to play because I do not define faith as belief without proof. I think belief reflects hope.

"without proof" and "hope" are two different things for me.

[Kamehameha34]

why do I need to prove something that presently does not exist?

That's where your argument falls apart. You have no proof of god's inexistence. Nor do I have prove of god's existence.

The claim is therefore unknown.