Atheist/Agnostic discussion from "why am I pissed?" thread

[weltschmerz]

Dec 18, 2016 13:05:09 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Dec 18, 2016 12:58:38 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

I consider myself an agnostic.  I think there are a lot of things we, as humans, do not understand.  It is human nature to create explanations for those things.  As science progresses, the need for created explanations lessens.  Perhaps that is why many religious folks fear science.  I don't know.

Baloney. Let's start the insults.

What insults? You DO reject science.
Tell the class your theories about evolution again....that it's bullshit, because no matter how long you stare at a kitchen chair, it won't turn into a giraffe, or some such nonsense.
It that isn't a rejection of science, I don't know what is.
Not an insult if it's factual.

[weltschmerz]

"Reason is a whore; the greatest enemy that faith has."

-Martin Luther


Truer words were never spoken.

[weltschmerz]

Dec 18, 2016 16:58:20 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Dec 18, 2016 13:53:17 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

It's kind of like me accepting that walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror results in bad luck.
No proof of that whatsoever, so I don't believe it.
I guess it's arrogance on my part.

weltschmerz,
I apologize.  

Apology accepted. Thank you.
We're good.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2016 10:43:34 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Dec 18, 2016 7:24:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Maybe take this to the religious thread? What started out as a vent has turned into bashing of anyone who holds religious beliefs.

I was bashing agnostics, they do not have religious beliefs, in my opinion agnostics are worse than theists.

You know you are a theist, right? 

Of course you continue to intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent. 

Your particular brand of atheist is to me no different than a proselytizing evangelical zealot (not that all evangelicals are, just that type of). You have no desire to listen or learn or attempt to see things from another point of view. You just want to convert others to what you are sure must be THE right answer. 

So from now on I'll treat your posts for what they are... 

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2016 6:52:25 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Dec 18, 2016 6:37:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

As an Agnostic myself, I'd have to say you're quite wrong on that assumption.

Every Agnostic I personally know is willing to believe in any God or Gods that have actual proof of their existence... yes, even including Zeus, Odin, Ra, you name 'em.

Proof first. Belief second.

I am an atheist and i am willing to believe in any god if there is proof, you are missing my point,agnosticism is about withholding belief and DISBELIEF until there is proof either way, all the agnostics i know do not BELIEVE Zeus exists but withhold their disbelief when it comes to God.

That says you are an Agnostic. An Atheist would not believe, even in the face of proof.

[weltschmerz]

Dec 18, 2016 20:58:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 18, 2016 6:52:25 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

I am an atheist and i am willing to believe in any god if there is proof, you are missing my point,agnosticism is about withholding belief and DISBELIEF until there is proof either way, all the agnostics i know do not BELIEVE Zeus exists but withhold their disbelief when it comes to God.

That says you are an Agnostic. An Atheist would not believe, even in the face of proof.

I disagree, but it would have to be real proof, not stuff like "A baby's smile" or "Rainbows, or "Answered Prayers."

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2016 23:15:59 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Dec 18, 2016 20:58:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That says you are an Agnostic. An Atheist would not believe, even in the face of proof.

I disagree, but it would have to be real proof, not stuff like "A baby's smile" or "Rainbows, or "Answered Prayers."

That's what an Agnostic requires... real proof.

[Deleted]

Dec 18, 2016 23:36:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 18, 2016 23:15:59 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I disagree, but it would have to be real proof, not stuff like "A baby's smile" or "Rainbows, or "Answered Prayers."

That's what an Agnostic requires... real proof.

There has been a lot of debate on Agnostic/Atheist and their meanings but I consider myself both. The Atheist part is I don't believe in any gods and the Agnostic part is I don't know for sure. If I were a "gnostic" Atheist then I would claim to know for sure. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "to know".

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5 @aj said:

Dec 18, 2016 23:36:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That's what an Agnostic requires... real proof.

There has been a lot of debate on Agnostic/Atheist and their meanings but I consider myself both. The Atheist part is I don't believe in any gods and the Agnostic part is I don't know for sure. If I were a "gnostic" Atheist then I would claim to know for sure. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "to know".

I was similarly taught that an atheist is an a-theist, an anti-theist, if you will. From the Greek "a" (without) + the Greek "theos" (God). Not questioning God, but knowing that there is none.

[Deleted]

Dec 19, 2016 6:54:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 19, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5 @aj said:

There has been a lot of debate on Agnostic/Atheist and their meanings but I consider myself both. The Atheist part is I don't believe in any gods and the Agnostic part is I don't know for sure. If I were a "gnostic" Atheist then I would claim to know for sure. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "to know".

I was similarly taught that an atheist is an a-theist, an anti-theist, if you will. From the Greek "a" (without) + the Greek "theos" (God). Not questioning God, but knowing that there is none.

I think the haziness of definitions contributes to the confusion when us "nones" are polled. Regardless of definitions there are really two yes/no questions, do you believe in any gods and are you sure?

[Deleted]

Yes to me agnostic has always been a view of god being unknowable, we can't know for certain that a god exists or does not. I consider myself agnostic leaning towards deist. Meaning I don't know that there is a god, but if there is one, I don't think any of the stories captured to date are a literal rendition of what that God might be. 

That is not to say I am not a strong believer in the teachings of Jesus. Although I am not a believer of his divinity. I tend towards Jefferson there. And wish more who chose to act in his name actually read what he did and said. 

But doctrine of religion and existance of a god are very different things, and the falability of one does not disprove the other. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Dec 19, 2016 6:54:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 19, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5 @aj said:

There has been a lot of debate on Agnostic/Atheist and their meanings but I consider myself both. The Atheist part is I don't believe in any gods and the Agnostic part is I don't know for sure. If I were a "gnostic" Atheist then I would claim to know for sure. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "to know".

I was similarly taught that an atheist is an a-theist, an anti-theist, if you will. From the Greek "a" (without) + the Greek "theos" (God). Not questioning God, but knowing that there is none.

Atheism is affirmed skepticism. Nearly every atheist I know accepts that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God, but they reject His existence due to the absence of evidence they find compelling. They consider Him an unsupported hypothesis and generally resent--or are least frustrated by--belief in His existence.

ETA: By contrast, an agnostic is neither an affirmed skeptic nor an affirmed believer. They neither firmly believe nor firmly doubt. They waver on the issue of whether the atheistic standard of proof is reasonable.

But let's define it using criteria germane to the OP:

If a relative sending you "The Case for Christ" in an attempt to influence your thinking offends you, you're an atheist.

[copperboxes]

Dec 19, 2016 9:37:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 19, 2016 6:54:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I was similarly taught that an atheist is an a-theist, an anti-theist, if you will. From the Greek "a" (without) + the Greek "theos" (God). Not questioning God, but knowing that there is none.

Atheism is affirmed skepticism. Nearly every atheist I know accepts that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God, but they reject His existence due to the absence of evidence they find compelling. They consider Him an unsupported hypothesis and generally resent--or are least frustrated by--belief in His existence.

But let's define it using criteria germane to the OP:

If a relative sending you "The Case for Christ" in an attempt to influence your thinking offends you, you're an atheist.

I think there's levels there.  

Like I've mentioned, I get the sense that the wording in the note probably set the tone badly for almost book, even a cookbook.  The challenge might hook someone, but I think it has far higher odds of just annoying someone regardless of what it came with.

I wasn't raised with religion.  Not against, just without.  I'll read most anything if it's kindly and no pressure recommended.  I'll seek things myself if someone says it was influential to them. 

I will get annoyed if I'm heavily pressured/dared into reading anything with the implication that I'm wrong/closed minded though.  I think that's pretty normal?

For someone who has far deeper feelings on specific topics, like my mom who left the Catholic church during a very hard time in her life, things are different.  She has said twice that she is certain she is going to hell for her choices, but had to do so.  The depth of pain and sadness and defiance on her face, the two times she has said that... it's a rough mix, not to be touched lightly, is all I can say.  It startled me the first time, because she is so absolutely silent on the topic of religion normally.  She shows anger if she feels it, but she hides pain.  

She does get some cards from her devout in-laws that are... extremely counterproductive in wording, given the aunts' desires.  Based on those, I gather the book in question itself would be counterproductive in all ways to give her.  The note on top would be bad, real bad.  She still believes.  She just doesn't talk about religion except very rarely.  She's a complex and intense person, which I think makes sense given what I know of her experiences.

So I get the sense that the definition above doesn't hold in all cases, based on observations anyway.

[toshmanta]

Dec 18, 2016 20:58:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 18, 2016 6:52:25 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

I am an atheist and i am willing to believe in any god if there is proof, you are missing my point,agnosticism is about withholding belief and DISBELIEF until there is proof either way, all the agnostics i know do not BELIEVE Zeus exists but withhold their disbelief when it comes to God.

That says you are an Agnostic. An Atheist would not believe, even in the face of proof.

Richard if i do not believe in the existence of gods i am an atheist, if the reasons for not believing change then i would become a theist, this does not make me an agnostic just not dogmatic, a rational mind is willing to change if the evidence supports change.

[toshmanta]

Dec 19, 2016 8:37:28 GMT -5 oped said:

Yes to me agnostic has always been a view of god being unknowable, we can't know for certain that a god exists or does not. I consider myself agnostic leaning towards deist. Meaning I don't know that there is a god, but if there is one, I don't think any of the stories captured to date are a literal rendition of what that God might be. 

That is not to say I am not a strong believer in the teachings of Jesus. Although I am not a believer of his divinity. I tend towards Jefferson there. And wish more who chose to act in his name actually read what he did and said. 

But doctrine of religion and existance of a god are very different things, and the falability of one does not disprove the other. 

An agnostic believes the existence or non-existence of god cannot be known, we agree on this point, however this term may also be applied to a theist or an atheist, because no one knows.Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it is a belief and it is not certain and may be subject to change, just like a theist can become an atheist.



This kind of empirical epistemology is ignored for most of our everyday beliefs,  we do not have to KNOW fairies do not exist to believe they do not exist,and yet there is no more evidence for god than fairies, nobody of sound mind is agnostic about the existence of fairies based on an empirical insistence on proving a negative.

My problem with deism is god is undefined, without any definition i am not sure what you are supposed to believe exists, if god is just the Laws of Physics then i am a deist, it is religion that provides the definitions and it is these definitions that are tested, if god is undefined then there is nothing to test and the hypothesis is empty of content, it is a meaningless belief.

So as much as you do not want to conflate god with the religious definitions of god, you must or i haven't a clue what you actually believe exists.

Simple test. Deism:belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.


Did this creator intentionally create us for a reason, or are we just the product of random cause and effect?

If it is the former then that is religious, if it is the latter then who cares if a supreme being exists, might as well worship the Laws of Physics.

If a supreme being has no intentions and does not intervene, what exactly are the reasons for believing it exists?

[toshmanta]

Dec 19, 2016 9:37:09 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Dec 19, 2016 6:54:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I was similarly taught that an atheist is an a-theist, an anti-theist, if you will. From the Greek "a" (without) + the Greek "theos" (God). Not questioning God, but knowing that there is none.

Atheism is affirmed skepticism. Nearly every atheist I know accepts that it's impossible to disprove the existence of God, but they reject His existence due to the absence of evidence they find compelling. They consider Him an unsupported hypothesis and generally resent--or are least frustrated by--belief in His existence.

ETA: By contrast, an agnostic is neither an affirmed skeptic nor an affirmed believer. They neither firmly believe nor firmly doubt. They waver on the issue of whether the atheistic standard of proof is reasonable.

But let's define it using criteria germane to the OP:

If a relative sending you "The Case for Christ" in an attempt to influence your thinking offends you, you're an atheist.

I more or less agree with everything here, belief is not knowledge, and agnostics insist on an irrational level of proof, this conceals a closet theist who does not want to live a finite existence, it is an understandable cognitive bias.

An ante-theist is someone who opposes religious or theistic belief, i am an atheist and an ante-theist.

[toshmanta]

Dec 19, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5 @aj said:

Dec 18, 2016 23:36:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

That's what an Agnostic requires... real proof.

There has been a lot of debate on Agnostic/Atheist and their meanings but I consider myself both. The Atheist part is I don't believe in any gods and the Agnostic part is I don't know for sure. If I were a "gnostic" Atheist then I would claim to know for sure. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "to know".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[toshmanta]

Dec 18, 2016 18:43:23 GMT -5 oped said:

Dec 18, 2016 10:43:34 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

I was bashing agnostics, they do not have religious beliefs, in my opinion agnostics are worse than theists.

You know you are a theist, right? 

Of course you continue to intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent. 

Your particular brand of atheist is to me no different than a proselytizing evangelical zealot (not that all evangelicals are, just that type of). You have no desire to listen or learn or attempt to see things from another point of view. You just want to convert others to what you are sure must be THE right answer. 

So from now on I'll treat your posts for what they are... 

Of course, you do realise you continually make unsupported claims, none of your posts contain substance, so until you join me on the dance floor i will leave you to your peanut throwing from the safety of the stands.

[Deleted]

Interesting, but really the thing about any religion or non religion is I DON'T need to know.

Can people not just live their lives without sharing these beliefs on the daily?


Signed,

dontgiveawhoot

[toshmanta]

Dec 19, 2016 18:21:50 GMT -5 @joey said:

Interesting, but really the thing about any religion or non religion is I DON'T need to know.

Can people not just live their lives without sharing these beliefs on the daily?


Signed,

dontgiveawhoot

I am trying to redress the imbalance, atheism is on the rise and soon the age of Eugenics will be at hand, certainly within a generation.

[Spellbound454]

An agnostic believes the existence or non-existence of god cannot be known, we agree on this point, however this term may also be applied to a theist or an atheist, because no one knows.Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it is a belief and it is not certain and may be subject to change, just like a theist can become an atheist.

Generally a null hypothesis is believed (God exits).... until it can be rejected with a degree of certainty 90 -95%
Technically If there is any uncertainty it cannot be rejected ....so its a pure atheist stance which is not possible.
We are either believers or agnostics....Yay, I'm such a smart arse

Did this creator intentionally create us for a reason, or are we just the product of random cause and effect?

We definitely aren't random......all of the universe has pattern and logic.

age of Eugenics

What? Theresa is going to create a breeding program?

We are innately superstitious.....always have been and always will be.
We need God more than he needs us ...and in Civilisations where the state has discouraged religion....... it has gone underground.

Now where are these snowflakes I'm getting obsessed

[toshmanta]

Dec 20, 2016 16:53:28 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

An agnostic believes the existence or non-existence of god cannot be known, we agree on this point, however this term may also be applied to a theist or an atheist, because no one knows.Atheism is not a knowledge claim, it is a belief and it is not certain and may be subject to change, just like a theist can become an atheist.

Generally a null hypothesis is believed (God exits).... until it can be rejected with a degree of certainty 90 -95%
Technically If there is any uncertainty it cannot be rejected ....so its a pure atheist stance which is not possible.
We are either believers or agnostics....Yay, I'm such a smart arse

Did this creator intentionally create us for a reason, or are we just the product of random cause and effect?

We definitely aren't random......all of the universe has pattern and logic.

age of Eugenics

What? Theresa is going to create a breeding program?

We are innately superstitious.....always have been and always will be.
We need God more than he needs us ...and in Civilisations where the state has discouraged religion....... it has gone underground.

Now where are these snowflakes I'm getting obsessed

Technically the null hypothesis is God does not exist, but even if you were right then we must all believe in fairies or be agnostic about the existence of fairies or flying spaghetti monsters etc etc  mmmm sounds like gobbledegook to me.

We definitely are random and there is no pattern (the Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics), as Stephen Hawking said " God does indeed play dice ".

Nobody is smarter than me Spell, you should know this, since knowledge is not certain there is no reason to create a standard of certainty for beliefs.

[uncle23]

... 

in m opinion, Spell is smarter than Tosh ...
but of course Tosh would say my opinion does not count because compared to his intellect i have the intellect of an ant...

i'd like to improve the human race by propagating the genes of other than arrogant genes

[toshmanta]

Dec 20, 2016 22:14:50 GMT -5 uncle23 said:

... 

in m opinion, Spell is smarter than Tosh ...
but of course Tosh would say my opinion does not count because compared to his intellect i have the intellect of an ant...

i'd like to improve the human race by propagating the genes of other than arrogant genes

You may be suffering from cognitive bias but I forgive you.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Dec 18, 2016 10:43:34 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Dec 18, 2016 7:24:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Maybe take this to the religious thread? What started out as a vent has turned into bashing of anyone who holds religious beliefs.

I was bashing agnostics, they do not have religious beliefs, in my opinion agnostics are worse than theists.

You seem to think agnostics and atheists are two distinct groups of people; they aren't.  They are largely the same group of people.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Dec 18, 2016 13:47:54 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Dec 18, 2016 13:44:52 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Arrogance? How so?

I think that (IMO.....GG may feel differently) that atheists are as sure they are correct as religious people, while agnostics are willing to consider ALL possibilities.  

Atheist means not having belief that a god exists.  Maybe God, maybe Allah, maybe Zeus, any deity you choose.

It doesn't mean you believe your beliefs about a deity are correct; it means you don't have any beliefs about a deity.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Dec 18, 2016 20:58:20 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 18, 2016 6:52:25 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

I am an atheist and i am willing to believe in any god if there is proof, you are missing my point,agnosticism is about withholding belief and DISBELIEF until there is proof either way, all the agnostics i know do not BELIEVE Zeus exists but withhold their disbelief when it comes to God.

That says you are an Agnostic. An Atheist would not believe, even in the face of proof.

No, that is incorrect.  But if you believe the proof, then you are by definition no longer an atheist.  

[Plain Old Petunia]

Dec 19, 2016 6:54:17 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Dec 19, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5 @aj said:

There has been a lot of debate on Agnostic/Atheist and their meanings but I consider myself both. The Atheist part is I don't believe in any gods and the Agnostic part is I don't know for sure. If I were a "gnostic" Atheist then I would claim to know for sure. Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis which means "to know".

I was similarly taught that an atheist is an a-theist, an anti-theist, if you will. From the Greek "a" (without) + the Greek "theos" (God). Not questioning God, but knowing that there is none.

Well, you were taught wrong.  As you say, "a" means "without"; it does not mean "against".

[uncle23]

Dec 21, 2016 16:19:20 GMT -5 toshmanta said:

Dec 20, 2016 22:14:50 GMT -5 uncle23 said:

... 

in m opinion, Spell is smarter than Tosh ...
but of course Tosh would say my opinion does not count because compared to his intellect i have the intellect of an ant...

i'd like to improve the human race by propagating the genes of other than arrogant genes

You may be suffering from cognitive bias but I forgive you.

I forgive you too ....😇

[Ryan]

You guys should move on with your lives.