A few questions for fellow atheists

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The belief in something beyond the physical is held by 99% of the world's population.

1. You are saying that atheists consist of 1% of the world's population? Where did you get your figure from?

2. Not that long ago people believed that lightnings were caused by angry gods.

3. You are Appealing to the Masses.

[Urban Ranger]

obiwan18:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If the original text does not have any reference to this Lex Talionis, as demonstrated by various other translations, why would it be in the NIV?

There are two possibilities. All other editions are messed up, or the NIV is. Since it is a lot less likely for the former to occur, I conclude that the NIV is a messed up translation.

Since you have yet to answer me, I considered you have conceded the point. Feel free to state your reasons to the otherwise.

[Master Zen]

Actually agnostics and atheist conform the 5th largest world religion - or non-religion (IIRC almost 20% of the world's population) just BARELY losing 4th place to Hinduism.

What's even more surprising is that it is the FASTEST GROWING religion/non-religion in the world, again IIRC correctly it went from about 3% to 17% in the last 100 years. At that rate, you all can guess what's going to the big one in the year 2100

Kinda dissapointing for you believers that your grand-grand children will be on our side!

BTW: this data came from the Encyclopedia of World Religions or something like that, I read a summary of it's data about a year ago.

[Frogman]

So what's the split between agnostics and atheists? While the two are perhaps on the same side of the fence, I think many here agree that an atheist position is the fanatical extreme and that they hold an unwarrented degree of certainty. If an atheist admits there is a possibility God exists even though they believe he doesn't, are they still atheists?

Among agnostics, what is the level of doubt required to be considered agnostic? Many people claim faith to a religion, when truth be known there are plenty of doubts. I suppose you are what you profess to be.

[St Leo]

While the two are perhaps on the same side of the fence, I think many here agree that an atheist position is the fanatical extreme and that they hold an unwarrented degree of certainty.

I prefer to think of it as the literate extreme.

If an atheist admits there is a possibility God exists even though they believe he doesn't, are they still atheists?

I admit that it's possible that our universe exists in a larger universe and that there might be a creator god(s). However, the concepts of soul, afterlife, and various demigods such as Jesus are absurd and violate everything we know about the universe.

Of course, the whole universe inside bigger universe concept is silly because you either get universes all the way to infinity or there is an arbitrary number of finite universes that violates Occam's Razor due to lack of supporting evidence.

Ergo, there are no creators because there is no space for them to exist (there being nothing outside the universe) or time to decide (time not existing before the Big Bang) to create the universe.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frogman
So what's the split between agnostics and atheists? While the two are perhaps on the same side of the fence, I think many here agree that an atheist position is the fanatical extreme and that they hold an unwarrented degree of certainty. If an atheist admits there is a possibility God exists even though they believe he doesn't, are they still atheists?

An atheist is a person who is without an religious beliefs. Therefore, anybody who does not actively hold any form of religion is considered an athiest. Contrary to popular misbelief, an atheist does not have to actively deny the existence of god(s). In other words, atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


An atheist is a person who is without an religious beliefs. Therefore, anybody who does not actively hold any form of religion is considered an athiest. Contrary to popular misbelief, an atheist does not have to actively deny the existence of god(s). In other words, atheism is the absence of theistic beliefs.

The dictionary is pretty to the point on this one. Atheists do in fact deny the existance of God. They hold this belief quite firmly, and thus tend to show up on religious forums with great frequency.

A person with no religion is irreligious.

[Master Zen]

Yes, an atheist, as the name implies that there is no God, and accept it as a fact (a-theist, like a-sexual with no sex)

An agnostic person (like me) admits that there MIGHT, just MIGHT exist the possiblity of God (in my case like 0.0000000000000000000001%). Thus, an agnostic better fits the definition of "absence of theistic beliefs" because they choose not to follow any established relgion, not that they do not accept the existence of god.

I think true atheists are just the same as believers, you can't really confirm that god doesn't exist, just that most evidence points in the other direction.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Master Zen

An agnostic person (like me) admits that there MIGHT, just MIGHT exist the possiblity of God (in my case like 0.0000000000000000000001%). Thus, an agnostic better fits the definition of "absence of theistic beliefs" because they choose not to follow any established relgion, not that they do not accept the existence of god.

Hmm, the dictionary doesn't say that, it says that Agnostics believe that the reality of God is unknowable. I always thought it meant people who question the existance of God.

I teach adult Sunday School classes, I'm an Elder, and on the surface appear as Christian as anyone. But the fact is that even Christians don't know God. The Trinity is not a belief, but an admission that God is unknowable. So are Christians agnostic? I question the existance of God, am I agnostic even though I follow an established religion?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Frogman


The dictionary is pretty to the point on this one. Atheists do in fact deny the existance of God. They hold this belief quite firmly, and thus tend to show up on religious forums with great frequency.

A person with no religion is irreligious.

There are only 2 options: Theist and Atheist. Would you really consider an Agnostic a theist? No, of course not. So he is an Atheist.

There are soft and hard atheists. Agnostics fit in with the soft atheists ("I do not believe in God"). This is, contrary to popular misconception, what the vast majority of atheists believe.

Hard atheists are those who actively believe there is no God, and they are the rarer ones in the bunch.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


There are only 2 options: Theist and Atheist. Would you really consider an Agnostic a theist? No, of course not. So he is an Atheist.

There are soft and hard atheists. Agnostics fit in with the soft atheists ("I do not believe in God"). This is, contrary to popular misconception, what the vast majority of atheists believe.

Hard atheists are those who actively believe there is no God, and they are the rarer ones in the bunch.

I think you are making up your own definitions. Theists and Atheists are the two extremes. You can lean one side or the other, but you don't have to wear either label. Saying "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God".

What you're saying is that a bunch of people call themselves atheists when they are really agnostic or irreligious.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Frogman


I think you are making up your own definitions. Theists and Atheists are the two extremes. You can lean one side or the other, but you don't have to wear either label. Saying "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God".

What you're saying is that a bunch of people call themselves atheists when they are really agnostic or irreligious.

No, you're making up the definitions. What could possibly be between Theist and Atheist? It's an either/or proposition. One believes in God or one does not, it's simple as that. Traditional Agnosticism is NOT believing in God, ergo it is Atheism.

Considering I said many times before this, and in the very post you quoted, that there is a difference between "I do not believe in God" and "I believe there is no God," it's funny you'd lecture me on it!

But that doesn't change that atheists are not necessarily of the later stripe. That's just a societal presumption of what atheists believe. Most atheists are soft atheists, the "I do not believe in God" type.

[Master Zen]

I don't have a dictionary but IIRC an atheist is one who AFFIRMS and is convinced there is no god (just like a believer will affirm there is one)

An agnostic simply has the benefit of the doubt and chooses not to follow any established religion (but by default most agnostics will tend to believe that no god "probably" exists)

Frogman, I would categorize you as a Christian who questions. Since you actively follow the religion I guess that is the difference between you and an agnostic.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Kontiki:

I see your point. I'm not trying to discard these sections, but I am trying to redirect the debate to a more useful direction.

...

Therefore, I argue from the least position, that there was some kind of flood, at least a local flood, and that creation occured over an indeterminate period of time, whether 6 days or eons.

Neither detail is critical to accept the existence of God. What difference does it make if God creates the universe in 6 days or over the course of billions of years?

The same is for the flood. Did a flood occur wiping out a substantial portion of the world's population? Yes. If God brought the flood, what difference does it make if it only kills one portion for the existence of God?

That's why I'm trying to put the debate on the sections critical to the existence of God, rather than the side debates which can come later.

That clear, Kontiki?

Obiwan, I understand what you are saying, but it still makes no difference to my argument. I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this...

Obviously, there are far more sections in the Bible than those dealing with the creation and the flood, but let's stick to these for now since they two of the more significant and important acts of God. Now, you say it is irrelevant to the acceptance of God if the universe was created in 6 days or billions of years, or if the flood was global or local, but I already explained how this matters in my previous post.

If you accept current scientific theories (and you seem to do so), then the only part of the creation story that isn't almost totally disproven is that there was some spiritual act that started all of it. The time frame and the sequencing of events simply could not have occurred in the manner described in Genesis.

As for the flood, we have an even bigger problem here. First, you stated above that there was indeed a flood that wiped out a substantial portion of the world's population. The only evidence of this at all comes from the Bible. There may be (and indeed are) other historical references to catastrophic floods in localized areas, but there is no indication outside the Bible that anything approaching a significant proportion of humanity was affected. Second, you state that if God caused it, what difference would it make. Well, that's a rather enormous "if", since there is geological evidence of major seismic activity which ultimately led to, for example, the creation of the Black Sea. If you want to attribute it to the end of the last major ice age, then you have evidence of glacial melting and deposits. Either way, you're dealing with common occurences that no one today (well, maybe a few fringe people) would ever attribute to an act of God. Not to mention that the Bible does rather explicitly state that all of humanity, flora and fauna were wiped out, save for what was on the ark.

What this demonstrates is that creation, the flood and many other biblical events (some posted by others on this forum, others not) have been routinely proven to have not occurred as described in the Bible. What's left, then, is the possibility of a god which triggered creation or any other given event. However, with so much of the literal text of the Bible either shown to have been impossible or at least highly unlikely, it's an easy conclusion for me to draw that what may actually exist is nothing like what the Chistian manifestation of God is supposed to be, since the whole basis for that God is derived from the Bible.

One final way of putting it: Let's assume that some entity did create the universe in some manner, and/or that there is some measure of life beyond our earthly exitance. Give me one example, other than the Bible, that suggests that it has to be the Christian God instead of the multiple gods of Hinduism or some other entity yet completely unidentified and unexplained?

[Boris Godunov]

a·the·ist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That's American Heritage Dictionary. So anyone who does not believe in God is an atheist, as is anyone who believes there is no God.