Yanks better convert to Islam, or bad things will happen (AlQaeda)

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Elok


Yes, but I'm pretty sure that, for the purposes of this thread, we're all using the "strong atheism" definition, i.e. that there is no God, period.


You're conflating atheism and agnosticism. "Nonbelief in the existence of X" does NOT equal "belief in the nonexistence of X," despite the similarity in phrasing. There is a difference between having no opinion and having a negative opinion.

I'm not conflating them nor do I say both of those statements above are the same. I just don't agree with limiting atheism to strong atheism, even if it's only for this thread. I think that was exactly the problem in Winston's post that atheism is - and he seemed to speak in general - as faith based as religion.

[ajbera]

The reason why agnosticism is separate from atheism is that atheism is a belief, a commitment to a particular decision, whereas agnosticism is a refusal to commit. Atheism is belief in an absence, but a belief nevertheless; agnostics don't believe either way.

[Whoha]

you agnostics are just believing in not believing

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Atheism is religion as well btw. It has it's own rules (Live to the max, do you what yourself think is the best) and prophets (Darwin, Nietzsche)

False.

Atheism is the absence of belief in God, and that's it. That's the only thing all atheists share.

[Heresson]

Faith is the presence of belief in God, and that's it. That's the only thing all (abrahamic religion) believers share.

[ajbera]

You can believe in an afterlife without believing in a deity, yet it is non-provable. Is this not a type of faith?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by ajbera
The reason why agnosticism is separate from atheism is that atheism is a belief, a commitment to a particular decision, whereas agnosticism is a refusal to commit. Atheism is belief in an absence, but a belief nevertheless; agnostics don't believe either way.

As said, some see agnosticism as a form of weak atheism. But even if you argue it's separate, there are other forms which don't make the particular decision that there is no God, it's rather about the absence of belief, not belief in an absence then

[ajbera]

I know. I'm putting the emphasis on man and his belief (one way or another) or lack of belief, rather than empahasize God and belief or lack of same in Him/Her/It/Them.

I think I do this because you can replace God with life after death, or the perfectability of man, or any number of things in which people have faith but no proof, and the basic distinctions (belief in x, belief in not x, no belief in x or not x) remain the same. Man and his belief or lack of it are the important things, not the particular thing in which he believes (or doesn't).

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Atheism is religion as well btw.

I hold you entirely to blame for turning this thread into a "is atheism a religion" wank-fest. Though I must say that was a remarkably successful troll.

I am also amused by the 'btw' appendage. Because there's a huge gulf between an inflammatory/inaccurate statement like "guns save lives" and a friendly reminder of a commonly accepted fact like "guns save lives btw."

Originally posted by ajbera
The reason why agnosticism is separate from atheism is that atheism is a belief, a commitment to a particular decision, whereas agnosticism is a refusal to commit.

Considering that most religions punish the fence-sitters just as harshly as the heretics, I'd say that it's silly to argue that there's a difference between 'agnostics' and 'atheists' considering that they're burning at the same stake or burning in the same hell.

In other words, the 'agnostic' who isn't covering his bases by praying to every god is really no different than the 'atheist' (using your definitions of the terms, which differ from my own).

[Barnabas]

I dont like how my thread has been threadjacked.

[Spiffor]

You must admit the threadjack was brilliant.

[ajbera]

The only thing I've been trying to say is that atheists have more in common with theists, simply by having a set belief in the absence of proof, than they do with agnostics who simply shrug and say "I don't know so I'm withholding judgment."

You can have proof of x
or you can have proof of not x
or you can have no proof.

If no proof, then turn to belief/faith.

You can have belief in x despite lack of proof (theists)
or you can have belief in not x (atheists)
or you you can have no belief (agnostics)

I think there's probably no deity, but I also recognize I have precious little information on which to make a decision, so any decision could well be incorrect. I have no innate faith that suggests to me there's a deity, or enough faith in my doubts that I can commit myself to say there's absolutely no deity. I doubt it, but I honestly just don't know.

There are those who would say the smart thing to do is believe in a God; if I'm wrong I'll just blink out when I die without reward or punishment like I would anyway, and if I'm right I'll be rewarded for believing and being a good theist (assuming my earthly conduct was worthy of reward.) But, I don't have faith, and I don't think it's something you can just turn on or off. I could pay sufficient lip service to the notion of God to fool human theists, so I can avoid getting burned at the stake, but when the time comes to meet my Maker, It'll know I didn't really believe and will be dealt with accordingly.

I just don't have faith, and in the absence of moment of revelation or whatever, I probably never will. I just have to hope that if there is a deity or deities, It or They will be willing to forgive my lack of faith. There's nothing I can do about it, so it doesn't worry me; it's just a logical and philosophical exercise. And, by my terms, different from atheism.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
I dont like how my thread has been threadjacked.

It's been converted.

[Elok]

Time to re-threadjack, maybe. Into something less relevant and far less controversial? I just discovered this site:

https://www.godhatesfurries.com

Discuss.

[Barnabas]

As a conservative catholic, I would rather have a homosexual son than a furry son, at least the homosexual son would feel attracted to other humans, and not to anthropomorphic hairy creatures.