Why athiests care about religion

[Danoz]

http://www.atheistnation.net/index.php?p=2

Interesting stuff...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

[askates]

yea it is, separation of church and state huh

[Professor]

Same reason the religious care about athiests, they want to influence their environment according to their beliefs.

[piratemonkey]

Same reason the religious care about athiests, they want to influence their environment according to their beliefs.


Athiest don't have beliefs.

That's why they are athiests.

Acceptance of objective reality does not require belief.

[BoogyMan]

Athiest don't have beliefs.

That's why they are athiests.

Acceptance of objective reality does not require belief.


Atheists absolutely DO have beliefs. They believe that there is no God and in the case of the new angry atheist espousing the beliefs of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, they believe that they are charged with ridiculing those of faith as a debate tactic.

Like it or not, atheists certainly do act on belief in their system of thought.

[piratemonkey]

System of thought /= belief.

Lack of belief /= belief.

Try again.

[Elrathin]

Like it or not, atheists certainly do act on belief in their system of thought.


No, they act on lack of evidence that there is a god, that is not belief.

Let's say that I have an invisible friend that only I can see and hear, but cannot prove it true to you as fact.

Would the fact you think I don't have an invisible friend be a belief that you are acting on? Or would you think that it isn't real simply because of the lack of evidence I provided?

[piratemonkey]

Exactly, Elrathin.

I'll admit all day long there MAY be a god, or gods or invisible friend.

It's just very, very unlikely.

That's an objective judgment about probabilities.

Not belief.

[Alonzo]

If you have absolutely no belief then you better fit the description of an agnostic. An atheist makes a statement that god does not exist, though the strength of that statement can vary significant from "I don't think god exists, but I have no real way of knowing" to "God definately does not exist".

Atheism requires belief since you are accepting a principle that cannot be demonstrated or supported, agnosticism is lack of belief.

[Elrathin]

Atheism requires belief since you are accepting a principle that cannot be demonstrated or supported


Sure it can be demonstrated. Do you know of any gods that have come down of late and proven themselves to be true in front of millions of millions of people? No, then it is the lack of evidence, not belief, that many people are atheists.

To me the agnostic, such as myself, is going off of the belief that there is no god(s) that mankind has been able to describe but I cannot prove it right or wrong. Agnostics actually are the ones that follow along the belief system, where an atheist acts on lack of evidence that has been provided not belief.

That is the way I see it at least.

[piratemonkey]

Zo, I make a distinction between the practical and theoretical.

If I admit there's a 1 in 500 trillion chance that an invisible friend exists, does that make me an athiest or an agnostic?

No rationalist will say there definitively is no god, or invisible friends.Â*Â*That's as irrational as saying there definitively is a god.

So, theoretically a god could exist.

Practically, using Occam's Razor, absent any evidence at all, there is no god.Â*Â*I'm a theoretical agnostic, but that's kind of a silly concept because a good rationalist would say that anything is possible, absent any evidence at all.

[BoogyMan]

System of thought /= belief.

Lack of belief /= belief.

Try again.


There is nothing to try again pirate. You are completely in error on this point. You believe that there is no God and act according to your belief.

Those with faith believe in God and act according to that belief.

[piratemonkey]

I love it.

Keep posting your above statements.

You are the only person posting on this thread that doesn't understand that you are wrong.

[Alonzo]

Sure it can be demonstrated.Â*Â*Do you know of any gods that have come down of late and proven themselves to be true in front of millions of millions of people?Â*Â*No, then it is the lack of evidence, not belief, that many people are atheists.


I'm not aware of the last time I've come across or seen dark matter either.

But that does nothing to demonstrate evidence against god. All that does is argue that evidence for god is lacking, but so is evidence against.

But if someone just says "there's no evidence for or against, so I can't reach a conclusion" that's agnosticism. If somebody reaches a conclusion, and says they don't believe in a god (even if it's a weak belief) then that's more in line with atheism. Though the line between weak atheism and agnosticism can sometimes get blurry, depending on who's defining it.

Zo, I make a distinction between the practical and theoretical.

If I admit there's a 1 in 500 trillion chance that an invisible friend exists, does that make me an athiest or an agnostic?

No rationalist will say there definitively is no god, or invisible friends.Â*Â*That's as irrational as saying there definitively is a god.

So, theoretically a god could exist.

Practically, using Occam's Razor, absent any evidence at all, there is no god.Â*Â*I'm a theoretical agnostic, but that's kind of a silly concept because a good rationalist would say that anything is possible, absent any evidence at all.


As far as I know you believe a god does not exist. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the existence of single or multiple gods. It's not science to say god does not exist, it is belief. If you said that you lacked the evidence to say whether god exists or not then that is a statement based on evidence.

Now arguing against a particular god often does have evidence, but not against the concept itself.

[BoogyMan]

I love it.

Keep posting your above statements.

You are the only person posting on this thread that doesn't understand that you are wrong.


I intend to. Groupthink does little to further your line of silly argumentation.

[Professor]

System of thought /= belief.

Lack of belief /= belief.

Try again.


Exactly why athiests have believes. Their believe is a system of thought that there is no higher power.

[underdawg]

I think the point of the film was that when you mix religion with govenment policy, you interfere with the rights of citizens who believe differently from the particular religion that is mixed up with government, whether they be atheists, agnostics, or any other people with religious beliefs different that the one merging with the government.

The debate about whether an atheism is a belief or not is off the topic.

[BoogyMan]

The debate about whether an atheism is a belief or not is off the topic.

Actually it is a part of the discussion created by piratemonkey that must be proven for his assertion to stand. It fell hard.

[Labrocca]

Nice video. Most that stuff I knew but some I didn't...like laws in states that say you can't testify unless you believe in God.[hr]Agnostics believe in a higher being or some sort of God. Agnostics read fiction and believe in it.

Atheists do not believe in any fictional higher being that hasn't been scientifically been proven. Atheists read fiction and don't believe in it.

[piratemonkey]

Someone answer this question.


If I admit there's a 1 in 500 trillion chance that an invisible friend exists, does that make me an athiest or an agnostic?


This viewpoint reflects a rational view of reality.

Whether you call it atheistic or agnostic doesn't matter. It is reality.

And acknowledging reality doesn't require belief. If that concept isn't correct, someone please explain why.

[Labrocca]

Agnostics don't question IF there is a higher being...they acknowledge that one does exist. An atheist doesn't believe it exists belief isn't the same as fact. No one can factually say if there is a God and that's the problem.

[Buck Laser]

Agnostics don't question IF there is a higher being...they acknowledge that one does exist. An atheist doesn't believe it exists belief isn't the same as fact. No one can factually say if there is a God and that's the problem.


Huh? You mean you don't know about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac, who laid awake all night wondering if there was a dog?:P

Seriously, did you mean to say what you actually said? I am a Christian and an agnostic. I wonder all the time if there is a God. As long as I have been self-aware, I've wondered about that. And it's not just whether God is remote or immanent: it's whether God even is. I'd be totally surprised if I'm alone in this bewilderment.

[Alonzo]

He's not entirely wrong. Agnostics tend to either not know if a god exists, and don't feel they can really take a position, or believe in a god or god like entity, but have absolutely no idea what it would be.

[Danoz]

I love it.

Keep posting your above statements.

You are the only person posting on this thread that doesn't understand that you are wrong.


I intend to.Â*Â*Groupthink does little to further your line of silly argumentation.


I completely agree with you here.. and I'm in the other camp. Immature and arrogant comments like BoogyMan's do little to aid the agnostic/ athiest argument and only adds to the general consensus that we all just have an axe to grind.Â*Â*It's unfortunate that people on either side get so flaired up and angry over defending thier beliefs (for lack of a better word), and it really just points to intellectual insecurity.

[Elrathin]

Agnostics don't question IF there is a higher being...they acknowledge that one does exist.


WRONG, they acknowledge SOMETHING(S) existed to create creation. They don't acknowledge that that SOMETHING(S) exist anymore.

An agnostic believes that SOMETHING(S) created the universe and that is about as far as it goes. They could still exist or they may not exist anymore.

That is an agnostics life.

[Danoz]

Someone answer this question.


If I admit there's a 1 in 500 trillion chance that an invisible friend exists, does that make me an athiest or an agnostic?


This viewpoint reflects a rational view of reality.

Whether you call it atheistic or agnostic doesn't matter. It is reality.

And acknowledging reality doesn't require belief. If that concept isn't correct, someone please explain why.


Hang on, that's only saying that you know beyond a shadow of doubt that you have doubt (as marginal as it may be). That's not reallly saying anything. If you want to get technical, our perception of reality may not be accurate or complete anyway. There may be some force out there that is sub conciously corrupting our thinking patterns in order to prevent us from uncovering the truth, we have no way of knowing. In fact the bible says as much:

Here the devil does it:
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
2 Corinthians 4:4

Here god does it:
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn and I would heal them."
John 12:40

and again:
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
II Thessalonians 2:11

Screwed up hey! Well that's the bible for you.

Maybe I should clarify my position: I see no plausible case for the existance of god, and therefor I live my life as if there is no god. In that sence I am athiestic. As Richard Dawkins puts it: "Am only agnostic in the sence that I am agnostic to the fairys at the bottom of my garden"

I do not rule out the possibilty of its (and don't you think it's about time we started to use the neutral gender for a theoretical being) existance because I cannot prove that fact, and the logical "proofs" are sketchy at best.

I also see this whole debate between athiests and agnostics on wether or not god can exist to be futile. What difference can it make? Why don't we get up in arms about proving/ disproving other theoretical beings? I don't understand.

[Danoz]

Agnostics don't question IF there is a higher being...they acknowledge that one does exist.Â*Â*


WRONG, they acknowledge SOMETHING(S) existed to create creation. They don't acknowledge that that SOMETHING(S) exist anymore.

An agnostic believes that SOMETHING(S) created the universe and that is about as far as it goes.Â*Â*They could still exist or they may not exist anymore.

That is an agnostics life.


You're both wrong actually. The definition given by Labrocca is that of a theist, the one given by Elrathin is a deist.

Here are a few definitions for you to set things right.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=agnostic&gwp=13

Agnostic from the latin root means not-knowing, and can be applied to many things other than god. For instance, I am agnostic on string theory. I don't know, but I have an incling that it may be true.

Further catogorized, hard agnostics believe that god cannot be known to exist or not exist, and soft agnostics (like myself) believe that god can be proven or disproven, only we have insufficient proof to show either case is factual.

Frankly the thiests have things easy. It is really easy to prove the existance of something because all you need to do is show one example of its existance. The opposite in impossibly difficult because you have to rule out every single possible occurance. Still, at best theists and those coming from Abrahamic beliefs (i.e. Christianity, Islam and Judaism) in particular can do is to critisize evolution and therefor state that because of the naively percieved "irreducable complexity" that god must have created the universe. For this reason I find the dogmatism of these people very hard to stomach.

[underdawg]

As an agnostic, I am one who refuses to take a leap of faith. Whether it is to believe in a God or to believe there is no god as an atheist would be. In order to believe anything I need to have some sort of evidence to convince me.

[Danoz]

As an agnostic, I am one who refuses to take a leap of faith. Whether it is to believe in a God or to believe there is no god as an atheist would be. In order to believe anything I need to have some sort of evidence to convince me.


EXACTLY!!! This is the reason why I am one too. It's not because god has been disproved or anything, it's because god has not been proved to me.

The onus is on christians to prove that god exists with high quality quantifyable evidence, not on skeptics to disprove it - which incedently is allot harder. Then and only then will I believe.

Are any christians going to respond to my previous post by the way?