____ Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 PS. whats the difference between Agnostic and Atheist? Theists (those who believe) Agnostic (those who aren't sure - fence sitters) Atheist (those who don't believe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 PS. whats the difference between Agnostic and Atheist? Theists (those who believe) Agnostic (those who aren't sure - fence sitters) Atheist (those who don't believe) Agnostics aren't fence sitters. Agnosticism deals with the epistemological aspect of the existance of god - the ability to know or not. Being agnostic is just a realisation of what is true; we can't know for sure. Even if they don't think so, many agnostics are likely atheists too. Atheists encompass those who are not theistic or lack belief in a god or gods. You can get agnostic theists, though. The point being those three groups you presented aren't mutually exclusive. The only two you can not be at the same time is a theist and an atheist. The only direct contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Theists (those who believe) Agnostic (those who aren't sure - fence sitters) Atheist (those who don't believe) You say that like we're supposed to pick one or the other :-s . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 PS. whats the difference between Agnostic and Atheist? Theists (those who believe) Agnostic (those who aren't sure - fence sitters) Atheist (those who don't believe) This is a better definition of agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zonorhc Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 The Norse gods get bonus points for being manlier than everyone else. Varrock Library: Shattered Sky | Silent Thunder | The Emperor's FinestAstri @ MythWeavers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Theists are usually those who believe in a God, but are not sure of which God or do not think we can know what God exists. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Of course. As an atheist I don't suggest that. I lack belief because of the lack of evidence. I don't lack belief because I believe the absence of evidence implies evidence of absence. It's the same for any supernatural idea; Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc. They all lack evidence and I'm equally as lacking in my belief of them, just as much as the Christian god. Is the number of believers of an idea completely insignificant? Like if I'm saying that I, as the only person on earth, believe in a big almighty blob. Would that be as improbable as the christian God since you would claim that they both lack evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragen Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I consider myself to be an Atheist now. Never in my life have I had anything close to a religious experience and the way Christianity (the religion of my parents) is so based in faith drove me away. I called myself an agnostic for a bit but I just don't feel religious at all. Thanks Venomai for this super sig and Kwimbob for the awesome avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilperson Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Nostra Aetate :| ... Right. If they think they increased tolerance or togetherness, i haven't noticed it. Heh, you live in the South :P ? Heh, no i live in Michigan. Can't get much more north than that. Norse gods ARE manly. . . Everybody lovin' it, but ain't no body touchin' it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquariusman Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Here's my problem with your topic: you're just saying that atheists are huge hypocrits. I consider my self atheist; I believe that the creation of the universe to have been impossible, because to create something, you need to start off with something, and to need something that created that, and that, and it just goes on forever. Basically, I have narrowed down a theory on religion. Religion, ANY religion (I consider science a religion, just one that sways from the beaten holy path), is just a means for us to understand why everything is the way it was or is. Science serves jsut that purpose, and the only goal of science is understanding. Not trying to ask a God to forgive your sins, or anything else any other religion asks of you. Science is just the base of every, single religion, understanding. However, religion also has a secondary base, which is hope. Hope is the one thing people need, and if they find hope in anything, whether it be a common religion or a crackpot idea, I'll respect their choice and leave them be. However, if they find nothing to hope for, then I will try to give them hope, unless they refuse my help. Basically, if someone has no hope left in their life, I'll understand someone trying to introduce hope to them. To quote some saying I've heard "You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink". Wow, I definitly got side-tracked there >.< There's no such thing as regret. A regret means you are unhappy with the person you are now,and if you're unhappy with the person you are, you change yourself. Thatregret will no longer be a regret, because it will help to form the new,better you. So really, a regret isn't a regret. It's experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigra00 Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 That dude who just won $330 Million dollars in the lottery the other day asked Pagan God's to help him win it. He won. I sense Wicca coming back in style..And Christians rolling their eyes while clutching a statue of Jesus, as if it is any different. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Of course. As an atheist I don't suggest that. I lack belief because of the lack of evidence. I don't lack belief because I believe the absence of evidence implies evidence of absence. It's the same for any supernatural idea; Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc. They all lack evidence and I'm equally as lacking in my belief of them, just as much as the Christian god. Is the number of believers of an idea completely insignificant? Like if I'm saying that I, as the only person on earth, believe in a big almighty blob. Would that be as improbable as the christian God since you would claim that they both lack evidence? To put it simply, yes. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLancer Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 And they (read: Atheists/ACLU) should stop trying to influence school curricula. If my teacher wants to teach Creationism, then by God (pun intended) let her do it*. I certainly don't want my kid to learn pseudo-factual scientific theories when he goes to school. School is a place where you learn real facts, like how chemistry works, how biology in nature works, how to calculate... How to survive in the real world and possibly get a job/career/information. I have absolutely no problem with religion (nor would I have if my partner was jewish, hindu, christian, islamic, taoist or anything else), I just have a problem with teaching beliefs as facts. Teaching stories of Adam and Eve, etc. as fact is lying to kids. You can't present educational facts which have no reliable source. You can't teach kids 1+1 is 4 and apples are blue in New Zealand just because a looney wrote a book about it and you decided to believe it. You can't force a kid to believe santa claus 'really' exists just because you say so. If you can't prove something, it doesn't exist. If you're in a courtroom, there are a thousand witnesses to prove you murdered a person, there is no such thing as "your innocence" no matter what your relatives or parents believe. But fortunately in most countries, you are free to believe something or someone exists and nobody can take that away from you. Religion gives great comfort to weak, spiritual, stressed people etc., heck anything that helps people forget their sorrows is positive. Just as long as you keep it personal/friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Of course. As an atheist I don't suggest that. I lack belief because of the lack of evidence. I don't lack belief because I believe the absence of evidence implies evidence of absence. It's the same for any supernatural idea; Thor, Zeus, Apollo, etc. They all lack evidence and I'm equally as lacking in my belief of them, just as much as the Christian god. Is the number of believers of an idea completely insignificant? Like if I'm saying that I, as the only person on earth, believe in a big almighty blob. Would that be as improbable as the christian God since you would claim that they both lack evidence? Yes, they are both supernatral notions. They are both assumed without experiencing them. First you assume existance (though you can make some decent arguments for this), then you assume characteristics. The more characteristics you assume, the more of a bold claim you make. The number of believers means nothing when you understand the way in which most religion spreads and the mentality people have when they are religious. It's never an easy task to convince someone that the unprovable or unfalsifiable idea that they've held to with such faith for years is baseless. You always get rationalisations such as 'you can't prove god dosen't exist' and so forth. I would have seen such a rationalisation as a crutch rather than an upside but that's just me. Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be. Yep, too bad many people don't get the concept. No matter how many subjective opinions you add together, the sum is still a subjective opinion, just like it's constituents. There's no getting past that, no creating objective truth from subjective POV's :-$ . [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Yes, they are both supernatral notions. They are both assumed without experiencing them. First you assume existance (though you can make some decent arguments for this), then you assume characteristics. The more characteristics you assume, the more of a bold claim you make. The number of believers means nothing when you understand the way in which most religion spreads and the mentality people have when they are religious. It's never an easy task to convince someone that the unprovable or unfalsifiable idea that they've held to with such faith for years is baseless. You always get rationalisations such as 'you can't prove god dosen't exist' and so forth. I would have seen such a rationalisation as a crutch rather than an upside but that's just me. Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be. I totally agree with your statement: "Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be." But why would you then write this: "99%+ of all scientists accept evolution" as some kind of argument for evolution. I'd say it's rather similar as they assume that macro-evolution is true despite of the lack of evidence. Prehaps you'll say that there is evidence of macro-evolution but to me that evidence is about as strong as if I would be saying that there is evidence for christianity. Evidence such as the Bible or Jesus. What I find to be strange is that you seem to think that some random belief is as likely (or unlikely) to be the truth as christianity is. I'm actually puzzled by the vast amount of muslims in the world. Just the sheer number of believers makes me think that there is something to it. It's strange that th are so many people who devote their lives to an idea/belief. And not just to believe that there is a God but to live by ancient books who tells you what's wrong and right and how to live your life. I guess a solution would be that faith is some kind of mental disorder. But then it's a very common one as the non-religious people make up for only about 15% of the world's population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Truth isn't dependant on who has the most popular ideas about what truth might be. Yep, too bad many people don't get the concept. No matter how many subjective opinions you add together, the sum is still a subjective opinion, just like it's constituents. There's no getting past that, no creating objective truth from subjective POV's :-$ . What makes truth objective? What is your method for finding absolute truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Because science is objective Korskin, religion is not. 99% of scientists saying they support the theory of evolution is a lot different than 99% christians having "faith" that it is wrong. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperClipsYaaaar Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 What is your method for finding absolute truth? There are no absolute truths. We use experimentation and observation to form facts that group together into theories that are more accurate than their predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 What is your method for finding absolute truth? There are no absolute truths. We use experimentation and observation to form facts that group together into theories that are more accurate than their predecessors. Being able to tell if something is "more accurate" requires an objective measure. Saying 5 is closer to 2+2 than 6 can be measured as "more accurate" because there is an objective answer to which we are comparing it (4). If there are no objective truths, then there is nothing to measure against, making it impossible to call something "more accurate" than something else. Because science is objective Korskin, religion is not. What makes science objective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korskin Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 Because science is objective Korskin, religion is not. 99% of scientists saying they support the theory of evolution is a lot different than 99% christians having "faith" that it is wrong. I don't find macro-evolution objective. I think you need to be a metaphysical naturalist to experience that it's a proven theory. If there is absolutely nothing beyond natural science macro-evolution would be the reasonable thing to believe in. However, science is not philosophically or religiously neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wakka102 Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 When I went to the Family Values tour this year (KoRn) there was a group of christian protestors outside of the place for about the firswt 2 hours of the show protesting how it was evil and how we all needed to repent or we would go to hell. I've never heard of athiests doing the opposite to a Christ Fest before :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaperClipsYaaaar Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 What is your method for finding absolute truth? There are no absolute truths. We use experimentation and observation to form facts that group together into theories that are more accurate than their predecessors. Being able to tell if something is "more accurate" requires an objective measure. Saying 5 is closer to 2+2 than 6 can be measured as "more accurate" because there is an objective answer to which we are comparing it (4). If there are no objective truths, then there is nothing to measure against, making it impossible to call something "more accurate" than something else. Oops, it seems I blended your posts with Korskin's. I thought you were referring to absolute truths regarding evolution instead of just the general existence of god. You are right. There are no absolute truths or measurements of accuracy when it comes to proving or disproving the existence of god. Because science is objective Korskin, religion is not. What makes science objective? To put it simply, science, which measures natural systems, does not impose itself on the realm of the supernatural. Some religions, however, which are only supposed to deal with the supernatural, attempt to impose themselves on natural systems. I don't find macro-evolution objective. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Go to Part 5: Observed Instances of Speciation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evilperson Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 What makes science objective? Science is only trying to find truths. Science is based around trying to prove a hypothesis. But for in order to the hypothesis to be considered, it must be falsifiable (IE being able to be proven wrong). Things that cannot be tested or proven wrong then go under the philosophy category. Also science must be supported by several independent lines. Scientists never claim to have absolute knowledge. All scientific theories are open to revision in light of new discoveries. The fact that nothing is absolutely certain in the universe is why science makes a lot more sense over Christianity. Christianity tries to stay on one story covering little plot holes that pop out as people examine it. Christianity is not objective because they are trying to convert whoever they may be talking to. (for what reason, we will never know). Christianity is like that stuck up kid who never can be wrong and if he is, he just calls you the three letter G word. Everybody lovin' it, but ain't no body touchin' it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane Posted September 5, 2007 Share Posted September 5, 2007 To put it simply, science, which measures natural systems, does not impose itself on the realm of the supernatural. Some religions, however, which are only supposed to deal with the supernatural, attempt to impose themselves on natural systems. What does that have anything to do with objectivity? Science is only trying to find truths. Science is based around trying to prove a hypothesis. But for in order to the hypothesis to be considered, it must be falsifiable (IE being able to be proven wrong). Things that cannot be tested or proven wrong then go under the philosophy category. Also science must be supported by several independent lines. Scientists never claim to have absolute knowledge. All scientific theories are open to revision in light of new discoveries. Thank you for an overview of the scientific method. Now please prove to me that it is objective. The fact that nothing is absolutely certain in the universe... That's a self-refuting statement. A fact that isn't absolutely certain? :lol: Christianity is not objective because they are trying to convert whoever they may be talking to. That doesn't make any sense. What does explaining your position have anything to do with objectivity? Christianity is like that stuck up kid who never can be wrong and if he is, he just calls you the three letter G word. Your entire post leads me to believe you don't understand the concept of objectivity. Maybe you could explain it to me, so I can better understand your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now