Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism & Agnosticism are not the same thing!

24

Comments

  • #52
    talkinyite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭talkinyite


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    If you believe, then you are a theist. If you are anything else, including not knowing what you are, then you are an atheist. As you still don't have any belief in a god.

    But he doesn't disbelief either so he's not an atheist. They're not the same thing which is why the words exist.


  • #53
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    I fear the differences are a bit too subtle for the average schmuck to grasp.

    http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Atheist%252520v%252520Theist.png

    Heard the one about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic?:confused:

    He lies awake nights wondering if there is a dog.:)


  • #54
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    talkinyite wrote: »
    But he doesn't disbelief either so he's not an atheist. They're not the same thing which is why the words exist.

    The word atheist specifically exists to describe someone who is not a theist.

    That's what the prefix "a" means.

    So if you are not a theist you are, by definition, an atheist.

    The only thing that says about you is that you are not a theist. Everything else is interpretation.


  • #55
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    Atheists, on the other hand, are certain that everything we can see and percieve is everything that is. They are certain that we do not have souls, there is no afterlife and no god.
    [Citation Needed]

    If that was the case then there would be very few atheists.

    It's a binary position.

    Consider the question, "Are you a stamp collector?"

    The answer is either "yes" or "no". There is no "I don't know" option. You either collect stamps or you don't. It's exactly the same for the question, "Do you believe in at least one God?".

    You do know whether you believe in a God or not. Your unsurity is in relation to the general question. But you cannot fall into the 50/50 position - it is not possible to simultaneously believe and not believe in a God. You either do or you don't.

    Theism is, "I believe in God"
    Atheism is the opposite of this; "I do not believe in God".

    Note that "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God", and "I believe there is no God" is not the opposite of, "I believe in God".

    The key word is "believe", not "God". If you do not believe, then you are atheist. If you would consider yourself "undecided", then you are by default atheist because you cannot claim that you believe.


  • #56
    Sergeant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,362 ✭✭✭Sergeant


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    I fear the differences are a bit too subtle for the average schmuck to grasp.

    Maybe the average schmuck just doesn't care?


  • #57
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Nonsense, atheists simply have no belief in a god, that's all. They can still believe in an afterlife, a soul, ghosts, or fairies if they so wish.
    Only if the term atheist is defined in a ridiculously broad fashion. By any sensible definition, Atheism should be regarded as a belief in the negative.


  • #58
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    Only if the term atheist is defined in a ridiculously broad fashion. By any sensible definition, Atheism should be regarded as a belief in the negative.

    In an intelligent and literal manner it should be understood to describe someone who is not a theist.


  • #59
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    seamus wrote: »
    The key word is "believe", not "God". If you do not believe, then you are atheist. If you would consider yourself "undecided", then you are by default atheist because you cannot claim that you believe.
    Again, wrong. I am not undecided. I have come to the conclusion that we cannot know. That is explicitly a decision, based on my view of the evidence.

    It is you who is confusing two different stances.

    "The answer is unknown"

    is not the same as:

    "Unknown is the answer."

    The former is someone who hasn't reached a conclusion. The latter describes an agnostic.


  • #60
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    By any sensible definition, Atheism should be regarded as a belief in the negative.
    But since theism is the exact opposite of atheism, then logically theism is then a belief in the positive, i.e. "I believe there is definitely a God".

    That leaves a group of people - "I believe there is a God, but I'm not 100% sure". What do we call them? Agnostics? That seems absurd because you're using the same name to describe people who believe in God and people who don't believe in God, they just aren't certain about it.

    How about we divide agnostics into two groups, those who do believe and those who don't? Oh...wait...look, we already have names for those two groups...


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    "Unknown is the answer."

    The former is someone who hasn't reached a conclusion. The latter describes an agnostic.
    So, "Do you believe in God", and your answer is "Unknown".

    What you're confusing is knowledge in the specific sense and knowledge in the general sense. The question is not, "Is there a God", the question is in relation to your belief - "Do you believe?" You cannot say that the answer is inherently unknowable because you already know what you believe.


  • #62
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    seamus wrote: »
    That leaves a group of people - "I believe there is a God, but I'm not 100% sure".
    They would still be theists, primarily.
    That seems absurd because you're using the same name to describe people who believe in God and people who don't believe in God, they just aren't certain about it.
    Meet my friend, Mr. Strawman.


  • #63
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    They would still be theists, primarily.
    And since atheism is the opposite of theism, then people who say, "I don't believe in a God, but I'm not 100% sure" are atheists, right?


  • #64
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    @SeanW,

    Are you a theist?


    (Yes or No will suffice.)


  • #65
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    seamus wrote: »
    So, "Do you believe in God", and your answer is "Unknown".
    Precisely. I cannot give a yes or no answer - my religious view does not allow me to do so.
    What you're confusing is knowledge in the specific sense and knowledge in the general sense.
    What the hell are you on about?
    The question is not, "Is there a God", the question is in relation to your belief - "Do you believe?" You cannot say that the answer is inherently unknowable because you already know what you believe.
    Actually, I can. My beliefs are absolutely, 100% without question, guided by my knowledge, which in turn is guided by the evidence as I understand it.

    I believe that unknown is the answer. Slice it whatever way you like, it is no more complicated than that.


  • #66
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    I believe that unknown is the answer. Slice it whatever way you like, it is no more complicated than that.

    You're answering a question about belief with a statement of knowledge.

    It's a blatantly invalid answer in an attempt to avoid the simple logical fact: if you are not a theist you are an atheist.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Seachmall wrote: »
    You're answering a question about belief with a statement of knowledge.

    It's a blatantly invalid answer.
    My beliefs are guided by my knowledge, the answer is valid. As I said, it really is no more complicated than that.


  • #68
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Can't image link into the thread, so here's a link to an image which explains it:

    196111.png

    This is being discussed in the following thread in A+A:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77504500&postcount=2


  • #69
    talkinyite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭talkinyite


    SeanW wrote: »
    Actually, I can. My beliefs are absolutely, 100% without question

    So you're gnostic? :D


  • #70
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SeanW wrote: »
    I believe that unknown is the answer. Slice it whatever way you like, it is no more complicated than that.
    So you believe that it is impossible to know whether or not you have a belief.

    I think that's about as complicated as you can possibly make it. In fact it reminds me of a paradox like the halting problem of computing science. Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?


  • #71
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    SeanW, you're wrong, why don't you save us all some time and just admit it now?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    My beliefs are guided by my knowledge, the answer is valid.

    Knowledge underpins your beliefs, and rightly so, but the question is not about how you support your beliefs, it is about what you believe.



    Do you believe God exists?



    I don't care what you know or don't know nor why you believe or don't believe. I want to know if you do or do not believe. It's a dichotomous question.


  • #73
    St.Spodo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    Dawkins' Spectrum of theistic probability argues that most self-indentifying atheists are actually technically agnostics, so far as to say that no rational person can say for certain that there is no deity.


  • #74
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I really don't know how many ways I have to slice this simple idea so that you will understand:

    Observed evidence => knowledge => belief.

    For example, if a person had evidence that a deity existed, for example a Marian apprarition that could not be explained by psychosis or any physical explanation, then they would have evidence. That evidence would be added to their knowledge and this in turn would guide their beliefs. That person would be a Theist.

    Observed evidence => knowledge => belief.

    My understanding of the evidence suggests that asserting *anything* is impossible. This guides my knowledge and my beliefs flow from that. It really is that simple.


  • #75
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    SeanW wrote: »
    I really don't know how many ways I have to slice this simple idea so that you will understand:

    Observed evidence => knowledge => belief.

    For example, if a person had evidence that a deity existed, for example a Marian apprarition that could not be explained by psychosis or any physical explanation, then they would have evidence. That evidence would be added to their knowledge and this in turn would guide their beliefs. That person would be a Theist.

    Observed evidence => knowledge => belief.

    My understanding of the evidence suggests that asserting *anything* is impossible. This guides my knowledge and my beliefs flow from that. It really is that simple.
    Do you have a belief in a god, any god?

    Yes or no.


  • #76
    Attabear
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    Several pages later and I still don't know what I am.


    I'm theo-confused. Is there a support group?


  • #77
    44leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    Attabear wrote: »
    Several pages later and I still don't know what I am.


    I'm theo-confused. Is there a support group?

    There is a theo-confused and theo-certain forum.


  • #78
    Attabear
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Do you have a belief in a god, any god?

    Yes or no.


    Nes.


  • #79
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Do you have a belief in a god, any god?

    Yes or no.
    No. I do not believe in any god, including chance/luck, which is the god of atheists.


  • #80
    Attabear
    Registered Users Posts: 326 ✭✭Attabear


    44leto wrote: »
    There is a theo-confused and theo-certain forum.

    But how can there be?

    They're not the same thing!


  • #81
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    No. I do not believe in any god,
    Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you

    An Atheist!
    including chance/luck, which is the god of atheists.

    That's a pretty absurd thing to say...


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    SeanW wrote: »
    No. I do not believe in any god, including chance/luck, which is the god of atheists.
    Praise be to the lord, a fellow atheist.


  • #83
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    SeanW wrote: »
    No. I do not believe in any god, including chance/luck, which is the god of atheists.

    Then you are atheist, welcome! And you're free not to have any gods prescribed to you, including chance / luck.
    Nice feeling isn't it?


  • #84
    talkinyite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭talkinyite


    SeanW wrote: »
    No. I do not believe in any god, including chance/luck, which is the god of atheists.

    http://www.chilloutpoint.com/images/2010/04/funniest-owned-images/owned-fails-gallery-07.jpg

    Atheist = no


  • #85
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Who cares.


  • #86
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Well its a strange one.Im agnostic because I dont see how people can know there is or isnt a god. To me atheists who say there isnt a god are also exercising a form of belief. Thats why im agnostic.


  • #87
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Seachmall wrote: »
    That's a pretty absurd thing to say...
    No, it's not. If Atheists (or Gnostic Atheists if you prefer) are right and there is nothing outside the physical realm then development of advanced sentient lifeforms on one piece of rock in the universe was a very, very, very lucky accident and we humans beat bazillion quadrillion gazillion to 1 odds just to come into existance, let alone develop an advanced civilisation.

    I find this explanation to be as ridiculous as the idea that God created the world in 6 days, 6000 years ago (Abrahamnic religion), or that space aliens populated the planet with miserable people 70,000 years ago (Scientology). It is not that each claim is equally valid, more that each claim to knowledge is equally spurious, and thus, equally worthy of summary rejection, in favour of a default position of asserting only the lack of knowledge.


  • #88
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    No, it's not. If Atheists are right and there is nothing outside the physical realm then development of advanced sentient lifeforms on one piece of rock in the universe was a very, very, very lucky accident and we humans beat bazillion quadrillion gazillion to 1 odds just to come into existance, let alone develop an advanced civilisation.

    That's a question of Determinism vs. Indeterminism.

    Nothing to do with Atheism.


  • #89
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Attabear wrote: »
    Several pages later and I still don't know what I am. I'm theo-confused. Is there a support group?
    Yes:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?forumid=614


  • #90
    im invisible
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭im invisible


    Pick a card, any card.

    OMG, what are the chances that you picked the one you happen to have in your hand! Etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    token56
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭token56


    SeanW wrote: »
    No, it's not. If Atheists (or Gnostic Atheists if you prefer) are right and there is nothing outside the physical realm then development of advanced sentient lifeforms on one piece of rock in the universe was a very, very, very lucky accident and we humans beat bazillion quadrillion gazillion to 1 odds just to come into existance, let alone develop an advanced civilisation.

    How exactly are you calculating those odds? I dont even think the greatest minds in the world would claim to be able to work out the probability of us existing in a purely materialistic world because we simply dont know enough about the world yet to make such a calculation. So I'm curious as to how you are calculated the odds of bazillion, quadrillon, gazillon to 1, or even how it is you think everything came to be, i.e. matter, planets, stars, the earth, life, etc.


  • #92
    talkinyite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 349 ✭✭talkinyite


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYjZK_6i37M


  • #93
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    im invisible wrote: »
    Pick a card, any card.

    OMG, what are the chances that you picked the one you happen to have in your hand!
    Assuming that you are using a standard deck, then 1 in 52, i.e. plausible.
    token56 wrote: »
    How exactly are you calculating those odds? I dont even think the greatest minds in the world would claim to be able to work out the probability of us existing in a purely materialistic world because we simply dont know enough about the world yet to make such a calculation. So I'm curious as to how you are calculated the odds of bazillion, quadrillon, gazillon to 1, or even how it is you think everything came to be, i.e. matter, planets, stars, the earth, life, etc.
    I have always felt that the totality of the question could theoretically be explained by science, but that even if probabilities were determined - which as you rightly say they cannot - then it's fairly obvious, at least to me, that the X:1 probability would have an extraordinarily high number.

    This view was reinforced when I saw a group of Channel 4 documentaries that explained the evolution of life on Earth as a group of catastrophes, each of which should have destroyed the planet or at least made it permanently incapable of supporting life (massive asteroid strikes, over oxegenation of the atmosphere, massive volcanic outbreaks etc), but instead had the opposite effect of 'guiding' the evolution of life on Earth, by acting in a very convenient and specific sequence.

    Did we really beat the odds? Did we just get super, duper, very very, extraodrinarily lucky? Science does suggest that it is possible, albeit extremely remove, but to accept it as unavoidable truth that we did, requires a certain belief in unbelievably extreme good fortune.

    I find that as bizarre and obtuse as any theistic viewpoint, worthy of being considered theistic in itself. Hence I reject it as such.

    Edit: It should have been very clear that I was not attempting to be scientific in my calculations :rolleyes: My point was that whatever the number is, I think it's stratospherically high - into the realm of statistically impossible.


  • #94
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    SeanW wrote: »
    No, it's not. If Atheists (or Gnostic Atheists if you prefer) are right and there is nothing outside the physical realm

    Once again, like yourself, atheists simply have no belief in a god. I don't know why you continue to make up beliefs and apply them to all atheists.

    ''Nothing outside the physical realm'' has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, plenty of atheists believe there is something ''outside the physical realm''.

    You'd probably help your argument if you stopped making things up.


  • #95
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    SeanW wrote: »
    Assuming that you are using a standard deck, then 1 in 52, i.e. plausible.

    It's 1:1 (i.e. guaranteed) because the question ("What are the odds you'd pick that card?") was only asked after the card had been picked. Any card could have been picked and the question would have been asked but with "that card" referring to a different card.

    The point is by calculating the probabilities of something occurring after it occurred you are restricting your calculations by parameters which wouldn't have been relevant when the situation was unfolding.



    Most importantly though is that it's not of any importance to Atheists when the answer "I don't know how we came into existence" is sufficient.


  • #96
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,824 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Ok, take a deck of cards 999,999 of which are blank and 1has you win on it. Ask ten million people to draw a card and see if they win. Then return the card. Every person has minute 1 in a million odds but approx 10 people should win. Now picture the people are planets and the deck is their chance of creating advanced life (the win card) and you see the odds might not be so enormous. Now give the drawn win card sentience and it will look at its planet and think what are the odds of me on this planet but he doesnt realise that it could equally have been another planet, he was destined to exist. (odds pulled out of my ass)


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    It would also help your argument if you stopped ignoring the information and the realities. The 2 dimensional theist-atheist and gnostic-agnostic chart
    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/25807/196111.png
    is a good description of religious views, but requires options just off the graph along each axis for people who self identify as one thing. For example, if you believe what is written in the Koran, you are a Muslim and you don't have to qualify that with (a)gnostic or (a)theist. One word sums up your view.

    Or if you actively assert the negative, you can call yourself an Atheist or a Gnostic Atheist or a Negative Theist or whatever you like, your self-identification is valid.

    Likewise my belief is guided by the evidence, which tells me that all claims to supernatural knowledge including the negative are equally laughable. That makes me an Agnostic and I feel no need to further qualify that.


  • #98
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Ok, take a deck of cards 999,999 of which are blank and 1has you win on it. Ask ten million people to draw a card and see if they win. Then return the card. Every person has minute 1 in a million odds but approx 10 people should win. Now picture the people are planets and the deck is their chance of creating advanced life (the win card) and you see the odds might not be so enormous. Now give the drawn win card sentience and it will look at its planet and think what are the odds of me on this planet but he doesnt realise that it could equally have been another planet, he was destined to exist. (odds pulled out of my ass)

    10 people shouldn't win. Just because you have 10 million people drawing the cards does not mean there is an equal chance of each card being drawn once.


  • #99
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,867 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Seachmall wrote: »
    It's 1:1 (i.e. guaranteed) because the question ("What are the odds you'd pick that card?") was only asked after the card had been picked.
    The odds you'd pick that card out of a 52 card deck are still 1:52.
    Most importantly though is that it's not of any importance to Atheists when the answer "I don't know how we came into existence" is sufficient.
    But if there is nothing outside the spiritual realm, then luck had to play a very large part.
    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Ok, take a deck of cards 999,999 of which are blank and 1has you win on it. Ask ten million people to draw a card and see if they win. Then return the card. Every person has minute 1 in a million odds but approx 10 people should win. Now picture the people are planets and the deck is their chance of creating advanced life (the win card) and you see the odds might not be so enormous. Now give the drawn win card sentience and it will look at its planet and think what are the odds of me on this planet but he doesnt realise that it could equally have been another planet, he was destined to exist. (odds pulled out of my ass)
    If you accept the "Catastrophe Earth" scenario (and I have no reason not to) then 1:999,999 odds are extremely generous, probably 1:999,999,999,999,999,999 is closer (again I admit I am pulling these figures out of my rear end)

    You also have to consider that some parts of the galaxy are less hospitable than others, for example, if there had been a black hole anywhere near our solar system, it wouldn't matter that Earth could have sustained life, this planet and our entire solar system would have been crushed like a beer can a fraction of a second at some point in time. But surprise surprise, we're nowhere near a black hole or any other dangerous extra-terrestrial phenonmenon, except the goodies like those perfectly sized asteroids that whacked the planet at just the right time with the just the right amout of force.


  • #100
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,489 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    seamus wrote: »
    [Citation Needed]

    If that was the case then there would be very few atheists.

    It's a binary position.

    Consider the question, "Are you a stamp collector?"

    The answer is either "yes" or "no". There is no "I don't know" option. You either collect stamps or you don't. It's exactly the same for the question, "Do you believe in at least one God?".

    You do know whether you believe in a God or not. Your unsurity is in relation to the general question. But you cannot fall into the 50/50 position - it is not possible to simultaneously believe and not believe in a God. You either do or you don't.

    Theism is, "I believe in God"
    Atheism is the opposite of this; "I do not believe in God".

    Note that "I do not believe in God" is not the same as "I believe there is no God", and "I believe there is no God" is not the opposite of, "I believe in God".

    The key word is "believe", not "God". If you do not believe, then you are atheist. If you would consider yourself "undecided", then you are by default atheist because you cannot claim that you believe.

    Suppose you have one stamp that you like. You haven't exactly got a collection but you could well find another one you liked in the future and keep that as well.


  • #101
    Loomis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,692 ✭✭✭Loomis


    This, tbh....

    [url=]http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/[/url]


  • Advertisement
Advertisement