Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

cursai

Discuss class!
How can a person be an Atheist? If if a religious person is acting on blind faith in their belief of a God, how can an Atheist not be acting on blind faith to conclude that there IS NO GOD! There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Before anyone asks i am Agnostic!




Heading is wrong i know!!!!

amacachi

I don't that I believe God doesn't exist, I just don't believe there is a God, which is the definition of Atheism.

Blackhorse Slim

cursai wrote: »

Discuss class!
How can a person be an Atheist? If if a religious person is acting on blind faith in their belief of a God, how can an Atheist not be acting on blind faith to conclude that there IS NO GOD! There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Before anyone asks i am Agnostic!




Heading is wrong i know!!!!

OMG!!! You're soooo right!

*goes looking for a priest*

Galvasean

amacachi wrote: »

I don't that I believe God doesn't exist, I just don't believe there is a God, which is the definition of Atheism.

^^ What he said.

To be an atheist you don't have to be able to prove there is no God. You just have to not believe one exists.
That way, a great many agnostics are actually atheists too.

bnt

cursai wrote: »

Before anyone asks i am Agnostic!

Do you know what Agnostic means? Here's a picture, courtesy of irreligion.org:

Zillah

cursai wrote: »

There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD

cursai wrote: »

Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

amacachi wrote: »

I don't that I believe God doesn't exist

This thread is a linguistic abomination.

Improbable

As I said on another thread, I would class myself as an atheist because I truly do not believe that a god exists, but I allow for the possibility that I may be wrong. In the exact same fashion that I am undecided about everything about everything else. The requirement of proof is on the group who claims the theory which contradicts what we know. I simply see no reason to believe such a being exists.

Gregor Samsa

cursai wrote: »

Discuss class!
How can a person be an Atheist? If if a religious person is acting on blind faith in their belief of a God, how can an Atheist not be acting on blind faith to conclude that there IS NO GOD! There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!

This seems to come up every week, but I haven't replied to one before, so here goes...

I don't see any reason to suppose that any god exists, as any evidence that I've come across to support the supposed existence of any god hasn't stacked up for me. Furthermore, I can see the fingerprints of humans all over the evidence, histories and characterisations of these gods.

Therefore, I don't believe in any gods, just as I don't believe in leprechauns, unicorns, etc. If someone can come up with evidence or a good reason for me to believe in any of the above, then I'm certainly open to correction, but until then, I'm standing my my assertion that none of them exist - on the grounds of lack of existential evidence and positive evidence of their human origin. This makes me an atheist, an aleprechaunist and an aunicornist. All of which I believe to be logically sound positions that don't rely on faith.

I reject agnosticism's position that the existence of god(s) is unknown or unknowable as moot, as to arrive at that position, one would have to suppose that there is a reason to believe that a god might exist, which I don't - just as I reject the notion that leprechauns might exist, as opposed to thinking that the status of their existence is unknown or unknowable.

Improbable

phutyle wrote: »

This seems to come up every week, but I haven't replied to one before, so here goes..

I don't see any reason to suppose that any god exists, as any evidence that I've come across to support the supposed existence of any god hasn't stacked up for me. Furthermore, I can see the fingerprints of humans all over the evidence histories and characterisations of these gods.

Therefore, I don't believe in any gods, just as I don't believe in leprechauns, unicorns, etc. If someone can come up with evidence or a good reason for me to believe in any of the above, then I'm certainly open to correction, but until then, I'm standing my my assertion that none of them exist - on the grounds of lack of evidence and positive evidence of their human origin. This makes me an atheist, a aleprechaunist and an aunicornist. All of which I believe to be logically sound positions that don't rely on faith.

I reject agnosticism's position that the existence of god(s) is unknown or unknowable as moot, as to arrive at that position, one would have to suppose that there is a reason to believe that a god might exist, which I don't - just as I don't reject the notion that leprechauns might exist, as opposed to thinking that the status of their existence is unknown or unknowable.

This.

What I was trying to get at but stated much more eloquently than I managed.

demakinz

Improbable wrote: »

As I said on another thread, I would class myself as an atheist because I truly do not believe that a god exists, but I allow for the possibility that I may be wrong. In the exact same fashion that I am undecided about everything about everything else. The requirement of proof is on the group who claims the theory which contradicts what we know. I simply see no reason to believe such a being exists.

I agree 100%

CiaranMT

phutyle wrote: »

This seems to come up every week, but I haven't replied to one before, so here goes...

I don't see any reason to suppose that any god exists, as any evidence that I've come across to support the supposed existence of any god hasn't stacked up for me. Furthermore, I can see the fingerprints of humans all over the evidence, histories and characterisations of these gods.

Therefore, I don't believe in any gods, just as I don't believe in leprechauns, unicorns, etc. If someone can come up with evidence or a good reason for me to believe in any of the above, then I'm certainly open to correction, but until then, I'm standing my my assertion that none of them exist - on the grounds of lack of existential evidence and positive evidence of their human origin. This makes me an atheist, a aleprechaunist and an aunicornist. All of which I believe to be logically sound positions that don't rely on faith.

I reject agnosticism's position that the existence of god(s) is unknown or unknowable as moot, as to arrive at that position, one would have to suppose that there is a reason to believe that a god might exist, which I don't - just as I reject the notion that leprechauns might exist, as opposed to thinking that the status of their existence is unknown or unknowable.

Like improbable, this is a great verbalisation of how I think.

liamw

bnt wrote: »

Do you know what Agnostic means? Here's a picture, courtesy of irreligion.org:

There isn't really a theism scale though is there? Isn't it a dichotomy; you're either theist or atheist? (I guess some would say deism lies in between)

cursai

Hey look linguistics aside....Gnostics is rubbish! The same as Agnostic only open for experimentation like a college student!
Another linguistics nightmare! DOES NOT EXIST and THERE IS NO GOD!.
Same £$%$ different shade!
Anyway now that ye know what i mean!.... How is atheism different to being religious? Theres the same arrogant blind faith with no evidence!

cursai

Galvasean wrote: »

^^ What he said.

To be an atheist you don't have to be able to prove there is no God. You just have to not believe one exists.
That way, a great many agnostics are actually atheists too.

Thats the same blind faith(Dont have to be able to prove) that religious people us to believe in Jesus and his seven dwarfs!

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Hey look linguistics aside....Gnostics is rubbish! The same as Agnostic only open for experimentation like a college student!
Another linguistics nightmare! DOES NOT EXIST and THERE IS NO GOD!.
Same £$%$ different shade!
Anyway now that ye know what i mean!.... How is atheism different to being religious? Theres the same arrogant blind faith with no evidence!

Like I said, the onus is on the one making the claim which goes against what we know to provide evidence.

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

How is atheism different to being religious? Theres the same arrogant blind faith with no evidence!

As stated before (you have been reading the thread?), the burden of proof is on those claiming something exists, not the other way around.

"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

Galvasean

On a side note, don't you just love it when someone wanders into the forum thinking, "Aha! Here's something I bet those atheists never thought about. This is gonna rock their world!".
Then they make an argument that has been refuted sixteen times earlier in the week.

cursai

Very good but my point is(should have stated it better but was so ashamed of my LINGUISTICS) that with the world and our surroundings so full of unexplainable things...(The finite end of the universe!!). Is it not arrogant and indulgent of blind faith to tell oneself that there is no God, when one does not really have any proof to say there isn't.

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Very good but my point is(should have stated it better but was so ashamed of my LINGUISTICS) that with the world and our surroundings so full of unexplainable things...(The finite end of the universe!!). Is it not arrogant and indulgent of blind faith to tell oneself that there is no God, when one does not really have any proof to say there isn't.

No, Just because they're unexplained doesn't mean that god did it. That's a common logical error. A lot of ancient religions used that to explain things like the sun and lightning etc. We have subsequently proved them to be wrong.

amacachi

cursai wrote: »

Very good but my point is(should have stated it better but was so ashamed of my LINGUISTICS) that with the world and our surroundings so full of unexplainable things...(The finite end of the universe!!). Is it not arrogant and indulgent of blind faith to tell oneself that there is no God, when one does not really have any proof to say there isn't.

Hopefully this next image will be reflected in other replies to this post.

cursai

Actuall y ive just come to realise that Atheists will use the same logic and reasoning to support Atheism as religious people do! SO this debate is only going to end with me wishing i wasn't so tired and i could spend more time reasoning my point...so maybe now i'll let yerselves and the christian fundamentalists go on believing in yere two opposing views. There just two sides of Fundamentalism, only one has a dogdy looking Jerry Garcia to worship!

cursai

amacachi wrote: »

Hopefully this next image will be reflected in other replies to this post.

What does that mean!!! Calling me a troll! Sorry im not in your clique!

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Actuall y ive just come to realise that Atheists will use the same logic and reasoning to support Atheism as religious people do! SO this debate is only going to end with me wishing i wasn't so tired and i could spend more time reasoning my point...so maybe now i'll let yerselves and the christian fundamentalists go on believing in yere two opposing views. There just two sides of Fundamentalism, only one has a dogdy looking Jerry Garcia to worship!

Except theists use wishful thinking rather than logic...

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

Actuall y ive just come to realise that Atheists will use the same logic and reasoning to support Atheism as religious people do! SO this debate is only going to end with me wishing i wasn't so tired and i could spend more time reasoning my point...so maybe now i'll let yerselves and the christian fundamentalists go on believing in yere two opposing views. There just two sides of Fundamentalism, only one has a dogdy looking Jerry Garcia to worship!

Psst, you're not exactly winnig over the hearts and minds of your target audience...

Gregor Samsa

cursai wrote: »

How is atheism different to being religious? Theres the same arrogant blind faith with no evidence!

There's plenty of hard evidence that any specific god you care to mention has been created, moulded and redefined by humans for humans. So I can reject the existence of any specific characterisation of Zeus, Ra, YHVH or Moloch simply by looking at the evidence that shows how humans evolved the characterisation over time through various cultural influences.

As for the general concept of "god", I can reject that based on the profound lack of evidence for it. One doesn't need positive evidence of non-existence to reject the existence of something - lack of evidence is enough, and doesn't amount to relying on faith.

ColmDawson

phutyle wrote: »

This seems to come up every week, but I haven't replied to one before, so here goes...

Can we get some sort of rotation system in order for who actually has to reply to these threads?

cursai

Improbable wrote: »

No, Just because they're unexplained doesn't mean that god did it. That's a common logical error. A lot of ancient religions used that to explain things like the sun and lightning etc. We have subsequently proved them to be wrong.

Thanks Improbable for the mature reply! I thought the definition of trolling was person hanging on a thread waiting to offend. ( see previous post____)

If we take into account all the unexplained parts of our reality(Which parts i wont go into..That'd be another argument), is it not more reasonable to assume that one does not know for certain if there is a higher power! And therefore on that basis how can one be decided as Atheist!

ColmDawson

cursai wrote: »

Thanks Improbable for the mature reply! I thought the definition of trolling was person hanging on a thread waiting to offend. ( see previous post____)

If we take into account all the unexplained parts of our reality(Which parts i wont go into..That'd be another argument), is it not more reasonable to assume that one does not know for certain if there is a higher power! And therefore on that basis how can one be decided as Atheist!

Because an atheist does not necessarily say he knows there is no higher power. He just doesn't believe there is, just like you don't believe in unicorns.

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Thanks Improbable for the mature reply! I thought the definition of trolling was person hanging on a thread waiting to offend. ( see previous post____)

If we take into account all the unexplained parts of our reality(Which parts i wont go into..That'd be another argument), is it not more reasonable to assume that one does not know for certain if there is a higher power! And therefore on that basis how can one be decided as Atheist!

As the great Dara O'Briain once said, science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop.

I can honestly say that I would consider myself an atheist towards a god that licks his own elbow on the 2nd monday of every week while reciting the lyrics to all the latest REM album. There is just absolutely no reason to believe that such a being exists. All of the evidence indicates that there is no need to assume a god hypothesis. Imagine you were starting off from scratch from the beginning of the universe, and imagine living in a world today where religion had never occurred. It would be considered absurd for you to suddenly say that a magical being did it all. Religion and gods are a remnant from the infancy of our species.

In addition, you could also suppose that the amount of new knowledge gained as time goes by is immense. I don't doubt that someday (perhaps in the long distant future) we will know how the universe came to be.

cursai

ColmDawson wrote: »

Because an atheist does not necessarily say he knows there is no higher power. He just doesn't believe there is, just like you don't believe in unicorns.

Then Blind faith is part of the atheist equation!...(doesn't BELIEVE there is)

strobe

Welcome to the paintball arena Cursai......

cursai

Improbable wrote: »

As the great Dara O'Briain once said, science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop.

I can honestly say that I would consider myself an atheist towards a god that licks his own elbow on the 2nd monday of every week while reciting the lyrics to all the latest REM album. There is just absolutely no reason to believe that such a being exists. All of the evidence indicates that there is no need to assume a god hypothesis. Imagine you were starting off from scratch from the beginning of the universe, and imagine living in a world today where religion had never occurred. It would be considered absurd for you to suddenly say that a magical being did it all. Religion and gods are a remnant from the infancy of our species.

I wouldnt know either way, I wouldn't be so brave as to think i could formulate up the path of human evolution and society!!!

cursai

strobe wrote: »

Welcome to the paintball arena Cursai......

Thanks it reminds me of having trying to convince the girlfriend of how **** x factor is!

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Then Blind faith is part of the atheist equation!...(doesn't BELIEVE there is)

It's not blind, it's a hypothesis made by the best available information.

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Thanks it reminds me of having trying to convince the girlfriend of how **** x factor is!

A point we can agree on! yayness!!!!

mikhail

Someone once said that an atheist isn't necessarily absolutely certain that there's no god. He's just someone who is satisfied that the evidence for god is on a par with the evidence for werewolves.

I don't believe in werewolves.

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

Thanks it reminds me of having trying to convince the girlfriend of how **** x factor is!

At least there is evidence to show that the X-Factor is crap.

amacachi

cursai wrote: »

Thanks it reminds me of having trying to convince the girlfriend of how **** x factor is!

I hope you don't believe in a Christian, Jewish or Islamic version of God because you just called something he had a part in creating "****". He wouldn't be too happy about that I don't think, get ready for a plague.

cursai

mikhail wrote: »

Someone once said that an atheist isn't necessarily absolutely certain that there's no god. He's just someone who is satisfied that the evidence for god is on a par with the evidence for werewolves.

I don't believe in werewolves.

If an Atheist isnt certain then he is Agnostic!

cursai

Improbable wrote: »

It's not blind, it's a hypothesis made by the best available information.

Of which cant be proved or disproved! Is this not as arrogant as someone taking a myth of Jesus or Mohammed or whatever as truth!

amacachi

cursai wrote: »

If an Atheist isnt certain then he is Agnostic!

Wow, you haven't read any of the posts on this thread then have you?

Improbable

When probability values approach zero, scientists just call it zero.

cursai

amacachi wrote: »

Wow, you haven't read any of the posts on this thread then have you?

You were too busy waiting to sneer that you dint see i was referring to the thread i quoted!

mikhail

cursai wrote: »

If an Atheist isnt certain then he is Agnostic!

I'll tell my wife to hang some garlic so. Or was that vampires?

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Of which cant be proved or disproved! Is this not as arrogant as someone taking a myth of Jesus or Mohammed or whatever as truth!

The non-existence of adam and eve is as good as fact. The non-existence of noah's ark and the flood are as good as fact.

Like I said, imagine yourself at the point in human history where religion did not exist. Which is the more arrogant viewpoint at that time, that a god created the world specifically for us or that we were not "made" for any specific reason?

I would call myself a defacto atheist. The probability is so low that I do not believe there is a god. But the tiniest probability is still there so I have to admit that I may be wrong, although I don't think I am

cursai

Improbable wrote: »

When probability values approach zero, scientists just call it zero.

Find me a scientist that can explain the entire mysteries of the universe? Unitl that day im gonna say i don't know!

Gregor Samsa

cursai wrote: »

Then Blind faith is part of the atheist equation!...(doesn't BELIEVE there is)

I think this is the crux of your misunderstanding.

When atheists talk of belief, they mean it in the general epistemological sense.

When religious people talk of faith, they mean it in a specific theological sense.

The two aren't synonymous in these contexts.

amacachi

cursai wrote: »

Find me a scientist that can explain the entire mysteries of the universe? Unitl that day im gonna say i don't know!

If the scientist exists then I think most of us here would admit that there is a God and he/she is it.

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Find me a scientist that can explain the entire mysteries of the universe? Unitl that day im gonna say i don't know!

Find me a religious apologist who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a god exists. Until that day, I'm going to say that there is no reason to believe such a being exists.

cursai

amacachi wrote: »

If the scientist exists then I think most of us here would admit that there is a God and he/she is it.

BUT until that scientist existsand proves or disproves (Most of atheism is based on scientific logic from my understanding on this thread) how can someone be certain either way.

cursai

Improbable wrote: »

Find me a religious apologist who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a god exists. Until that day, I'm going to say that there is no reason to believe such a being exists.

Until there is full proof of a Non godly habited world(whatever) how can a person be sure!