4/12/2009 12:22:26 PM

Quote :

"beliefs of the divine nature stem from the metaphysical. Logic is a device that can only be used in the physical. Therefore if a = belief and b = logic, a cannot be substituted for b or vice versa. Does that help"

Looks like somebody doesn't know what logic is.

4/12/2009 1:10:07 PM

You disagree? Are you saying a human's mental faculties are sufficient enough to prove metaphysical subjects let alone define them in a fashion that could stand the test of time. If you are, I'd love to see it.

4/12/2009 1:48:32 PM

Quote :

" Are you saying a human's mental faculties are sufficient enough to prove metaphysical subjects"

When you constrain the metaphysical things with rules, then yes, you can discuss them using logic.

4/12/2009 2:13:51 PM

True, but I reserve the prentense of faith when it comes to such subjects. In terms of dimensional analysis, doesn't it go point, line, infinity, infinity^infinity, (infinity^infinity)^infinity).....etc. Thats all fine and dandy but when it comes pure hard logic I'm more of the vulcan variety. I like mine served cold with some form of result, the rest of the stuff I'll leave for when i'm dreaming.

4/12/2009 2:49:16 PM

You are really n00bing yourself right now.

4/12/2009 3:43:42 PM

To n00b or not to n00b, that is the question

4/12/2009 4:00:47 PM

supercalo you seem to like logic. What major results can you / have you proven?

4/12/2009 9:43:14 PM

btw, here's basically the same argument taking place on a different forum/blog
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/05/are-you-really-an-agnostic/

4/12/2009 11:45:32 PM

First off this is nothing a match teacher couldn't tell you, but I would venture that whole numbers in themselves are concepts of infinity, even zero, in that you can fit an infinite amount of decimal numbers between each whole number. The fact that zero represents null on the number scale does not mean that it is not still a point, and points can be infintesimaly dense, thereby bigbang theory. Negative intergers are as valid a frame of reference as any, so what it really boils down to is that zer0 represents a marker, or point, to where everything else is gaged. This harkens back to dimensional analysis theory. Each stage of progression is an infinite number of possibilites raised to another infinite number of possibilites. It like counting steps, 1.111, 2.222, 3.333 and so on. Sorta like stacking dimensions on dimensions.

The universal language of math is a rosetta stone and logic the tool of deciphering it. What I think people fail at is using that tool when something isn't proven correctly. You can surmise theory all day long but when you start building off those theories, replacing them as fact, thats when you fall. Thats my problem with atheism, it insists on something that isn't even proven yet. Its not true science and it never will be. Its faith disguised as logic, and that is what pisses me off.

4/13/2009 12:17:51 AM

Haha what a bunch of sophomoric gibberish

4/13/2009 1:31:52 AM

Hey, i'll be the first to say i'm fallible if that makes you feel better. But when it comes to shit like the video in the OP I just cant stomach it. Seriously, the 0:23 time marker is the same tired argument atheist have been promoting for ever. Of course faith can explain origin, thats the whole purpose of it. On the contrary when an atheist can come up with something profound I'll listen to it. Till then i'll believe in the fuckin spaghetti monster for all I care.

4/13/2009 1:45:26 AM

Can you even assign any semantic content to the garbage you spewed a few posts up?

4/13/2009 1:51:52 AM

I'm not gonna divide by zero if thats what your asking for. j/k

Sure, my first paragraph was an example of a metaphysical subject explained numerically.

Thinkers loves to explain the world around them in the most precise terms they know of. Like moron said, metaphysical subjects can be discussed using logic.

So with math, which I seem to have a problem spelling correctly sometimes (again, i'm no rhode scholar), I made an admittedly meager attempt to explain origins using what I know at my disposal. The number line.

Of course its not perfect, nor is it necessarily correct, but in terms of metaphysical thinking its a hell of a lot more than what people like dawkins have laid on the table.

Which is comparable imo to saying "I like my toast buttered on the underside and not the top." Thats a Seus reference if you didn't know.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 2:23 AM. Reason : .]

4/13/2009 2:21:24 AM

Quote :

"You evidently don't understand his message, since he isn't saying that he is 100% sure there is no God."

He may never say it -- and he may be very careful to avoid saying it -- but I've never heard anything out of him that leads me to believe he is anything less than certain. Of course, someone who has followed his career more closely or wants to use google can probably find some statements to the contrary.

Quote :

"He is far and away no more arrogant than any preacher, priest, mullah, rabbi etc."

Any preacher, etc.? Damn.

Quote :

"A Christian will usually agree that everyone that doesn't "accept Jesus Christ" is not going to heaven, aka roasting in hell for all eternity."

There are Christians who say this and argue this way, sure. I don't like them, either.

Quote :

"That's because he's coming out and saying that what you believe in is bullshit."

Please. Every time a religion thread gets created on this board, people come out and say that what I believe is bullshit. But with most of them, I will read and participate in the discussion. That's because the way they discuss the issue generally doesn't make me want to punch them in the face.

Quote :

"The death threats against him and his family, the personal attacks, the smear campaigns, and religious terrorism."

The people who do those things are bad, but they aren't representative of Christianity any more than al Qaeda is representative of Islam.

Quote :

"Dawkins can be a dick sometimes, but so what? Doesn't he have the right?"

Sure he does. Just like I have the right to say I'm not going to listen to him because he's such a dick, and everyone else here has the right to tell me that he's not really so bad. I'm not arguing that the guy should be silenced. I'm saying that I'm not going to read the books or watch the videos of a guy who pisses me off.

Quote :

"Worth pointing out he made a career out of biology, not out of religion books."

He made a career as a biologist, but it seems he's changed. The man must be inhumanly productive if he can write good biology books while also flying all over creation being an asshat.

Quote :

"He's arguing with people who claim that God, and usually their particular brand of God, "definitively" exists"

It seems as though a number of the lines used to defend this guy boil down to, "He's arguing with dicks so it's OK if he acts like a dick."

4/13/2009 2:34:58 AM

Jesus I'm getting trolled

calo if you're being serious you need to open and read an analysis book pronto

4/13/2009 2:43:15 AM

No ones trolling here, atleast not yet.

I'll read whatever, but it doesn't mean i'll still agree with it. Depends on what it is and how its being fed really.

To go on a tangent here, if I may, who here has read the book Ishmael? Is this book widely accepted by the atheist circle? Because if it is, i've read it too, and I got totally the opposite message. It's a great book, but sadly it exemplifies how people use the notion of god to avoid being critical of themselves. Its a great read which I recommend to all.

4/13/2009 3:10:09 AM

Quote :

"but I've never heard anything out of him that leads me to believe he is anything less than certain."

I'm sure he is no more certain that there is no god than you are certain that there is no Tooth Fairy.

The only difference between Atheists and Agnostics is that Atheists are comfortable dropping all the qualifiers and just saying what they believe to be almost certainly true. They don't afford affirmative claims about God and more delicacy than they would affirmative claims about fairies or gargoyles.

Agnostics fashion themselves as being more intellectually consistent than atheists, yet I've never seen an agnostic tip-toe around, say, Santa Claus, even though the exact same variables are at play.

I personally reject both labels, because I see no reason why I should give myself a special classification for every harebrained notion I dismiss.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 7:54 AM. Reason : ]

4/13/2009 7:48:27 AM

didnt click the link in the op

Athiests and theists both share the same blind belief in their cause. They choose to believe what they do despite the lack of clear evidence one way or the other.

If you do not believe in god, but you conceed the possibility (however slim) then you are an agnostic. End of story.

While an athiest and an agnostic might share the same views for the most part, given direct proof of god an athiest would still not believe and an agnostic would believe. Thats the key difference.

So ask yourself if given direct proof of god you would believe in his/her/its existance? If you answered yes you are an agnostic (and rational). If you answered no then you are an athiest.

4/13/2009 9:39:51 AM

Quote :

"If you do not believe in god, but you conceed the possibility (however slim) then you are an agnostic. End of story. "

Only in a world where you're the word czar.

Unfortunately, in the real world, language uses generally accepted meanings for words and not just whatever you came up with. And if you really think it is so clear, then follow your train of logic. Everybody would be agnostic about everything by your definition. There is absolutely no statement a 'rational' person could make without conceding some minuscule possibility of it not holding.

You could possibly define the word as such, yes, we all recognize that. But we don't, the word "agnostic" is far more useful in language as actually denoting something non-trivial. Hillary Clinton has said that she is 'agnostic' towards nuclear power. She is not agnostic towards national health care or the fact that China has operable nuclear weapons.

To argue that well technically she is is pointless and stupid. If that is truly how we employ the word then the word is garbage.

4/13/2009 10:29:05 AM

Quote :

"I've never seen an agnostic tip-toe around, say, Santa Claus, even though the exact same variables are at play."

This is not really true.

Outside the obvious, there's no compelling reason to believe in Santa Claus, because daily existence doesn't cry out for an explanation of where Christmas presents come from.

But even for atheists, I imagine, daily life has constant reminders at how strange things and existence are. Which means it's very natural and understandable that people will wonder about some type of god as a result.

4/13/2009 10:36:20 AM

Quote :

"didnt click the link in the op Athiests and theists both share the same blind belief in their cause. They choose to believe what they do despite the lack of clear evidence one way or the other. If you do not believe in god, but you conceed the possibility (however slim) then you are an agnostic. End of story. While an athiest and an agnostic might share the same views for the most part, given direct proof of god an athiest would still not believe and an agnostic would believe. Thats the key difference. So ask yourself if given direct proof of god you would believe in his/her/its existance? If you answered yes you are an agnostic (and rational). If you answered no then you are an athiest."

No.


....

Atheism is best described as a lack of belief in God. Not a belief there is no god. That is a very big distinction. Sure, you could say in everyday talk an atheist believes there is no God. But that is using the word very differently than saying a Christian believes in God.

As has already been said, you can be both an agnostic and an atheist. They are not mutually exclusive. I have no belief in God, and I have no knowledge of God. Even if you say I have belief there is no God, doesn't mean one is against the idea of a God if some sort of knowledge becomes available that would enlighten one on the subject. Comparing an atheists "belief" in the non-existence of a man made Gods is a far cry from a faith based belief in God. Notice, I can say I belief it's going to rain today. Does that mean I am absolutely certain it will rain? Of course not, but I say that because there are dark clouds in the sky.

4/13/2009 10:47:29 AM

Quote :

"But even for atheists, I imagine, daily life has constant reminders at how strange things and existence are. Which means it's very natural and understandable that people will wonder about some type of god as a result."

In case you haven't noticed, we live in a post-Enlightenment world, where strange phenomena are understood to have a natural explanation. We no longer ask the heavens for forgiveness every time the Earth rumbles, or dance around the fire in hopes of a plentiful growing season. There is not a single question to which God is the most likely answer.

You missed the point, anyway. I wasn't comparing the questions, I was comparing the answers.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

4/13/2009 11:31:06 AM

Quote :

"Only in a world where you're the word czar."

lolz, true

Quote :

"Atheism is best described as a lack of belief in God. Not a belief there is no god. That is a very big distinction."

true, again

4/13/2009 11:37:21 AM

Quote :

"I see no reason why I should give myself a special classification for every harebrained notion I dismiss."

good point

Quote :

"Athiests and theists both share the same blind belief in their cause."

This is one of the recurring arguments I hear. It boils down to, "well, well, he's just as bad as me".


I can tell you with reasonable certainty why the sun comes up each day, why the moon, comes up most nights, why the earth quakes, what causes volcanoes, and why the rains fall. I'm not 100%, I'm confident enough in these explanations to adopt them as my own beliefs.

The problem I have with many defenders of the Christian God (since that is the one I have the most experience with) is that their retorts generally fall into the following categories.

1) You can't disprove God
2) I can't explain it, I just have faith
3) I can't explain it, it must be God's will
4) Other people are just as bad
5) Because the Bible says so.


Few of the defenses of God that I see on a daily basis are positive affirmations of his existence. I won't get you on an airplane simply by stating that you can't prove that it will crash, you'll get on it because there is repeated and verifiable evidence that the one you're getting in likely won't crash.

In any event, I find myself more frustrated by those who substitute a vague concept of "faith" for a rigorous and deep exploration of what they believe and why they believe it.

4/13/2009 11:51:23 AM

Quote :

"We no longer ask the heavens for forgiveness every time the Earth rumbles, or dance around the fire in hopes of a plentiful growing season. There is not a single question to which God is the most likely answer."

I wasn't talking about daily "phenomena," I was thinking more philosophical things that we (or at least myself) encounter on a daily basis.

And the reason the answers are different is because the questions are different.

4/13/2009 11:57:51 AM

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2009 1:42:08 PM

This p. much sums it up.

4/13/2009 3:01:09 PM

^ i don't think that's true.

I think Majesty (backwards)'s explanation makes the most sense.

Certainly there are probably people who believe in the non-existence of gods, but I think most atheists are of the non-belief of god types. Plus, looking at the roots of the word "atheist" elucidates the latter meaning more than the former anyway (the former I guess would have to be "adeists").

4/13/2009 3:04:01 PM

I'm surprised this thread has yet to use the word "anti-theist" (perhaps just "antitheist"? ...fuck hyphens)

4/13/2009 3:13:12 PM

^^^Did you even read this thread? I mean, honestly, there's no point in refuting your points because those very points have been refuted in this thread. Atheists lack a belief in God. It really is that simple. What you're doing is trying to turn it around and say "Oh, you don't believe in God? Well, then, that means you believe in no God, which means your beliefs are no more reasonable than a religious person's beliefs! Haha, gotcha!" It's ridiculous. The assertion that atheists know everything or claim to know everything is equally as ridiculous.

How is there no overlap between atheism and agnosticism? Doesn't it make sense that a person who says the existence of God cannot be known would, as a result, not believe in God?

The fact that you think ^^^ "sums it up" shows that you actually have no idea what you're talking about, nor do you have any desire to know what you're talking about.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM. Reason : ]

4/13/2009 3:18:55 PM

Quote :

"From reading scripture, personally, I never thought Jesus wanted to be diefied. But thats another discussion I dont want to get into. When it comes to the grating idealogies or worn out religions and the idea of an anthropogenic god I usually take it all with a grain of salt. There's still philosophy and morals to be taken from, not to mention history which is very important. Sooner or later all these old religions will be taken as the metaphors they represent and nothing more. I'm with you, the sooner the evangelists and Islamic matyr generations die out the better."

4/13/2009 3:27:28 PM

Correct me if i'm wrong, but... doesn't agnostic span the full spectrum of theist and atheists?

The only statement I feel like I could confidently make about compatibility or non compatibility (other than atheist is not reconcilable with theists) is that agnosticism is not compatible with faith. Now, you may know faith as a central part of certain religions, but it's not an ingredient that you absolutely must have. Certainly most major religions incorporate the concept of faith, but most major religions are monotheistic. It's not a long jump from there to say that faith came from monotheism.

I don't want to give specific examples, but I certainly believe that there are (and have been) many religions that do not demand blind belief in their deity. Furthermore, many individuals who participate in the major religions never really took to the concept of faith. Lots of "light" Christians out there may recognize the possibility that God doesn't exist in the form prescribed by the bible, and some may even take this further to argue God down to only a figurative concept versus a real being (past or present) and also recognize a distinct possibility that God simply doesn't exist.

People in that camp are necessarily betraying a pillar of their religion, but it was never required for all people in a religion to agree on all the details anyway. So, I would strongly contend that there is a category of agnostic Christians.

What say you all?

4/13/2009 3:33:35 PM

Quote :

"Atheists lack a belief in God. It really is that simple. What you're doing is trying to turn it around and say "Oh, you don't believe in God? Well, then, that means you believe in no God, which means your beliefs are no more reasonable than a religious person's beliefs! Haha, gotcha!" It's ridiculous. The assertion that atheists know everything or claim to know everything is equally as ridiculous. "

Actually, no. Lack of theism /= atheism. Cannot be proven /= disproven. Agnostics believe there is no proof of god, yet. Atheists believe that god does not exist, and cannot possibly exist.


[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : grammars]

4/13/2009 3:46:38 PM

Jesus christ, this is just semantics. Who gives a shit about a label?

I call myself an atheist. I do not believe in any god. You can call me atheist, agnostic, susan, I don't care.

This is silly.

4/13/2009 3:52:35 PM

Quote :

" Atheists believe that god does not exist, and cannot possibly exist."

just typing that, right there, doesn't make it so

4/13/2009 3:53:53 PM

^^

George H. W. Bush: "Atheists Neither Citizens Nor Patriots

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

Is this silly? One of the reasons people have a problem calling themselves Atheists is not due to some slight philosophical problem but because of the negative stigma the label attaches. So they go ahead and call themselves Agnostics to try to minimize the social damage when, in actuality and for all intensive purposes, they are Atheists.

The clip attempts to lay out why many people who call themselves Agnostics should just go ahead and accept the fact that, on a philosophical basis, they are really Atheists.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2009 3:57:43 PM

^^Thats the whole distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism. This entire thread is about semantics. In the title: "Why Atheism over Agnosticsm". In a broad sense, you can say agnosticism is a subset of Atheism, but since this thread is about Atheism VS Agnosticism, we have to make the distinction between discrete atheism and discrete agnosticism.


[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ^^ carrots]

4/13/2009 4:01:12 PM

yeah, but you're making up your own definition and pretending that is the end-all be-all final word on the topic, when clearly it isn't.

4/13/2009 4:18:30 PM

You actually think that GHWB was differentiating between atheists and agnostics? You actually think that a Christian cares about the difference?

I honestly would like to see an example of any situation where proclaiming agnosticism is more socially beneficial than claiming atheism. Maybe if you were trying to lay a very stupid and very liberal Christian chick.

My point about this being silly is an issue of practicality. Thanks to our government, my lack of religion does not affect my employment, my tax rate, my ability to get a loan or any of my civil liberties. Doors that were closed before would not magically open if I started calling myself an agnostic. So I repeat. Who gives a shit?

4/13/2009 4:19:09 PM

^ i don't think they necessarily believe that ANY god in any form "cannot possibly exist" just that any god that humans might want to worship cannot possibly exist. If that is what was meant, then the quote in dispute still fits the definition of atheist we have accepted in this thread, so far.

4/13/2009 4:19:22 PM

Quote :

"yeah, but you're making up your own definition and pretending that is the end-all be-all final word on the topic, when clearly it isn't"

What makes you think I'm making it up? If you don't know the distinction between agnosticism and atheism then google it. I was merely disabusing destroyer, not taking any position in some argument.

^Athesim can either mean a lack of belief in god or the specific belief that there is no god. Since using the former would mean "Atheism = Agnosticism", and this is "Atheism vs Agnosticism" we use the latter.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ^]

4/13/2009 4:49:20 PM

Quote :

"I wasn't talking about daily "phenomena," I was thinking more philosophical things that we (or at least myself) encounter on a daily basis. "

Such as?

Quote :

"Atheists believe that god does not exist, and cannot possibly exist."

False, I'm afraid. No Atheist contends that God cannot possibly exist. They simply argue that, given what we know and what we don't know about God, it is almost certainly a fabrication.

4/13/2009 7:09:38 PM

Quote :

"They simply argue that, given what we know and what we don't know about God, it is almost certainly a fabrication."

Again...in the context of "Atheism vs Agnosticism", that falls under agnosticism.

4/13/2009 7:23:42 PM

Quote :

"No Atheist contends that God cannot possibly exist."

You seem to want to think that all atheists are smart and well-adjusted people. Some out there do contend that God can't exist. But the type that does this also tend to be the more "militant" or "evangelical" atheists... A better word for them would be anti-theists. Or idiots. Either one, really.

Edit: Don't think I'm arguing your actual point, though... what he said regarding atheism vs agnosticism is indeed false.

[Edited on April 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2009 7:30:42 PM

I JIZZED IN MY PANTS

4/13/2009 7:56:03 PM

No, YOU'RE FALSE! CUZ I SAID SO

4/13/2009 9:26:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

4/14/2009 1:17:57 AM

The infighting among the non-theists has a certain factor of perverse amusement.

I can see it all now, the epic Crusades of the 23rd century, when "Those Who Believe There Is No God" march on the capital of the empire of "Those Who Believe That We Cannot Know If There Is A God," both of whom have just got done slaughtering "Those Who Don't Think There Is A God But Won't Say So For Sure."

All us Jesus Freaks and Buddha Hooligans will be dead by then, but at least I can take some comfort in knowing that Chapel Hill will probably be burned to the ground at some point. If not, it will be demonized in later years for joining the side that burned everyone else's cities to the ground, which will hopefully be followed by it being burned to the ground.

4/14/2009 2:21:48 AM

If people, in general, stopped believing in God...I don't think there would be fighting over God, at that point. "Crusades" were the result of religious certainty.

4/14/2009 2:46:14 AM