- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,830
- Reaction score
- 0
im here for the gang bang.Is anyone else going through this thread just scrolling down the walls of text to find one liner jokes?
im here for the gang bang.Is anyone else going through this thread just scrolling down the walls of text to find one liner jokes?
It is semantics. That's my point. For all practical purposes I'm an atheist. And very few truly religious people would admit that they don't really know God exists. That's one of the things I don't like about them.
They "know" it because they feel it. Is it possible that this feeling is a delusion?
There is unconfirmed speculation that Jesus tapped Mary Magdalene's ass.
Hahaha touche.
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are based on some of the most hateful literature in existence.
I love jokes that offend them.
Don't discuss politics or religion with people you like is what I usually stick to.
Did you read the first part of my post? Essentially, I argue that formal atheism is illogical since you cannot disprove the existence of anything, God or otherwise. But in common linguistic usage an atheist is someone who feels strongly that God doesn't exist, even though if pressed most would probably acknowledge that they can't really know that God doesn't exist, but the term connotes a degree of belief. I would formally consider myself an agnostic (in Greek, literally 'non-knowing', or 'without knowledge') because I don't know God doesn't exist, I just really strongly suspect it. I imagine most would consider me an atheist though formally that's not really the case.
I may be misreading your post, but I think you might be misunderstanding the terms atheism and agnosticism.
I will explain it the best I can:
Atheism relates to beliefs
Agnosticism relates to knowledge
To put it simply, atheism is a response to the claim "god exists." When someone claims god exists, the atheist position is skeptical and states: "I don't believe that"
Atheism means you do not "believe" a god exists, it does not automatically mean that an atheists doesn't think a god exists at all.
Its like someone claiming they live in a large mansion and you don't believe them. Its not that you are claiming mansions do not exist, its just that you want to see this mansion first before you will believe them.
Atheism, simply put, is the absence of a belief in a god. It is not claiming that there are no gods.
Agnosticism is not about beliefs but about knowledge claims. An agnostic says that it cannot be known if there is a god or not. There are many theists who are also agnostic. They believe there is a god but say that we cannot know anything about this god.
FootNotes:
Atheism: the lack of a belief in a god - Is NOT claiming that there is no god.
Agnosticism: Relates to knowledge and not belief. The agnostic says that god cannot be known. An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist
Here is a brief article that may clear things up for you.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
i am a christian, my best friend is an athiest, we joke around with each other all the time, nobody gets butthurt. people need to not take themselves so seriously. worship bearded cloud magician, worship flying spaghetti monster, worship carl sagan, who gives a shit.
if you don't talk about the tough subjects you won't gain a greater understanding for the people around you. also, if you choose to surround yourself with people that are only like you, you get a skewed perception on the world around you. i fill my life with a lot of different types of people, that means that i have to be prepared to hear and talk about a lot of subjects that i may not like, or even hear people say things to me that i do not agree with, but that doesn't mean that i can't be around them.
if you like people, and you want to be around them, it is a good idea to get to know them for who they are, and what makes them who they are, that's what friends are for
I say "God's existence and non-existence are both entirely possible, and I cannot draw a conclusion". The difference is that you're still arriving at a conclusion, while I am suspending judgment.
That's because the difference between you and me seems to be that I operate with a consistent burden of proof, whereas you give special treatment to the idea of God. Unless you happen to be equally undecided - and never arrive at any conclusion - about every claim that cannot be dismissed with absolute certainty.
I just find the supposed 'neutrality' of agnosticism to be fundamentally dishonest. If there is no evidence for a claim, then it doesn't have merit, and needn't be entertained at all.
Also for your consideration:
"I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in." - Carl Sagan.