I would agree with your statement on agnosticism but not theism or atheism. I would argue that they have nothing to do with absolute truth. With this view, I can say I am an atheist because I think there is greater probability in a god not existing. We could go round in circles like the others. This is where the terms get us. It is frustrating for everyone.
Are You Atheist or Agnostic
- Thread starter Schizo
- Start date
God requires a universe in which to develop likes and dislikes, goals and strategies. The God Hypothesis still doesn't explain the origin of the universe, it only postpones it. Where did the universe come from led to God? It's much more likely that blind matter and energy went through a transition of form, which evolved things like us. We made the concept of God in our image, because we are used to making things ourselves.
Again, as I said, forget scripture here. I am speaking only of a faceless concept itself, the concept of a creator.
That is only true if "God" himself has some direct control over the universe. There is no evidence to suggest this. Rather, if our universe was created, it was created to operate on its own (i.e, nature was a system developed by the creator for the universe to have a set of laws to operate on its own). It makes sense.
Spidergoat that is equally illogical because we can also ask where this matter and energy came from.
Matter and energy can come from nothing, but intelligence comes from matter and energy.
No. Atheism is a lack of theism. It can exist without theism, it is not dependant on it. Before man invented God, we were all atheists.
Completely untrue. Agnosticism makes a definite statement that knowing is impossible. It is a pro position.
Learn the terms of debate and stop wasting our time with your misconceptions.
Truthfully your abrasive nature is, to me, an indication that you, in life, will never have a fulfilling relationship. Sure you may have relationships, perhaps your even married, but I would almost pity the person you are with. His/her life would be a hell and that person would most likely commit suicide.
As per your 'opinions' you are telling me you know everything there is to know about neurology and psychology. Your telling me that there is no possibility that what I am saying is true... I truly feel sorry for you blinded intelligence.
Have a nice day!
= )
As per your 'opinions' you are telling me you know everything there is to know about neurology and psychology. Your telling me that there is no possibility that what I am saying is true... I truly feel sorry for you blinded intelligence.
Have a nice day!
= )
Firstly phlogistician's statements were direct and to the point, how exactly does that warrant you making statements regarding his personal life? It doesn't. Kindly debate the issues, not the person.
Out of interest, where exactly did you come to the understanding that atheism is "an extreme reaction to theism"?
Your misunderstanding of agnosticism is a common mistake. It's actual meaning has been explained a few times on this thread. If you would like a more detailed answer let me know.
Regards,
Out of interest, where exactly did you come to the understanding that atheism is "an extreme reaction to theism"?
Your misunderstanding of agnosticism is a common mistake. It's actual meaning has been explained a few times on this thread. If you would like a more detailed answer let me know.
Regards,
That's one side, sure. The other side is that the individual has no knowledge themself... so while knowing might be possible, they themselves as yet do not know.
Just as it is strong atheists who believe that God does not exist, it is also strong agnostics who claim knowledge of God is inherently impossible. But not all agnostics make this claim.
E.g. it is possible to know if there is intelligent life on other planets within 1,000 light-years of our own - we merely need to interact with them to know they do, or visit all the planets (possible, but not necessarily feasible) to know that they don't.
However, we as yet have no knowledge of the existence of any, and so must take a rational stance of agnosticism toward such a claim of their existence.
Snakelord- It is warranted, in the sense, that he made a personal attack; if you, as an individual, can not see the humor in the situation, you do not need to reply. It would only be an insult if the person in question actually had made the partner commit suicide.
Snakelord-I came to the conclusion regarding the acute reactions to theism and labeling them atheism as a psychosocial development. It is as plain as day to me; why so many others have a problem with it I do not quite fully understand, yet. In essence we live in a society that, whether we like it or not, is exposed at every level by religion; it is only logical to assume atheism is a polarized move on the part of the psyche. Let me explain: If you take into account the enormous amount of factors involved i.e. an individual's development in relation to religion, the persons personality (perhaps defiant or independent), a desire for attention, a logical mind(educated)... the list could go on... if you factor all this in you will find out that the mind progresses to a state which is in opposition to religion. It is an extreme stance. One end of the spectrum of the human psyche. Anyways what intrigues me is that you feel it necessary to try an persuade me otherwise; as if I did not feel my intelligence was developed enough to find truth for myself. I assure you I feel it is, whether you feel it is misguided or not; sounds like a personal problem.
Snakelord: My understanding of agnosticism is not misconceived; you sir are foolish and trying to insult me insidiously is futile.
= )
No such thing as 'strong atheism', it's a corruption and not to be tolerated. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, this cannot be stronger or weaker, it just is.
If you need a term for someone who believes God cannot exist, use 'anti-theist' as it's more accurate.
Again, there is no such thing as a 'strong agnostic' the term has been used inappropriately by many to be some wishy washy apologetic term, but that's bogus. The problem we have here is between the definition of words, and their usage; people use words incorrectly, and dictionaries also record usage. For the purpose of debate, we should stick to the definitions, not include widley held misconceptions.
Why, aren't you quite the little bag of vipers! I'm not going to dignify this with a reply.
I never said that, and that makes you a liar.
Go read a dictionary. For debate, we need common terms of reference, and when you lie about the meanings of the words we use in debate, it makes debate pointless. So debate honestly, using the real meanings of the words. Don't lie, or twist, or misdirect, but try and be honest. Cut out the ad-homs too, because it really weakens your credibility.
Ok, you found it warranted to say his wife would probably want to commit suicide for being with him - I guess there's little more that needs be said.
Oh I see it, it was very funny.
I wont quibble with this because there is no need. Atheism is not having a belief in gods, being opposed to religion is a separate issue.
Frankly I don't really care what you believe, but when I see someone openly displaying ignorance on a public forum I consider it worthwhile to put them straight. I would hope educating someone wouldn't be taken as offensive.
I see, you're one of those people. Ok, you win - let's leave it here.
Well, well, you responded in every nature possible... in an aggressive or competitive nature, defensive or weakened state, and a strategic nature where you tried to undermine me...
I'll let you realize what I am referring to.
Oh! and by the way you, in an uncivilized manner, attacked me personally; first.
I will perpetuate this game; you, to me, are a direct reflection of your avatar.
I'll let you realize what I am referring to.
Oh! and by the way you, in an uncivilized manner, attacked me personally; first.
I will perpetuate this game; you, to me, are a direct reflection of your avatar.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Schizo, where did Snake attack you personally ?
My last post was referring to phlogistician; if there was any confusion.
Oh and by the way I would take this with the utmost humor that can be conjured......
Because while you guys are getting fired up... I am laughing and enjoying it.
You can either be people who laxly take competition or fight with all your might to win a situation that there is no definite answer to. The latter of which is indication of your intelligence.
Oh and by the way I would take this with the utmost humor that can be conjured......
Because while you guys are getting fired up... I am laughing and enjoying it.
You can either be people who laxly take competition or fight with all your might to win a situation that there is no definite answer to. The latter of which is indication of your intelligence.
Agnosticism. for now at least.
Too many 'ors' there, sounds like you don't actually know what you are saying.
Does this fake mysticism work with chicks?
Oh dear, I think you forgot to tuck your ego in this morning.
It's Ann Coulter, I chose it in parody of a right wing Christian whacknut we had on this site for a while. Being a left wing atheist male, the avatar is as far from me as possible, and by the way, that was really lame attempt at a put down. Isn't your ego so fragile! One correction and you launch yourself on a crusade.
Anyway, go read a dictionary and learn the meanings of the words you attempt to use.
Nothing can come from nothing. That's completely illogical.
However, even by stating that intelligence comes from matter and energy, this does not detract from the concept of God, if not adding to it.
Let me explain; recently it has become apparant to me that if indeed there is a "multi-verse", or more than one universe, and this mutli-verse has always been, we can assume that universes are both created and come to be naturally
For instance (and I will use Humanity here), if our universe came to be naturally, then it came to be naturally. Quite simple to understand.
If we Humans ever one day develop the ability, somehow, to create universes, this universe [that we created] would be just that, created!
Therefore, if we take into account every "universe" that exists in this multi-verse, we can logically assume some are created and some come to be naturally.