Forum fun...

[Scouse]

What is absolutely hilarious is the fact that you subscribe to a belief that you don't even understand the definition of.

You're stalling. Trying to deflect attention from your lack of understanding.

Please tell us all on here what the differences between the two sentences are. I'm being fair with you and wish to hold a genuine discussion about this exact point.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

Please explain how not having a belief in the existence of a higher power is in fact a belief? Or indeed that the lack of belief in a higher power is not the definition of atheism.

If you have rejected the possibility of a higher power, in an infinite universe, you have taken a leap of faith and subscribe to the religion of atheism. If you are an apathetic fence sitter who doesn't know or doesn't care, you are an agnostic

 

[Scouse]

Gents. If you would please direct Son of Sluggish to my question, so he can no longer avoid it.

If you wish to concede defeat Mr Sluggish, we're all willing to accept...

 

[Krazeh]

If you have rejected the possibility of a higher power, in an infinite universe, you have taken a leap of faith and subscribe to the religion of atheism. If you are an apathetic fence sitter who doesn't know or doesn't care, you are an agnostic

And what if you're someone who has looked at the evidence we have available and have made a reasoned, logical decision that's there's nothing on which to base a belief in the existence of a higher power? Where's the leap of faith there? Or the apathetic fence sitting?

Also, could you please answer Scouse's question and tell us all what the differences between his statements are? In case you've forgotten they were:

1. Atheists believe there is no god.
2. Atheists have a lack of belief in a god.

And while we're at it perhaps you could actually answer my question properly as well. How can the lack of belief be considered a belief? And how is the lack of belief not the definition of atheism?

 

[Scouse]

Gah. My fucking internet connection is now dropping 30% of packets

 

[nath]

P1: "What were you doing at 8pm."
P2: "Watching the telly."
P1: "There is no evidence you were watching the telly."
P3: "I saw him watching the telly."
P1: "There is no evidence you were watching the telly."
P4-2000: "His house is made of glass, the whole town saw him watching the telly."
P1: "There is no evidence you were watching the telly."

This is why I started by saying that athiests simply reject the evidence available. Hundreds to thousands of people throughout history performing signs, and being viewed performing signs, and attributing it to God, yet it is "easier" to claim they were all mistaken or liars, and therefore it isn't evidence.

More and more, anthropologists in the middle east uncover evidence of the people and events described in the Bible . . . yet when it comes to the descriptions of who inspired the writing of it, it is summarily rejected because it is all hearsay.

Because it is late and I am off to bed, I'll concede that there is likely no evidence I could put forth that would satisfy your standard. If you'd rather believe that everything sprang from nothing purely by accident, I won't be able to persuade you.

As I said, it's not a choice of what to believe for me - it's simply what the evidence suggests.

The thing is, if a friend says "I was watching tele the other night" it's an entirely unexceptional thing and I've no reason to call him a liar. However, it's not *evidence*. I think more important point I was making is that it's invalid to assume that a deity exists simply because there are events that we do not understand.

In fact, given Occam's Razor it's actually impossible to have evidence for a deity as, given the limits and vulnerability of human perception, there would always be a more simple solution. Hell, who knows, at some point perhaps there will be technology that allows us to manipulate our senses a la The Matrix. As wacky as that seems, it will always be a more straightforward explanation for something than an omniscient, omnipotent being that created us all.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

And what if you're someone who has looked at the evidence we have available and have made a reasoned, logical decision that's there's nothing on which to base a belief in the existence of a higher power? Where's the leap of faith there? Or the apathetic fence sitting?

Also, could you please answer Scouse's question and tell us all what the differences between his statements are? In case you've forgotten they were:

1. Atheists believe there is no god.
2. Atheists have a lack of belief in a god.

And while we're at it perhaps you could actually answer my question properly as well. How can the lack of belief be considered a belief? And how is the lack of belief not the definition of atheism?

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

You disguise the rejection of a possibility as a lack of belief. Rejection = lack of belief. This requires faith in science/knowledge/humanity because YOU know better. You have placed yourself in the place of a higher power. I'll answer the question... AGAIN..


1. Atheists believe there is no god.
2. Agnostics have a lack of belief in god.

Unless you swear off the possibility of a higher power... You are ALL agnostics.

 

[nath]

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

You disguise the rejection of a possibility as a lack of belief. Rejection = lack of belief. This requires faith in science/knowledge/humanity because YOU know better. You have placed yourself in the place of a higher power. I'll answer the question... AGAIN..


1. Atheists believe there is no god.
2. Agnostics have a lack of belief in god.

Unless you swear off the possibility of a higher power... You are ALL agnostics.

I suggest reading your very own link - A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist...

As I quoted before - I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that, we're weak/negative atheists.

However I think Scouse was right in suggesting that you simply don't have the ability to understand our point given the your claim that:

Rejection = lack of belief.

That's patently not true but we've come to such a basic point that there's not much room for argument, you cannot see why it's wrong and so there's little point in discussing it further.

Anyway, it's 3:30am here and I need to be up for work at the crack of 11am so I best be off to bed. I fucking love being self-employed .

 

[Krazeh]

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

You disguise the rejection of a possibility as a lack of belief. Rejection = lack of belief. This requires faith in science/knowledge/humanity because YOU know better. You have placed yourself in the place of a higher power.

Where have I rejected the possibility of the existence of a higher power? If someone came forward with credible, verifiable evidence for the existence of a deity then I would re-examine my views and, assuming the evidence was kosher, would quite possibly come to the conclusion that a higher power did exist. As for the concept of placing faith in science/knowledge are we discussing faith in the context that it's used in religious concepts, i.e. a complete, certain belief? Because if so I'd deny I have such faith in science or knowledge, I believe in them only to the extent that I have evidence to support that belief. If evidence comes to light that questions my belief in the veracity of science or any knowledge then I would re-examine that belief.

I'll answer the question... AGAIN..

1. Atheists believe there is no god.
2. Agnostics have a lack of belief in god.

Unless you swear off the possibility of a higher power... You are ALL agnostics.

Again you're wrong. It's made even worse by the fact that you've posted a definition for atheism that demonstrates that you're wrong.

Taken from your link -
a·the·ism

   /ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uh

m] Show IPA
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://ask.reference.com/web?q=atheism&o=102284

Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

As we can see definition 1 fits with your first claim, and definition 2 fits with your second claim, therefore both claims must describe atheists. Then we should also consider that the first definition kinda has to imply the second, you can't hold a belief that there is no god if you don't also not believe in ther existence. As such it can be seen that both your statements fall into the definition of atheism.

Also you haven't actually answered how having a lack of belief can be considered a belief.

 

[Son of Sluggish]

I think it's funny. You're all too smart to declare yourselves straight-up atheists. "Weak" "Negative" atheists... LOL!!

You're fucking agnostics and you know it! I can't understand your lofty premise? I not only understand, but see right through you thin charade. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I'm not saying their is any such thing as God or Allah or YHWH or whatever. In fact, I think the very idea of those deities is ridiculous but to dismiss out of hand the notion that there could possibly be a higher power is delusional at best.

BUT... None of you are saying that... You are all saying "Who knows" or "I can't be arsed with that" which is tantamount to proclaiming from the highest mountain "I'M A FENCE SITTING AGNOSTIC THAT DOESN'T KNOW SHITE AND I'M PROUD OF IT!"

Say it proud!

 

[Krazeh]

I think it's funny. You're all too smart to declare yourselves straight-up atheists. "Weak" "Negative" atheists... LOL!!

You're fucking agnostics and you know it! I can't understand your lofty premise? I not only understand, but see right through you thin charade. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I'm not saying their is any such thing as God or Allah or YHWH or whatever. In fact, I think the very idea of those deities is ridiculous but to dismiss out of hand the notion that there could possibly be a higher power is delusional at best.

Neither I, nor Scouse or Nath (to the best of my knowledge), have dismissed out of hand the notion that there could possibly be a higher power. To claim that we have done is putting words into our mouths.

BUT... None of you are saying that... You are all saying "Who knows" or "I can't be arsed with that" which is tantamount to proclaiming from the highest mountain "I'M A FENCE SITTING AGNOSTIC THAT DOESN'T KNOW SHITE AND I'M PROUD OF IT!"

Say it proud!

I'm not saying anything of the sort. As I have previously stated I am saying that I have looked at the evidence and have not found anything on which to base a belief in the existence of a higher power. This is a direct statement on my views, it is not fence sitting or agnoticism; It is the straight up claim that I do not hold any belief in the existence of a higher power.

Clearly you don't have the ability to grasp the concept of not holding a belief in something and as such you have to view everything, including atheism, in terms of holding belief. Now I honestly don't know why you're unable to grasp what is in my view a fairly simple concept; if pushed i'd make a guess that you were raised in a religious environment and therefore expect everyone else to hold their world view in a similar way, i.e. must have a belief in something, but as I say I don't know one way or another why it is. However the fact that you're getting so worked up about it makes me wonder what it is you have against people who don't hold a belief in a higher power? Or is it just you're not able to accept losing an argument so are resorting to insults and using capital letters to try and prove your point?

 

[nath]

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.


(In response to SoS's post, naturally).

 

[Reschke]

Most of the boards are hidden until you sign up.
Yeah, I totally understand that, it's why Swoop asked me to get some of you guys over, to kick the rednecks into submission!! He also told me that anything goes, you don't get banned for the 'usual' offences. Apparantly the only rule is don't post NSFW stuff anywhere except 'the crucible' board.

YAWN!!!!

You guys make me tired since I am few days behind on this "raid"!

Swoop is a good English bastard in my book since he posts some great looking women in his Wednesday Babe threads on another board. Perhaps you guys could try to contribute things like that instead of trying to create problems.

Post something other than the stupid stuff in the Crucible and then we will forgive and forget.

 

[StRaNgEdAyS]

The fact that all babies are born atheists somewhat disproves your point. They're not taking a leap of anything, they also don't weigh up the idea of God vs No God and come to the conclusion that humanity can't ever know the truth of the matter. They *lack* any form of theistic belief and thus are atheists.

I disagree, Babies do have a religion, much the same as mine in fact. We both worship boobies.

 

[FWNuke]

This man knows what's up. I am proud that this great man is an American!

YouTube - Tom Cruise Scientology Video - ( Original UNCUT )!

 

[Ch3tan]

nath, scouse et al, you guys are fucking idiots you know that? It's like you are arguing with an island of tohts. Have you not learned how futile it is yet?

 

[Raven]

One of the most visible is the Bible and the evidence it contains, including prophecies given that came to pass well after the original words were written. Getting more generic, every human culture had a belief system in a diety or dieties, or powers beyond the realm of the physical world we can see and touch. If there was no such other-worldly power, it would seem some athiest-baby at some point would have developed a wonderfully advanced civilization without any such belief system -- but it has never happened.

I don't expect you to accept such evidence, but that is your choice.

Something written down and then edited time and time again to suit its editor is not proof of anything, except maybe the gullibility of the mob and the greed of man.
God (as in the Christian single sky fairy) does not exist, get over it.

Or to put it another way.


And lo, there were unicorns and pixies and all manner of talking birds.

See, it must be true. Its written down.

 

[Kryten]

Agnostic? There's a cream for that.

And have to agree with Raven - just because it's written, the truth it doth not make. If that was the case, Apple's advertising campaigns wouldn't be 95% bullshit and we'd all read the Daily Mail here

Agnosticism isn't just the belief that you can't prove the existence of $deity - it's also the belief you can't prove the non-existence of one too. That's the stance I take.

 

[Tom]

I hate to prove fellow Freddies wrong, but the Oxford English Dictionary defines an atheist as:

[a. F. athéiste (16th c. in Littré), or It. atheista: see prec. and -IST.]

A. n.

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[a1568 COVERDALE Hope of Faithf. Pref. Wks. II. 139 Eat we and drink we lustily; to-morrow we shall die: which all the epicures protest openly, and the Italian atheoi.] 1571 GOLDING Calvin on Ps. Ep. Ded. 3 The Atheistes which say..there is no God. 1604 ROWLANDS Looke to it 23 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee. 1709 SHAFTESBURY Charac. I. I. §2 (1737) II. 11 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any Cause, Measure, or Rule of Things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist. 1876 GLADSTONE in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

1577 HANMER Anc. Eccl. Hist. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men. 1660 STANLEY Hist. Philos. 323/2 An Atheist is taken two ways, for him who is an enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods. 1667 MILTON P.L. I. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons. 1827 HARE Guesses Ser. I. (1873) 27 Practically every man is an atheist, who lives without God in the world.

B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

1667 MILTON P.L. VI. 370 The Atheist crew. 1821 LOCKHART Valerino II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky.


..and an agnostic as:

[f. Gr. - unknowing, unknown, unknowable (f. not + - know) + -IC. Cf. GNOSTIC; in Gr. the termination - never coëxists with the privative -.]

A. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
[Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.’ R. H. HUTTON in letter 13 Mar. 1881.]

1870 Spect. 29 Jan. 135 In theory he [Prof. Huxley] is a great and even severe Agnostic, who goes about exhorting all men to know how little they know. 1874 MIVART Ess. Relig. etc. 205 Our modern Sophiststhe Agnostics,those who deny we have any knowledge, save of phenomena. 1876 Spect. 11 June, Nicknames are given by opponents, but Agnostic was the name demanded by Professor Huxley for those who disclaimed atheism, and believed with him in an ‘unknown and unknowable’ God; or in other words that the ultimate origin of all things must be some cause unknown and unknowable. 1880 BP. FRASER in Manch. Guardn. 25 Nov., The Agnostic neither denied nor affirmed God. He simply put Him on one side.

B. adj. Of or pertaining to agnostics or their theory.

1873 Q. Rev. CXXXV. 192 The pseudo-scientific teachers of what has..been termed..the Agnostic Philosophy. 1876 TULLOCH Agnosticism in Weekly Scotsm. 18 Nov., The same agnostic principle which prevailed in our schools of philosophy had extended itself to religion and theology. Beyond what man can know by his senses or feel by his higher affections, nothing, as was alleged, could be truly known. 1880 G. C. M. BIRDWOOD Ind. Arts I. 4 The agnostic teaching of the Sankhya school is the common basis of all systems of Indian philosophy. 1882 FROUDE Carlyle II. 216 The agnostic doctrines, he (Carlyle) once said to me, were to appearance like the finest flour, from which you might expect the most excellent bread; but when you came to feed on it, you found it was powdered glass, and you had been eating the deadliest poison.
ADDITIONS SERIES 1993


agnostic, n. and a.

Add: [B.] 2. Path. = AGNOSIC a.

[1935 Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. LVII. 332 It is significant that finger agnosia should be present without other autotopagnostic features.] 1941 J. M. NIELSEN Clin. Neurol. x. 274 Agnostic alexia is due to loss of power of visual recognition of the symbols of language. 1946 Agnosia, Apraxia, Aphasia (ed. 2) ii. 34 Agnostic alexia is the failure of recognition of letters, figures, syllables, and words. 1953 Brain LXXVI. 546 Our agnostic patient..seemed to have an alexia. 1975 Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. LI. 1161 The actions of naloxone were not agnostic, since the administration of either morphine or oxymorphone routinely reduced the amplitude of all reflexes tested.
DRAFT ADDITIONS DECEMBER 2009


agnostic, n. and adj.

A. n.

2. A person who is unpersuaded by or uncommitted to a particular point of view; a sceptic. Also: person of indeterminate ideology or conviction; an equivocator.

1885 Western Druggist 15 Dec. 359/2 Judge Chipman is clearly an agnostic on the subject of pills. 1909 Westm. Gaz. 16 Apr. 7/3 On this question of a preferential tariff, Mr. Mayhew had no hesitation in confessing himself an agnostic. 1921 J. E. MERCER Alchemy I. v. 61 As regards alchemy, he was an agnostic. On the one hand, he would not venture to set bounds to the possible in nature; on the other hand, he could not yield assent. 1988 Q Oct. 42 Even a confirmed agnostic on the issue, Dire Straits' manager..can see an obvious reason [for sponsorship]. 2002 Chicago Tribune (Midwest ed.) 10 Nov. X. 14/1 A slightly muddled ‘death-penalty agnostic’, someone who vacillated between opposition to execution and thinking it a sad necessity in horrific cases.
B. adj.

3. Uncommitted to or unpersuaded by a particular point of view; sceptical. Also: politically or ideologically unaligned; non-partisan, undogmatic; equivocal.

1884 Syracuse (N.Y.) Standard 23 June 7/1 There, are also among them many worthy young persons who have been brought up on the sincere milk of agnostic politics. 1891 Rev. of Reviews May 456/1 An agnostic non-committalism. 1955 Bull. Atomic Sci. Mar. 94/2 The two colonels are justified in their agnostic attitude toward nuclear radiation hazards. 1991 P. ROBERTSON New World Order II. v. 161 For America..it is morally..impossible to propose a new Jerusalem and yet at the same time remain agnostic or indifferent about genocide and ecocide in Indochina. 2001 Wall St. Jrnl. 17 Jan. A26/5 At this point, I am agnostic on Mr. Powell as chairman. A better choice may be an academic.

 

[Tom]

jesus christ on crutches boy! arguing with you guys like like arguing with a woman!

what does this drivel you post in reply have to do with the fact that slavery was imported to the new world by you people?

try to stay on topic son. the tedium of attempting to enlighten someone so dense and the number of the dense amongst you is taxing.

regarding gubmint housing, only nanny staters like you place any significance on those structures.

When you write "you people" you should bear in mind the date of the USA's declaration of independence, and the political allegiances of its member states before this declaration. You should also bear in mind precisely when the UK outlawed slavery and its transportation, and the dates on which your Capitol building was built.

In short, you appear to be rather ignorant of your country's history.

 

[Raven]

They are probably referring to the original white house that was burnt to the ground, I doubt they even know its since been rebuilt. Most of Washington was rebuilt by slaves.

 

[Tom]

They do have more right-wing idiots than we do, however.

YouTube - Dan Fanelli Ad

 

[DaGaffer]

Personally I line up with Dawkin's view of Athesim, which is based, like all good science, on the probability of God:

Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian' suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief: Martin's 'positive atheism'. Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1: 'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7: 'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6: 'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'

In other words, on the evidence available, I'm an atheist. However, if a gentleman with a big beard fancies coming down and turning some water into wine and throwing a few lightening bolts around, bring some dead people to life, that kind of deal, I'm quite prepared to revise my position.

 

[Scouse]

You've failed SoS. I asked you to explain one simple thing and you haven't even come close to what I'm getting at. This is now *definately* my last post on religion here.

One thing I would say is that religious people talk about others having "faith or belief in science".

As a scientist I have no such thing. In fact quite the opposite. If I found any evidence that "science" as a concept was incorrect then, by it's very nature, I'd ditch it.

You cannot do that with your religions.

 

[rynnor]

One thing I would say is that religious people talk about others having "faith or belief in science".

As a scientist I have no such thing. In fact quite the opposite. If I found any evidence that "science" as a concept was incorrect then, by it's very nature, I'd ditch it.

You cannot do that with your religions.

Like Global Warming

Is it Science or a Religion ?

It seems to be linked to every observed phenomena these days from Volcanoes to Blizzards which is a characteristic of faiths that they can explain everything in their terms.

It also seems to resist negative evidence and there are devotees who say that even if if there was no warming for decades they would still believe it - that is surely faith?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well damn, missed the whole religion part of the thread.

We had a nice discussion about science being similar to religion on another thread, in another place.

Modern science does require some amount of blind trust in it, as people who are observing the issues tell you so and are not without the chance of corruption.

Only way for you to know things 100% is to test them yourself, and i doubt Scouse you've been out proving string theory and making sure the microwave works as it works and not by gnomes with blowtorches.

Per example; how do you know there was a real volcano problem on iceland, without trusting someones word for it?

As a scientist I have no such thing. In fact quite the opposite. If I found any evidence that "science" as a concept was incorrect then, by it's very nature, I'd ditch it.

You cannot do that with your religions.

That's the difference with science;

If you found proof that science is wrong, you'd ditch it.

Right, but then you come to the problem. There's no proof that religion is wrong.

Not syaing there's proof it is, but not the other way around either.

 

[DaGaffer]

That's the difference with science;

If you found proof that science is wrong, you'd ditch it.

Right, but then you come to the problem. There's no proof that religion is wrong.

Not syaing there's proof it is, but not the other way around either.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! That's not how science works. On analysis of all the available evidence, there is nothing to show any religion describes a valid model of the universe. You don't have to "prove" anything, you also don't have to rely on "faith" to paint an alternate picture that doesn't have God in it because athesim doesn't say "I think" or "I believe" it says "there isn't any verifiable or repeatable evidence, come back to me when there is and I'll be happy to check it".

 

[Tom]

DaGaffer, imagine that Tohtori is sat at the table reading a newspaper, expressing surprise at the lack of a headline describing mass awareness of a certain avian variety.

Now imagine I'm Stewie Griffin, shouting "DaGaffer DON'T!"

 

[old.Tohtori]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh! That's not how science works. On analysis of all the available evidence, there is nothing to show any religion describes a valid model of the universe. You don't have to "prove" anything, you also don't have to rely on "faith" to paint an alternate picture that doesn't have God in it because athesim doesn't say "I think" or "I believe" it says "there isn't any verifiable or repeatable evidence, come back to me when there is and I'll be happy to check it".

Untwist those panties sir.

I was pointing out the difference in religion and science regarding evidence, not saying anything about how atheists see things.

Science and religion don't really mix when compared like that, would be like saying "that's not how an orange works!" when talking about nutritional values of steak.

 

[DaGaffer]

DaGaffer, imagine that Tohtori is sat at the table reading a newspaper, expressing surprise at the lack of a headline describing mass awareness of a certain avian variety.

Now imagine I'm Stewie Griffin, shouting "DaGaffer DON'T!"

I know, I was weak, and now I've gone to the bad place. Help me!