Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[ozymandias]

I think weak atheism does carry the wrong connotation, maybe soft atheism is better?

Just avoid the unneeded use of additional labels. Explain what agnostic atheism is, and move on. Avoids any risk of confusion.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

well I think they're needed because many people think every Atheist is like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and they develop this defensive stance.

I like Neil deGrasse Tysson because he's more about just focusing on what science shows us rather than trying to debunk religion. He says let the evidence do the talking.

That's why these dunderheads like Faye and Kais, CammodeofEmpires/Dakharwal, keep asking you to prove there's no God.

[ozymandias]

I'm going to correct myself here, it's more accurate to state that an atheist lacks belief in a god, or gods, than to state that they believe there is no god, or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

well an Anti-Theist is an Atheist technically

Dawkins/Hitchens= Anti-theist/Strong Atheist

deGrasse Tysson= Agnostic Atheist/Soft Atheist

[RevolutionThroughReason]

[

And ****mitar, you have got some nerves to communicate with me after the way you behaved yesterday. Don't you dare talk to me again.
[/COLOR][/FONT][/B]

You brought that on yourself; next time don't spam someone's private message inbox .

[DaZahroJaam.]

The two terms are unrelated. Atheism and agnosticism are separate terms, and describe completely different things. They can both be used, or neither, to describe someone. It's like describing someone as a 'male pashtun', or describing an object as 'wet hair' . Being male neither implies, nor contradicts being pashtun, just like 'wet' neither implies the object is, or is not 'hair'.

A theist believes there is a god, or gods.

An atheist believes there is no god, or gods.

A gnostic believes that you can *PROVE* the existence, or non existence of the object of discussion.

An agnostic believes that you can *NOT* prove the existence or non existence of the object of discussion.

A gnostic theist not only believes that a god, or god exists, but that that existence can be *proven* in logical and scientific terms beyond all possibility of doubt.

An agnostic theist believes in a god, or god, but believes that it cannot be proven - and that faith is required.

A gnostic theist believes that no god, or gods exist, and that it can be conclusively proven.

An agnostic theist believes that no god or god exists, but that the non-existence cannot be proven. I fall into this category, since I understand that in order to disprove the existence of all gods, you must first come up with a falsifiable definition of all gods. Since there are, for all intents and purposes an infinite number of unfalsifiable definitions of god or gods, this cannot be done. While some definitions can be disproven, it's impossible to prove, or disprove them all.

No no no.. Agonistic is maybe or I think so but I can't explain it or come up with proof for it. Atheist is to say no, there is not such thing and I do not believe in any theory leading to this idea. They are two different terms in the sense that they contradict each other.
So according to your definition of agonistic(which is what you claim to be), you don't believe in God but you don't not believe in him either. That doesn't really say much and I don't see why a discussion this long has been based on a subject that neither of you have a clue about. You are all confused. You give your confusion a fancy name and then get on each other's throats and accuse each other of being wrong. Like that would really help sort out things.

88 pages..What a waste of time.

And ****mitar, you have got some nerves to communicate with me after the way you behaved yesterday. Don't you dare talk to me again.

[ozymandias]

No no no.. Agonistic is maybe or I think so but I can't explain it or come up with proof for it. Atheist is to say no, there is not such thing and I do not believe in any theory leading to this idea. They are two different terms in the sense that they contradict each other.

No, they do not. Gnosticism is about proof, theism is about belief.

So according to your definition of agonistic(which is what you claim to be),

No, I *AM* an agnostic atheist.

you don't believe in God but you don't not believe in him either.

Exactly. I am an atheist. I lack belief in a god, or gods. I do not profess that their is no god, I simply state I see no evidence for one, I reject the claim that they exist. That's all. I am rejecting your claim, not making a counter claim.

That doesn't really say much and I don't see why a discussion this long has been based on a subject that neither of you have a clue about.

I think you are still using an incorrect definition.

You are all confused. You give your confusion a fancy name and then get on each other's throats and accuse each other of being wrong. Like that would really help sort out things.

I'm the one using the common, recognized definitions of these words. It's not me that is confused about the definitions.

What a waste of time.

And ****mitar, you have got some nerves to communicate with me after the way you behaved yesterday. Don't you dare talk to me again.

[faye]

So waves cannot, and does not *ever create sand? I'd like to see a citation for that claim.
I stated that waves are not intelligent, and your response was "there is no proof that waves are not intelligent". Lack of proof does not make it so -- you need to provide proof if we are going to consider them intelligent.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
You make an outrageous claim, expect to provide evidence.

so, the 'action of waves' creates silica, quartz, limestone, coral, shells, basalts, obsidians and all the other stuff that sand is made from?
do they also create trees, flowers, mountains, coral reef,s fishes and apes like you and scimitar?

lol. who is the 'we' that it is sooooo important to prove anything to?

so, do you have proof that waves are not intelligent, if not then my statement is correct and needs no proof from me. that will be my proof.

[faye]

So based on this I was right, you were raised a Christian since your society and cultural upbringing was Christian.

Thanks for giving me proof.

that would also mean that you and ozy are christians, based on that as proof.
what i said means, i have seen christian ideas in books and in aspects of society and heard them, not that i have been brought up as a christian.
a christian is a believer in the bible, heaven and hell, a triad with jesus dieing on a cross, a devil, and that evil is from the devil, etc, none of which i believe, other than i believe in the POSSIBILITY that jesus, mohammad, buddha and others were messengers for a creator.
the aftermath, done by others, appears to me to have distorted positive messages.
no bible in our household, no grace, prayers or belief in jesus.
so, where is your proof that i am a christian?

[faye]

That's not how it works. Having an open mind means you are willing to look at evidence and re-asses your beliefs and opinions in the light of new evidence -- not that you believe anything without evidence.

for YOU, that is not how it works. bear in mind the fact that humans have many different ways of viewing reality. each individual. yours is via, logic, proof, and the desire to prove others wrong, from YOUR way of viewing 'life the universe and everything'.
what i do, is consider the possibility of different ideas and views. i have no need, as i have already said, to seriously battle over different views. i am just having fun, watching your desperate need to prove that others are wrong and you are right.

apart from your seeming prejudice against muslims specifically, why else would you be here on this forum?

[faye]

I said my hypothesis is that there is an intelligent creator; but that' doesn't mean what I'm saying is right. I could be wrong, we all could be. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it is the truth

precisely.
so, if one does not know if their belief is correct/truth, then one does not have a base from which to tell others their beliefs are not correct/truth.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

that would also mean that you and ozy are christians, based on that as proof.:

Wrong because I have a Muslim upbringing and my cultural sphere was Muslim. Yours is Christian for sure.

Don't run away from your heritage White Lady

[RevolutionThroughReason]

precisely.
so, if one does not know if their belief is correct/truth, then one does not have a base from which to tell others their beliefs are not correct/truth.

Well you can say their reasons for claiming they're the truth is incorrect. because they lack evidence.

That's independent on whether your belief is correct or not.

So please don't say "exactly" because it is evident you didn't understand the variables pertaining to each matter. They're mutually exclusive.

[faye]

hahha...wrong.
your supposed logic means that you and ozy are christians since you were brought up in a christian society.
tripped yourself there, didn't you, mr stupidityindex?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

haha You're just repeating what you're saying despite the fact I explained why your premise was flawed in my respects. Circular argument ....and it's a straw-man I ALSO said Christian CULTURAL upbringing; that was missing in my life. The TWO factors go hand in hand. So this would not apply for me.

logic fail.