Athiests and Agnostics do not Reject God

Athiests and Agnostics do not Reject God.

For how can we reject an unexisting individual?

We dont believe in God because we dont see any God to believe in. No God ever bothered to say that he exists. And nothing we have today proves the existance of a God. Our existence can be the result of a million possibilities. A God may or may NOT exist but as far as our knowledge, senses and reasoning goes HE DOESNT EXIST. So we are not rejecting anybody, any person or any being that is divine.


What Muslims and Christians preach are just hear-says and insubstantial claims which doesnt prove anything.

Peace.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just because you're deaf doesn't mean sound doesn't exist. Just because you're blind doesn't mean light doesn't exist.

You are both correct and incorrect. A proper definition of atheism includes a simple lack of belief in God. But those who declare their atheism ... it's a mystery to me why they invent things to reject as the basis for an identity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read again. I never said that his nonexistence is a fact.

The more accurate definition of atheism is non-belief in God.

Invent things? Like what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what sense is it, pray tell, that atheists lack? Honestly, this is such a lame counterpoint. Even a blind or deaf person can corroborate the existence of sound and light through other senses.

Atheists don't invent god, theists do. Atheists reject the theistic assertion and since theists are always inquiring atheists need a label for identification. As for it being used by some as a basis for identity can you not think of other nihilistic identifications? Typically it's a reactionary or rebellious motivation.

~Raithere

 

I just wish that theists wouldn't be so damn touchy and think that atheists and agnostics are trying to hurt them.

Atheists and agnostics are often far more peaceful towards religious people than religious people towards atheists and agnostics.

You go and tell a Mormon that you don't believe in God, and he'll cry and be hurt!

 

Athiests think god is merely a concept and, therefore, do reject "god".

 

The fool has said in his heart, there is NO God.



... couldn't resist the urge to say that.

 

Dr Lou,

Not quite. Descriptions of gods are only concepts - or can you show that one actually exists? Until there is some proof then gods will remain only as concepts.

Kat

 

Atheists, try very hard to hide their folly. Agnostics are the ONLY one's who have a lack of belief. If you think you have a "lack of belief" and you call yourself atheist, then you don't know the definition of atheist. Atheists say "THERE IS NO 'GOD'", agnostics say "I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS OR NOT" those are the only two ways to go. Very simply. It seems that there is horrid redundancy with arguments because many people truly don't know what they "are" as much as they think they do. If you don't believe there is a God just say it, quit prevaricating and starting debates over nonsense. As I said in another thread, 'Atheists' try so hard to deny their faith...it's a shame.

 

Hi, everybody,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm kinda new here, I just joined this forum, and it looks like you guys have a pretty interesting discussion going on here.

Well, tiassa, it's really about whether you think sound, light, and other things around us are subjective concepts or objective reality. I mean, if they are objective, then it doesn't matter what you do, they will still exist. But if you think they are merely subjective concepts, then they may not exist if you don't think they exist.

So I think athiests only think that "God" is a subjective concept designed by other normal human beings, and since there is little to none evidence suggesting that God actually exists in an objective reality, athiests have few reasons to believe in God. However, there are many beliefs about God, some think he/she/it is one all-powerful, omnipotent figure who can see everything, decide everything, and do anything, yet it is invisible to us. Some others believe in multiple gods and goddesses, and there are people who believe that God is everything and everything is God. SO I don't think all athiests reject all kinds and forms of god, only certain forms. The thing I know for sure is that most athiests I know believe in science and do not believe in the omnipotent concept of God.

 

Do you believe in bigfoot and pink flying elephants? Would you call your unacceptance of it a belief? I wouldn't.

 

This is little more than tiresome and ignorant pedantry.

Some do, many don't. I don't

Some do, many don't. I don't.

What is very simple is the sophomoric gruel that you pass off as explication.

CHRISCUNNINGHAM, this foolishness has been raised many times. It impresses no one.

 

I wonder how any times the atheist/agnostic debate, essentially one of semantics, has raised its hoary muzzle from the slimy murk of this subforum?

Just because you're selling, doesn't mean I'm buying.

 

1 more than the number of times someone has pointed it out as being a repeat

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sound logic, that...

 

Persol, this is much different than fairy tales my friend. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to the first cause, the uncaused effect, there are no basic constructs from reality to make judgement of what is a "correct" belief, yes belief (for the belief is that anything that seems extraordinary based on "corroboration" must irrevocably be nonexistent), and what is "wrong." So your inane pink elephant "refutation" is far from anything I would call relevant.

Consequent Atheist, it is much more than pedantry here, it's, at best, a step to rid this forum of its redundancy, and as persol said, the same arguments on semantics come up. WHY is this? Because the different definitions of atheism and agnosticism contradict each other and individuals base their arguments on these contradictions. And as I've said, the definition of atheism, as it's defined in the dictionary, is a DISBELIEF in a "god". When one says he "lacks belief" as an atheist he's merely prevaricating around the fact that his DISBELIEF is based only in faith; a faith equal, but opposite to theists's faith. The only time one "lacks a belief" is if he does not pick any side to assert. It's oh so very simple, yet so many want to muddle its simplicity with their own deluded logic, i.e. "If I don't believe in pink elephants is that unacceptable...". Don't label yourself as someone who DISBELIEVES there is a "god", if you don't DISBELIEVE there is a "god". If you're not sure and do not assert any side, then you are agnostic, and shouldn't label yourself as someone who IS sure of one side.

If you, however, rationalize: "Well I don't deny there COULD be a God, but I don't believe there is one so I am a 'weak atheist'" you muddle up the defintion, and start creating new, superfluous concepts that ruin any sort of assent that could occur between definitions. The doubts one may have about his BELIEF or DISBELIEF is irrelevant, for at the end of the day he still holds the same belief. If your only belief is that you truly can't be sure, thats great, you're taking the best, epistemological stance. But then don't turn around prancing as someone who is firm with a belief that there is no god. Because from what I see, almost every atheist is an agnostic who doesn't want to admit they are, not even to themselves. Whether or not you, consequent atheist, say "There is no God" means nothing to the definition of atheist. Just the same, whether you, consequent atheist, say "I'm not sure if there is or isn't" means nothing to the definition of agnostic. The definition is independent of what an individual believes it "should be" because if everyone could put their own opinion on words with definite meanings, language would be completely useless. Maybe it is useless, nevertheless, to rid the language of its worthlessness, everyone must agree on a definition. If a definition that is clear and concise already exists, there's no real reason to create another one. That is the premise of my argument.

Don't put your foot in a shoe thats already occupied, you're not important enough to.

Same idea, don't change the meanings of words because you don't like it, for overall it will only convolute their assigned logic, and then cause debates that become redundantly redundant. Atheists DISBELIEVE, Theists BELIEVE, and Agnostics "lack belief". Those are the defintions.

Now, consequent, who in this forum,may I ask, is worthy to be "impressed"?

 

Well yes, there is... reality and logic. God fails in both of these respect.

This has also been beat to death, but there is no reason to assume that there was an uncaused effect in the first place. Assuming that 'something' was, there is no reason to assume that it was God. It could just as easily have been the universe itself, the big bang, or the aforementioned pink elephant.

 

I won't even bother with the rest of the post, because it's entirely based on how incredibly wrong this part is.

First of all, go ahead and put down dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com. They are wrong. Their definitions do not accuractly convey the nearly-universal, in philosophical circles and discussions, definition of atheism, as a simple lack of belief in God. You are correct that Theists believe, but you're showing your true colors (i.e., utter ignorance with respect to philosophy, no offnse) with your complete nonsense definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, not belief: agnostics assert that we have no way of knowing whether God exists or not. This has been said hundreds of times, over and over, and people still don't get it: agnosticism isn't the "middle ground" between atheism and theism. It's not even in the same category: atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. Most agnostics are also atheists, although they will deny this due to the negative feelings associated with the word "atheist".

Please do a little reading next time before you make such erroneous claims.

 

Yep.

I believe there is an Almighty Creator, however, I believe we'll NEVER know who or what he/she/it is in this physical plane of existance so in that regards, I'm an agnostic. The only think we'll have in trying to know more about God is philosophy. That's all religion is; philosophy with followers. We can think and think and think until our brains explode, but we'll just never know the truth while in this plane of existance.

Agonosticism is kind of like various East Asian religions. One can be a Buddhist yet also a Taoist or Confucist because while one is a religion, the other is a state of mind. And well, there's nothing wrong with that. Is there???

- N

 

<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
M*W: There's no agnosticism when Humanity is God. It's a well known interconnected fact. Why else would God create us in its image? Christianity is what defiles Humanity as God. Christianity is the lie that crucifies humanity as God. Get rid of Christianity, and you get rid of agnosticism.