atheists don't have the right to be atheists.

I've esentially said the same many times yet I wish I'd said it that way.

The word agnostic was coined simply & solely because an atheist didn't want to be called atheist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that's your idea of joking, it's not funny. That's 1 of the major faults of theists, wanting others to suffer.
The vast majority of atheists, if not all, would not wish eternal suffering on anyone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find the term 'agnostic' is used in a far too apologetic sense, like people term themselves 'agnostic' so not to offend theists.

I dislike the modern usage as much as I dislike modern biblical apologetics who say some scriptures are euphemisms, and not to be taken literally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously because you don't believe in eternality.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But there have been regimes under atheist rule and doctrine which have
carried out suffering to others causing them to suffer in their one life, have there not?

Apart from that how do you know what the majority of atheists would or would not wish for?

jan

 

We can't all be Anselm

A dubious proposition at best, as it is rooted in a fallacy.

Not all of us can be Anselm.

 

There have been no regimes under atheist rule and doctrine. Atheism is not an ideology. You might be fallaciously associating regimes under communist or fascist rule and doctrine (or some other ideological hegemony), but these regimes weren't "atheist" even if their rulers were.

Atheism simply does not cause others to have the casual disregard for life that those deluded by "eternality" and afterlives do. Most atheists understand that this life is all there is any evidence of one getting and, therefore, it is precious and should be treated as valuable.

I can name a handful of theists I work with who are sure this life matters only so far as what you believe about an imaginary being and that this imaginary being will return soon. And they live their lives accordingly -affording only a modicum of responsibility toward an environment that will not matter in the near future; seeking only to prepare their lives for the next; caring little for the legacy they leave descendants who they probably won't have; etc.

 

Should SAM return, I'd love her to read the above.

I'd also like Tiassa to suck back the smoke he's blown up her ass recently, and revisit the thread where she claimed Stalinist purges were the result of atheism.

 

SkinWalker,

By the same token there has been no regimes under theist rule and doctrine. And theism is not an ideology.

You can't have it both ways, if you blame theism for atrocites done in the name of religion, then atheism must also be blamed for atrocites done in the name of communism.

So athiesm is an ideology, why you can make such confident predictions?

Seems like someone forgot to inform Stalin and Pol Pot of this revelation.
Pity, it might have saved millions of inoccent lives.

What does this have to do with anything?

jan.

 

Can you really be so ignorant of history?

Not in itself, but most often it's tied to a religion, which is. More than that, it most often seeks political power, and allies itself to the Monarchy, hence why your statement about there not being religious regimes is idiocy. Not to mention the Vatican, the Inquisitions, Witch Hunting, Crusades, and power struggles between protestant and catholic Monarchs in the UK.

Convolve shit much? Atheism has NOTHING to do with communism. Are you really that ignorant you cannot separate the two?

Rather it's a lack of a specific ideology.

Both Stalin and Pol Pot attended CHRISTIAN schools.

 

If we are going to be silly like that, let's just stick to blaming atheism for atrocities committed in the name of atheism by atheists, shall we? There probably have been some, somewhere.

After all, communists like the founders of the early Christian communities in the US are not exactly atheists. (Or, where do you think the name "Commonwealth of Massachusetts" came from?)

 

phlogistician,

Ditto, with regard to atheism.

And atheism is tied to communism, which is an ideology.
If it wasn't there would be no need to murder religious leaders, followers, or to destroy places of worship.

I mentioned nothing about religious regimes.

I do not see these acts theistic, in the way you do not see Stalins act as atheistic.

What does convolve mean?

Then theism has nothing to do with religion, by that same token.

So you're saying they aren't atheist?

jan.

 

Atheism is "tied to" a lot of things - like any general category of philosophical stance.

Communism is more closely "tied to" Christianity, which is a theistic religion (or category of religions), than it is to atheism.

Atheism in the US is strongly "tied to" the Ayn Rand school of "libertarianism", a fervently anti-communist and anti-Christian (for the same reasons) school of thought.

There is no ideology of atheism - or theism, for that matter: belief in a God can be (and has been) incorporated into almost any political ideology.

 

More arrogant absurd assumption.

Desperate shaggy staggering strawman.

 

Agnostics are theists. You are either an atheist, or not an atheist. Agnostics certainly aren't atheists, so they are theists.

Talk about bad logic

You are either for x or against x. Rocks are definately not for x, therefore rocks are against x.

Agnostics are agnostics. They are not considering the same question as theist/atheists.

The theist/atheist question is one of existence. The theists want to claim by fiat that gods exist and the atheists rightly refuse to accept such claims.

The agnostic question is one of what is knowable. In a sense agnostics are opposite both theists and hard atheists and like theists and atheists, there are basically two types.

The "soft" agnostic doesn't know if gods do or don't exist, but still thinks the question can be answered for or against even if they personally have not answered it yet. Usually this person has a direction they favor and could be considered a seeker and may see theirself as either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

The "hard" agnostic thinks that the question is inherently unresolvable. Such a person is definitely neither a theist nor atheist and doesn't identify with either of those positions since they are both unsupportable in her view.

Its unfortunately fairly common for certain theists and atheists to try and discount the agnostic position due to not understanding the difference between something existing in and of itself (an existential question) and actually knowing that something does or doesn't exist (an epistemological question).

 

I've dicovered that all murderers throughout history drank water at some point in their lives but young infants who die as infants never having killed any one, have not drank water!!!

I think we are on to something here. This could be as relevant as your pol pot theory!

 

Communism is not atheism.

I'll happily blame atheism for any number of things as soon as you show it to be the driving force behind them.

Perhaps in a few hundred years when atheists are actually in charge of something, you'll get a chance.

However simply because a dictator happens to be an atheists, or even a theist, that doesn't mean anything about atheism or theism.

But when theists as a group, organized as a religious holy war, go on a killing spree as a crusade or jihad, then we can sure blame them.

 

Actually that's not absolutely true. Most theist uses of "god" are catagorically impossible, as well as inconsistant and incoherant.

Of course as a made up term its difficult to know just what god is supposed to mean, so it the sense that you can't disprove an undefined term, sure.

Actually I own a celestial teapot. Its even in orbit around the sun.

 

A coincedence is by definition not evidence of any causal relationship.

 

I agree for the most part with this, it is definetly the question not the answer.

I wouldn't say that what your calling soft agnostics don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. It appears you are allowing for that.

I am an agnostic, not because I haven't come to a conclusion about the existence of a god, but because I can't prove a god does not exist.

If you ask me, do I believe in god or gods, the answer is no. Atheist.

But if you ask me to prove they don't exist, I can't.

I know you can't prove something doesn't exist. However.

The possibility no matter how small still exists considering the scale of the question, simply because we haven't yet reached that level of knowledge regarding the universe. Since nobody knows for sure, there is no definitive answer. At least not yet.

Considering what is known, the probability of a god I would argue is another question, but the possibility can not be ignored.

So, I am atheist/agnostic or agnostic/atheist.

Theists have come to understand this conundrum regarding this question and therefore love to discuss the question of god without discussing the religion behind their god. Which is a house of cards.

It's a diversion.

Just because there are those of us honest enough to admit we don't know, allows them to continue to believe in that which they are not honest enough to admit they don't know.

Ie, they are not being honest with themselves.

This is why their are very few agnostic theists.

 

is not "god" its just some one smarter than us.

"god" however is completely "an illogical or irrational idea."

That is not a "basis" for anything, let alone "god." Also you are completely ignoring the nature of the existence of intelligence. It requires a complex ecosphere, it can't effect anything but its body directly and even there its influence is limited. It is dependent on its physical form, it requires billions of years to develop, etc. etc.

There is absolutely no way for intelligent beings to have effected the beginning of the universe. It was just to hot and massive and there wasn't any where else to effect it from and there was no way to effect it. The notion is absolutely absurd. You might as well claim you put the moon in the sky with your mind.

You need a better book.