Why?

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your posts give the impression that you are more focused on labels than on actual thought processes.

The first issue that I see is your implication that there is either atheist or agnostic when it comes to nonbelief. This is problematic because not only does it set an idea that the two aren't comparable or interchangeable depending on context, but it also ignores stances potentially separate from both, anti-theism and skepticism for example.

I apologise if this post comes off as pretentious, I don't mean to belittle you in any way. It's just that with this subject, context is everything and I honestly don't know exactly what it is that you are actually looking for.

Nope, you are right, I am making a sharp ( possibly unreasonable ) distinction between Atheism and Agnoticism. At some point in the spectrum though, you have to either say you don't know or conclude that no god exists. If you make that conclusion, you are as vulnerable to reason based attacks as the religious types are, but most people I talk to who deny god exists don't seem to realize it.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, some folks use faith as though it's a dirty word, but it really isn't. I take it on faith that Uzbekistan's a real place and not merely some weird conspiracy, although I've never been there and don't know anyone who has. Essentially everything you believe that hasn't been confirmed by your own direct observation is based on faith to some greater or lesser degree. Some of those leaps of faith, however, are more likely to be ultimately proven correct than others.

It bears mention that atheism is not a belief system. As such, atheists cannot be lumped together in precisely the same manner as how Mennonites or Baptists or Unitarians can. Different atheists (and agnostics) will have different opinions about things.

Danth

Yes, this is a really good argument. I've never personally seen a quark.

[Borak]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

meaning, if you also say that you in fact don't know everything in the universe, then you are arguing from simple belief, ie., faith.

Sigh, this is not black and white. You guys are replying to each other too rapidly to establish what evidence you find credible, which is the real issue. There could be a lot of "evidence" supporting god claims, but if it is rubbish, you can safely ignore it.

You have to establish some epistemological common ground and agree upon what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence. Very briefly, I will outline a few forms of evidence, from least credible to most credible:

1. Hearsay (written words/text)
2. Statement of authority (similar to #1 except made by "experts" such as professors / law enforcement / etc)
3. Historical evidence
4. Personal experience (only if it is your own, others fall under hearsay)
5. Scientifc theory (meaning well supported explanatory model, not "guess")
6. Mathematical calculation

If a problem boils down to a mathematical calculation (how far will this tank of gas allow me to drive), you would be ridiculed for ignoring the result because you think you know better. Similarly, if your evidence comes in the form of spoken words, no matter how eloquent, they cannot be given much weight.

OK, so this is a brief list of the TYPES of evidence there are. Now the question is, how much evidence do you need? Well, this depends on how great the claim is. If I claim to have $5 in my pocket, I doubt you would need much evidence for it, you might not even ask me for any. In any event, it would be trivial to produce the evidence. Now if I claimed to have $500,000 in the bank, you wouldn't just believe me saying so, you'd ask for a little evidence, but it wouldn't shock you either.
If I claimed to be worth $1 billion, you'd ask for a TON of evidence, because while billionaires exist they are quite rare and you can probably access a publicly available list of every one of them.

Now, if someone comes to me and states a claim that a supernatural being exists that is greater than this entire universe, what greater claim is there? This claim would require the best and greatest amout of evidence possible, and yet most often all the evidence offered is words in an old book. It doesn't take "faith" to reject a claim supported by the flimsiest of evidence.

[paulgiamatti]

Agnosticism simply is, by definition, atheism. There isn't a spectrum between the two.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i can't tell if this guy is legit or if yall just got trolled by some confirmation biased bullshitter...

but i guess i'll bite. atheism isn't the denial of gods. atheism is the lack of belief either way because itdon'tmatterwedon'tgiveafuck. atheists don't need a book full of draconic laws or anecdotal crap to tell them how to behave. atheists are just as prone to have good morals as christians are to have bad morals (and in my experience, moreso).

what atheists *are* sure of is that there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again

This is what I'm talking about. Atheism that is not the denial of gods is called agnosticism.

But labels aside, how are you *sure* that "there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again"

You are just making a bunch of "I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it" arguments, which is not what I'm looking for. That kind of crap is what I'm trying to leave behind.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agnosticism simply is, by definition, atheism. There isn't a spectrum between the two.

Thats not true as far as I know...do you have a reference? By definition, A-Theism : Greek for 'No Diety'. A-Gnosticism : 'No Knowledge'.

[Bazia]

i think atheists apply the scientific ideal that lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove something's existence

the acceptance of something's existence requires some type of facts/proof, not the lack of facts/proof that something doesn't exist

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nope, you are right, I am making a sharp ( possibly unreasonable ) distinction between Atheism and Agnoticism. At some point in the spectrum though, you have to either say you don't know or conclude that no god exists. If you make that conclusion, you are as vulnerable to reason based attacks as the religious types are, but most people I talk to who deny god exists don't seem to realize it.

This is fair. I'll keep my response short and simple.

There is nothing irrational/hypocritical about acknowledging there are forces/powers/whatever beyond our comprehension, while simultaneously coming to the conclusion (via observation) that Abrahamic world views are utter nonsense.

[Borak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think paulgiamatti is saying that, while agnosticism and atheism are technically distinct, if you drew a Venn diagram of people that hold each position they'd almost completely overlap.

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is what I'm talking about. Atheism that is not the denial of gods is called agnosticism.

not exactly. atheism is without gods. agnosticism is without knowledge. the two aren't mutually exclusive, but atheists have a firm lack of religion. it's not a denial. it just doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But labels aside, how are you *sure* that "there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again"

You are just making a bunch of "I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it" arguments, which is not what I'm looking for. That kind of crap is what I'm trying to leave behind.

are you unsure of what the definition of the word "benevolent" is?