What made you an Atheist and not an Agnostic?

[photon9]

There got to be a point where claiming to be agnostic was disengenuous, even though true. I knew I believed there was no god but couldn't bring myself to say it publicly. I was lying. So I stopped. I don't know there are no gods. But based on a total lack of evidence otherwise I do believe there are no gods.

[Baba Bozo]

(22-12-2014 08:36 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ... and we go with 'anti-theist' for that.

Anti-theist is entirely acceptable here, thank you.

What I'm trying to avoid is that clever little game some (not all) play where they make all kinds of assertions, and then when you try to challenge their assertions, they retreat in to...

"Oh no, you can't pin anything on me, I merely lack belief."

If someone is an anti-theist and they are willing to stand behind their assertions in a straight forward honest way, I'm cool with that, no problem.

I don't have a better name than anti-theist and agree that's clearer and simpler than "reasonist".

[DLJ]

(22-12-2014 08:56 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  ...
What I'm trying to avoid is that clever little game some (not all) play where they make all kinds of assertions, and then when you try to challenge their assertions, they retreat in to...
...

Speaking of retreating ... where is Ratzinger now?

[RogueWarrior]

(22-12-2014 08:23 AM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 08:19 AM)Baruch Wrote:  Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god or gods - that's it.

I dunno, imho, this is too simplistic a definition. I don't care what it says in the dictionary, I'm interested in how things work in the real world.

There are different kinds of atheists in the real world. As example...

I have a friend who "lacks belief in gods" but she couldn't be less interested in the entire subject. She's extremely practical about day to day affairs, and not at all philosophical.

The whole notion of debating religion vs. anti-religion is mysterious to her, silly, non-sensical, utterly pointless, to the degree she ever thinks about such debating at all, which is pretty much never.

That's one kind of atheist. The definition "lacks belief in gods" seems reasonable when applied to her, as she's not engaged in asserting anything on the subject.

And then there is another kind of atheist, the kind of person who comes to atheist forums every day and has many opinions on the subject.

This person has such a passion for the subject, and a such collection of opinions, that "lacks belief in gods" seems an insufficient description, almost deceptive.

It seems more accurate to describe this person as having affirmative beliefs in ideas which compete with religion, such as reason and science.

This person might be called a "reasonist" as they are typically asserting the value of reason over religion, and not just lacking belief in gods.

No need to over think things, Bozo.

A theist is someone who believes the assertion: A supernatural god exists.
An atheist is someone who does not believe that assertion. Simple either/or.

Now some atheists (like 10%) believe the assertion: A supernatural god doesn't exist. Myself, being a lazy ass, don't go this far because of the niggly little problem of proving that every single supernatural past present or future god can't exist. I don't have the time.

Thankfully, by not believing the first assertion, I avoid all the work and it has the same effect on my life.

[Baba Bozo]

RogueWarrior, thanks for offering an example of what I was referring to.

You pose as someone who just "doesn't hold a belief in gods" but it's obvious you are really someone who has a strong competing belief system.

But perhaps you don't want to defend your own beliefs, preferring to stay on the attack, and so you do the "merely don't hold a belief in god" thing.

There's no crime in that, I just don't find is at all persuasive. I prefer, have a belief, state the belief, defend the belief, without all the clever little definitional game hiding places.

[Chas]

(22-12-2014 06:46 PM)Baba Bozo Wrote:  RogueWarrior, thanks for offering an example of what I was referring to.

You pose as someone who just "doesn't hold a belief in gods" but it's obvious you are really someone who has a strong competing belief system.

But perhaps you don't want to defend your own beliefs, preferring to stay on the attack, and so you do the "merely don't hold a belief in god" thing.

There's no crime in that, I just don't find is at all persuasive. I prefer, have a belief, state the belief, defend the belief, without all the clever little definitional game hiding places.

They are not little definitional games, they are precision in thinking. You don't seem capable of much beyond black/white, either/or simplicity.

I am an atheist as I don't believe in gods.
I am agnostic as I don't know whether or not gods exist.

The former is about belief, the latter is about knowledge.

[Bucky Ball]

(12-01-2014 03:30 AM)Air Wrote:  The question is simple, why atheism and not agnostic in the first place?

What do you know that scientists have studied for decades and still dont know yet YOU know?

Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing but how does something come from nothing?

Creating a child needs a man and a woman and the sperm creates the child so something came to be so that child was born, obviously nothing can come from ''nothing'', sounds good on paper but in reality makes no logical sense.

Is the possibility of a talking snake impossible? Who knows, i dont know so i wont pretend that i do.

You don't know if there is a teapot orbiting the sun.
You don't know that a 1957 Chevy is not orbiting Pluto.
Are you agnostic about them ?
At least teapots and cars are defined.
There is no coherent definition of a gawd, which is why many are igtheists. You can look that up. No scientist has ever once done a study of a god, so you premises and questions are false, as well as ignorant and presumptuos. If something is unknown, the response to that is not "I have no other explanation, so I'll plug in my pet god".

You make the common street level mistake of assuming that the conditions which would have prevailed when this universe did not exist are the same as what are observed from inside the boundaries of it.

Dr. Sean Carroll (Cal Tech) schooled Dr. William Craig (Woo University) about this point. You should watch their debate. Craig gets demolished. You can look that up too.

[Full Circle]

(22-12-2014 07:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You don't know that a 1957 Chevy is not orbiting Pluto.

Thanks for clearing that up, I always thought it was a 1950 Studebaker.



God routinely goes to Cuba to borrow one of these babies to take a test drive through our solar system

[Full Circle]

If this doesn’t make you believe in God nothing will!

Photographer discovers million dollar Mercedes Gullwing rotting under a banana tree in Cuba

https://m.roadtrippers.com/blog/cuban-mercedes-benz

[Stevil]

(12-01-2014 03:30 AM)Air Wrote:  ... but how does something come from nothing?

How can a god create something out of nothing?

Define god, define nothing?

How come the majority of scientists (especially cosmologists) are atheists?
These people should know the most about "nothing" and the problem of "coming from nothing"