Atheism vs Theism. If your wrong which is worse ?

[Zagadka]

@Clothahump

Seriously, though - when you think about it, agnosticism is really the only answer that makes sense. Atheists say No There Isn’t, theists say Yes There Is, agnostics say Nobody Really Knows For Sure One Way Or The Other.

Nah, agnostics are people who only bet on red.

Every organized religion from the dawn of mankind onward has been nothing but a giant scam, a con game intended to accumulate wealth and gain power.

I call shenanigans. Gimme a proof that “every organized relition from the dawn of manking onward” was a giant scam.

Given that,

Obviously a scientific opinion.

[HumptysHamhole]

If you start going to meet women, picture being married to a cheerful Christian woman for 30 or 40 years; they drop the Happy act right after the honeymoon.

Hmmm… **Krokodil ** did you get your poor little heart broken by a Christian girl. I’ve only been married for 5 years but my cheerful Christian wife hasn’t “dropped the Happy act” as of yet. Although I do not know what my mother was like before she married my father, for the 26 years that I have known her neither has she “dropped the Happy act.” Maybe its not an act.

For those who want an example of a professed athiest exhibiting closed-mindedness and hateful assumption I think that Krokodil’s post in this thread will suffice.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Clothahump

Seriously, though - when you think about it, agnosticism is really the only answer that makes sense. Atheists say No There Isn’t, theists say Yes There Is, agnostics say Nobody Really Knows For Sure One Way Or The Other.

But when you put it that way, what do we really know for sure? I don’t know for sure who will make the best president; does that mean I shouldn’t vote? I don’t know for sure whether you exist; I could be hallucinating the SDMB, or it could be a government conspiracy to colect information to be used against me at a later date. All of you guys could just be sock puppets for Cecil Adams.

The whole point of this thread is that, given that we can’t settle the question once and for all, is it better to err on the side of theism or of atheism?

Every organized religion from the dawn of mankind onward has been nothing but a giant scam, a con game intended to accumulate wealth and gain power.

That’s a pretty big claim; care to back it up somehow? Since I don’t know for sure whether it’s true of every major religion, or even of any of them, I prefer to remain agnostic on this particular question.

[Cinnamon_Girl]

@Clothahump

Seriously, though - when you think about it, agnosticism is really the only answer that makes sense. Atheists say No There Isn’t, theists say Yes There Is, agnostics say Nobody Really Knows For Sure One Way Or The Other.

Being new to this forum (though a long-time fan of SD) and having enjoyed the diversity of topics (passionate and/or intensely weird at times), I hesitate to enter the fray, but I couldn’t help but notice that it took 80 posts before someone mentioned agnosticism. OTOH, given what followed in that post, my conscience refuse to allow Clothahump to remain the only voice of agnosticism.

It’s purely illogical to assume that agnosticism is “the only way to go” since doing so essentially translates to the belief that both alternatives (i.e., “God exists” vs. “God does not exist”) are wrong negating the basic belief that one cannot know. Duh! Therefore, as an agnostic, I must remain open to the possibility that each may be correct. Since I believe that one cannot know for sure, I must ultimately respect whatever one chooses to believe.

An atheist that denies any possibility that God exists on basis of lack of proof, does not take into consideration the unknowable or that something can be true without proof of that truth (The antiquated Earth-is-Flat theory was ultimately disproven certainly due to the fact that someone believed differently though lacking proof). The proof which atheists require to believe may or may not eventually be forthcoming. But how can you know for sure?

That said, truth is in the eye of the beholder, as theists must believe that the existence of supreme being(s) is evidenced by some sort of proof. Whether that proof is sufficient reason for belief is negated by one thing. That is, faith. Faith is not believing in something I see with my own eyes. Faith is believing in something that has not been seen or experienced first-hand. That is the one true necessary element of any religion. To accept the unproven without question as truth and not expect proof. Here’s the dichotomy: If one has “experienced the hand of God,” one must doubt that it was actually the hand of God, overcome that doubt and accept that it was. To do so is to honor one’s faith; to eschew doubt is to admit that one has no faith ergo one’s religion is suspect.

Aside: This is one problem I have with much of organized religion. That it feels it necessary to look for proof in the form of miracles or other supernatural events as proof of their faith essentially negating the value of faith. Why is this necessary?

@js_africanus

If you have compelling argumentation for the non-existence for an alleged version of the supernatural, then you are not being cynical nor negative. We know Santa Clause doesn’t exist because the grown-ups are the ones putting the gifts under the tree, and because to conduct his task, Santa would explode in a hellish fireball from the air friction created in his travel. Similarly, we could say that a god that is all-merciful and vengeful simply cannot exist because those two conditions, depending on how you define them, are mutually exclusive.

The fact that your parents lied to you about who was responsible for the gifts under your tree and that Santa’s methods defy natural law is not indisputable proof that Santa does not exist. It only proofs that your parents lied to you and that general belief of how the task is accomplished is oversimplified to the point of absurdity. Who’s to say that Santa does (or didn’t) exist? Perhaps not as a tangible being but more of an intangible spirit of giving. Heck, I’m down with Santa, in that case! What fun!

Which brings me to the idea that GOD exists in the mind not in the literal sense. Does this negate agnosticism? Perhaps another time in another thread…

Various hijacks aside…

@Thudlow Boink

The whole point of this thread is that, given that we can’t settle the question once and for all, is it better to err on the side of theism or of atheism?

Oooohhh, now I understand the delay. This shall no doubt be the learning experience I was hoping for…

An agnostic (it’s me, today) will tell you that in order to err on either side you must embrace doubt either way. I, for one, have doubt but I’m open to possibilities. Though I am annoyed that my open[ed?]-mindedness means I can’t be the know-it-all I prefer to have others believe. Begging the question, if you believe I am a know-it-all will you be justly rewarded by a coveted spot in my good graces or are you just as delusional as many people think I am?

Personally, I think the OP’s question, “Which is the worst mindset?” was answered most succinctly in P#10:

@Lilairen

Whichever one is in less accord with the facts of your existence; barring evidence either way, whichever one leads you to being less of a worthwhile human being.