Looks like you’re off-line now, but maybe you’ll look at this later:
The reason no one calls themselves ag or a-unicornists (as I’m sure you realize) is because no one really cares about unicorns–God is a different story. I personally know a few athiests, and my problem with them is their tendency to ridicule theists and to generally dismiss any belief that includes faith in God or a god-like being. But what REALLY bothers me is their tendency to PREACH–if there is anything that drives me crazy about ‘believers’, it’s their love of preaching.
So are you an a-unicornist or an ag-unicornist. Apparently there is an important distinction.
Looks like you’re off-line now, but maybe you’ll look at this later:
The reason no one calls themselves ag or a-unicornists (as I’m sure you realize) is because no one really cares about unicorns–God is a different story. I personally know a few athiests, and my problem with them is their tendency to ridicule theists and to generally dismiss any belief that includes faith in God or a god-like being. But what REALLY bothers me is their tendency to PREACH–if there is anything that drives me crazy about ‘believers’, it’s their love of preaching.
Looks like you’re off-line now, but maybe you’ll look at this later:
The reason no one calls themselves ag or a-unicornists (as I’m sure you realize) is because no one really cares about unicorns–God is a different story. I personally know a few athiests, and my problem with them is their tendency to ridicule theists and to generally dismiss any belief that includes faith in God or a god-like being. But what REALLY bothers me is their tendency to PREACH–if there is anything that drives me crazy about ‘believers’, it’s their love of preaching.
sorry to send this message a million times but i’m still getting the hang of this and i couldn’t figure-out how to put in a quote so it would be apparent who i was talking to and what message i was responding to.
Press the “quote” button at the bottom of the post you want to reply to and edit out anything between quote and slash-quote that you don’t want to include.
Assholes who preach are just assholes who preach. It has nothing to do with not accepting the existence of God. There are nice atheists and preachy atheists just like there are nice theists and preachy theists. The idea that atheists are “believers” is just as silly as saying that you are a “believer” in unicorns not existing. I feel the same way about God as you probably do about Thor.
Very few people are entirely one thing. I mean, almost by definition if you’re a theist you are also an atheist or agnostic, since you believe in one god out of the many options. And it’s very easy to be an atheist and an agnostic, since lack of belief in one god doesn’t imply the same for all (i’d call myself an atheist, but only because i’m closer to that “side” of the line and generally the gods talked about here are the ones i’m more certain of). Only agnosticism can really be “pure”, and that’s certainly not a guarantee either. Most people are a little bit of the other. You could even say that atheists share theistic points, since they likely consider some gods more reasonable than others.
So personally you may be very different in beliefs to someone else, but overall the groups really aren’t all that hugely different. You can point out similarities between some atheists and some agnostics, but you can point out similarities between any group. I don’t think it’s particularly fair to see all agnosticism and all atheism in general as being on one side, with all theism (and polytheism, deism etc.) on the other.
Besides, a lot of people disagree with the definitions of those groups. It’s a quick route to offence if you manage to not only generalise, but generalise wrongly.
I’ve never focused on whether I’m an atheist or an agnostic. Nor have I read up on these “faiths”, etc.
Frankly I was startled to see this thread! Lacking a faith means just that, not having faith in faithlessness!
I’ve never read a book on atheism, but sometimes read books on religion, either for historical or psychological interest, or even for spiritual guidance.
But debating my faithlessless with other faithless?
I’d go one step further, and say it’s an excuse to pretend they’re more rational than everyone else, despite making the same irrational exceptions for religion that the theists do.
Agnosticism is nothing but meaningless navel gazing.
We can’t tell the difference between the 4 cases, all for the same reason - lack of evidence. For me, that’s enough; for all practical purposes, at the moment, the situation looks like there aren’t any gods. When evidence shows up, I might be convinced otherwise, but I’m quite sure there isn’t any good evidence right now.
Anyway, you have to be pretty careful to define a god that leaves no potential evidence whatsoever; all the gods I’ve seen proposed that do that are not worth considering.
Look at it this way: the harder it is to find evidence of a god, the less “useful” it becomes to us as humans. That’s why most popular religions claim there actually is evidence of gods - at least when they need to get the believers exited. If your god will cure you if you pray, or stops evil, then that’s a god worth worshipping, perhaps. But that’s also a god who’s trivial to detect.
If you ask the theologians about that, it turns out that actually there isn’t any evidence - in fact it’s probably bad for you to even want evidence - and you have to rely on faith and personal revelation so someone is playing both sides here, because that doesn’t seem to describe the Abrahamic gods at all - they are described as nosy and interfering.
On the other hand, a god who made the universe and then buggered off is completely equivalent to no god at all.
Also, evidence that is completely incomprehensible to us would probably tell us at least that something is going on. We’ll deal with that when we find it.
Let me see. I’m aware the known universe began in a mysterious way referred to as The Big Bang, many billions of years ago, and that humans capable of wiping their arse properly appeared within the last few thousand years… should I go with the idea of a creator that actually gives a fuck about our existence, to the extent it even dictates our fashion sense and eating habits, or do I suppose that, like my tv set or pc, the reasons they are there and do what they do, is a result of accumulated experience by one group of particularly adaptable apes?
Who’s claiming knowledge they can’t possess? All (this atheist) believes is that God, as he is claimed by the theists who can be pinned down to definitions, is a logically impossible being.
This is my position exactly. I have never seen any evidence that god exists. I have no reason to believe he exists, so I don’t. I can’t be sure, but the same way no evidence for a person in the room next to me means that I believe the room is empty (even if the door is closed, and there might be someone in there who hid from me), no evidence for god means I believe he does not exist. However, I’m aware I might be wrong, and further evidence might change my mind.
True. But not long ago we didn’t have evidence of many things we accept now. My point is that begbert2 didn’t seem to leave a spot for “no evidence, but do not think it is reasonable to conclude all definitions are impossible.”
One thing I feel strongly about is that the universe (or whatever you want to call everything) is even more bizarre than we think it is today, and that it would be premature to rule out the possibility that there is an entity we might classify as god based on it’s attributes.
Actually, I am a theist, of a sort most would not understand. I have experienced being in the presence of a greater consciousness or God and that is why I believe. Before this experience I was an agnostic.
Batheists are a subset of Satheists, to be sure, but lots of self identified agnostics admit to not believing in a god while saying they are not sure enough to believe there is no god. Many people move from S to B - I did.
The parts of God describing his hatred for certain things the particular theist hates can be understood, the parts of God giving evidence for his existence or explaining internal contradictions cannot.
Seriously, if theists in general supported 1 they couldn’t claim that God provides moral guidance.
God exists as unconditional love, a greater consciousness in which we all have our being. God can be detected by those who also practice love for others, kindness and compassion. Undetectable by those who don’t walk the path of love.
Frankly I no longer care what I’m called. I don’t believe there exists an omnimax entity called ‘god’. Label me as you will.
I find that most people who are adamant about the label ‘atheist’ are typically theists who don’t have a very good grip on what terms mean nor are they at all interested at how the individual actually believes (or disbelieves). Typically they attempt to use the term ‘atheist’ to denote the idea that the person has certain knowledge that god doesn’t exist. They will then ask the ‘atheist’ if he knows everything and when the atheist says no, the person will say something like ‘then you aren’t an atheist’. When you turn it around on them and use their standard with the term theist they will huff and puff and go on all day about how that term doesn’t mean anything close to that. That they have faith.
Whatever. Such a person probably doesn’t have the sophistication or the desire to address the issue properly, so I don’t even try to bother with the semantic games anymore. They want to ‘score points’, not uncover the truth about nuanced positions. I don’t have the time for point scoring anymore.
Consider me whatever you wish, but I don’t believe that your deity exists.
What does that even mean? I don’t want to break off onto a tangent here, but this kind of sentiment rankles my ignostic leanings that religious language is simply nonsensical.
At least from the atheist —> agnostic viewpoint…