# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/581 "2010-09-07T05:28:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > this actually supports me, not you. Your redaing comprehension is for shit. Notice that definition does not include a claim that atheism amounts to a positive claim that gods do not exist, only that it denotes a lack of positive belief that they [i[do\*/ Also note that the American Atheists do not speak for all atheists. Atheists do not do religious authority. > > Which part of “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” don’t you understand? Which part of "implies’ do you not understand? An absence of belief in gods does not even nevessarily mean you can’t still believe in some other kind of magic. AA got that wrong. So what? What do I give a fuck what the American Atheists say? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/582 "2010-09-07T05:30:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > …or of agnosticism being “not a position on the existence of gods.”? > > Agnosticism is not a position on the existence of gods. It’s a position on the evidence for gds. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Agnosticism is a position on the existence of gods. The position is that there is not enough evidence. That is the position. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/583 "2010-09-07T05:31:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Which part of “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” don’t you understand? > > Which part of "implies’ do you not understand? > > An absence of belief in gods does not even nevessarily mean you can’t still believe in some other kind of magic. AA got that wrong. So what? What do I give a fuck what the American Atheists say? “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” It’s black and white sunshine. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/584 "2010-09-07T05:33:15Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > “there are NO forces” > > NO forces… > > You got this wrong, and you got agnoticism wrong. I didn’t get anything wrong. In the passage you quoted, only the very first part is the actual definition of atheism. A lack of belief in gods. The implications they draw from that (and which they label as implications, not as part of the actual definition) are their own. And you are completely and totally wrong about the meaning of the word “agnosticism.” We don’t have to guess on this. The word was coined by a man named Thomas Huxley, and he defined it as I have. Since he made the word up, he gets to decide what it means. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/585 "2010-09-07T05:35:15Z")
You’re just spinning your wheels at this point, repeating the same refuted baloney over and over again. I’m done responding unless and until you can provide a single example of “evidence for design.” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/586 "2010-09-07T05:35:21Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > “there are NO forces” > > > > NO forces… > > > > You got this wrong, and you got agnoticism wrong. > > I didn’t get anything wrong. In the passage you quoted, only the very first part is the actual definition of atheism. A lack of belief in gods. The implications they draw from that (and which they label as implications, not as part of the actual definition) are their own. > > And you are completely and totally wrong about the meaning of the word “agnosticism.” We don’t have to guess on this. The word was coined by a man named Thomas Huxley, and he defined it as I have. Since he made the word up, he gets to decide what it means. Oh you are a deceitful puppy. Here’s the full quote, just so everyone can see… “What is Atheism Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.” [http://www.atheists.org/atheism](http://www.atheists.org/atheism) ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/587 "2010-09-07T05:37:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > “there are NO forces” > > > > NO forces… > > > > You got this wrong, and you got agnoticism wrong. > > I didn’t get anything wrong. In the passage you quoted, only the very first part is the actual definition of atheism. A lack of belief in gods. The implications they draw from that (and which they label as implications, not as part of the actual definition) are their own. > > And you are completely and totally wrong about the meaning of the word “agnosticism.” We don’t have to guess on this. The word was coined by a man named Thomas Huxley, and he defined it as I have. Since he made the word up, he gets to decide what it means. It’s not the definition we are debating. It is your claim that it is not a position about the existnece of gods. “Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.” [http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html](http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html). There we are…you got this wrong too. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/588 "2010-09-07T05:38:19Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Which part of "implies’ do you not understand? > > > > An absence of belief in gods does not even nevessarily mean you can’t still believe in some other kind of magic. AA got that wrong. So what? What do I give a fuck what the American Atheists say? > > “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” > > It’s black and white sunshine. That organization speaks for the people that it speaks for and no one else. There are many different kinds of atheists and nothing binds all of them to a creed that’s written by one person. Are you even capable of understanding and incorporating new information? It seems like you’ve been unable to learn a single new thing in this entire thread, despite you being shown time after time how utterly and laughably wrong you are. Also, who created your God? You really seem to think that this is a good argument. I want you to understand that your argument is nonsensical. So answer the question if you don’t mind. Who created your God? Why is the universe so complex it requires a creator, and your God, who is more complex than the universe, does not. Hmmm? Also, you really need to read up on biology. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/589 "2010-09-07T05:39:08Z")
Asserting the same false bullshit over and over again doesn’t make it true. That AA pasage firts gives the (accurate) definition, then expounds on what it belives are the (not entirely accurate) necessray implications of that lack of belief. Learn to read with comprhension. You aren’t atlking to dummies here. Your normal ammunition isn’t going to work. You’re going to have to step up your game. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/590 "2010-09-07T05:41:46Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I didn’t get anything wrong. In the passage you quoted, only the very first part is the actual definition of atheism. A lack of belief in gods. The implications they draw from that (and which they label as implications, not as part of the actual definition) are their own. > > > > And you are completely and totally wrong about the meaning of the word “agnosticism.” We don’t have to guess on this. The word was coined by a man named Thomas Huxley, and he defined it as I have. Since he made the word up, he gets to decide what it means. > > It’s not the definition we are debating. It is your claim that it is not a position about the existence of gods. “Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.” [http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html](http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html). > > There we are…you got this wrong too. Your reading comprehension is absolutely for shit since that is the exact definition I’ve been giving, and since that definition is not a position on the existence of gods. It is a position on what can be _proven_ about the existence of gods, which is not the same thing. You can believe completely in God and still be agnostic. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/591 "2010-09-07T06:09:14Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,” > > > > It’s black and white sunshine. > > That organization speaks for the people that it speaks for and no one else. There are many different kinds of atheists and nothing binds all of them to a creed that’s written by one person. That ‘organisation’ is American Atheists. Are you suggesting they don’t know what atheism means? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/592 "2010-09-07T06:10:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Asserting the same false bullshit over and over again doesn’t make it true. That AA pasage firts gives the (accurate) definition, then expounds on what it belives are the (not entirely accurate) necessray implications of that lack of belief. Learn to read with comprhension. You aren’t atlking to dummies here. Your normal ammunition isn’t going to work. You’re going to have to step up your game. “What is Atheism Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.” [http://www.atheists.org/atheism](http://www.atheists.org/atheism) Repeat… “This definition means that there are no forces…” NO forces… ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/593 "2010-09-07T06:11:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > It’s not the definition we are debating. It is your claim that it is not a position about the existence of gods. “Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible.” [http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html](http://www.skepdic.com/agnosticism.html). > > > > There we are…you got this wrong too. > > Your reading comprehension is absolutely for shit since that is the exact definition I’ve been giving, and since that definition is not a position on the existence of gods. It is a position on what can be _proven_ about the existence of gods, which is not the same thing. You can believe completely in God and still be agnostic. An agnostic takes a position on the existence of gods. His position is that there isn;t enough evidence. But keep squirming, it’s getting humorous. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/594 "2010-09-07T06:17:20Z")
No, an agnostic does not take a position on the existence of gods. An agnostic takes a position on whether gods can be proven. Agnosticism is compatble with both theism and atheism. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as an agnostic theist. It is entirely possible to believe in God and yet still believe that God’s existence cannot be proven. The recently departed Martin Gardner was a prominent example of someone like this. For that matter, I think a whole bunch of theists on this board would say that God’s existence can’t be proven but they believe anyway, aned I know that most of the atheists here (including me) would say that God’s existence can’t be _dis_proven. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/595 "2010-09-07T06:19:50Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:588, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Also, who created your God? You really seem to think that this is a good argument. I want you to understand that your argument is nonsensical. So answer the question if you don’t mind. Who created your God? Why is the universe so complex it requires a creator, and your God, who is more complex than the universe, does not. Hmmm? Not sure where you’ve been, but I’ve answered that. God was not ‘created’. He is uncaused. Let me spell it out a little. If you posit the notion of an infinite universe, then you do not need a first cause, but you mst oversome the problems with that position. If you posit the idea of a finite universe, then there must be an uncaused first cause. That uncaused first cause is either an intelligent agent beyond the natural universe, or the spontaneous coming into being of something from nothing. No such event has been observed in the natural universe, so there is no reason to suggest this is even possible. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/596 "2010-09-07T06:20:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > That organization speaks for the people that it speaks for and no one else. There are many different kinds of atheists and nothing binds all of them to a creed that’s written by one person. > > That ‘organisation’ is American Atheists. Are you suggesting they don’t know what atheism means? I’m suggesting that their view may not match that of a specific atheist. Since, after all, membership isn’t mandatory. But as Dio said, the definition of atheism is given first. Then they say, “which implies that…” which is what the writer of that section took away from the definition. Are you seriously unable to understand what you read? It’s painful how utterly you are slapped down time and time again. Also, any answer on that question about how your argument for God’s existence is incoherent? I’ll just ask this last time, because I don’t want to be an ass. But since you are unable to answer I’m going to assume that you admit that your feeble argument for the existence of God is rubbish and retract it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/597 "2010-09-07T06:27:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, an agnostic does not take a position on the existence of gods. An agnostic takes a position on whether gods can be proven. Agnosticism is compatble with both theism and atheism. Believe it or not, there is such a thing as an agnostic theist. It is entirely possible to believe in God and yet still believe that God’s existence cannot be proven. The recently departed Martin Gardner was a prominent example of someone like this. > > For that matter, I think a whole bunch of theists on this board would say that God’s existence can’t be proven but they believe anyway, aned I know that most of the atheists here (including me) would say that God’s existence can’t be _dis_proven. The more you wriggle, the more confused you become. An agnostic theist holds views that encompass BOTH agnosticism and theism. That’s like being a mixed market capitalist. But agnosticism is a belief position in its own right. A belief psition about the existence of gods. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/598 "2010-09-07T06:29:54Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > That ‘organisation’ is American Atheists. Are you suggesting they don’t know what atheism means? > > I’m suggesting that their view may not match that of a specific atheist. Since, after all, membership isn’t mandatory. > > But as Dio said, the definition of atheism is given first. Then they say, “which implies that…” which is what the writer of that section took away from the definition. Are you seriously unable to understand what you read? > > It’s painful how utterly you are slapped down time and time again. > > Also, any answer on that question about how your argument for God’s existence is incoherent? I’ll just ask this last time, because I don’t want to be an ass. But since you are unable to answer I’m going to assume that you admit that your feeble argument for the existence of God is rubbish and retract it. Did you stop reading at the word ‘implies’? The defintion is clarified by the following: "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. " “Nor can there be.” Your defence of dio is admirable, if a little silly. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/599 "2010-09-07T06:32:19Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Not sure where you’ve been, but I’ve answered that. God was not ‘created’. He is uncaused. Let me spell it out a little. Please do. > [@](#): > > If you posit the notion of an infinite universe, then you do not need a first cause, but you mst oversome the problems with that position. I assume you mean a universe of infinite duration into the past. You really need to speak clearly and explain what you mean. > [@](#): > > If you posit the idea of a finite universe, then there must be an uncaused first cause. Not even a little. Science is silent on what happened before the universe, but that doesn’t mean there is necessarily an uncaused first cause. That’s something you’re asserting. With no evidence. > [@](#): > > That uncaused first cause is either an intelligent agent beyond the natural universe, No. It could be a non intelligent being. It could be a robot knocking over a test tube and mixing us into being. It could be a rabbit taking a monster shit and we’re the pellet. It could be anything at all. But you are deciding without any evidence that it is in fact a god that bestows morality. That’s just a stupid argument. > [@](#): > > or the spontaneous coming into being of something from nothing. No such event has been observed in the natural universe, so there is no reason to suggest this is even possible. No God has ever been observed and there is no reason to suggest that such a being is even possible. We don’t know what was around before the universe. And neither do you. So asserting it’s a God is laughable folly. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/600 "2010-09-07T06:34:53Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > That ‘organisation’ is American Atheists. Are you suggesting they don’t know what atheism means? > > I’m suggesting that their view may not match that of a specific atheist. Since, after all, membership isn’t mandatory. This is hilarious. # the doctrine or belief that there is no God wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. > **[Atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)** > > Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists. > Historically, evidence of atheistic viewpoints can be traced back to classical antiquity and early Indian philosophy. In the Western world, atheism declined a... # atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn # A belief that there are no gods. Greek “a-theos”: without-god. [see the ‘Atheism’ page for complete information] > **[Glossary](https://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm)** > > Glossary of terms used on the Reasoned Spirituality site. # Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God. www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm Are all these wrong as well??? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=31)