Atheism uncovered...

[Marodi]

Originally Posted by steffan

I always thought atheism ment you believed there are no gods, and agnostic ment you recognized the posibility

Absence of evidence dosen't mean evidence of absence.

The diffrence of agnosticism and atheism is degree. You can still be an atheist and believe in a very very low probability of a deity, because it's impossible to prove the non-existance of a deity, but the likelyhood is so low that there's no point in living life as if there is one.

Nothing is ever black and white.

[Towhee]

I do not believe that any of the atheist posters here are going to 'give up' so those who are trying to reach them are 'beating a dead horse' ! What I would like to see is more former atheists come forward with the fact that they realized that they were wrong. Of course that will not reach the naysayers, either. They will diss them too.

[HsvMike]

Originally Posted by Drover

As I like to say, an agnostic is merely an atheist who has been asked to prove a negative.

You know it is possible to prove a negative don't you.

[Dieter]

Originally Posted by Marianinark

I do not believe that any of the atheist posters here are going to 'give up' so those who are trying to reach them are 'beating a dead horse' ! What I would like to see is more former atheists come forward with the fact that they realized that they were wrong. Of course that will not reach the naysayers, either. They will diss them too.

You've still broken the single unforgivable sin, remember that no matter what you do, the Bible has already doomed you to hell.

[Miss Blue]

I have found that most of the athiests and christian/believers are not trying to convert each other, but are trying to understand why some believe and some don't..We have had many threads about here on why we all come here and It is interesting to note that some of the christians had never met an athiest before, and have since learned that they are not evil sinful people..Actually, Marian, I have learned that a lot of the athiests lead very difficult lives because of the mindset of some very religious people, and have to guard their athiesm in order to keep a job and live peacefully in their neighborhoods and society. I thank God that some of the athiests have learned that all christian/believers are not "bible thumpers, self righteous know it alls".. When I sign in to this forum it is not because I am trying to "convert" people to my way..I come here to learn and enjoy the companionship of a large variety of wonderful people with all sorts of beliefs and non beliefs and have learned many lessons from everyone on both sides..

[coosjoaquin]

Originally Posted by Marianinark

I do not believe that any of the atheist posters here are going to 'give up' so those who are trying to reach them are 'beating a dead horse' ! What I would like to see is more former atheists come forward with the fact that they realized that they were wrong. Of course that will not reach the naysayers, either. They will diss them too.

Oh please, how do you know you are right if not but you assert so because you follow things on blind faith.

I do not believe that any of the [christian] posters here are going to 'give up' so those who are trying to reach them are 'beating a dead horse' ! What I would like to see is more former [christians] come forward with the fact that they realized that they were wrong. Of course that will not reach the [bobbleheads], either. They will [preach to] them too.

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by Marodi

The diffrence of agnosticism and atheism is degree. You can still be an atheist and believe in a very very low probability of a deity, because it's impossible to prove the non-existance of a deity, but the likelyhood is so low that there's no point in living life as if there is one.

Huxley's original definition of agnostic was of someone who used empirical evidence (basically the scientific method) as a means of ascertaining truth, as opposed to "revealed knowledge" or faith. So adopting that, and defining an atheist as someone who considers God or gods to be nonexistant, you can get several different perspectives: I'm an agnostic atheist because I believe gods don't exist and I come by that belief via a consideration of empirical evidence. DesCartes was an agnostic theist because he thought he had empirically demonstrated the existence of God. Someone who disbelieves in God for faith-based reasons, or who disbelieves in God but believes in other faith-based ideas such as astrology or leprechauns, would be a religious atheist. Someone who believes in God for faith-based reasons would be a religious theist.

[cncracer]

Originally Posted by Marodi

Absence of evidence dosen't mean evidence of absence.

The diffrence of agnosticism and atheism is degree. You can still be an atheist and believe in a very very low probability of a deity, because it's impossible to prove the non-existance of a deity, but the likelyhood is so low that there's no point in living life as if there is one.

Nothing is ever black and white.

I saw this a while back and have save it because it points out how wide the view a person can be related to religion labels. This is from a chart on the Sam Harris web site. If you think there is a 67% to 35% chance there is a god than you are an agnostic. If You think there is a 35% to 0% chance there is a god than you are an atheist. If you 67% to 80% chance there is a god you are a Deist, and above the 80% you are religious. I personally lump Agnostic and Atheist together as non-religious.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Dieter

You've still broken the single unforgivable sin, remember that no matter what you do, the Bible has already doomed you to hell.

Why thank you! I love a tolerant, open-mind!

Originally Posted by Cirbryn

Huxley's original definition of agnostic was of someone who used empirical evidence (basically the scientific method) as a means of ascertaining truth, as opposed to "revealed knowledge" or faith.

Well, to the OP, let's dig around and "uncover atheism" for our readers shall we? Some clarifications of definitions for example?

First, I hope the Xtians read, re-read, and memorize your well-put definition, Cirbryn! They seem completely, perhaps genetically?, unable to recognize the theoretical philosophical differences in these definitions, blurting out insult after insult (see above example) in smug defence of what they see as "clear, irrefutible evidence!" of their God's existance.

You know, as in "It's true because it's in the bible, and I believe in the bible because it's true, so there! Proved!".

They would get so much further if they wouldn't insult the intelligence of us gentle, ethical, caring atheist readers.

That's clearly a different sort of "Proof" or "Evidence" than I'm used to, or that was clearly required that I provide in my several grad science & engineering degrees, but, based on Cirbryn's definitions of logic, I'm willing to accept perhaps a new word to define the Xtian "faithy" type of proof. "GoGuAbe"? perhaps? Or "FaBaLoF?"

"Good Guess At Best?" "Faith Based Logic-Free"

Neither is insulting when examined technically, and both quite accurately describe the sorts of evidence that are dragged into the PTA meeting and tossed, "THUD", loudly on the table.

(The strident, angry crowd lets out a very audible "Eeuuuwwwww!" and steps back.)

"THIS..." the urgent theist parent proclaimed proudly, "Now THIS here's PROOF!", pointing to a flattened road-killed possum. "How could anyone say we uber-humans (created God-like, in his image...) could be in any way related to THAT? So this proves yur evolution thing is jist a thee-reey!"

(The crowd's approval is palpable. As if on cue, like trained seals, they let out a very audible "Mmmmmm!" and step forward, clapping & smiling. They also glance, with rather predatory looks, over at the atheist, Muslim or just plain calm and normal parents)

Yup. It surely does prove "something". As a FaBaLof, it's quite acceptable. You got it. No argument; now we understand each other.

So how 'bout it, Christians; does this work for you? I'm just trying to clarify things, 'cause you surely have demo'd many times over that you don't know what the technical meaning, in science, of "Proof" is or ever has been.

P&L2A! rflmn™