Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know many people who stopped believing in Santa Claus, then reversed course and said well "maybe santa exists, but I'm not sure."
I also think people tend to be really confused when they try to define atheism and agnosticism. Why don't you give us YOUR definitions of each, so we understand your question better?
Many times the distinction between an Atheist and an Agnostic turns on their definition of what it means to "know" something.
I'm a strong atheist because I "know" a God doesn't exist, just like I "know" an invisible pink elephant isn't in my pocket. But some people contend that if you can't be certain to a metaphysical certitude then you can't really know whether God exist or not, i.e. as a matter of pure logic, one can not absolutely prove a God does not exists, and therefore there is a possibility that God does exist.
I use the word "know" in it's ordinary sense. I know there is no God, and therefore I'm a strong atheist.
I don't know many people who stopped believing in Santa Claus, then reversed course and said well "maybe santa exists, but I'm not sure."
I also think people tend to be really confused when they try to define atheism and agnosticism. Why don't you give us YOUR definitions of each, so we understand your question better?
Regardless whether you admit to a Santa Claus or not, you DO know that SOMEONE brought those Christmas presents which occupy time and space and that you can experience them, right ? Would you ever conclude that they arrived by natural non-intelligent unwilled means ? Why ?
I personally would define the two as follows (based on my own personal journey of 10 adult years) :
Atheist : Someone who is sold out to anti-supernaturalism and who has probable personal motives for not wanting to entertain THE most important of all important issues ... that being, whether a personal theistic Creator exists .
Agnostic : Someone who has no personal apriori-bias toward a supernatural Creator , who has never given up diligent investigation , and who is willing to go where the evidence leads ... even if it means a natural and logical move in rightfully surrendering ones entire life to ones very own Creator . The next step would be Theism.
Are you thus saying you 'know' in an absolute sense ?
If you state that 'there is a possibility that God DOES exist' ... doesnt this nullify a true atheist position....and are you willing to possibly give up your desire to be an atheist , and, diligently seek all and any avenues including scientific, that might lead you to reasonable faith based on evidence...that a personal theistic Creator exists ?
Would there be any implications of a personal theistic Creator existing, to you personally ? If so, can u list what some of them might be ?
You do not "know" that a floating teapot does not circle Mars. By your definition, you are then an agnostic with regard to this floating teapot.
I think atheists simply disreagard anything that has zero evidence for its support. It's not that we "know" it exists or not, it's that there is zero evidence, so it's a waste of time to consider it.
Agnosticism implies there's a 50/50 chance of creator/no creator. That is an absurd statement with zero support. That's why I reject agnosticism.
YOUR definition of agnosticism implies that there is evidence pointing to a creator. That's simply untrue.
Regardless whether you admit to a Santa Claus or not, you DO know that SOMEONE brought those Christmas presents which occupy time and space and that you can experience them, right ? Would you ever conclude that they arrived by natural non-intelligent unwilled means ? Why ?
I know that I bring presents down for my son. I have no knowledge of what happens at other houses, and I have not scoured the North Pole nor is it under constant surveillance.
Accordingly, neither you nor I can be sure abotu Santa. But we both reject it, don't we?
Quote:
I personally would define the two as follows (based on my own personal journey of 10 adult years) :
Atheist : Someone who is sold out to anti-supernaturalism and who has probable personal motives for not wanting to entertain THE most important of all important issues ... that being, whether a personal theistic Creator exists .
LMAO! Well don't let your bias show or anything. "Sold out" to anti-supernaturalism? What is the monetary gain from this sale? Most of us who are atheists spent plenty of time "entertaining" the issue of a creator, and most of us rejected it based on the TOTAL and COMPLETE lack of evidence to support a creator.
To assume that all atheists never entertained this notion is to betray complete ignorance of what any atheist thinks. Ever.
So no, your definiton falls considerably short.
Besides, are you currently entertaining the existence of all the other thousands of Gods that were proffered by civilizations over the last several millennia?
Quote:
Agnostic : Someone who has no personal apriori-bias toward a supernatural Creator , who has never given up diligent investigation , and who is willing to go where the evidence leads ... even if it means a natural and logical move in rightfully surrendering ones entire life to ones very own Creator . The next step would be Theism.
"Bias" has nothing to do with it. Something either is, or it isn't. I believe in my car because I can see it, sit in it, start it up with my keys.
I don't believe in God because there is zero evidence he exists, apart from fables written by old men 2,000 years ago, which bear striking similarities to those who wrote about Islam, Mormonism, Paganism, Buddhism, Shintoism, and other faiths that predated the supposed birth of Jesus, or Noah's flood, etc.
Are you similarly an agnostic with regard to whether Muhammed is the true prophet?
Why aren't you holding out hope for the existence of Zeus, if, after all, to reject him is to hold "bias"?
Are you thus saying you 'know' in an absolute sense ?
If you state that 'there is a possibility that God DOES exist' ... doesnt this nullify a true atheist position....and are you willing to possibly give up your desire to be an atheist , and, diligently seek all and any avenues including scientific, that might lead you to reasonable faith based on evidence...that a personal theistic Creator exists ?
Would there be any implications of a personal theistic Creator existing, to you personally ? If so, can u list what some of them might be ?
No, I quite clearly am saying that I "know" in the common-everyday-ordinary meaning of that word sense. Like I "know" there are cars in Austalia, even though there is a metaphysical non-zero chance that I could be wrong.
I "know" there is no God like I "know" there isn't an invisible elephant in my pocket. Which is not absolute, but it is knowing in the ordinary meaning of the word.
Do you know if the moon is made out of cheese? In the ordinary sense of the word, you do. In the absolutist sense, you don't. But that doesn't make you agnostic to the idea, to me that is just a sematic trick. People trying to create uncertainity where uncertainty doesn't exist.
My disbelief in a God is not based on a personal desire. It's based on a rational analysis of what is most likely. (Here I'm talking about an ominpotent God.) And it is based primarily on this simple proposition:
For an omnipotent God to exist, everything we know about science would have to be wrong.
Since I have a high degree of certainty that everything we know about science isn't wrong, I "know" an omnipotent God doesn't exist.
You do not "know" that a floating teapot does not circle Mars. By your definition, you are then an agnostic with regard to this floating teapot.
I think atheists simply disreagard anything that has zero evidence for its support. It's not that we "know" it exists or not, it's that there is zero evidence, so it's a waste of time to consider it.
Agnosticism implies there's a 50/50 chance of creator/no creator. That is an absurd statement with zero support. That's why I reject agnosticism.
YOUR definition of agnosticism implies that there is evidence pointing to a creator. That's simply untrue.
So, what i hear you saying is : The premise of an atheist is that there IS zero evidence for a personal theistic Creator because the atheist cant see a Creator ? Would this also hold true for electricity running across his house wiring which cant be seen ?
If there is absolute no evidence pointing to a Creator, then by default, there must be evidence pointing to a NON-personal producing Source for all we have ; so, do you hold to everything we have as coming from Natural Causes that are non intelligent, non willed, etc... ? Could you show how something with meager complexity such as a Bicycle or a Basketball can come about in such a natural way since a super complex universe can ? Thanks.
So, what i hear you saying is : The premise of an atheist is that there IS zero evidence for a personal theistic Creator because the atheist cant see a Creator ? Would this also hold true for electricity running across his house wiring which cant be seen ?
No, we can deduce that electric wiring runs across a house. Also, most of us have seen a house being built and know the wires are there. Plus, people put them there. Fires started because of them. People are electrocuted because of them. Your ignorance can be cured simply by looking up the definition of "evidence".
Are you some kind of expert at creating terrible analogies?
Quote:
If there is absolute no evidence pointing to a Creator, then by default, there must be evidence pointing to a NON-personal producing Source for all we have ;
Your logic sucks. Zero evidence for a creator merely means zero evidence for a creator. When you see things and automatically assume some intelligent life form created them, you're making a non-natural leap that disregards logic.
Quote:
so, do you hold to everything we have as coming from Natural Causes that are non intelligent, non willed, etc... ? Could you show how something with meager complexity such as a Bicycle or a Basketball can come about in such a natural way since a super complex universe can ? Thanks.
Cosmology has plenty of theories for how life could form through the laws of physics bringing toether matter and gases, and creating self-perpetuating proteins under the right conditions. Just because we don't have a definitiive answer yet doesn't mean the only true answer is "God did it." Atheists are merely smart enough to reserve judgment and be satisfied with not having a conclusion. Yet.
Your basketball/bicycle analogy is terrible. Let me guess, you're now going to use the human eye to explain why evolution is untrue. Do you know how many times that's been debunked in every lecture hall in America?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
