If you haven't noticed the Illuminati guy was clearly an atheist and I'm marveled how he stole the "God Particle" and decided to use it to bomb a Church... Really? Why not steal it to use it as energy for the world? This movie sort of proves how the majority of atheists are immoral jerks. I like the professor though but then again he's an agnostic, the agnostics are always peaceful and intelligent too.
shareNo. Just no.
shareim an atheist but i dont tell billions of people that using condoms acutally spreads aids. thats more immoral than an unlikely movie plot right?
shareoh and if you are going to use a FILM for ethical issues how about the church not evacuating vatican square even though they know there is a bomb? and making out atheists and agnostics as two ends of a spectrum is laughable. i am atheist but i also accept i could never truly know if there is a god, which makes me agnostic too.
man can be evil. religion can be evil. but as man is at the heart of religion, and there is no god, then all we know is that man is evil. if my god thought it was ok to put the 300 or so commandments into practice then i would denounce him to his face.
An atheist rejects the notion of a god, whilst an agnostic believes that the existence of a god can neither be proven nor DISPROVEN.
The difference is that an agnostic never discounts the notion of a god; instead, he equates rejection with blind faith. In other words, he sits in the middle.
By the way, rejecting a notion entirely whilst claiming that you are open to the possibility is contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
once again someone is lost on definitions.
actually atheist and agnostic are not comparable. i am an agnositc atheist, as are most atheists. atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge.
a theist believes in theistic claims, an atheist rejects those claims.
an agnostic says they can never know if god really does exist, a gnostic says they know god exists.
a person cannot reject theism AND atheism. they either believe god exists or they dont, there is no middle position. they may say they dont know but they will fall on one side, and they may also change their mind, but they are always one of the other.
think about this - man A believes the sun rises every morning. man B believes it doesnt. the sun either rises or it doesnt. man C doesnt know - but does that answer what he believes? the sun either rises or it doesnt. there is no middle ground, so man C has to believe one position. you cannot simultaneously believe that the sun does and does not rise, its a contradiction.
an agnostic may equate rejection with blind faith but hed be wrong (although i wonder if this type of contradicting person exists). rejection is based on looking at the evidence and coming to the conclusion that it is not enough. blind faith, by definition, is the believing something without evidence. an agnostic still has to believe in the evidence or not. if they do they are a theist, if they dont they are an atheist - neither of these positions actually deal with the knowledge of gods existence, which is what gnosticism and agnostitism is actually about.
of course i can reject a notion entirely and be open to the possiblity. i reject every evidence there is that there is a god, but am open to the possibility that there could be a god. i dont want this god to exist, he sounds like a jerk, but if some evidence came along that proved it i would happily change my position. thats the beauty of freethinking, we are happy to admit if we were wrong.
I agree, quirkyrecords.
I'm an atheist, and I firmly believe there is no higher power, or 'god'. I don't believe in the after life or any super natural power. There is just no evidence for it. Also, there is just no room for it all. Science can't prove they don't exist but I'm sure it could prove that they do exist, if they actually did. Maybe science is too young to figure it out yet but I'm sure that as science evolves and advances, if there is any evidence, it will find it.
However, going back to your point, quirkyrecords, even though I'm an atheist, I believe that if there is evidence out there and it can be found and proven beyond any doubt that it exists, then I will be a believer in god, etc. Does that still make me an atheist now? I'm not being sarcastic in any way. I'm genuinely asking as your post, as thought-provoking and insightful as it was, it got me a little confused! lol :)
There are two rules of success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
thats the wonderful thing about atheists in general, we dont dismiss anything just because we want to, but because there is no real reason to believe in it.
if evidence does turn up for the existance of god then i too would believe - were still atheist and we will be until proven otherwise. it also makes us skeptics. my full title would be an agnostic, skeptic, atheist, anti-theist.
atheism just means you reject the evidence. if there turns out to be good evidence that you dont reject then you would become a theist.
however, if it turns out god does exist, i would have to believe he exists, but it doesnt mean i would be happy about it. im not just an atheist because i dont think he exists, its also because i think hes a massive d**k.
thats the wonderful thing about atheists in general, we dont dismiss anything just because we want to, but because there is no real reason to believe in it.
if evidence does turn up for the existance of god then i too would believe - were still atheist and we will be until proven otherwise. it also makes us skeptics. my full title would be an agnostic, skeptic, atheist, anti-theist.
atheism just means you reject the evidence. if there turns out to be good evidence that you dont reject then you would become a theist.
however, if it turns out god does exist, i would have to believe he exists, but it doesnt mean i would be happy about it. im not just an atheist because i dont think he exists, its also because i think hes a massive d**k.
theres nothing good and just about slavery. think god may have got that one wrong.
actually i reject the claims of religion, you can only dismiss evidence if you have any. and religion has no real evidence. otherwise you wouldnt need faith now would you.
I can do all the good things jesus taught without getting it from him, most of his teachings are echoed elsewhere or taken from other sources anyway. are there any teachings form jesus unique to him?
I dont think he exists, but if it turns out the god of the bible does exist then he sounds pretty evil. luckily he doesnt really turn up anymore to smite people.
my point was if the claims in the bible are true then he sounds evil.
i dont have an anger for god, dont be ridiculous. he doesnt exist. i do have anger for religion though, as religion clearly exists. and it poisons the mind.
I hope jesus is also presented to me, i just hope "presented" means he turns up and does a few tricks rather than some christians knock on my door with a bible in hand.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
theres nothing good and just about slavery. think god may have got that one wrong.
I can do all the good things jesus taught without getting it from him, most of his teachings are echoed elsewhere or taken from other sources anyway. are there any teachings form jesus unique to him?
I dont think he exists, but if it turns out the god of the bible does exist then he sounds pretty evil. luckily he doesnt really turn up anymore to smite people.
my point was if the claims in the bible are true then he sounds evil.
i dont have an anger for god, dont be ridiculous. he doesnt exist. i do have anger for religion though, as religion clearly exists. and it poisons the mind.
I hope jesus is also presented to me, i just hope "presented" means he turns up and does a few tricks rather than some christians knock on my door with a bible in hand.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
how about this one:
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may aquire male and female slaves." (Leviticus 25:44, NRSV)
now show me a single passage were god condemns slavery.
I live most days without "sin", the only sins you think I will have broken don't deserve eternal torture as punishment. Unconditionally loving a god who sets out conditions is irrational.
Oh so if someone deserves it it is ok for god to smite them? We don't even smite people in our societies. Most civil countries don't even advocate the death penalty, but god gets to kill whoever he thinks deserves it without a trial. Not only that but god will punish them forever in hell. Very few people deserve 'eternal' punishment for any crime.
Of course! anyone who has ever said any philosophical statements about how to live a good life is a false prophet! Don't be ridiculous, no one needs to be a prophet to think of good ways to live - in fact most of them do it for the good of others and not for self praise. I don't accept teachings just based on who the person is or claims to be, but if their teachings have any merit in themselves.
but jesus never said anything bad did he, oh no. apart from:
"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"
It is no suprise jesus, in your quote, predicts that there will never be a miraculous sign to prove he exists - if I made up a religion I would include such a passage too.
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may aquire male and female slaves." (Leviticus 25:44, NRSV)
now show me a single passage were god condemns slavery.
I live most days without "sin", the only sins you think I will have broken don't deserve eternal torture as punishment. Unconditionally loving a god who sets out conditions is irrational.
Oh so if someone deserves it it is ok for god to smite them? We don't even smite people in our societies. Most civil countries don't even advocate the death penalty, but god gets to kill whoever he thinks deserves it without a trial. Not only that but god will punish them forever in hell. Very few people deserve 'eternal' punishment for any crime.
Of course! anyone who has ever said any philosophical statements about how to live a good life is a false prophet! Don't be ridiculous, no one needs to be a prophet to think of good ways to live - in fact most of them do it for the good of others and not for self praise. I don't accept teachings just based on who the person is or claims to be, but if their teachings have any merit in themselves.
but jesus never said anything bad did he, oh no. apart from:
"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"
It is no suprise jesus, in your quote, predicts that there will never be a miraculous sign to prove he exists - if I made up a religion I would include such a passage too.
So when jesus said he wasnt here to change the old laws of the old testament he forget to mention that didnt include the slavery bit?
so buying a slave is ok as long as you dont kidnap them?
so god feels the need to condemn homosexuality, wearing clothing of mixed materials and eating shellfish but slavery isnt as bad as all that and anyway jesus said something about loving everyone but didnt feel the need to be more specific?
nice and clear then.
so burning "chaff" is ok. as long as were on the same page. feels pretty evil to me just killing someone on the spot, regardless of what they have done.
why hasnt god done that recently?
But why does christ want to kill her children? what did they do?
Frankly I am not really interested in the bible - I hold it in the same regard as all the other holy books, that you also discredit.
Too much of the bible has proven to be false while the rest has yet to be proven true.
When your religion, over all the other hundreds, has some validity then maybe I will take it seriously.
Until then you are cast into the same pool as the mormons, scientologists, pagans and other mythologies.
Actually, the word 'Agnostic' is derived from the Greek word Agnosto, which literally means 'unknown'. Funnily enough, I am fluent in Greek, since it was my first language.
A lot of the modern variances of the term are rhetoric, and most are contradictory. The term 'agnostic-atheist' has merely been created to bridge the gap between the traditional, modest agnostic and self assured atheist. In the general sense, agnosticism is a 2 sided argument; we can never know that there is a god, and simultaneously, we can never know that there isn't. This is how many traditional agnostics view the subject - take Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking for eg. Steven Hawking even refers to a creator at times!
You mention evidence - yes, there's certainly evidence which proves evolution, and aspects of general relativity theory have supported big bang theory; but, what scientific evidence explains the specific mechanism of the big bang? Also, take notice of the fact that general relativity is considered a theory and that theories aren't fact - for eg, special relativity theory was just very recently dispelled by CERN. Incidentally, special relativity and general relativity share certain attributes, so both are muddled right now.
As for 'Person C' he may not know definitively, but he can still sit in the middle. It is called being 'undecided'. Yes, you may lean to one side or another when either scenario is rational, but science certainly hasn't found evidence to prove why matter exists or why we're here and most people definitely haven't received any evidence of a god. Therefore, both extremes aren't rational. How can you rationally quantify a problem that isn't rational to begin with so as to determine where you lie? You can't, so going either way is a gamble. Blind faith in science = blind faith in religion.
As far as free thinking goes, why would you reject something if you were open to the possibility? It's like saying: 'I genuinely reject that the sun will rise at 12 AM today, but I believe there's a certain chance that it will'. It doesn't make sense.
like i said, agnosticism/gnosticism is about knowledge, atheism/theism is about believe. we have knowledge of certain things but we have beliefs on other things.
you cannot merge them all together and only pick 1 of the four - every one is either atheist or theist. you either accept the claims are true or you dont. whether you claim either position is different, but inside you must have a preference. agnostics that dont claim this position are usually not interested in the answer, and usually will reject the theistic claims, but due to the stigma associated with atheism, wont claim this position. most people think atheism is morally bankrupt or evil or means you dont believe in anything and doesnt sound that appealing. quite the opposite is true in fact.
person C can sit in the middle - but it is logically impossible to believe and not believe in theistic claims at the same time. you can be undecided on the whole outcome but if you say to that person do you believe noah built a boat they will say yes or no. saying i dont know is fine, but there has to be some claim they do know about and they also have to, deep down, have a personal view on it.
gravity is also a theory. and evolution is a theory. they are both facts. a theory can be a fact.
science doesnt answer the question of why we are here because it is a loaded question. the wording insinuates we have a purpose, which we dont other than to survive. science would probably answer by saying just that.
atheism is a rejection of the theistic claims. it is not a two way belief system. religion puts forward a claim, i reject it. therefore i can reject every piece of evidence they put forward but still be open to the possibility that there is a tiny chance god exists.
atheism is not the flat out assertion that god does not exist, it is simply a response.
i reject all the evidence, which is the only evidence we have, so i say im pretty sure the christian god doesnt exist. however, if new evidence arrives that proves he does exist and i accept it i will change my position.
Whilst some may describe evolution as a theory, many people (myself included) consider it fact. There's definitely evidence to support it. Take micro-evolution of a particular organism - like wolves evolving into modern species of dog. Even so, I am being arrogant when claiming it as fact, because there is absolutely no record or piece of evidence to support macro-evolution.
Gravity isn't a theory, it is a physical quantity. The only theoretical aspects of gravity are the various descriptions of its mechanism. Again, one of the most prominent theories is defined by general relativity.
Personally, I don't think that atheism is evil, or morally bankrupt for that matter. What I do believe however, is that atheists are arrogant and just a little bit ignorant. You're essentially hedging bets that science will one day find an answer that can prove our existence - that's just like a theist hedging bets that there's a god and an afterlife. Unless you have conclusive evidence, you are definitely taking a gamble.
I do have a slight issue with atheists describing themselves as agnostic tho; this is because being agnostic is 100% modest and 0% arrogant. Bridging the two ruins the credibility of the modest one.
Also, I find it really funny how instead of moving us ahead, CERN has managed to create more questions and resurrect the void that existed before Einstein published his papers.
well you started out perfectly sane and showed a much more intellectual view on theories than i have and probably know more about science than i do, but then you went all medieval and crazy.
firstly youve put all atheists into one group and called us arrogant and ignorant, a real intelligent thing to do. atheism is a response to the lack of evidence for god. that means we are a huge mix of people with lots of different beliefs. some of us love science and look to it for every answer, but some of us dont know the first thing about science and couldnt care less.
youre actually wrong, i dont think science will be able to answer every question we have. as for proving our existance? isnt that a philosophical matter? as an atheist all i do is reject the evidence for god. anything else i believe in is independent of my atheism. i accept i will never know certain answers, and im happy with that. lots of theists think they already know the answers or that they will find out in the afterlife. what am i taking a gamble on? how have you removed that gamble by claiming to be agnostic (although ive already mentioned that you must, by logic, fall into either the atheist or theist category). atheism can be completely independent of science. i am not an atheist because science has better answers (although in some cases it does), i am atheist because religion is out-dated and makes no sense.
grouping all atheists as arrogant and ignorant and all agnostics modest is the most arrogant statement you make. you missed the irony there? im not bridging the two,have you not read my previous posts? i have said they CANNOT be bridge, they deal with two different notions. i am atheist AND agnostic. i reject the theist evidence AND admit that i could never be 100% sure god doesnt exist.
and you criticise CERN for raising more questions? pray tell me, what is wrong with more questions?
this sounds like the typical agnostic view where atheism has been tarnished by religious stigma. you think atheism is just as fundamental as religion and therefore you refuse to chose. in fact, theism makes incredible claims and atheism rejects them, without putting forward any other claims, so they are not too ends of a scale, it is a claim and a rejection. science does, however, but science and atheism are two very different things.
i wonder, are there any claims in the bible that you either accept or reject?
Don't take my comments personally. After all, I did describe my own conclusions (relating to evolution) as arrogant. Everybody is arrogant in one way or another - its our nature. Show me a person without ego and I'll concede that man can be perfect.
To be honest, you sound more like a traditional agnostic (albeit a slightly confused one) with an elevated resentment for theism rather than an all out atheist. Look up the definition of atheism and you will realise that there is no room to be undecided; it IS just as fundamental as theism. In order to be an atheist you MUST concede that all answers lie in nature. Alternatively, being an agnostic means that you SIMPLY DON'T KNOW; Agnosticism relates to uncertainty NOT knowledge.
It relates to uncertainty because THERE IS NO FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE to accept or reject.
According to their true definitions, atheism and agnosticism can't be combined. After all, you can't be decided and undecided at the same time; You can't state that you are certain an opaque bottle you've glanced at is full but you are uncertain of that certainty!
BTW, it would be more appropriate (and rational) to say that you are an agnostic leaning towards atheism. This implies that you are uncertain but simultaneously pessimistic towards theism instead of creating a blatant contradiction.
You've obviously done some reading on the subject of atheism. If you don't mind me asking, could you please give me a source? I'd be interested in covering it myself.
what a load of nonsense. of course i conceed all answer lie in nature - where else do they lie? its either nature or god. that does not make it as fundamental as religion. religion asserts the answers arent in nature are puts it to god without evidence. atheism rejects those claims, but you dont have believe in science to be an atheist.
you can reject god and therefore be an atheist but believe in godless 'force' that alters the universe.
if you think my position is that of a traditional agnostic then you should probably accept that your definition of agnosticism is closer to most atheists definition of atheism. how am i confused? i reject all the claims of god so far, but accept that i couldnt possibly know, at the current time, if god does or does not exist. based on the lack of evidence i say he doesnt. that is agnostic atheism.
yes, atheism and agnosticism cant be combined. i told you that. which is why in my last post i said im atheist and agnostic. they are two different positions based on two different aspects in knowledge and belief. im decided that there is probably no god, i am no way 100% decided because that is seemingly impossible. ill bet 99% of atheists say the same. i do reject, almost completely, the god of christianity because there is no evidence and it is absurd. i accept that there is a tiny chance it could be true - along with thor, zeus, yahweh or the flying spaghetti monster.
i have never said that i am certain god doesnt exist. in your bottle example i would say im pretty sure i saw that it was full, but i could have been mistaken. atheism does not deal with certainty, just the rejection of the current god claims. it does not make the positive statement that god doesnt exist, just that we reject the evidence so far. why cant you understand that?
considering my belief is that there is no god, but am open to the unlikely possibility that he could exist i would say i am atheist with agnostic openness.
my experience in atheism is based on listening to lots atheists talk and state the same position i have given. you will find it really hard for any atheist to say with 100% that they believe there is no chance at all that a god exists, which you seem to think.
id start with the god delusion by richard dawkins (who despite being the most famous atheist, only considers himself an agnostic atheist - have a look at this scale taken from the book and see the numbers of people who fall into category 6, along with me and richard dawkins: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=742)
i also love god is not great by christopher hitchens. for youtube clips and discussion search for the atheist experience - which is a call in tv show from the USA aimed at having discussions like this. i think it would be interesting if you called them and put forward these ideas. they will agree with my take, but probably argue the position much better.
Nonsense? You won't even accept that what you are spouting is contradictory, despite me pointing it out to you. Also, you're lecturing a Greek on the meaning of a Greek word for crying out loud. I've proven my point but you keep on rejecting it. Incidentally, the dictionary proves my point... Philosophical books prove my point!
Here's a quote from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"...the person who accepts the philosophical position of agnosticism will hold that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist is rational"
Please do yourself a favor. Go get a dictionary and actually look up the meanings of 'atheist' and 'agnostic'.
Also, with the bottle analogy, you must be certain that it is either full or empty.
On a final note, the religion of nature (everything that is tangible) is science.
If you're going to retort with the same old nonsense as before, don't bother.
it isnt contradictory - its knowledge versus belief. i believe there is no good but i cannot profess the knowledge he doesnt exist.
i dont agree with that definition because it is impossible. the reason i dont believe in god is because the evidence presented is nonsense. when you look at a passage in the bible you either believe it or you dont. there can be no middle ground. you can say you dont know, but that means you have no opinion. im not sure on the intelligence of someone who can look at a passage and have absolutely no opinion on it.
your bottle assertion is just that, an assertion that i have to be certain. what if im not certain? i saw a glimpse, my eyes could be playing tricks on me, who knows. i dont always believe everything i see. i may say i am 99% sure, but unless im staring at it for a minute or so i doubt i would claim to be 100% certain.
if you want to call nature a religion feel free, but i think thats a pretty useless term. nature isnt science, they are not the same thing. nature isnt a process that can answer things. when you claim nature has to answer everything i guess you mean things like how the universe started or life started etc - these are found in nature. nature is the universe and everything in it, of course the answers will come from nature. there is no rational reason to suggest we will find a big old god who will turn up and claim the stakes. if god does appear, then he is also a part of nature.
im finding it hard to understand what you actually belive. do you believe the christian god exists?
as an atheist, my atheism is not as fundamental as theism. they make claims and assertions based on an old book. i have looked at this claims and book and say that it is not good enough. they are not opposite positions. that is the end of the official definition of atheism. to extended it further to science and nature is not atheism, it is science. you can be an atheist and reject all science.
claiming to be agnostic only on the basis of sitting on the fence or being undecided is weak. all you have to do is look at the evidence or decide you want to be religious and you can - if it doesnt appeal to it, reject it and be an atheist. agnosticism is usually just the first step towards atheism from de-converted theists.
The bottle analogy isn't an assertion because you have to completely reject the notion of a god to be an atheist. Atheos (the word from which atheist is derived) literally means without god.
Nature isn't a religion and I never claimed it as such; but science is the study of nature. I merely defined science as a religion for contrast. I have great faith in science and believe that if the answers were present, we'd no doubt be able to rationalise the universe better than we presently do. I also believe that if the answers actually existed in nature, science would eventually find them.
I read CookieDragon's post beforehand and noticed that he made use of the word 'belief'. All I can say is that it entirely depends on how much credibility you give your beliefs. If you have absolute confidence in them, then they equate to certainty. If you don't, then you aren't certain, so you can't be an atheist. Instead, you can be agnostic leaning towards atheism.
Although it is of little relevance, I was actually agnostic, but I now believe that there is a God. My transition came about due to personal evidences that I find impossible to refute or explain. Either way, I'm not trying to convert anybody here. My beliefs are merely my beliefs. All I am trying to do is to have a philosophical discussion about the rational conflict of being an 'agnostic atheist'.
Despite my views, I don't look down on atheists at all - I even have atheist friends. Instead, I view atheists and theists in the same light.
How certain can someone be that something can exist without their knowing it? Is there a logical proof or some demonstration that supports this certainty or is it possible that some certainties are not logically demonstrable? When asking for proof, we expect it to be a scientific proof. The existence of God has never been proven scientifically - and therefore it's intellectually irresponsible to accept his existence as long as we agree that it's intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be scientifically proven. So, should we automatically discount the possibility of there being valid proofs other than scientific proofs? It's never been scientifically proven that the only valid proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs - because neither a proof or any other criterions of acceptability are, in and of themselves, empirical.
sharethe atheist blogs are also a really good place to start: read this one and you might find your position: http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/how-big-is-your-god/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PlanetAtheism+%28Planet+Atheism%29
go here to see all the main blogs and for an rss feed: http://planetatheism.com/
I personally believe 100% that god doesn't exist.
An atheist doesn't reject the evidence of god as there is no evidence. It's not about being arrogant or rejecting That's why people are atheists - it's about the LACK of evidence.
If we could find evidence that he exists then there would be no such thing as atheists anymore as you would have to believe, if it's right there in your face. If there might be people who still don't believe, well, then that would make them very arrogant! That would be no better than some religious groups today denying proof and evidence science has found about anything that contradicts their belief/faith.
I can't remember which one of you guys said it (or even both), I agree with you that an agnostic is someone who is unsure what to believe. And I agree with quirkyrecords about being an agnostic atheist (I think it's that way round!). You can firmly BELIEVE there is no god but at the same time be open to the possibility that he could, in fact, exist but only if evidence is found. That is not a contradiction.
I'm not sure if I explained myself right as this is a difficult topic! :) lol
There are two rules of success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
i also 100% believe the christian god doesnt exist, but that is not the same as 100% knowing he doesnt exist.
the christians claim there is evidence - our rejection of it is to say that it is not evidence. however, even if there was evidence there would still be atheists (how many creationists are there or what about the flat earth society?) and there would certainly be anti-theists. god might be real, but if he is i would still believe he was evil or incompetent.
heres something interesting i like to think about:
we know there are about 200 hundred religions, lets round it off. we also know that they are all contradictory to each other (hell, even the christians cant agree with each other). therefore it is a fact that at LEAST 199 are wrong.
now we are all atheist to either all religions or everyone elses religions - i just reject 1 more god than the theists do.
i consider all religions just as likely as the next, no one religion has any extra evidence or claims that make it more likely to exist than any others. that means we have no idea which of the those 200 is the right one, or if any of them are.
the odds are better to reject all 200 than to guess (or be forced) to accept one and be correct.
agnosticism keeps the possibility that all 200 could be correct, which is much more inefficient than rejecting them all.
if you want to keep all those possibilities open, fine. but in doing so and in not making a choice it means you dont get into any afterlifes promised you. which is the point. if you are open to all religions but it turns out chrisitianity is correct you wont get into heaven. in which case, why bother?
if you are only open to deism then that is not what atheism deals with. that is adeism.
[deleted]
The scientific definition of "theory" is much different from what a layperson thinks a theory is. A theory MUST be based on observable FACT. Please read the following and use the word correctly
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
[deleted]
It's perfectly possible to be an agnostic atheist. I am one. Don't you tell me what I can and can't be.
sharethen i would denounce him to his face.
Lol, I love it when theists try and make atheists think god is something to be scared of.
I am meant to FEAR god? Oh, well that makes him even more appealing. I love the idea of an all powerful being who is meant to scare the hell out of everyone.
You can't win here. If your idea of god is the caring, loving and forgiving god then I would have no fear doing anything in front of him.
If your god is the scary, vengeful god then, lol, why the hell would you want to worship that god anyway?
I have as much fear of denouncing god as I do of being eaten alive by Freddy Kruger i.e. neither is ever going to happen so there is nothing to fear.
It's funny
why the hell would you want to worship that god anyway?
Ah, so it is a fearful, scary, violent, bloodthirsty god. Well thank god for that.
Now I have no problem in not believing the *beep* is real.
This may scare you but it doesn't scare me. Just in the same way you aren't scared about anything you don't think exists.
There's nothing scary about something that isn't there.
Bow willingly or be made to bow. One way or the other, You WILL bow.
That is hilarious.
Well then I pity you for believing it.
I pity you for worshipping a god that would force people to worship, like all dictators do.
I pity you for having unnecessary fear.
Lighten up Francis!!
No need for pity. I worship by choice not out of fear. My God has blessed me so much and gives me a joy for living that I never knew before welcoming Him into my heart.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
And yet you try to convince me by using fear?
So it's all fun and games if you believe anyway, but if you don't believe it's all about fear and threats?
I bet there were people that loved other dictators because they gave them so much, which meant they could turn a blind eye to the murder and pain they causes to others.
You are doing the same. It's so selfish. As long as you get rewarded, it doesn't matter than billions of people are burning in hell for eternity.
And please don't give me the standard "you send yourself to hell" nonsense.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I was replying to a question you asked.
As to the "the standard "you send yourself to hell" nonsense." as you say, let's just presume for a minute, that the Bible is correct about salvation etc. When you as an unbeliever stand before God on judgement day, what excuse will you have? Who is to blame for God sending you from His presence (hell) because you will as you said "denounce Him to His face"?
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
I was replying to a question you asked.
let's just presume for a minute, that the Bible is correct about salvation
According to Christianity, you get into Heaven if you believe in Jesus. Doesn't matter if you're a rapist or a child-molester. Meanwhile a lovely person who has done good all their lives but never heard of Jesus goes to Hell. Yeah great and fair system, where do i sign up? Oh wait it's just *beep* humans invented, phew!
share[deleted]
Given that the original poster does not appear to have understood the plot, it would be difficult to given any credence to his/her assumptions which, in any case, are generalised to the point of being valueless. The 'Illuminati guy' referred to was nothing more than a hired assassin so his religious beliefs are of no consequence (leaving aside the fact that when one of the captured cardinals refers him to God, he does not deny God's existence but simply says that God will have issues with what he is about to do - so there is no indication that he was 'clearly an atheist').
In fact, the chief villain of the movie, Father McKenna (Ewen McGregor), is about as far from an atheist as you can get. He is an ultra-fanatical christian, prepared to do anything and risk anything to preserve the church in a way that he believes it should be preserved. This kind of fantaticism has resulted in millions of deaths, the responsibility for which lies with organised religion, down through the centuries - and it's still going on today. This is not to deny that secular governments have not also caused great suffering but it would be historically inaccurate to deny the terror that has been wrought in the name of religion and God.
It seems likely from his turn of phrase and from his attitude, that Robert Langdon is, in fact, an atheist, rather than an agnostic, however he is sensitive to the church members he encounters and tempers his language accordingly.
The comment that 'the majority of atheists are immoral jerks' is too generalised to be of any value in a serious debate on morality however it is constantly (and successfully) argued that morality is not only NOT the sole domain of the religious but immorality features as frequently in religious history as it does in secular history. Any of the writings of Hitchens or Dawkins will provide adequate evidence of this.
Even if you are correct about this atheist this doesn't prove anything. I hate when people throw around the word 'proof' in completely inappropriate context. If you meet an atheist who is a jerk then that doesn't mean that all atheists are jerks. I did, however, just prove that your argument is false.
share"I hate when people throw around the word 'proof' in completely inappropriate context"
I agree, however the tendency to generalise in this way is usually an indication of stupidity or ignorance, or both, and is more to be pitied than anything else.
'Some jerks are atheists' and 'Some atheists are jerks' are both true statements but that's as far as you can go, in the same way that you can say that 'Some jerks are theists' and 'Some theists are jerks' (I have to admit that with the latter two expressions my experience encourages me to substitute 'many' for 'some' - but I will be charitable and not do this) - although I believe that you could say that 'All people who assert that all atheists are jerks - are jerks'. QED.
Every single thing you just said is wrong.
shareAtheists don't care one way or another what religion you follow or if you even follow a religion. However religious people always have their heads up their asses and tell the rest of the world what sinners we are.
share[deleted]
First and foremost, "atheist" is a catch-all phrase. There are secularists (who the term is usually used to described) and, believe it or not, religions that have no supreme deity (such as Buddhism), which makes them atheistic as well.
What I am "marveled" by is how someone can take the actions of a two-dimensional character and consider it "proof" for anything.