Digg - What's Wrong with Being Atheist Anyway?

927 Comments
Who Dugg It?

doiveo, on 11/02/2008, -47/+143what a dick. we should make dole a swear word for guys like this.
- binky79, on 11/02/2008, -9/+41You must have really enjoyed the article and picture to make such an epic comment.
  - thesprucegoose, on 11/03/2008, -5/+2I was thinking the same thing...
- elfs1der, on 11/02/2008, -24/+2someone just ***** in my mouth
  - mrsteveman1, on 11/03/2008, -0/+20Well grab some soap, dumbass. Digg can't help you there
  - mikbunn, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3Read the rest of his comments. Good ol' elfs1der, Digg's resident coprophile.
- Lhandroval, on 11/03/2008, -2/+25No! Stay away from my Dole pineapples. :(
  - indiancompanion, on 11/03/2008, -2/+1mandarin oranges as well
- Mononuclear, on 11/03/2008, -1/+38Dole is already a swear word for most people in latin america.
- rz8472, on 11/03/2008, -4/+16Isn't the definition of (ex-Pennsylvania Senator Rick) Santorum that bit of fecal matter that is ejected out of the anus during gay sex or something?
  - geodebug, on 11/03/2008, -3/+14"that frothy mix of fecal matter and lube that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" I believe is the definition you were looking for.
    
    -- I digg Dan Savage
- wphj, on 11/03/2008, -0/+14Makes me doubly glad I voted and phone-banked for Kay Hagen, her opponent.
  - HuntGather, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I wrote Dole an e-mail about how she deserves to lose and how I'm going to get people who wouldn't typically vote past the top of the ballot to vote for Hagen. I doubt it'll ever reach her.
- ProfessorRiffs, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6How 'bout ya go dole yourself....
- TakeyMcTaker, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4I thought "on the Dole" was already a bad euphamism...
- ldkronos, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5*Guys* like this? What, did you think this was about Bob Dole or something?
  - g00ee, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1OK, I thought it was just me not getting enough sleep ...doiveo's comment makes no sense right? Unless he is talking about the author of the article?
    
    http://g00ee.blogspot.com/
alapoet, on 11/02/2008, -10/+351A desperate Republican is an ugly thing.

Dole has chosen to reinforce this with her ugly last gasps of political life.

Today's polls show her falling even farther behind her opponent for the Senate, Kay Hagan.
- alphgeek, on 11/02/2008, -1/+47Dole is repulsive. Meanwhile, her political opportunist of an opponent has come out to vehemently distance herself from the atheists.
  
  Gotta love a fight to the bottom.
  - ScottMitchell, on 11/03/2008, -25/+5Where do atheists fit on the spectrum of political labels? I have to believe that "patriot" is on one extreme and "terrorist" the other. Clearly "atheist" falls closer to "terrorist" than "patriot," but how close to terrorist? And is it closer to "terrorist" than "socialist"?
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -5/+11An atheist is what you get when you breed a terrorist with a socialist. Hence they are worse than both.
    
    /s
  - Blydchyld, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13@Scott
    
    I know you americans love the whole 'Terrorist' Branding, but you couldnt be further from the truth.
    
    A terrorist is more Patriotic to their country and faith, than someone who stands there and salutes a flag. Talking of doing something is vastly diffrent from putting your life in the line for your belife.
    
    Thats why our soldiers out in the east fighting this attritional ***** deserve the name 'Patriot' where as the 'Terrorist' extreams are on a equal footing in their own eyes as they have the faith to die for their belifes.
    
    The fact that Terroism is a ***** crazy thing seems to slip past us when we think of Che and his ilk.
- rz8472, on 11/03/2008, -0/+63I was also disappointed with Kay Hagan. Her response was "I'm a Christian, not an atheist", which is perfectly fine... but she made no attempt to point out that atheists are perfectly good people as well. As with the Obama Muslim smear, there is a good answer, and then there's a much better answer.
  - macweirdo42, on 11/03/2008, -0/+46This is America - it won't be remotely acceptable to be an atheist anytime soon. You can be any religion you want in this country, but for some reason having no religion at all is an unspeakable evil.
  - sulthernao, on 11/03/2008, -3/+17This is North Carolina, and she's a politician. Give her a break. I wish she (and others) would have the courage to defend all people from bigotry, but have a little perspective.
  - geodebug, on 11/03/2008, -2/+9Sorry, NC or no you have to have principals. At least Dole is straight-forward with her bigotry. Kay Hagan should have taken the higher road.
  - HuntGather, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6As an atheist, in a way I'm glad she's done that. Otherwise Dole would win hands down.
  - Memitim, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4Real patriots put their religion before their country.
    
    Um, wait...
vivisimonvi, on 11/02/2008, -52/+211I much prefer being agnostic
- manchu2, on 11/02/2008, -63/+19At least agnosticism is a defendable, if risk-averse, position to take. For God's sake, don't come out of your hole while the atheists and theists are shooting at each other!
  - geodebug, on 11/03/2008, -0/+17Don't come out of your Dole?
    
    Sorry, still trying to think of a way to make that a slang term.
  - g00ee, on 11/04/2008, -1/+2WOW! I knew Digg was full of Atheists and I consider myself an Agnostic/Casual Christian but damn! Why the massive digg down? Machu I greatly appreciated your comment!
    
    http://g00ee.blogspot.com/
- archer104, on 11/02/2008, -68/+54I think that most people really are. And to all the people claiming to be atheists: It is just as much jumping the gun to say that there is a God as to say that there is no God. Being critical of religious people for believing in something they can't prove makes you a hypocrite. You can't prove that there is no God therefore you shouldn't say that there is no God. Science doesn't jump to conclusions.
  - alphgeek, on 11/02/2008, -35/+159archer104 said:
    
    "You can't prove that there is no God therefore you shouldn't say that there is no God."
    
    Your logic sucks:
    
    You can't prove that there is no Santa Claus therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Santa Claus.
    
    You can't prove that there is no Tooth Fairy therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Tooth Fairy.
    
    You can't prove that there is no Allah therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Allah.
    
    You can't prove that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn.
    
    You can't prove that there is no Kali therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Kali.
    
    You can't prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    
    So...according to you, nobody can claim that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? Because that might be unscientific?
    
    Get a grip.
  - kurttrail, on 11/02/2008, -17/+57Alpha,
    
    What started existence?
    
    If you are honest you'll answer, "I don't know."
    
    That is the basic tenant of Agnosticism. I don't know, so as a reasonable person I ain't gonna make ***** up.
  - archer104, on 11/02/2008, -50/+14@alphgeek
    You don't even understand my point. I can say that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy don't exist if the creators of these myths have come forward and stated that they made them up, otherwise I can't say FOR CERTAIN that they don't exist. I can say that it is incredibly unlikely. And you're right, I can't say FOR CERTAIN that Allah doesn't exist. This should be clear.
  - manchu2, on 11/02/2008, -51/+20Ahhhh....alphageek is the kind of arrogant atheist I remember:
    
    alphageek said, ""You can't prove that there is no God therefore you shouldn't say that there is no God."
    
    Your logic sucks"
    
    Actually, there's nothing wrong with his logic, you just don't like the outcome.
  - alphgeek, on 11/02/2008, -10/+65@archer104
    
    The same test applies for God. I can bring the creator of God forward to debunk the myth. Of course, in both cases the creators are long dead so...
    
    And I agree it is incredibly unlikely that Santa Claus is real (sorry kids). Likewise, it is similarly incredibly unlikely that God exists. That too is clear.
    
    @manchu2
    
    Resorting to ad hominem attacks I see. A classic sign of a lack of reasoned argument. And before you accuse me of the same, I didn't personally attack archer104, I attacked his flawed logic.
    
    Now I will attack yours. His logic, and by extension yours, is incorrect. You are both essentially implying that the case FOR God and the case AGAINST God is a 50/50 proposition:
    
    "It is just as much jumping the gun to say that there is a God as to say that there is no God."
    
    When in fact based on any rational, repeatable evidence there is merely an infinitesimally small chance that God exists, whereas there are an almost infinitely large range of possible scenarios that do not require the Christian God, or substitute a different God such as Zeus, Apollo, Shiva, Krishna etc. Obviously Christians don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, etc. Christians are atheist with regard to these gods.
    
    @kurttrail
    
    An agnostic isn't a person who says "I don't know". An agnostic says "it cannot ever be known"
    
    There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, just as their are gnostic atheists and gnostic theists.
    
    It isn't just some wishy-washy fence sitting view. It means more than that.
  - kurttrail, on 11/02/2008, -16/+13Alpha,
    
    How do you know something cannot EVER be known?
    
    Again, if you are being honest & rational you'll answer "I don't know." Stating absolutes based on no evidence whatsoever is just plain *****.
    
    I am neither a theist or an atheist, I just don't know, and I am not afraid to say it. I have no need to make up ***** to hide my ignorance based on a lack of evidence.
    
    Make up ***** if you NEED to deny to yourself your own ignorance, that is your right, but as far as I'm concerned, atheistic beliefs are just as faith-based as those of theists.
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -5/+21kurttrail
    
    My particular form of atheism is faith based. I'm happy to admit that. Most atheists (so called "weak" atheists) do not have faith, they merely lack belief in gods, lacking evidence to the contrary. I am what is called a "strong" atheist.
    
    I take the same evidence a step further to say that I deny the existence of gods. That is where my faith comes in. Even though it is based on a great deal of evidence - the same evidence that the weak atheists use.
    
    But I'm curious - you are vehemently attacking MY beliefs. Do you attack the beliefs of the religious in the same way? After all, THEIR faith is also ignorance based on a lack of evidence. THEIR faith is made-up ***** too, just as much as mine.
    
    You are essentially saying that my faith is not honest and rational. Why is mine less honest and rational than that of Christians, Muslims, etc.? There's is based on a book; at least my faith is based on science.
  - 47f0, on 11/03/2008, -4/+26Actually, the problem is not one of logic, but of bad semantics. Agnosticism is not a degree of atheism. Atheism means to be without god, without religion. Agnostic means to doubt the knowledge of such a being. I am 100% atheist, and about 99.99999% agnostic. The .000001% is purely due to the difficulty in disproof.
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -2/+8@47f0
    
    Heh. That's where I was at until just last week. 30 years of reason changed to faith in an instant. Why? Basically I just rounded that .000001% and it came out at zero.
    
    That's my faith, all centred around that last 0.000001%.
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -18/+10Alphgeek: uh.. you're the one saying you shouldn't respect other faiths. You say they're made up beliefs and imply that it's ridiculous to put our faith in something that can't be proven ... but then say we should believe in your made up belief that can't be proven. That's what people are attacking. your hypocrisy. We don't care what you believe in, just don't be a hypocrite about it.
    
    And there is not an infinitesimally small chance god exists. Like you just said about it not being a 50/50 split for or against god, it's not a 1/100000 split for all the possibilities of situations with a god or not. There's more theistic creation myths than atheist creation theories, so using your logic, its 99.9% probable there is SOME god (zeus, apollo, santa claus, etc) vs no god (which is like quantum singularity, multiple big bangs.. and a couple others). With no evidence for or against we can't just arbitrary cut up the odds to the number of possibilities. You can't do anything with the odds. You don't go into experiments saying "theres a 50% chance this drug will cure cancer and a 50% chance it'll cause cancer". You just don't know.
    
    The only evidence you can gather is evidence against a specific god. Like you can have evidence against the biblical version of god by attacking stuff in the bible. You can have evidence against a personal protestant type god by attacking how prayers don't work or something. But there's no way to get any real evidence on a creator god vs nothing. We know nothing about what there was before the big bang. You can put in a god or not. It's all assumptions. So your faith is not based on science. Science says nothing about if there's a creator god. Science doesn't say there is a god so you assume the opposite is true.
    
    And yes, it is unscientific to say for sure santa, the easter bunny etc don't exist. I'm fine with that. There's evidence saying a santa claus that gives gifts to every good child in the world doesn't exist but if santa claus just sits in an invisible fortress on the north pole, then sure, I have no evidence for or against that.
  - macweirdo42, on 11/03/2008, -6/+5See, I can't say one way or the other whether there is a God, but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. It seems more pragmatic that, since I see no evidence of God, I'll live my life as if God exists. I suppose since I can't say for certain, that makes me an agnostic, but it doesn't seem like it really characterizes my beliefs and how they affect my attitude toward life.
  - mrsteveman1, on 11/03/2008, -1/+21The problem is that Agnostics give some validity to the very idea of a god, when no justification for such a belief exists, and likely can't exist.
    
    The only reason we are even having this atheist vs agnostic discussion is because of all the people who are so sure there is a god, otherwise we would be reverting right back to logical thinking, believing in things we have a reason to believe in due to evidence.
  - litfsh, on 11/03/2008, -4/+18This is a good argument.
    
    The only thing I have to add is simply an explanation, from a former devout Southern Baptist. Many atheists use logic, excellently formulated, and well thought out, to try to debunk faith, and they also often are surprised at the vehemence of the opposition to their view. The reason, as I see it, is that when you deny the existence of God, you are also implicitly implying that the person who believes in God is stupid.
    
    Now, many people can handle being called stupid. But they *can't* handle their friends being called stupid, their family, their father and their mother, their grandparents.
    
    For most followers of religion (evangelicals of all stripes excluded), the idea of faith is much much more than just believing in an invisible person, it's a connection to a whole society of people that you can trust to act like yourself, and believe in the same things you believe in.
    
    And this is the problem with agnosticism and atheism. For believers, the code of morality is fixed. People may sin, but at least everyone in that society agrees closely on what is a sin.
  - john2kx, on 11/03/2008, -0/+26You don't need to prove that something doesn't exist. Obviously this is impossible.
    However, if you want to assert that something exists, you DO need to prove it.
    
    Look up Russel's Teapot on wikipedia or google..
    I can assert that there's a teapot orbiting a planet a billion light years away, and even though we can't prove that it's false, we both know it's false. You need to prove that there exists a teapot orbiting in space, you can't just make ***** up and say it's a possibility because it can't be disproved.
    
    This argument for the existence of God has been shot down a long time ago by Russel. Please stop bringing it back up.
  - Fordi, on 11/03/2008, -0/+18"You can't prove that there is no God therefore you shouldn't say that there is no God."
    
    Incorrect, over. I have no concrete opinion on the existence of God, but I can say that no tangible evidence in support of ones existence. Should I believe in faeries based on countless legends describing them?
    
    An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God. Any God. Are you an atheist when it comes to Odin? Zeus? Do you sit on the fence when it comes to Shiva? How about Ahura Mazda? I'm sure his existence is a 50-50 thing in your agnostic mind.
    
    In the rational position, there's no actual denial of a God going on. The only time, "no God" comes up is when pressed, in which case, the answer is the same: "Well, there's no evidence, so no, probably not."
    
    I don't believe in a God. I do not deny its existence, as I don't have to. I don't have to deny the existence of Doctor Who, either.
  - benplaut, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13@litfsh: "And this is the problem with agnosticism and atheism. For believers, the code of morality is fixed. People may sin, but at least everyone in that society agrees closely on what is a sin."
    
    That's a good point, except that the vast majority of nontheists (atheist, agnostic, whatever) still follow the same moral code on their own grounds, whereas theists follow that moral code on their own grounds and on the advisement of a higher power.
    
    Not being a believer does not necessarily exclude you from the religious community--I consider myself a Jew in that I follow the people-to-people rules as best I can, and I seriously take part in ritual practice. Do I believe? No. I don't really feel that it's necessary.
    
    In terms of our morals and people-to-people relations, theism and nontheism seem to be different means to the same end. When they conflict, that's when there are issues like abortion and gay marriage.
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -1/+10bobbi21 said:
    
    "Alphgeek: uh.. you're the one saying you shouldn't respect other faiths. You say they're made up beliefs and imply that it's ridiculous to put our faith in something that can't be proven ... but then say we should believe in your made up belief that can't be proven."
    
    I didn't say this or anything like it. You are putting words in my mouth. If you think that you are paraphrasing my argument then I respectfully suggest that you don't understand my argument. But now you mention it, they ARE made up beliefs, just like mine is a made up belief. I don't care whether you believe in mine or not! Respect it or not, that's totally up to you. Likewise, no-one should feel that they can DEMAND respect for their faith. Why?
    
    I have no issue with faith itself, mine or anyone else's. I have a problem when faith leaks over into secular government. Mine certainly doesn't - I might be the only person on Earth who believes the way I do. And I certainly don't erect laws to support my prejudices.
    
    I will challenge the less rational and logical doctrines of any faith when I see fit. Things like Noah's ark carrying two of every beast, a world that is 6,000 years old in defiance of all evidence, miracles, prophecy and all the rest. Feel free in return to challenge mine where you disagree. Essentially I draw my evidence from science. Have at it. I don't mind at all and I will try to explain my position.
    
    Regarding probability, I'm not literally suggesting it is 0.000001%. It was following on from the comment above mine. In fact I believe there is a 0% probability of the existence of a god. If you believe differently, more power to you!
    
    "That's what people are attacking. your hypocrisy."
    
    Uh...hypocrisy would be saying that I believe something that I don't. I don't care what anyone else believes. I certainly believe in what I believe in. So...where's the hypocrisy?
  - kurttrail, on 11/03/2008, -7/+1Alpha,
    
    Based on science?
    
    Faith is irrational by definition, so therefore outside of the scientific method.
    
    Faith - belief that is not based on proof
    
    Theists recognize their faith is not based in reason, you seem to be fooling yourself that your faith is reason-based. See the hypocrisy?
  - ProfessorFoo, on 11/03/2008, -1/+11You can be both atheist and agnostic so stop this ignorant argument. A person who does not believe in a god but does not claim he/she knows if there is a god for sure is an agnostic atheist.
    
    And stop digging archer up. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Atheists don't claim there is no god they just do not believe in one. There is a difference.
  - john2kx, on 11/03/2008, -9/+2@ ProfessorFoo
    
    Actually Atheists do claim there is no God.
    If they didn't make this claim, what would you call a person who does claim that there is no god?
  - ProfessorFoo, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13@john2kx
    You are referring to a gnostic atheist, which would be someone who actually believes they know there is no god without a doubt.
  - selesse, on 11/03/2008, -1/+10@alphgeek:
    
    I've read a lot of these sorts of debates on forums and they usually get silly quickly, but you're resorting to intelligence rather than senseless ad-hominems. I also agree with what you're saying, and you've made some points that have helped me understand my own faith a little better. :)
    
    Thanks!
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -0/+11@selesse
    
    Thank you. And thanks for returning the favour. That's the main reason I debate, to increase my own understanding. Plus I like the sound of my own keyboard :P
    
    @kurttrail
    
    It isn't hypocrisy at all. Why does faith have to be irrational? It is belief without proof, nothing more. I have faith that my friends will stand up for me - is that irrational? No, it is based on reason - they have stood up for me many times in the past. Is it based on proof? No, because next week they may not stick up for me.
    
    Not trying to be rude but you need to think these things through a little more. According to your definition, the more wacked out an idea is, the purer a persons faith? Can't we have faith in rational outcomes?
    
    As I said above, my faith developed last week after 30 years as a weak or agnostic atheist (non-faith based). Please take my word for it that I have considered the arguments very thoroughly.
    
    My faith is not based on reason. It is grounded in reason though. My faith is separate from science - I just happen to draw on science to underpin it. The faith part comes in when I make my positive assertion that gods do not exist. Science can't prove this, hence...faith!
    
    Long story short, I am a type of gnostic atheist, just as ProfessorFoo describes above.
  - Dennis88, on 11/03/2008, -12/+1@ John2kx
    
    The Russell's teapot analogy is deeply flawed, as is Dawkins's copy of it, the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". The theological community was surprised at his arrogance and ignorance in genuinely using it as a stand-up argument against God. It was less surprised by the thousands of sheeple like you who just went "yeah what he said" without actually analysing the validity of the argument.
    
    Read Alister McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion" and evaluate its criticisms of his argument before you jump on the Dawkins's "death to the religious!" bandwagon, please.
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -9/+4@alphgeek: I am basing my assumption on your statement "You can't prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster therefore you shouldn't say that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    So...according to you, nobody can claim that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? Because that might be unscientific?
    Get a grip."
    
    After this you claim your belief in no god is based on faith, therefore, it means you have no evidence backing up your claim. Since you also seem to have some respect for science, I assumed you wouldn't believe in something that has direct evidence against it. Therefore you believe in something because there is no proof against it and because of your "faith", which is the same logic that you were attacking. Now it's possible you think your own logic sucks as well. That would make you a lot more unscientific than I would have thought since you're fine with using faulty logic on top of your faith.
    
    And the hypocrisy I mentioned comes from that. You say the logic is faulty (saying you believe in something) yet you use it yourself (not really believing it). Again if you believe your logic is faulty too then you're not exactly a hypocrite on that point. But as kurttrail pointed out, you're saying your faith is based on science when your faith is the exact oppose of science and your use of faulty logic is more evidence against your following of science. And that is also pretty hypocritical (or you just being wrong).
    
    "Likewise, no-one should feel that they can DEMAND respect for their faith. Why?" I respectfully disagree. I think we can demand respect for faith just as we can demand respect for woman's rights or demand respect for a culture. I would fight for the right that no one's belief system should be attacked if that belief system doesn't hurt anyone. You can of course argue the belief system and poke holes in it etc but it should be respected as what someone believes, otherwise we're opening the door to hate crimes and the like.
  - KATHYxx, on 11/03/2008, -1/+8Dennis88: You disclaim the teapot but you never explain why or provide a counterpoint.
    
    Myself, i thought i was an agnostic when I had just overlapped with weak athiesm. They are not exclusive.
  - blitz718, on 11/03/2008, -4/+1Alpha, while i agree with some points of your argument and appreciate rational arguments, you seem to be arguing semantics in a a decent amount of your posts (e.g. Faith, Atheism, Agnosticism), and contradict yourself occasionaly.
  - Tanze, on 11/03/2008, -0/+10I notice many devout Christians often use their belief in god as the ultimate "fill in the blank".
    example:
    I don't know something (the origins of life,the existence of extraterrestrials, etc) therefore god must have done it (or is in some way responsible for it)
    
    This convenient little all-purpose-answer then gets tied to the whole intelligent design thing. The human mind is so determined to know, as certainty is very comforting and not knowing is very uncomfortable, that it will (obviously) go to great lengths to wrap some sort of understanding around anything we can't answer. from this perspective being agnostic is the far better choice than knowing for certain that anything exists.
    
    absolutes are for the religious, science requires a dynamic mind
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -6/+1I think the counterpoint is that the teapot argument isn't science. It feels right since "common sense" tells us it's probably true. For that specific argument, the evidence against it can include stuff like, what humans put into orbit has been carefully recorded and anything we do put into orbit wouldn't be able to get into orbit around the sun for various mathematical reasons.
    
    Now if the teapot just appeared there out of nowhere through some unknown force, then I'd say that's something we can't say as much about it. From what we know of science it shouldn't happen though so that should be enough to reduce the probability of it existing. We know tons about teapots and orbits. Any scientist should be ok with that. we wouldn't assume its true so we wouldn't be on the lookout for teapot collisions on our shuttle missions but it's a possibility.
    
    The thing is, when we talk about god, what science tells us about that is pretty much nothing. god is suppose to be a pretty non-tangible omnipotent, omnipresent etc etc and we have no science to extrapolate on things that are non-tangible, omnipotent, omnipresent etc. We wouldn't even know where to start looking for evidence for or against god.
    
    So slightly different. Main point though is that it's not scientific to assume anything is true or false without evidence so the teapot argument isn't proof of anything. It's just a story saying we should believe in our common sense.
  - lolwaffle, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5I used to flip flop between atheist and agnostic. Then I learned about "weak atheist", "strong", and being both agnostic and atheist at the same time. If you ask me, it's all semantics and pointless. The same way no two Christians interpret the bible the same, we're guilty too with our own view of what it means to be a non-believer. Let's just take what we have in common, not believing. God is a man made concept; do we need to go beyond that?
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -0/+9bobbi21 said:
    
    "After this you claim your belief in no god is based on faith, therefore, it means you have no evidence backing up your claim. Since you also seem to have some respect for science, I assumed you wouldn't believe in something that has direct evidence against it. Therefore you believe in something because there is no proof against it and because of your "faith", which is the same logic that you were attacking. Now it's possible you think your own logic sucks as well. That would make you a lot more unscientific than I would have thought since you're fine with using faulty logic on top of your faith."
    
    I may not answer your questions accurately because I'm finding what you said difficult to understand so please forgive me if I get this wrong. It's not your writing or ideas, it's just hard to wrap my head around:
    
    First, I sincerely believe what I have talked about. I don't think my logic sucks, so I'll take that one off the table. I'm not trying to be deliberately confusing. Of course, I could just be flat-out wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.
    
    Do we agree that no-one can prove the non-existence of god? If so then to assert, as I do, that God doesn't exist is a statement based on no proof - a statement of faith. If you disagree that no-one can prove the non-existence of god, please show me how they did it.
    
    Next - yes, I adhere to the principles of science in all other respects. Science requires rational, repeatable evidence to back up its hypotheses (or to disprove them). There is no rational, repeatable evidence to show the non-existence of God. Therefore, until some is found or postulated, the question is outside the realm of science. I don't think I will piss off too many agnostic atheists by saying that. Proof of non-existence is always difficult.
    
    I think I see it now. Are you saying that my belief in the non-existence of god is similar to a belief in the non-existence of Santa Claus? That I am claiming that one is logical and one is faith based? If that is so then I'm sorry about the confusion I caused. Of course they are both ultimately faith based if we take a philosophical view of it.
    
    It requires faith to believe absolutely that Santa Claus doesn't exist, in the same way that it requires faith to believe absolutely that god doesn't exist. I guess it comes down to where one chooses to draw the line, like my comment (way) above where I talk about rounding a 0.000001% allowance for god's existence to zero. That's my line.
    
    Back at the start I was trying to make the point that forcing someone to allow a 1% chance, or a 0.00001% chance, or a 0.000...1% chance that god exists is nonsense - when does that allow us to say, firmly, that god (or Santa) does not exist? If we have to keep out minds open enough to allow an umpteenth percent chance that god exists, then of course we must do the same for all the other inventions of the mind.
    
    But wouldn't we laugh at someone who said "well, I don't believe in Santa Claus but there IS a remote chance, based on probability, that he exists..."? Why should atheists be forced into that corner? Obviously I believe that gods and Santa Claus fall into the same imaginary basket so I have no problem lumping them together. This is why I jumped off the fence into faith. Others may differ.
    
    Maybe I should clear things up by saying that my faith is not only a disbelief in gods. It also encompasses a disbelief in Santa Claus and all those other imaginary things mentioned at the start. I don't allow a 0.00000001% chance that there is a real Santa Claus. I state, based on faith, that Santa Claus does not exist. Again, if someone can prove otherwise then please let me know.
    
    This is something I hadn't considered previously so thank you for helping to extend my thinking!
    
    Just an aside: Regarding respect, would ALL faiths be entitled to the same level of respect? After all, one could argue that they are all beliefs with proof. Or would there be different levels of respect, depending on how each individual felt about the particular belief?
  - YoctoYotta, on 11/03/2008, -2/+7Being an athiest doesn't mean being a closed minded idiot that would ignore proof of one or more deities if some were ever kind enough to present themselves to humans. For me personally, the two largest factors influencing my beliefs is the observation that it's not a stretch to see that the world we live in could very well exist without supernatural intervention, and that written history of humanity going back thousands of years presents the cyclical nature of the uprising of religions during times of chaos and the creation of dogma that borrows liberally from recently deprecated religions of the time. There's clearly editorial control going on extensively, it's almost embarrassing to think people fall for it.
    
    Also, this is kind of a rant, but to the faithful out there that think all atheists are in some way against them, the athiests that I know don't hate gods, whether it's the Christian god or someone's on the other side of the world, and they aren't mad at any of them in a personal way, or think they exist but reject them for whatever reason. Supernatural beliefs simply are just a non-thing, kind of like astrology or tarot. If religion wasn't so unfortunately important to the way the world works, it would be worth the same as arguing over the existence of some widely accepted imaginary creation.
    
    That said, I am very happy religion exists though. Though there's plenty of wonderful people that practice a faith, it also keeps a lot of ***** whackos with no moral strength from stealing, raping and murdering their way through life.
  - Observer001, on 11/03/2008, -4/+1lol, arguments about parsimony, atheism and agnosticism.
  - 955701, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3You sir obviously haven't given atheism versus agnosticism much thought. Had you done so, there would be no WAY you would consider atheism a rash decision. If you care to though, there are some really good books out there to help you understand how to apply critical thinking to religion.
  - roodammy44, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3I couldn't be bothered to read all your arguments, however no good scientist would accept a firm yes or no either way.
    You can't prove or disprove the existence of pink fairies, and therefore it's wrong to say they don't exist just as much as they do. What you can say is that it's extremely unlikely that they exist.
    The whole god thing hinges on life after death. I would probably be quite happy if there was an afterlife, however nobody knows either way. I will not rule out the possibility of an afterlife, I hope there is.
    All arguments on this subject are pointless as noone has any scientific evidence for or against and all we have are a bunch of unfounded beliefs and opinions.
  - kurttrail, on 11/03/2008, -2/+3Alpha,
    
    Your belief in your friends is base on prior observation, that is not faith.
    
    Your faith in no god is based on no observation, see the difference.
  - AugustusOsari, on 11/04/2008, -1/+1If you're agnostic, you should also be solipsistic, right? It's only LOGICAL, right? Right?
    
    Agnosticism is for people who are afraid to go with what's almost certainly correct (i.e.: logical) either because they don't want to offend anyone or because they're giving too much power to peer pressure.
  - AchaIemoipas, on 11/04/2008, -0/+2Belief without evidence is a logical fallacy.
    
    Atheism is the only correct stance because there's nothing to suggest God exists.
    
    The rest doesn't matter. Plus "God the creator" is an impossibility. He can't possibly exist because his existence means existence existed before he created existence. It's impossible. He can't be the "first thing" because he's a thinking being. A thinking being can't exist before there's anything to think about.
    
    All you have left is a God that isn't the creator. Just some dude watching you masturbate.
    
    Until you can demonstrate that God exists, atheists will always be correct and theists will always be wrong in the eyes of logic.
    
    And taking a stand on the lack of existence of a God is just as logical as taking a stand on the lack of existence of Xenu.
    
    All of you don't believe in Zeus or Poseidon. Can you prove they don't exist? Of course not, because that would be a logical fallacy: burden of proof.
    
    As Dawkins would say, you're all atheists in respect to other Gods. Atheists just go one God further.
  - bobbi21, on 11/09/2008, -0/+1Man I feel like I've been saying the same things over and over yet noone is even listening to me (and the others who I've repeated/who've repeated me).
    
    Science has no absolutes. Solipsism is the most logical way and I don't get why ppl have such issue with that. You can't be sure of anything but there are probabilities and there are consequences to your actions even if all of this is imaginary. You operate your life based on the probabilities but when you're asked you say you can't be sure.
    
    I don't believe in Zeus but if someone asked me I won't say I know he doesn't exist. See how easy that was? I'm not afraid of offending any ancient greeks and I'm not too sure what peer pressure is making me accept the possibility of his existence. I'm the only person I know who accepts that possibility (Although I assume some of the ppl defending agnostism here would believe the same..but I don't know these ppl past what they just wrote in this thread)
    
    Question though. Why can't a thinking being exist before there's anything to think about. It can think about itself. And then you get that whole we're just imaginary beings in the mind of god thing.
    
    alphgeek: I think you generally got what I was trying to say. The leap of faith you make saying god doesn't exist, is the same as the leap of faith theists make saying god exists, which is the same as saying santa exists and santa doesn't exist. They're all leaps of faith based on the logic that "We have no proof that it doesn't/does exist so we have to allow to possibility"
    
    The other point I was trying to make is that there isn't a 0.000001% chance god exists because there's no evidence of anything that happened before the big bang. The chance of there being no god is the same as the chance of there being pink flying elephants. We can not assume anything. Now you can say there's a 0.000001% chance of the biblical god existing, because you can say stuff in the bible probably didn't happen the way it says it did. Therefore, it's not a reliable source and therefore you can't trust what it says about god.
    
    But the existence of some god creating the universe, you can't put any probabilities on that because we have no evidence of anything either way before the big bang. We have theories but they're just theories. They're based on math and physics that we understand and before the big bang, there could be no math or physics we understand. Seeing as basically everything we know about physics (time, energy, dimensions) were created at/shortly after the big bang, seems just as likely before the big bang things worked very differently.
    
    So your leap of faith that there is no god in any form is as big a leap as saying I have a 1976 penny on my table right now. You can think of it as a 50 50 chance (since there are only 2 options) but you really have no evidence of either so you shouldn't really say anything. And you can't split it up like theres a 1% chance I have a 1976 penny, a 1% chance I have a 1977 penny, 1% I have a 1978 penny, which is what some people here do with gods (1% chance of christian god, 1% of allah, 1% of vishu). You have no evidence so you can't give any real probabilities.
    
    For your aside: I think all beliefs should have the same respect as long as they don't hurt anyone. I respect the followers of the flying spaghetti monster if they remain civil just as much as i respect the followers of allah if they remain civil. Has nothing to do with if I believe 1 is more probable than the other. Scientology, I have little respect for, though, since we do have pretty good evidence that it was just made up and the church and it's founder have done some pretty awful stuff in a time when most religious groups have been fairly civil (and the groups that aren't I have less respect for as well)
- shalb, on 11/02/2008, -5/+29@archer104: Everyone is entitled to their opinions, beliefs and criticism. If the religious can say that there is a God, how is it hypocritical to say there is no God? It'd be hypocritical if an atheist tried to force his/her belief onto others that there is no God in response to a Christian trying to force his/her belief onto someone who isn't Christian.
  
  And so far, there hasn't been proof that there is a God. No matter where you stand, there isn't proof of either. In the absence of proof, the more logical and scientific answer is to say it does not exist. It's not an absolute statement, since if God truly is as powerful as the scriptures, then God could easily have erased all evidence of existence. Anyone can say they have a million dollars, but until proven, it is not a fact, but a belief.
  - archer104, on 11/02/2008, -18/+5"In the absence of proof, the more logical and scientific answer is to say it does not exist."
    
    That's jumping to conclusions which is exactly my point.
    
    The more logical and scientific answer is to say that it probably does not exist.
  - manchu2, on 11/02/2008, -8/+5If I understand archer correctly, I believe he's saying that an atheist, taking what is essentially a faith position, is hypocritical to attack a theist's faith position.
    
    I would argue with your conclusion, though, that "In the absence of proof, the more logical and scientific answer is to say it does not exist." I think the more logical and scientific answer would be "we haven't seen anything yet that could be DIRECTLY attributed to a Divine Being". I don't think there ever will be, either. I rather think that God fully intended to keep faith as the avenue to Him, not direct, unambiguous proof.
  - archer104, on 11/02/2008, -7/+7"If I understand archer correctly, I believe he's saying that an atheist, taking what is essentially a faith position, is hypocritical to attack a theist's faith position."
    
    Exactly. Here's an example:
    
    George: I believe that there is a tree in the next room.
    Fred: What evidence do you have for this?
    George: No evidence but someone told me and I have not a conviction but a belief.
    Fred: There is no tree in the next room.
    George: What evidence do you have for this?
    Fred: None, but you are an idiot for believing it without any proof.
    George: I think that you are the idiot for being convinced without any proof.
    
    Fred is clearly wrong in outright saying that there is no tree in the next room. He could say "not likely" or "I believe that there is no tree" but he chose to jump to a conclusion.
  - alphgeek, on 11/02/2008, -4/+32@archer104
    
    Your example is interesting but think of it another way for a second.
    
    George: I believe that there is a leprechaun in the next room.
    Fred: What evidence do you have for this?
    George: No evidence but someone told me and I have not a conviction but a belief.
    Fred: There is no leprechaun in the next room.
    George: What evidence do you have for this?
    Fred: None, but you are an idiot for believing it without any proof.
    George: I think that you are the idiot for being convinced without any proof.
    
    Does the case hold up equally well for a leprechaun as a tree? Trees obviously exist so it is at least remotely possible that there is a tree in the next room, even if unlikely. Is it possible that there is a leprechaun in the next room?
    
    In this case, who is the bigger idiot, Fred or George? Or is equally as stupid to disbelieve in leprechauns as it is to believe in them? Of course not. Now substitute in any other fantasy creature - Zeus, flying spaghetti monster, tooth fairy...you can see where I am going?
    
    There's an old saying, "Always try to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out".
  - shalb, on 11/02/2008, -2/+6To prove that something exists, you need facts that back up your statement that it exists. To disprove that something doesn't exist, you would need facts that back up that the something does exist. In the end, you need facts that prove the existence of something to prove or disprove a statement of existence. At least that's my understanding and my logic.
    
    All Fred and George are doing is arguing over a hypothesis. As it stands, the tree doesn't exist since neither has gone over to check if the tree does exist.
  - archer104, on 11/02/2008, -6/+3If Fred is armed with the knowledge that leprechauns were created by the Irish for entertainment purposes, and this is a FACT BACKED BY EVIDENCE, then Fred has reason to be convinced that there is no real life leprechaun in the room. But this example does not carry over into theism because there is no proof of God's non-existance. Even if the Bible was proved to be fake it would not prove that there is no God. The idea of God is tied to the whole universe and many different cultures throughout time have pointed to a god(s). A leprechaun is a specific thing that is not connected to the natural way of things. It's a creative idea, it's not an explanation for the universe. They can't be used in place of each other.
    
    But besides that, you started using words like "believe" and "disbelieve" which is not what I was arguing against. I was merely arguing against people who flat-out say "There is no God." Which they can't be 100% sure of so therefore they can't be 100% sure that they are right and theists are wrong.
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -3/+13Who says that leprechauns were created for entertainment purposes? That statement is utterly wrong, leprechauns are from ancient Irish mythology, similar to fairies, gnomes etc. If my understanding is wrong then I'd be open to any of the evidence you mentioned.
    
    Even if you don't accept this, substitute in anything you like. Invisible pink dragons. Whatever. The result is the same. Is there any evidence that invisible pink dragons don't exist?
    
    You are trying to argue that no-one can claim the non-existence of ANYTHING. This line of argument is specious. In the end, it's just another form of solipsism. How do you know that YOU exist? Maybe it's all a dream.
    
    Sheesh.
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -2/+4What's wrong with solipsism? That's fine by me. It could be all a dream but that doesn't effect my life. I interact with the dream just as well as I would in real life so even though I don't know if there's a world or not it doesn't effect me so I don't make statements about it or care about it.
    
    Why are you so against saying I don't know about something? We don't know a lot of stuff. I'd never say for sure there're no invisible pink dragons. There's no reason to believe in them so I won't in day to day life but I'd never deny their existence.
    
    The idea of invisible animals invading your body causing sickness was just as out there as anything but ppl outright rejected it even when evidence was brought forth. Strange things happen. Parallel universes and quantum theory make almost anything possible in a fairly logical way. It'd be foolish to rule anything out. It'd be foolish to assume everything exists as well.
  - n00bzilla, on 11/03/2008, -8/+1@shalb please prove to me that there isn't a God before you say there is no proof of one
  - n00bzilla, on 11/03/2008, -4/+2and if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear did it not make a sound?
    forget the comment above this one
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7bobbi21 said:
    
    "Why are you so against saying I don't know about something? We don't know a lot of stuff. I'd never say for sure there're no invisible pink dragons. There's no reason to believe in them so I won't in day to day life but I'd never deny their existence."
    
    I'm not against it at all. In fact, if you substitute "gods" for "invisible pink dragons" in your paragraph above, you essentially have the weak atheist position. I'm totally fine with that form of logic. But I am not a weak atheist. I believe that there are no gods. This is a position of faith. My question to you is, why do you have a problem with my faith?
    
    Being essentially grounded in science, I also acknowledge that there is a vast amount we don't know. However, I believe that we will learn more about these unknowns by the application of scientific principles rather than resorting to mythology or 2,000 year old books. Some things, such as what came before the universe - if that is even a meaningful question - may never be known. I don't know. My faith doesn't extend that far.
    
    Some readings of quantum theory support what you are saying but inevitably the quantum waveform collapses and that infinite possibility is replaced with mundane reality. And I don't see gods popping out of the woodwork all over the place. And belief in parallel universes is presently as great a faith based position as mine. Unless you know some way to bring the many worlds hypothesis into the realm of the testable?
  - Fordi, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5*sigh*
    
    Whatever. I don't give a ***** what you believe, ok? Just don't get any on my public policy, and we won't even be having this discussion.
  - alphgeek, on 11/03/2008, -0/+6@Fordi,
    
    My point exactly! Well done.
  - roodammy44, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2No, the correct thing to say is "unlikely", not a firm "does not exist".
    Then you're just being as opinionated as the religious.
    
    @alphgeek:
    
    Your logic, unfortunately, is also completely flawed. Have you never heard of the black swan argument?
    Until 1800, you could say with absolute certainty "there are no black swans in the world" as there were only ever white swans and evidence for white swans. Black swans did not exist.
    Then, people travelled to Australia and found black swans.
    
    Until you've explored all of space, time and the universe you cannot say with certainty that there is no god. What if god exists, but it's just not where you can see or experience them? I suggest you read up on the subject of logic.
    
    Saying that, I don't believe in a word of any religious movement as humans have produced all of it. But that's just my belief, not a certainty. The pastafarians could be right.
  - eviltandem, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4@roodammy44
    "Then, people travelled to Australia and found black swans."
    
    So our opinion changed when new facts were produced. Exactly how it should work. Before this, from our perspective, there were no black swans. Believing they might exist on another continent would have not had any practical value to science at that time.
    
    "What if god exists, but it's just not where you can see or experience them?"
    
    Then he is no longer the Christian God. The Christian God can be interacted with via prayer, and supposedly intervenes in our reality. The only problem being no one has ever shown something supernatural happening.
    
    Once you get to the point where you are arguing about parallel universes, etc, then you are just making stuff up to try to rationalize something you believe for non-rational reasons. You don't really believe God is a trans-dimensional being that does not exist in our universe do you? If so, why call it God?
    
    The point of scientific logic is it allows us to build models of the world so we can hack it to make things better. If the world behaves like there is no God, then science will treat the situation like there is no God, because doing otherwise would produce no use able science.
- binky79, on 11/02/2008, -8/+20I prefer agnostic as well. It's funny seeing people bicker over things they could never prove. The back story on almost all religions sound quite ridiculous, but can that make them completely false? I would never go out on a limb to say so. Who the ***** am I? And if you question others beliefs, who the ***** are you to do so? You know exactly as much as me, him, and everybody else on this rock. Nothing. And to try and argue otherwise only proves what you know.
  - thePTS, on 11/03/2008, -1/+7In my "personal agnosticism", I still feel that most of the big religions are based on lies and childish views of humanity.
    
    However, I see it as pretty unlikely that the universe just "came into being". From a physicist point of view, the presence of energy in a system is an exceptional condition (the "normal" condition is 0 deg Kelvin + vacuum). But with an assumed infinite amount of energy in the universe? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that the energy has a significance and who has a feeling that the energy has an origin of some sort.
    
    That is "my agnosticism".. certain questions can never be answered by science, and some of these topics are amazing, to say the least. But Bibles, Qurans and psalms? No thanks.
  - Tanze, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3thank you! excellent answer
  - eviltandem, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@thePTS
    "However, I see it as pretty unlikely that the universe just "came into being"."
    
    You find it more likely that a supreme being with unlimited power and knowledge just "came into being"? Really?
    
    If you believe there must have been a time before there was anything, then something must have come from nothing at some point. I find it highly illogical that something with unlimited power and knowledge is easy to produce, when a universe with matter and energy is supposedly "hard".
  - thePTS, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2"You find it more likely that a supreme being with unlimited power and knowledge just "came into being"? Really?"
    
    Hmm.. where did I say anything about a supreme being?
    
    All I said was that the presence of energy in physics models is considered an exception, and not a rule.
    
    I didn't say how that presence of energy came about, seeing as... I don't have the slightest clue. I would consider the answer "it has been there for ever" pretty awe-inspiring as well.
    
    I do, however, have an immense respect for the energy in the universe for many reasons, not only as a heat and food source, but as an endless source of new mysteries.
    
    In any case; no bearded men in the sky here, move along please..
  - archer104, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2@eviltandem
    I think the point is that since something came from nothing at some point then something completely outside our concept of reality is going on. It's not so much making the God point of view seem logical or better. It's just arguing against the neat domino-effect view of the universe.
  - eviltandem, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@archer104
    "since something came from nothing"
    
    You don't know that. This is conjecture. Anything you say after that is built on a whopping assumption about which you have zero proof.
    
    "It's just arguing against the neat domino-effect view of the universe."
    
    That isn't an argument against anything. It's pure, hypothetical, fantasy. All the evidence we do have suggests everything behaves according to natural laws, some of which we are yet to discover. We have never found anything to make us believe the "beginning" of the universe is any different.
    
    Just because we can't prove anything yet in no way proves or disproves anything else. That you can imagine a universe that isn't "domino-effect" in no way suggests ours isn't.
  - archer104, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2@eviltandem
    Something must have caused the first domino to move but what caused that something to move? I think that is a good argument against the simple "cause and effect" view of the universe. I'm not saying that it proves God so don't freak out.
- GregFD3S, on 11/02/2008, -27/+22People that say they're agnostic are just afraid to use the word "atheist".
  - kurttrail, on 11/03/2008, -13/+21I see it the other way around. Atheists are too afraid to admit that they really don't know, so they place their faith in the belief that there is no god/creator/prime mover. Atheists & theists both answer that which they really don't know with faith-based belief, just on opposite sides of the spectrum.
    
    Why be afraid to admit ignorance?
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -2/+5Pretty much. Noone likes admitting they don't know something. People like it black and white. Right and wrong. Good and evil. Takes a lot to get someone to accept something outside that paradigm.
  - JBmtk, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1isn't this ironic...
  - slabdigger, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2I'm ignostic about Santa Claus. I keep putting my stocking out.
    Or maybe I'm being sarcastic.
  - eviltandem, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@kurttrail
    "Atheists are too afraid to admit that they really don't know"
    
    Not at all. I don't know.
    
    At this point the Christian God is based on the Bible. We have shown that to be wrong in just about every claim it makes. In order for me to be agnostic there would have to be some reason to think God is any more real than Allah, Jesus, or the Easter Bunny.
    
    The default position for everything cannot be that if I cannot disprove it it is real. Then nothing is not real, in which case why bother doing anything? I believe I worked for you today, and since you cannot disprove it, you owe me money. Conversely you can believe you paid me, which I cannot disprove, therefore you already paid me for the work I already "did".
    
    Logic. You're doing it wrong.
  - archer104, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1@eviltandem
    "The default position for everything cannot be that if I cannot disprove it it is real."
    
    You seem to have a very "all or nothing" way of thinking. Agnosticism is about not coming to a conclusion because we don't know for sure. It's not saying that God is real. You are an agnostic. You said it yourself, "I don't know." More precisely you are an agnostic atheist.
  - eviltandem, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@archer104
    "You seem to have a very "all or nothing" way of thinking."
    
    Imo that's how things work. Either it's real or it isn't. Either that penicillin kills the bacteria or it doesn't. Either there are invisible pink elephants or there are not. That we may or may not know about them yet has nothing to do with whether or not they exist. Until we do prove them to exist, we assume they don't.
    
    "You are an agnostic"
    
    I'm atheistic towards the Christian God. He is simply another in a long line of made up deities. There has never been a reason to believe he existed, other than the generation before me also was told it existed by the generation before them.
    
    We may discover the universe is actually just a computer simulation run by a comp sci department. In which case the class of students or professor would be "God", only have "powers" in our universe, and not be all knowing (which would negate the reason to run a simulation). Hardly what "God" is touted to be.
    
    I'm agnostic about how the universe came to be in it's current form. I am not agnostic to whether or not the guy our ancestors imagined up 2000 years ago is really and old man in a moo moo who cares what I do, who I marry, who I hurt, who I love, or about me personally in any way.
- onetimer, on 11/02/2008, -15/+71Agnosticism is the most scientific and logical of viewpoints anyways. The belief that we can neither positively confirm the existence or non existence of god.
  
  It is wrong to claim with 100% certainty that there IS a god as well as 100% certainty that there is NOT.
  
  Same can be said about the Vishnu, Thor, and even the FSM.
  
  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
  - NeoBanned, on 11/02/2008, -7/+7Well said.
  - archer104, on 11/02/2008, -14/+21Agreed. A lot of atheists don't seem to get this.
  - zeebo, on 11/03/2008, -2/+28Which is why modern Atheism is usually qualified as being Agnostic Atheism. There may be gods, its silly to entertain the notion that Yahveh might exist, but to have no similar doubts about the existence of Zeus or Thor.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
  - twomeyw23334, on 11/03/2008, -7/+11Agreed. I'm actually more annoyed by many atheists who try to convince me they know there is no God "logically" versus many theists who at least acknowledge their belief is based on faith.
  - jimv1983, on 11/03/2008, -2/+5I think Agnostic Atheism is the perfect definition for me. I cannot disprove god but at the same time you cannot disprove anything that does not exist because it does not exist. I also don't by the supernatural stuff from many religions.
  - thePTS, on 11/03/2008, -3/+9As a person mentioned above, being an agnostic isn't supposed to be some cowardly, neutral position of "I don't know".
    
    If we follow that logic, we have to consider the fact that the big spaghetti monster may exist. Or that the magic cake in the sky is our path to salvation. Or any other thing that people could make up.
    
    Being an agnostic means that we use our brains rather than assume these absolute truths. So, it doesn't mean that I think it's likely that Abraham and Moses really talked to God. I think that's very very unlikely..
  - TrevorBradley, on 11/03/2008, -2/+15Much of the dispute between atheism and agnosticism is a matter of sematics. Not even Richard Dawkins is an atheist of the 100% certainty persuasion (as he discusses in The God Delusion).
    
    I was an agnsostic for about half my life until I took an interesting online quiz, one that questioned the logical consistency of my beliefs. As a good scientist, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Loch Ness monster does not exist. I don't hold that under faith, but rather under the rigor of scientific evidence. There has been a lot of searching, none of which has produced any evidence of existence.
    
    The question becomes why not hold God to the same standard. Are you willing to be similarly agnostic about other unprovable things? Unicorns? Celestial Teapots? If so, I'm not sure society would take you seriously on any issue other than religion. "Unicorns? I dunno, there's no evidence either way") If not, consider the possibility that your position may be logically inconsistent.
    
    That Online quiz is here: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm . It's a fun test to take.
  - edrodgers731, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3TrevorBradley:
    
    I took the test and found it interesting, but I am highly skeptical.
    
    I bit one bullet and scored no direct hits as an agnostic materialist.
    
    I am curious if any thiests scored well on this quiz.
  - SissySlapParty, on 11/03/2008, -3/+7"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
    I dugg you up for this line alone. Well said.
  - StefanArak, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6The thing is, scientifically, absence of evidence pretty much is evidence of absence, over a long period of time anyway.
  - Fordi, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3You. Onetimer. Read the God Delusion. Lose the intellectual backruptcy.
    
    Moreover, would you say that someone who is 90% convinced that there is no god is an agnostic?
  - Ravatar, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3"You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour!" 0 bullets, 0 hits
    ***** yea! Go atheists!
  - Stewdean, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2If you are an atheist you also tend to be agnostic. You do not have to be 100% certain to be an atheist. Being an atheist is one thing - not believing in a god. This does not mean that you cannot be agnostic about it as well. If you do not believe in god but would consider the idea if the right evidence came along you are an atheist and an agnostic.
    
    I consider it one of the biggest myths out there that saying you are an atheist is committing your self blindly to a total statement that there is no god and nothing will ever convince you. It's simply not true.
    
    I am an atheist and I suspect most people who say they're agnostic are as well but don't like the stigma the word has been given. If you understand science and knowledge you'll know that nothing is ever 100% certain.
  - wice, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2"You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets. 441016 people have so far undertaken this activity."
  - wice, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2btw, my personal opinion is, that there is no god (the same way as i think there is no santa claus), but of course one never can be 100% percent sure about the nonexistence of something that could be anywhere in any kind of form. so i did the test two times, first by starting with an "i don't know", and secondly with a "god does not exist". i gave the same answers each time, and got the same result.
    
    it was an interesting test, altough i think it could be a little longer.
  - wice, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2no, there is nothing scientific in agnosticism (if by agnosticism you mean that "if there is no evidence for the existence of something, then it either exists or doesn't exist, we cannot say anything about it"), simply because there are infinite numbers of hipothetically possibile entities, that we have no evidence for. in science, as StefanArak said (and got dugg down for it), the absence of evidence is an evidence of absence. i'm afraid you think that "evidence" is the equivalent of "proof". it is not. it would be stupid to say, that "the absence of evidence (or proof) is the _proof_ of absence", but he didn't say that.
  - twomeyw23334, on 11/03/2008, -4/+2How was the universe created? A Big Bang resulting from a singularity. Where did the singularity come from? It must have
    A, always existed
    B, formed out of nothing, formed from something that always existed, or formed from something else that came from nothing, or formed from something that formed from something that.......
    
    Based on our current knowledge, neither of these are any more probable than being created by a God.
    
    Atheist love to throw "God of the Gaps" arguments here but the point is there is really only two possibilities, something coming from nothing or something always existing, for us to be here right now. Neither of those two possibilities have been used explain anything else in our universe, so I don't see how anyone can place a percentage on which is more likely. God has explained 0 physical phenomena and as has something coming from nothing and something always existing.
    
    It would be absurd, for example, to say, I think there is a 90% chance that an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, etc.... singularity formed out of nothing while there is only a 10% chance that a infinitely powerful being always existed..... Based on what!?
    
    The whole "one eye spaghetti monster" arguments are just distractions. Now you're asking, in addition to the probability of there being a supreme being, the likelihood that that supreme being chooses to represent himself as a one eye spaghetti monster. That's the probability that there is a God, the probability that he chooses to represent himself as human food, and then with a single eye, and as a monster.... obviously the possibility drops with the absurdity of the arguement. But again, its a distraction. I could equally ask, if the singularity came from nothing, how did it come from nothing. Did a big ass suddenly form which then farted out the singularity. It's simply a distraction, and no probabilities of a God using any arguments I've heard can be formed.
    
    An agnostic can acknowledge this while acknowledging that the possibilities of a one eye spaghetti monster are low to zero. We can understand and can utilize math and probability.
  - zeebo, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3There are some ideas being thrown around right now about where universes come from, but since we're inside of this universe, we may never know. The main thrust of these ideas though is that the universe didn't come from nothing, but from previous universes with similar physical laws.
    
    Personally I'll stick by my belief that the universe was the sneeze of some extra-universal entitiy, and I shall live in fear of the coming of the great kleenex.
  - DelcoCait, on 11/03/2008, -2/+1As an atheist, and as a student of religion, you're right the two are not so different. Either way, it's a way of defining the world that makes sense to you and gives you solice. It's not really about facts, it's about what makes you feel better in your day to day life. And alot of people, it makes them feel better to believe there is no god. Just as alot of people find comfort in god. It's not scientific at all. But then being agnostic isn't terribly scientific either, it's really just throwing your hands up in the air and saying who gives a *****. All equally good options.
  - eviltandem, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2Not at all. I base my system of beliefs on science, and science must treat anything that cannot be proven to be false.
    
    If we tried to use prayer to cure bacterial infections instead of penicillin where would we be? I can't prove prayer will never cure bacterial infections, so surely this is legitimate medical treatment?
    
    What if we deny building permits to people because there might be invisible pink elephants on that spot of land?
    
    Nobody does this in any other aspect of their life, but for some reason religion is special. For some un-specified reason we don't live our lives agnostic to anything except religion, which is just silly.
  - Fordi, on 11/03/2008, -1/+3@twomeyw23334:
    How was the universe created? A period of exponential expansion of space-time with unknown cause. Where did the original matter come from? We don't know - but likely the original stuff of the universe was a concentrated point of energy. We can't mathematically look back farther than the first planck second after the creation of the universe, so we can't really know what happened... yet.
    
    Based on our current knowledge, almost any theory levied on this subject is more probable than being created by a God; we have evidence of things like singularities, explosions, changes in space-time from particle accelerators, etc, but no evidence of any supernatural event or being.
    
    Fixed it for you.
  - twomeyw23334, on 11/03/2008, -4/+1@Fordi,
    
    Where did the singularity come from?
    
    Obviously there is greater probability that a singularity can exist than a God can exist because we are pretty certain that a singularity is what "started" the Universe. But how was it created, or where did it come from? You can't claim with any probability that is was more likely created spontaneously from nothing than it was created by a God because we have no knowledge of either being possible or ever happening.
  - AchaIemoipas, on 11/03/2008, -1/+2How does a thinking being exist before there's anything to think about?
    
    What space does a thinking being occupy before existence itself?
    
    What made a thinking being before existence itself was made?
    
    What composes a thinking being before existence and space even exist?
    
    Logic is simple. You should learn it someday.
  - edrodgers731, on 11/03/2008, -3/+0"How does a thinking being exist before there's anything to think about?"
    
    A consciousness does not require outside stimulus to exist.
    
    "What space does a thinking being occupy before existence itself?"
    
    It is a common belief that matter and energy itself creates space to exist in.
    
    What made a thinking being before existence itself was made?
    
    By that logic, you would not exist. What if God evolved the same way you did?
    
    "What composes a thinking being before existence and space even exist?
    
    See my second point.
    
    "Logic is simple. You should learn it someday. "
    
    Likewise, I'm sure.
  - Fordi, on 11/03/2008, -0/+5@twomey:
    "Where did the singularity come from?"
    
    I'll refer you to, "We can't mathematically look back farther than the first planck second after the creation of the universe, so we can't really know what happened... yet."
    
    "You can't claim with any probability that is was more likely created spontaneously from nothing than it was created by a God because we have no knowledge of either being possible or ever happening."
    
    Actually, we are aware of a continuous simmer of created and destroyed matter in the form of virtual particle pairs.
    
    Additionally, it is easier to posit the spontaneous creation of a simple thing (singularities are dead simple: big stuff, little space) than a complex thing (anything capable of thought is necessarily complex). At least with a simple thing, its origins promise to be as simple or less. Occam's razor comes in here: when you don't have enough to go on, go with the simplest.
    
    > "How does a thinking being exist before there's anything to think about?"
    
    > A consciousness does not require outside stimulus to exist.
    
    But, generally, it does require a physical substrate (a brain, for example) upon which its processes may run. Moreover, we are aware of no consciousness that exists without such a substrate.
    
    "By that logic, you would not exist. What if God evolved the same way you did?"
    
    That would beg the question, "Where did God come from?" Are you familiar with infinite regression?
  - twomeyw23334, on 11/03/2008, -4/+1"it is easier to posit the spontaneous creation of a simple thing (singularities are dead simple: big stuff, little space) than a complex thing (anything capable of thought is necessarily complex)"
    
    This is true, though I don't see how it being easier for me to postulate something makes it any more probable that it is true.
    
    And it may be incorrect for me to bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in terms of "complexity," but it seems the singularity must have been a highly unstable (not so simple) thing.
    
    "virtual particle pairs"
    Crazy, I'll have to look into those.
  - Fordi, on 11/04/2008, -0/+5> This is true, though I don't see how it being easier for me to postulate something makes it any more probable that it is true.
    
    Lacking evidence, the simpler explanation is preferable; it, by definition, makes the fewest assumptions.
    
    > And it may be incorrect for me to bring up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in terms of "complexity," but it seems the singularity must have been a highly unstable (not so simple) thing.
    
    Simplicity and stability are not the same thing. For example, an upended glass of water is a rather simple thing, but by no means stable (the water's surface tension will quickly destabilize under the volume's weight, causing the contents of the glass to escape rather quickly).
    
    Similarly, complexity and randomness aren't the same thing; the water molecules momentarily trapped within that glass are arranged and moving more or less at random, but one could not call a glass of water a "complex" thing.
  - twomeyw23334, on 11/04/2008, -4/+1I believe small glowing specs floating in circles around the earth at night is a much simpler explanation than trying to learn / understand the big bang and the physics of the created universe and massive burning suns etc. to explain stars. Of course, we have evidence against my floating specs theory but given a lack of evidence I find it hard to place probability on different possibilities.
    
    In either case I can't make any assumptions about how something would always exist or come from nothing because neither make any sense to me.
    
    As far as the vertical pairs, don't answer if it bores you but wouldn't the creation of vertical pairs destroy our current understanding of physics by adding matter/energy into the universe?
  - Fordi, on 11/06/2008, -0/+3"Of course, we have evidence against my floating specs theory but given a lack of evidence I find it hard to place probability on different possibilities."
    
    That's the thing: if you have evidence, you don't need probability (inaccurate; given evidence, you can refine probabilities further, even reverse the default position of simpler explanation - but the point is that there's less guessing involved).
    
    Meanwhile, if you're talking about universal origin, there's a few things to consider that do shade the probabilities farther than just "which is simpler". Continued expansion of the Universe as shown via red shift; Cosmic microwave background radiation (a prediction of Big Bang theory); the distribution of galaxies (the universe has an observable stacking order similar to the geologic strata in which stars which must be older are exactly where they should be if they had formed earlier during an expansion period); observations of temperature-sensitive emission lines in gas clouds at high redshift indicate that the CMBR was hotter in the distant past.
    
    Meanwhile, evidence of a God's involvement has been unreliable in the past (Noah's flood either never happened or was considerably less than worldwide, according to analysis of geological erosion patterns; the earth is far greater than 6000 years old according to various dating methods*; pi is 3.1415926539...; etc.)
    
    "As far as the vertical pairs, don't answer if it bores you but wouldn't the creation of vertical pairs destroy our current understanding of physics by adding matter/energy into the universe?"
    
    Virtual (as in, their effects are observed, but they don't hang out long). And, no, the don't break physics; they're rather demanded by QED. They're pairs - equal and opposite. Their material sum cancels out, and the energy sum of their creation/destruction is consistent with a localized dip/rebound in the "zero" point (baseline energy value of the universe, not moronic "zero point energy"). They only occur (or, more likely, are only observable) in hard vacuum.
    
    Seriously, I don't know a lot about VPP's (a LOT of the math flies so far over my head it's mistakable for a distant galaxy), but they are fascinating. Wikipedia's got a section on them linked from their Quantum Electrodynamics article. Check it out.
    
    * Starting with Dendrochronology, which dates the minimum age of the earth at roughly 10,000 years, an moving on with various radiometric methods (U-Pb/Pb-Pb being the most reliable, and Sm-Nd being the most accurate), which determine a minimum age of 4 billion years.
- clankster, on 11/02/2008, -5/+28I would argue that most agnostics are actually atheists, and are indeed scared away from the term by the false symmetry most theists perceive between themselves and atheists.
  
  Theists believe in a god despite the complete lack of empirical evidence in support of this belief (spare me your "obvious feelings that it is true" -- the words are "empirical evidence") while atheists assert that there is no such evidence, and as such, any belief is unwarranted. As such their point of view is infinitely more defensible.
  
  Theists like to claim that atheists "cling to their beliefs with as much faith" as theists cling to their god(s), but this is a misrepresentation of what is, to my mind, healthy skepticism.
  
  To put the problem into some perspective by stripping it of it's current cultural baggage, replace with word "god" with "zeus, the god of lightning" (an only marginally more specific designation) and ask yourself who is more reasonable -- the people who believe in zeus, or the people who don't.
  - hatdrop, on 11/03/2008, -7/+3nope i'm not scared of being an atheist.
    
    absence of the proof of god's existence does not prevent proof of it's existence in the future.
    
    agnosticism is the most logical position to take, to deny the possibility of a god is just as dogmatic as affirming it's belief without evidence.
  - TrevorBradley, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13Replace "God" with "The Loch Ness Monster", "Unicorn" or "Celestial Teapot". Do you have the same answer about existence or non-existence? Is your position logically consistent?
    
    Agreed with the original poster in this thread. Atheism doesn't mean the same 100% certainty/faith as the more certain variants of Theism.
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -3/+5Most atheists are actually agnostic. It's kind of like what azerael said. He does not believe in a god but doesn't deny the possibility that such a being exists. That's technically agnostic. Atheism is technically denying there is a god. Agnosticism is totally defensible scientifically. No evidence for it so they don't believe it. Atheism is there's no evidence for it so they deny that it can exist. From what it sounds like, you're actually closer to an agnostic.
    
    Here's an example. Does acupuncture relieve pain?
    An agnostic would say "if there's no double blind placebo controlled studies on it, I can't say it does or doesn't so I can't recommend it or not. So I won't be using it or tell anyone to use it". an atheist would say "there's no double blind etc studies so so I say it doesn't work and would recommend against it. So I won't use it or tell anyone to use it". In the end, you both don't believe in acupuncture but the agnostic is open to it actually working. When the studies came out that it does relieve pain the agnostic would be more likely to accept it than the atheist. They'd probably be all "it was a flawed study" or something since for the past however many years they denied it. It's just human nature. That's why you keep an open mind about everything. It doesn't mean you have to believe everything or even give it a 2nd thought. Just be open to it.
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2oh and theres the agnostic atheists which i was just looking up. that'd actually be more accurate i think. ah too many definitions.
  - clankster, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4bobbi21 wrote:
    He does not believe in a god but doesn't deny the possibility that such a being exists. That's technically agnostic. Atheism is technically denying there is a god.
    
    This is incorrect. Atheists say that there is no proof of a god, not that they will reject any proof in the unlikely event that it some day comes along. Most atheists (Richard Dawkins is a good example) are open to the idea that, should evidence of god suddenly appear, their ideas about a god would be correspondingly revised.
    
    Of course, the whole of human history is on the Atheists' side.
    
    This is the magic of rational, logical thinking, which is exclusive to the domain of "faith" (i.e. beleif in something regardless of a complete lack of supporting evidence) -- we can claim to believe one thing today (there is no god) but change our beliefs when new information becomes available that contradicts our point of view. Again, theists have difficulty seeing this and create a symmetry of ideas where there is none.
  - bobbi21, on 11/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I'm talking about the strong atheists. They say there is absolutely no god 100%. While they may be influenced by evidence later, like I said, if you're a group of ppl who think anything is 100%, you're bound not to look at evidence to objectively.
    
    The weak atheists I classify as the agnostics since it breaks em up better. There's the ppl like you're describing which are gnostic atheists. They see no proof for god so they belief there isn't a god but are by no means certain. This I'm good with. This is the more rational choice. The most rational is of course, there's no evidence for or against so I'll just say I don't know. Since I don't know I won't be assuming there is or isn't a god and that doesn't effect how I live my life anyway so there's no point fussing over it.
    
    I apologize for my loose terms of atheist and agnostism but they are still more accurate than the ones you're using.
    
    And I never said an atheist would reject any proof of god. I said it's more likely than for an agnostic too since in general, anyone who says they're sure of something will be less likely to believe they are wrong than the person who says they aren't sure about something. And again, I was using strong atheism as my definition for atheism (which seems more appropriate to call atheism since there's better names for weak atheists which are more accurate. i.e. agnostic atheist which is listed as a type of agnostic)
- Azerael, on 11/03/2008, -0/+23I do not believe in God, due to the lack of evidence pertaining to the existence of said being. That said, I do not deny the possibility that such a being could exist. As Arthur C Clarke wrote; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
  
  Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
  - ICSU, on 11/03/2008, -0/+4exactly
    But many people call themselves agnostic because they follow religious propaganda that atheists claim that they know with certainty and using faith that there is no god.
    Not only is it false, but it also shows the desperation of theists when they have to use the you are as bad as us argument.
  - clankster, on 11/03/2008, -0/+3right on, ICSU.
- cabooglio2, on 11/03/2008, -4/+12I had a favorite teacher in high school... a former cloistered nun who was still quite religious. Upon hearing that I considered myself agnostic, she said, "Don't be agnostic. Be something." I've been an atheist ever since.
  - edrodgers731, on 11/03/2008, -1/+4Your story reminds me of when I was in the Navy. We used to have review boards, which were oral examinations. You were expected to provide an answer, even if you didn't have one. You were expected to just make something up if you really didn't know.
    
    That just seemed wrong to me. An agnostic position is a valid and strong position if you ask me.
  - Ravatar, on 11/03/2008, -1/+1That's the US vs THEM mentality of religious debate.
    
    Believers go under the Theist category, everyone else under Athiest. "Agnostics" are labeled "Agnostic Athiest".
- jkahrs595, on 11/03/2008, -3/+8don't make me bring up being agnostic to the teapot... you don't have to KNOW to think it's a load of crap.
  - zeebo, on 11/03/2008, -0/+15And that's the whole point of the teapot thought experiment.
    
    "I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
    - Dawkins
  - TrevorBradley, on 11/03/2008, -0/+11Actually that Dawkins fairies quote should be attributed to Douglas Adams.
  - Dennis88, on 11/03/2008, -9/+1The teapot argument is *****.
  - Karlitzor, on 11/03/2008, -1/+5No, Dennis88, you are the *****.
  - Fordi, on 11/03/2008, -0/+2@Trevor:
    Adams' quote is, "Isn't it enough that the garden is beautiful without imagining there are faeries beneath it?"
    
    Dawkins, having been Adams' friend, was referencing that, but not quoting it.
- HomeNucleonics, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13Well, I consider myself to be an atheist because it just means to have a lack of belief in a god. I'm also not 100% sure that there is no god, therefore I am an agnostic atheist. I'm not ruling out the possibility, but my belief is there is no god. I think no atheist can be 100% sure there is or isn't a god because you cannot prove or disprove it. I am very strong with my belief of there being no god but who the ***** could be that sure on something?
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -1/+6Some people are. And we put them in the same category as the religious right and other such fundamentalists.
- brstilson, on 11/03/2008, -3/+13atheism and agnosticism are the same thing. Do you believe in invisible unicorns? Can you be absolutely, 100% sure they do not exist? If not, does that mean you are an invisible unicorn atheist or an invisible unicorn agnostic?
  - bobbi21, on 11/03/2008, -1/+8it means you're an agnostic atheist. Although I generally just call them agnostic. and those who do believe and don't know for sure I call theists (should be agnostic theist). (assuming of course theist means someone who believes in unicorns). The ppl who know for sure they do and don't exist I put in the same category called arrogant pricks.
  - wxwizard, on 11/03/2008, -0/+1If I understand correctly, what you're trying to say is that textbook atheism is a metaphysical stance holding that there is no divine power in the universe, and that theism is a similar stance claiming the existence of said power...which brings me to what seems a necessary conclusion that...
    
    ...since Agnosticism is the recognition that neither theists nor atheists can have their beliefs proven or disproved empirically, everyone is inherently an agnostic, regardless of their metaphysical leanings...
  - bobbi21, on 11/09/2008, -0/+1The thing is, atheists and theists don't need proof that they are correct, they just know they are through faith or just because. Because they believe it, that's enough proof for them to say their view is right. While I don't think there are many true atheists (strong atheists if you want to be technical), there are a butt load of theists who are 100% sure of their god and there own personal experiences/beliefs is their proof.
    
    Agnosticism is just you can't know anything for sure, regardless of empirical proof or anything.
- 471776, on 11/03/2008, -0/+13I'm an atheist agnostic. I believe very strongly that there is no god, but I understand that this is a belief and not a certainty, and there is a chance (albeit a small one) that I am wrong.
  
  However, even if you could prove that there is a god, I still wouldn't respect it. Any god in charge of the world is doing a ***** terrible job, and is either a massively incompetent and pathetic excuse for a supreme being, or a ***** who doesn't give a ***** or actively enjoys inflicting pain and suffering.
  
  Either way, organized religion is ***** moronic. Even though I am fundamentally agnostic, I call myself an atheist. My views and beliefs are atheistic, and although I acknowledge that I may be wrong, I don't think that I am. The very idea of a deity seems kinda absurd to me really.
  
  Anyway, the point is that atheism and agnosticism are not by any means exclusive ideas.
  - edrodgers731, on 11/03/2008, -5/+2You have some seriously biased pre-conceptions about what a god is, or might be.
    
    Why must a god be "in charge" of the world?
    
    Say you are God, like Lisa Simpson and her petri dish. How are you "in charge" of what happens down in the dish?
  - 471776, on 11/03/2008, -0/+7edrodgers:
    
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
    Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing?
    Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing?
    Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing?
    Then why call him God?"
    
    - Epicurius
    
    If god is not really in control, then why bother worshiping or praying to him/it?
  - Pake, on 11/03/2008, -3/+2I much prefer Apatheism or Ignostic (not agnostic) or anything else. The way I see it, asking someone what they believe in or even questioning what they believe in is a giant waste of time and isn't going to change a damn thing.
  - edrodgers731, on 11/03/2008, -5/+1471776:
    
    Perhaps God does not demand worship. Perhaps God is dead. Perhaps God truly made us in in "his" image, and "he" is imperfect, and bound by the same rules we are.
    
    The point is that Atheism is often simply the rejection of organized religion's view of God, and fails to recognize that God may exist in any number of ways that we haven't the capacity to even guess about. God may exist in a 'lesser than classical' form that Atheists have never considered.
    
    To outright deny something that we haven't even hypothesized about seems foolish from a purely scientific viewpoint.
    
    Maybe I believe that God the creator is simply an advanced consciousness that is no more omnipotent than any other life form. Why must God be omnipotent? That is just a detail of organized religion.
    
    So, to you Atheists out there, you must simply deny a creator, or maybe even something as abstract as an organized origin. The details o

What's Wrong with Being Atheist Anyway?

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Political Opinion

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Why I Would Vote No on Pot

Newsweek: If Obama is serious, he must get tough with Israelthumb

Hypocrisy From the Party of Pork

From Peace and Prosperity to W. and the Damage Donethumb

submitted by

What is Digg?

Top in Political Opinion

Related by Keyword