That is an agnostic, an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would say god doesn't exist, there should be no religion and that people who thinks there is or might be a god is stupid.
Please read this post and this post. And then watch this if you've got time:
I'm an agnostic too. I'm agnostic about fairies, Bigfoot, alien abductions, gorgons and gods. My agnosticism regarding gods is one of the many reasons I am an atheist.
I agree but an atheist has to follow the logic of his convictions - even though we might agree that religions and theisms are not really about idealogical tools for control of the masses.
Atheists follow the belief that god doesn't exist, logically we don't know if god exists and science has only proven things people previously thought were what god created were created naturally or the scientific findings have pushed the possibility of good further back from the actions, for example it was proved the earth was created by the big bang
This is an example of what atheists do, they deny things and make out people who don't think like they do are stupid without giving reasons.
There is no agnostic positions, it's up to the individual what they believe, unlike theists or atheists an agnostic would judge on what is in question
Atheists follow the belief that god doesn't exist, logically we don't know if god exists and science has only proven things people previously thought were what god created were created naturally or the scientific findings have pushed the possibility of good further back from the actions, for example it was proved the earth was created by the big bang
Please continue telling me what I believe and getting it wrong. It's really adding a lot to the discussion.
This is an example of what atheists do, they deny things and make out people who don't think like they do are stupid without giving reasons.
There is no agnostic positions, it's up to the individual what they believe, unlike theists or atheists an agnostic would judge on what is in questionAtheists follow the belief that god doesn't exist, logically we don't know if god exists and science has only proven things people previously thought were what god created were created naturally or the scientific findings have pushed the possibility of good further back from the actions, for example it was proved the earth was created by the big bang
I quite agree. I did say in an earlier post that it is up to the individual to determine their position and not up to others to determine it for them.
Antireligious people also preach and seek conversions. Buddhists are Atheists too because they don't believe in a god
Evangelism. From the Greek good news. Some atheists are just as evangelical as some religious. But, of course atheism is not a belief system and nothing is done in the name of atheism!!
There are scientific questioning over Darwinian evolution. Although it would seem logical that we would evolve through natural selection and to adapt to our environment humans don't evolve slowly, they can go from a sperm and an egg to an old person in less than a century.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
What's 'true atheism' when it's at home? Is that the sort of atheist who claims to know that there is no god? That's actually a sub-set of atheism, not the 'true' version of it.
It is up to individuals to define who they are and what they are, not up to others to re-define it for them.
It clarifies things to explain definitions and how they apply to a person. If someone is using a term to define them-self or others in ways that don't confirm to general understanding, then it's reasonable to challenge those definitions.
Of course, it does beg the question what is true 'atheism' which is another question altogether.
Well, as you brought it up, you can provide the definition and we can see if it adds anything to the discussion. If it really just means atheists who claim to know there's no god, then that's not really adding anything. Whilst that position is part of atheism, it doesn't encompass the whole of it, which is essentially the lack of belief in a god. Anything on top of that is extra to atheism, not an extension of it.
Weren't you the one who said that "It is up to individuals to define who they are and what they are, not up to others to re-define it for them"?
Buddhists believe in a non-anthropomorphised deity, but they aren't atheists.
Some Buddhists don't believe in any deity. Some believe in several, including anthromophised (tbh, I've never come across any type of Buddhism that believes in a non-anthrimorphised deity). The existence of god or gods isn't that important in most forms of Buddhism so various positions are compatible with it
That depends on your definition of God, but I'd probably fit into that for the general understanding of the term.
What's 'true atheism' when it's at home? Is that the sort of atheist who claims to know that there is no god? That's actually a sub-set of atheism, not the 'true' version of it.
There's always an element of doubt to my position regarding the existence of god(s). Admittedly not much, but it's there all the same. What, like 'true' atheism?It clarifies things to explain definitions and how they apply to a person. If someone is using a term to define them-self or others in ways that don't confirm to general understanding, then it's reasonable to challenge those definitions. Well, as you brought it up, you can provide the definition and we can see if it adds anything to the discussion. If it really just means atheists who claim to know there's no god, then that's not really adding anything. Whilst that position is part of atheism, it doesn't encompass the whole of it, which is essentially the lack of belief in a god. Anything on top of that is extra to atheism, not an extension of it.
Weren't you the one who said that "It is up to individuals to define who they are and what they are, not up to others to re-define it for them"?
Well you see there appears to be quite alot of definition on here about agnosticism, denying dictionary definitions and so on. Telling agnostics what they should think etc. When in fact, there is much curiosity about what defines true atheism. The above link highlights one example.
Seriously, how many times do we have to explain what atheism is? It's like playing whack-a-mole.
How are you not getting it yet? It's not rocket surgery.
Just because you have your definition does not mean that everyone has to accept it. Atheism can mean many things, pretending it only has one meaning is simply unrealistic.
This is an example of what atheists do, they deny things and make out people who don't think like they do are stupid without giving reasons.
,,,
Blimey; I was only trying to offer a bit of clarification. Good thing I was not offering an opinion or I might have upset you. if it helps I see no need to call you or anyone stupid.
Just because you have your definition does not mean that everyone has to accept it. Atheism can mean many things, pretending it only has one meaning is simply unrealistic.
Nice try, but that's not what's happening.
People are telling atheists what they are and what they allegedly believe, using narrow, restrictive definitions that do not apply to most atheists. Atheists are pointing out, rightly, that atheism is broader than that, demonstrating the problems and errors of the definitions that are being hoisted onto them.
When you start telling people what they believe, you're bound to rub them up the wrong way.
People are telling atheists what they are and what they allegedly believe, using narrow, restrictive definitions that do not apply to most atheists. Atheists are pointing out, rightly, that atheism is broader than that, demonstrating the problems and errors of the definitions that are being hoisted onto them.
When you start telling people what they believe, you're bound to rub them up the wrong way.
Earlier on in this thread you were quite happy to tell snozzcumber, an atheist, that their definition of atheism was incorrect. IMO, both you and m7 are trying to define atheism to suit your own arguments.
That is an agnostic, an atheist such as Richard Dawkins would say god doesn't exist, there should be no religion and that people who thinks there is or might be a god is stupid.
Got any quotes to back that statement up? I'm pretty well up on what Dawkins says and that ain't it.
For me as an agnostic my view is that a god that is all around us would seem impossible but we don't know, we weren't there and I don't see why it would have an effect on my life, if god exists I am sure he has better things to do than watch us as individuals.
I don't know either, but I don't profess a belief, as don't you. I know you don't want to accept it, but that makes us both atheists.
Evolution / creationism in many cases it is treated as two theories, the Darwinian evolution theory and the god created things theory.
If you mean creationism by the 'god created things' theory then the term theory in that context is mis-characterised by people who don't, or won't understand what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context. A scientific theory is a detailed explanation of a body of evidence. Evolutionary theory is the most robust scientific theory we have, with a wealth of supporting evidence across the disciplines.
The same cannot be said of the creationist 'theory', which seems to consist of unsupported assertion, denial of any inconvenient contradictory evidence, misrepresentation and wishful thinking. I'm not sure how that can be considered on equal terms.
There are scientific questioning over Darwinian evolution. Although it would seem logical that we would evolve through natural selection and to adapt to our environment humans don't evolve slowly, they can go from a sperm and an egg to an old person in less than a century. A fetus for example within days of contraception it has a heart beat, it's brain is working and all the major organs have formed and mainly come in to use during the first trimester. If we evolved it wouldn't take millions of years and for thousands of years we would have had eyes that do nothing. If you look at a cave men's bones and reconstructions of how they looked they were very similar to what we look like now.
Bloody hell, you *really* need to do some research into what evolution actually is. You've completely misunderstood how and where evolution happens - i.e. it's not an infant growing into an adult. You also need to investigate how science thinks complex organs developed - the eye for example.
I'm not sure I have the energy to walk you through all this stuff and you don't appear to be the sort of person who's prepared to listen when people think you've got it wrong.
Be nice if you proved me wrong, but judging by the above, you have a heck of a lot to learn.
Well you see there appears to be quite alot of definition on here about agnosticism, denying dictionary definitions and so on. Telling agnostics what they should think etc. When in fact, there is much curiosity about what defines true atheism. The above link highlights one example.
Well, I'm a bit short on time and it's a long(ish) article. I've skimmed down it but can't see where it mentions telling agnostics what they should think etc. If you can quote a few words that I can search the page with, that'll help.
I can't see any reference to 'true atheism' either. Positive atheism is there - is that what you meant?
Earlier on in this thread you were quite happy to tell snozzcumber, an atheist, that their definition of atheism was incorrect.
And if you were paying attention, snozzcumber eventually must have seen the point I was making, since their position changed and they accepted the broader and more inclusive definition.
IMO, both you and m7 are trying to define atheism to suit your own arguments.
A bizarre, confused and convoluted take on things, since my "arguments" were almost entirely about clarifying what atheism means, or at least what it meant to me. Nowhere in the thread have I told anyone what they believe or what to believe. In fact, I'm doing the total opposite, and challenging those who are telling me what I believe.
And if you were paying attention, snozzcumber eventually must have seen the point I was making, since their position changed and they accepted the broader and more inclusive definition.
Did they? Their last post was 139, at which point they still disagreed with you.
A bizarre, confused and convoluted take on things, since my "arguments" were almost entirely about clarifying what atheism means, or at least what it meant to me. Nowhere in the thread have I told anyone what they believe or what to believe. In fact, I'm doing the total opposite, and challenging those who are telling me what I believe.
You've told a self-confessed atheist what atheists believe.
Well, I'm a bit short on time and it's a long(ish) article. I've skimmed down it but can't see where it mentions telling agnostics what they should think etc. If you can quote a few words that I can search the page with, that'll help.
I can't see any reference to 'true atheism' either. Positive atheism is there - is that what you meant?
It does mention agnosticism, as well as strong, positive and negative atheism.
Maybe you could read it tomorrow to avoid further confusion. "True atheism" was referred to in the dictionary definition I quoted hence why I brought it up.
Comments
YouTube - Lack of belief in gods
It'll clear up your misconception and the confusion that it causes.
This is an example of what atheists do, they deny things and make out people who don't think like they do are stupid without giving reasons.
There is no agnostic positions, it's up to the individual what they believe, unlike theists or atheists an agnostic would judge on what is in question
Atheists follow the belief that god doesn't exist, logically we don't know if god exists and science has only proven things people previously thought were what god created were created naturally or the scientific findings have pushed the possibility of good further back from the actions, for example it was proved the earth was created by the big bang
Antireligious people also preach and seek conversions. Buddhists are Atheists too because they don't believe in a god
I quite agree. I did say in an earlier post that it is up to the individual to determine their position and not up to others to determine it for them.
Evangelism. From the Greek good news. Some atheists are just as evangelical as some religious. But, of course atheism is not a belief system and nothing is done in the name of atheism!!
I was trying to be conciliatory and respectful of people who do the right thing despite working from different axioms to mine.
I think edEx is right ... atheists like me who define a god as any supernatural entity would accept that Buddhism is not atheist.
What?
How are you not getting it yet? It's not rocket surgery.
I like it when people hang themselves with their own rope.
Rocket science. Cosmetic surgery.
That depends on your definition of God, but I'd probably fit into that for the general understanding of the term.
What's 'true atheism' when it's at home? Is that the sort of atheist who claims to know that there is no god? That's actually a sub-set of atheism, not the 'true' version of it.
There's always an element of doubt to my position regarding the existence of god(s). Admittedly not much, but it's there all the same.
What, like 'true' atheism?
It clarifies things to explain definitions and how they apply to a person. If someone is using a term to define them-self or others in ways that don't confirm to general understanding, then it's reasonable to challenge those definitions.
Well, as you brought it up, you can provide the definition and we can see if it adds anything to the discussion. If it really just means atheists who claim to know there's no god, then that's not really adding anything. Whilst that position is part of atheism, it doesn't encompass the whole of it, which is essentially the lack of belief in a god. Anything on top of that is extra to atheism, not an extension of it.
Weren't you the one who said that "It is up to individuals to define who they are and what they are, not up to others to re-define it for them"?
WTF more like it, :notyouwhoisconfused:
Some Buddhists don't believe in any deity. Some believe in several, including anthromophised (tbh, I've never come across any type of Buddhism that believes in a non-anthrimorphised deity). The existence of god or gods isn't that important in most forms of Buddhism so various positions are compatible with it
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html
Well you see there appears to be quite alot of definition on here about agnosticism, denying dictionary definitions and so on. Telling agnostics what they should think etc. When in fact, there is much curiosity about what defines true atheism. The above link highlights one example.
Just because you have your definition does not mean that everyone has to accept it. Atheism can mean many things, pretending it only has one meaning is simply unrealistic.
Now who is is being condescending?
Blimey; I was only trying to offer a bit of clarification. Good thing I was not offering an opinion or I might have upset you. if it helps I see no need to call you or anyone stupid.
People are telling atheists what they are and what they allegedly believe, using narrow, restrictive definitions that do not apply to most atheists. Atheists are pointing out, rightly, that atheism is broader than that, demonstrating the problems and errors of the definitions that are being hoisted onto them.
When you start telling people what they believe, you're bound to rub them up the wrong way.
Earlier on in this thread you were quite happy to tell snozzcumber, an atheist, that their definition of atheism was incorrect. IMO, both you and m7 are trying to define atheism to suit your own arguments.
Got any quotes to back that statement up? I'm pretty well up on what Dawkins says and that ain't it.
I don't know either, but I don't profess a belief, as don't you. I know you don't want to accept it, but that makes us both atheists.
If you mean creationism by the 'god created things' theory then the term theory in that context is mis-characterised by people who don't, or won't understand what the word 'theory' means in a scientific context. A scientific theory is a detailed explanation of a body of evidence. Evolutionary theory is the most robust scientific theory we have, with a wealth of supporting evidence across the disciplines.
The same cannot be said of the creationist 'theory', which seems to consist of unsupported assertion, denial of any inconvenient contradictory evidence, misrepresentation and wishful thinking. I'm not sure how that can be considered on equal terms.
We seem to be doing pretty well so far.
Bloody hell, you *really* need to do some research into what evolution actually is. You've completely misunderstood how and where evolution happens - i.e. it's not an infant growing into an adult. You also need to investigate how science thinks complex organs developed - the eye for example.
I'm not sure I have the energy to walk you through all this stuff and you don't appear to be the sort of person who's prepared to listen when people think you've got it wrong.
Be nice if you proved me wrong, but judging by the above, you have a heck of a lot to learn.
Well, I'm a bit short on time and it's a long(ish) article. I've skimmed down it but can't see where it mentions telling agnostics what they should think etc. If you can quote a few words that I can search the page with, that'll help.
I can't see any reference to 'true atheism' either. Positive atheism is there - is that what you meant?
A bizarre, confused and convoluted take on things, since my "arguments" were almost entirely about clarifying what atheism means, or at least what it meant to me. Nowhere in the thread have I told anyone what they believe or what to believe. In fact, I'm doing the total opposite, and challenging those who are telling me what I believe.
Did they? Their last post was 139, at which point they still disagreed with you.
You've told a self-confessed atheist what atheists believe.
It does mention agnosticism, as well as strong, positive and negative atheism.
Maybe you could read it tomorrow to avoid further confusion. "True atheism" was referred to in the dictionary definition I quoted hence why I brought it up.