I think the main difference is that atheism isn't a means to control people. No atheists are threatened with eternal damnation for behaving against somebodys wishes.
It is the first I've heard of that atheist group, but good for them. Maybe they are nice and helpful to each other without the need to scare them into being nice.
I don't believe in a god. I don't deny god, I just don't believe in god, there's a lack of faith, there's nothing.
Just like I have a lack of faith in blue frogchickens or anything that doesn't exist.
And whether or not someone claims they know this for a fact is also irrelevant. Christians share a common belief, they believe there is a god, Christ was his son and our savior. They believe and follow his teachings. That's what makes them a group.
See the difference? I'm having a hard time explaining myself today. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow, or find a post hippiemom once made that said the same but more eloquently.
edit: couldn't find her post anywhere.
i can sense what you're saying but that doesn't really click. christians are a group because they believe in the same thing?
how come atheists aren't a group? becuase they don't believe in the same thing? i don't know... i'm not following.
why is it wrong to be labeled a group? or better yet, how is a group labeled simply for believing in a common thing? kids who believe in santa clause, are they a group?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I think the main difference is that atheism isn't a means to control people. No atheists are threatened with eternal damnation for behaving against somebodys wishes.
It is the first I've heard of that atheist group, but good for them. Maybe they are nice and helpful to each other without the need to scare them into being nice.
the bible isn't used to control either... or at least it's not its intent. althought some use it that way.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i can sense what you're saying but that doesn't really click. christians are a group because they believe in the same thing?
how come atheists aren't a group? becuase they don't believe in the same thing? i don't know... i'm not following.
why is it wrong to be labeled a group? or better yet, how is a group labeled simply for believing in a common thing? kids who believe in santa clause, are they a group?
Christians are a group because they believe in the same thing and they have a "code" which they follow. They live (or at least try to live) by a set of moral rules.
Atheists don't have something like that.
It's not wrong to be labelled a group.
It goes beyond simply believing in a common thing, it's sharing a set of ideals and rules and living by them. Atheists do not share a set of ideals or rules. They can and a lot of them do have the same ideals and/or rules by which they live, but that's not an atheist thing, if you know what I mean.
Of course all of this depends of how you define group.
I don't believe in a god. I don't deny god, I just don't believe in god, there's a lack of faith, there's nothing.
Just like I have a lack of faith in blue frogchickens or anything that doesn't exist.
And whether or not someone claims they know this for a fact is also irrelevant. Christians share a common belief, they believe there is a god, Christ was his son and our savior. They believe and follow his teachings. That's what makes them a group.
See the difference? I'm having a hard time explaining myself today. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow, or find a post hippiemom once made that said the same but more eloquently.
edit: couldn't find her post anywhere.
you're describing agnosticism. if you say god is possible but you see no evidence for it so you're not going to believe it, that's agnosticism.
atheism is that there is no god and god is a physical impossibility.
atheists and theists are in opposition. christians are like the atheist groups mentioned... they have formed a coherent belief structure and goals.
you're describing agnosticism. if you say god is possible but you see no evidence for it so you're not going to believe it, that's agnosticism.
atheism is that there is no god and god is a physical impossibility.
atheists and theists are in opposition. christians are like the atheist groups mentioned... they have formed a coherent belief structure and goals.
well, there's a difference between having faith and saying that you know for "sure" without any irrefutable doubt that there is a god. yeah sure some believe that way but the premiere objective is to convey faith even though you wouldn't know for a fact. well at least i don't oppose to an atheist by saying that I can prove God is real, nor do i say that I know he is. I simply believe.
i see what you're saying though.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
People argue atheism doesn't really exists. "One cannot know for sure God does not exist" thus making them agnostic. However, the same can be said about believers "One cannot know for sure God does exist" making them agnostic as well. In all this uncertainty we have beliefs, "I believe God does not exist." thus making me an atheist, even if I have no proof, similarily "I believe God exists" would make me a theist with equally no proof. Perhaps agnosticism is the only rational position to take...
But let's compare this to the teapot floating around saturn. Clearly we've no way of knowing with absolute certainty, thus making us all rational agnostics about the teapot, however, the probability of it being so is extremely weak, an economist might suggest that being a teapot atheist is less risky than being a teapot believer. Given the history of christianity, the falsified claims of the religion and the probability that it isn't true, I feel more secure in my position as an atheist than I would as a theist.
Another thing to consider is that we won't accept Zeus or Mazda or any of the other gods. If asked if they exist a Christian would say "Absolutely not" expressing absolute atheism of those other Gods, when rationally they should be agnostic since they've no proof either way. From another angle, atheism is simply not ascenting to a claim of such a God. "I don't believe God exists" sounds like something an atheist would say, right? How would an agnostic express themself?
What if I said "I dislike tomatoes"? Does that mean that I have a negative view of tomatos or is my view neutral? How should I express a neutral position? "I neither like nor dislike tomatoes, I'm a tomato agnostic". Neutrality isn't represented well in our speech.
But then these are all labels. I'm relatively certain that God does not exist, as certain as I am that Zeus does not exist or that the teapot does not exist. Does this make me an atheist or an agnostic? Ultimately there are degrees of agnosticism, because fundamentally none of us can ever know with absolute certainty wether or not any of these things exist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
People argue atheism doesn't really exists. "One cannot know for sure God does not exist" thus making them agnostic. However, the same can be said about believers "One cannot know for sure God does exist" making them agnostic as well. In all this uncertainty we have beliefs, "I believe God does not exist." thus making me an atheist, even if I have no proof, similarily "I believe God exists" would make me a theist with equally no proof. Perhaps agnosticism is the only rational position to take...
But let's compare this to the teapot floating around saturn. Clearly we've no way of knowing with absolute certainty, thus making us all rational agnostics about the teapot, however, the probability of it being so is extremely weak, an economist might suggest that being a teapot atheist is less risky than being a teapot believer. Given the history of christianity, the falsified claims of the religion and the probability that it isn't true, I feel more secure in my position as an atheist than I would as a theist.
Another thing to consider is that we won't accept Zeus or Mazda or any of the other gods. If asked if they exist a Christian would say "Absolutely not" expressing absolute atheism of those other Gods, when rationally they should be agnostic since they've no proof either way. From another angle, atheism is simply not ascenting to a claim of such a God. "I don't believe God exists" sounds like something an atheist would say, right? How would an agnostic express themself?
What if I said "I dislike tomatoes"? Does that mean that I have a negative view of tomatos or is my view neutral? How should I express a neutral position? "I neither like nor dislike tomatoes, I'm a tomato agnostic". Neutrality isn't represented well in our speech.
But then these are all labels. I'm relatively certain that God does not exist, as certain as I am that Zeus does not exist or that the teapot does not exist. Does this make me an atheist or an agnostic? Ultimately there are degrees of agnosticism, because fundamentally none of us can ever know with absolute certainty wether or not any of these things exist.
you know... you can say all this without sounding so pretentious. j/k
in some twisted oddball, i agree.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, there's a difference between having faith and saying that you know for "sure" without any irrefutable doubt that there is a god. yeah sure some believe that way but the premiere objective is to convey faith even though you wouldn't know for a fact. well at least i don't oppose to an atheist by saying that I can prove God is real, nor do i say that I know he is. I simply believe.
i see what you're saying though.
i see atheists and theists the same. they both claim to be certain of that which is unknowable.
People argue atheism doesn't really exists. "One cannot know for sure God does not exist" thus making them agnostic. However, the same can be said about believers "One cannot know for sure God does exist" making them agnostic as well. In all this uncertainty we have beliefs, "I believe God does not exist." thus making me an atheist, even if I have no proof, similarily "I believe God exists" would make me a theist with equally no proof. Perhaps agnosticism is the only rational position to take...
But let's compare this to the teapot floating around saturn. Clearly we've no way of knowing with absolute certainty, thus making us all rational agnostics about the teapot, however, the probability of it being so is extremely weak, an economist might suggest that being a teapot atheist is less risky than being a teapot believer. Given the history of christianity, the falsified claims of the religion and the probability that it isn't true, I feel more secure in my position as an atheist than I would as a theist.
Another thing to consider is that we won't accept Zeus or Mazda or any of the other gods. If asked if they exist a Christian would say "Absolutely not" expressing absolute atheism of those other Gods, when rationally they should be agnostic since they've no proof either way. From another angle, atheism is simply not ascenting to a claim of such a God. "I don't believe God exists" sounds like something an atheist would say, right? How would an agnostic express themself?
What if I said "I dislike tomatoes"? Does that mean that I have a negative view of tomatos or is my view neutral? How should I express a neutral position? "I neither like nor dislike tomatoes, I'm a tomato agnostic". Neutrality isn't represented well in our speech.
But then these are all labels. I'm relatively certain that God does not exist, as certain as I am that Zeus does not exist or that the teapot does not exist. Does this make me an atheist or an agnostic? Ultimately there are degrees of agnosticism, because fundamentally none of us can ever know with absolute certainty wether or not any of these things exist.
you're an atheist. you believe there is no god. an agnostic would answer "beats the shit out of me." as to the tomato example, the agnostic would say "i dont know, i've never had one." your view on the tomato is negative. dislike is negative. nothing neutral about them. the neutral answer would be "i dont care one way or the other." it's a common idiom. neutrality is not that hard to express.
you're an atheist. you believe there is no god. an agnostic would answer "beats the shit out of me." as to the tomato example, the agnostic would say "i dont know, i've never had one." your view on the tomato is negative. dislike is negative. nothing neutral about them. the neutral answer would be "i dont care one way or the other." it's a common idiom. neutrality is not that hard to express.
It is. I've been asked questions like "Do you like the London Knights?" if I answer "No I do not" it would be viewed as "I dislike the London Knights" when in reality I don't give a shit either way about any sports or sports teams.
If gallup called me up and asked "Do you believe in God?" and I said "No I do not." they'd pen me in under atheist. But, literally, it just means that I don't believe in God, not that I believe there is no God, which as you expressed is agnosticism and not atheism.
I actually do believe there is NO God and I feel as far as logic and evidence is concerned it's the best theory going.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i see atheists and theists the same. they both claim to be certain of that which is unknowable.
it's not always like that though.... i know i can't prove that God exists... so i don't know with my mind but with my "spirit" i believe. it's all in the bible, really.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
It is. I've been asked questions like "Do you like the London Knights?" if I answer "No I do not" it would be viewed as "I dislike the London Knights" when in reality I don't give a shit either way about any sports or sports teams.
If gallup called me up and asked "Do you believe in God?" and I said "No I do not." they'd pen me in under atheist. But, literally, it just means that I don't believe in God, not that I believe there is no God, which as you expressed is agnosticism and not atheism.
I actually do believe there is NO God and I feel as far as logic and evidence is concerned it's the best theory going.
this really makes a lot of sense. not that i necessarily agree with you though.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Comments
omg roflmao...
i think if i could explain it to you, it's possible i wouldn't have laughed at the post to begin with.
omg, i'm losing it here.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think it's time for another Q&A session, gue!
naděje umírá poslední
It is the first I've heard of that atheist group, but good for them. Maybe they are nice and helpful to each other without the need to scare them into being nice.
how come atheists aren't a group? becuase they don't believe in the same thing? i don't know... i'm not following.
why is it wrong to be labeled a group? or better yet, how is a group labeled simply for believing in a common thing? kids who believe in santa clause, are they a group?
Aren't the 'some' you speak of called 'Organized Religions'?
Hail, Hail!!!
Christians are a group because they believe in the same thing and they have a "code" which they follow. They live (or at least try to live) by a set of moral rules.
Atheists don't have something like that.
It's not wrong to be labelled a group.
It goes beyond simply believing in a common thing, it's sharing a set of ideals and rules and living by them. Atheists do not share a set of ideals or rules. They can and a lot of them do have the same ideals and/or rules by which they live, but that's not an atheist thing, if you know what I mean.
Of course all of this depends of how you define group.
naděje umírá poslední
you're describing agnosticism. if you say god is possible but you see no evidence for it so you're not going to believe it, that's agnosticism.
atheism is that there is no god and god is a physical impossibility.
atheists and theists are in opposition. christians are like the atheist groups mentioned... they have formed a coherent belief structure and goals.
i see what you're saying though.
But let's compare this to the teapot floating around saturn. Clearly we've no way of knowing with absolute certainty, thus making us all rational agnostics about the teapot, however, the probability of it being so is extremely weak, an economist might suggest that being a teapot atheist is less risky than being a teapot believer. Given the history of christianity, the falsified claims of the religion and the probability that it isn't true, I feel more secure in my position as an atheist than I would as a theist.
Another thing to consider is that we won't accept Zeus or Mazda or any of the other gods. If asked if they exist a Christian would say "Absolutely not" expressing absolute atheism of those other Gods, when rationally they should be agnostic since they've no proof either way. From another angle, atheism is simply not ascenting to a claim of such a God. "I don't believe God exists" sounds like something an atheist would say, right? How would an agnostic express themself?
What if I said "I dislike tomatoes"? Does that mean that I have a negative view of tomatos or is my view neutral? How should I express a neutral position? "I neither like nor dislike tomatoes, I'm a tomato agnostic". Neutrality isn't represented well in our speech.
But then these are all labels. I'm relatively certain that God does not exist, as certain as I am that Zeus does not exist or that the teapot does not exist. Does this make me an atheist or an agnostic? Ultimately there are degrees of agnosticism, because fundamentally none of us can ever know with absolute certainty wether or not any of these things exist.
in some twisted oddball, i agree.
i see atheists and theists the same. they both claim to be certain of that which is unknowable.
you're an atheist. you believe there is no god. an agnostic would answer "beats the shit out of me." as to the tomato example, the agnostic would say "i dont know, i've never had one." your view on the tomato is negative. dislike is negative. nothing neutral about them. the neutral answer would be "i dont care one way or the other." it's a common idiom. neutrality is not that hard to express.
It is. I've been asked questions like "Do you like the London Knights?" if I answer "No I do not" it would be viewed as "I dislike the London Knights" when in reality I don't give a shit either way about any sports or sports teams.
If gallup called me up and asked "Do you believe in God?" and I said "No I do not." they'd pen me in under atheist. But, literally, it just means that I don't believe in God, not that I believe there is no God, which as you expressed is agnosticism and not atheism.
I actually do believe there is NO God and I feel as far as logic and evidence is concerned it's the best theory going.
http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/