Defending the Truth

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Then you are atheist, my friend. (a-theism, Or "without theism", simply a 'lack of belief in god').



Me too, yet I have the honesty to admit I am atheist.

Atheism is merely a lack of a positive. It is not the assertion of a positive itself.

I am agnostic only insofar as agnosticism is a posit onto our existences that we do not ultimately know. But because I do not know for sure if there is a god, I do not believe in him, ergo I am atheist.

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Then you are atheist, my friend. (a-theism, Or "without theism", simply a 'lack of belief in god').



Me too, yet I have the honesty to admit I am atheist.

Atheism is merely a lack of a positive. It is not the assertion of a positive itself.

I am agnostic only insofar as agnosticism is a posit onto our existences that we do not ultimately know. But because I do not know for sure if there is a god, I do not believe in him, ergo I am atheist.

Originally Posted by garysher

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Of course, because that explains why wars have been waged by women also.

Yeah.. at a rate of about 1 for every 1,000 that men wage.
Again, the primary cause of war is testesterone, and the way men go about solving conficts and problems. That's HONEST.



I don't pretend to hold the illusion that there is a single cause for the world's wars. I recognize that the complexity of the issue of war begs the acknowledgment of their numerous complex causes and conditions. I was merely saying that religion has been a major source of these contentions among humanity, especially in terms of the romantic thinking of the middle ages.

They will also tell you that religion was nearly the only justification leaders gave to their subjects for such a conflict, and that religion was the means by which they divided man.

Which is pretty much EXACTLY what I told you. Relgion has been MIS-used and MIS-represented by those in power to whip up the masses. And lest we forget, it was the peaceful interaction between Christian monks and Muslim scholars that helped fuel the age of enlightnenment in Europe. While military forces were out pounding one another over the head, the scholars were sharing knowledge that led to great advances in Europe. Gee, imagine that religious UNITY helping to re-invigorate a society.



I'm not positing anything, I'm just recognizing the incompatibility between doctrines. It may be noble to attempt to find some kind of underlying similarity among all religious communities, but by their very essences, there are distinct and incompatible differences that are and have been serving as sources of contention among humans.


Because humans cling to outward symbols instead of inward, spritual meanings. They latch on to ceremony and tradition without really questioning it.
Literalism -- the flaw that trips up both fundamentalists and extreme cynics like youself.

I mean the exercise you're taking yourself on is simply ridiculous. The truth isn't always soft and flowery. People's religions are their source of faith. Do you truly understand the capacity of that word? That means they blindly accept a reality given to them out of trust and for whatever purposes that they deemed necessary (usually it's comfort, a sense of security, and comfort in the idea of our mortality). This posit is a truth value, not mere opinion or subjective reality. Anyone that's truly faithful won't say that their religion is opinion; but it's the nature of the universe. Religions differ greatly in the causes, purposes, and nature of our very existences and how we are 'supposed' to conduct our lives. This is just common sense; and for a person that has studied different religions I would have hoped you would recognize this instead of blindly accepting the 'faith' that somehow humanity will all come together and find unity in their diverse religious beliefs.

We're getting to the point where we pretty much don't have a choice. We have to learn to get along, or face our own destruction.
THAT'S harsh reality, and certianly not "soft and flowery."


Here alone represents a distinct religious difference. The Bible and numerous other Christian sects (well, I would say that as a rule all of them [in order to be considered "Christian"]), one must accept Christ as their savior and son of God, or else face damnation. Of course there are some exceptions like people who are ignorant to the word of God, but the general consensus among Christianity is that if one is exposed to the teachings of Christ, that one must accept Christ to attain salvation. This is a basic tenet of Christianity, and for you to suggest otherwise I think would cause a contention among yourself and other Christians right here on this board!

And I can explain all that, if you wish. But, apparenlty you're not interested in learning anything new.



Hmmm, well there was really no basic tenet of Christianity that says that religion is 'compulsory' either; hence free will. But I mean that's pretty short-sided. One can choose the deny Christ (and therefore there's no compulsion), but according to teachings, if one does so, one receives eternal damnation. Even though many religious people as yourself like to dance around the idea that 'oh well, Jesus or Muhammed never said their faith was compulsory', you're ignoring the fact that they're threatening people with eternal damnation; which has been a source of compulsion. And incidentally, I mean you can pick and choose, but there are also passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an that basically teach the idea of a harsh evangelism (such as certain passages talking about the death and stoning of people who did not believe in God or believed in other gods or were witches, etc.).

Well, even "eternal damnation" is primarily symbolic. As far as the death and stoning and such, the world was a much rougher place back then. The religious laws of the time reflected that.

Then, my exalted one, perhaps you could explain your metaphor in the context of your superior frame of thought to my undoubtedly inferior mind incapable of abstract thought which is held in ignorance.

Perhaps you could quit being so goddamned narrow-minded for a change.



My own narrow-mindedness? Or maybe I'm just honest? The truth of the matter is that no one ultimately knows 'God' or some ultimate truth of reality. Religion not only presupposes that there is ultimate truth, but also that man is capable of knowing the ultimate truth and that they hold the ultimate truth of our existences. It's only honest to recognize the complete ridiculousness of these assertions. Hence the essence of religion is a delusion that they know ultimate truth.

Religion does NOT say any one person or people can know the whole entire truth about everthing. If fact, it encourages humilty and a humble acceptance of one's own limits. And did you just miss the parts in the various scriptures that say God is essentially unknowable?

I would not say lies as Hev does, but delusion because as I have said, the teachers of religion believe in the same delusion the followers believe as truth.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

In terms of theory I am 'agnostic' in this sense also. But I am also atheist. I don't see how that is so offensive. I don't believe in theism (or the theory of god existing), and I am not ashamed of it, and I don't see why you should be either.

Originally Posted by hevusa

There is one big difference between myself and an athiest; and that is an athiest denies the possibility of a deity existing. I do not (though I find it unlikely).

Webster's:
athe·ist
one who believes that there is no deity

I don't believe there is any way of knowing that there is no deity and therefore this information is just as false as claiming that there is a God.

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

I don't believe in theism but neither do I completely discount the possibility that there is a god or gods.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I believe there is a difference between anti-God (as a negative assertion God does not exist) and A-theist that you are not discerning. A-theist just means you are without the theory of god existing (or, 'theism').

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I've said this before, but the problem with consulting popular online dictionaries is that it will give you the multiple definitions in the context of popular vernacular instead of their true root meanings. Because, as you conveniently left out, nearly every dictionary also says atheism merely can be defined as "a lack of belief in God"; which is it's root meaning.

I believe there is a difference between anti-God (as a negative assertion God does not exist) and A-theist that you are not discerning. A-theist just means you are without the theory of god existing (or, 'theism').

Buddhists are atheists, secular humanists are atheists, agnostics are atheists. Etc. But they're not necessarily anti-god or positing there is no god.



Again, to reiterate my point above about popular online dictionaries.

As sear most accurately points out, agnosticism merely addresses what we know or do not know (hence a-gnosticism; "without knowledge"); and without definitive knowledge, we are all agnostics in theory.

I can be both agnostic and atheist. Or, I don't know so I am agnostic, but I also don't believe so I am atheist. To believe is to wish for something to be true. I could believe in God and hence be a theist, while at the same time not know God exists and hence be an agnostic.



Same here. But I don't actively believe or assert the theory of theism; therefore I am a-theist.



You told me calling you atheist (because you don't believe in theism) was offensive. This implies shame of being an atheist.

Like I said, it would be the equivalent of a Christian expressing shame for calling themselves "Christian" simply because they don't personally associate with the fundamentalist evangelist Christian movement.



I know I don't know for sure. Anyone honest enough will say that. I am agnostic in that sense also. But I also don't believe, so I am also atheist. (These terms are dealing with two completely different themes [believe- theism/atheism and knowledge [gnosticism/agnosticism]); and I think that's a difference that many people need to understand.



Not necessarily, but from what I've experienced, and from what I've seen and read about; atheists generally get the most heat from the religious community in terms of discrimination. But when you're discerning discrimination of atheists vs. agnostics, it gets really fuzzy because most censuses rightfully recognize and include 'agnostics' in the category of "atheists".

But from my experience, interestingly enough, I've gotten a lot more heat from people proclaiming themselves as "agnostics" than religious people. There tends to be the real religious zealot, but usually religious people around here tend to be a lot more tolerant than the group of people calling themselves 'agnostics'. I think I'm seeing this playing out once more even on this board. Considering agnostics and atheists have a lot more in common as opposed to atheists and theists (considering atheists are agnostics and very often vice versa), I have no idea why this phenomena happens.



Not really. Usually the only time I find people confused about the true definition of the word atheist (or simply 'without theism') is with the people calling themselves 'agnostics'. Usually when I say I'm atheist to a Christian or someone, they say something to the effect of "Oh, so that means you just don't believe in God, right?". Which is correct.

If they really want to know if I'm "strong atheist" or not, I could explain it to them. In other words, every time someone says they're Christian, I don't assume that they're fundamentalists. So I don't see why you should assume automatically that atheists are "strong atheists".

Like I said, think of theism as a hair color. It posits hair, and a color of hair. Atheism is just without the hair; so in this case, an atheist would be bald. Saying atheism is a positive is like saying bald is a hair color.



Not really, I explained myself above.



Hmmm, well like I said; I generally get a lot more hostility from agnostics than theists. Perhaps it stems from the mindset that both "theism" and "atheism" equates lying dishonest fundamentalist wacko. When such a black-and-white broad stroke couldn't be further from the truth.



No, your disassociating from atheism would be equivalent to a Christian denying that he/she is a Christian but instead a "protestant"; as if protestantism wasn't Christian? Well, agnosticism is (or, can be) a form of atheism; being that, an agnostic (in your context) does not believe in god.