Why Atheism over Agnosticism?

[Copernicus]

Copernicus, reference post #2...

I'll see if I can prove the exsistance of Santa Claus verbally.
"Santa Claus" is not a "He" but an idea. ...

Your argument fails immediately on this premise. I do not agree to your redefinition of the term "Santa Claus" as "an idea". If you want to redefine your terms and use them consistently as you define them, then I have no problem with that. However, I do not give you permission to redefine my terms in order to refute an argument that I have made.

Your attempt at cleverness reminded me of some Christmas lore. I have read Francis Farcellus Church's famous "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" editorial. That was a brilliantly written and inspired piece of poetry that any child who is seriously interested in the question can see through very easily. No, there isn't the "Santa Claus" that you thought there was, but looky here at this other brand-spanking-new funky idea of a Santa Claus. That essay brilliantly demonstrated to children how adults could lie and then deceive themselves with fancy, clever words that they are telling the truth. You want a present on Christmas? Forget Santa Claus. You need somebody to go to the store and buy it for you. What you need to know is that you need to grow up.

 

[Alceste]

Greetings,

I have always wondered what brings many people to the point of saying they are "Atheist". I mean even at the most misinformed part of my life I would only be able to say I was Agnostic. This is not a debate, just honestly asking what makes it Atheist cross that gap (if any) going straight into Atheism rather in the belief that we cannot know?

I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in the existence of any gods. I could also call myself an agnostic because I believe that even if there were any gods, they would be beyond human understanding unless they were simply an aspect of the human psyche projected onto the world.

Atheist is the easiest label for these threads: Even though there is a part of me that can not completely rule out the possibility of an unfathomable meta-consciousness in the cosmos, I am quite certain that your god (the jealous, spiteful, vengeful dictator of the Bible and the Koran) does not exist.

 

[Snowber]

Atheist is the easiest label for these threads: Even though there is a part of me that can not completely rule out the possibility of an unfathomable meta-consciousness in the cosmos, I am quite certain that your god (the jealous, spiteful, vengeful dictator of the Bible and the Koran) does not exist.

It is indeed honorable not to rule out the idea, and though this is not the debate section, to make such a claim of certainty about "our" god not being the one to exist because you label Him as a vengeful dictator is hardly evidence of certainty. Maybe stopping after the first paragraph was more called for.

 

[Alceste]

It is indeed honorable not to rule out the idea, and though this is not the debate section, to make such a claim of certainty about "our" god not being the one to exist because you label Him as a vengeful dictator is hardly evidence of certainty. Maybe stopping after the first paragraph was more called for.

This isn't the debate section, but it is the Atheism section. I don't have to respect your beliefs in here - you have to respect mine.

It's part of the buzz of being an atheist to be able to call a spade a spade: a god who refuses to manifest himself but plans to punish those who do not believe in him is a spiteful, jealous, vengeful god modeled on the very worst of human attributes. It is impossible that such a god actually exists - he is too much like a man (and not a very well-adjusted man at that). This is the god that graces the pages of the Bible and the Koran. I don't believe in that one.

If I can't say that freely in here - a section of the forum that is meant to be a safe haven for discussing atheism - where can I say it?

 

[JMorris]

This isn't the debate section, but it is the Atheism section. I don't have to respect your beliefs in here - you have to respect mine.

It's part of the buzz of being an atheist to be able to call a spade a spade: a god who refuses to manifest himself but plans to punish those who do not believe in him is a spiteful, jealous, vengeful god modeled on the very worst of human attributes. It is impossible that such a god actually exists - he is too much like a man (and not a very well-adjusted man at that). This is the god that graces the pages of the Bible and the Koran. I don't believe in that one.

If I can't say that freely in here - a section of the forum that is meant to be a safe haven for discussing atheism - where can I say it?

:yes::clapid give frubals if it were possible

 

[Snowber]

.. a god who refuses to manifest himself but plans to punish those who do not believe in him is a spiteful, jealous, vengeful god modeled on the very worst of human attributes. It is impossible that such a god actually exists - he is too much like a man (and not a very well-adjusted man at that). This is the god that graces the pages of the Bible and the Koran. I don't believe in that one.

Alceste,

In fact you are working off your pre-conceived notions it seems. I highly doubt you've studied the Scriptures enough or you wouldn't have such an ill-informed comment to make. In fact, GOD is not so spiteful, vengeful and jealous as you say. If you read a Scripture you have to remember to read verses in the context they are placed, disbeliever doesn't always refer to the group as a whole.

[37:39] You are requited only for what you have done.

[4:40] GOD does not inflict an atom's weight of injustice. On the contrary, He multiplies the reward manifold for the righteous work, and grants from Him a great recompense.

[6:160] Whoever does a righteous work receives the reward for ten, and the one who commits a sin is requited for only one. No one suffers the slightest injustice.

If GOD says no one suffers the slightest injustice, I believe no one will suffer the slightest injustice. "..who commits a sin is requited only for one."

Keep in mind Heaven and Hell are always given to us as allegorical descriptions. Basically, you WANT to do good and go to Heaven, and you want to AVOID hell.

We never know who will go where but I suspect you really gotta mess up to go to the latter. We are free to choose which one we go to. GOD does not put us in Hell, we choose to go there.

Even you, dear Alceste, based on what I know, probably have not qualified to go to Hell. Of course GOD is the only Judge.

The question should be, really, why is it that, when human beings are given free will, they always tend to make the wrong decisions?

 

[JMorris]

what are "wrong decisions", and how do you know they are wrong?

 

[Snowber]

what are "wrong decisions", and how do you know they are wrong?

Use conscience/common sense for most is usually the golden rule ^_^

 

[JMorris]

what does the golden rule have to do with whether or not a person worships a god that may or may not exist?

 

[Snowber]

what does the golden rule have to do with whether or not a person worships a god that may or may not exist?

If you are truly interested in my religious point of view on this I'll tell you but simply, if GOD didn't exist there would not be the golden rule to start with.

Some may also say it's appreciating the chance you've been given. If a guardian raises you, teaches you to be good, teaches you all kinds of things, how should they feel when you go and thank someone else? Or even worse, give all the credit to yourself?

 

[JMorris]

If you are truly interested in my religious point of view on this I'll tell you but simply, if GOD didn't exist there would not be the golden rule to start with.

why not? i never needed a religious book to tell me to treat others the way id like to be treated, why assume others do?

Some may also say it's appreciating the chance you've been given. If a guardian raises you, teaches you to be good, teaches you all kinds of things, how should they feel when you go and thank someone else? Or even worse, give all the credit to yourself?

assuming god does exist, he never taught me anything. why should i thank him for it?

 

[Smoke]

assuming the Abrahamic god exists, the only thing i'd need saving from would be the Abrahamic god.

Precisely.

 

[Breathe]

-- Mod Post --

This is the Atheism DIR.

Please respect the forum rules in regards to this: no debating.

-- End of Mod Post --​

 

[Rio Sabinas]

Copernicus, reference post #21

Excellent reply! If I knew how to give Frubals, I would do so.

You are correct, I "failed immediately". I should have said "To me, Santa Claus is an idea"
I had no intention of redefining your terms, but give you another way to look at it.
"I'll see if I can".......apparently I lack the verbal skill to do so.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Agnosticism is really just 'theism light'. In order to be agnostic you have to lend a certain amount of credibility to the possibility of 'deity' that I don't feel it is due.Despite the memetic spread of the idea of deity from early on in history, there is no actual evidence of the truth of this proposition. In my mind, this gives the concept of 'deity' even less credibility than a similar yet less prevalent concept, (omnibenevolant purple space monkeys, for instance) because a lot of time and resources have already been devoted to trying to prove the concept of deity, with no results. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[Buttercup]

Every person needs to be able to define themselves regarding their supernatural beliefs. I hate it when someone tells me I'm really an atheist when I say my religious beliefs are "I don't know if there's a god". I consider myself agonostic. And, my beliefs are precisely that simple and non dogmatic..... I have no friggin clue if a supernatural being or beings exist.

 

[dust1n]

dust1n on this one, "not concerned with proving" as I could only express my beliefs without
offering any proof.

That's great.. offer proof of your beliefs. I would like to see them.

As for me, whatever entity one wants to place in a ontologically hierarchy is between himself and himself.

If one wants an answer from me, all he has to do is simply ask a question.

 

[Willamena]

That's great.. offer proof of your beliefs. I would like to see them.

As for me, whatever entity one wants to place in a ontologically hierarchy is between himself and himself.

If one wants an answer from me, all he has to do is simply ask a question.

What is this thing: "proof of beliefs"? No such beast.

 

[dust1n]

What is this thing: "proof of beliefs"? No such beast.

Which was my point.

 

[Amill]

How are we defining agnosticism? I believe it is the idea that we cannot know if gods exist or not, so I don't look at it as the gap between theism and atheism. I consider myself agnostic and an atheist. But even if we do label the gap between theism and atheism as "agnosticism", there's never been a point in my life where I was completely 50/50 on whether or not a god exists, I've always leaned one way. Before I started categorizing myself as an atheist my "God" was already sort of a pantheistic idea, not a supernatural creator. There was no direct "belief in creator" to "disbelief in creator" transition for me. I basically just realized that I was an atheist.