I'm an agnostic...so, of course, in my opinion all atheists should be agnostics.
Opinion peice on Athiests
by SickofLies 203 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
blueviceroy
I agree< sick of lies>
All that we experince is within us, completely valid scientific proof.
That being said some experiences are ,, difficult to quantify within accepted scientific parameters . so we must do what all people do when we experience things , use these experiences to better ourselves and the greater shared existence as well to the best of our ability.
Some experince things that allow greater understanding in an undeniable way , some do not , the latter are usually identifiable as "pushy" or "narrow minded and disagreeable" the former are the ones who promote love and completness , ooh ,like Mother Theresa or Ghandi or even Martin Luther King , Albert Einstien is prolly my favorite person ,oh wait there is Ghustav Jung too , quite a few peole have had this experience of which I allude and it does have impact , but in the end it is just an experience no different than any other, perhaps a bit more compelling though.
-
nvrgnbk
I'm an agnostic...so, of course, in my opinion all atheists should be agnostics.
I was agnostic till God told me to become atheist.
I'm not gonna argue with God.
-
SickofLies
I was agnostic till God told me to become atheist.
I'm not gonna argue with God.
LMFAO
I'm gonna use that line with a minister at work who always bugs me about being an atheist.
That being said some experiences are ,, difficult to quantify within accepted scientific parameters .
Scince is just one way of seeing and experiencing the world, art, music, literature and meditative experience are all vaild ways to find meaning.
The meaning of life is to live a life of meaning, everyone must find their own path.
-
myelaine
to everyone I know...
I agree, I have been way out of line. Looking over this thread alone I clearly see myself mocking the word of God. I'm ashamed. I've been out of line quite a few times since I got here and I'm sorry for those times too.
My boyfriend isn't quite as grim as reported either.
love michelle
-
steve2
Looking over this thread alone I clearly see myself mocking the word of God. I'm ashamed
Michelle, I grant that you may well be jesting, in which case I can let this go. But what is so wrong with mocking what other's claim is the word of God?
Goodness knows that there are so many purported "words of God" in so many different books, and that's just including the monotheistic religions, that anyone could be excused for mocking the word of God. By the way, if I were God, I'd be ashamed of being the supposed author of the Old Testament (aka Hebrew Scriptures) with its hearty ethnic-cleansing, women-hating, war-mongering injunctions.
-
Caedes
I'm an agnostic...so, of course, in my opinion all atheists should be agnostics.
Onacruse, Aren't the majority of atheists agnostic by definition anyway? I haven't met a single atheist who claims to 'know' that god(s) doesn't exist. There is a big difference between claiming to know for certain and claiming that it is likely (even being 99% sure) that god(s) don't exist. I would go further and state that if they are completely honest, the majority of theists should count themselves as agnostic too. Admitting that the hypothesis is unfalsifiable should make everyone an agnostic.
-
steve2
Aren't the majority of atheists agnostic by definition anyway?
No. An agnostic is comfortable believing that we humans may never know whether there is or is not a god who created everything. By contrast, an athiest says "I do not believe that there is a god who created everything". An agnostic will argue that these sorts of issues are ulitmately unknowable, whereas an athiest will say the opposite: ie., the more we investigate these sorts of topics, the more we know, etc.
The clearest contrast between agnosticism and athiesm is set out in Richard Dawkins magnificent book The God Delusion.
-
nvrgnbk
Many that identify themselves as agnostic ( perhaps due to the stigma of being atheist or not wanting to appear "arrogant") are, in fact, atheist.
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Is the definition of an Atheist really someone who denies the existence of God?
By capella
Belief or without belief. Assertion or lack of assertion.
The words atheist and atheism are inaccurately defined in many dictionaries as someone who is a disbeliever/denier or has a doctrine that there is no God. Some dictionaries even include in their definitions phrases such as “immoral” or “someone with nothing to touch their inner being.”
My experience is that most atheists think an atheist is someone that is simply without any belief in gods.
This may not sound like a significant distinction to some, but it’s very important because sometimes atheism is portrayed as an assertion of a negative, which is a false argument. Sometimes atheism is also portrayed as a religion or doctrine which comes down to a matter of faith.
Although some dictionaries at least include the “without belief” phrase, the problem seems to be that dictionaries are about the common use of words, not whether the concept is necessarily valid.
For example:
“A nether world in which the dead continue to exist : (2) : the nether realm
of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment.”
(Merriam-Webster definition of “Hell”)“The appearance of the sky when the sun starts to rise”
(Cambridge Dictionary definition of “sunrise”)Although these definitions are how the words are probably most often used, some people might not agree that the definition of hell was factual and many people would agree that the sun doesn’t really “rise” (it appears to rise because of the turning of the earth).
Again, nit-picky? Yes, but the atheism definitions are often pulled out of dictionaries and paraded in discussions about the validity of atheism as if they are precise, valid, technical definitions.
Isn’t a lack of belief agnosticism?
Yes, but an agnostic is someone who asks a question about the existence of a particular god or gods and says that the answer is unknowable. The difference is that the atheist is not asking a question.
Does this imply the atheist thinks the matter is settled? No, it just means the atheist is not pursuing the question any more than the atheist would have a burning desire to know if Fred Flintstone exists.
-
BurnTheShips
Steve, too bad that Dawkins does not have the intestinal fortitude to face a real Christian Apologist in a debate:
I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason.
In his writings on religion, Dawkins presents atheism as the side of reason and evidence, and religion as the side of “blind faith.” So what’s he afraid of? How can reason possibly lose in a contest with ignorance and superstition? I have written Dawkins back offering him the most favorable terms: a debate on a secular campus like Berkeley rather than a church, with atheist Michael Shermer as the moderator, and a donor ready and willing to pay both our fees.
So I hope Dawkins takes me up on my challenge to an intellectual joust. If you want to encourage him, write Dawkins and send the email to [email protected]. I’ll forward your thoughts to our wavering atheist knight. He may want to pattern atheism on the gay rights movement, but surely he doesn’t want the world to think that he’s a sissy.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/12/are_atheists_the_new_gays&Comments=true
D'Souza pretty much smashed Hitchens in a debate recently.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-471219088532317812&q=dinesh+d%27souza+hitchens&pr=goog-sl
Burn