Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

I don't understand why anyone is an atheist

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 5:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
An atheist disbelieves or lacks belief in a God, meaning that they reject the premise that God exists.

An agnostic believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable, accepting the existence or lack of existence as a possibility.

Even if you don't see didn't see any evidence of God's existence, since God's existence is always possible until proven otherwise, why would it be rational to consider yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Now, having the stance "it's possible, but I don't believe it" would still fall under the agnostic category, wouldn't it?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 5:29:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the other hand, I couldn't said I can't understand why anyone is a theist since their premise is that God exists, not allowing the possibility of non-existence.

It seems like the most rational way of stating your belief would entail attaching the term "agnostic" to it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 6:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ah, thanks. Apparently the article agrees. It makes more sense to have the option of choosing agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist if one chooses to be labelled under a religious category
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 6:26:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Honestly this whole semantics thing in general is stupid...
I like Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability:

1 = (Stupid) Theist
2 = Theist
3 = Theist-leaning Agnostic
4 = Agnostic
5 = Atheist-leaning Agnostic
6 = Atheist
7 = (Stupid) Atheist
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 6:52:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 6:09:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Ah, thanks. Apparently the article agrees. It makes more sense to have the option of choosing agnostic-atheist or agnostic-theist if one chooses to be labelled under a religious category

They are not mutually exclusive, but yes agnostic atheist is the rational position to take for people who don't believe in the existence of God. Since all god claims are different and some might actually be true. Especially when it's impossible to test some of them.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:02:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 6:26:32 PM, Romanii wrote:
Honestly this whole semantics thing in general is stupid...
I like Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability:

1 = (Stupid) Theist
2 = Theist
3 = Theist-leaning Agnostic
4 = Agnostic
5 = Atheist-leaning Agnostic
6 = Atheist
7 = (Stupid) Atheist

What am I?
Dude... Stop...
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 7:02:20 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 4/12/2014 6:26:32 PM, Romanii wrote:
Honestly this whole semantics thing in general is stupid...
I like Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability:

1 = (Stupid) Theist
2 = Theist
3 = Theist-leaning Agnostic
4 = Agnostic
5 = Atheist-leaning Agnostic
6 = Atheist
7 = (Stupid) Atheist

What am I?

How would I know...?
I think you said you were 6 on the Dawkins Scale on your old profile...
perplexed
Posts: 863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:45:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 5:21:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An atheist disbelieves or lacks belief in a God, meaning that they reject the premise that God exists.

An agnostic believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable, accepting the existence or lack of existence as a possibility.

Even if you don't see didn't see any evidence of God's existence, since God's existence is always possible until proven otherwise, why would it be rational to consider yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Now, having the stance "it's possible, but I don't believe it" would still fall under the agnostic category, wouldn't it?

why is it important to be a theist or even a deist?
: At 4/29/2014 3:14:36 AM, annanicole wrote:

:
: I'll be happy to concede the raping of virgin girls, if you can find it somewhere.
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:57:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am an agnostic atheist. I will often refer to myself simply as atheist because it's easier for people to understand. For others who I think will enjoy the intellectual exercise, I'll engage in a conversation about the nature of agnosticism. It all depends on who I'm talking to.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 12:20:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 5:21:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An atheist disbelieves or lacks belief in a God, meaning that they reject the premise that God exists.

An agnostic believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable, accepting the existence or lack of existence as a possibility.

Even if you don't see didn't see any evidence of God's existence, since God's existence is always possible until proven otherwise, why would it be rational to consider yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Now, having the stance "it's possible, but I don't believe it" would still fall under the agnostic category, wouldn't it?

Nice topic. I've never thought of it quite like that before. Since most atheists seem to say that they would believe in a creator if they had enough evidence, then it seems only logical to infer that their lack of belief is based on lack of sufficient evidence, which seems to describe them as agnostic. I'll have to think about this one for a while . . .
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:03:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 5:21:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An atheist disbelieves or lacks belief in a God, meaning that they reject the premise that God exists.

An agnostic believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable, accepting the existence or lack of existence as a possibility.

Even if you don't see didn't see any evidence of God's existence, since God's existence is always possible until proven otherwise, why would it be rational to consider yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Now, having the stance "it's possible, but I don't believe it" would still fall under the agnostic category, wouldn't it?

I wouldnt say that the existance of Lepricons or Faeries are necessarily impossible.

I certainly dont have knowledge that they do not exist. How could I possibly know whether some planet, somewhere in this universe, could hold the existance of what we would refer to as "Lepricons"?

And yet, we still do not believe that they exist. Most of us would even go so far as to say that we know, we believe that Faeries and Lepricons do not exist.

Possibility isnt an argument for anything. Technically, a lot of things are possible. But we dont accept that they exist, until evidence has been provided that supports their existance.

This is why we are atheist.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:05:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 12:20:58 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/12/2014 5:21:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An atheist disbelieves or lacks belief in a God, meaning that they reject the premise that God exists.

An agnostic believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable, accepting the existence or lack of existence as a possibility.

Even if you don't see didn't see any evidence of God's existence, since God's existence is always possible until proven otherwise, why would it be rational to consider yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Now, having the stance "it's possible, but I don't believe it" would still fall under the agnostic category, wouldn't it?

Nice topic. I've never thought of it quite like that before. Since most atheists seem to say that they would believe in a creator if they had enough evidence, then it seems only logical to infer that their lack of belief is based on lack of sufficient evidence, which seems to describe them as agnostic. I'll have to think about this one for a while . . .

Sure, which is why most atheists describe themselves as agnostic atheists.

But the problem here, is the fact that, for example, our lack of belief with regards to Faeries, is based on lack of sufficient evidence. We couldnt possibly know whether faeries exist on some other astral plain of existance that is beyond this dimension, or on some planet in some galaxy far away. And yet, we seem to be perfectly comfortable with claiming that Faeries dont exist, without the need to provide evidence.

But in regards to whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist, it only depends on your answer to a simple question: Do you believe that God exists?

If your answer is yes, you are a theist. If your answer is anything other than yes, including "I dont know", then you are an atheist.

Atheism is basically "Not theism". It is a true dichotomy. Everyone must either be a theist, or an atheist.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 2:16:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 2:05:17 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:20:58 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 4/12/2014 5:21:37 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
An atheist disbelieves or lacks belief in a God, meaning that they reject the premise that God exists.

An agnostic believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable, accepting the existence or lack of existence as a possibility.

Even if you don't see didn't see any evidence of God's existence, since God's existence is always possible until proven otherwise, why would it be rational to consider yourself an atheist rather than an agnostic?

Now, having the stance "it's possible, but I don't believe it" would still fall under the agnostic category, wouldn't it?

Nice topic. I've never thought of it quite like that before. Since most atheists seem to say that they would believe in a creator if they had enough evidence, then it seems only logical to infer that their lack of belief is based on lack of sufficient evidence, which seems to describe them as agnostic. I'll have to think about this one for a while . . .

Sure, which is why most atheists describe themselves as agnostic atheists.

But the problem here, is the fact that, for example, our lack of belief with regards to Faeries, is based on lack of sufficient evidence. We couldnt possibly know whether faeries exist on some other astral plain of existance that is beyond this dimension, or on some planet in some galaxy far away. And yet, we seem to be perfectly comfortable with claiming that Faeries dont exist, without the need to provide evidence.

I think pretty-much everyone is familiar with this argument. The problem is that you are arguing against notions which progressive "believers" have already discarded, and which are only kept alive by conservative religions. You might as well have an argument with the Flat Earth Society about the shape of the planet.

But in regards to whether you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist, it only depends on your answer to a simple question: Do you believe that God exists?

I would disagree. I think that why you disagree does count.

If your answer is yes, you are a theist. If your answer is anything other than yes, including "I dont know", then you are an atheist.

Atheism is basically "Not theism". It is a true dichotomy. Everyone must either be a theist, or an atheist.

So is a deist an atheist? He certainly isn't a theist. How about a pantheist? I don't think most people would see it as simply as you describe.