"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
Anti- suggests opposition to something whilst a- represents negation. An antitheist is opposed to the belief in gods. An Atheist does not believe there is such a thing as god. Therefore an Atheist need not be an antitheist (and I suspect most aren't). They are in no way equivalent terms.
ewenm said:
An agnostic viewpoint would seem to be the most logical. I'm happy with the answer "I don't know and might never know, but am interested in finding out". At the moment it seems to me that the scientific route is more likely to provide answers than the religious route.
I absolutely agree and, like most things in life, don't see absolutes in all this...I'll go with the term Atheist rather than agnostic simply because I'm closer to that position than the Theistic position where agnostics sit somewhere in the middle.
On one side: I see no evidence that I find satisfactory for the existence of god or gods.
On the other: I see solid, repeatable evidence that scientific method explains the world in a useful manner.
The answers provided by science may be a total illusion and completely incorrect but they are useful. The answers provided by religion may be completely correct but have the appearance of illusion and are demonstrably lacking in consistency and usefulness.
So I'm quite happy to say I am both an Agnostic and an Atheist. I would be compelled by evidence of god if I found it so, I do not therefore I act as though there is no God. So, intellectually Agnostic but a practising Atheist if you like.
carmonk said:
Anti- suggests opposition to something whilst a- represents negation. An antitheist is opposed to the belief in gods. An Atheist does not believe there is such a thing as god. Therefore an Atheist need not be an antitheist (and I suspect most aren't). They are in no way equivalent terms.
I'm not saying they're equivalent terms, I'm saying very few people appear to actually be atheists when pushed, and if they continue to say they are it's because they've started from the no god position (which they're bound to) and worked back to the i don't know position - because the actual truth is we all just don't know (I NEARLY SHOUTED THAT THEN). Especially these science folk who are coming down on the side of "we just don't know". Because if you're admitting you just don't know you're also accepting any atheist "feelings" or "yearnings" or "desires" you have for god not to exist are just that, beliefs, whilst conversly championing that athiesm isn't a belief system but and absence of a belief system.Athiests want god not to exist, they may well say they're indifferent but if you were indifferent you wouldn't describe yourself as athiest. (and spend time and energy arguing the toss)
I'm saying most people who join the athiest paradigm do it out of a secreted intolerance of religion.
mattnunn said:
carmonk said:
Anti- suggests opposition to something whilst a- represents negation. An antitheist is opposed to the belief in gods. An Atheist does not believe there is such a thing as god. Therefore an Atheist need not be an antitheist (and I suspect most aren't). They are in no way equivalent terms.
I'm not saying they're equivalent terms, I'm saying very few people appear to actually be atheists when pushed, and if they continue to say they are it's because they've started from the no god position (which they're bound to) and worked back to the i don't know position - because the actual truth is we all just don't know (I NEARLY SHOUTED THAT THEN). Especially these science folk who are coming down on the side of "we just don't know". Because if you're admitting you just don't know you're also accepting any atheist "feelings" or "yearnings" or "desires" you have for god not to exist are just that, beliefs, whilst conversly championing that athiesm isn't a belief system but and absence of a belief system.Athiests want god not to exist, they may well say they're indifferent but if you were indifferent you wouldn't describe yourself as athiest. (and spend time and energy arguing the toss)
I'm saying most people who join the athiest paradigm do it out of a secreted intolerance of religion.
mattnunn said:
Athiests want god not to exist, they may well say they're indifferent but if you were indifferent you wouldn't describe yourself as athiest. (and spend time and energy arguing the toss)
I'm saying most people who join the athiest paradigm do it out of a secreted intolerance of religion.
I can't speak for other Atheists but I'm capable of understanding that my desires over the existence or non-existence of a god or gods has no actual impact on if they do or do not. What I think does not change reality although it may change my experience of reality.I'm saying most people who join the athiest paradigm do it out of a secreted intolerance of religion.
What you seem to be utterly confusing is Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.
I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.
I'm absolutely a secularist but then again I was also a secularist when pressed for a view when I was a born-again Christian (of the full happy-clappy designation). Secularism is the only thing that guarantees the individual religious freedom and gives me freedom from religion.
I'm also a Humanist. It's in Humanism that you'll find anti-religion/anti-theism. I believe that religion is at best utterly unhelpful to the individual and will lead them to make poor choices by ignoring reality and facts. On a state level I believe that religion is a self-serving cancer on society.
NobleGuy said:
Hurragh. Possibly the first bit of sense seen on these pages for a long time.
Well, there are 4 potential positions to have. An agnostic atheist, and agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist. Which one are you? I am an agnostic atheist.(You do realism that agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, don't you?)
mattnunn said:
That's a complete failure of logic.
Theist = belief in God
Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
If i said I had a purple dragon singing the blues on my nose, you can't say I don't, you might believe a don't. If I said you had a purple dragon singing the blues on your nose you can say, for a fact, you don't, no belief needed - which leads us to why the existentialist view is probably the wisest to embrace, the universe is just a canvas.
Wrong. Atheimt is the lack of belief. Would you like to have Have a look at the dictionary definition, as you suggest?Theist = belief in God
Atheist is the opposite, either belief in no god or disbelief in god, each is a belief. Have a look in a dictionary for the definition of the word, if you like.
If i said I had a purple dragon singing the blues on my nose, you can't say I don't, you might believe a don't. If I said you had a purple dragon singing the blues on your nose you can say, for a fact, you don't, no belief needed - which leads us to why the existentialist view is probably the wisest to embrace, the universe is just a canvas.
Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)
Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic
I don't know how many times you need to be told this.
carmonk said:
Anti- suggests opposition to something whilst a- represents negation. An antitheist is opposed to the belief in gods. An Atheist does not believe there is such a thing as god. Therefore an Atheist need not be an antitheist (and I suspect most aren't). They are in no way equivalent terms.
I told him this a few pages back, but he clearly ignored me then, just Ashe will ignore you now, and anyone else who tells him what these things are. In his mind, the only way to weaken the atheist position is to pretend it is a belief in something. Of course this means that belief is something is a weak position. I think he may be digging his way out of his own argument there.IainT said:
I can't speak for other Atheists but I'm capable of understanding that my desires over the existence or non-existence of a god or gods has no actual impact on if they do or do not. What I think does not change reality although it may change my experience of reality.
What you seem to be utterly confusing is Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.
I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.
I'm absolutely a secularist but then again I was also a secularist when pressed for a view when I was a born-again Christian (of the full happy-clappy designation). Secularism is the only thing that guarantees the individual religious freedom and gives me freedom from religion.
I'm also a Humanist. It's in Humanism that you'll find anti-religion/anti-theism. I believe that religion is at best utterly unhelpful to the individual and will lead them to make poor choices by ignoring reality and facts. On a state level I believe that religion is a self-serving cancer on society.
Neatly put, Iain. It sums up my position rather well, too - except that sometimes, when I'm feeling the spiritual side of my nature bubbling up, I rather like to allow myself to be a bit of a neo-pagan animist, too!What you seem to be utterly confusing is Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.
I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.
I'm absolutely a secularist but then again I was also a secularist when pressed for a view when I was a born-again Christian (of the full happy-clappy designation). Secularism is the only thing that guarantees the individual religious freedom and gives me freedom from religion.
I'm also a Humanist. It's in Humanism that you'll find anti-religion/anti-theism. I believe that religion is at best utterly unhelpful to the individual and will lead them to make poor choices by ignoring reality and facts. On a state level I believe that religion is a self-serving cancer on society.
IainT said:
I can't speak for other Atheists but I'm capable of understanding that my desires over the existence or non-existence of a god or gods has no actual impact on if they do or do not. What I think does not change reality although it may change my experience of reality.
What you seem to be utterly confusing is Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.
I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.
I'm absolutely a secularist but then again I was also a secularist when pressed for a view when I was a born-again Christian (of the full happy-clappy designation). Secularism is the only thing that guarantees the individual religious freedom and gives me freedom from religion.
I'm also a Humanist. It's in Humanism that you'll find anti-religion/anti-theism. I believe that religion is at best utterly unhelpful to the individual and will lead them to make poor choices by ignoring reality and facts. On a state level I believe that religion is a self-serving cancer on society.
Excellent and concise summation.What you seem to be utterly confusing is Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.
I am, to all practical extents, an Atheist.
I'm absolutely a secularist but then again I was also a secularist when pressed for a view when I was a born-again Christian (of the full happy-clappy designation). Secularism is the only thing that guarantees the individual religious freedom and gives me freedom from religion.
I'm also a Humanist. It's in Humanism that you'll find anti-religion/anti-theism. I believe that religion is at best utterly unhelpful to the individual and will lead them to make poor choices by ignoring reality and facts. On a state level I believe that religion is a self-serving cancer on society.
NobleGuy said:
My point from the beginning was that "magic hydra" and "wicker buffalo" aren't as likely as God to be a creator
Yes they are.They're all vanishingly unlikely to be creators.
NobleGuy said:
unless carmonk is using those terms to mean "something God-like", in which case he's using unnecessarily derogatory terms to belittle the beliefs of others (which I always knew to be the case).
If by "something God-like" you mean "something utterly implausible" I suspect that might be the case.Sadly it is quite difficult or even impossible to point out to someone, even showing the working, that their world view is delusional nonsense without risking upset.
The terms used are therefore necessarily derogatory.
NobleGuy said:
My whole point was that carmonk is a p***k. Do you not understand this yet...?
...and this demonstrates the existence of heaven how??? 
fluffnik said:
Gow3r said:
And I dont need you to tell me to re-read the OT, as I believe the whole of the Bible is the word of God
Which cannon/translation?Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff