Religion.. Again.. (beat that horse dead-er)

I've reached a point where I just want one religion to "win". And by win I mean everyone converts to that religion.

If that were to happen, maybe, by some divine force (See: oxymoron) people involved in religious activity would realize that nothing would change. People would still fight, still kill each other, still be retarded, etc.

I vote for Scientology.

I've reached a point where I just want one religion to "win". And by win I mean everyone converts to that religion. If that were to happen, maybe, by some divine force (See: oxymoron) people involved in religious activity would realize that nothing would change. People would still fight, still kill each other, still be retarded, etc. I vote for Scientology.

The Allied Atheist Alliance shall prevail! This is the dawning of the sea otter!

Agnosticism is the only relevant assumption based on facts. Nobody knows.

Christians, Jews, Muslims are all wrong. They can prove nothing.
Athiests and multiple theists are all wrong, they can prove nothing.

The only thing that makes rational sense is Agnosticism. If you are an Atheist, you are just as big of a problem as anybody who claim religion.

edit: I guess there's a church of 'Apathetic Agnostic'. They must pay a lot in Google Search engine optimization.

Dev, you're using the common yet insidious definition of atheism and agnosticism. The atheist from your definition is a straw-man that is easily attacked and brought down. In reality the vast majority of people who self-identify as atheists fit your definition of agnostic. Let's first clarify how I, and most of the self-identified atheists, would define the term and then look at why I label the definition you're using as insidious.

The common definition of these terms assumes a religiosity spectrum with atheism and theism diametrically opposed and with agnosticism as a middle ground. Instead, let's define atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism as two binaries that answer completely separate questions. If you are asked whether or not you believed in God you would use the first binary, and if asked whether or not you are certain of God's existence/nonexistence you would use the second binary.

In other words, a theist is someone who believes in God. If you are asked the question, "Do you believe in God," unless you can answer with an affirmation, you are an atheist. If you are certain of your answer to the previous question you are a gnostic. Otherwise, you are an agnostic. So you can either be a gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. At this point it should be pointed out that those who express gnosticism are almost exclusively theists.

Now that my definition of these terms is clear, let's address why my definition is superior to yours. First of all, it is etymologically correct. If you break the word atheism apart it literally means without theism. Furthermore, if you look at the word gnosticism it means pertaining to knowledge. Theism and gnosticism inherently address fundamentally different things, so your definition seems incorrect to use them as part of the same spectrum. Secondly, my definition is more consistent with the way things actually are since my definition of atheist includes both gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists, whereas your definition of atheist is limited to just gnostic atheists. As I've already pointed out, the gnostic atheist is a beast not really found in nature. Thirdly, my definition provides more information than your definition as your definition offers a triad of options about your knowledge/faith whereas my definition offers a tetrad of options. Finally, my definition does not allow the straw-man fallacy to be used as I show below.

Since the etymology of the terms has been established, it should be clear that the theists have hijacked the word "atheist" for their own purposes. Because, as you correctly identified, the certainty of the nonexistence of God is as illogical as the certainty of his existence, your definition allows the theist to put atheism on a philosophical foundation as questionable as theism itself. The almost nonexistent (gnostic) atheist is easily brought down, and then the claim is made that (both gnostic and agnostic) atheism is philosophically foolish. This is obviously a pernicious abuse of language, and should not be allowed to stand. This is why I have long advocated for the use of my definition, and why I call your definition insidious.

So in light of what we've discussed, it seems to be the gnostics that are the issue according to you, not the atheist or the theist. I point out again, however, that gnosticism is implicitly linked with faith. You can't definitively say anything about the supernatural without a rigid belief in something. All atheists say is that we have no evidence for God. So if gnosticism is the problem, the theists are exponentially worse than the atheists.

But what about the agnostics? Are the agnostic atheists as bad as the agnostic theists? Even here, I would argue that the theists are on epistemically shakier grounds than atheists. I could point out things like burden of proof, or use science in conjunction with Occam's Razor to make this point, however that is a discussion for a different thread.

But ultimately the point to this post is that atheism and theism are different. They make entirely different points using entirely different arguments. Equating the two is specious.

Denying the existence of God is Atheism, right. I get the definition. Having no proof is still the same regardless of how much you want to regurgitate hipster ideologies.

If you don't claim to have the answer, you should "self-identify" as an agnostic.

agnostic - a person who does not have a deifnite belief about whether God exists or not -a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

I myself do not believe in God in a biblical sense, but I won't deny that some superior intelligence could have created the universe - I have no knowledge either way. Claiming to have knowledge that you don't is just moronic, you should know this.

"Do you believe in God," unless you can answer with an affirmation, you are an atheist.

This isn't true. You can choose to not have a definite belief whether God exists or not. That is literally called being agnostic. You do not have to identify yourself as a theist or an atheist, because nobody gives two shits about your or my philosophy.

And why are you arguing definitions? You completely avoided my point and context.

Christians, Jews, Muslims are all wrong. They can prove nothing. Athiests and multiple theists are all wrong, they can prove nothing.

This is the summing it all up. Atheism says all religions are wrong and they are right. Agnostics say nobody knows shit.

This is the summing it all up. Atheism says all religions are wrong and they are right. Agnostics say nobody knows shit.

It's where Occam's Razor comes in.
Until we can conduct more experiments on the subject of the Big Bang, we can't prove much. And even then, a simple play on words will make literally any religion match up, such as "how long IS Seven Days in God's eyes?" or any religion where a deity ejaculated, and the universe was born.
If I'm correct, Islam scientists, and Buddhism both do their best to match proven science with their own ideas, and any newage group is basically just a rewrite of old ideas with news ideas thrown in.

tl;dr
Agnostic is the way to go, since death is the only proof atm.

You completely avoided my point and context.

I think KA's post explains it pretty well, but let me try a different approach.

When an atheist says, "there is no God," it is not meant to be taken as an epistemologically rigorous statement. This is the main difference in the thought process between an atheist and many theists. When a theist states that, "God exists," he can mean that to be an epistemologically rigorous statement since theists believe that a priori knowledge exists. In other words, they believe knowledge can come by means other than empiricism, such as revelation. The typical atheist is not willing to accept this. This epistemological difference is why atheism is more logical than that particular brand of (gnostic) theism. Your problem isn't with atheism's logic, which makes no assertions of certainty. Your problem is with our PR department, which has not yet corrected this colloquial misconception. That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post.

In your initial post you seemed to be insisting that the atheist's statement is epistemologically rigorous. My response was meant to point out that your statement was incorrect with respect to the vast majority of atheists. It is why I went off on the seemingly tangential discussion about definitions. The equivocation inherent to your definition of atheist, along with the other reasons I listed, is why I insist on using my definition.

Desmethones seemed to be approximately that in the past IIRC

With respect to a logically inconsistent theology I might claim to be an epistemologically rigorous gnostic atheist. With theologies that grossly contradict science, I believe they're incorrect in the same way I believe that I live in the United States. For a more generic theology I have only ever claimed agnostic atheism.

The types that argue that God does not exist as if that statement is somehow factual would be considered gnostic atheists. Desmethones seemed to be approximately that in the past IIRC, though I could be recalling incorrectly and I wouldn't be surprised if his views have shifted over time (as mine have.)

Ah, what a lovely chart. Now it all makes sense (definitions wise).

Your problem is with our PR department, which has not yet corrected this colloquial misconception. That's what I was trying to point out in my previous post.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't even think I have a problem with the PR department. I just don't believe in God, and I don't not believe in God. (sorry for le double negative). I fall firmly into the blue category in that proof does not exist. On either spectrum. I don't speculate into either theism, because of the lack of evidence. This isn't a troll, but I merely don't care for theism or atheism. I feel they are both wrong, because neither has proof. I like questioning everything.

This is why I feel Athiests and Theists are legitimately the same problem. They all claim to know without proof, and gnostics are even worse because they claim to have evidence when it's all conjecture.

Agnosticism is the only relevant assumption based on facts. Nobody knows. Christians, Jews, Muslims are all wrong. They can prove nothing. Athiests and multiple theists are all wrong, they can prove nothing. The only thing that makes rational sense is Agnosticism. If you are an Atheist, you are just as big of a problem as anybody who claim religion. edit: I guess there's a church of 'Apathetic Agnostic'. They must pay a lot in Google Search engine optimization.

You talk about atheism and agnosticism as if they are mutually exclusive. They are not. I'm an agnostic atheist. It's an easy mistake to make, because a lot of people use the terms improperly.

I guess I don't understand the difference of saying that "God doesn't exist" and "I have no knowledge if God exists or not"

This and similar charts explain it pretty well.



Basically, a/gnostic determines whether you claim to have proof/knowledge, while a/theist determines whether you claim a belief. I don't believe God (or a God) exists, but I don't claim to have proof/knowledge of that, therefore agnostic atheist.

The types that argue that God does not exist as if that statement is somehow factual would be considered gnostic atheists. Desmethones seemed to be approximately that in the past IIRC, though I could be recalling incorrectly and I wouldn't be surprised if his views have shifted over time (as mine have.)

I've reached a point where I just want one religion to "win". And by win I mean everyone converts to that religion. If that were to happen, maybe, by some divine force (See: oxymoron) people involved in religious activity would realize that nothing would change. People would still fight, still kill each other, still be retarded, etc.

This is sort of a paradox. People fight for different religions or beliefs. Conforming to one religion would cause people to see why people fight for different religions.

Although this would never come to pass. Humanity thrives in individuality over conformity.

This is sort of a paradox. People fight for different religions or beliefs. Conforming to one religion would cause people to see why people fight for different religions. Although this would never come to pass. Humanity thrives in individuality over conformity.

Well, I mean, you can find 100 other reasons to fight.
Religion is just a way to get soldiers into the army; after that the army doesn't care why they kill.

9/11 = muslim = hate all muslims = go get oil
The war was over oil, the warriors were religious. Assuming the world was all one religion, or non-religious, we would just be more open about it. "We want oil, let's go fuck a nigger country in the ass"