Something I find typically annoying with atheists.

[CassinoChips]

It's not a middle ground. It exists outside the spectrum of belief, because there is no opportunity to believe or disbelieve.

That's like saying life and death are the only two options, and either you're alive, or you're dead. But if a being was never conceived, they never existed. Thus were neither alive nor dead.

 

[Ewan]

It's not a middle ground. It exists outside the spectrum of belief, because there is no opportunity to believe or disbelieve.

That's like saying life and death are the only two options, and either you're alive, or you're dead. But if a being was never conceived, they never existed. Thus were neither alive nor dead.

No it's not. If you aren't conceived then we aren't talking about any 'thing'.

But you have a brain and that is not outside the spectrum of beliefs. You have beliefs and you are without beliefs such as the belief that a being X exists.

 

[CassinoChips]

To believe ~A, you have to be aware of A.

We can go around in circles like this for a long time. I'm starting to run out of ways to explain my point, so... I guess I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ewan]

I agree.
To be without something, knowing about it not required though. I feel you have yet to explain why that's wrong.

I guess so.

I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion though. Thanks.

 

[GBJoker]

tl;dr Heard it all anyways...

First, atheism is not a religion to me. ME. To some atheists, yes. And they make us smart ones look pretty bad too, I admit.

Second, if you were truly an atheist, you wouldn't argue against the Bible. I'm certainly not going to waste my time arguing over one single ideology when I'm clearly stating I'm against all.

Edit: Okay, I skimmed a bit. To quote Seinfeld, the knower of all, for the debate of belief... "You can't over die, you can't over dry. Once the towel is wet, it's wet. It's not partially wet or partially dry." Do you believe in a god or multiple gods? Yes or no. No middle ground.

 

[ClaireSensei]

I'm agnostic i do not believe their is a god. Howeever i am not so prideful as to say theirs no way he could not be real. In my believe if their is a god he is truly evil, and i rather go to hell, then serve him.

To my point. It is reasonable to an atheist. Not to a Christian. To a Christian, belief in God is the reasonable assumption.



Are you sure about that?

-Evolution
-Black hole thermodynamics
-Field theory
-Dark Matter
-Big Bang

.

evo is really a proven fact however because of how many religion people or attacking it if they made it into a law it would and will cause a war.
dark matter a fact to. big bang not 100% evident yet however we have a lot of evidnet on it at the moment as well as black holes.
you mess up big with putting field theory.
you see sic is first yo find a small amount of prove of something or you have a ideal then you test it and test it until either proven wrong or you get enough evident it becomes a law.


sorry bad grammar

 

[GBJoker]

evo is really a proven fact however because of how many religion people or attacking it if they made it into a law it would and will cause a war.
dark matter a fact to. big bang not 100% evident yet however we have a lot of evidnet on it at the moment as well as black holes.
you mess up big with putting field theory.
you see sic is first yo find a small amount of prove of something or you have a ideal then you test it and test it until either proven wrong or you get enough evident it becomes a law.

Evolution is not a law, and technically, barely a fact.

First off:
Law : Something that is true no matter what we mere humans think.
Fact : Something the majority of us mere humans agree to be true.
Theory : A hypothesis that is based off observation, subject to (hopefully) extreme testing, which gets revised based off new observations.
Idea : Something any 1st grader can throw out there.

There's only three laws in the universe. The speed of light in a vacuum, charge of an electron, and Planck's Constant. Everything else in science is still, by definition, a fact or a theory.

Dark matter is a theory, not a fact. Black holes are a fact though. And the Big Bang THEORY, is still just a theory.

Looking at all of that, my only conclusion, based on observation, is the ideology of a god or god like beings started as a theory, but over the centuries has become simply an idea. Therefore, why would I "believe" in it? I don't, therefore, I'm an atheist.

Going off that (Yes, I know I'm wandering), it bugs me to no end that people think atheists believe in no gods or god like beings. Some do, maybe, I'll give ya that. I don't. I don't need to disbelieve in gods, the same as how I don't need to disbelieve in aliens, or Ewoks, or magic, or Minotaurs, or fire-breathing dragons of doom, or hell, that Final Fantasy is real outside of computer programming.

 

[Ewan]

You have a strange definition of fact. They are actually indisputable truths. Do you think gravity is something that most people agree to be true?

Also, the things you listed aren't laws. They are constants. Laws are like Newton's First Law etc.

And a theory is not a hypothesis in science. It's a way to describe the factual data of phenomena in the world.

 

[GBJoker]

You have a strange definition of fact. They are actually indisputable truths. Do you think gravity is something that most people agree to be true?

Also, the things you listed aren't laws. They are constants. Laws are like Newton's First Law etc.

And a theory is not a hypothesis in science. It's a way to describe the factual data of phenomena in the world.

"The Road to Reality" Roger Penrose

Read it some time.

Newton's first law, thermodynamics, etc... Are facts, by the general (ironically) fact accepted that we have no clue how those things work in other parts of the universe, much less outside the visible universe.

And yes, gravity is something the just most people agree to be true. See : Religious people.

 

[Ewan]

I doubt that you operate thinking that facts are just what the majority agree to be true.

See: Definitions of the words you listed.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Regardless of what the actual bickering in here is about (I really won't bother trying to parse 7 pages of convoluted flaming) here is something I think can be safely said about everyone, Christian and atheist and scientologist alike.

No one is perfect. You will find Christians who are little more than religious nuts (I do believe there was one on an episode of Wife Swap and it was very.... enlightening the extent people carry such stupid opinions) and you will find atheists and agnostics and every other shade of the rainbow can be just as bad.

Amarant, I was truly offended when you said that 'intelligent Christians' are few in numbers. I am Christian, and it seems like quite a stereotype to me when you took your limited personal experience of 'intelligent Christians' as a sparse labeling. That is the classic definition of a stereotype. All humans are intelligent, some are just not as reasonable as others. I believe that is the word you intended to use. Lack of intelligence means a lack of humanity (for our intellect defines our species).

Some people hold their faith very dear to their heart. Some are much more casual about it, like myself. The entire point in faith is to believe in someone or something without any proof to guarantee that faith. You can also call it trust. It is what everyone uses when they vote for a new President -- there is nothing to keep that person from blowing off their promises, but you vote for them on faith, on trust, that they will.

This is what all anti-religion (not anti-Christian) arguments make -- that there is no proof. But lack of proof is the defining quality of faith or trust. If you had proof or evidence, then it wouldn't be faith, it'd be an investment -- putting stock into something that you know will turn in your favor. The object of that faith can never be proven, but the faith itself is undoubtedly there.

Also, evolution has not been proven. There are yawning chasms of in palentology still. And consider that not even Darwin could explain the development of things like the eye, or hands.

No theory is infallible. No religion is perfect, and neither are the people that adhere to it. Just accept it and move on. No Christian is going to convert an atheist (I really think such a call upon oneself to convert the 'non-believer' is bullshit; everyone is entitled to their belief and it isn't faith if someone is forced into accepting it) and no atheist is going to convert a Christian. Accept this inconsequential defeat and move on.

Thank you.

 

[GBJoker]

I doubt that you operate thinking that facts are just what the majority agree to be true.

See: Definitions of the words you listed.

I do, actually. There's no reason for me to go around pretending that what hasn't been accepted by the majority to be true.

And yes, I'll delve into the horrible world of semantics for a second here.

Theism is not even remotely close to majority consensus. The fact that people have been arguing over which god is more real than that other person's god over there, makes what could be a majority suddenly half to 1/5th that size.

 

[Ewan]

Regardless of what the actual bickering in here is about (I really won't bother trying to parse 7 pages of convoluted flaming)

You haven't read what's been written but you'll conclude that it's flaming. Wow.

Also, evolution has not been proven. There are yawning chasms of in palentology still. And consider that not even Darwin could explain the development of things like the eye, or hands.

We're actually very lucky to have any fossils at all. In fact, fossils are just lucky bonuses to add to the wealth of evidence for evolution. Genetics alone is enough to prove evolution so I don't see how the so called 'chasms' are relevant. I wrote 'chasms' because we actually have sufficient fossil evidence, which is available for anyone to look at and see for themselves.

Also, why are you expecting Darwin to explain everything? He lived over 150 years ago and didn't have access to the knowledge we have now. If Newton couldn't work out the force applied on a beam, would Newtonian mechanics be wrong?
On a side note, we now have a very detailed explanation of how eyes and hands formed.

I do, actually. There's no reason for me to go around pretending that what hasn't been accepted by the majority to be true.

Majority =/= truth.

Also, I wonder what a judge would think if you were convicted of a crime and you said the facts are just only what the majority hold to be true.

 

[Dragon Mage]

You haven't read what's been written but you'll conclude that it's flaming. Wow.

Yes, yes I will. :3 Thank you. From the last few pages that I did scan, there was a lot of smack-talk tossed about.

We're actually very lucky to have any fossils at all. In fact, fossils are just lucky bonuses to add to the wealth of evidence for evolution. Genetics alone is enough to prove evolution so I don't see how the so called 'chasms' are relevant. I wrote 'chasms' because we actually have sufficient fossil evidence, which is available for anyone to look at and see for themselves.

Also, why are you expecting Darwin to explain everything? He lived over 150 years ago and didn't have access to the knowledge we have now. If Newton couldn't work out the force applied on a beam, would Newtonian mechanics be wrong?
On a side note, we now have a very detailed explanation of how eyes and hands formed.

You think the creator of such an idea would be able to explain how the most important things in our lives developed, wouldn't you? Ah.

If you are privy to such evidence, then please link to the websites that have it so we can all read it straight from the horses mouth. Thank you.

And must I remind you that the evolution theory is just that? A theory. Not a proof, but something that could be possible but ultimately isn't provable. Much like religion and faith, actually. Belief in a theory is no different than belief in a religion's teachings. Take that as you will.

 

[Ewan]

Yes, yes I will. :3 Thank you. From the last few pages that I did scan, there was a lot of smack-talk tossed about.

I can assure you that at least my discussion with CassinoChips wasn't full of smack-talk.
Lord Flashheart effectively said "tl;dr" in the thread about parents being bad by letting their children play video games if I remember correctly, when you posted a massive response to him. There are parallels to be drawn IMO.

You think the creator of such an idea would be able to explain how the most important things in our lives developed, wouldn't you? Ah.

Actually, no I wouldn't. In the same way I wouldn't expect astronomers hundreds of years ago to explain everything about the universe. There is a pool of human knowledge that develops. How you are expecting everything to be explained by one man is beyond me.
But let's hypothetically say that Darwin was wrong about everything. This does not in any way refute the evidence we have for evolution because it is independent of any one person. Or any person for that matter.

If you are privy to such evidence, then please link to the websites that have it so we can all read it straight from the horses mouth. Thank you.

Privy? I am in no way privy. The information is free on the internet and is very easy to find. You make it sound like it's hard to find, when you could have easily just typed it into google. You give me the impression that you haven't even looked for evidence based on that fact that you think I'm privy to it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/
A great site with many articles on evolution. More specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
'The Greatest Show On Earth - Richard Dawkins' is a good book that explains it for the layman like you and I.
Even better, walk into your local museum. Next time your in a big city, check out their museum as well. Many museums have replicas of fossils as well but you can even look at the originals in some of these larger museums.

I haven't done the evidence justice though. There are hundreds of sites with the evidence for you to look at.

And must I remind you that the evolution theory is just that? A theory. Not a proof, but something that could be possible but ultimately isn't provable.

No. The scientific method contradicts this. Someone can have a theory, produce an experiment to test it and gather results. Their paper is then peer reviewed and then published. Theories are proved all the time, how did you come to the conclusion that theories can't be proved? Do you think gravity hasn't yet been proved?
Theories in the scientific context, best explain phenomena in the real world. Both evolution and gravity explain phenomena and are both back up by peer reviewed, scientific evidence.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Actually, no I wouldn't. In the same way I wouldn't expect astronomers hundreds of years ago to explain everything about the universe. There is a pool of human knowledge that develops. How you are expecting everything to be explained by one man is beyond me.
But let's hypothetically say that Darwin was wrong about everything. This does not in any way refute the evidence we have for evolution because it is independent of any one person. Or any person for that matter.

Well, considering how our knowledge of evolution has NOT deviated very far from the original theory -- very little, in fact -- then this will be one pool of knowledge very, very slow to grow. And, like the astronomers of old that you mentioned, we should not assume that the theory of evolution is correct considering it has only had little over a century to grow and -- please excuse the pun -- to evolve. It took thousands of years for the heliocentric model to be widely introduced and given support, long after Aristotle wrote about it.

With this scale in mind, the evolution theory is still very young and, as such, is no doubt carrying some flaws in it. Let's take this theory slowly, exercise it carefully, and not be too quick to take it as absolute truth. The last time a powerful institution assumed the early theory to be the right theory, Galileo was almost burned for being a heretic.

Christens have learned from that, at least.

Now please keep in mind that in no way am I against the evolution theory. I think it has carried some very valid points, and the similarities are plain to see. I'm not arguing that it is a fool theory in the slightest sense. But I do think that we should keep our options open concerning such a broad theory. A theory that attempts to encompass the rules for everything at once will be a theory that always misses several important things. The example I bring to you is that of the classical theories of Newtonian physics, general and special relativity. These theories were perfect in explaining everything for centuries until we discovered that they don't apply at the quantum level. Today, scientists are still trying to find a universal theory of laws that will apply to both big objects (planets, stars) and small objects (atoms, quarks).

Do you see why I think we should approach the evolution theory with a grain of doubt?



And thank you for the link, it was very interesting, but that isn't quite what I was asking for. I know of the bone structures between birds, bats, and humans. I mean at what point did the eye evolve? As very simple organisms with no other means of sensing than touch or pressure (much like the hairs on a fly will sense air pressure) which would serve the earliest organisms perfectly fine... why develop visual sight when it'd be superfluous to the existing sensory facilities? That's where the hitch is. It's a difficult question to answer. And what creature first began to develop these rudimentary eyes? There's no knowledge of them yet.

According to the evolution theory, life started as one-celled organisms in the ocean. These organism grew larger, more complex, moved onto land, etc. But those first water-to-land organisms would be blind because the way a paramecium senses objects is by fine hair-like protrusions. No eyes. So we should eventually find creatures that had no eye sockets in their skulls to find the absolutely earliest ancestor. No such evidence of such a creature has been found, however.

Like all theories still being explored, this one has a long way to go.

No. The scientific method contradicts this. Someone can have a theory, produce an experiment to test it and gather results. Their paper is then peer reviewed and then published. Theories are proved all the time, how did you come to the conclusion that theories can't be proved? Do you think gravity hasn't yet been proved?
Theories in the scientific context, best explain phenomena in the real world. Both evolution and gravity explain phenomena and are both back up by peer reviewed, scientific evidence.

Science is anything but absolute. It is constantly changing. A theory is just an idea, a propostion of how something works. Unless it is a mechanic -- like Newtonian mechanics of inertia, velocity and the like -- then there always exists a chance that it will be contradicted at some point.

Again, the theory of gravity and Newtonian physics. From all observations and experiments (peer review does not make a theory a fact) these theories are true. But they are contradicted at the sub-atomic level. Theories rarely cover all bases. If gravity doesn't hold true for the atoms of the universe, then evolution probably won't hold true at some point or another.

Theories are concepts. Visualizations that generally do or do not work. But they are not proofs.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Peronally, I find atheists very boring. Magic and theism do not go hand in hand. Theres a scientist who explains a theory of a civilizations progression after many millennia.

Type 0 is our civilization currently. We still rely on fossil fuels. It is said that in a hundred years, we will be rapidly expanding toward type 1.

Type 1 is able to control the weather and all Earthly functions, as well as being able to use the sun as our main energy supply.

Type 2 masters interstellar travel and colonizes planets. They can even make their own planets. Also, they have mastered A.I.

Type 3 has mastered the very physics of space, being able to manifest gravity and every force to their will and make perpetual energy resources.

Type 4 says that we have mastered the very fabric of space and time, and can manipulate the entire universe as we see fit. Even create our own. Now who could that be?

 

[.Ted]

I'm a Christian (Catholic, to be exact). But my lifestyle is not the same as some extremists'. I haven't gone to church in a while, and while some liberal things disgust me to death (sleeveless shirts, bleagh!), I'm generally fine with everything.

It's the extremists, though, that give a bad name to just about every form of religion. Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, you name it. And I see the point the first poster was trying to make. Atheists are no exception, as some just want to NOT believe in anything and not knowing the whole concept of Atheism. It's like the Catholic priests who sexually molest children, or Muslim terrorists in the Middle East, or even Christian extremists who wouldn't mind seeing a criminal charged with rape being stoned to death.

That last one was, of course, just an assumption, but it's possible that we have people like that. Same thing with Atheism. While most made their decision for the right reasons, some are even willing to bash other people's beliefs just to prove themselves right.

 

[Harlequin]

Ok let me first point out that I'm what is considered an agnostic atheist.

You can't be both. To be one is to not be the other.

Meaning I admit to the fact I don't have a clue what the truth is

If you don't have a clue what the truth is how can you declare it as fact?

but that I side with other theories and not with Christianity or other religions in their strict beliefs of whatever it happens to be more often then

What other theories?

Strict beliefs? Surely you mean strict morality? And even then that's just your opinion. It doesn't make it so.

The only reason Atheists like me deny the existance of god (gods in general but in the US mostly Christianity) is because it's crammed down our throats so we have to back up and say 'Fuck you.'

You deny the existence of a higher being because it has been crammed down your throat?

Not perhaps because you genuinely believe there isn't a higher being?

Atheism is not a 'belief system" that is analogous to Christianity, that is unless you find science to be a belief system. What atheists rely on is the power to science to come to the reasonable conclusion that the God pointed at by Christians does not exist.

No. Atheism is the belief in no spirituality. Science is not the basis of the belief nor the basis for the belief.

If there is no belief one becomes Agnostic by default. If one believes that one does not know nor could ever know one is Agnostic.

The irony is that belief is based on not knowing. That is why I can't take Atheism seriously.

This is rationale decision making, not a blind adherence to any religion.

Blind? Where is the rationale in believing our globe to be spherical if you yourself haven't circumnavigated it? Or have you? To believe all these Scientists, books and TV aren't lying to you?

Christians believe in their religion despite any evidence leading to the contrary. This 'faith' despite the odds makes it a belief system.

Do provide said 'evidence'.

You're reasoning is flawed. In this manner the Boogey Man, Santa Clause, Greek deities, etc... are all true. An idea of something can exist without it being a part of reality.

Reality? Define reality. Or at least, your idea of it.

Christians follow a very key assumption that god exists. There is no evidence or argument here, it is simply taken upon 'faith'. Atheist belief that god doesn't exists isn't taken upon faith, it is a conclusion derived from scientific analysis.

There is no evidence to anything. There is only reference.

Saying that there is cognitive dissonance would assume that the atheist belief that 'no god exists' is a belief and not a conclusion arrived at through a line of reasoning.

As if Christians don't reason.

If I see you eating a sandwich, I believe you are eating a sandwich. However, to suggest I knew you were eating a sandwich would be a declaration of me having infinite power. I could be dreaming, you may not exist, I may not exist and so on and so forth.

We do not know, we only believe based on reference. Such as my retinas provided the reference then. Not evidence.

Many atheists WOULD switch if the scientific evidence heavily weighed in that god does exist. There is no cognitive dissonance because the method of reasoning has stayed the same, just a different conclusion.

How can you possibly speak for anyone other than yourself? You're merely making a prediction.

Don't get bogged down by semantics. Atheists simply classify the group of individuals who don't believe in god; it has nothing to do with 'why' they don't.

No. They believe there are no higher beings or spirituality. The two are different. To not believe in God is not synonymous with believing he doesn't exist.

This seems like a reasonable assumption anyway rather than the alternative of a blind belief that no god exists for no apparent reason.

You belief is as blind as mine.

That's exactly the reason. There is no such thing as 'faith' in science. If there is no evidence then there is no conclusion. This is rational thought. If you can't substantially prove something then you don't conclude it exists. This is how science works.

There is faith in anything we wish to put it in.

Assume god exists --> too many contradictions ~ god doesn't exist.
Assume god doesn't exist --> insubstantial evidence ~ god doesn't exists.

There are no contradictions. Secondly, that thought pattern doesn't qualify Atheism, only Agnosticism, which is in itself unqualified.

Science is not 100%. I never said this or gave you reason to conclude this. I've continually said that science has allowed sufficient findings that leads us to the reasonable conclusion that god does not exist.

Have they traversed eternity to provide 'sufficient findings' to 'prove' God doesn't exist?

You can, for example, be an agnostic atheist which would be thinking Gods are unknowable or unprovable, but not believing in them at the same time.

You can't. An Atheist believes there are no Gods. An Agnostic hasn't decided what to believe. It's black and white.

Atheism is divided into weak and strong positions. I'm a weak atheist because I lack a belief in a particular God.

That's Agnosticism.

Did I say conclusive proof?

Is not all proof conclusive? Is it not by definition conclusive?

Okay, let's just take what you said to be true. You can't prove god to exist. You also can't prove that he doesn't exist. What is the more reasonable thing to conclude? That god doesn't exist.

Not in the slightest

Surely it's only logical from your own reasoning to call yourself Agnostic?

You're going to probably ask "why not the other way?" Take a minute and think about the problem of simply positively assuming anything you can't prove/disprove. I hate to use old examples, but by this method you can essentially believe in anything. The Boogey Man. Can you prove he exists? Can you prove he doesn't exist? What's the reasonable course of action?

Is the Bogeyman not folkloric? Can you prove it's not historically accurate?

That's not reasoning, it's just arbitrary belief. That's not something that you should just simply do.

No you're right. I do however believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. If you want to say he did exist but wasn't the Son of God go ahead. But there is reference in the belief. Much as there is some reference to yours, only it sounds as if you're treating your reference as fact, which it isn't.

I say that atheists lack belief due to science. You say no it's schema. I argue how science allows atheists to believe in science despite the 'schema' of the individual.

You come back and say "that doesn't matter, it's schema."

You see the problem here? You can't just reach a conclusion that something is due to 'schema' because it is 'schema'.



Again, stop saying 'schema' because what atheists rely on is SCIENCE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCHEMA.

No it is schema. It's how the brain works. How his, yours and mine work. How we process information. Of course I have no proof but I do have reference.

A Christian who uses science will reach the same conclusion as an atheist who uses science.

That is the beauty of science; it is unbiased.

It is unbiased. Yet it would seem you believe science doesn't belong in religion.

Science doesn't allow a conclusion that something exists without some substantial proof that it exists. Again, this is how science works.

That is how it works, yet ironically that is where it fails. To put your faith in a fallible medium. Is that not infinite, like many believe the being(s) above us to be.

Scientific conclusion is not belief. It is a tool utilized for rational decision making. That is the key difference between Christian belief and Atheistic (who rely on science) belief (since you seem key on 'semantics' this is not belief but a reasoned conclusion reached via substantial scientific evidence).

There is no difference. Both use reference. As explained earlier in this post.

Is rationale not in the mind? Is conclusion not in the mind? Is science not in the mind? Are they not concepts? Is conceptualisation not in the mind?

Yes, I agree that people are biased. However, science and logic are not biased; they are just tools.

Logic is not biased? Is logic not schema?

And when these tool are used properly, despite the person utilizing them, they reach the same conclusion that god doesn't exist. This allows the atheist to reason to his conclusion.

How do they reach that conclusion? Please show me how you believe that.

This is very different from Christian belief on 'faith'. There is no reasoning, argument,

What are we doing now?

proof,

There is no such proof in any field.

analysis, etc.. here.

What do you suppose a Bible study is?

This is one of the hallmarks of Christianity, a Christian's belief in god is suppose to be without any reasoning. This is what makes it so divine and powerful.

This attitude is one of the hallmarks of a bigot.

You sound like a very pretentious person. Who are you to claim what is arrogant and ignorant. Come back with an argument and maybe I'll take your statements more seriously.

Rich. Coming from someone who doesn't find logic nor reasoning subjective.

You should probably change the title of the thread to "Something I find typically annoying with morons."

Or perhaps "Something I find typically annoying with humans."

Seeing as none of us know the truth.

And another thing. A man must never use the bible to support points in arguments; the bible is too subjective to provide supports for arguments.

Philosophically speaking everything is subjective. The Bible provides reference.

Then how should a man read the bible? Once again, it's useless.

How on Earth does that mean it's useless?

Nobody can agree on what the bible actually says--

Of course people can. I agree with many Christians.

Might I suggest secular humanism, which operates independently of religion?

And what would be the point of that?

When there is no evidence, a man must choose not to believe.

Must? You're telling people what to believe?

There is never evidence, only reference. When there is reference mancan only believe.

That's skepticism, a characteristic many atheists have.

And other people too.

Another point about atheism being a religion: Atheism is actually the lack of religion. If you don't believe in any religion, then there's a default position, which is atheism.

No. If you believe there is no spirituality you are Atheist. Agnostic is the default position.

It's not agnosticism because agnosticism, in its truest definition, means that you don't believe it's possible to know if god exists, which means you are asserting a statement about god. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you think god doesn't exist. It means you don't believe he exists; and a man usually has no reason to believe in him--a man who does not know anything about god has no reason to believe him.

Nonsense. To be an Atheist is to believe there is no God or spirituality. To be Agnostic is to be undecided.

Similarly, a man who does not know about the fairies at the bottom of the garden does not have a reason to believe in them.

Even bigger nonsense. Those fairies have no reference in which to believe in them.

That is unless you're stating they do and providing said reference, at which point believing in them is to believe what you say of them seeing as that's where I'm basing the belief on. Do you see how it works now?

Atheism does not assume the nonexistence of a god, an atheist just doesn't believe there is one/are any.

An Atheist is the belief that there is no God.
Not that there may not be a God. That is Agnosticism.

And finally; let's say there is a being X. If you don't know about it's existence, do you believe it exists or doesn't exist? Belief is a binary position. You either believe or don't believe. How can you not disbelieve something that you don't know exists?

You can use reference. The Bible says it exists, there is the reference.

A doctrine whose only statement is that god (probably) doesn't exist isn't much of a doctrine to begin with.

Were you expecting a code of laws to come with Atheism? A doctrine is what it is. How is it not 'much of a doctrine'?

As explained already, there should be a distinction between strong-atheism and agnostic-atheism, the latter category of which most people fit into--

An illogical argument. First of all, why should there be a distinction? Why does it matter if you're Agnostic or Atheist?

Secondly, Agnosticism is indecision, Atheism is the belief in no God.

By using the non-term Agnostic-Atheist, you're saying:

"Someone who hasn't made they're mind up but believes there is no God or spirituality."

Is that not a fundamental contradiction in the usage?

Whether or not a man says he doesn't believe in god or he believes there is no god, the statement is still a negative, and logically, a man cannot believe in something that does not exist.

But man doesn't have proof it doesn't exist, so man must admit he is ignorant in that respect. So is it logical to make the jump from Agnostic to Atheist based on wild speculation with no reference whatsoever?

A man who does not know its existence, by default, would have to disagree. In order to prove something true, a man requires evidence, and without it, he would have to concede that it is not true. At least until the required evidence appears (and even then, it can still remain false).

The Lochness.

I've been told of it's existence somewhere in a loch in Scotland. I have no evidence nor have I ever seen the beast, but I remain sceptical to it's existence because I find it improbable and largely implausible.

I don't know.

Therefore the default is not to disagree with it's existence but to remain sceptical, which is the Agnostic position, not the Atheist one.

You either have the belief or you don't. What middle ground is there?
Is nothing the middle ground?

The middle ground is Agnosticism.

Jesse had no reference as to whether you had a cat or not. Therefore he could never make a conscious belief as to whether you had a cat of not.

What man would consider to be the Christian God is under scrutiny because we have reference to his existence in the Bible. It's not proof.

Without it, we would not be having this discussion, because we would have no reference in which to mobilise our opinions and thought processes. There is no negative as some users have described there to be, because there is reference.

Theories are proved all the time, how did you come to the conclusion that theories can't be proved? Do you think gravity hasn't yet been proved?
Theories in the scientific context, best explain phenomena in the real world. Both evolution and gravity explain phenomena and are both back up by peer reviewed, scientific evidence.

Humans are finite. By that logic we can't prove anything universally, for doing so would require infinite existence.

Suppose we die and wake up in an alternate reality? Does gravity truly exist then?

It's the extremists

I don't believe there is such a thing as an extremist. Either you are or you aren't. I wouldn't call someone whose beliefs don't adhere to the general consensus to be an extremist.

 

[Ewan]

An Atheist is the belief that there is no God.
Not that there may not be a God. That is Agnosticism.

I'm kinda responding in one post so bear with me. I'm not interested in debating this subject extensively anymore so apologies if it's a bit short.

Atheism comes from the word atheos which means without god. Strong atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
Agnosticism is the belief that you can't prove or know a god exists, which says nothing about whether or not you believe one exists or not. That's why you can be both.

If agnosticism is the middle ground, then what is gnosticism to you then? These two words cover a different claim and aren't suitable to describe your belief on deity claims.

About lacking belief, yes you would need reference to make a conscious decision, but you don't need to be conscious of it to be lacking. I think of it like owning an object. I don't need to know about X (an arbitrary item) to not own it do I? I can also know about it and consciously not own one etc.

Humans are finite. By that logic we can't prove anything universally, for doing so would require infinite existence.

Suppose we die and wake up in an alternate reality? Does gravity truly exist then?

When I say prove, I mean it in practical, scientific terms. Sure, we could wake up in an alternate reality but do we have good reason to think that? Or any evidence to suggest that? What's more important to think about is what is probable rather than what is possible. It's possible that gravity and evolution aren't real but it's very probable that they are or at least there is some illusion of them.