cnn guy on religion

Post Reply New Topic

or maybe simply agnostics see the basic fact that we don't have enough information either way to truly state if there is a deity or not. most of the ones on the theistic side reject this because they hold on to their myths as fact when there's very little evidence of their deities other than the prophets most likely did exist. no miracles, no demonstrative god.

the atheists are a reaction to this majority theistic group and simply declare there is no god because...well...it's obvious there's no god in the capacity described by the religions of the majority.


is there potential for something that could fit under the idea of a deity...maybe. i doubt it's sentient if so and most likely more like the higgs bosom.


/still have the sacrificial pyres ready to go, i'll use my science and lack of faith to ignite mine and whoever takes up the challenge can pray to their god to light theirs

Thank you for demonstrating my point, skafather.

Huh? I thought you were an atheist.
Oh...ok...maybe you are?

Edit: Crap. I just noticed Orwell said the same thing.

it seems very nt to say that guy must belive in one or the other just because you thing it must be that, It's NTs that thin there is one way to think. There are many nero configurations, there are many beliefs.

you make such a statement and expect no such response equal in its aggressive nature?

by the way, you cut off half that statement. i'm saying it's obvious that YOUR god isn't real. not that there isn't the potential somewhere.


sorry, come up with some evidence beyond folklore before you attack someone else's stance. it's funny because there's absolutely no evidence either way, i just accept it and you refuse to and live in your myths and then I'M the bad guy for saying there's no easter bunny.

sorry that the complexities of my language and beliefs are beyond simple answers at times.


i use atheist most of the time around here because relative to everyone else, i am an atheist. i don't believe in their god and have no preconceived idea of a god* and so on a value level, it's easier to simply state i'm an atheist and not pussyfoot around the fact that i don't believe in their god. too many theists take agnosticism to mean that one may or may not believe in their (the theist's) god but that's not the case. i'm not going "i'm not sure if yaweh exists or not so i'm agnostic". i know yaweh doesn't exist. some other deity/presence not yet defined by us? possibly. but not allah, yahweh, jehovah, or most other deities i've seen so far.


*though i love to postulate different possibilities...but that's on about the same level as writing a really really really short story. not something i put into practice daily or invest any belief in.

Well, that's not exactly agnosticism, now, is it?


I didn't criticize the atheistic position in this thread- I criticized the agnostic one, which makes no claims concerning the existence or non-existence of this "Easter Bunny" as you like to call it. My claim is that the overwhelming majority of agnostics are basically closet atheists who either don't have the balls to come straight out and admit that they're atheists or want to attach themselves to some bull notion of being above the theist/atheist debate. Even if an "agnostic" intellectually accepts the notion that it is impossible to know (and intellectually accepting something is much easier than emotionally accepting it) they still are, in practice, atheists, so what's the difference? If it looks like a duck and it waddles and quacks, call it a duck.

Basically, yes. I don't believe in God, but I am not certain that the atheist stance is correct. However, the fact that I don't believe in God makes me atheistic by default. I see an agnostic as a type of atheist. I must assure you though, my reasons are my own and I have no intention to "rise above" the argument.

Phagocyte, you're probably the closest thing to an honest agnostic I know of.

No need for sorry. I just assumed you were atheist because I have seen you state there is no God. It just surprised me to see you defending agnostic views.

I myself, would never compare the question of the existance of God to something as trivial as the Easter bunny and I think it would be silly for anyone else to. I do not know about the majority of agnostics, as I've never even met another one in real life to be able to discuss such things. I have trouble with theist/atheist debates because I do not agree with either. I cannot honestly say I know/beleive there is or is no God. I honestly just do not know and see no point to argue about it. It does not meain I am above debate, just terribly lacking in constructive input. I agree the emotional acceptance is the hardest part. I guess duck is ok. (better than pretentious prick, anyway )

yes it is. just because i deny YOUR god doesn't mean i deny the POTENTIAL for something.

is it easier for me to say zeus exists but your god doesn't? it's almost the same thing except i know that all the man-made religions are just that: MAN MADE. it's a fabrication. is there something out there that all these fabrications are giving way towards? possibly! but there's really no evidence to say that but at the same time, having no evidence doesn't disprove the idea of a deity all together...just specific instances as the claims are proven to be wrong or inaccurate or simply, the god just doesn't show up.






you're criticizing that agnostics aren't taking a position but i think they're taking the only reasonable position and taking action on it too: they're not falling into any of the man made religions but they're also not running around screaming there is no god because they don't know beyond what we, as a human species, knows.

is it that hard to comprehend what agnostics are?

for your position: yes, they're on the same level as atheists because they don't believe in YOUR god but there's a significantly HUGE difference between completely denying any probability at all of there being something and simply denying what we already know to be false.


you are being intellectual dishonest with yourself in how you're approaching agnosticism and i know you're better than that. think of it as agnosticism is bop music while atheism is tradition jazz (or maybe just straight up blues). a lot more complexities and a lot more thought and effort put into it. still jazz...just one's using a lot more chops. (sorry if the music analogy falls flat but it's the best form of expression i can come up with at this moment).

Yes.

No. A proper agnostic may be either atheist or theist, or undecided, but this is not relevant to the central agnostic position. See for example strong agnosticism. Many atheists are agnostic, and many agnostics are atheists, but the idea that agnostics are just testicleless atheists is a fundamental confusion of exactly what agnosticism is. One may be an agnostic theist, and going by wikipedia, a strong agnostic can be pretty much anything but a strong atheist.

While, indeed, most agnostics may be deemed atheists, it is important to distinguish the two, if only for the fact that atheist carries connotations of strong atheism, or at the very least sham agnosticism which in reality accepts no real uncertainty of the strong atheistic conclusion despite a symbolic genuflect to epistemic limitations.

If there is one thing that is beginning to get on my nerves its the fact that every strong atheist and theist in the world is absolutely convinced that you are somehow lacking in teh balls if you refuse to make a statement without evidence. Enough of this silly take a side thing. Taking a side is an excellent way to shoot your rationality to hell, as I'm constantly reminded when I see "does God exist N/N?" debates.

If we are to take these words in their usual everyday meaning, as perhaps you might, then there is a very important distinction between an atheist and an agnostic: the former, in having chosen a position, engages in rampant strawmen and confirmation bias. I rather liked the definitions Witt gave here some months ago:
An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in God.
An atheist is someone who wants to not believe in God.

Arguing over whether God exists is a little like discussing whether Goku could beat the incredible Hulk in a fight. One position may of course be true (at least in principle), but really, until you can get a deathmatch between comic book characters, why should I get particularly psyched about one side?

I'm not adverse to the concept of some sort of god figure, but I an totally convinced at the irrelevance of myself(and any singular creature) in its purveyance.

What does that make me?

Refreshing.

And, speaking as someone who does believe, I can't see why it's so necessary for any God worth his salt to insist on being believed in. Bit egotistical, what?