28 Mar 2009, 5:37 pm
TallyMan wrote:
So, hypothetically speaking, if someone had never been exposed to the concept of God, would they be an atheist? However, in that case atheism could not be called a "religion" since they have no idea that religions exist and have neither belief or disbelief. Similarly they would not be agnostic. Perhaps they would be an untheist? 
atheist means untheist. a = un
i think yes. if someone had NO idea of the concept of religion, they would be an atheistic person.
its just a description. if someone happens to be green, theyre a "green person". if they dont believe in, dont know of, simply exist without a deity in their reality, theyre atheist.
i dont think it relies on personal proclamation, like
"i believe in NO spirit and NO deity, but im not atheist, cus i dislike the label" would be invalid.
it would be like "i am completely green, but i oppose green person cus its uncomfortable to be called such a thing"
Last edited by ZEGH8578 on 28 Mar 2009, 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
28 Mar 2009, 5:39 pm
ZEGH8578 wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
For me, claiming that there absolutely is no god is just as intellectually flawed as saying their absolutely is.
Dawkins is a genius, but he's also kind of a prick. The reason we don't "go all the way" is because to do so, we'd have to deny the very reason we became agnostic in the first place, the intangibility of theistic knowledge.
Dawkins is a genius, but he's also kind of a prick. The reason we don't "go all the way" is because to do so, we'd have to deny the very reason we became agnostic in the first place, the intangibility of theistic knowledge.
Not even Dawkins say there is absolutely no god, so your reasoning is flawed.
Well, it may seem like I made that connection, but I that's just my inefficient writing style. I did not mean to assert that Dawkins has said "there absolutely is no god", but that is the atheistic position. If you don't "absolutely" think there is no god, and just think there is "probably" no god, you might just be agnostic.
I'm both agnostic and atheistic.
I've heard a number of people make this claim, and state that the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't currently hold the position that they are mutually exclusive, but I have to admit it's difficult for me to see how they could not be. If you'd like to enlighten me, I would appreciate that.
Atheism is the lack of belief.
Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge.
I don't claim to be absolutely knowing of all things in the world, so I'm an agnostic. And I don't believe in god so I'm atheistic. There might be a god, presumably called His Supreme Indifference, because he is really good at hiding.
claiming agnosticism because you dont know _everything in the world_ is probably stretching the definition of agnosticism.
i am an atheist, despite not knowing how a jetfighter engine works
i think its defined by religious certainty. i _know_ there is no god. i am 100% sure of it.
Maybe I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but our knowledge of the universe isn't so great that we might think. Being gnostic about something is like being one of those good-for-nothing bible bashers who will never change their worldview.
However, the idea that many agnostic theists have today, of a giant ball of energy who conveniently cares about you, is somewhat amusing.
28 Mar 2009, 5:41 pm
Henriksson wrote:
ZEGH8578 wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
For me, claiming that there absolutely is no god is just as intellectually flawed as saying their absolutely is.
Dawkins is a genius, but he's also kind of a prick. The reason we don't "go all the way" is because to do so, we'd have to deny the very reason we became agnostic in the first place, the intangibility of theistic knowledge.
Dawkins is a genius, but he's also kind of a prick. The reason we don't "go all the way" is because to do so, we'd have to deny the very reason we became agnostic in the first place, the intangibility of theistic knowledge.
Not even Dawkins say there is absolutely no god, so your reasoning is flawed.
Well, it may seem like I made that connection, but I that's just my inefficient writing style. I did not mean to assert that Dawkins has said "there absolutely is no god", but that is the atheistic position. If you don't "absolutely" think there is no god, and just think there is "probably" no god, you might just be agnostic.
I'm both agnostic and atheistic.
I've heard a number of people make this claim, and state that the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't currently hold the position that they are mutually exclusive, but I have to admit it's difficult for me to see how they could not be. If you'd like to enlighten me, I would appreciate that.
Atheism is the lack of belief.
Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge.
I don't claim to be absolutely knowing of all things in the world, so I'm an agnostic. And I don't believe in god so I'm atheistic. There might be a god, presumably called His Supreme Indifference, because he is really good at hiding.
claiming agnosticism because you dont know _everything in the world_ is probably stretching the definition of agnosticism.
i am an atheist, despite not knowing how a jetfighter engine works
i think its defined by religious certainty. i _know_ there is no god. i am 100% sure of it.
Maybe I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but our knowledge of the universe isn't so great that we might think. Being gnostic about something is like being one of those good-for-nothing bible bashers who will never change their worldview.
However, the idea that many agnostic theists have today, of a giant ball of energy who conveniently cares about you, is somewhat amusing.
but agnosticism is defined by knowing/not knowing about _religion_.
sure i dont know s**t about the universe, none of us do. our neighboring galaxies are but dots in our telescope images, but that doesnt make me AGNOSTIC. that doesnt make me doubt wether there is a god or not, wether shiva is real or not, wether the lapp-god of the bear-spirit is real or not.
by the strict definition, i am NOT agnostic, because i have my mind _set_ when it comes to theism.
my dad is agnostic, and he defines it like this: i dont believe in god, but i reserve the possibility that he will scare the s**t out of me after im dead "so... you didnt believe in me did you?"
28 Mar 2009, 6:11 pm
28 Mar 2009, 6:15 pm
28 Mar 2009, 6:33 pm
28 Mar 2009, 6:36 pm
28 Mar 2009, 6:36 pm
Quote:
No!
Yes!
Quote:
An atheist is not one who doesn't believe in God.
Er, yes it is.
28 Mar 2009, 6:43 pm
28 Mar 2009, 6:59 pm
28 Mar 2009, 7:08 pm
Henriksson wrote:
(Why does everyone have to pull the age card on my all the time, for crying out loud? Age alone doesn't earn you respect )
Well, when you are old enough to have your own seventeen year old, you will have a different perspective on teens. Although I do find many the younger posters on this forum to be quite impressive in their intellect and ability to express their views. Try not to take it too hard, I do not think it would upset me if Sand, Ruven, or Nobelcynic pulled the age card one me. ) Anyway, I would have to agree with you that atheism is not a religion, due to it being lacking in dogmatic foundation.
28 Mar 2009, 7:30 pm
28 Mar 2009, 7:59 pm
28 Mar 2009, 8:16 pm
28 Mar 2009, 8:48 pm
28 Mar 2009, 9:40 pm
