Nasreddin

*suspiciously sniffs the air* Is that the spirit of "chess clubs are religions!" usartist I'm sensing here?

Nil Desperandum

I've always accepted faith as

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

The problem that most theistic claims have is their lack of evidence, and therefore, their presuppositions are not based on evidence, but on faith. That's pretty central to most arguments - the presupposition of the existence of a deity, and therefore, it exists...

And instead of saying I know who killed him, I'll just say, "I don't know."

Atheism means "without theism," so I'm not sure what kind of epiphany you've had here.

Being an agnostic means that you expouse the view that you cannot *know* if god exists or not. You can decide that you cannot possible know, but given the (lack of) evidence, believe that such a being probably does not exist. You take the term agnostic out of context - it has nothing to do with belief, but knowledge. As it were, there is no proof of god, and for that reason, I and many other Atheist (although, not all of them), do not have a belief in god.

I can use colorful language to describe what I think of you, and it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth, because I am ignorant and making an ignorant claim; much like you can claim the ACLU and moveon.org are churches, without validating your view, or offering any explanation as to why they are what you say they are. A rather ignorant statement, if you ask me.

Chris

camp freddie

If you want atheists to admit they believe in something, then well done, I admit that I believe that there are no gods.

However, belief does not a religion make. I believe based on evidence (and the lack of it) not based on faith, therefore is not religion.

I also believe that tea is nice. Many other tea drinkers believe this. We even go to communal buidings to examine, share, reinforce and spread our belief (cafes and tea shops!). I cannot prove that tea is better than coffee, yet believe it anyway. Therefore according to the criteria you have set, tea drinkers follow a religion!

OnTheThirdRail

By not believing in santa claus you are believing in his lack of existence and thus you express your religious proactices differently. For example, if you celebrate the holiday of christmas... you give presents but you don't say that its from santa claus instead you express your religion in that you instead place that significance on some other immaterial reason such as love.

Gooch's dad

OTTR:

You didn't answer the question, you avoided it.

Do those people who don't believe in Santa Claus have an additional religion, called "not believing in Santa Claus"? It's a yes/no answer. I await your reply.

Kelly

OnTheThirdRail

Certainly you see the difference in mundane things and those beliefs that shape our lives in such momentous ways?

Wow, you need to lay off the coffee you are really getting worked up over this.

Really, you would change your thought patterns. I doubt it... how can someone who holds the pressuposition that God doesn't exist attribute any evidence as supporting that fact?

As opposed to your position which states that only material evidence can be used to prove the existence of an immaterial being?

OnTheThirdRail

So you base your presupposition that everything must be based on evidence on what?

So does an agnostic believe that there can be proof of God's existence or not?

Godless Wonder

Ok.
Problem? It's not clear what problem you are referring to (I can think of several you might be referring to.)
True. But pretty much everybody agrees he's dead. I don't see what this statement is supposed to demonstrate . . . that people are nuts? No kidding.

Yet, you appear to consider agnostics distinct from atheists. Yet the vast majority of agnostics do not hold any belief in any gods, and most of them reject e.g. the Christian idea of what god is. The vast majority of agnostics are atheists.


Is it also circular reasoning to believe that there are no leprechauns? There is no proof that leprechauns don't exist, so presumably you must also think this is circular reasoning. There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of god as there is for leprechauns.

Care to elaborate?

Nil Desperandum

I do not presuppose anything. I have no reason to believe in god, through logic & reason, and by an all-consuming lack of evidence, and therefore, I don't believe in it. I don't start assuming x, therefore y, therefore x.

It really depends on how you define proof.
If this proof entails knowledge of god's existence or not, then it makes sense to say that this person can no longer be agnostic, but I think what their belief is rather moot at that point, in the face of glaring proof.
An agnostic can believe whatever they want.
They can believe (a) god(s) exists, and say there is no way we can know (Agnostic Theist).
They can not believe (a) god(s) exists, and say there is no way to know (Agnostic Athest).
They can believe they have 3 feet.
They can believe that the Red Sox will win the World Series.
So, the question then, is to find an agnostic and find out what they believe, specifically, as it can differ from person to person.

Chris

TySixtus

Certainly, I do not. What, for example, is more momentous to a football player who wins the Superbowl? Does that event not shape the very outcome of his life? What about the athelete who trains for 16 years to run in the Olympics? Mundane to you, 'religious' to them. You can't judge the value of a person's beliefs by what you value, as they will naturally disagree.



I am? How many exclamation points did I use? And bolding or angry smilies? Not worked up, just destroying your thesis. Might sound harsh to you, but I can assure you, I am anything but worked up about it. There isn't much that can work me up concerning thesim; at least, anymore.

I don't care if you doubt it. I said many of us would change how we think if we physically saw god. If anyone disagrees, (atheist or otherwise) that's fine. I offered an opinion. Am I wrong?

Easily. Provide some credible evidence.

Why is god immaterial? Doesn't that sound fishy to you? That the only way to prove his existence (through the observation of empirical evidence) doesn't work on him? I think I read a book on this. It was called 'Catch 22'.

Ty