[Boobies.]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
That would be Theism.
Christianity is a theistic religion

I considered this, but also that Theism includes religions where there are more than one God, and putting 'Theism is when someone believes in a God/multiple God' wouldn't have flowed as well.

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by Boobies.)
I considered this, but also that Theism includes religions where there are more than one God, and putting 'Theism is when someone believes in a God/multiple God' wouldn't have flowed as well.

Then its monotheism your looking for

[Boobies.]

(Original post by Darkphilosopher)
Then its monotheism your looking for

Ahh, noted.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by 8086)
Atheists claim to base their views on evidence (or the lack thereof) of a higher power/God. However, they hold a belief. They believe that God doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is truly impartial, based on evidence, and not arrogant enough to make a conclusion as the evidence is inconclusive.

Thoughts?

This belongs in this thread. Atheism is lack of belief. Negative atheism is the most logical position.

[Sereni]

(Original post by 8086)
Atheists claim to base their views on evidence (or the lack thereof) of a higher power/God. However, they hold a belief. They believe that God doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is truly impartial, based on evidence, and not arrogant enough to make a conclusion as the evidence is inconclusive.

Thoughts?

Generally atheists are agnostic AND atheist. Meaning we don't claim to KNOW but we believe that God doesn't exist. There is no proof either way and so I don't claim to know God doesn't exist. However my view is that existence is a positive claim, so if you claim something exists for me to believe you I need some kind of proof, or I will not believe you as a default option. See now apply this logic to smurfs.

If there is a debate about if smurfs exist or not, then my view is that the side arguing they do exist has to show they exist before the other side has any reason to believe them, and until that point does not believe them. OFC you have the argument that no-one really knows for sure, but that argument applies to almost everything. I see it as far more logical to assume nothing exists until it is shown to exist, than to assume EVERYTHING exists until it is shown not to exist.

It isnt arrogant to say that I don't believe you. My starting position is that supernatural magical beings do not exist, including witches, unicorns, dragons, warlocks, ghosts and God. If i enter a debate then it isn't arrogant to say I don't believe you when the existence of these things are claimed with no evidence behind them. I just happen to think that given that I could make up a few hundred magical creatures myself it would be more logical to assume they dont exist as a starting position.

[imperial maniac]

Whether im an agnostic, an atheist a non-theist or w/e is irrelevant.

There is no satisfactory evidence for a god to exist, at least not one that requires worshipping, so yea.

I'm against religion more than God tbh, on some higher plane of being there might be a higher intelligence, but it certainly doesn't give a damn how many people you sleep with or whether you wear a headscarf or whether you go to church on sunday etc etc etc etc etc (insert religious bs here)

[IFondledAGibbon]

(Original post by 8086)
Atheists claim to base their views on evidence (or the lack thereof) of a flying spaghetti monster. However, they hold a belief. They believe that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

Agnosticism is truly impartial, based on evidence, and not arrogant enough to make a conclusion as the evidence is inconclusive.

Thoughts?

Exact same logic, no? It’s annoying when people assume because you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist, it must be a 50/50 decision. No, a complete lack of evidence is enough to believe something isn’t true. Otherwise how could we logically come to any conclution outside of mathamatics.

[Alexface.]

Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot/will not ever know if a god exists. That can include both theists and atheists. Contrary to popular belief, it's not just an "I'm not sure" position. You can believe one way or the other while actually being agnostic.

So really, atheists aren't "arrogant versions" of agnostics at all.

[The Patriot]

(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
Exact same logic, no? It’s annoying when people assume because you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist, it must be a 50/50 decision. No, a complete lack of evidence is enough to believe something isn’t true. Otherwise how could we logically come to any conclution outside of mathamatics.

http://www.venganza.org/

[helpnowplease]

Define athiest.

[ddua_dduges]

(Original post by helpnowplease)
Define athiest.

Ok.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...2&ved=0CBkQkAE

There's the list of definitions you wanted. O.o

[helpnowplease]

(Original post by ddua_dduges)
Ok.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...2&ved=0CBkQkAE

There's the list of definitions you wanted. O.o

Athiesm is much more deeper than that though. I'm not religous myself, but i doubt your athiest by the true deeper definition.

[dring]

(Original post by helpnowplease)
Athiesm is much more deeper than that though. I'm not religous myself, but i doubt your athiest by the true deeper definition.

Atheist = someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. That is the entirety of its meaning...

An atheist can believe in angels and demons. They can believe in unicorns, centaurs and Harry Potter. But it is whether they belive in a god that is the only defining feature of 'atheist'.

[ddua_dduges]

(Original post by dring)
Atheist = someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. That is the entirety of its meaning...

An atheist can believe in angels and demons. They can believe in unicorns, centaurs and Harry Potter. But it is whether they belive in a god that is the only defining feature of 'atheist'.

Ok, so what is the big deal? Why question my personal opinion when it hasn't nothing to do with the topic at hand? O.o *confused*

[RamocitoMorales]

(Original post by py0alb)
I'm not sure what you mean. All atheists says is "we have no way of telling so lets stop ****ing talking and get on with it". So how exactly are they "right", when they haven't actually made a prediction?

Those are agnostics mate. Atheists assert their beliefs.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by RamocitoMorales)
Those are agnostics mate. Atheists assert their beliefs.

No, they don't.

[py0alb]

(Original post by RamocitoMorales)
Those are agnostics mate. Atheists assert their beliefs.

Nah. An atheist just adds on "but whatever does happen, its almost certainly not your stupid idea" onto the end of the sentence.

[RamocitoMorales]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No, they don't.

They do.

[sicarius1992]

(Original post by RamocitoMorales)
Those are agnostics mate. Atheists assert their beliefs.

What about the agnostic atheists?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by RamocitoMorales)
They do.

Are you stating atheist believe that the claim "God exist" is false?