[TattyBoJangles]

It's not that I don't believe in god / gods, but I believe that there is no god.

If that makes sense.

[thegodofgod]

No

I agree with TattyBoJangles above

[Sammydemon]

(Original post by TattyBoJangles)
It's not that I don't believe in god / gods, but I believe that there is no god.

If that makes sense.

So you're an atheist? That's a much simpler way of putting it.

[ANIGAV]

(Original post by TattyBoJangles)
It's not that I don't believe in god / gods, but I believe that there is no god.

If that makes sense.

what is the difference?

[TattyBoJangles]

(Original post by Sammydemon)
So you're an atheist? That's a much simpler way of putting it.

Yes, although I would say there is a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" - suggesting there is one, I just choose not to believe - and "I believe there is no God". Thought I'd specify.

[_music<3]

(Original post by Sammydemon)
Your standpoint is utterly flawed and I have explained why. You have not made any form of convincing argument against mine. I have clarified my point several times over and it has even been reiterated excellently by "Atheism is Fascism".

You may as well not bother posting if all you are going to do is whinge when people give you their views and then totally ignore them instead of producing a counter argument or agreeing.

You are clearly very new to this "debating" thing.

I honestly couldn't care less about what you think of my ideas. However, I do care that you constantly quote me into things, when I quite clearly told you I no longer wished to continue this discussion. You need to know when to just let it go.

You are clearly very new to this whole 'etiquette' thing, eh?

[mmmpie]

Given how readily people seem able to believe two mutually exclusive things, I really don't see why they can't believe neither. Belief is not subject to the law of the excluded middle, it is possible to simply withhold judgement.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by Chrizzle94)
For simplicity's sake, atheism is the belief that there is no God or gods at all. There is nothing.

I am an atheist as I do not believe in God or in gods. Unfortunately, your definition would have me not being atheist even though I am.

Using the definitions I have always used (and I am used to hearing being used), a person is a theist if they believe in God or in gods, and an atheist if they don't. This is clearly a simpler definition that the one you are using, which requires more terms to be used to cover everyone. (And no, of course being agnostic is not the same thing as not believing in God or believing in there being no God.)

[Раскольников]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Given how readily people seem able to believe two mutually exclusive things, I really don't see why they can't believe neither. Belief is not subject to the law of the excluded middle, it is possible to simply withhold judgement.

Well, if you neither believe there is a God nor believe there is no God, then you are an atheist. Issue solved. Obviously such a person would answer 'No' to the question in the poll as they don't believe in a God or gods.

[Раскольников]

(Original post by InternetGangster)
Yes, you can be 'unsure'. A Christian may by 90% certain of the existence of God, or an atheist 90% certain that God doesn't exist, but what about someone who is 50 : 50 ? Technically, we're all unsure to a certain degree, though some more so than others.

I'm not 50:50, more like 0:0. I'm not at all certain in any way that a god exists. Similarly, I'm not at all certain in any way that there is no god.

Hence, I am an atheist.

[InternetGangster]

(Original post by Раскольников)
I'm not 50:50, more like 0:0. I'm not at all certain in any way that a god exists. Similarly, I'm not at all certain in any way that there is no god.

Hence, I am an atheist.

By 50 : 50 I meant 50%, so you are neither in favour nor against the existence of God.

[Nessie162]

In my opinion if someone is not sure whether God exists or not, they're Agnostic.
Theist people are SURE* that some kind of God exists.
Atheists are SURE* that there's no God.

*Whether they they think that they have a proof, or not.

Where as Agnostics are undecided. They're unsure. There's always going to be that tint of uncertainty which won't allow them to fully believe or not believe in god.

Of course there are some shades of gray between the whole Atheist-Agnostic-Theist argument. There are also 'Agnostic theists' who personally believe in God but think that there might be a possibility that he doesn't exist, and 'Agnostic atheists' who personally don't believe in God but think that there might be a chance that he exists.

I am Agnostic myself. I neither believe or not-believe in God.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
And what is exactly the problem with the big bang theory?

Although yes, you do get some conflicting ideas but usually, it's either that the scientific research is still incomplete or the religious understanding is wrong.

And I'm pretty sure evolution is currently incomplete with missing links and such.

And when I talk about evolution, I'm talking about human origin because there's no doubt that variation takes place and whatnot, it's primarily the rise of a new species from existing ones given time which is what we are taught and the lack of understanding about the topic, that's the main problem.

So even then, that's a grey area regarding human origin. Otherwise, everything is fine no?

Christianity is surely about interpretation? Therefore person A can agree with the Big Bang yet person B can disagree. Ultimately though I'm saying, there's no evidence heaven/hell exists, or of Jesus being the son of God, etc. By following logic and scientific method, these two aren't true, mere theories.

[That Bearded Man]

(Original post by ANIGAV)
Atheism has nothing to do with logic my friend, it's only not believing in God. You don't need logic to form a belief, nor science. Don't get excited.

Ignorance is a reason to be an atheist, however atheism is more logical because of the lack of evidence

[ANIGAV]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
Ignorance is a reason to be an atheist, however atheism is more logical because of the lack of evidence

Lack of evidence cannot assume something is more logical, that itself is irrational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[OwenFerny]

(Original post by Раскольников)
I'm not 50:50, more like 0:0. I'm not at all certain in any way that a god exists. Similarly, I'm not at all certain in any way that there is no god.

Hence, I am an atheist.

Actually, you're agnostic.

[navarre]

There isn't sufficient evidence either way, but by default, I am an atheist, as lack of evidence in my mind means something does not exist.

[beelz]

(Original post by Sammydemon)
Attitude? How would you feel after spending so long trying to explain something to someone for them to completely ignore you? I don't care what the popular sense is: gnostic = knowledge, theism = belief.

Yours isn't a perfect simple summary because it is incorrect and does not represent the viewpoint accurately, a distinction has to be made between agnostic/gnostic and theism/atheism.

It is not possible to be unsure of your own irrational beliefs. And even if you claim to be unsure, you are STILL and atheist, because you don't explicitly believe in a god or gods!

I don't really understand your argument.

If I ask whether you believe there are more than 7 billion people on this planet and you say you don't know, does that mean that you believe that there are less than 7 billion people on the planet?

[Раскольников]

(Original post by Nessie162)
In my opinion if someone is not sure whether God exists or not, they're Agnostic.

So now that we have decided to use agnostic to mean something other than what it was supposed to mean, what word are we supposed to use for someone who is an agnostic in the original sense?


Personally, I do not believe in a God or gods (though I do not believe there to be no God or gods either - I have suspended judgement on the issue). So, as is appropriate, I call myself an atheist. I am not agnostic on the issue of the existence or non-existence of a deity, so I'm not sure why I should be called agnostic.

(Original post by OwenFerny)
Actually, you're agnostic.

Agnostic is not a response to the question 'Do you believe in a god or gods?' though. It doesn't deal with that issue. You can have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. As it happens, I'm not agnostic anyway. It's not clear to me why I should call myself one.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by ANIGAV)
Lack of evidence cannot assume something is more logical, that itself is irrational. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Except of course, for when it is. If a theory predicts some evidence which is absent, the absence of evidence itself become evidence against said theory.

Unfortunately god is not a theory in this sense, since it has no predictive power.