This is not the “Ask to Ask an Atheist” thread.
It doesn’t feel very different from knowing you will rot in the ground once you die.
que?
My soul goes to Stevie Wonder.
(By the way, if you’re being serious, then I just lost.)
He’s not.
Someone was asking others to ask questions. “Ask to Ask an Atheist.”
Not having a proof for non-existence of God is not Agnosticism. Agnosticism is the inability to come to a conclusion because of the lack of convincing proofs for God’s existence or non-existence.
Nothing was mentioned in the quoted post about agnosticism. What are you talking about?
Oh dear me… FROM YOUR OWN POST:
@baconeggs: I was illustrating that it’s entirely possible to be Atheist and Agnostic if you use the definitions he gave.
The same phrase can have a different meaning depending on the context. From your statement it can be concluded that there might be no absolute proof for non-existence of God for someone who don’t believe in God. The meaning of the definition that I quoted is IMHO completely different. It implies that an Agnostic considers both cases, that God exists and doesn’t exist. An Atheist doesn’t consider any of those possibilities.
Incorrect. As your example pointed out, agnosticism is just saying there’s “NO proof” for either side of the argument, atheism is denying that any kind of deity exists.
I don’t think there could ever evidence for either argument, but I may as well absolutely deny the existence of a god all the same, since there’s absolutely no reason for one to exist. I say “may as well” since, as a rational person, I have to have some margin for error. Don’t take that to mean that I think god might exist: I have exactly the same margin of error in my denial that my headphones will suddenly decide to eat my brains.
I’m atheist. Does this mean I sold my soul to the devil and I’m going to burn in a place I don’t even believe in? Cause if it is I guess I still have to wait a while before I can burn.
This only proves that this definition is imprecise since we understand it differently. I’m sure a lot of people understand agnosticism the same way I do, i.e. “agnosticism is the inability to come to a conclusion because of the lack of convincing proofs for God’s existence or non-existence.” What you are doing is distorting the meaning of “agnosticism” to back up your claims, like you were forgetting what is this discussion about - “is there something between atheism and theism?”.
I can give you a simple example that there is something between. Answer this question: Do you believe that in two weeks from now it will be raining in Moscow? Now lets call the ones who say “I believe it will be raining” Theists, and the one who say “I don’t believe it will be raining” Atheists. So, can there be a third group beside “Atheists” and “Theists”?
This isn’t the “Ask a Christian” thread.
Your definition of “atheist” and “theist” is incorrect here. We’re talking about the existence or the nonexistence of something, not the probability of something happening.
hey whats up?
The sky.
when one person suffers from a dillusion its called insanity, when a whole group suffers the same its called religion.
“Sanity is not a statistic…”
I dunno… If 1 in 4 people are nuts, and your freinds seem ok…
Shrugs.
Baconeggs - LOL but true.
(That’t ok though… 5 out of 4 people have issues with fractions.