Axiomatic Wiki

You say he is wright, yet I am wrong for saying I am an atheist, when what the person who you claim to be correct says, verifies my belief that one can not be certain and at the same time, still be technically an Atheist.

Interesting.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/AxiomaticWiki

Neapolitan

When I read what you wrote I thought what an honest statement, on the flip side of the coin even religious people* have doubt and misunderstanding about God that they have to work through. As far how you define yourself that is a very normal for most people to say they belong to one group but feel thay have certain exceptions to that definition of that group. imo you gave a human response not a scholastic response and that is why your post did not pass the gaunlet of Barnard's eriditional approval.

*(those who would be catagorized as "theist")

__________________

Barnard17

Agnostic atheist is an important distinction from atheist. Saying you are an atheist and complaining people have a misconception that leads them to think you're something you're not, when you are in reality an agnostic atheist, is very foolish.

__________________

Axiomatic Wiki

I was not angry at people for thinking I was agnostic atheist, I was angry at people for not knowing that such a thing exists. Most people I meet, online and irl, believe that you can only be atheist or agnostic. And many I know, who claim to not believe in god, often look down on atheists because they claim to be agnostics, the "true intellectual stance", or so they claim.

You do not have to lecture me about the difference between agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, and atheist, I know what they are, at least on a basic level. I think it was a miscommunication on my part, poorly stating my complaint in my initial post in this thread.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/AxiomaticWiki

Guybrush

I'd say agnostic atheism is a redundant expression. Anyone with his head screwed on should know that you can't know anything with absolute certainty. Everything you know could be the result of some massive psychosis and your real life is something you don't even know about.

In other words, all have to accept that at some level knowledge of God is not possible which I assume is where the word "agnostic" comes from in "agnostic atheism". However, by that definition just about all atheists become agnostic atheists and that makes it redundant.

Furthermore, it's not about what you have to intellectually accept - that some things we can't be 100% certain of. It's about what you believe. On that level, atheists reject theism and the existence of God(s). Whether or not you accept that knowledge of God is possible or not shouldn't really matter that much for how you define yourself. Accepting knowledge isn't possible on an intellectual level doesn't mean you have to take an active stance as a fence sitter in your beliefs.

If in a debate on religion you take an atheist stance when expressing your honest beliefs, that's what you should call yourself. Don't confuse things by mixing up expressions.

__________________
Something Completely Different

CAPTAIN CAVEMAN

i agree completely, but the problem is that enough people don't realize the bolded statement

Neapolitan

When you say "reject" do you mean you refuse to accept God exist, or refuse to admit God exist?

__________________

Barnard17

Troll is trolling, as ever Neapolitan.


How about "refuse the so say 'evidence' towards God based upon the fact their considered opinion discredits it as unsubstantial, unconvincing and reliant upon circular logic" rather than either of your two cretinous, heavily weighted options.

__________________

Guybrush

What I think a lot of people don't realize is that religion fills a space in the lives of people. If you take religion away from someone, something else has to fill that space. We all believe in something. The obvious possibility is to fill it with scientific theories like evolution. But then you quickly run into a different problem, most people only have a rough idea what evolution is and many don't know or are even wrong about it. In other words, in order for science to replace religious beliefs, people have to learn science - they need to be educated. You don't get it for free.

Atheists who spend their time bickering with religious people should rather focus their efforts on something more worthwhile .. like discussing the need for more education.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Neapolitan

The same thing could be said of Christianity, "most people only have a rough idea what Christianity is and many don't know or are even wrong about it." But for those who understand it have no need to replace science. The theist can appreciate the discoveries of science as revealing the mysteries of the universe God created.

__________________