My thoughts on athiesm

[wayoftheleaf]

I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical.

I believe in being agnostic. If you are going to have a belief in something that no one, as of now, has the ability to learn the exact truth of, you need to consider every possability.

Discuss

wayoftheleaf Reviewed by wayoftheleaf on 11-22-2006. My thoughts on athiesm I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical. I believe in being agnostic. If you are going to have a belief in something that no one, as of now, has the ability to learn the exact truth of, you need to consider every possability. Discuss :) Rating: 5

[mrdevious]

Atheism is largely misunderstood, as is the concept of agnosticism. What many people define as agnosticism actually falls under the category of atheism. This is what leads to the false idea that atheism is just another "religion" with it's own "beliefs", that being the non existence of god.

To explain, atheism is NOT a belief that there is no god, it is a logical assesment of available evidence. It does not claim the non-existence of god as an established fact, it works under the train of thought that there should be no credence given to the existence of god without actual evidence of such. Otherwise, you would have to be "agnostic" about the existence of literally any imaginary being or thing I can conjure up in my mind.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, purports that the existence or non-existence of god is still undecided and both are logically admissable systems of belief.

As for atheists who claim god does not exist as a fact, they clearly do not understand the proper logical or scientific method of interpretation of evidence. Even Richard Dawkins, the prominant and outspoken atheist, says that you cannot discount the existence of god.

[Pass That Shit]

I think you can't put a person in a category as far as beliefs go. I don't think that people in any religion agree on everything spiritually but yet they are labeled as having the same beliefs. I think we are all individuals and speak what we believe from our hearts. I think our beliefs differ from person to person, not religion to religion.

You shouldn't rule out God, cause you can't disprove his existence. How can you? If you could, he would be a liar. imp:

[wayoftheleaf]

It could just be me, but there seems to be quite a few definitions of athiest.

[mrdevious]

You shouldn't rule out God, cause you can't disprove his existence. How can you? If you could, he would be a liar. imp:

NO HE WOULDN'T. God is not a "liar" for not existing, because if he never existed in the first place, he never could have lied in the first place. Your criteria even for the non-existence of god requires the assumption that god directly made a claim, though he didn't exist... you see how this goes around and around.

And once again, for the billionth time, you can't disprove the existence of god; not because he's so real you can't disprove him, but because you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. The flying spagetti monster, the invisible trans-dimensional space jelly fish, the microscopic teacup floating around some random sun somewhere, NONE of these can ever be disproven. and, once again, the only way god can be "disproven" is in negative terms where every claim for his existence is shown to be logically fallable. This has been done to every creationist claim out there, but as expected nobody already devoted to their faith will listen, that's just the way the human mind works unfortunately.

[Pass That Shit]

"NO HE WOULDN'T. God is not a "liar" for not existing, because if he never existed in the first place, he never could have lied in the first place. Your criteria even for the non-existence of god requires the assumption that god directly made a claim, though he didn't exist... you see how this goes around and around."


Weren't we left some literature called the word of God? Did I call it that? Even our money says "In God We Trust". Now if you don't believe his claims, try disproving them. If you say that God does not exist, you're basically calling him a liar cause he says he exists and made everything. Just cause you don't believe in his word doesn't mean it's not his word. Heaven and Earth will pass, but his word will endure forever.

Go ahead and put your faith and trust in the spaghetti monster and I will put mine in God. Whatever works for you.

[mrdevious]

Weren't we left some literature called the word of God? Did I call it that? Even our money says "In God We Trust". Now if you don't believe his claims, try disproving them. If you say that God does not exist, you're basically calling him a liar cause he says he exists and made everything. Just cause you don't believe in his word doesn't mean it's not his word. Heaven and Earth will pass, but his word will endure forever.

Yes, we were left some literature called "the word of god". just because something is claimed to be the word of god, that doesn't prove it is the word of god. You're using the conclusion as your premise for your argument. Nobody is calling god a liar, they are saying he doesn't exist. You're just taking your conclusion that he already exists to support the argument that he exists in the first place, which is a rediculous logical fallacy.

I don't care if American money says "in God we trust", that doesn't prove a thing either. Since when is the US mint the definitive expert on supernatural beings?

And seriously, didn't you even read (about a billion times over) why it's illogical to base the innability to disprove something as proof that it exists? You can't just make a claim then say "well you all try to disprove it!". Do you see physicists getting together at conferences, and one guy says "black holes are created by sub-dimensional seahorses sucking in reality around them." and all the physicists agree with him simply because they can't disprove it? Seriously, this isn't hard to grasp.

PTS, really, can't you understand what's wrong with making so many of your arguments by saying "I've already concluded that this is true, so that makes it true!".... or maybe you're just unable to concieve of a concept that doesn't match your already-concluded decisions, I really don't know.

[MastaChronic]

i dont consider myslef athiest. i think that god doesnt exist, simple as that, because there is no evidence to support him, when i see some irrefutable evidence i will start to believe, but not until then.

[harris7]

"

Weren't we left some literature called the word of God? Did I call it that? Even our money says "In God We Trust". Now if you don't believe his claims, try disproving them. If you say that God does not exist, you're basically calling him a liar cause he says he exists and made everything. Just cause you don't believe in his word doesn't mean it's not his word. Heaven and Earth will pass, but his word will endure forever.

Ok, your reasoning is seriously flawed.
Nothing ever written can prove the existence of God. NOTHING.
If I took my biology text book and added a page that said â??god exists and he wrote thisâ?�
You look through the text and everything is true. You cannot conclude that god exists.
They are independent of each other.

Having a book that says god exists. Doesnâ??t prove he exists. Even if this book has many true things in it.

And just because you believe that the bible is his word, Doesnâ??t make it actually his word!!

[harris7]

I believe that Athiesm, in itself, is hypocritical. To Acknowledge one possability over another on something that as of now, we can not fully understand, over another is hypocritical.

I believe in being agnostic. If you are going to have a belief in something that no one, as of now, has the ability to learn the exact truth of, you need to consider every possability.

Discuss

Atheism for me, is not a belief. It is a conclusion.
My belief is to follow logic, observation and fact.
When given any set of information with more than one explanation. I will accept the best explanation.
The best explanation isâ?¦ the one which best describes the information.
When posed with an Idea of â??godâ?� and creationism; logic, observation and fact point to evolution and have NO support for the existence of god.