Thread: Christianity

I havent told anyone this in years but.. i am god bow down to me..

the way i see it, agnostics are lighter forms of atheists.
all the people that i met that consider themselves atheists had this outlook.
"There is no god, there never was a god, piss off."
and as for everyone i met that considered themselves agnostics pretty much defined what i truly thought but never found anything that matched up. and that was i don't think there is a god, but if you can prove it, i'll be down. xD

Originally Posted by Atom' Package

Also, in general, atheism is as much of a belief as theism, it relies on reasoning without evidence, you can't really write one off without the other, each relies on the possibilty of the opposite. so it's kinda stupid to put one against the other.

Yes

Originally Posted by thatsstupid95

the way i see it, agnostics are lighter forms of atheists.

Agnostics are those who have not come to a conclusion, atheists have come to a conclusion, and fully believe it.

all the people that i met that consider themselves atheists had this outlook.
"There is no god, there never was a god, piss off."
and as for everyone i met that considered themselves agnostics pretty much defined what i truly thought but never found anything that matched up. and that was i don't think there is a god, but if you can prove it, i'll be down. xD

They are DEFINED as believing nothing can be proven. No one has taken up the question I left, the definition of god. If I define god as pizza, pizza certainly exists, therefore god must also.

What do you, all of you, define as 'god' that you believe or disbelieve.

I believe that God is my creator, redeemer and sanctifier. But nothing in that definition is going to help you believe in God. It just creates a list of other things that you don't believe in.

Originally Posted by thatsstupid95

the way i see it, agnostics are lighter forms of atheists.

that is not what those words mean.

an atheist is someone who believes there is no god, i.e. thinks of something as true fact without proof.

an agnostic tries to avoid believing anything about 'god-centric matters', by only accepting as true what they can see has tangible proof.

it's not a case of one idea being a more moderate version of the other, theism and atheism are belief structures, agnosticism is rational, verging on skeptical structure

The most important thing to bear in mind during such monotheistic musings is that Jesus can't play rugby because he's got holes in his hands. That or because his dad will fix the match.

And Judas can't play rugby because he'd cheat for the other team.

A valid point, but too many syllables as i was quoting a rugby drinking song.

Did God make Man or did Man make God?

Originally Posted by Atom' Package

that is not what those words mean.

an atheist is someone who believes there is no god, i.e. thinks of something as true fact without proof.

an agnostic tries to avoid believing anything about 'god-centric matters', by only accepting as true what they can see has tangible proof.

it's not a case of one idea being a more moderate version of the other, theism and atheism are belief structures, agnosticism is rational, verging on skeptical structure

So I know this thread is old but I didn't see this last bit. This stuff above is not the only definition of athiest. I think it's kind of a misconception about athiests... a lot of athiests simply lack belief in God - without making any dogmatic statements about the existence of God. Some might call this agnostic atheism because there is also a belief that no one can know, perhaps that also implies a willingness to be proven wrong and so seems more reasonable. I think most agnostics are actually athiests by this definition. I consider myself athiest and my view is "well I can't know for sure but probably not - at least not in the way y'all are talkin about." In other words I'm not making any claims but I have tentatively chosen a side. I think I have more reason to believe the concept of gods are manmade than man is god-made and the world can be explained pretty easily without a god, so... but that's me.

But yeah, define God anyway. who the hell knows.

here's a link that explains what I'm trying to say better than i said it.
Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?

For some reason I've always sought out whatever labeled my beliefs although I agree it seems pointless and silly at times. But it's really just philosophical terms. Also in this instance I think that most people believe athiest is an unreasonable position for angry god-haters instead of simply a sensible default existing in the absence of any objectively obvious contact from a god. If thinking people are stuck with the "well we'll never know" position, all positions are equally reasonable/unreasonable. I'm an athiest because I think it is the most reasonable, the default logical position. I think religious people mislabel athiesm to further their agenda.