Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People are open-minded or narrow-minded, not beliefs. Even if someone is agnostic, they could be extremely judgmental and narrow-minded in other respects, and likewise, someone who is devoutly religious or atheist could also be very open-minded in other ways.
Perhaps he is an Agnostic Atheist and believes it to be the most true and good condition.
I don't see how a person can be both agnostic and atheist. An agnostic atheist is someone who identifies as agnostic when it suits him and as atheist when it suits him. It's an oxymoron.
A quick Google search will show you that Xtian is a valid spelling of Christian, a spelling I use online to spare my poor, arthritic fingers. I see that your life experiences differ from mine, so I'll agree to disagree with you and not engage in further debate.
Arthritic fingers?
Spare me.
There is only one vadid spelling of the word. "Xtian" is passive aggressive nonsense. If you can spell "Richard Dawkins" properly you can spell "Christian" properly.
I completely agree. I have two brothers who are die-hard atheists, and a father who is a theist. I am an agnostic.
Agnostics get a bad rap. To both atheists and theists, a common conception is that they don't have the balls to pick a side. And I think that is a tragically inaccurate trivialization of the issue.
Let me use this relate-able albeit mundane analogy: I don't believe for a hot second that Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson was innocent. But I DO believe that the prosecutors in both instances failed to meet their burdens of proof that they were guilty. I think that in both cases, we didn't know all the facts.
Similarly, I believe that ALL religions of which I am aware have failed to meet their burden of proof (which, because they are alleging an affirmative fact, rests upon them) of the existence of a "God". But, just as I don't at all believe that the aforementioned parties were innocent, I do not believe that the failure of theists to meet their requisite standard of proof means justifies an affirmative belief in the nonexistence of a "god". Sorry, but that seems silly to me.
We as humans, have only so much to work with. I believe we are presented with an incomplete set of facts. There is simply too much regarding the origin of the universe, why matter exists, etc. that we do not yet know to make a coherent conclusion either way. And that makes me an agnostic.
Taking a completely logical approach to the nonexistence of a "god" (atheism) necessarily fails. It fails because it does not take into account the evolutionary nature of human knowledge and thinking. It is, in my opinion, as equally limited as theism.
So call me what you want. You can say I lack balls, or conviction in my logic. It's nothing I haven't heard before. But I refuse to rely on a body of knowledge that is ever-changing to rest my faith upon. And sometimes saying you do not know takes more courage than anything else.
EDIT: By "god" I do not mean to denote any specific deity enumerated by any religion. Simply the idea of a "higher power"
So... even though it has not been proven, you think that Casey Anthony killed her daughter?
Excellent analogy! But hardly one that backs up the line of thinking that says without proof that no deity exists (and such proof, not surprisingly, is impossible) one cannot logically conclude that said deity does not exist. You have openly stated that regarding Casey Anthony, you have a belief that has not been proven.
PS - 'Proof' in a court of law falls far short of scientific proof. Even had Anthony been convicted by overwhelming evidence, that would not be scientific proof that she committed the crime in question. You are conflating two very different concepts of proof here.
For the sake of clarity, lets then change from 'heathen' to : Immoralists and Hedonists (by and large) . Are you ok with this as representing those with an atheistic mindset taking into account atheist social constructs ?
Of course not. Don't be so absurd. Atheism is a lack of a god - belief. That's all. There is no atheist social construct. There are some societies and organisations which are atheist or profess atheism. Their mission statements or policy documents are not to be foisted on atheism as some sort of dogma. And I would not make you the first source of information on the atheist mindset.
Atheists are as moral as theists - of ten more so as they have to decide about morals rather than going along with what they are told.
Whether hedonism is tending to be embraced by atheism as (by and large) logic, science and liberality is often what an atheist opts for is something I'd be willing to discuss, but to use it as a synonym for atheism/ists is as wrong as asking whether you'd accept 'Holy - Book believer' and 'idol worshiper' as a suitable term for theism.
I don't see how a person can be both agnostic and atheist. An agnostic atheist is someone who identifies as agnostic when it suits him and as atheist when it suits him. It's an oxymoron.
Bearing in mind that some people use the term 'agnostic' to mean 'undecided as to whether a god exists', correctly, agnosticism is not knowing whether a god exists or not, atheism means not believing an a god. The two are clearly not mutually exclusive logical positions and indeed, the logical conclusion from the the former has to be the latter.
There is only one vadid spelling of the word. "Xtian" is passive aggressive nonsense. If you can spell "Richard Dawkins" properly you can spell "Christian" properly.
When and where did I ever mention Richard Dawkins? and I am far from passive aggressive. I don't take radical shortcuts in my typing (for example: How r u?) but I'll take whatever shortcuts I can, and if I want to spell "Christian" "Xtian" then I will. You are free to ignore it.
Of course not. Don't be so absurd. Atheism is a lack of a god - belief. That's all. There is no atheist social construct. There are some societies and organisations which are atheist or profess atheism. Their mission statements or policy documents are not to be foisted on atheism as some sort of dogma. And I would not make you the first source of information on the atheist mindset.
Atheists are as moral as theists - of ten more so as they have to decide about morals rather than going along with what they are told.
Whether hedonism is tending to be embraced by atheism as (by and large) logic, science and liberality is often what an atheist opts for is something I'd be willing to discuss, but to use it as a synonym for atheism/ists is as wrong as asking whether you'd accept 'Holy - Book believer' and 'idol worshiper' as a suitable term for theism.
To your first paragraph, i have to say that what one thinks about their origins, purpose in life, meaning to life , whether morals are manmade or absolute , etc....is inseperately linked to how one chooses to behave, talk, act, and develop personal idelogies . Would this seem logical to you ?
Re: Paragraph number 2 --- Why do you think many Atheists opt for a lifestyle of hedonism whether it be sexual or otherwise ? What do you think the driving catalyst for this choice is, specifically for atheists ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Of course not. Don't be so absurd. Atheism is a lack of a god - belief. That's all. There is no atheist social construct. There are some societies and organisations which are atheist or profess atheism. Their mission statements or policy documents are not to be foisted on atheism as some sort of dogma. And I would not make you the first source of information on the atheist mindset.
Atheists are as moral as theists - of ten more so as they have to decide about morals rather than going along with what they are told.
Whether hedonism is tending to be embraced by atheism as (by and large) logic, science and liberality is often what an atheist opts for is something I'd be willing to discuss, but to use it as a synonym for atheism/ists is as wrong as asking whether you'd accept 'Holy - Book believer' and 'idol worshiper' as a suitable term for theism.
To your first paragraph, i have to say that what one thinks about their origins, purpose in life, meaning to life , whether morals are manmade or absolute , etc....is inseperately linked to how one chooses to behave, talk, act, and develop personal idelogies . Would this seem logical to you ?
Re: Paragraph number 2 --- Why do you think many Atheists opt for a lifestyle of hedonism whether it be sexual or otherwise ? What do you think the driving catalyst for this choice is, specifically for atheists ?
Tsk. Ask a question, get an answer. AREQUIPA answered your question, and you discarded their answer as false. You're very bad at this debating thing. You realize this, don't you?
Paragraph two... repeating what you've said in different ways does not make your statement any truer than it was the first time you said it. Atheists do not opt for a "lifestyle of hedonism" as has been pointed out to you several times before in this very thread. As a matter of fact, I know many Xtians... I'm sorry Christians... who are far more hedonistic than any Atheists I know. But they ask for forgiveness on Sundays, so I guess that does not count.
Tsk. Ask a question, get an answer. AREQUIPA answered your question, and you discarded their answer as false. You're very bad at this debating thing. You realize this, don't you?
Paragraph two... repeating what you've said in different ways does not make your statement any truer than it was the first time you said it. Atheists do not opt for a "lifestyle of hedonism" as has been pointed out to you several times before in this very thread. As a matter of fact, I know many Xtians... I'm sorry Christians... who are far more hedonistic than any Atheists I know. But they ask for forgiveness on Sundays, so I guess that does not count.
Arequipa answered the question to the best of his opinion , true.
A huge number of atheists DO in fact opt for hedonism as a lifestyle , as ive talked to many in person and online that admit to it unashamedly in most cases. Im aware that some Christians have bought into the cultures philoosphy on hedonism ... just as the Bible indicates they would in latter times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't be so absurd. Atheism is a lack of a god - belief. That's all. There is no atheist social construct. There are some societies and organisations which are atheist or profess atheism. Their mission statements or policy documents are not to be foisted on atheism as some sort of dogma. And I would not make you the first source of information on the atheist mindset. 
