atheist vs agnostics.

[Cyberman]

Well, as I say it sounds more like agnostic deism than outright atheism to me. Nothing wrong in that; just another string in the harmony of belief. Just be glad you're not a discordant theist.

[Zone]

Deism is a profession of belief in a God who created the universe then leaves the universe alone to do it's thing but I don't believe in the deist God either or anything else like that. I'm just rejecting "atheism". I'm not a big fan of unlikely coincidences I like a proper detailed explanations for things with everything in it's place. So I don't have the complete explanation but neither does the Pope or Richard bloody Dawkins. At least I know I don't know so I know a bit more than them because they think they know unless it turns out that one of then is right, equally unlikely both ways.

[Simon Moon]

There is no such thing as 'atheist vs agnostic'. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

Agnosticism is NOT some sort of middle ground between theism and atheism.

They're the same thing with a different degree of passion. Atheists tend to deeply dislike religions and the concept of God and think it's utterly ridiculous, a form of child abuse and so on. Agnostics are a bit more chilled, people can believe in "some stuff" if they like, as long as they're not harming anyone.

No they're not.

Agnosticism is the position that it is unknown or possibly unknowable whether a god exists or not. Agnosticism is not some sort of lesser degree of atheism.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god.

Anti-theism is the active opposition to theism.

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. Not all atheists are anti-theists.

Agnostics tend to believe there is a decent chance that something like a God or higher power could exist, religions do make some decent arguments and there is some good imagination there at the very least. But going from that to believing in miracles or the Devil would be a stretch for me personally.

No they don't.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with what probability one puts on the chances that a god exists. If you personally believe there is a high probability that a god exists, that is your own position, It has nothing to do with agnosticism.


On the subject of the religious arguments for the existence of a god, they are ALL fallacious. But that's a subject for a different thread.

[justin]

Deism is a profession of belief in a God who created the universe then leaves the universe alone to do it's thing but I don't believe in the deist God either or anything else like that. I'm just rejecting "atheism". I'm not a big fan of unlikely coincidences I like a proper detailed explanations for things with everything in it's place. So I don't have the complete explanation but neither does the Pope or Richard bloody Dawkins. At least I know I don't know so I know a bit more than them because they think they know unless it turns out that one of then is right, equally unlikely both ways.

Ok "socrates" haha how do you reject a rejection of claims without supporting those claims orignally made? Richard dawkins? What are you referring to when you say dawkins cause he wrote alot of books. Dawrin?
Debates on science or religion?

What about math? We can gain knowledge from math by reason so do you reject these things?

[Simon Moon]

I'm just rejecting "atheism". I'm not a big fan of unlikely coincidences I like a proper detailed explanations for things with everything in it's place.

As Justin said, how does one reject the rejection of a claim?

Theists claim a god exists. Atheists simply do not believe their claim.

What 'coincidences' are you referring to? It really doesn't matter what you are personally a fan of. It matters what can be demonstrated as true by evidence and reasoned argument. Your personal incredulity is pretty much meaningless.

So I don't have the complete explanation but neither does the Pope or Richard bloody Dawkins. At least I know I don't know so I know a bit more than them because they think they know unless it turns out that one of then is right, equally unlikely both ways.

Dawkins never claims to have the complete explanation. That's why he's a scientist.

[Zone]

As Justin said, how does one reject the rejection of a claim?

I'm rejecting the atheists total rejection of theism to the extent that the universe becomes a random coincidence of some kind which result in various natural processes taking place with us as an unintentional byproduct. I can see what theists are trying to argue against, they do have a point I see what they mean. Though I would still back slowly away from them should they say anything about the second coming or the anti-Christ, bit weird.

Theists claim a god exists. Atheists simply do not believe their claim.

It isn't necessarily quite that black and white, both sides make good arguments and both sides believe something that seems slightly off the wall to me as well.

What 'coincidences' are you referring to?

The existence of the universe, life, the development of conscious intelligent civilisations living on planets orbiting stars (there's at least one). Rather than be a coincidence I think there will be a damn good reason which explains it all. I don't think the reason is the Bible but at least the people writing it had some imagination, they could have done better had they know what we know now perhaps but was a decent stab.

It really doesn't matter what you are personally a fan of.

What matters to me is what is actually true and I think atheism is wrong based on what I know of the universe as it is. A complex process with a complex end result will have a complex explanation rather no explanation at all as atheists seem to assume.

It matters what can be demonstrated as true by evidence and reasoned argument.

Evidence and reasoned argument is what I'm using. It may not be convincing for you but you're not particularly convincing me either. I do agree with you on the supernatural issue and religions being man made.

Your personal incredulity is pretty much meaningless.

I have an opinion that is slightly different to your not personal incredulty. I think you're mistaken about something that's all. We're technically still in the same camp however. If you don't believe in a religion you don't believe in a religion.

Dawkins never claims to have the complete explanation. That's why he's a scientist.

He doesn't have the complete explanation to support what he believes to be "true" the same as me, but we have different ideas of what is true. I think the universe has the purpose or intent of generating intelligent life within itself. The process being an emergence of structured complexity from initial simple forms, it seems obvious to me that that is what the universe is doing. It will be doing that for a reason.

[downbeatplumb]

If you don't currently believe in a god then you are an atheist in my book.
You may say that you don't know if god exists or not and as such are an agnostic, but that seems to be just a subset of atheism to me.

[Simon Moon]

I'm rejecting the atheists total rejection of theism to the extent that the universe becomes a random coincidence of some kind which result in various natural processes taking place with us as an unintentional byproduct. I can see what theists are trying to argue against, they do have a point I see what they mean. Though I would still back slowly away from them should they say anything about the second coming or the anti-Christ, bit weird.

This is all one big argument from ignorance. Just because you can't explain how the universe came about, does not mean that other people can't. You also seem to be equating the lack of belief in the existence of gods with science.

You are letting your personal incredulity and lack of scientific knowledge shape your beliefs.

It isn't necessarily quite that black and white, both sides make good arguments and both sides believe something that seems slightly off the wall to me as well.

Which arguments do you think theist make that are good? Post the best one. They are all fallacious.

There are no arguments necessary for atheism. Atheism does not make any claims that require supporting arguments.

The existence of the universe, life, the development of conscious intelligent civilisations living on planets orbiting stars (there's at least one). Rather than be a coincidence I think there will be a damn good reason which explains it all. I don't think the reason is the Bible but at least the people writing it had some imagination, they could have done better had they know what we know now perhaps but was a decent stab.

You are misidentifying that as 'coincidence'. There are strict laws of physics that only allow atoms and molecules to interact in certain, limited ways. It is not a random process.

What matters to me is what is actually true and I think atheism is wrong based on what I know of the universe as it is. A complex process with a complex end result will have a complex explanation rather no explanation at all as atheists seem to assume.

What do you know of the universe? What university did you study cosmology and physics at?

All I can see is that you look at the vastness and complexity of the universe and say, "Well...I can't see how this could have happened by natural processes, so it couldn't have". Argument from ignorance.

Evidence and reasoned argument is what I'm using. It may not be convincing for you but you're not particularly convincing me either. I do agree with you on the supernatural issue and religions being man made.

No you are not. You have been guilty of argument from ignorance. That is the opposite of reasoned argument. There is no evidence or valid logic to support anything other than natural processes for the existence of the universe or life.

I have an opinion that is slightly different to your not personal incredulty. I think you're mistaken about something that's all. We're technically still in the same camp however. If you don't believe in a religion you don't believe in a religion.

You claim your position is valid because you can't imagine that it could be different. That is pretty much the definition of argument from personal incredulity.

[naimless]

If you don't currently believe in a god then you are an atheist in my book.
You may say that you don't know if god exists or not and as such are an agnostic, but that seems to be just a subset of atheism to me.

Unfortunately there are a lot of prominent atheists who do not share that view. I watched this video where Ricky Gervais ridiculed agnostics for not being atheists in front of Dawkins and Dawkins didn't even educate Ricky that he was partly agnostic.

There really is a severe problem in using this terminology depending on what audience you are with. Dawkins obviously didn't feel the need as he was talking to an atheist, however; if he was talking to a religious person would he have allowed the ridicule of agnosticism in comparison? I doubt it.

[Angrboda]

The difference is that atheists know the difference between epistemology and ontology, and agnostics don't seem to know anything at all.

Oh, and once upon a time, the universe was a very, very, very simple place. (It still is, depending on how you quantify complexity, but I wouldn't want to say anything that might cause your head to explode and shit.)