I say no.

I say yes. But they sure as fuck can't believe in ID

I think it's possible. Not every atheist is a deep-thinker, ya know. Grasping what evolution is might be beyond their ken or interest.

I really doubt that any atheist could possibly think that man started out as man.

yes but their mental health will impede their brains from assuming absurd irrational things, specially in adulthood, as if they were possible!. The atheist, IMHO, would say " I don't know" if someone refutes evolution, and do research to educate himself/herself. Some atheists when presented with something utterly irrational and does have an asnwer to counter the absurd utterance, could be polite and say it is possible, but deep inside will not believe it and get educate on the subject....:):cool:

Sure it is possible, but unlikely. There is no other explanation that explains the variety of life over time. Evolution is not dependent upon atheism or any belief structure.

So atheists who do not agree with evolution just have not done some research. It is the best explanation and has plenty of evidence. Belief, or lack thereof, in God does not matter.

The idea that man just started out as man is impossible to justify without a belief in god and creation. What happened? Human sperm and a female egg just came out of nowhere, got together and a human was born without a pregnant chick. Or lightning, comets and neutrino's in a hostile earth environment got together and spit out a bunch of human babies.

of course.

Skeptics don't believe in evolution, they might say it "appears" to be the most valid explination, but thats it, they don't cling to anything explination. Once you cling to a belief then it might hurt to let it go and that causes suffering.

Who knows, its certainly "possible" evolution could be wrong you know. A good scientist ( I think ) humbly says "evolution is the best explination we have so far". All science is is statistics, and we don't know everything, and correlation doesn't mean causation so anythings possible! :)

On a side note, evolution appears to be correct :)

I say yes. Some atheists don't care to contemlate God or evolution.

Most existential philosophers such as Sartre never really got very far past the Cartesian cogito, hence anything that couldn't be explained in purely subjective terms was just doubted and often ignored. Ignorance seems to be a universal prerequisite for not accepting evolution.

Good point. I wonder what atheists thought prior ot Darwin about how humans came to be. I know that evolution does not technically deal with abiogenesis, but the two are very related. You would figure that if you had a 13th Century Atheist by the throat and asked him if humans started off as humans, how can you reconcile this into a belief that humans weren't created.

There's probably some out there who reckon we were all put there by aliens or something.

Where they might think the aliens came from, I have no idea.

Well, you would definately have to believe in some type of evolution, if not natural selection. Like some different mechanism such as, I don't know, Lamarckian evolution. But I think they ditched Lamarckian evolution, so perhaps some mechanism we havent thought up yet.

The problem is there no other plausible explanation with mountains of evidence.

I don't know. I know a couple atheists who are just as stupid as theists in that they accept whatever they are told but never really think about it. They were raised without any mention of God, so they never questioned it either way. To them evolution is some silly science thing they had to learn in high school, but have long since forgotten about completely.

I used to think a lot of intellectual things were impossible to believe, but that was back when I was a Republican and struggling agnostic, and that whole part of my life just makes me feel bad about existence. Leave it to theists to prove that the human brain is capable of believing any amount of nonsense.

Which is why belief is irrelevant. It's what you can prove, and physically show with reliable continuous same results, that matters.

Oh, but empiricism is a trick of the devil! Surely you do not mean to tell me that my belief in God despite any evidence to the contrary isn't the single most important thing in my life? :rolleyes:

If there's anything I've learned in my life, it's that human perception has the most amazing capacity for denial, rationalization, compartmentalization, and all sorts of inane mental gyrations to make any two mutually exclusive perspectives fit snugly into an alternative reality. No logic required.

So sadly, yes, it is possible. But that doesn't make it right.

they thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it too, yet science proved these theories wrong so they changed their minds. abit like if science proved evolution wrong, most scientists would apodt the new theroies, but if science proved god was a fabricated lie (which it is by the way, just watch this space) then would you be willing to change your mind about oh holy one???????

"sits back in his chair and waits for the onslaught to begin"

In all cases, before there were scientific explanations, with what did the atheists replace the prevalent "goddidit" mantra?

In nearly all of these situations, the unlucky atheists would need mass quantities of burn ointment and splinter removal kits long before they actually formulated an alternative to god. The few remaining atheists developed thair own natural explanations, many of which were wrong, of course, but many were probably right. It may well be that some secret atheist formulated the theory of evolution years before Darwin and prudently kept it to himself. There were a lot of hobbyists conducting experiments in their basements and those who survived the fashionable public experiment of the time, determining, yet again, the ignition temperature of human flesh, discovered many things.

Sure. If they also don't "believe" in algebra.

Facts are facts; evidence is evidence. Evolution is merely a model that takes into account the physical evidence available and provides an accurate and functional description of a natural process. One doesn't "believe" in evolution; one simply acknowledges that it is an accurate model of reality, or one rejects that it is an accurate model of reality.

If one rejects that evolution is an accurate model of reality, then it is that person's responsibility to substantiate their claim of rejection. Since evolution is based on physical evidence, the person who rejects the model of evolution must present physical evidence that demonstrates the inaccuracy of evolution. If the person who rejects evolution presents enough physical evidence to back up their claim of rejection -- enough evidence to rival the physical evidence that supports the model of evolution -- then the model of evolution will be reconsidered.

Until then, those who reject evolution as an accurate model of reality -- those who don't "believe" in it -- can howl at the moon all they want, but their own ideas -- creationism/intelligent design/arbitrary-new-title -- will carry no scientific merit. Science is interested in forming functional models based on physical evidence, and the physical evidence that exists supports the model of evolution. Simple as that.

After the Christ-psychotics took over the Roman empire causing its desintegration
( 5th Century) and after they slowly stablished intellectual stagnation replacing deductive rational thinking with their Invisible friend delusions, they introduced Christyland....nothing was real!..the truths became lies, rationality became lunacy, hipocresy became sincerity and all sort of ancient mythological entities became a matter of fact reality including the Homunculus, proposed by von Hohenheim( paracelsus) during 16th Century. Christians had NO IDEA about biology then and they still don't in this 21st Century...:lol:

Hehe, thats what probably ended the Roman Empire, economic decline was the result of social conservativism preventing openess to new cultures, etc.

I think as close a you could get would be either

I don't beleive in god
I have no clue where animals and plants and stuff came from and don't care so I guess I don't realy beleive in evolution

or

I truely beleive the universe poped into existance 3 min ago and or is a personal delusion that I will eventualy get over.

Sure, it's plenty possible that many Atheists just haven't thought a great deal about evolution. By I find it high unlikely that any Atheists (or Agnostics, or anybody with a whit of rational thought in their brain.) have carefully examined evolution and purposefully rejected it.

Somebody asked the question how Atheists viewed the start of life before evolutionary theory was around. They didn't basically, but they were pretty sure that it wasn't an invisible cloud man making people out of Mud (or the flavor of the day creation myth.) Today we don't have an exact answer (yet) as to how life started on earth, but I'm pretty confident it wasn't a magical god-man.

You have to remember even without evolution, there was still a geological record, and before that there was the telescope, and before that you could look up and see the shadow of the moon. It doesn't take much to tell that religion is full of shit.

It seems like people here believe that until Darwin and Copernicus everyone thought the Earth was flat, it was the center of the universe and we were created by Gods (or at least if they didn't believe these things they remained silent). Heliocentric models were around in India from the 9th century BCE, with the Chinese, Greek and Indian ancient civilizations arriving at fairly accurate (considering the tools available) measurements of the size of the Earth, moon and Sun, and the distances between them. The early Greek and Indian Atomists (Democritus in particular) believed all there was to existence were atoms and void, and the current arrangement of the universe was the result of random collisions. Considering these ideas go back to almost the time of our earliest writings, these ideas aren't new; they've been with us all along.

I heard about this a while ago but I couldn't find anything on it for some time.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/...BookEVOLI.html

The Ancient Greek philosopher Anaxiamander (611-547 B.C.) and the Roman philosopher Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) coined the concept that all living things were related and that they had changed over time. The classical science of their time was observational rather than experimental.

So an idea like evolution was not beyond the grasp of early civilizations.

I think by now we know that evolution is a fact. It would be hard to deny that if you’re an Atheist.

Unless your a sceptic DJ.

Well, I think it depends on two things:

1. How you define atheism

If you consider an infant or a mentally retarded person an atheist by default, then the answer is Yes.

2. How did that atheist become one

If you grew up to atheist parents or parents who do not practice any religion, you are an atheist by birth. Just like I was born a Moslem, although I didn't contemplate evolution or question my beliefs until I was in my late 20s, but believed and practiced Islam. Hence, the answer is Yes.

And, still, you can be an atheist without really knowing much about evolution. Evolution is not the only evidence against God, you know. Good old common sense is more than enough.

So, I say YEEEEES!

Peace.

MA, I define atheism as someone who has made a choice not to believe in god, and who sincerely believes there is no god, or anything supernatural that has ever come out of hiding since before the beginning of time.

2. If asked before you were in your 20's if god existed you would say yes, or I don't know...you wouldn't say no, so you were not an atheist. You became an atheist when you decided there is no god.

Evolution is not evidence against god(50% of scientists are believe in theistic evolution), but not believing in evolution means you must believe in god or the supernatural, or how would you explain how man started on this planet?

One more question. I'm an Atheist Jew. To be a Jew you either convert or you have a Jewish mother. It is my understanding, that one is not born a Muslim. Am I wrong about this? In other words, Christians, are not born Christian either, when they become Atheists, they are no longer defined as a Christian Atheist.

I believe Druze, are born Druze though, so you can be an Atheist Druze.

I know it is just a label, but I'm curious.

I have a niggling semantic point to make here. Choice? I don't feel as though I chose to evacuate the theo-beliefs I was indoctrinated with, nor do I now 'choose' to be an atheist. It's not an option from a suite of possible choices, but a realization, a conclusion, my state of awareness, all derived from my experience and education (and perhaps genetic makeup). I think if it were a 'choice,' I could just as easily choose to believe in Gawd any time. It's not that I won't -- it's that I can't.

Sorry to butt in, but I find this is a point many theists fail to grasp.

It really is a choice. You or I could choose to believe tomorrow. We won't most likely. But yes, realization would be a better term. But even when we say we have no choice, there are alternatives. Just like the Church of Reality. Their motto is Choose Reality.

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

Well, that’s not entirely true. I started to consider myself an atheist when I realized that the concept of a critical god (the Judo-Christian God, or Allah or God) is irrational and highly improbable. However, I cannot rule out the existence of a supernatural entity (or entities) -- not necessarily omniscient or omnipotent, but beyond our comprehension and/or senses -- that engineered such a complex universe. There is so much still unknown about the universe and its fundamentals that renders an informed opinion about the existence of such an entity impossible. The presence of such an entity does not mean that it actively interferes in our lives. It can even be unaware of our existence

Consciously denying evolution makes me more stupid than religious. But, again, whatever the reason that makes a person not believe in evolution, does not automatically mean that they believe that God is the explanation. Both positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And this brings me back to the definition of atheism. If you define atheism so narrowly as the outright denial of any supernatural power, then the answer is no, because any form of creationism entails a supernatural power. However, if you define atheism the way I do, then you can be an atheist without believing in evolution, since you do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but still do not believe in “God.”

With my limited knowledge of evolution, I have to admit that it is unlikely for a person to not believe in evolution and not be religious, but it is not impossible, at least philosophically speaking


Atheist Moslem is a paradox, because a Moslem is just a religious designation, as compared to a Jew, which can also be a racial designation. However, if you’re born to Moslem parents, more specifically a Moslem father, you are a Moslem automatically. Moslem men can marry non-Moslem women, but not the other way around. And there are no rituals involved, like baptism.

I hope this answered your question.

Peace.

Well, that’s not entirely true. I started to consider myself an atheist when I realized that the concept of a critical god (the Judo-Christian God, or Allah or God) is irrational and highly improbable. However, I cannot rule out the existence of a supernatural entity (or entities) -- not necessarily omniscient or omnipotent, but beyond our comprehension and/or senses -- that engineered such a complex universe. There is so much still unknown about the universe and its fundamentals that renders an informed opinion about the existence of such an entity impossible. The presence of such an entity does not mean that it actively interferes in our lives. It can even be unaware of our existence

Consciously denying evolution makes me more stupid than religious. But, again, whatever the reason that makes a person not believe in evolution, does not automatically mean that they believe that God is the explanation. Both positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And this brings me back to the definition of atheism. If you define atheism so narrowly as the outright denial of any supernatural power, then the answer is no, because any form of creationism entails a supernatural power. However, if you define atheism the way I do, then you can be an atheist without believing in evolution, since you do not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but still do not believe in “God.”

With my limited knowledge of evolution, I have to admit that it is unlikely for a person to not believe in evolution and not be religious, but it is not impossible, at least philosophically speaking


Atheist Moslem is a paradox, because a Moslem is just a religious designation, as compared to a Jew, which can also be a racial designation. However, if you’re born to Moslem parents, more specifically a Moslem father, you are a Moslem automatically. Moslem men can marry non-Moslem women, but not the other way around. And there are no rituals involved, like baptism.

I hope this answered your question.

Peace.

Sorry, my non-kosher carnivorous friend, but I'm not buying it. I could claim to believe tomorrow, but it wouldn't be true. The only way it could truly happen would be via some dramatic revelation, and that would hardly be my choice. You are correct insofar as one could 'choose' to believe the sky is paisley (I mean paisley all the time), but even if one did believe such a thing, that's not a choice, it's a hallucination.

Frankly, I don't think thomas or Lily or all the short-bus riders in the forum could choose atheism either. They could choose to read more science or choose to take courses in logic or make any number of other choices that may or may not make their Invisible Friend really disappear, but if/when that last thing happens, it's not because they willed it.

I dunno -- I'm just speaking from my own experience; I suppose others have a different take. Did you choose atheism?

Sorry, my non-kosher carnivorous friend, but I'm not buying it. I could claim to believe tomorrow, but it wouldn't be true. The only way it could truly happen would be via some dramatic revelation, and that would hardly be my choice. You are correct insofar as one could 'choose' to believe the sky is paisley (I mean paisley all the time), but even if one did believe such a thing, that's not a choice, it's a hallucination.

Frankly, I don't think thomas or Lily or all the short-bus riders in the forum could choose atheism either. They could choose to read more science or choose to take courses in logic or make any number of other choices that may or may not make their Invisible Friend really disappear, but if/when that last thing happens, it's not because they willed it.

I dunno -- I'm just speaking from my own experience; I suppose others have a different take. Did you choose atheism?

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

MA, you sort of sound like an Agnostic. You don't rule out the supernatural. That is a lot different than what an Atheist does. I can see an Agnostic not having to believe in evolution. But if an Atheist, someone who does not give the supernatural consideration, has to come up with an answer to whether man appeared on earth first as a man, I can't see him/her saying I don't know.

I've heard that a Moslim isn't born a Moslim for another Moslim. But aside from that, if one is born a Moslim, than you can be a Moslim for life, if you are correct about the father thingy. Are there different interpretations?

Phil, is believing in evolution a choice? Don't atheists have a choice to be agnostics?

MA, you sort of sound like an Agnostic. You don't rule out the supernatural. That is a lot different than what an Atheist does. I can see an Agnostic not having to believe in evolution. But if an Atheist, someone who does not give the supernatural consideration, has to come up with an answer to whether man appeared on earth first as a man, I can't see him/her saying I don't know.

I've heard that a Moslim isn't born a Moslim for another Moslim. But aside from that, if one is born a Moslim, than you can be a Moslim for life, if you are correct about the father thingy. Are there different interpretations?

Phil, is believing in evolution a choice? Don't atheists have a choice to be agnostics?

BEAJ: Please reconfigure your notion of what agnostic means.

"Phil, is believing in evolution a choice?"

I suppose one could choose between competing theories, but there aren't any ...

"Don't atheists have a choice to be agnostics?"

Nope. We're all agnostics (including theists) ... I bet no one's ever heard me say that before! I've also typed my fingers into bloody stumps writing this: You can be both atheist and agnostic. I know I am. (No beliefs in god-concepts; can't prove [or know] their existence one way or the other.)

BEAJ: Please reconfigure your notion of what agnostic means.

"Phil, is believing in evolution a choice?"

I suppose one could choose between competing theories, but there aren't any ...

"Don't atheists have a choice to be agnostics?"

Nope. We're all agnostics (including theists) ... I bet no one's ever heard me say that before! I've also typed my fingers into bloody stumps writing this: You can be both atheist and agnostic. I know I am. (No beliefs in god-concepts; can't prove [or know] their existence one way or the other.)

Phil, I have always said that we are all agnostics. We can't say for sure one god, or 50 gods exist. I can't even say for sure my pen isn't god.

However, I believe atheist do not allow for the possiblity that god exists. We don't shrug our shoulders as to whether god exists or not. I think MA does, by the sounds of it. When you say "who knows" you are agnostic only. When you say there is absolutely no proof that god has ever existed, so why believe there is a god, you are an atheist.

Phil, I have always said that we are all agnostics. We can't say for sure one god, or 50 gods exist. I can't even say for sure my pen isn't god.

However, I believe atheist do not allow for the possiblity that god exists. We don't shrug our shoulders as to whether god exists or not. I think MA does, by the sounds of it. When you say "who knows" you are agnostic only. When you say there is absolutely no proof that god has ever existed, so why believe there is a god, you are an atheist.

That’s a major problem with atheism; its definition.

But let me start with my definition of atheism. I think of atheism as the philosophical position which argues that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, critical god is irrational and therefore highly unlikely. In addition, there is no physical evidence of its existence.

But to get to a simpler definition of atheism, let me first define what I consider God to be. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, boundless, timeless entity that created all things sensed and unsensed. Humans are His “special” creation because He gave them the power to choose and will judge them based on their choices. I call it the critical god, or God, for short.

Second, let me define theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of the aforementioned God.

Accordingly, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God.

The way I see it, you are an atheist if you do not believe in any of God’s attributes, simply because without having all those attributes simultaneously, God seizes to be God.

So, if you believe that your pencil is your god, then you are an atheist, because the pencil does not posess all of God’s attributes... well, none in this case.

And whether you’re indifferent, not sure, or don’t see enough evidence to support either position, worship a different deity with lesser attributes, or outright deny the existence of anything supernatural, you are an atheist simply because all of these positions do not imply the belief in God.

The fact that I believe in the possibility of the existence of supernatural entity does not make me agnostic. I simply rule out the possibility of a god so powerful and gracious, and yet so petty. But is it possible that there is a creator to the universe? Sure. But it doesn’t mean that God exists and doesn’t mean I believe in a creator of the universe, even though I cannot rule out the possiblity entirely.

A supernatural entity and God are two entirely different beasts. Ruling out the existence of God is straight forward. Ruling out a creator of the universe (which kinda has to be supernatural) is not. There is no evidence of it, but it’s not illogical, especially as compared to the concept of God.

Peace.

That’s a major problem with atheism; its definition.

But let me start with my definition of atheism. I think of atheism as the philosophical position which argues that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, critical god is irrational and therefore highly unlikely. In addition, there is no physical evidence of its existence.

But to get to a simpler definition of atheism, let me first define what I consider God to be. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, boundless, timeless entity that created all things sensed and unsensed. Humans are His “special” creation because He gave them the power to choose and will judge them based on their choices. I call it the critical god, or God, for short.

Second, let me define theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of the aforementioned God.

Accordingly, atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God.

The way I see it, you are an atheist if you do not believe in any of God’s attributes, simply because without having all those attributes simultaneously, God seizes to be God.

So, if you believe that your pencil is your god, then you are an atheist, because the pencil does not posess all of God’s attributes... well, none in this case.

And whether you’re indifferent, not sure, or don’t see enough evidence to support either position, worship a different deity with lesser attributes, or outright deny the existence of anything supernatural, you are an atheist simply because all of these positions do not imply the belief in God.

The fact that I believe in the possibility of the existence of supernatural entity does not make me agnostic. I simply rule out the possibility of a god so powerful and gracious, and yet so petty. But is it possible that there is a creator to the universe? Sure. But it doesn’t mean that God exists and doesn’t mean I believe in a creator of the universe, even though I cannot rule out the possiblity entirely.

A supernatural entity and God are two entirely different beasts. Ruling out the existence of God is straight forward. Ruling out a creator of the universe (which kinda has to be supernatural) is not. There is no evidence of it, but it’s not illogical, especially as compared to the concept of God.

Peace.

Well, Islam is a one-way ticket. Once a Moslem always a Moslem or be killed and condemned for eternity. So, even if you're born to Moslem parents and don't have a choice as to what religion to follow, you're stuck.

And there are no different interpretations to the father thingy, to the best of my knowledge.

Peace.

Well, Islam is a one-way ticket. Once a Moslem always a Moslem or be killed and condemned for eternity. So, even if you're born to Moslem parents and don't have a choice as to what religion to follow, you're stuck.

And there are no different interpretations to the father thingy, to the best of my knowledge.

Peace.

So anyone not belonging to Judiasm, Christianity or Islam is an atheist? I'm sorry, that's just idiotic. A strong or weak atheistic position has nothing to do with a Hindu position. Or Buddhist, Jain, or Scientologist. Eww. You're claiming atheists are the same thing as Scientologists.

So anyone not belonging to Judiasm, Christianity or Islam is an atheist? I'm sorry, that's just idiotic. A strong or weak atheistic position has nothing to do with a Hindu position. Or Buddhist, Jain, or Scientologist. Eww. You're claiming atheists are the same thing as Scientologists.

I think the problem is that the vast majority of people do not know what the word atheist means!! Let's take the word appart and study its etymology shall we?

From A= WITHOUT and THEOS=GOD/ BELIEF. IOW, atheism simply means:
* Absence of religious Belief.
* NO BELIEF IN GOD
* No belief in fairy tales or supernatural idiocies.
*WITHOUT SUPERNATURAL BELIEF
* Lack of Belief.
* lack of belief in a supernatural being.
* NO GOD.
* A rejection of belief in irrational concepts void of reason.
* A lack of belief in that which CAN NOT be proven using reason or the scientific method.

I think the problem is that the vast majority of people do not know what the word atheist means!! Let's take the word appart and study its etymology shall we?

From A= WITHOUT and THEOS=GOD/ BELIEF. IOW, atheism simply means:
* Absence of religious Belief.
* NO BELIEF IN GOD
* No belief in fairy tales or supernatural idiocies.
*WITHOUT SUPERNATURAL BELIEF
* Lack of Belief.
* lack of belief in a supernatural being.
* NO GOD.
* A rejection of belief in irrational concepts void of reason.
* A lack of belief in that which CAN NOT be proven using reason or the scientific method.

Phil, I agree with all your previous posts in this thread, except for this one. Whether or not you can actually prove the existence of God is one thing, believing it is another. In other words, an agnostic is someone who does not believe the evidence favors either position, regardless of the fact that he's right... or wrong. It is the belief that defines the position, not its validity.

If we use your approach, theists become atheists because they cannot prove their beliefs and atheists become theists because they cannot quite refute the claim of a God.

Peace.

Phil, I agree with all your previous posts in this thread, except for this one. Whether or not you can actually prove the existence of God is one thing, believing it is another. In other words, an agnostic is someone who does not believe the evidence favors either position, regardless of the fact that he's right... or wrong. It is the belief that defines the position, not its validity.

If we use your approach, theists become atheists because they cannot prove their beliefs and atheists become theists because they cannot quite refute the claim of a God.

Peace.

The etymology of Agnostic is: from A=WITHOUT, Gnosis=knowledge. IOW, no knoweldge.

Everytime one says: " I do not know" one becomes an agnostic. If one believes in something that one says: "I do not know anything about it."..then one is a retarded ignoramus, perhaps infected with religious-psychosis...:)

The etymology of Agnostic is: from A=WITHOUT, Gnosis=knowledge. IOW, no knoweldge.

Everytime one says: " I do not know" one becomes an agnostic. If one believes in something that one says: "I do not know anything about it."..then one is a retarded ignoramus, perhaps infected with religious-psychosis...:)

All Scientologists are atheists, but not all atheists are Scientologists. Hindus and Buddhists are also atheists, although passive (weak, negative) atheists, yes, of course.

Ironically, Satanics are not atheists, since they worship the devil, which means they believe God exists.

Peace.

All Scientologists are atheists, but not all atheists are Scientologists. Hindus and Buddhists are also atheists, although passive (weak, negative) atheists, yes, of course.

Ironically, Satanics are not atheists, since they worship the devil, which means they believe God exists.

Peace.

From what I've gathered Satanists don't really believe in a god either, more like their buddhists that like the carnal pleasures of life. isn't their whole religion just one big metaphor for free will and what not?

Unless your talking about the made up satanist cult that christian propagandists like to spout about that kill animals and rape babies.

From what I've gathered Satanists don't really believe in a god either, more like their buddhists that like the carnal pleasures of life. isn't their whole religion just one big metaphor for free will and what not?

Unless your talking about the made up satanist cult that christian propagandists like to spout about that kill animals and rape babies.

No, you're right. They actually indulge in all pleasures forbidden by God, hence encouraged by Satan.

And, really, if you believe in God, why would you screw yourself over and worship the Devil.

Peace.

No, you're right. They actually indulge in all pleasures forbidden by God, hence encouraged by Satan.

And, really, if you believe in God, why would you screw yourself over and worship the Devil.

Peace.

i don't believe that man necessarily came from the apes. So where did we come from then? I don't know. Count that as one of the many things I don't know.

i don't believe that man necessarily came from the apes. So where did we come from then? I don't know. Count that as one of the many things I don't know.

It depends how ID is presented. If ID doesn't mention God or religion, there's no real bite to it. At that point all it's saying is that it doesn't think evolution is correct. Technically, Intelligent Design doesn't really make any claim to God or Religion. Practically, it's a tool for right-wingers.

It depends how ID is presented. If ID doesn't mention God or religion, there's no real bite to it. At that point all it's saying is that it doesn't think evolution is correct. Technically, Intelligent Design doesn't really make any claim to God or Religion. Practically, it's a tool for right-wingers.

never mind again sorry

never mind again sorry

I used identify myself as a republican too... when I was 14. Sure I look back and think, wow that was stupid, but I can forgive myself. I was 14 and both my parents were and are strong republicans. I realized I was gay around 15-16. I realized I was gay, that there was no god, and became democrat all at once. Talk about a good deal. The bad thing is though that the guy I had the hots for didn't magically fall in love with me at the same time.

I used identify myself as a republican too... when I was 14. Sure I look back and think, wow that was stupid, but I can forgive myself. I was 14 and both my parents were and are strong republicans. I realized I was gay around 15-16. I realized I was gay, that there was no god, and became democrat all at once. Talk about a good deal. The bad thing is though that the guy I had the hots for didn't magically fall in love with me at the same time.

I see the distinction you're making, but I say an agnostic won't simply ask 'Who knows?' An agnostic will affirm that this realm -- for want of a better term -- is unknowable. As for your second statement above, that is one possible way to arrive at atheism -- by determining for yourself there is no proof. And it does not conflict in any way with the agnostic position.

Not quite. An agnostic is someone who does not believe that any such evidence exists; or if it does exist, it cannot be known. (hence the 'without knowledge' etymology -- thanks, Cal)

No, if we use my approach, then all are recognized as agnostics -- theists and atheists alike. Atheists can certainly 'refute' specific god-concepts -- e.g., showing logical contradictions in the Xian god -- and that may inform their beliefs. What they cannot do is 'know' or prove that all possible god-concepts (an infinite set) are refutable.

More to the point, if we use my approach, we'll all stop trying to apply the terms 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' as competing expressions. Atheism means no belief(s) in god-concepts; Agnosticism means that knowledge of god-concepts is impossible, whether you believe in God or not.

I don't understand why this distinction is so difficult to understand. I suspect that many Ravers feel agnosticism has a connotation of wishy-washiness, or that it leaves the door open to theism. All I can say is au contraire. In a way, the (atheist) agnostic is taking a stronger position. The atheist says 'I don't believe in God; there is no proof.' The agnostic says, 'Neither do I, and there can never be proof.'

Maybe I should resign myself to the fact that 'agnosticism' will be understood differently by different people. Though it really shouldn't be ...

Piece.

I see the distinction you're making, but I say an agnostic won't simply ask 'Who knows?' An agnostic will affirm that this realm -- for want of a better term -- is unknowable. As for your second statement above, that is one possible way to arrive at atheism -- by determining for yourself there is no proof. And it does not conflict in any way with the agnostic position.

Not quite. An agnostic is someone who does not believe that any such evidence exists; or if it does exist, it cannot be known. (hence the 'without knowledge' etymology -- thanks, Cal)

No, if we use my approach, then all are recognized as agnostics -- theists and atheists alike. Atheists can certainly 'refute' specific god-concepts -- e.g., showing logical contradictions in the Xian god -- and that may inform their beliefs. What they cannot do is 'know' or prove that all possible god-concepts (an infinite set) are refutable.

More to the point, if we use my approach, we'll all stop trying to apply the terms 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' as competing expressions. Atheism means no belief(s) in god-concepts; Agnosticism means that knowledge of god-concepts is impossible, whether you believe in God or not.

I don't understand why this distinction is so difficult to understand. I suspect that many Ravers feel agnosticism has a connotation of wishy-washiness, or that it leaves the door open to theism. All I can say is au contraire. In a way, the (atheist) agnostic is taking a stronger position. The atheist says 'I don't believe in God; there is no proof.' The agnostic says, 'Neither do I, and there can never be proof.'

Maybe I should resign myself to the fact that 'agnosticism' will be understood differently by different people. Though it really shouldn't be ...

Piece.

I see what you're getting at, but I have a problem with the reasoning behind it.

Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are not based on the same foundation. You’re comparing apples to oranges. You are defining agnosticism as a position of knowledge not belief. Atheism and theism have everything to do with belief and nothing to do with knowledge. When you use knowledge as the measuring stick, nobody knows shit, and the term theism becomes meaningless.

When using faith or belief as the measuring stick, agnosticism becomes the “belief” that the existence of God is unknowable, hence you lack belief in God, which, in turn, makes you an atheist.

To sum up, in the world of faith, agnosticism is a derivative of atheism, and in the world of knowledge, agnosticism is the only position.

As far as etymology goes, agnosticism is also defined as the position opposite to gnosticism, which generally entertained the god and spirituality concepts. This is the definition related to faith. Cal’s etymology is the definition related to knowledge. If you look the word up in Merriam-Webster, it is defined as the “view” that God is unknowable.

Peace.

I see what you're getting at, but I have a problem with the reasoning behind it.

Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are not based on the same foundation. You’re comparing apples to oranges. You are defining agnosticism as a position of knowledge not belief. Atheism and theism have everything to do with belief and nothing to do with knowledge. When you use knowledge as the measuring stick, nobody knows shit, and the term theism becomes meaningless.

When using faith or belief as the measuring stick, agnosticism becomes the “belief” that the existence of God is unknowable, hence you lack belief in God, which, in turn, makes you an atheist.

To sum up, in the world of faith, agnosticism is a derivative of atheism, and in the world of knowledge, agnosticism is the only position.

As far as etymology goes, agnosticism is also defined as the position opposite to gnosticism, which generally entertained the god and spirituality concepts. This is the definition related to faith. Cal’s etymology is the definition related to knowledge. If you look the word up in Merriam-Webster, it is defined as the “view” that God is unknowable.

Peace.

Thank you. You can't know how gratifying it is to hear someone else say this.

Thank you. You can't know how gratifying it is to hear someone else say this.

I just wanted to point out that no, Satanism is not a religion that worships a deity named Satan. It is essentially an organized form of atheism, with a name chosen specifically to annoy and bait Christianity. Remember that the name Satan translates literally into "adversary" or "accuser", so in Satanism it is held in the same regard as an idea / concept, not an actual entity.

An article describing it in more detail can be found HERE

I just wanted to point out that no, Satanism is not a religion that worships a deity named Satan. It is essentially an organized form of atheism, with a name chosen specifically to annoy and bait Christianity. Remember that the name Satan translates literally into "adversary" or "accuser", so in Satanism it is held in the same regard as an idea / concept, not an actual entity.

An article describing it in more detail can be found HERE

What do you know?! We were agreeing all along. I guess it was miscommunication.

And you're welcome.

Peace

Thanks for the link. Quite informative.

I guess they are as misunderstood as we are.

Peace.

Sure. Just come up with something better.

Sure. Just come up with something better.

Would it clarify or only muddy the waters to say that atheism applies to rejection of all gods (and supernatural things) while theism applies to acceptance of one specific god?

A paraphrase of the notion that atheists disbelieve in only one more god than theists disbelieve in.

Would it clarify or only muddy the waters to say that atheism applies to rejection of all gods (and supernatural things) while theism applies to acceptance of one specific god?

A paraphrase of the notion that atheists disbelieve in only one more god than theists disbelieve in.

yeah, the scientific theory of evolution is very comparable to the tripe that is religon. In fact, you have to be a genius to be able to tell them apart. You say you're scared of heights. Are you scared of reading as well?

Uhm, yes there is. One guy's still alive, or at least accountable for, and the other isn't (if s/he ever existed).

Who says the bible was even created 3000 years ago? I'd say just a few/couple of hundred.

you are extremely ignorant and infected by Christ-psychosis. The Dead Sea scrolls are NOT CHRISTIAN, and are recent compare to more ancient religious texts like the Egyptian, Hindu, Persian etc...I suggest you get educated by starting reading these:

http://www.gaiaguys.net/Bible.Unearthed.htm

http://www.campusi.com/bookFind/asp/...dId=0743243625

Then I can suggest Roman, Egyptian and Greek history books

Cal, what you are suggesting for gletard is like going to a remote island in the pacific in 1955 and telling a bunch of japanese soldiers that they war is over and they can go home. Secretly, they probably know that the war is over, but they don't want to go home because they like their little island, and if you try to make them leave they will attack you.

Um, that's not his nose...

Spoken like a true Christian(tm).

Are you open-minded with regard to learning about evolution? Really? Because if you are, it won't take but a few minutes and a few hundred words to provide you with enough information to make your own decision on the subject.

However, these few words you just wrote lead me to the conclusion that what you do know about evolution you learned from a Christian bent.

Let's start here:

1. Evolution is not teleological
2. Evolution does not speak to the origins of life (I said Life, not Man - huge point of misunderstanding among Christians)
3. There are no "gaps", there are no "transitionals" - everything is in a constant state of transition; that's what Evolution is all about. And the gaps are in our understanding, not the theory.

These three points are backed up by a hundred and fifty years of scientific research. I would be glad to expound.... if you're interested. I'm not willing to debate or argue whether it's science, however; it's been done ad infinitum, and the messy results are smeared all over the walls here. For those who don't consider evolution as science, I implore you to contact a research scientist at a pharmaceutical or medical research center and ask them if they could function in their daily jobs without evolutionary theory providing the framework for their research.

As Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution."

::clearing the floor::
::moving chairs and furniture back::
::awaiting the arrival of Choobus::

Girl, you're about to get your ass reamed. :D

Honestly, Glesa, I'm not trying to sell you on evolution. Regardless of whether we choose to "believe" in it, there are thousands who use it every day for the benefit of us all. I hope you don't view all scientific disciplines in this tainted light - the theory of relativity, for example, shares the same scientific rigors in determining its validity as Darwinian evolution, but you don't hear people questioning Einstein. Why? Because the Bible doesn't provide an alternative explanation as it does for the origins of Man.

If you have experienced a university education in evolutionary theory, and you still don't understand it well enough to couch your questions with a passing knowledge of the fundamentals, then I don't really think you're salvageable. Thanks for saving me the time.

Believe me, execrable harridan, the fact that I bother to comment on your asinine prattling is a great honour for one as ignoble as yourself. Your pitiful drivel is more appropriate to a convention for dunces, and you are not fooling anyone with your multiple registrations (ten, I thought that was not allowed). We know who you are, vile crone. The only crush that is likely to exist in relation to your person is if one of your voluminous ass cheeks were pushed upon the back of your head by a late night earthquake, or perhaps if your double wide trailer suddenly gave and tipped over, due to your not inconsiderable bulk. You gletard, are worthy of derision and anal fisting, but I would not wish exposure to your rancid shithole or your putrid face on even the most disgusting of hobo's.

Is that because you are a typical christian prude who thinks that anything sexual is evil (all the while doing some of the wildest shit known to man)? Or is it because you don't fuck physicists?

Per ignorationem an incurian?..per utramque ut videtur! You keep demonstrating your ignorance and neurological infirmity with each post!. Remember if the shoe fits.... The 1800's saw an influx of Christian and islamic psychosis..Ellen White, William Miller, taz Russell, Joseph Smith, Bahaii "U'llah and there are many more in both fields!!

Alas, I bet you do not even know WHO Gutemberg was...or....Huss, Wycliff, Muntzer, Zwigly, Erasmus, Calvinus, James Steward, Johann Reuchlin, Melanchthon,....hint: All of them were involved in sacred texts:

I suggest you get educated and stop reading ONLY ONE BOOK, because it stagnates the little lucidity you have....Je crois que vous cette malade a la tette... y estoy completamente seguro que necesitas un neurologo...perque il mio pensier e la loca ragazza!...und ich bin sicher du bis ein Gehirn Gestoert....
A si tacuisses philosophus mansises! ( Ahh if you only had remained silent you would had appeared intelligent)...:lol:...sorry Glesa but you're hopeless, Christ-psychosis is evident at each sentence. This is not an insult but an statement of fact based on your delusions and false statements. Remember you're dealing with mentally healthy and educated folks in this forum..after all we are ATHEISTS...which means, we, unlike you, are ABLE to tell the difference between fantasy and reality...

Please get educated....gehirn gestoert. ( learn German so you could understand what your new nickname means..:lol:)

You are simply delusional due to your neurological disorder. Can you SHOW US, where did I said the babble was 200 years old? Please go see a neurologist so he can fix your delusional brain where REALITY is constantly been distorted. ..and you'are talking about international keyboards? With this statement you're confirming your psychosis......:lol::lol:......Gehirn Gestoert..:cool:

Actually, Choob, she's legit. Either she's a friend of Lily's or simply coincidental.

She is, however, quite prolific in her circles on the internet. But not as prolific as Clara Lickmyspittle.

What was with that name?
What does Lichensprechen (have I got that right?) actually mean?
It gave me the shivers!