Ask an Atheist

Perhaps we're arguing two different versions of the same word. In my book, if you don't currently have a belief in any type of god, then you're an atheist. Whether or not you entertain possibilities of the existence of the supernatural and are willing to change your mind based on evidence does not change that base distinction. If you are not convinced, then you don't really believe.

And I'll acknowledge being wrong about the origin of the word "agnosticism". Quick google searches show its origins to be T.H. Huxley, but having far greater reaches into the past philosophies. I think I was remembering the way Carl Sagan referred to himself as agnostic, in a time when professing non-belief would make one very much more unpopular to the general public. I have a feeling that part of this was because he wanted to avoid controversy, but I don't believe he ever explicitly stated it like that. However, he himself never seemed to be much convinced with any of the explanations in his time, preferring to see evidence rather than have faith. Depending on the definition, I believe this makes him more of an atheist than agnostic, unless you're defining atheism as having full and complete knowledge of the non-existence of god.

Perhaps "atheism" itself carries too much baggage. I'll just describe myself as "waiting for proof".

I thought i replied to this much earlier, I apologize. I think the word that has to much baggage as you're calling it is atheism in this case. You're taking it beyond it's bounds. Atheism is belief or being convinced that there is no god or some spiritual being etc. etc. et al. Agnostics aren't convinced. They may not believe in God or a god because they haven't been convinced of it, but they haven't been convinced it's not there or real or true either. Atheism is truly the opposite of theism as the structure of the word implies. It's not just not thinking there isn't proof of god, it's thinking there is proof for the opposite.

Hey now, I believe his questions are stupid as well. But there is no sense in lowing yourself to his level.

Turn the other cheek, no?

I wouldn't quote it loosely unless you know it well. Arguing for either side i will typically get the better of you.

KhainiWest & Ladon.

Starting off strong by avoiding addressing me, nice.

If you really are Christians, then why don't you believe in what the Bible says? Also, KhainiWest. You are assuming way too much things about me, think before you post.

Not really addressed at me and i haven't made a statement about my belief one way or the other so whatever. Note on the bold is that this also applies to you. Both in and out of this thread.

Funny how I got no real answer to most of my questions, but instead I got this Infraction.

No way its like when i called you out on obvious trolling you were obviously trolling. And i didn't even report you.

I still wonder how in this society, you can flame Atheists, but when there's a small sign of something making fun out of religion, it is bad. There was a time when Religion ruled the world and it's now known as The Dark Ages.

I still wonder how in this society, you can be such a generalizing hypocrite who casts the first stone and calls other people out for flaming, but when there is a small sign that your opinion is not infact emperically correct, it is bad. There was a time where power hungry b'astards ruled the world and it was known as hmmm... most of it. Dark Ages included.

Religious alignment being through those times before the "age of enlightenment" was almost always a tool to control masses or just irrelevent. The fact that you think this actually reflects on religious or real believers shows how entirely ignorant you are when it comes to what they are actually about. Sorry you can't see past your own biases and bigotedness because you've stacked them a f'ucking mile high completely around you. Is there supposed to be a point to acknowledging that anything you say even exists? I mean discussion is impossible what do you want us to want from you? Are we supposed to gather around like hungry chicks while you vomit your hard edged opinions that are not only laced with generalizations and bigotry but are in fact, essentially made of them like it is mana from heaven? Excuse me, but f'uck off. You're arrogant beyond being worth talking to. I'm sure i could get you to complain about "Christians" (or whatever narrowminded word you decide to use for anyone who believes anything that day) being so high and mighty and overly judgmental but you're the worst I've seen from either side of the line whom I think is actually posting with a serious intent. What makes it ok for you?

There is no difference between mythology and religion.

Not to you.

@Hadriel

You ninja'd in between, but I think this post gives enough of a reason for those questions.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. I think furthering your own delusion is the best step right now.

Here's what i think the actual reason(s) is since people evidentially want the obvious spelled out: They are questions intended to be entrapping by setting up an unfavorable position in an argument just by answering.

Example:

would you rather kill two babies or three?

If you answer within the confines of the question either way I've got you on killing babies.

The bottomline comes down to his intent which i think could be: either a) he was threatened by what someone has said in someway and responded defensively with this.

Or

b) Doesn't know another way to discuss things he doesn't necessarily agree with.

And seeing as they came relatively out of the blue and weren't exactly topical in the first place it could even also be

c) he was just really looking to be able to use (note: not ask, use) them on someone for some other motive (i'd guess a self esteem boost for once again, "beaten dem stuped chrishans")

Satellite feel free to stop me from putting words in your mouth and correct me if i'm wrong here. I'm curious to see what you'll say if you really give your intent.