Thread: Should atheists pull their punches in a debate with theists to spare them losing their faith?

Just like me most atheist probably believe that concept of agnosticism, we just don't define our self based in infinitesimally small chances that are not practically likely at all. I can't know my chair I am sitting on, is there 100% certainly, but I am so certain that it is silly to say, "I am sitting on my chair but I leave the possibility that the chair might not be there." No that is just silly, you just say, "I am sitting on my chair." and not worry about the super tiny percentage chance that you are not.

Though there are some agnostics that might be more undecided than that, and most of them are probably so used to the concept of god that it is hard to remove the idea from their mind. Not because the idea is valid but because they were raised hearing about it so much that it is hard to shake.

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

Honestly, I really wanted to ask you the same question ("What's so hard about that?") when I first saw this post. I think we've been experiencing a major miscommunication up to this point. But I'm thinking, hopefully, that this example you added will help clear things up.

When I say "atheist", I don't mean agnostic strong or agnostic weak, or agnostic anything. I mean atheist, as in someone who will assert that there is no god for certain just as strongly as a theist will often assert that there is a god for certain. This is my perception of atheists because most of my atheist friends are like this. For me (heavy emphasis on that), there is no assumed agnostic, strong, or weak qualities. An atheist is just someone who strictly believes there is no god.

It sounds to me like, from your perspective, there is an assumed level of agnosticism in all atheists. I assure you that this is not the case, at least not when you know the people that I know, but with this in mind I think I can understand what you're trying to say much better. I've never personally come across someone who would fit the agnostic strong atheist definition you put. To me that just sounds like someone who is very confused lol. Or, a pure atheist in denial, not actually agnostic. Now, you say that you don't lean one way or the other, but you call yourself an agnostic atheist. To me, that sends the signal that you truly do believe that we can't be certain, but that you're inclined to lean toward believing that there is no god, my view of atheism, if you had to choose. But now it sounds to me like your definition of agnostic atheism is something I don't consider atheism at all, just pure agnosticism. This is the way that I feel - I've come to the conclusion that reality is so amazing that it really could go either way, that it could just genuinely be that incredible on its own because it must be simply to exist, or that it could have been designed by an omnipotent entity because it's so great that I would believe that too. Neither outcome would really surprise me at all. To me, it sounds simply wrong to call that view on atheist one, because a theist is someone who believes in a god. Therefore, an atheist, the opposite of a theist, should be someone who doesn't believe in god, not someone who's open to either possibility. I'm not saying that that's the universally correct way, that's just how I see it.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm really trying to get us on the same page here.

Oh, I used to believe exactly the same. It was actually on an old thread here that I first discovered the terms above. And I think my initial reaction was just like yours - it probably took me some time to see all this subtle nuance in something that I had formerly seen as strictly simple/black and white.

One thing I'd like to correct - "It sounds to me like, from your perspective, there is an assumed level of agnosticism in all atheists."

.. More like the other way around actually. I mean "There's a level of either atheism or theism in all agnostics". What it means is this - and I'm struggling right now with how to express this, so it will probably be pretty clumsy.



Possible statements agnostics can (and do) make:

1) "It's not possible to know for a fact whether there's a god, so that means you can't prove there is."

2) "It's not possible to know for a fact whether there's a god, so that means you can't prove there isn't."

3) "It's not possible to know for a fact whether there's a god, so I hold no belief one way or the other."


Do you see how each of these statements reflects a different type of belief concerning god(s) (heh - I love your parenthesis thing - I'm going to keep it forever and ever and ever!)? 3 different beliefs, all still within the constraints of the statement "We can't possibly KNOW". One leans toward a belief that god(s) do exist, one leans toward a belief that they don't exist, and one makes no positive claim in either direction.


**EDIT

Heh and yeah, even though it sounds like Alric has been drinking a bit () I agree with some of what he says. I would normally not bother with all the complex categories. But in here, when conversations get intense, it becomes necessary, because otherwise people are still thinking in very simple black/white terms that are good enough in most situations, but still fail to completely convey all the subtleties of the various positions concerning both belief and knowledge. When you want to take both into consideration a more complex categorization becomes necessary.

That is true, there are a lot of religious people who are also agnostic. They think there is a god but they are not positive.

Originally Posted by Alric

Just like me most atheist probably believe that concept of agnosticism, we just don't define our self based in infinitesimally small chances that are not practically likely at all. I can't know my chair I am sitting on, is there 100% certainly, but I am so certain that it is silly to say, "I am sitting on my chair but I leave the possibility that the chair might not be there." No that is just silly, you just say, "I am sitting on my chair." and not worry about the super tiny percentage chance that you are not.

Though there are some agnostics that might be more undecided than that, and most of them are probably so used to the concept of god that it is hard to remove the idea from their mind. Not because the idea is valid but because they were raised hearing about it so much that it is hard to shake.

Once again, I just don't see it that way. I'm definitely the more undecided type. However, your assumption is exactly the opposite, at least when it comes to me personally. I was raised in a completely non-religious family and never had even the slightest amount of religious beliefs instilled in me. I grew up boldly expressing my atheist views along with several friends without ever considering any other option. And now that I've gotten to the point where I'm starting to really try to understand how amazing reality is, I'm finding it difficult to totally drop that mindset. But I am so opposed to it because I feel foolish for blindly going along with what I was raised into before. Not because I had some religious experience or anything, but just because I came to see it as no different to the people I saw who followed certain religions because their parents did. Once I began to really contemplate the nature of existence I found it to be so grand and infinite that I couldn't allow myself to be certain of any one view anymore. For all intents and purposes I will generally act like an atheist, because that's how I was raised and I have no problem with the thought that even if a god does exist they will probably never have even the slightest impact on my life. But, that doesn't mean that I consider the chance to be so small as to be essentially nothing.

Dark, I intent to respond to your post but I just realized that it's 2:30 AM and I'm supposed to be waking up early tomorrow (now today). I'll try to get to it later!

Sounds like you're just like me then. Started as a full-on hardass atheist, and then learned it's not that simple and now you've accepted that we can't really ever know, and yet while holding that neutral intellectual position you still tend toward a weak atheism.

That's what happens as we get older and wiser, our simplistic youthful beliefs come into better focus, or rather the issues surrounding them do, and resolve themselves into things of greater complexity than we were aware of before (like what happens to a simple dark silhouette shape as you move closer to it and start to see it for what it really is). All I'm attempting to do here is switch you from DVD to Blu-Ray. :yumdumdoodledum:

Even if you were raised atheist, you probably heard a lot of talk about god and other people probably accepted it around you. So it can influence you. If someone was raised in today's modern civilization, and they were educated and knew about science and stuff, it seems pretty unlikely they would suddenly declare that the universe must have been created by another being. The only reason people think that today is because it has long been ingrained into our culture.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

That's what happens as we get older and wiser, our simplistic youthful beliefs come into better focus, or rather the issues surrounding them do, and resolve themselves into things of greater complexity than we were aware of before (like what happens to a simple dark silhouette shape as you move closer to it and start to see it for what it really is). :yumdumdoodledum:

I don't think age has any bearing in this in conversation, I'm 16 but consider myself to be much wiser than some people who are 80 or 90. I think it all depends on the person and if they want to find out what they truly believe or believe what they've heard since birth. I personally don't think age and wisdom go hand and hand but to each his own.

Are you saying you were as smart at 6 as you are now? At 3?

Didn't think so.

But ok, I'm impressed - I thought you were a lot older than 16. Of course you could be lying..

Of course age can play a part, but being older does not automatically make you smarter or wiser.

Than when you were THREE??!!??$%?

Really??!

I don't ever argue religion with an unwilling participant. It's something I do almost 100% on the internet in religious threads. I have argued religion in non-theological YouTube threads a few times, but I tend not to. If somebody shows up to play one on one basketball with you, I don't think it's immoral to try to win the game because you feel sorry for the other person.

There are two people who have used this site and posted in the Religion/Spirituality forum who said they became atheists. One of them was a guy I debated a lot for a short time. He accused atheists of being mean and attacking Christians and stuff like that, but really the atheists were just debating him when he stuck his neck out and posted in this forum. He left and came back years later and said he had become an atheist. To be honest, I felt some guilt over that, although he said I wasn't the specific person who convinced him that God doesn't exist. Another guy told me that my posts convinced him that God doesn't exist. I felt guilt over that too. I always go into religious debates assuming that I am not going to change anybody's mind. It's just fun to debate, and I learn from it. I guess it does happen sometimes. However, now those people don't have to be afraid of Satan or Hell, and their kids don't either. They will also not influence such paranoid superstitions in the world. I am very happy about that part of it. I don't see religion as all good or all bad. It has aspects of both. I think the bad aspects outweigh the good aspects, so although I might feel some guilt over converting people to atheism, I don't feel that much guilt. I think it's a good deed overall.

For what it's worth, from my point of view atheism is yet another religion, and its followers include ones who are fundamentalist and ones who are more open minded, just like in any other religion. (JoannaB ducks just in case expecting to get attacked for that, but could not help myself.)

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

Whether or not you believe in a god, if you think you know you're right for a fact, you're wrong.

Oh this old argument. I'm sure many theists hide behind, but there are some flaws with "you can never sure you are right". Well, you can prove someone wrong for a fact. Atheism doesn't need to prove that god doesn't exist to point out that beings like the god from the bible are wrong if we're having a conversation that relies in reason in logic, just like we do in every subject.

Picture a bottle with loads of candy. If you were asked to say how many candy were there, would you need to know the exact number in order to prove someone wrong? If the person says "2 candies" where you clearly can see loads more, do you need to know the exact amount to say that the person is saying is logically impossible? I thought so.

In the same way, many theists hide in this curtain of "beliefs are not necessarily based on facts, so I'm safe, no one can prove me wrong!". But yes, we can prove you wrong. When I say I don't believe in god I'm not saying that god can't exist, but when a theist comes to me with a definition of the god from the bible (for example), I can point out that that specific god cannot exist, and I'll back my statement with X,Y,X,Z reasons. Now if anyone says "god defies logic" or "my belief is not based on logic", then that person is hopeless. The second you're dismissing reason, you're cutting the own branch you use to function in the world.

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

Hardcore agnostic

This doesn't say anything about your belief. But not like you need to give a name to it. You know, there isn't just atheist and theists. Other category that many people seem to forget is the "I have no opinion" one. Also, you can't just twist the definition of atheism to say it is a belief.

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

In matters such as this where no one can truly know the answer, belief and faith are synonymous.

Not really. 2 examples:

The first man to run the mile in under four minutes – he had faith. The subsequent men and women who were able to match that record – they had belief.
The Wright Brothers, who built a machine which would allow man to fly in the sky - they had faith. Everyone after, who created the shuttle, helicopter, jet, etc- they had belief.

You support your beliefs with logic (I believe in my brother because he's always been there for me, or I believe I will fail because I didn't study or I think I'm ignorant). In the case of faith, you aren't using reason. Do you say "I have faith that 2x2=4?" nope. But when there's no evidence of reliable logic behind your thinking, you use faith. In religious terms (the basis of this conversation), you have faith in god despite any evidence of it. You could even ask "but people say "I believe" in god!". They just have faith on it, because there's no objective evidence that would support the idea of god. There's nothing that can reliably indicate that there is a god. The same happens to atheism, and that's why atheism is not a belief: it's a lack of belief. You can't twist the definition because you end up missing the point.

I'm atheist because I don't believe in god: I have not yet been provided valid evidence to why I should believe in god. Where do you see belief in here? I don't know if god exists or not, I just don't hold any belief that he does. When there's 2 answers (yes,no), not believing in one means you automatically believe in the other? I thought so.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

from my point of view atheism is yet another religion, and its followers include ones who are fundamentalist and ones who are more open minded, just like in any other religion.

I believe in unicorns. I believe in heroism, I believe in X. This is (pardon me), useless to the discussion if you don't state what makes you believe. Of course I have no authority to state what you can or not post, but in a debate we use arguments, which then can be refuted or supported, and we can change opinion (and that's the fun of it). For example, my talk to Alyzarin regarding belief vs faith is filled with arguments that might not necessarily be true. That's why I didn't simply said "I don't believe you/you are wrong". I'm supporting my claim with arguments. Shall her or any other person provide with a better argument or dismiss mine as invalid, I can shift position or counter-argue.



I'm thinking that the second part of the sentence is not a justification of your statement in the first part, so I'm assuming you're stating 2 different things. But still, nope. Even if we were talking about (what was it DarkMatters? Extreme atheism?) extreme atheism, it would still not be a religion, because there's no beliefs in one or more gods. Now the second part, I agree with you: there are varying degrees of atheism just like there are various degrees of religious people. Some degrees of atheism (I believe that god doesn't example stance for example), are just as presumptuous (in the non insulting way) as any believer.

Oh, and that picture makes me want to ask something (that Darkmatters already asked but was ignored) to any theist here: Do you believe there's any argument that can change your position regarding your belief in god? I say this because many atheist I know say "No way I could possibly ever change my position". And that just makes me wonder "why would you go into a discussion then? Do you just want to attack the theist? What if actually he has an argument you can't refute?"

If I stop existing after death, that will certainly refute my belief that there is an afterlife, quite thoroughly and irrefutably. I shall then unfortunately no longer be around to know I was wrong, but fortunately I will no longer be around to care about it.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

If I stop existing after death, that will certainly refute my belief that there is an afterlife, quite thoroughly and irrefutably. I shall then unfortunately no longer be around to know I was wrong, but fortunately I will no longer be around to care about it.

Even though you didn't answer any of my questions (and afterlife is not necessarily related to religion), Ahaha, that was a funny and honest response I heard a joke from an atheist once saying "the thing I most hate about being an atheist is that I won't be able to tell every theist that they are wrong when we're all dead. I recommend this movie for anyone wanting a more "open minded" view on the concept of after life (beautiful movie):

I thought I did answer at least one of your questions kind of in a roundabout way. I believe all knowledge is refutable. I know I can be wrong about anything I believe I know. Now there are some things which I believe so strongly that I am not willing to seriously spend lots of time considering that I am wrong about them. However, some such beliefs that I have held in the past (such as abortion is murder - I used to be very vocal about that) and now I believe I was wrong. This applies to all my knowledge whatever its sources or subject matter. I believe I am right, I also believe that it is possible for me to be wrong, and in fact I know that some of my beliefs that I currently hold as being right beyond current doubt will probably someday get questioned by me, and I may find them to be refuted, but there are beliefs that I currently hold for which I am not willing to admit this possibility even though I know that in the future I may.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Oh, I used to believe exactly the same. It was actually on an old thread here that I first discovered the terms above. And I think my initial reaction was just like yours - it probably took me some time to see all this subtle nuance in something that I had formerly seen as strictly simple/black and white.

One thing I'd like to correct - "It sounds to me like, from your perspective, there is an assumed level of agnosticism in all atheists."

.. More like the other way around actually. I mean "There's a level of either atheism or theism in all agnostics". What it means is this - and I'm struggling right now with how to express this, so it will probably be pretty clumsy.



Possible statements agnostics can (and do) make:

1) "It's not possible to know for a fact whether there's a god, so that means you can't prove there is."

2) "It's not possible to know for a fact whether there's a god, so that means you can't prove there isn't."

3) "It's not possible to know for a fact whether there's a god, so I hold no belief one way or the other."


Do you see how each of these statements reflects a different type of belief concerning god(s) (heh - I love your parenthesis thing - I'm going to keep it forever and ever and ever!)? 3 different beliefs, all still within the constraints of the statement "We can't possibly KNOW". One leans toward a belief that god(s) do exist, one leans toward a belief that they don't exist, and one makes no positive claim in either direction.


**EDIT

Heh and yeah, even though it sounds like Alric has been drinking a bit () I agree with some of what he says. I would normally not bother with all the complex categories. But in here, when conversations get intense, it becomes necessary, because otherwise people are still thinking in very simple black/white terms that are good enough in most situations, but still fail to completely convey all the subtleties of the various positions concerning both belief and knowledge. When you want to take both into consideration a more complex categorization becomes necessary.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Sounds like you're just like me then. Started as a full-on hardass atheist, and then learned it's not that simple and now you've accepted that we can't really ever know, and yet while holding that neutral intellectual position you still tend toward a weak atheism.

That's what happens as we get older and wiser, our simplistic youthful beliefs come into better focus, or rather the issues surrounding them do, and resolve themselves into things of greater complexity than we were aware of before (like what happens to a simple dark silhouette shape as you move closer to it and start to see it for what it really is). All I'm attempting to do here is switch you from DVD to Blu-Ray. :yumdumdoodledum:

I still think this is confusing lol. You did say it was going to be clumsy so maybe it's that. I'm pretty sure I get what you mean, but I personally don't think that those three sentences have to mean anything different at all, I could say each of them just depending on who I was talking to and still mean exactly the same thing. Also, how exactly does the last sentence support your assertion that there is a level of atheism or theism in all agnostics?

For the record, I'm probably not going to stop using the terms I already do. I get what you're trying to say but I feel like you're just trying to switch me to your own form of vocabulary, and I don't feel that you've actually shown me that my terms are wrong in the process. Sorry, no sale. Feel free to try again though.

Originally Posted by Alric

Even if you were raised atheist, you probably heard a lot of talk about god and other people probably accepted it around you. So it can influence you. If someone was raised in today's modern civilization, and they were educated and knew about science and stuff, it seems pretty unlikely they would suddenly declare that the universe must have been created by another being. The only reason people think that today is because it has long been ingrained into our culture.

Luckily for me I didn't just "suddenly declare" it. My view about a possible god does not compare to the views of any religions at all. I came to the conclusion that there may be one from scientifically thinking about the way reality must work to exist.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Oh this old argument. I'm sure many theists hide behind, but there are some flaws with "you can never sure you are right". Well, you can prove someone wrong for a fact. Atheism doesn't need to prove that god doesn't exist to point out that beings like the god from the bible are wrong if we're having a conversation that relies in reason in logic, just like we do in every subject.

Picture a bottle with loads of candy. If you were asked to say how many candy were there, would you need to know the exact number in order to prove someone wrong? If the person says "2 candies" where you clearly can see loads more, do you need to know the exact amount to say that the person is saying is logically impossible? I thought so.

In the same way, many theists hide in this curtain of "beliefs are not necessarily based on facts, so I'm safe, no one can prove me wrong!". But yes, we can prove you wrong. When I say I don't believe in god I'm not saying that god can't exist, but when a theist comes to me with a definition of the god from the bible (for example), I can point out that that specific god cannot exist, and I'll back my statement with X,Y,X,Z reasons. Now if anyone says "god defies logic" or "my belief is not based on logic", then that person is hopeless. The second you're dismissing reason, you're cutting the own branch you use to function in the world.

This is a pointless argument against me. If you read my posts carefully, you will see that the very first thing I said in this thread is strictly against religion. I don't believe in the gods that religions preach even slightly, and barring some sort of sudden apocalypse, I never will. But it sounds to me like you're just trying to make your argument sound better by saying that believing that a god could exist and believing in, say, the Christian god, are the exact same thing. They aren't. I never said you can't prove there isn't a Christian god, or one touted by other religions, I just said that you can't prove there isn't a god. Like, in general. And you can't. Believe it or not, my uncertainty is based on logic. I didn't just take a random leap of faith here.

That candy metaphor is also completely meaningless. It assumes that you can see the bottle of candy, so to speak, in the god situation. You can't.

Originally Posted by Zoth

This doesn't say anything about your belief. But not like you need to give a name to it. You know, there isn't just atheist and theists. Other category that many people seem to forget is the "I have no opinion" one. Also, you can't just twist the definition of atheism to say it is a belief.

It wasn't supposed to say anything about my belief. That's the whole point. And I didn't twist anything, atheism is a belief. You can call it whatever you want but that doesn't make it not true. Just because you have a certain level of agnosticism about it doesn't mean you don't lean towards that belief, either.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Not really. 2 examples:

The first man to run the mile in under four minutes – he had faith. The subsequent men and women who were able to match that record – they had belief.
The Wright Brothers, who built a machine which would allow man to fly in the sky - they had faith. Everyone after, who created the shuttle, helicopter, jet, etc- they had belief.

You support your beliefs with logic (I believe in my brother because he's always been there for me, or I believe I will fail because I didn't study or I think I'm ignorant). In the case of faith, you aren't using reason. Do you say "I have faith that 2x2=4?" nope. But when there's no evidence of reliable logic behind your thinking, you use faith. In religious terms (the basis of this conversation), you have faith in god despite any evidence of it. You could even ask "but people say "I believe" in god!". They just have faith on it, because there's no objective evidence that would support the idea of god. There's nothing that can reliably indicate that there is a god. The same happens to atheism, and that's why atheism is not a belief: it's a lack of belief. You can't twist the definition because you end up missing the point.

I'm atheist because I don't believe in god: I have not yet been provided valid evidence to why I should believe in god. Where do you see belief in here? I don't know if god exists or not, I just don't hold any belief that he does. When there's 2 answers (yes,no), not believing in one means you automatically believe in the other? I thought so.

I keep getting the feeling that you think I'm a theist. I'm not.

I really don't feel like you've done anything but support my points here. All I was trying to say is that you don't believe in god, you have faith. Likewise, if you strictly believe that there is no god, then you have faith that there isn't. If you are an atheist that is completely sure that there is no god, then you have faith. No matter what you think you can do, you cannot objectively prove that there is no god.

And now you are in the fact one twisting my words, at the end there. When you're talking about the yes/no thing, you're referring to what I said here:

Also, in a situation such as this where it is truly either or when it comes to certainties (there is no "third option" about whether or not there is a god), belief and disbelief are synonymous. ... Agnosticism, again as defined by [Darkmatter's] quotes, is the idea that you can't be certain no matter what, and therefore belief is pointless.

All this means is that if you are completely convinced of whichever side you're on, then you believe, have faith, or whatever the hell you want to call it, in your side. I specifically said this to differentiate it from people who have some agnosticism involved. When there isn't any involved, then yes, if you don't believe in one then you automatically believe in the other. If you're agnostic, then I'm not talking about you when I say that.

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

Also, how exactly does the last sentence support your assertion that there is a level of atheism or theism in all agnostics?

About Knowledge:

"Do you believe in God?"

"I'm an agnostic"

"Oh ok, well so am I. But do you believe in God? You haven't answered that question."

See? Agnisticism only concerns knowledge, not belief at all.


About Belief:

"I believe there definitely IS a God." - positive statement that God exists

"I definitely believe there is NOT a God." - positive statement that God dos NOT exist

But this still leaves one more position -

"I don't believe there is definitely a God, but I also don't definitely believe there isn't one." - This is not a positive statement at all.

It's a lack of any belief either way. It's not agnosticism because it doesn't address knowledge but belief. Remember Gnosis is Knowledge and says nothing about belief. So once you say "I'm agnostic" you still haven't answered the question of your beliefs. You can either do that by tacking on a sentence later (as you did in this thread when you finally got around to mentioning your beliefs, or more properly your lack of belief), or you can get right to the point right off the bat and just cover both knowledge and belief by saying "I'm an agnostic atheist". Or if you don't like the term atheist because you mistakenly think it means strong atheist, then you can say "I'm an agnostic, and I don't believe in God". It's the same thing, just takes a few more words.

It might be devastating at first, but it's probably the best favor you could ever do them. If you are a theist you do not understand who and what you are. You believe you are some kind of a soul, a ghost in the machine that will live on after death. Would you feel bad convincing a crazy person that their delusions are false? Why do we give religion a special pass, I would argue that if anything it is vastly more harmful than delusions that are only held by individuals.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well if you pull your punches then they might doubt and lose faith but not make the transition. So in my opinion you want to go all out and totally destroy their position and remove all doubt, only then can you be sure they will not only lose faith but make the switch. Besides you are not responsible for anyone else's feelings if all you are doing is telling the truth.

That's a really good point. I remember when I still believed in God but not in religion. I did and thought some stupid shit. Even after I had stopped believing in God but still believed in a soul it had an effect on my judgement. Hell, even after I stopped believing in all of this it still had an effect on me. My ex doesn't even know what she believes but when we first started dating she said something about how it was like we had been separated and now we had found each other again. Implying some kind of reincarnation or some kind of alternate dimension. I was so in love that I just ate it up. I don't know how, but I somehow convinced myself that there was some truth to that, at least in the beginning.

I wanna say I learned my lesson now but I think it's important to be aware of how much our circumstances can alter our judgement.

Originally Posted by Alric

There is a huge difference between someone arguing for atheist and someone arguing for religion, and that is one is right and one is wrong. It is the same difference between someone arguing over if the earth is round or flat. Atheism doesn't require any faith and we can easily 100% prove all religions are wrong.

The difference between and agnostic and atheist is pretty much meaningless in most conversations. Most agnostics know all earthly religions are false, and they know there is absolutely no reason to believe in a god but they want to be intellectually honest and so admit that there is an infinitesimally small chance that anything could happen. I personally don't see the point in doing that, since there is no practical reason for it.

The reason is usually political correctness. Some people do this because they want to look/feel intellectually superior but most do it to look/feel morally superior. These people believe in equality aka cultural marxism. The belief of religious people is equal to that of the atheist in their mind. This is so wrong, it's really infuriating. I spent 4 hours debating with a college professor on youtube on this once. It makes me mad that people call themselves LIBERAL and believe this shit. Do they even know what the liberal arts are? Science and superstition are not equal. If you have no evidence to back up your claims no one will believe them unless you have some kind of authority, legitimate or otherwise.

The new strain of anti-science leftists is hilarious. Sometimes I find it terrifying, it looks like the beginning of a second dark ages, but it can't last. We are dependent on technology, technology is dependent on science.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Are you saying you were as smart at 6 as you are now? At 3?

Didn't think so.

But ok, I'm impressed - I thought you were a lot older than 16. Of course you could be lying..

Now that I thought about it more I think it is more of combination of age and what you do with those years. The best example of this I could think of is two plants one gets fertilizer and the right amount of sunlight and water. The other plant doesn't receive any fertilizer, and smaller amounts of sunlight and water. When they are just growing the size difference may not be much, but the one plant that received the right amounts of everything is going to end up much taller than the other even if the other one was older. For example, Fred Phelps leader of the westboro baptist church is old, but the farthest thing from wise. So it's all the matter of the person I think. Also, I tend to be a lot mature than other kids my age it's a blessing and a curse I guess. I find it hard to relate to a lot of things my friends and classmates talk about, but overall it's not terrible.

Alyzarin, this post is entirely dedicated to you

Firstly, I hope we can continue the conversation without assumptions. They are natural to be made, but you accuse me of making assumptions (without any clear reasoning behind it) and then you make them about me. Rest assured that I made no assumptions about you (regarding your belief or lack of belief), and that I completely followed your words. You'll see how I've read your own posts even more carefully then you did (it's funny that you said "if you've read my posts carefully), and I'll show you just that expressed in 4 points (of course, in a respectful way). Let's start!

Point 1: The assumption that I didn't read your post when it was you that in fact didn't read your own post:

But it sounds to me like you're just trying to make your argument sound better by saying that believing that a god could exist and believing in, say, the Christian god, are the exact same thing. They aren't. I never said you can't prove there isn't a Christian god, or one touted by other religions, I just said that you can't prove there isn't a god. Like, in general. And you can't. Believe it or not, my uncertainty is based on logic. I didn't just take a random leap of faith here.

No assumptions. I can just as well argue with a theist, an atheist, a polytheist, a person with no opinion, etc etc etc. You surely have to show me where I'm treating you in any way, because I'm merely pointing out things you said, nothing was said about your identity.
You said in your post:

Whether or not you believe in a god, if you think you know you're right for a fact, you're wrong.

This makes me in pair with what I said, and it makes you self-contradicting. You've used the "a", which indicates an unspecified entity. When someone says "pick an apple" it means I can pick anything that is an apple. In case you want to state "that's not what I mean, and you knew it!" I will answer (not for the last time): I quoted you exactly and in context. If you don't specify exactly your idea, especially in a subject like this, you become prone to be corrected. So yes, you did say you can't prove a god doesn't exist. I simply picked "a" god and rejected him using logic.

Point 2: Argues that my argument is useless, without clear specifying why, when the argument stands

That candy metaphor is also completely meaningless. It assumes that you can see the bottle of candy, so to speak, in the god situation. You can't.

Logic is universal. You don't need to search every corner of the universe to know apply that to god. And I just said "imagine you don't know the number of candy in the bottle" which is exactly the same as "not seeing the bottle of the candy"...Meaning that I don't need to see the bottle to see that someone stating something logically impossible is wrong. Now, if you're throwing logic out of the window, that's a completely different things, and at that point, we can no longer have a rational debate.

Point 3: The wrong definition of atheism. Explained in several examples so there is no more doubt

And I didn't twist anything, atheism is a belief. You can call it whatever you want but that doesn't make it not true. Just because you have a certain level of agnosticism about it doesn't mean you don't lean towards that belief, either.

Agnosticism doesn't have nothing to do with this case, that's irrelevant. Darkmatters already answer this question, but I'll still go over it:

N1: The third option:

The students hear a lecture about god. Throughout the lecture, some start to form believes that god exists, and others don't. In the end, there's not 2, but 3 types of people: the ones who formed a belief that god exist, the ones who didn't form a belief that god exists, and the ones who haven't taken an opinion yet.

N2: The baby

Baby zoth is born to the world. He has never even heard of the concept of god. Can you say that he believes in god? Nope. Can you say that he believes that god doesn't exist? Nope. Baby zoth never heard of god, but despite any argument you make, you can never ever say he holds a belief in something he doesn't even can grasp.

N3: The semantics

Also, the root "the" in theism means god(s). Theism is not a religious belief, it is specifically a belief in a god or gods. Therefore, atheism is specifically the belief that there is no god.

You said that, so you obviously pay attention to semantics. Theism: belief in a god or gods. Atheism: pre-fix "a" (not, without) + theism= a person without believe in a god or gods. And here we go.

N4: the big weapon xD

Let's clarify things. "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in god" and replace that with "I believe in the existence of gods, I don't believe in the existence of gods"

By this simple sentence, an atheist to you is someone who "believes in the non existence of gods". Do you really think that this sounds right? Also, do you think that a person who doesn't have the hobby of collecting stamps....has the hobby of not collecting stamps?

Point 4: The assumption 0o

And now you are in the fact one twisting my words, at the end there. When you're talking about the yes/no thing, you're referring to what I said here:

That's funny, I had to read that quote of yours at least 3 times, because I had no clue what you were talking about. When I talked about the yes/no, I was referring to the part where you said "atheism is belief". This makes your argument completely irrelevant, but you could at least ask me or put an "if you're referring to what I said here, then".

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

About Knowledge:

"Do you believe in God?"

"I'm an agnostic"

"Oh ok, well so am I. But do you believe in God? You haven't answered that question."

See? Agnisticism only concerns knowledge, not belief at all.

About Belief:

"I believe there definitely IS a God." - positive statement that God exists

"I definitely believe there is NOT a God." - positive statement that God dos NOT exist

But this still leaves one more position -

"I don't believe there is definitely a God, but I also don't definitely believe there isn't one." - This is not a positive statement at all.

It's a lack of any belief either way. It's not agnosticism because it doesn't address knowledge but belief. Remember Gnosis is Knowledge and says nothing about belief. So once you say "I'm agnostic" you still haven't answered the question of your beliefs. You can either do that by tacking on a sentence later (as you did in this thread when you finally got around to mentioning your beliefs, or more properly your lack of belief), or you can get right to the point right off the bat and just cover both knowledge and belief by saying "I'm an agnostic atheist". Or if you don't like the term atheist because you mistakenly think it means strong atheist, then you can say "I'm an agnostic, and I don't believe in God". It's the same thing, just takes a few more words.

"Do you believe in God?"

"I'm an agnostic."

"Oh ok, well so am I. Good to know."

See, I can make up conversations too.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the main difference in our vocabularies in this regard is that you structure yours around explicit statements while I'm perfectly comfortable leaving it implicit. To me, when I say or hear someone say "I'm an agnostic.", it specifically means to me that they're agnostic and don't feel one way or the other about the existence of gods, because if they did then they could have said "I'm an agnostic atheist." or "I'm an agnostic theist." This is why I have no problem simply calling myself agnostic, because I don't identify as truly being on either side, and to me that does include information about my beliefs, or lack thereof. Similarly, you stick to the terms like "strong", "weak", "positive", "negative", while I see this information as fairly irrelevant. Why exactly do I need to know how assertive you are about your beliefs? You've used the term agnostic atheist here, and assuming I'm getting your meaning of that right (agnostic but leaning towards not believing in a god), then I have no problem with that. As far as I see it, on a spectrum from atheist through agnostic atheist, agnostic, agnostic theist, and finally to theist, I can get all of the information I would ever need for this topic.

I'm not saying my way is the only right way, but yours isn't either. I have had many coherent conversations about this in my life and never once heard people use the terms the way you guys are using them here until I opened this thread. I realize that my I have come on strong about the way I use the terms, but you have not shown any signs of backing down either and I really don't see this ever coming to much of a compromise. I've seen the Nintendo Wii two-parter of South Park and I know this doesn't end well. Everyone I know in real life talks about it the same way I do, and if something as trivial as this is going to put up such a big wall for us here then I'm perfectly fine taking my conversations back off the net to people who will understand me.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Alyzarin, this post is entirely dedicated to you

Aw, I feel so special.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Firstly, I hope we can continue the conversation without assumptions. They are natural to be made, but you accuse me of making assumptions (without any clear reasoning behind it) and then you make them about me. Rest assured that I made no assumptions about you (regarding your belief or lack of belief), and that I completely followed your words. You'll see how I've read your own posts even more carefully then you did (it's funny that you said "if you've read my posts carefully), and I'll show you just that expressed in 4 points which show you are objectively, unmistakably wrong (of course, in a respectful way, hope no one in these threads don't see my language as an attempt to mock people, if I sound like it, I apologize!). Let's start!

Just because the reasoning wasn't clear to you doesn't mean it wasn't there. I never meant to do any such thing, I was simply trying to understand your post. I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying something you weren't, I honestly thought that's what you meant.

Objectively wrong, though? I'm not so sure about that.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Point 1: The curse assumption when you in fact didn't read your own post:

No assumptions. I can just as well argue with a theist, an atheist, a polytheist, a person with no opinion, etc etc etc. You surely have to show me where I'm treating you in any way, because I'm merely pointing out things you said, nothing was said about your identity.

This makes me completely right. You've used the "a", which indicates an unspecified entity. When someone says "pick an apple" it means I can pick anything that is an apple. In case you want to state "that's not what I mean, and you knew it!" I will answer (not for the last time): I quoted you exactly and in context. If you don't specify exactly your idea, especially in a subject like this, you become prone to be corrected.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this, and I feel that by calling out the response "That's now what I mean, and you knew it!", you're simply trying to remove that option from me by making it look bad. Notice that I said "I feel", just like I said "it sounds to me like..." before, which is different than claiming that I actually know what you're thinking. However, despite what you've said, that is going to be my response. I've stated my point on this and don't find it to be self-contradictory, and I feel that what I said was clear enough that it doesn't require revision. If you don't think so, that's your opinion.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Point 2: Argues that my argument is useless, without clear specifying why, when the argument stands

Logic is universal. You don't need to search every corner of the universe to know apply that to god. And I just said "imagine you don't know the number of candy in the bottle" which is exactly the same as "not seeing the bottle of the candy"...Meaning that I don't need to see the bottle to see that someone stating something logically impossible is wrong. Now, if you're throwing logic out of the window, that's a completely different things, and at that point, we can no longer have a rational debate.

This I will outright deny, and assert that you are now contradicting yourself. This is the quote of what you posted word for word:

Picture a bottle with loads of candy. If you were asked to say how many candy were there, would you need to know the exact number in order to prove someone wrong? If the person says "2 candies" where you clearly can see loads more, do you need to know the exact amount to say that the person is saying is logically impossible? I thought so.

It is clearly and unmistakably a part of what you said that you can see the candy bottle. If you change it to not seeing the bottle at all, the entire thing falls apart because you can't possibly know whether or not they're right.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Point 3: The wrong definition of atheism. Explained in several examples so there is no more doubt

Agnosticism doesn't have nothing to do with this case, that's irrelevant. Darkmatters already answer this question, but I'll still go over it:

N1: The third option:

The students hear a lecture about god. Throughout the lecture, some start to form believes that god exists, and others don't. In the end, there's not 2, but 3 types of people: the ones who formed a belief that god exist, the ones who didn't form a belief that god exists, and the ones who haven't taken an opinion yet.

N2: The baby

Baby zoth is born to the world. He has never even heard of the concept of god. Can you say that he believes in god? Nope. Can you say that he believes that god doesn't exist? Nope. Poor baby zoth never heard of god, but despite any argument you make, you can never ever say he holds a belief in something he doesn't even can grasp.

This is a cop-out, Zoth. Neither of these examples are "options", they're simply states in which an option has yet to be taken.

Originally Posted by Zoth

N3: The semantics

You said that, so you obviously pay attention to semantics. Theism: belief in a god or gods. Atheism: pre-fix "a" (not, without) + theism= a person without believe in a god or gods. And here we go.

N4: the big weapon xD

Let's clarify things. "I believe in god" or "I don't believe in god" and replace that with "I believe in the existence of gods, I don't believe in the existence of gods"

By this simple sentence, an atheism to you is someone who "believes in the non existence of gods". Do you really think that this sounds right? Also, do you think that a person who doesn't have the hobby of collecting stamps....has the hobby of not collecting stamps?

Yes, I do think it sounds right, other than the horrible grammar you used. But if I simply change it to someone who "believes that gods do not exist", it sounds perfectly fine to me. As for the stamp collecting thing, I'm not even going to address it. If you want to use that kind of argument, at least pick something that makes a little more sense.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Point 4: The assumption 0o

That's funny, I had to read that quote of yours at least 3 times, because I had no clue what you were talking about. When I talked about the yes/no, I was referring to the part where you said "atheism is belief". This makes your argument completely irrelevant, but you could at least ask me or put an "if you're referring to what I said here, then".

Please elaborate then, because your yes/no response makes no sense in response to what you quoted me saying about belief, at least as far as I can tell. The thing that I then quoted, which I did assume you were referring to, started at the sentence immediately following the one you quoted and was part of the same thought. If that's not what you were referring to when you said that, then I have no idea what you were talking about.

Originally Posted by Alyzarin

"Do you believe in God?"

"I'm an agnostic."

"Oh ok, well so am I. Good to know."

See, I can make up conversations too.

Yeah, but you didn't answer the question!

It's like if somebody asks you "Is a marmoset nocturnal or diurnal?" and you respond by saying "I don't like marmosets."

How does talking about knowledge answer a question about belief?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Yeah, but you didn't answer the question!

It's like if somebody asks you "Is a marmoset nocturnal or diurnal?" and you respond by saying "I don't like marmosets."

How does talking about knowledge answer a question about belief?

It's like giving that sort of response in the way you're used to it, but not the way I am.

As I said, it's implicit. You ask me what I believe about god, and I give a response which says I don't believe you can know. That means I don't have a belief, because how could I if I think you can't possibly know? Now, if I had said agnostic atheist or agnostic theist, that would tip you off that I don't believe you can know for sure but that I lean toward one direction or the other. But I didn't, so the implication is that I don't identify with a belief because of my views. If you just think that I gave a random answer that didn't actually mean anything here, it just makes me feel like you're assuming I'm an idiot. Not saying that that's what you're thinking at ALL by the way, but do you really think I would ignore the question like that? I just answered in the way that anyone I know in real life would, and every time I've ever said that to someone here they've understood what I meant immediately.