I. Do. Not. Rule. Out. The. Possibility. Of. A. God. I said, quite clearly, right there, that I don't know what caused everything to exist. All I am saying is there is no reason to believe a god exists. That is still an Atheist. Agnostic means you are unsure whether to believe or not, and I am not unsure of that. I am sure I do not believe in a god, hence, an Atheist.
That is untrue. Atheism is the lack of belief in something. To not believe in something is not the same as believing it does not exist.
To believe something exists, you need proof it exists. To believe something doesn't exists, you need proof it doesn't exist. To not believe something exists, you just need to not have proof it exists.
If someone told me that there was an elephant in my bathtub, I would not believe them. I would be an elephant-bathtub-atheist. However, I would not know there is not an elephant in my bathtub, I would not believe it. I would believe it if someone showed me proof of the elephant, but until then, I would not believe it - because to do so would be illogical.
What you 'see me as' is irrelevant. I'm an Atheist, I don't believe a god exists. That's it. I highly reccomend you go and read Penn Jillette's 'God, No! Signs You May Already Be An Atheist and Other Magical Tales' - it's a great read and might clarify why you are mistaken in thinking I'm agnostic.
Of course Atheists can be unreasonable, but it is the reasonable choice to make. Atheism is not a religion. It's the lack of one, it's believing in what is provable. That is the logical thing to do.
You are wrong. An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God. That does not rule out to possibility some kind of God exists. It would be just as illogical to believe there was no chance a God exists as to belieieve with complete certainty one does. The scientific method is that of theory and experiment, we make a theory and test it, if the tests hold up to that theory, we believe in it unless we can prove otherwise. That's the logical way to think, to have proof of something. We can not say something absolutely does not exist without proof that it doesn't exist, which is pretty hard to do. I'm an Atheist in the same way I don't believe we are in the Matrix. I have no reason to believe it's true, but there is no way to completely disprove it either.
No. I'm an Atheist. There is no way to disprove a god, but that doesn't mean you should believe in one. Religion/Atheism is about belief, not about the existence of a god. Agnostic means being unsure about what to believe, and I am very sure that I do not believe there is a god.
Depends what you mean by let me know. If a god were to show proof of his existance, sure. If it was a voice inside my head telling me, I might go visit a doctor.
You see God in everything because you want to. You see a planet perfectly designed with the things we need to live on it and think it's a gift from a God. I see it and think we have evolved to use the planet we have.
Ah, this is where you have your terminology confused:
Religious - You believe in a god.
Atheist - You do not beleive in a god.
Agnostic - You are not sure whether to believe in a god.
Note that not believing in a god is not the same thing as saying there is not a (miniscule) possiblity that one exists. I don't know if a god exists, I'm an Atheist, and what that means is I have no reason to believe in a God, and more than I do in an elephant in my bathtub.
And you clearly don't understand logic. Logic dictates a need for a reason to believe something. Religion has no reason beyond 'that guy told me it was like that' or 'that book told me it was like that' or 'you can't show it's not true' - none of which are valid.
No, I am not sure there isn't a god, but I am sure that believing in a god is mad. It's a possiblity in the same way that my house being built my faries and elves is - it doesn't make it something I'm likely to believe.
Floating guy in space made everything vs. big bang created everything, but we don't know what created the big bang. The difference is that atheists don't pretend to know exactly how everything happened.
Sure, it's on the table, but beleiving in it is insane. Why pretend you know what causes everything to exist when the reality is we just don't know? I'm an atheist because there is no reason to believe in any religion. When we don't know something, we don't make up an answer and believe in it whole-heartedly. We admit we don't know and try and figure it out.
That's a rediculous analogy to draw. 'Intelligent Design' shouldn't be taught in schools because it's a flawed premise without any proof, and schools are a place for learning facts and provable information. School is not a place for any ideology to be taught, and I agree that nazi beliefs should not be taught in schools as fact. That doesn't change the fact that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe, and say what they want to say.
"I dispise what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
I think that you have to cut Germany some break. Everyone in the world has a tendancy towards knee-jerk politics, and let's face the reality where people have done a lot worse than censorship of nazi propaganda for a lot less. I'm not saying it's right, just saying I can see why some people would think (misguidedly) it was a good idea.
Uh, my post was saying organic stuff is stupid. Irradiation is a great idea. I was just responding to the OP's comment that Organic meant 'farms with no chemicals'.
I said watch the show, I didn't say why. I reccomend the show because it's entertaining as hell and a good place to start. I said 'read up a bit' for the actual knowledge.
Afraid you are wrong. Organic means no man-made chemicals. You can still shove whatever fertiliser or pesticide you want on your field, it'll just be one that is more likely to run into a stream and pollute it or harm other animals in the food chain, instead of using these clever ones we made to avoid those things. Great.
Go watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on Organic food, then go read up a bit on it and come back. The reality is that organic farmers use natural ferlisers and pesticides - which are generally more harmful and less effective. On the other hand, normal farmers can use the stuff we have created with the intention of being better for the plants, people and the environment. Natural and good are two completely different things, and organic only means natural.
Slashdot Mirror
I. Do. Not. Rule. Out. The. Possibility. Of. A. God. I said, quite clearly, right there, that I don't know what caused everything to exist. All I am saying is there is no reason to believe a god exists. That is still an Atheist. Agnostic means you are unsure whether to believe or not, and I am not unsure of that. I am sure I do not believe in a god, hence, an Atheist.
That is untrue. Atheism is the lack of belief in something. To not believe in something is not the same as believing it does not exist.
To believe something exists, you need proof it exists. To believe something doesn't exists, you need proof it doesn't exist. To not believe something exists, you just need to not have proof it exists.
If someone told me that there was an elephant in my bathtub, I would not believe them. I would be an elephant-bathtub-atheist. However, I would not know there is not an elephant in my bathtub, I would not believe it. I would believe it if someone showed me proof of the elephant, but until then, I would not believe it - because to do so would be illogical.
What you 'see me as' is irrelevant. I'm an Atheist, I don't believe a god exists. That's it. I highly reccomend you go and read Penn Jillette's 'God, No! Signs You May Already Be An Atheist and Other Magical Tales' - it's a great read and might clarify why you are mistaken in thinking I'm agnostic.
Of course Atheists can be unreasonable, but it is the reasonable choice to make. Atheism is not a religion. It's the lack of one, it's believing in what is provable. That is the logical thing to do.
You are wrong. An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God. That does not rule out to possibility some kind of God exists. It would be just as illogical to believe there was no chance a God exists as to belieieve with complete certainty one does. The scientific method is that of theory and experiment, we make a theory and test it, if the tests hold up to that theory, we believe in it unless we can prove otherwise. That's the logical way to think, to have proof of something. We can not say something absolutely does not exist without proof that it doesn't exist, which is pretty hard to do. I'm an Atheist in the same way I don't believe we are in the Matrix. I have no reason to believe it's true, but there is no way to completely disprove it either.
No. I'm an Atheist. There is no way to disprove a god, but that doesn't mean you should believe in one. Religion/Atheism is about belief, not about the existence of a god. Agnostic means being unsure about what to believe, and I am very sure that I do not believe there is a god.
Depends what you mean by let me know. If a god were to show proof of his existance, sure. If it was a voice inside my head telling me, I might go visit a doctor.
You see God in everything because you want to. You see a planet perfectly designed with the things we need to live on it and think it's a gift from a God. I see it and think we have evolved to use the planet we have.
Ah, this is where you have your terminology confused:
Note that not believing in a god is not the same thing as saying there is not a (miniscule) possiblity that one exists. I don't know if a god exists, I'm an Atheist, and what that means is I have no reason to believe in a God, and more than I do in an elephant in my bathtub.
So what, mob justice when someone states something that isn't 'accepted fact'? That's even worse.
And you clearly don't understand logic. Logic dictates a need for a reason to believe something. Religion has no reason beyond 'that guy told me it was like that' or 'that book told me it was like that' or 'you can't show it's not true' - none of which are valid.
So then the ruling party controls what people can say. That's the path towards the very Nazi censorship that you claim to hate.
No, I am not sure there isn't a god, but I am sure that believing in a god is mad. It's a possiblity in the same way that my house being built my faries and elves is - it doesn't make it something I'm likely to believe.
So you are saying people that are wrong shouldn't be allowed to have free speech? Who decides what is wrong?
Floating guy in space made everything vs. big bang created everything, but we don't know what created the big bang. The difference is that atheists don't pretend to know exactly how everything happened.
Sure, it's on the table, but beleiving in it is insane. Why pretend you know what causes everything to exist when the reality is we just don't know? I'm an atheist because there is no reason to believe in any religion. When we don't know something, we don't make up an answer and believe in it whole-heartedly. We admit we don't know and try and figure it out.
True, but when it all comes down to it, one is still believing in a floating guy in space that made everything. It's a bit weird.
Oh, give it a break. That's one of the weakest arguments out there. Yes, Newton and Einstein were smart guys - smart guys can still be wrong.
That's a rediculous analogy to draw. 'Intelligent Design' shouldn't be taught in schools because it's a flawed premise without any proof, and schools are a place for learning facts and provable information. School is not a place for any ideology to be taught, and I agree that nazi beliefs should not be taught in schools as fact. That doesn't change the fact that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe, and say what they want to say.
"I dispise what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
I think that you have to cut Germany some break. Everyone in the world has a tendancy towards knee-jerk politics, and let's face the reality where people have done a lot worse than censorship of nazi propaganda for a lot less. I'm not saying it's right, just saying I can see why some people would think (misguidedly) it was a good idea.
Uh, my post was saying organic stuff is stupid. Irradiation is a great idea. I was just responding to the OP's comment that Organic meant 'farms with no chemicals'.
I said watch the show, I didn't say why. I reccomend the show because it's entertaining as hell and a good place to start. I said 'read up a bit' for the actual knowledge.
Of course, which is why I threw in the 'read up a bit on it' there.
Afraid you are wrong. Organic means no man-made chemicals. You can still shove whatever fertiliser or pesticide you want on your field, it'll just be one that is more likely to run into a stream and pollute it or harm other animals in the food chain, instead of using these clever ones we made to avoid those things. Great.
Go watch Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on Organic food, then go read up a bit on it and come back. The reality is that organic farmers use natural ferlisers and pesticides - which are generally more harmful and less effective. On the other hand, normal farmers can use the stuff we have created with the intention of being better for the plants, people and the environment. Natural and good are two completely different things, and organic only means natural.