back to ignore you stupid asshole
Why I am am athiest
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You're free to run, dear, but it won't make you any happier.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Then you need to check yourself. From Merriam-Webster:
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
Atheists - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.
How Agnostic Differs From Atheist
Atheist and agnostic appear in the same contexts but are distinct in meaning. Atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. Agnostic has two relevant meanings: it can refer to someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable, or it can refer to someone who is not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God or a god.
Agnostic first appeared in print in 1869 (it was possibly coined by the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley), and was formed from the Greek agnōstos, meaning "unknown, unknowable." Atheist came to English from the French athéisme. Although both words share the prefix a-, meaning "without," the main body of each word is quite different. Agnostic ultimately comes from the Greek root gignōskein, meaning "know" (also the source of such words as know and prognosis). Atheist shares the root theo, meaning "god," with such words as theology and theism.
When I said, "I assure you I am not"...I was correct.
First of all...there is absolutely nothing wrong with making a blind guess. People do it...and when dealing with the question of whether there are any gods or not...both people who use the descriptor "theists" and people who use the descriptor "atheists" do it. Both make blind guesses about whether there are any gods...although they do blindly guess in decidedly different directions.
For the most part, people who use the descriptor "agnostic" do not...although the folk who use "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist"...may do so.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Bottom line: the definition are the definitions, despite all the desperate attempts of folk from all sides of the discussion to try and alter or revise them. It is what it is.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
yes.
the old testament is obsolete, an old bloody pact for a defunct people.
the new covenant with man is through jesus christ, amen.
Why I Am An Atheist
Raymond Tallis
Recently, I was invited to join a panel at the Glasgow Book Festival to debate atheism with the philosopher Julian Baggini and the crime writer and humanist Christopher Brookmyre. We were asked to begin by stating the reasons we were atheists.
There are bad as well as good reasons for deciding that one is, or that one should be, an atheist.
The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence. This is a bad reason for atheism because no-one can agree what would count as evidence. Miracles, scriptures, the testimony of priests and prophets etc, can all be contested on empirical grounds: but for some people the fact that we communicate intelligibly with one another, or that the world is ordered, or even that there is something rather than nothing, is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a Creator who not only made the world but also made it habitable by and intelligible to us. Therefore the appeal to evidence, or lack of it, will always be inconclusive.
Another bad reason for being an atheist is hostility to religious institutions because of the delinquent behaviour of believers, and more generally, on account of the evils that organised religion has inflicted on the world. So what? Even if the evils caused by religion were relevant to the question of the existence of God, we do not know whether religion is a net force for evil, despite the documented horrors.
So, whatever my actual reasons for being an atheist, intellectually the case does not rest on the lack of evidence for God, or the bad behaviour of believers and religious institutions, but on the idea of God itself, which insofar as it is not entirely empty, is self-contradictory, and makes less sense than that which it purports to explain.
It doesn’t follow from this that I believe we have a complete or even a properly grounded understanding of what we are. For example, we do not understand consciousness – how it is that we are aware. Atomic materialism does not explain it, that’s for sure. And the very concept of matter has become unintelligible, as we know from the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. I also do not understand how it is that individually and collectively we make sense of the world – how knowledge is possible. But this sense of the limitation of our knowledge and understanding makes me more, not less, happy in my atheism: I am not obliged to imprison a thrilling intuition of transcendent possibility arising out of my sense of the unknown, in a ragbag of confused, contradictory and often (but not always) malign beliefs, culminating in logical impossibilities. This nothwithstanding, we should be grateful for the monuments of art, architecture, ritual and thought that we atheists owe to others’ belief in God.
Why I Am An Atheist | Issue 73 | Philosophy Now
Raymond Tallis examines his happy disbelief.
philosophynow.org
Yakuda
Verified User
This guy's a fuck stick
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
He sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist.Why I Am An Atheist
Raymond Tallis
Recently, I was invited to join a panel at the Glasgow Book Festival to debate atheism with the philosopher Julian Baggini and the crime writer and humanist Christopher Brookmyre. We were asked to begin by stating the reasons we were atheists.
There are bad as well as good reasons for deciding that one is, or that one should be, an atheist.
The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence. This is a bad reason for atheism because no-one can agree what would count as evidence. Miracles, scriptures, the testimony of priests and prophets etc, can all be contested on empirical grounds: but for some people the fact that we communicate intelligibly with one another, or that the world is ordered, or even that there is something rather than nothing, is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a Creator who not only made the world but also made it habitable by and intelligible to us. Therefore the appeal to evidence, or lack of it, will always be inconclusive.
Another bad reason for being an atheist is hostility to religious institutions because of the delinquent behaviour of believers, and more generally, on account of the evils that organised religion has inflicted on the world. So what? Even if the evils caused by religion were relevant to the question of the existence of God, we do not know whether religion is a net force for evil, despite the documented horrors.
So, whatever my actual reasons for being an atheist, intellectually the case does not rest on the lack of evidence for God, or the bad behaviour of believers and religious institutions, but on the idea of God itself, which insofar as it is not entirely empty, is self-contradictory, and makes less sense than that which it purports to explain.
It doesn’t follow from this that I believe we have a complete or even a properly grounded understanding of what we are. For example, we do not understand consciousness – how it is that we are aware. Atomic materialism does not explain it, that’s for sure. And the very concept of matter has become unintelligible, as we know from the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. I also do not understand how it is that individually and collectively we make sense of the world – how knowledge is possible. But this sense of the limitation of our knowledge and understanding makes me more, not less, happy in my atheism: I am not obliged to imprison a thrilling intuition of transcendent possibility arising out of my sense of the unknown, in a ragbag of confused, contradictory and often (but not always) malign beliefs, culminating in logical impossibilities. This nothwithstanding, we should be grateful for the monuments of art, architecture, ritual and thought that we atheists owe to others’ belief in God.
Why I Am An Atheist | Issue 73 | Philosophy Now
Raymond Tallis examines his happy disbelief.
Notice how his bad reasons for being an atheist include all the arguments by JPP militant atheists. LOL
I've been saying that if you force atheism to go to it's logical conclusions, you find agnosticism in the end.
Unlike internet atheists, he is willing to acknowledge that the cosmological argument and teleological argument for some type of God are actually fairly rational and reasonable.
He actually seems to have put thought into good reasons for being an atheist, and separating them from the bad reasons
He seems like an annoying person, but he makes the case for atheism using the exact same arguments message board atheists use.
So those arguments stand or fail on their own merit.
Margot
Verified User
Only a moron,doesn't at least believe in intelligent design!
Everything happened as a coincidence, is just Bull Shit.
Yakuda
Verified User
My comment wasn't about the arguments. I have very little respect for assholes like that
Yakuda
Verified User
For starters what would happen if the force of gravity was even slightly weaker or stronger?
Fine tuning arguments aren't as powerful as you might like.
It could be that countless universes popped into existence with dramatically different constants which failed to thrive and collapsed leading to one day ours popping off in its own Big Bang.
You simply can't prove anything beyond the beginning of time.
So do the beliefs of secular humanists
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
only the Zionist magats.Is that the quote you used while gassing up your female patients?
Most Christians accept that the New Testament nullifies parts of the Old. MAGAt faux Christians almost exclusively use the Old Testament to justify their beliefs and actions.
Unfortunately for the religious, morality is only valuable to them if someone commands them what is right and wrong.