They're somewhat ugly hounds.You know, we havn't really addressed the title yet.
How are pitbulls "the awesomest breed of dogs ever"? What makes them better than the other breeds?
SpidersRMe
JabbaDaHutt30's forum posts
[QUOTE="Silenthps"][QUOTE="MFaraz_Hayat"]My own. What the heck is Christianity then? A big mac.Do my "eyes" deceive me? Christianity is not a religion...... which definition of 'religion' are you referring to?
DrSponge
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]Hating God will not solve anything, God has a reason for everything, you should try understanding the quote before you go off hating him. Your eternity isn't worth it. Silenthps
1) Prove God exists.
2) Prove God has a reason for everything.
3) Prove there is an afterlife.
4) Prove Christianity is the "right" choice when it comes to religion.
Before you can do all that, I will continue to see myself as morally superior to God for giving out eternal punishments for finite mistakes. I don't need to prove God exist since you already believe it. And the rest you can know from the bible Why would you think that?
There are no neutral agnostics.Sounds to me that some christians want to increase the amount of atheists in the world.
Why? Becuase if you force an agnostic who would otherwise be neutral to the entire subject to pick a side which side do you think they will choose?
SEANMCAD
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"]That translates into a lack of belief too. I know what you mean by "true agnostic", but that only represents your state of knowledge on the subject, as Mr.Geezer said. If you cannot ascribe to a belief, then you don't believe in it by default. If you familiarize yourself with the subject and still don't ascribe to it, your stance remains unchanged, but you are more knowledgable. foxhound_fox
Tomayto, tomahto.
Babies are true agnostics, as soon as they are taught a particular concept about something and can take a position on it, they cease to be agnostics. The inability to take a position is different from lacking belief due to insufficient evidence. An "atheist/theist" is someone who takes a position on a particular metaphysical concept and believes one way or the other. If you cannot believe one way or the other due to no conceptual foundation, you are a true agnostic. As soon as you understand that foundation, you begin taking positions.
I personally don't define atheism in and of itself as a "lack of belief" but a disbelief in a theist claim/concept. You have either positive or negative belief in something, you believe or you don't. I do not "lack" belief there is no God. I believe there is no God but do not claim to know that to be true. Agnostics have a lack of belief.
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"]No knowledge of God - doesn't that make one an atheist? Not believing something you don't know yet is still not believing.foxhound_fox
A "true" agnostic is someone who lacks all knowledge of God or gods in the first place. Anyone who does not know anything that they can ascribe a belief to or even understand the concept of belief to begin with. "Agnostic" translates as "lack of knowledge." It in and of itself is not a belief but if you lack all knowledge about a certain concept such as metaphysics, you are an agnostic on the issue... you do not have the ability to take a stance since you lack all knowledge of the concept to begin with. As soon as you are presented with a conceptual structure and ideas within it, you begin taking stances with regards to those claims and ideas. That translates into a lack of belief too. I know what you mean by "true agnostic", but that only represents your state of knowledge on the subject, as Mr.Geezer said. If you cannot ascribe to a belief, then you don't believe in it by default. If you familiarize yourself with the subject and still don't ascribe to it, your stance remains unchanged, but you are more knowledgable.
[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]No knowledge of God - doesn't that make one an atheist? Not believing something you don't know yet is still not believing.No, those would be examples of "true agnostics," which are agnostics with absolutely no knowledge of God.
Theokhoth
And here's where the debate is: At this point I would say that atheism is not a state of "not believing," but rather, "believing not." As in, a positive end of the spectrum.
Again: is there such a thing as a weak theist?
I think one must be familiar with the notion of God to be either religious or a "strong atheist".[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"]There's really nothing to debate, in my opinion. Babies for example, do not have religious beliefs and could therefore be considered "weak atheists"
Another example would be savages or animals.
Theokhoth
No, those would be examples of "true agnostics," which are agnostics with absolutely no knowledge of God.
No knowledge of God - doesn't that make one an atheist? Not believing something you don't know yet is still not believing.[QUOTE="JabbaDaHutt30"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]And agnosticism?It's debatable as to whether or not "weak atheism" actually exists (as demonstrated by Tennaged's continued debating), as it's an invention that popped up only in the last twenty-five years. Some people, including atheists, consider "weak atheism" to be nothing more than a cop-out.
Theokhoth
What of it?
Aren't they weak atheists?
Log in to comment