NOT Obama, but bring your popcorn.

[antikristuseke]

I'm both, an agnostic atheist.

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

I'm both, an agnostic atheist.

Sorry you cannot be both because one denies belief in a certain, if any philosophy and the other shows a belief/philosophy. That is why there are two different words.

[razark]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

This makes me think they are agnostic, not atheist.

Gnosticism and theism address different subjects.

Gnosticism addresses knowledge, theism addresses belief. You can have a gnostic or an agnostic theist, and you can have a gnostic or agnostic atheist.

Originally Posted by razark

Gnosticism and theism address different subjects.

Gnosticism addresses knowledge, theism addresses belief. You can have a gnostic or an agnostic theist, and you can have a gnostic or agnostic atheist.

I said agnostic not gnostic. Agan two different things.

Atheism is a belief/philosiphy that God doesn't exist, as such it is a religion. No less than the belief/philosiphy that God does exist is a religion.

[razark]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I said agnostic not gnostic. Agan two different things.

Yes, you did. Are you familiar with the concept of root words and prefixes?

Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means without knowledge. They're related terms.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Atheism is a belief/philosiphy that God doesn't exist, as such it is a religion.

Are you really that dense, or are you just having fun?

Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Quite different from the belief that no gods exist. (That would be gnostic atheism.)

Originally Posted by The Third Man

...the belief/philosiphy that God does exist is a religion.

That's not religion, that's theism. Theism comes in several flavors. Those are religions.

[Takeda Shingen]

This argument is, on occasion, presented by my fellow Christians in an effort to devalue the scientific community, and then somehow place additional value on themselves. Really, there is no need; science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution does not countermand the existence of God, and the line of discourse is antithetical to the elevation of faith.

The argument that science equates with faith is a poor one. A fundamental examination of epistemology yields a differentiation between knowledge and belief. Traditionally labeled as 'justified true belief', knowledge must be extrapolated from the observable. Belief, by contrast, relies on the existential claim for validity. As such, the two remain exclusive, as one may present the observable phenomena and hold truth in the supernatural, while another may present the same phenomena with an absence of the supernatural. Accordingly, unfaith and faith are not interchangeable nomenclature. To do so is to attempt to label standing as 'unsitting'. While superficially true, it does not account for the varia of other positions and activities that would also be relevant.

Originally Posted by razark

Yes, you did. Are you familiar with the concept of root words and prefixes?

Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means without knowledge. They're related terms.


Are you really that dense, or are you just having fun?

Theism is the belief that a god or gods exist. Atheism is a lack of belief that a god or gods exist. Quite different from the belief that no gods exist. (That would be gnostic atheism.)


That's not religion, that's theism. Theism comes in several flavors. Those are religions.

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion. Fine, by every definition it is . I pray when you grow up you find Him.

[razark]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion.

And you want to say a fig is an olive. Claiming that two different things are the same does not make them the same.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I pray when you grow up you find Him.

You pray for me, I'll think for you.

Found him when I was young. Then I grew up and realized I didn't believe anymore. Then realized I didn't need to believe, either. I'm much freer now, and quite happy that way.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

This argument is, on occasion, presented by my fellow Christians in an effort to devalue the scientific community, and then somehow place additional value on themselves. Really, there is no need; science and religion need not be mutually exclusive. Evolution does not countermand the existence of God, and the line of discourse is antithetical to the elevation of faith.

The argument that science equates with faith is a poor one. A fundamental examination of epistemology yields a differentiation between knowledge and belief. Traditionally labeled as 'justified true belief', knowledge must be extrapolated from the observable. Belief, by contrast, relies on the existential claim for validity. As such, the two remain exclusive, as one may present the observable phenomena and hold truth in the supernatural, while another may present the same phenomena with an absence of the supernatural. Accordingly, unfaith and faith are not interchangeable nomenclature. To do so is to attempt to label standing as 'unsitting'. While superficially true, it does not account for the varia of other positions and activities that would also be relevant.

My point wasn't to diminish science. But that science doesn't have all the answers. Unfortunately I was attached for upholding my beliefs.

I'm glad you responded Takeda Shingen. For some reason many moderate their positions when you arrive. I don't, but many do.

Originally Posted by razark

And you want to say a fig is an olive. Claiming that two different things are the same does not make them the same.


You pray for me, I'll think for you.

Found him when I was young. Then I grew up and realized I didn't believe anymore. Then realized I didn't need to believe, either. I'm much freer now, and quite happy that way.

I'm envious (my sin) because the Lord looks upon you with the mercy I can only imagine.

[Castout]

God that's something you need to seek and find out yourself. Perhaps it may start with believing but what good would it be unless the words in the bible come alive to you in your life and you come to know God yourself.

There are already too many religious people who don't know God.
I once posted in a local Christian forum(Catholic actually) and it was one of the most rude place/site I ever visited . . . . .Many of those who called themselves Christian mocked and insulted me but a PM from a Muslim who has been reading the bible made my day :-). He told me my testimony on death and its references to the bible is also recorded in his Koran. He was't trying to convert me or anything. I think he was trying to find out the truth by comparing his Koran and the bible.

My post was about death or the condition of death where the dead no longer remember themselves, no longer remember God and not able to register the passage of time.

The first two are there in the bible but for the last it's only written explicitly in the Muslim Koran something like when the dead are resurrected on judgment day they will think they had only been sleeping for a day!

. Now I'm sure that was written by somebody who was wise and who had knowledge. I suspect king David or Solomon or a person who knew God then. I couldn't even get to that or conclude that myself even after knowing that the dead are unable to register time at all. There has been rumors that some things in the Koran were copied from early Christian holy texts. Of course this would offend most if not every Muslim who consider their holy book to have come from God.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

My point wasn't to diminish science. But that science doesn't have all the answers. Unfortunately I was attached for upholding my beliefs.

I'm glad you responded Takeda Shingen. For some reason many moderate their positions when you arrive. I don't, but many do.

Well no **** science does not have all the answers, if it did, it would stop. And no, you were not attacked for upholding for your belief, your position on science was attacked and shown to be in error to which you replied with logical fallacies and then a word redefinition attempt.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion.

Right, because it is not a religion. It is a lack of belief- not a belief in disbelief. Religion requires beliefs of some kind or faith of some kind; Atheism is not composed of either.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Fine, by every definition it is .

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Inclusively" means "includes", for the record. Again: a lack of belief- not a belief in disbelief.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I pray when you grow up you find Him.

What the Christ is this kid smoking? Because the stupid... it burns. It burns like Mustard Gas. Just stop posting already. Goddammit this gets annoying.

If it isn't politics with you, it's religion. Congratulations, you're a hybrid mix of SUBMAN1 and WasteGate. Hopefully, just like the both of them them, you'll disappear from this slowly degenerating forum (more like SUBMAN, actually, who got tossed in the brig for his nonsensical shenanigans, threw a fit about it, and then just left; Waste was keelhauled for his... although I wouldn't mind it if we did that to you as well).

[Sailor Steve]

An attempt to clear up the definitions, using a dictionary.

ATHEIST: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

AGNOSTIC: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Round and round. You just don't want to say atheism is a religion. Fine, by every definition it is

RELIGION: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

It's possible to percieve atheism as fitting that description, but religions are usually considered to involve organization and standardization of worship, and atheists don't usually meet to worship. On the one hand some atheists, not all, do treat it like a deep faith, but most just feel the way they do and don't worry about it.