• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Godless Liberals

zyzygy said:
More bollocks.Thank you for the hilarious links. I will add them to my list of funny hogwash sites.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Of course the Watchtower could come up with a story to make it sound plausible for the congregation ~ that's a given.
 
NWO_Spook said:
That's what I thought. Of course the Watchtower could come up with a story to make it sound plausible for the congregation ~ that's a given.
Click to expand...

The congregation have switched off their critical faculties.
 
A Christian who claims belief in Jesus Christ cannot deny the accounts of Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, or Moses, because Jesus most definitely believed the accounts were real...Matthew 19:4,5; Matthew 10:15; Matthew 24:38,39; Luke 17:27; Mark 1:44...
 
Elvira said:
A Christian who claims belief in Jesus Christ cannot deny the accounts of Adam and Eve, Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, or Moses, because Jesus most definitely believed the accounts were real...Matthew 19:4,5; Matthew 10:15; Matthew 24:38,39; Luke 17:27; Mark 1:44...
Click to expand...

You are assuming that Jesus was real. The Bible is true because the Bible is true is not a logical statement. Many Christians accept that these stories are myths.
 
zyzygy said:
You are assuming that Jesus was real. The Bible is true because the Bible is true is not a logical statement. Many Christians accept that these stories are myths.
Click to expand...

Comprehension problems, I see...I was addressing Christians...they are not Christians...besides, no true Christian will deny Christ or anything he says...
 
Omega Man said:
That's what I'm trying to point out; though it is not supposed to be an ideology, many of these neo-"atheists" appear to subscribe to atheism in an ideological manner.


OM
Click to expand...


Agreed, for there are those who've made a career out of their atheism, but they do have a mission which was sparked by the 'Intelligent Design in Schools' debate and grew from there.
 
zyzygy said:
You keep omitting the word "lack". I lack belief in the existence of gods. Evidence could change my mind but thousands of years have passed and not a shred has been produced. Hence my lack of belief.
Click to expand...

Well, there are different reasons to lack something. Whatever replaces this lack will define what someone is, agnostic or atheist.
 
zyzygy said:
True. Gravity is not a belief.
Click to expand...

But you can believe that gravity doesn't exist. If you're a flat Earther, isn't this a belief?

And we're not even really talking about a belief system, just that people can believe anything.
 
NWO_Spook said:
How so? That sounds absurd.
Click to expand...

It does, doesn't it?

But it's a linguistic thing.

For example "I don't believe there is a God" is the same as "I believe there is no God"

There is a negative in each sentence, the negative has been moved but it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

An agnostic doesn't believe there is a God and doesn't believe there isn't a god. They simply do not believe either way.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
It does, doesn't it?

But it's a linguistic thing.

For example "I don't believe there is a God" is the same as "I believe there is no God"

There is a negative in each sentence, the negative has been moved but it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

An agnostic doesn't believe there is a God and doesn't believe there isn't a god. They simply do not believe either way.
Click to expand...

There have been arguments galore here about this very thing, with nothing ever settled...you post it in such simple, understandable language, that anyone but an imbecile can understand...good job...:applaud

Your avatar scares me btw...:2razz:
 
Frigidweirdo said:
It does, doesn't it?

But it's a linguistic thing.

For example "I don't believe there is a God" is the same as "I believe there is no God"
Click to expand...

Exclusive of 'there is no direct evidence for a god therefore there is no reason for me to believe in such a concept' which is how many atheists define the term.

There is a negative in each sentence, the negative has been moved but it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

An agnostic doesn't believe there is a God and doesn't believe there isn't a god. They simply do not believe either way.
Click to expand...

The agnostic is a little deeper than that: "Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

Agnosticism - Wikipedia
 
NWO_Spook said:
Exclusive of 'there is no direct evidence for a god therefore there is no reason for me to believe in such a concept' which is how many atheists define the term.



The agnostic is a little deeper than that: "Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable."

Agnosticism - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I understand.

Again, the USSR claimed they were Communists. They weren't.

I'm saying these atheists aren't atheists, they're agnostics.

Yes, agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknown. Therefore "there is no direct evidence for a god" is the that the existence of God is unknown.

They're agnostics.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I'm saying these atheists aren't atheists, they're agnostics.
Click to expand...

And I dispute that.

Yes, agnosticism is the view that the existence of God is unknown. Therefore "there is no direct evidence for a god" is the that the existence of God is unknown.

They're agnostics.
Click to expand...

Without evidence, there is no reason to even consider the concept as valid. They may not be able to prove the point, but god is irrelevant, as there is no reason to even contemplate such an abstract.

We now enter the territory of the Agnostic Atheist: 'Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.'

'Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.'

Key Differences Between Atheism and Agnosticism

'An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means “not, or no God.” In the atheist camp you can have a wide variety of reasons for their denial as well as differing levels of certainty. Some will deny emphatically that there is a God and claim to have “proof” of God’s non-existence. Other’s will simply say they do not believe there is a God though they could not prove God does not exist. The common denominator is that they do not believe in God.

Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, “not, or no knowledge.” An agnostic is someone who believes human beings simply cannot know anything metaphysical or beyond the physical realm; therefore, they cannot know whether things like spirit, angels or God exist at all.'

Is there a difference between atheists and agnostics? | Catholic Answers


Of course the two can be conflated within an individual's world view.
 
Last edited:
NWO_Spook said:
And I dispute that.



Without evidence, there is no reason to even consider the concept as valid. They may not be able to prove the point, but god is irrelevant, as there is no reason to even contemplate such an abstract.

We now enter the territory of the Agnostic Atheist: 'Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.'

'Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.'

Key Differences Between Atheism and Agnosticism

'An atheist, on the one hand, believes that there is no God. Etymologically, the word means “not, or no God.” In the atheist camp you can have a wide variety of reasons for their denial as well as differing levels of certainty. Some will deny emphatically that there is a God and claim to have “proof” of God’s non-existence. Other’s will simply say they do not believe there is a God though they could not prove God does not exist. The common denominator is that they do not believe in God.

Agnosticism is not a belief system as atheism is; rather, it is a theory of knowledge. Etymologically, it means, “not, or no knowledge.” An agnostic is someone who believes human beings simply cannot know anything metaphysical or beyond the physical realm; therefore, they cannot know whether things like spirit, angels or God exist at all.'

Is there a difference between atheists and agnostics? | Catholic Answers


Of course the two can be conflated within an individual's world view.
Click to expand...

I get that you dispute that. That's why we're discussing this. Would be pointless if we agreed. I also disagree with what you're saying.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Well it is.

Not believing something is the same as believing something.
Click to expand...

So not eating is the same as eating? A lack of belief is not a belief. It's a simple concept, quite easy to understand.
 
We are all born as atheists.
 
zyzygy said:
So not eating is the same as eating? A lack of belief is not a belief. It's a simple concept, quite easy to understand.
Click to expand...

Yes.

"I am not eating cake" is the same as "I am eating no cake"


Yes, I agree with you that a lack of belief is not belief. However where I think the problem lies is that there can be two different reasons for a lack of belief.

1) I lack belief because I do not know
2) I lack belief because I believe it's wrong

So, an atheist can lack belief and an agnostic can lack belief. So, lacking belief doesn't help us to define the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

Literally it's like being the different between a Republic and a Monarchy and then talking about Democracy. Both can be democratic and both can be not democratic. Being democratic doesn't impact whether a country is a Republic or a Monarchy.
 
calamity said:
Agnostic tends to believe; atheist doesn’t
Click to expand...

No. The other way around.

An agnostic says "I don't know what the truth is, so I won't make a decision", whereas an atheist says "I believe God doesn't exist"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom