• 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!

Atheism, Agnosticism and Theism

Which is more "intelligent"? Atheism, Agnosticism or Theism?

  • Total voters
    25
MistressNomad said:
Not understanding is fairly different from merely claiming other points of view can't or don't exist.
Click to expand...

Now you understand how some theists on this board can be so frustrated with atheists.
 
StillBallin75 said:
These have already been explained to you, Dan. They're different. Whether you buy it or not is your business, I guess, but there are concrete distinctions and that's why they are given different names. Atheism isn't simple and easy, and not all atheists think the same way or believe the same things. That's just the reality of it.



There's no rational basis for being sure about ANYTHING when it comes to matters of faith (or un-faith). There is only certainty in knowing that you can't know all the answers.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I do appreciate the responses.

Don't mind me. I'm not here.
 
Redress said:
Now you understand how some theists on this board can be so frustrated with atheists.
Click to expand...

You're talking about something entirely different. I have never claimed someone does not believe what they say they do. Totally different kettle of fish.

I have complete faith in ones ability to believe things. It's a very weird statement, really, and tells me he isn't interested in the answer at all.
 
MistressNomad said:
You're talking about something entirely different. I have never claimed someone does not believe what they say they do. Totally different kettle of fish.

I have complete faith in ones ability to believe things. It's a very weird statement, really, and tells me he isn't interested in the answer at all.
Click to expand...

I think you are seeing something that is not there. He tried to understand, he did not, he expressed a preference for a simple world view. He was nothing short of respectful.
 
Saying "I don't buy it" is respectful?

A request for the simplest answer (which was provided I think 2 or 3 times) would suffice without telling people that... I'm not sure what... thought doesn't exist? It's a weird thing to say.
 
I'm gonna vouch for Dan here. I disagree with him on almost everything, but he is nothing if not civil and respectful. He just has a very distinct worldview that might not be shared with many members of this forum, but I agree with Redress that he is at least trying to understand other viewpoints.
 
MistressNomad said:
Saying "I don't buy it" is respectful?

A request for the simplest answer (which was provided I think 2 or 3 times) would suffice without telling people that... I'm not sure what... thought doesn't exist? It's a weird thing to say.
Click to expand...

No disrespect meant, Mistress. I just . . . sorry, found it amusing there ar so many flavors of atheism. I wasn't aware. Now I am. Thanks.
 
LuckyDan said:
No disrespect meant, Mistress. I just . . . sorry, found it amusing there ar so many flavors of atheism. I wasn't aware. Now I am. Thanks.
Click to expand...

All good. Just gotta ask if there's something you wanna know...
 
Redress said:
I think you are seeing something that is not there. He tried to understand, he did not, he expressed a preference for a simple world view. He was nothing short of respectful.
Click to expand...

No, I expressed amusement at the idea of "degrees of disbelief."

Okay. Unsubscribing the thread. Not coming back. For real. Going to bed.
 
LuckyDan said:
No, I expressed amusement at the idea of "degrees of disbelief."

Okay. Unsubscribing the thread. Not coming back. For real. Going to bed.
Click to expand...

You'll be back.

:2razz:
 
I voted other..

The intelligent thing is to simply not blindly believe something because some book or someone else tells you to.. Gather as much information as can about anything and come to your own conclusions.. Think for yourself.. That is intelligent.. The moment you let something or someone else think for you.. Well.. You are an idiot at that point..
 
There is not a real difference between the first two options. Agnosticism and Atheism for all intents and purposes mean the same thing. Both simply assert that the existence of a supernatural deity cannot be proven because science and rational thought is naturalistic.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There is not a real difference between the first two options. Agnosticism and Atheism for all intents and purposes mean the same thing. Both simply assert that the existence of a supernatural deity cannot be proven because science and rational thought is naturalistic.
Click to expand...

That's not really what atheism is. Your definition fits agnosticism better.
 
StillBallin75 said:
That's not really what atheism is. Your definition fits agnosticism better.
Click to expand...

Its an argument of semantics. Every Atheist I have ever known has said that they don't believe in a supernatural God, but would be open to any evidence for the existence for one. Every Agnostic I have ever known has said that whether God exists or not is not knowable because there is no evidence for the existence of one, thus they don't believe God exists, but would be open to evidence for the existence of God if such evidence existed. Basically, both camps are making the exact same argument, just presenting it slightly differently.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Its an argument of semantics. Every Atheist I have ever known has said that they don't believe in a supernatural God, but would be open to any evidence for the existence for one. Every Agnostic I have ever known has said that whether God exists or not is not knowable because there is no evidence for the existence of one, thus they don't believe God exists, but would be open to evidence for the existence of God if such evidence existed. Basically, both camps are making the exact same argument, just presenting it slightly differently.
Click to expand...

Dude! Where the hell have you been? Good to see you back!

Oh, and by the way, you are wrong. Kinda a neat link earlier in the thread which kinda explains the differences. Common usage, you have a point, but realistically, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom