• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Losing Religion? Perhaps not...

Status
Not open for further replies.
sangha said:
^^^^^THIS!!!

The rest was pretty good, but the above was what I thought as soon as I began reading the OP
Click to expand...

If someone wants a thread involving religion to not devolve into a flame fest, the religion subforum is the place to put it.
 
I don't understand nor believe all of religion or the bible. I think it was written by man and subject to errors but I believe much of it is historically true and even many of the miracles possible.

I have nothing against believers, nonbelievers or like me those who believe in their own way. It's a private thing in the end based on opinion, personal knowledge and experience.
 
Goshin said:
I'm glad somebody gets it, I was starting to wonder...
Click to expand...

It's obvious that some still don't get it

The rules state
This forum is dedicated and limited to discussions of religion, faith, and spirituality. Threads/posts critical of religion and spiritual aspects are not allowed here and will result in a B/F/T Infraction + Thread Ban.
Click to expand...

I am one of the people the OP refers to. I consider myself to be very "spiritual". I strongly believe in God, and my associated beliefs are a strong influence in my life. However, I do not belong to any organized religion. I would like to discuss the reasons why I do not associate with any such organization, but the rules forbid it.

So have fun with this one-sided discussion. I'm outta here.
 
Cyrylek said:
We neither "reject" God, nor think we are gods. We think that we have no evidence of the gods' existence, that's all.
Click to expand...

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

Agnostics are skeptical about the existence of God or deities.
 
grip said:
I don't understand nor believe all of religion or the bible. I think it was written by man and subject to errors but I believe much of it is historically true and even many of the miracles possible.
Click to expand...

You should check out the new topic, The Word of God. It's being presented to skeptics and non-believers who wouldn't accept arguments simply based on faith, but demand empirical evidences.
 
tosca1 said:
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

Agnostics are skeptical about the existence of God or deities.
Click to expand...

You cannot "believe" that something does not exist - especially "God" that lacks any definitions or qualities to search for. It is not "atheism", but sheer nonsense.

"Agnostic" is a weasel word (except when it means accepting existence of un-knowable entities)
 
Cyrylek said:
You cannot "believe" that something does not exist - especially "God" that lacks any definitions or qualities to search for. It is not "atheism", but sheer nonsense.

"Agnostic" is a weasel word (except when it means accepting existence of un-knowable entities)
Click to expand...

a·the·ism

/ˈāTHēˌizəm/

Noun

The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

Agnostics are the skeptics.
 
From what I understand, Richard Dawkins - the guru of the New Atheist - tried to back-pedal from his confession to being agnostic - by trying to "re-define" the meaning of atheism.

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic
24 February 2012

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.
The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Career atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic | Mail Online
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
From what I understand, Richard Dawkins - the guru of the New Atheist - tried to back-pedal from his confession to being agnostic - by trying to "re-define" the meaning of atheism.


Career atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic | Mail Online
Click to expand...

a real quick interjection here. You do realize that agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms right? You can be both at the same time. I admit that I am in fact agnostic, I also am in fact an atheist.

anyhow this seems a tangent, I will now depart so you all can continue with the thread in progress.
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
You cannot "believe" that something does not exist - especially "God" that lacks any definitions or qualities to search for. It is not "atheism", but sheer nonsense.

"Agnostic" is a weasel word (except when it means accepting existence of un-knowable entities)
Click to expand...


I've known agnostics who would strongly disagree, and assert that there position is not "there is no God" (atheism) but instead assert that they do not feel there can be any certainty one way or the other on the question.
 
tosca1 said:
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Click to expand...

Well, this is an idiotic definition. A "theory" that aims at proving a negative - regarding an entity without definitive qualities?

Atheism the rejection of belief - not an assertion that 'God' does not exist.

Until and unless there is empirical evidence of gods exiting, they are not a part of my mental picture of the world; therefore, I am an a-theist.

"Agnosticism as skepticism" is a meaningless addition. Of course, you cannot prove that something not defined in any particular way does no exist; why call acceptance of elementary logic by a special fancy name?
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread has somehow morphed into an "Atheist vs Theist" debate... which is specifically not appropriate in this subforum. Therefore this thread is closed pending review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom