quote:

---

I hate when people reply to me and say things like "you seems to be saying" then present an arguement based on the "seemed".

I think to myself...why couldn't they just respond to what I said right there in black and white? Why do they modify it and then refute the modification?

---

quote:

---

PhDreamer --So if atheism technically equals nothing (supernatural), maybe we should call ourselves nothingists
It's odd to be in groups that are titled by what they are not, rather than what they are.
For instance I'm a non-smoker. I've never even tried a cigarette; so why should I have a title that mentions them? The title non-smoker tells you nothing at all about anything that I actually do.
I'm also an Atheist and that too tells you absolutely nothing about anything that I actually do. Only what I don't.
Perhaps I should state my race as Aasian, That would tell you one of the things I'm not.
Why does this anti-title thing not make any sense to me, I'm astupid?

---

quote:

---

grand nubian --One can be a theist and be agnostic. One can believe in god but admit that one doesn't have knoeldge.
I wouldn't think so. But that would explain why people like Darwin Alogos would claim that they were raised as Agnostics.
How one would go about "believing" when you didn't know if something was real is beyond me. Wouldn't you think that the action of believing in itself is an assumption of knowledge?

---

Because there is a belief that a supreme being(s) exists. The form of it is in question not existance. There are some people who claim to be agnostic but are unsure of an existance of a supreme being. I would call these people oppressed atheists. They truely don't have a god belief but they have been pressured socially throughout their entire lives to believe.

quote:

---

People accuse agnostics of fence riding but they actually are the more honest of both sides.
We seem to be falling back on the Roman Catholic Dictionary definition that an Atheist is a person who holds the belief that God does not exist.
Asking the RC's for a definition of Atheism is like asking a Nazi what a Jew is.

A claim that a deity exists is made by people, who offer no supporting evidence. Atheists don't accept this baseless claim. How is this any less honest than an Agnostic position?

---

How is this philosiphy any less honest than Theism. All three are equally honest positions. The difference has to do with the degrees of god belief that exist within the individual.

Agnostic, Theist - God belief exists. In agnosticism, the form is questioned.

Athiest - No god belief exists.

quote:

---

Agnostics say there is no evidence so there is no why for them to know.
Atheists say there is no evidence so there is no way that the claimant can know, and so do not accept the claim.
Because in fact Atheist/Agnostics aren't making a judgement on whether a god exists or not. They have not been presented with a god to make a decision about. What they have been presented with is a claim made by PEOPLE. A/A are making a judgement on if this human CLAIM holds water.
I wonder, if Theists were more affable to those whose opinions differed from their own, would anyone feel the need to be called an Agnostic?

---

Not all Theists are not affiable to those whose opinions differ. (That sentance doesn't sound right. Double negative but I don't know how else to write it.) Theists (of which I would classify Agnostics as a part) like to classify themselves by belief. This tends to be lesser of a problem for Atheists. Theists tend to ask the follow up question to "Do you believe in God?" of "What religion do you belong to?" It's sort of like checking the none of the above box.

quote:

---

PhDreamer --So if atheism technically equals nothing (supernatural), maybe we should call ourselves nothingists
It's odd to be in groups that are titled by what they are not, rather than what they are.
For instance I'm a non-smoker. I've never even tried a cigarette; so why should I have a title that mentions them? The title non-smoker tells you nothing at all about anything that I actually do.
I'm also an Atheist and that too tells you absolutely nothing about anything that I actually do. Only what I don't.
Perhaps I should state my race as Aasian, That would tell you one of the things I'm not.
Why does this anti-title thing not make any sense to me, I'm astupid?

---

How about functional realists? God belief unencumbered?

quote:

---

Agnostic, Theist - God belief exists. In agnosticism, the form is questioned.

Athiest - No god belief exists.

---

I don't think that ,by definition of Agnosticism, that it is the form of god that is in question.
My understanding is that it is the very existence.
Since a Theist is someone who professes a believe in god(s) that would include any form that tickled their fancy. Even if they didn't know what form their god was in their belief in it (them) makes them Theists.

An Agnostic could not be said to posses a belief because Agnosticism signifies doubt.
Doubt being the antithesis of belief an Agnostic could not be considered a Theist.

At least that's what I belive.

-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.

Edited by - slater on 11/02/2001 10:31:24

Edited by - slater on 11/02/2001 10:33:09

quote:

---

I am an agnostic that doesn't believe in a god because I have no knowledge about one.

---

quote:

---

"A" isn't anti and any anti talk about atheists is nonsense. "A" is without. So I guess the "seemer" is without asian.

---

Well, I guess that leaves out Maury Povich.

Of course, everyone knows that Jews just Love to Eat Chinese.

Speaking of Jews though, we've already had this whole Semantic Argument, back in 1850. We, finally, decided that since what we were doing, was reforming our position, that we should call ourselves, Drum Roll please, Reform Jews. This contrasts with Reconstructionists, who pretty much threw everything, out the Window.

As a Reform Jew, while I am Genetically Jewish, my Religious thought is somewhere between Agnosticism and Deism. The reason why I can't say that I am, in fact, a Deist, is because, as a Jew, I have Never quite gotten the point behind Original Sin. Furthermore, I have also never quite figured out how, if we all have it, someone, Yeshua ben Yosef in particular, could be born without it, and what such a person's death at Human hands, could tell God, that he didn't already know.

In summation, I leave you with this Equation: Jew + Agnosticism = Reform

If you Ignore Your Rights, they WILL, go away.

quote:

---

Theists are the only ones of the three who are making a claim, the only ones professing a belief.

---

.....^.........^
..../.\........|K
.../___\.......|N
../.....\......|O
./|.....|\.....|W
< |.....| >....|L
.\|.....|/.....|E
..\_____/......|D
...\.../.......|G
....\./........|E
.....v.........v
<---------->
...BELIEF

quote:

---

So, basically what you are saying, is that one should use a Two-Dimensional Diagram, instead. Such as Libertarians use:

---