I was anticipated by a Greater Mind.

[Schneibster]

Again you are getting it wrong.
An atheist will only assert that there is no credible evidence for a god.
An anti-theist will assert there are no gods.

That is the very important distinction you keep missing.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with this.

An agnostic thinks there's no credible evidence for a god or gods, but not enough evidence to conclude they do not exist.
An atheist thinks the lack of evidence is sufficiently comprehensive to conclude god or gods does not/do not exist.
An anti-theist thinks religions are evil and should be suppressed.

[hanelyp]

Stubby, you're getting atheist and agnostic confused.

[Stubby]

This post is number 666! BUAHAHAHAHA

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. This is not a valid position to adopt because it misrepresents or misunderstands everything involved: atheism, theism, agnosticism, and the nature of belief itself. It also happens to reinforce popular prejudice against atheists.


Prejudice Against Atheism, Atheists

Agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Agnostic Atheism & Agnostic Theism

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

[Schneibster]

This post is number 666! BUAHAHAHAHA

Isn't that "Muahahaha?"

[Stubby]

I have a Transylvanian lissppp, the teeth ya know.

Stubby, you're getting atheist and agnostic confused.

This has to be the nicest thing you've ever said to me. Kudos.

[MSimon]

And for the umpteenth time, those non-rational beliefs are the only thing which keeps a lid on human nature.

Hadn't notice the lid. Especially when it comes to religious wars. Islam doesn't seem to provide a lid. Neither between believers nor between believers and non-believers. The same was true of Christianity at one time.

Why do people cooperate? Self interest is enough to explain it. No god(z) required.

Why do people steal? Self interest is enough to explain it.

Why is China tending capitalist? Self interest is enough to explain it.

[Schneibster]

And for the umpteenth time, those non-rational beliefs are the only thing which keeps a lid on human nature.

Hadn't notice the lid. Especially when it comes to religious wars. Islam doesn't seem to provide a lid. Neither between believers nor between believers and non-believers. The same was true of Christianity at one time.

Why do people cooperate? Self interest is enough to explain it. No god(z) required.

Why do people steal? Self interest is enough to explain it.

Why is China tending capitalist? Self interest is enough to explain it.

I find it notable you fail to understand that people who steal get ejected from the community. Even by monkeys.

Study the culture of the lower deck in a British man-o-war from the Napoleonic era. Self-interest is not everything, and people will make remarkable sacrifices for their society if they believe they are required to preserve it.

Among many other things I hate about them, I believe conservatives dishonor courage and are willing to be seen hiding behind the courage of others. I believe you are the spawn of Napoleon and Hitler. And the only thing better about Napoleon than Hitler was he was a genius general. Other than that they were birds of a feather up to and including extermination camps and intelligence agencies with the authority to commit torture. The Nazis had better extermination technology than the French, but that's simply a matter of technical advance; guillotines are remarkably efficient, even compared to mass gas extermination chambers disguised as showers.

[Teahive]

If what you say were true, then Atheists would not evangelize. They would be content to let people believe as they wish, though they themselves choose not to. In practice, Atheists are defacto Anti-Theists.

In practice, most atheists don't evangelize. They're the ones you simply don't notice.

[Schneibster]

If what you say were true, then Atheists would not evangelize. They would be content to let people believe as they wish, though they themselves choose not to. In practice, Atheists are defacto Anti-Theists.

In practice, most atheists don't evangelize. They're the ones you simply don't notice.

Actually that depends upon how often we've had it stuck up our noses and twisted.

[Diogenes]

Again you are getting it wrong.

I find it encouraging when you tell me i'm wrong about something. Baring Scheisskopf , you are the most off base person on this website, of which I am currently aware.

An atheist will only assert that there is no credible evidence for a god.
An anti-theist will assert there are no gods.

That is the very important distinction you keep missing.

You are arguing theory, and I am arguing reality. Reminds me of what Regan said.


"Economists are so impressed with how capitalism works in practice, they are wondering if it can be made to work in theory."
You are simply trying to split hairs with sophistry. In practice, Atheists are Anti-Theists.

And why does an atheist have to stay quiet about the lack of evidence for the existence of gods?

Because talking about this is tantamount to sawing through a major load bearing structure for civilization. Humans turn into evil bastards when deprived of their religious beliefs.


Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.


Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'

Don't aAGWists get to question the evidence of global warming? Don't a-eCatists get to question Rossi's assertions? What kind of lunacy is that? Shut up because you don't agree with me?

No, more like "shut up because if people hear you and accept it, we are all gonna die."




If you think humans are evolved to the point where they can maintain a stable social structure without religious beliefs underpinning it, then you are extremely naive about the nature of humans.

[Diogenes]

The Religious look at people around them and see "souls" whom they should treat as equals, while atheists look around them and see animals competing for dominance.

So Obama is your equal? Fine. He is not mine.

Of what human right would you deprive him?

He looks a LOT like an animal competing for dominance to me.

Ah. But the godly are not like that? Please explain religious wars.

Conflicting memes. The Normal nature of humanity manifesting itself with religious doctrine as an excuse. If you think those are bad, you should see the body pile you get without religion.


Again, Optimization is a concept you ought to grog. Sometimes the best system obtainable still has losses greater than what we would prefer.

[Diogenes]

And for the umpteenth time, those non-rational beliefs are the only thing which keeps a lid on human nature.

Hadn't notice the lid.

Perhaps you should read more.

The lid seems all too apparent to me. Tolerance and civilization are just a veneer kept on by irrational beliefs in a Deity and an afterlife. Real human nature is quite beastly.

Especially when it comes to religious wars. Islam doesn't seem to provide a lid. Neither between believers nor between believers and non-believers.

In a war of memes, Islam is like a crocodile. Dangerous to other memes, very good at surviving unchanged for millenia, but incapable of evolving further.

The same was true of Christianity at one time.

To compare the thousands killed in "Christian" wars and the hundred million plus killed by Islamist wars, is irrational.

Why do people cooperate? Self interest is enough to explain it. No god(z) required.

That is an overly simplistic statement. As with many overly simplistic statements, the rebuttal is far too much trouble.

Why do people steal? Self interest is enough to explain it.

It is no great leap of thought to comprehend why people steal. What requires effort is to comprehend why they do not.

Why is China tending capitalist? Self interest is enough to explain it.

They are trying to be Ficon without Socon, and I predict a big demographic disaster eventually.


But for the intervention of the Christianized West, the Chinese would still be living several thousand years in the past. Other cultures seemingly just couldn't advance for some reason.

[Diogenes]

If what you say were true, then Atheists would not evangelize. They would be content to let people believe as they wish, though they themselves choose not to. In practice, Atheists are defacto Anti-Theists.

In practice, most atheists don't evangelize. They're the ones you simply don't notice.

The ones that get the headlines tend to define the overall group for the public at large.


Not many things are actually defined by consensus, but words are one of those things which are.

[Teahive]

The lid seems all too apparent to me. Tolerance and civilization are just a veneer kept on by irrational beliefs in a Deity and an afterlife.

A veneer kept on by beliefs, period. A deity is not a necessary ingredient, neither is afterlife (beyond, maybe, the concept of legacy).

The ones that get the headlines tend to define the overall group for the public at large.


Not many things are actually defined by consensus, but words are one of those things which are.

Headlines are not consensus. But even if you want to stick with that definition, the majority of people-who-do-not-believe-in-a-god still do not evangelize. They aren't even a homogeneous group as far as beliefs go, apart from that single shared view.

[Stubby]

Diogenes:
As previously noted, your dictionary is wrong. Stop using it.