Atheist Sunday Assembly goes worldwide, the future is bright for non-believers

Originally posted by humphreysjim
In very simple terms.

Gnosticism: Knowledge
Agnosticism: Lack of knowledge
Theism: Belief in God
Atheism: Lack of belief in God

Which means one can be any combination of the two.

Agnostic Atheist: Lack of belief in God without claims of absolute knowledge
Gnostic Atheist: Lack of belief with claims of certainty
Angostic Theist: Belief in God without claims of absolute knowledge
Gnostic Theist: Belief in God with claims of absolute knowledge

I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist.

However, it's not quite as simple as that because people also use agnosticism to means someone who has no clue either way, which is the way you use it. But still, an agnostic is always an atheist because they fit the definition of not believing in God.

Thanks for this post. Many people don't understand these simple concepts..typically honest mistakes.
Agnostic atheists are generally the most thoughtful people I find. They don't dismiss the concept of deities..how can one do that. They simply choose not to have a belief in one until one is proven. This seems reasonable. Also a rigid line of what stands as proof is required

What annoys me (and most others mind you) are Gnostics...they, in my opinion, are liars.
There is no proof of any of this, for or against...so when someone says they know..they have some sort of subjective proof that nobody else is aware of, yet we must take their word for it...ya..those guys annoy me..be it theists or atheists.

I chuckle and shake my head a bit when I see a gnostic theist (aka, bible thumper). Silly little folks...but my eyebrow twitches in sheer annoyance when I come across the gnostic atheists..the ones whom "know" there is no deity..and feel the need to pop in and declare their supernatural knowledge on the subject..like they somehow singlehandedly proven no deities exist.

Now those types are no different than any other religious type...those are usually the ones that later on in life suddenly become a theist..they require a belief system of some sorts moreso than the content.

that's funny.

Irony
Hypocrisy


yet most of them believe in sky fairies with magical psychic powers flying around in space in spaceships.


HILARIOUS!

i am registered on the rolls of Libertarian

i would be happy to be on the list , congregation, of fellow Athiests (even though i am Agnostic)
IF i can bump elbows with other Hedonists in the Sunday meet-up groups


let's make the 'great falling away' an ongoing event to participate in, YaY


i could not abide the Anton Levay, church of Satan thing, but this might be OK

Wht do they need another social social club, looks like a scam to me. Do they pass the plate also?

reply to post by grainofsand

Absolute, unfettered, unconstrained, unconditional, non-coercive FREEDOM as a free gift - is what I believe in, which includes your right not to see and recognize that this domain of freedom, including the freedom to be true to one's self and to be and become freely and fully self expressed IS the "inheritance prepared for us (intended) from before the foundation of the world".

The issue therefore is one of intentionality vs. random "coincidence", but that's neither here nor there because "God" cannot be understood. God can only be lived and if what I am convinced is true God also lives through the atheist and their experience of life, including (and here's where it gets funny and ironic) their lack of belief in God as creator whereby life's unity is experienced through variety.

The person of faith simply has an object of faith relative to which he/she can be grateful for their inclusion.

Oh God it's so funny!

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by blahxd67

 

No, atheist is just the term to describe someone who doesn't believe in any gods. Please try to avoid distorting the position with loaded words like "reject"

The second definition of atheism: "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Definition of disbelief: "the inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true."

You can find this at dictionary.com.

The first definition of atheism btw is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God."

Originally posted by firegoggles

OK evidence for an intelligent creator... So you think that the spiral ...let me say this .. so you think that the golden ratio found in everything in nature is just .. what.. nature?

Yes of course. There are consistent physical laws, it is no surprise patterns like this would exist.

Originally posted by firegoggles

Then why is it not only in our plant life it's also in our human life it's found again and again and even in the spiral nature of other galaxy?

Because that is the type of Universe our laws of physics creates. Why would it not show up everywhere? The laws are consistent, mathematics exists, life exists.

Originally posted by firegoggles

It's by chance we see the same formula that creates life in divers places all over the universe but it's random? I'm getting it.

The laws of physics are not themselves random, if they were, they wouldn't be laws, they would be chaotic. The creation of them came through random processes, though. I believe it likely there are parallel Universes that do not have golden ratios, and do not harbor life, and are not consistent. Ours happens to, because that's the Universe our laws of physics created.

Originally posted by firegoggles

I suppose we would just go back and forth all day like that so.. I'm not worried about convincing you or anything if you wanna believe all things we see now are the result of a cosmic accident by all means who am I to stop you?

Why is my position so absurd to you? You think it's less absurd that a creator far more complex than our Universe either came from nothing himself, or just always existed for ever and ever for no reason? How does something exist forever? Think about God's last thought, then what was his thought before that? Does he have an infinite regress of thoughts? How can something that stretches infinitely into the past have a point where it suddenly decides to create life? It doesn't even make logical sense, I'm afraid, in fact, it violates logical laws of infinite regress. An eternal intelligent being is a paradox.

Originally posted by firegoggles

But really doesn't it seem silly sometimes to believe we and all things have come from what? Nothing? Huh?

Well, something was either always there, or it came from nothing. That something can either be God, or the Universe, to me it is far less outrageous to believe it was lifeless inert matter than a supreme being!

Originally posted by firegoggles

No that is not critical thinking as people love to throw around here on ATS. Seriously ludicrous. Think about this if one does embrace a creator and the possibility that a creator is responsible for all things and dimensions it would explain most all other mystery's in life including paranormal things, aliens, creation of mankind and would give us a hint of the afterlife being a reality.

It doesn't explain anything at all, it explains it away. There is a difference. An explanation that can be used to explain anything by its very nature is no explanation at all, it's hand-waving. Imagine if we had done this in the past.

Why do things fall? God.
Why does water turn into ice when it gets cold? God.
Why does rain fall from the sky? God.

We would still be living in the dark ages with this kind of thinking, and yet, at one time, people really did think God was the answer, but guess what? We did the work to find the real answer. God is no more an explanation than "magic". How was the Universe created? "Magic"! It gets us nowhere. It explains nothing.

Where does God come from? Who created him? Where does he reside? How does he function? Where did the matter used to make our Universe come from? How does God create our physical laws? How does God think without a brain? If you want to use God as an answer for everything, you're going to have a billion new questions to answer. But you better start with proving God before you get onto that.

Originally posted by blahxd67
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

Agnostic is someone who's not sure if god(s) exist or not. Atheist is someone who rejects belief in god(s).

The true meaning of the word comes from the word "Gnosis"

esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

This is where the term gnostics comes from...the A in front is reverse...no knowledge of spiritual truths...

Lately, there is a branching off of the word (through layman terms endlessly corrupting language) to dumb down the meaning and simply saying "I donno" about the whole deity thing..makes it more palletable than saying atheist in a society full of cloud worshippers.
But ya..the typical "I donno" person is more than likely just your average agnostic atheist...aka, someone whom doesn't reject the possibility...but simply doesn't believe simply to believe...

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
Wht do they need another social social club, looks like a scam to me. Do they pass the plate also?

Why do you see any problem with a gathering of non-believers which does not affect you?

Complex intricate things can come about by nature. Example is a snowflake. And snowflakes form very very quickly.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
God can only be lived and if what I am convinced is true God also lives through the atheist and their experience of life, including (and here's where it gets funny and ironic) their lack of belief in God as creator whereby life's unity is experienced through variety.

Then why do you try so hard to spread your idea of accepting god? If god wants to experience the gnashing of teeth, let him.

Originally posted by St Udio
i could not abide the Anton Levay, church of Satan thing, but this might be OK

Why not?
Currently that's called "wall street"

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Again, I am happy for you if that is your belief, it appears to harm nobody so I would absolutely defend your right to hold such a view.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
God can only be lived and if what I am convinced is true God also lives through the atheist and their experience of life, including (and here's where it gets funny and ironic) their lack of belief in God as creator whereby life's unity is experienced through variety.

Then why do you try so hard to spread your idea of accepting god? If god wants to experience the gnashing of teeth, let him.

What did you get from what that person said? I got this: "God causes some people to become atheists." Really?

reply to post by SaturnFX

Actually laughed out loud then, cheers, this has been a long and vociferously argued thread so far, comments like that are a breath of fresh air!

Originally posted by something wicked

That's an interesting definition, but it's yours. Where does being an agnostic sit in your very black and white mindset? An answer of 'I don't know' does not make one an atheist. An answer of 'No', well, I'll grant you that one

It isn't mine, it's the term most commonly used by atheists (have a look on atheism.com), it's the main definition in most dictionaries, and it's what the word ACTUALLY means. "Theism" means "God Belief" and the "A" means "Without". Atheism means, by very definition "without God belief".

Agnostics are "without God belief".

Agnosticism is used in different ways, it's supposed to reflect lack of knowledge, which is why most atheists see themselves as both agnostics and atheists, or "agnostic atheists", but it's often just used by atheists in places like America where you the word "atheist" has such negative connotations.

Much easier to tell your religious parents you're an agnostic than an evil atheist satan worshipper.

Whichever way you look at it, agnostics are atheists too, and that's not my definition, it's the actual definition.

Well this thread has predictably turned into a believer versus non-believer argument. It was interesting for a short while.
As an open minded skeptical agnostic, I still think the original idea is a bit daft but to each their own.
I can just see eventually arguments amongst the weekly gathering descending into a hardcore atheist against the "agnostic" atheist and then each branch splitting off into their own weekly Sunday gatherings...

reply to post by blahxd67

No I'm saying that the nature of the reality God has made available to us is by it's very nature unconditionally free including the freedom not to believe in the giver of this freedom. Otherwise it's not free, not unconditional. There's a sad and pathetic kind of irony to it if what was intended was a relationship of love between a beloved and beloved other, but again love to be love must be free, freely given and freely received and God as love would want nothing less than real and authentic love in kind. In many ways the atheist, provided he remains open minded and inquisitive, is closer to God than the knee jerk believer who isn't freely free and who therefore isn't really capable of freely loving God.

reply to post by blahxd67

It's from a discussion we had on one of his threads a while back. Now he seems to have changed his tune.

reply to post by humphreysjim

Your argument is filled with flaws and isn't itself consistent.