Freedom of Religion in America?

[C.F. Kane]

It's been awhile since I've seen something that tops "Darth Vader isn't able to smell his son's fresh hair."

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Let's not go crazy now.

 

[Superhobo]

I've already explained why in 1,746,908 words typed on the Hype.
I'm not going to do it again today, and especially not in the Ben Stein thread.
This isn't even about if religion is true.
It's a societal thing...anti-religious climate leading to erosion of morals.
It could be argued that Ben Stein is right, even by a non-believer...like, yeah, God doesn't exist, religion is hooey, BUT, the belief in it does maintain a stable, safe, "virtuous" society...blablabla. (except for with regards to the natural disaster angle, of course)

It's just, I really do not like it when people tell lies about me, or say that I said something I did not say, so I had to correct that when I saw it.
Anyone can easily, at any time, go to the "Do You Believe In A God?" thread and see, not ALL, but some, of my thoughts on why.

All I seem to remember is you going on about the intricate design on a rug for several posts.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

uh...yup...I believe in God because of a rug.
Yep, it's all based on rugs.
That's all I've really got...Persian rugs.

 

[Superhobo]

uh...yup...I believe in God because of a rug.
Yep, it's all based on rugs.
That's all I've really got...Persian rugs.

Excellent response.

 

[SiTy]

Excellent response.

It comes down to the flawed argument of irreducible complexity supposedly solved by the idea of a top-down creation (which, when considered logically, doesn't actually work)
The argument is largely based on Persian rugs, 747s in tornadoes, and the idea that in a land without time, magic happens.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Excellent response.

Here, I'll try it again.

If I was in the mood today, to talk about whether or not a God exists...I'd go to the..."Do You Believe There's A God." thread.

Do you know what happens, when threads that involve religion, turn into the same old "There's a God!"/"No There Isn't!" Debate, on the Hype?
They close them, after a while.

Is it that hard to go click on the thread about whether people believe there's a God or not?! LOL

 

[SiTy]

Seems to me this should be merged in over there. Stein's letter doesn't seem to be able to hold its own thread.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It's a great topic.
It isn't that "it" can't hold it's own.
That's like when a kid knocks over a vase and says, "It got knocked over.", instead of, "I knocked the vase over."

 

[SiTy]

It's a great topic.

Is it? Seems to have run out of steam.

 

[huskerwebhead]

Is it? Seems to have run out of steam.

Only cause people can't seem to let go of the "alternate" topic.

 

[Superhobo]

Or, you know, people just don't care about Ben Stein. Just saying.

 

[SiTy]

The problem is, almost everyone agrees that the Ben Stein letter is over the top. Agreement does not spark discussion.

 

[Superhobo]

The problem is, almost everyone agrees that the Ben Stein letter is over the top. Agreement does not spark discussion.

Now I miss Moviefan. Dammit.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

The problem is, almost everyone agrees that the Ben Stein letter is over the top. Agreement does not spark discussion.

Yeah, anyone with a rational mind and has seen or heard of Expelled knows that Stein is a lying *****ebag.

 

[Bill]

1) Dude, first of all, why do you have such a hard-on for me? This is insane.
Hey everybody?! Did you know that Aristotle's favorite TV program is "The Bionic Woman" and Bill doesn't like Black people?! Insanity.

Don't know about having a hard-on for you, but you've been erroneously defining atheism for quite some type despite myself and others clarifying what it says versus what people think it says.

2) I have no respect for someone who says they "know" something that can't be known. Those are the people who say there is no God as if it's a fact.
NEXT, I have LITTLE respect for someone who looks at the universe and their own life and doesn't say, "Whoa, I'll bet there's a God. I don't know for sure...I may be wrong, there might not be one, but I think there probably is."
I don't think they're thoughtful or honest enough.

You're trying to color this as if I'm in error, and I'm not. I have an opinion that you don't like. It's not based on any error.

That's great. I agree, but that is not Atheism. Your opinion of Atheism is in error. It's not that I don't agree with it, it simply doesn't accurately reflect what atheism actually means.

If I say, "Christians think homosexuality is a sin.", is that true?
Yes, absolutely. There are SOME Christians out there who think that.
Do they all believe that?
Absolutely not.
When I say "Christians think homosexuality is a sin.", it's like saying, "Dolphins get caught in tuna nets."
Is THAT true?
Yes, SOME dolphins get caught in tuna nets.
Does that mean that every dolphin on Earth gets caught?
Of COURSE not.


So, someone who is riled up and rarin' to "fight", sees me say "Christians hate homosex.", and dreadfully boringly has to pipe up and say, "Not all of them! Not ALL of them! You're an anti-Christian bigot!"

I do agree that you should clarify what you are saying because there is a big difference between "Christians hate homosexuals" and "some Christians hate homosexuals." Whether you know it or not, or like or not, the first statement implies a mass generalization.

It is the only belief that we know, for a fact, is true.
If there was, if there WAS, a God, who was in another dimension, not tangible, not visible, AND, he wanted no contact with humans...we'd be right where we are now...you wouldn't know that he exists, and you couldn't.
So something like that COULD exist, even if it's really far-fetched.

There was a time when you couldn't use a microscope to see germs and you couldn't measure X-Rays.
If I went back and told them about germs and X-Rays, I would sound ******ed...and yet, I'd be the only human on Earth who was actually right about it.

The only thing we know for sure is that we can't know about some of these things.

Then, you may believe one way or the other sounds more reasonable, likely, to you.
I think everyone has to admit that as humans, we are automatically agnostic...and then, we decide, as an added layer, for fun, because it can't be proven, if we're atheistic or theistic.

But some don't admit that they are agnostic, or even think they are.
They are, whether they agree or not.

I'm not disagreeing with you that agnosticism is lacking knowledge. What I am attempting to point out is that Atheism doesn't make any such statement. It is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism isn't a third option, it quantifies the atheist or the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. If they know that there are no gods, then they are gnostic, if they don't know then they are agnostic. You are equating Atheism with the "the other is saying that there is no God, and there's no way you can prove that,(quote by you)" I'm trying to tell you that Atheism doesn't say that.

I posted a link that detailed the difference and relationship between the terms, it seems to have been ignored. I'll post the first two paragraphs with the link again.

"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. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — 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."

Read the rest here.

Atheism isn't a belief system, although it could be part of one. It only consists of one "belief," the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's all it is, really, I promise.

I have none whatsoever. You are wrong.

Besides the quote above?
This one, or this one, or maybe this one?

The point I want to try to make once more is that there is no three options. Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism isn't, there is a god, there isn't a god, and I don't know. It's gnostic or agnostic theism, I believe, but I do or don't know, or gnostic or agnostic atheism, I don't believe, but I do or don't know.

If you have "little respect for atheism" for their lack of belief, then come up with better arguments, but atheism isn't making any definitive claims.

Get it? No?



I don't care anymore.

 

[Superhobo]

Don't know about having a hard-on for you, but you've been erroneously defining atheism for quite some type despite myself and others clarifying what it says versus what people think it says.



That's great. I agree, but that is not Atheism. Your opinion of Atheism is in error. It's not that I don't agree with it, it simply doesn't accurately reflect what atheism actually means.



I do agree that you should clarify what you are saying because there is a big difference between "Christians hate homosexuals" and "some Christians hate homosexuals." Whether you know it or not, or like or not, the first statement implies a mass generalization.





I'm not disagreeing with you that agnosticism is lacking knowledge. What I am attempting to point out is that Atheism doesn't make any such statement. It is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism isn't a third option, it quantifies the atheist or the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. If they know that there are no gods, then they are gnostic, if they don't know then they are agnostic. You are equating Atheism with the "the other is saying that there is no God, and there's no way you can prove that,(quote by you)" I'm trying to tell you that Atheism doesn't say that.

I posted a link that detailed the difference and relationship between the terms, it seems to have been ignored. I'll post the first two paragraphs with the link again.

"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. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — 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."

Read the rest here.

Atheism isn't a belief system, although it could be part of one. It only consists of one "belief," the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's all it is, really, I promise.



Besides the quote above?
This one, or this one, or maybe this one?

The point I want to try to make once more is that there is no three options. Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism isn't, there is a god, there isn't a god, and I don't know. It's gnostic or agnostic theism, I believe, but I do or don't know, or gnostic or agnostic atheism, I don't believe, but I do or don't know.

If you have "little respect for atheism" for their lack of belief, then come up with better arguments, but atheism isn't making any definitive claims.

Get it? No?



I don't care anymore.

Bill wins.

 

[GarudA]

Don't know about having a hard-on for you, but you've been erroneously defining atheism for quite some type despite myself and others clarifying what it says versus what people think it says.



That's great. I agree, but that is not Atheism. Your opinion of Atheism is in error. It's not that I don't agree with it, it simply doesn't accurately reflect what atheism actually means.



I do agree that you should clarify what you are saying because there is a big difference between "Christians hate homosexuals" and "some Christians hate homosexuals." Whether you know it or not, or like or not, the first statement implies a mass generalization.





I'm not disagreeing with you that agnosticism is lacking knowledge. What I am attempting to point out is that Atheism doesn't make any such statement. It is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism isn't a third option, it quantifies the atheist or the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. If they know that there are no gods, then they are gnostic, if they don't know then they are agnostic. You are equating Atheism with the "the other is saying that there is no God, and there's no way you can prove that,(quote by you)" I'm trying to tell you that Atheism doesn't say that.

I posted a link that detailed the difference and relationship between the terms, it seems to have been ignored. I'll post the first two paragraphs with the link again.

"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. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — 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."

Read the rest here.

Atheism isn't a belief system, although it could be part of one. It only consists of one "belief," the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's all it is, really, I promise.



Besides the quote above?
This one, or this one, or maybe this one?

The point I want to try to make once more is that there is no three options. Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism isn't, there is a god, there isn't a god, and I don't know. It's gnostic or agnostic theism, I believe, but I do or don't know, or gnostic or agnostic atheism, I don't believe, but I do or don't know.

If you have "little respect for atheism" for their lack of belief, then come up with better arguments, but atheism isn't making any definitive claims.

Get it? No?



I don't care anymore.

Good post but I find it futile as it will fall on death ears.

 

[C.F. Kane]

Er, deaF ears.

And it can't fall on anyone's ears. It's typed.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Blind eyes, then.

 

[Aristotle]

I went out of my way to say "I have little respect for atheism.
That says, I have respect for atheism...only, a small amount.
Why do you insist on saying that I'M saying things when you don't even bother to get it right?
Stick to giving your opinions instead of trying to make grand declarations about mine when you can't even be bothered to read what I'm saying, please.
That will work out fine, if, you just tell us how you feel, instead of worrying about how I feel. Great.




1) Dude, first of all, why do you have such a hard-on for me? This is insane.
Hey everybody?! Did you know that Aristotle's favorite TV program is "The Bionic Woman" and Bill doesn't like Black people?! Insanity.

2) I have no respect for someone who says they "know" something that can't be known. Those are the people who say there is no God as if it's a fact.
NEXT, I have LITTLE respect for someone who looks at the universe and their own life and doesn't say, "Whoa, I'll bet there's a God. I don't know for sure...I may be wrong, there might not be one, but I think there probably is."
I don't think they're thoughtful or honest enough.

You're trying to color this as if I'm in error, and I'm not. I have an opinion that you don't like. It's not based on any error.


I should hope so. You can't cover every minute facet of every phenomenon in little posts on these boards.

You are wrong. I did not "admit" that some are strong. This is common knowledge.

Since you are so interested in what I think, or in what I say...letr me explain it to you once again.

This happens a lot on message boards.

If I say, "Christians think homosexuality is a sin.", is that true?
Yes, absolutely. There are SOME Christians out there who think that.
Do they all believe that?
Absolutely not.
When I say "Christians think homosexuality is a sin.", it's like saying, "Dolphins get caught in tuna nets."
Is THAT true?
Yes, SOME dolphins get caught in tuna nets.
Does that mean that every dolphin on Earth gets caught?
Of COURSE not.


So, someone who is riled up and rarin' to "fight", sees me say "Christians hate homosex.", and dreadfully boringly has to pipe up and say, "Not all of them! Not ALL of them! You're an anti-Christian bigot!"

This is what happened when I spoke of atheists, and I didn't admit that some are strong, you're, again, wrong when you say that. I admitted that for clarity sake, I should've bothered to add in the "SOME".

Which is ridiculous. Should I have to now say, "SOME dolphins get caught in tuna nets! " ?
Well, no, because there aren't any hot-headed, attack-now-ask-questions-later, impassioned weirdos attacking my statements on dolphins for no good reason, right now.


It is the only belief that we know, for a fact, is true.
If there was, if there WAS, a God, who was in another dimension, not tangible, not visible, AND, he wanted no contact with humans...we'd be right where we are now...you wouldn't know that he exists, and you couldn't.
So something like that COULD exist, even if it's really far-fetched.

There was a time when you couldn't use a microscope to see germs and you couldn't measure X-Rays.
If I went back and told them about germs and X-Rays, I would sound ******ed...and yet, I'd be the only human on Earth who was actually right about it.

The only thing we know for sure is that we can't know about some of these things.

Then, you may believe one way or the other sounds more reasonable, likely, to you.
I think everyone has to admit that as humans, we are automatically agnostic...and then, we decide, as an added layer, for fun, because it can't be proven, if we're atheistic or theistic.

But some don't admit that they are agnostic, or even think they are.
They are, whether they agree or not.

I have none whatsoever. You are wrong.



Do it.
Let's see the quotes.
You couldn't even manage to correctly quote me a few pages ago when I said "I have LITTLE respect", so I actually would prefer, very much, that you actually quote me, instead of informing me of what I think.

Truly.

Look, I'm really not trying to be antagonistic, but don't you think it's worth considering that you've had to explain yourself a LOT in this thread? I mean, can it really be that everyone else is ******ed, or could it be that, in the heat of the moment, you've communicated poorly? Are you really so infallible that none of this could be your own fault?

 

[Aristotle]

First off, you're welcome to your opinion, like every other free person in this world. However, do you have any examples of these so-called "generational lies"? I'm aware of the fact that like all fallible humans, even the best Christians sometimes tell a lie...but I'm not aware of it happening repeatedly over several generations.

That would be the entirety of Johannine-derived Christianity.

First, I don't insult people by calling them names, so I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from doing so. Besides, doesn't Scripture warn against using abrasive language? If you're truly so concerned with following the Old Laws to the letter, your choice would've been different in that instance.

It's a different time. There were plenty of ***** in the Bible, including Jesus (man was he a dick), so I don't feel too out of place being a dick myself.

Secondly, you're right in that I'll never know completely what its like to be Jewish.

You'll never know at all, dude.

But to say that God was invented by the Jews seems even more ridiculous than saying Christians have distorted it. God wasn't invented by anyone. He is the beginning and the end of all things. He always has been, and always will be. Even most Orthodox Jews would agree with that statement alone.

Don't speak for us. In every Jewish heart, we know what is most important about God, for us: we've been able to turn to God in times of strife and trouble--that doesn't mean God objectively exists. You look in the scriptures; we still have the cultural memories of when we were part of a polytheistic society in Northern Africa. We still know.

I won't deny that many who once labelled themselves "Christians" have contributed to various terrors in this world.

You don't get to separate yourself from them. They believed.

But to blame all who serve Christ for the actions of a few doesn't make much sense at all.

Maybe if those who serve Christ would quit doing things like that?

Also, you don't know my level of faith, or how much effort I put into it every day, so please don't classify me as a "weekend Christian".

Your level of faith is clearly weak enough that all it can manage is Christianity. Any fool can have cheap grace. Some of us still believe in working for God, not because you can please God, but because God deserves that respect. Apparently you disagree.

Just out of curiosity, how can you see homosexuality as a misnomer, yet see faith in Christ as an abhoration?

Because societal mores have shifted on homosexuality, but belief in Christ is still wrong, and a perversion of God's word.

Even the Old Testament says, "Do not lie with man as with woman, for it is an abomination." How do you reconcile your own attitude with that? just curious, since you seem bent on upholding the Law (which by the way, is impossible for anyone to uphold well enough to be seen as holy by God).

That lost a lot of Jew-cred when we started shaving, buddy. We recognized that it was time to update ourselves a little bit. That's what's cool about our God. God's OK with that. That's why God kept reinventing Godself. Your God, on the other hand, seems to have had one enormous shift 2000 years ago, at which point your God basically contradicted everything God had said before, and went in a completely different direction, never changing again.

I'm actually wondering this: Why do you find it so hard to accept the notion that God Himself could arrive among us in human form, and provide us with a way of escape that wasn't dependent on works?

Mostly because God said that was a blasphemous concept. When it comes down to the word of a text written 90 years after Jesus died, vs. the word of God, I'll go with God.

 

[Aristotle]

It's a great topic.

What is there to discuss? Ben Stein's wrong.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Don't know about having a hard-on for you, but you've been erroneously defining atheism for quite some type despite myself and others clarifying what it says versus what people think it says.

Aaaand, you are completely wrong. I have not been incorrectly defining it. I have correctly defined forms of it. I have never been speaking about every single atheist on Earth when I have spoken about atheists. You have read my "atheists" as "all atheists", I have clearly, repeatedly told you that I know all atheists are not the same.
At this point, it appears that you are calling me a liar.
I am not a liar.

Again, you're just completely ignoring the fact that it all came down to inclusion of the word "some" for clarity...CLARITY, meaning, a clearer and more accurate expression of my actual thoughts, for the benefit of others.

There is no misunderstanding or lack of understanding of how different atheists can be.
I told you, that I meant statements about atheists as I would mean "Dolphins get caught in tuna nets."

Then, I agreed, "Yeah, I should've said "Some"."
That doesn't mean I didn't THINK some, and "should've thought 'some'"...it means, adding the specific word "some" would clear up any ambiguity for readers who are not inside my brain...where it is well known that all atheists do not have the exact same beliefs/disbeliefs.

Also, what you, personally say, about a word, is irrelevant. Societies have to come to agreements about the meanings of words or we won't be able to communicate.
If you don't know what a word means, there are armies of hoighty-toighty scholars editing constantly updated dictionaries. As internet-cheezy as it seems, sorry, but they have value.

I'll show you a sampling:

1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity

1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist

a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.


the belief that God does not exist

ATHEISM - , as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.

WHAT. THE ****. more. Do I have to say? Just how many egg shells am I on here? Any moron can easily understand the difference between:
belief in the absence of God,
and
absence of belief in God.

Please educate me and tell me which academic, pedantic, nit-picky, whiny little definition I'm not giving enough lip service to. I've looked and looked and looked and reality on planet Earth tells me that when you're an atheist, one of those^ definitions describes you.
You should get the world on the phone and edit Wikipedia, because this is breaking news if the whole world is wrong and you're right.

That's great. I agree, but that is not Atheism. Your opinion of Atheism is in error. It's not that I don't agree with it, it simply doesn't accurately reflect what atheism actually means.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think there aren't any atheists who say, "There is no God."
Kainedamo, fellow Hypester, made a thread, "There Can Be No God." and then he claimed that he could prove it. He was wrong of course.
He's an atheist
He claimed that there can be no God.
Just pick up a copy of "The Skeptic" and you will see a gaggle of atheists who do not just disbelieve, but rather, say "There is no God."

THOSE.............are the ones I have "NO RESPECT" for.


THEN, (now try to pay attention because you keep ignoring this next part!)
There are OTHERS, who just don't believe there's a God. They very rightly see no clear, indisputable "evidence", and so, they have no reason to believe.
I have a little respect for them. I don't have "NO respect" them.
There are some, where, I have some respect for them.
They are a different breed, distinct from the ones I have no respect for...who are the ones that claim to know for a fact that there isn't a God.

2 different types of people. I am laughing, trying to figure out why you think I think all atheists are the same, when we live on a planet of BILLIONS of unique individuals.
I always say, "There are billions of different conceptions of 'God'."
Not just "Catholic", "Mormon", "Baptist, "Muslim"....but BILLIONS.

I do agree that you should clarify what you are saying because there is a big difference between "Christians hate homosexuals" and "some Christians hate homosexuals." Whether you know it or not, or like or not, the first statement implies a mass generalization.

There's only a difference when dealing with pedantic, "argue-for-arguments-sake" people...(which is great because right here, a perfect example of the type of person I'm talking about, posted....someone said your post would "fall on deaf ears", and the person had to say, "Uh...*sn0rt*...no one can hear these posts.", which is, like, sad. )

As I said, for the sake of your delicate feelings and how easily you are confused, I'll try to remember to add in "some" (which is in the same genus as the redundant, P.C. "IMHO", bull****), when I see Bill in a God thread...but it's absurd to think that I now have to say "SOME dolphins get caught in tuna nets."

No one would think I was making a grand declaration about every single dolphin that ever lived...that they were all caught in nets right now.

BUT, yeah, what if I said, "Black people are lazy.", or "Lawyers are heartless."

The one about a race, seems to make a statement about a natural attribute of a group, "They're just that way.". Fewer people are going to take offense with the lawyer one, I think that's the case with classifications of people that involve choice. When people say, "Cops are such jerks when they pull you over.", one person, KNOWING that some cops are really nice, great guys, will respond, "Oh dude, I know. One time, this cops pulled me over, and he was such a jerk."
Another pedantic, nit-picky person will say, "UHHh...SOME cops are jerks, but there are a lot of nice cops."


No ****. No one actually believes that there isn't ONE. SINGLE nice cop on the force.

I'm not disagreeing with you that agnosticism is lacking knowledge. What I am attempting to point out is that Atheism doesn't make any such statement. It is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods.

God dude. Duh.
How many scores of times do I have to say that exact thing until you will admit that I KNOW that.?

Here's why Agnosticism is superior...whether you like it or not, all 3 deal with a question, "Is there a God?"

A theist says he THINKS there is.
An atheist says he thinks there isn't one. Do you think there IS one, if you lack belief in it?? No. So...they don't BELIEVE there's a God. In your words, they lack belief in Gods. That is STILL their answer to the question, "Is there a God?"
Sorry, but my lack of belief in unicorns IS my answer to the question, "Do unicorns exist?", because people have talked about unicorns for centuries, and I hear that, and I say, "Ah, unicorn, a mythical beast."

Well, people have talked about Gods for centuries. That's WHY it has even come up...and, if you lack belief in the idea of a God, then you hear those accounts, and go, "Ah, 'God', a mythical creature...I don't think it exists."


Theism and any sub-category of Atheism, are all about BELIEFS, or DISBELIEFS.
Agnosticism is about truth, fact, and knowledge.
Theists trust their heart and feelings, and the words of other people.
Atheists trust their senses, and their conception of common sense AND, whether you like it or not, of "reality".
Agnostics admit the truth, that none of those^ criteria can be ultimately trusted.
I have explained that I totally agree, they are not 3 of 3 "options"...agnosticism is a different thing, dealing in fact rather than belief.
That's why it's better, because ideas that deal in belief, or lack of belief, MAY, always, be wrong...depending upon the unknown credibility of the information entering the sieve of your sense, and the accuracy of it's interpretation.

• I believe there's a God. - Your belief may be wrong. We don't know.

• I don't believe there's a God. - Your disbelief may be wrong. We don't know.

• I don't know if there's a God or not. - You are 100% correct. We know that is true. It can not be denied.
  

That's what you don't get. This isn't like me saying, "Rock and Roll is a better musical genre than Country or Rap."
It's like me saying, "Music is a much more intensely experienced art form than literature."

But the 3 are related, because you can't be a self-avowed agnostic while saying that you know God is watching out for you...and you can't be the type of atheist who says "There is no God and anyone who believes there is one, is a fool.", ans say that you're an agnostic...as the word is used.

Conceptually, they ARE both agnostics, but the word is used as an identifier, and they are defined by their error or by their gamble/hunches, which are not based in fact.





Seriously, this whole conversation is based on ******ation because I've explained repeatedly that I understand the distinctions between atheists and that I should've said "Some", which was obviously MEANT, to forestall crap like this, but you insist on saying that I don't understand the distinction.....while I'm telling you that I BELIEVE, completely, in the distinction.

Why can't you just accept that I agree to say "Some" in the future?

Agnosticism isn't a third option, it quantifies the atheist or the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in a god or gods. If they know that there are no gods, then they are gnostic, if they don't know then they are agnostic. You are equating Atheism with the "the other is saying that there is no God, and there's no way you can prove that,(quote by you)" I'm trying to tell you that Atheism doesn't say that.

My God, ...you're so wrapped up in this idea that when I make a statement about atheists that exist, I'm making that statement about ALL atheists that exist, that you're ignoring the fact that th^t is exactly what I said.
I said that all people are agnostics, whether they admit it or not, and then, after that, we fine tune the labeling with regards to our beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

Atheism isn't a belief system,

Here you're possibly mixing me up with someone else because I never said it was a belief system.


[quote[It only consists of one "belief," the lack of a belief in a god or gods. That's all it is, really, I promise.[/quote]Uh......right......
And I don't think people who lack belief in some kind of Creator of the universe are thinking hard and honestly enough about the question, but, I can certainly understand how they feel, having entertained the idea myself, so, I have some respect for them....while having none for idiots who think they know everything about the universe based on what we see or hear on this insignificant and highly significant speck in the cosmos.....as I've said, repeatedly.

How many other ways do you want me to say it?
Hopefully you meant it when you said you don't care anymore.
Maybe now you'll stop making false accusations about me because I too am tired of telling you, that all atheists do not say "There is no God." and that there is a difference between affirming the non-existence of something, and lacking belief in it.


As far as all the Wilhelm Quotes, I'll have to come back to them because for some reason it's not letting me click on them in advanced mode.

 

[J-Sentius]

isn't America founded to support freedom of religion? It is isn't America anymore if it doesn't, george washington himself welcomed the Isreali's as the children of Abraham. Muslims too.