New slang "Anti-Theist"

[Xombiehacker]

Regaurdless of if you're atheist of not, you should still read this (it's not an argument)

I, for one, am sick and tired of being grouped together with hardcore atheists who think not only that god does not exist but that other people shouldn't believe that god exists. So, I say we, as a general population, should start defining the two groups as Atheist and Anti-Theist.

(For the record, I'm agnostic and believe not that there is no god, but that I won't decide one way or the other until given true proof one way or the other.)
(Also that people should stop judging each other based off their religions and treat each other the same even if they believe that our heads are made of cheese)

[RacistBassist]

Anti-theist seems too much like misotheism though

[Xombiehacker]

(For the record, I'm agnostic and believe not that there is no god, but that I won't decide one way or the other until given true proof one way or the other.)
(Also that people should stop judging each other based off their religions and treat each other the same even if they believe that our heads are made of cheese)

*Edit- "our heads"
Sorry about that, running on autopilot.

[Earfetish]

The late great Hitchens used to describe himself as an anti-theist. New slang? He first said it like five years ago.

âEUoeI am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually true.... There may be people who wish to live their lives under cradle-to-grave divine supervision, a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.âEU

Ie - I don't believe in God, but even if I did, I'd hate him because he is a dick.

[Earfetish]

At 1/29/13 12:23 AM, Xombiehacker wrote: (Also that people should stop judging each other based off their religions and treat each other the same even if they believe that our heads are made of cheese)

I don't 'judge people' based off their religion, or their political persuasion, or anything else. I treat everyone I speak to with respect and judge them based on how they treat me and other people. However, I still think that God did not impregnate the Virgin Mary so he could be crucified for our sins and raised from the dead (are you 'agnostic' to this possibility?) and I still think that religion is a bad thing. Just like I think American Exceptionalism is a bad thing. Even though I wouldn't 'judge' someone who believed in this.

I believe it was Luke Skywalker who said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Also, many centuries after Star Wars was made, someone inserted a scene in which he said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Even though Star Wars is fictional, these are still some pretty decent concepts.

[theJRob]

Anti-theist? You mean like Bill Maher (who's a complete dick)?

[abbiegale]

At 1/29/13 12:23 AM, Xombiehacker wrote: I, for one, am sick and tired of being grouped together with hardcore atheists who think not only that god does not exist but that other people shouldn't believe that god exists. So, I say we, as a general population, should start defining the two groups as Atheist and Anti-Theist.

If you mean atheists who don't respect others' right to believe (since I haven't met an atheist who thinks people should believe), you might be right. But do we really need another label? Labels tend to create conflicts; the atheist-religious conflict is already too much, and has no real point. We don't need one among us.

[poxpower]

At 1/29/13 12:23 AM, Xombiehacker wrote:

(For the record, I'm agnostic and believe not that there is no god, but that I won't decide one way or the other until given true proof one way or the other.)

Actually, that makes you an atheist since you don't believe in God, which is what an atheist is.
It's not even 50-50. If you had to bet 50 million dollars on whether or not he exists, you'd pick "no".

But even if it was 50-50, you'd still be an atheist, which again, is someone who does not believe in God.

alright then

[abbiegale]

At 1/29/13 07:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/29/13 12:23 AM, Xombiehacker wrote:

(For the record, I'm agnostic and believe not that there is no god, but that I won't decide one way or the other until given true proof one way or the other.)

Actually, that makes you an atheist since you don't believe in God, which is what an atheist is.
It's not even 50-50. If you had to bet 50 million dollars on whether or not he exists, you'd pick "no".

But even if it was 50-50, you'd still be an atheist, which again, is someone who does not believe in God.

alright then

Actually, that makes him an agnostic:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims-are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

[poxpower]

At 1/29/13 07:40 PM, abbiegale wrote:

Actually, that makes him an agnostic:

Agnostics are atheists.

They don't believe in god.
Atheists aren't "The people who are 100% certain there is no God". That's like nobody ever. "Agnostics" try to separate themselves from atheists because they think atheists are people who pretend to know there's no God, which they don't.

So yeah, whenever I see someone go "I'm an agnostic" I know right off the bat they probably don't know shit :D

[abbiegale]

At 1/29/13 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Agnostics are atheists.

They don't believe in god.
Atheists aren't "The people who are 100% certain there is no God". That's like nobody ever. "Agnostics" try to separate themselves from atheists because they think atheists are people who pretend to know there's no God, which they don't.

I know this might be contradictory to my earlier label comment, but I still think there's a differentiation.

An atheist fully rejects the existence of any god. End of story.
An agnostic is open to the fact that there might be a god/s.

So yeah, whenever I see someone go "I'm an agnostic" I know right off the bat they probably don't know shit :D

They realise that themselves. Agnostic literally means "one who doesn't know" (a-: lacking, without; gnosis: knowledge).

If, as you say, atheists can't be 100% sure, wouldn't that make agnosticism more legitimate? ^ _-

[Sense-Offender]

At 1/29/13 09:35 PM, abbiegale wrote: I know this might be contradictory to my earlier label comment, but I still think there's a differentiation.

Agnostic means you don't claim to have definite factual knowledge. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. You don't have to claim that you know for certain that there is no god. If you did, then you would be a gnostic atheist.

[abbiegale]

At 1/29/13 11:02 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Agnostic means you don't claim to have definite factual knowledge. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. You don't have to claim that you know for certain that there is no god. If you did, then you would be a gnostic atheist.

Well said. So I'm withdrawing the existence claim and reform it as: while atheists fully reject religion, agnostics don't.
Let me put it that way: if you ever came across undisputable evidence of a god's existence would you believe in him? Would you commit yourself to him? I think an agnostic probably would, an atheist wouldn't.

[Earfetish]

At 1/30/13 11:51 AM, abbiegale wrote: if you ever came across undisputable evidence of a god's existence would you believe in him? Would you commit yourself to him? I think an agnostic probably would, an atheist wouldn't.

I think that is a foolish comment. I think any atheist would change their viewpoints immediately if presented with 'undisputable evidence'. We're not hard-headed or close-minded, despite what you might think.

What does it mean for an agnostic to not 'fully reject' religion? You can't simultaneously be 50/50 about the claim 'Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin and resurrected after three days' and 50/50 about the claim 'Vishnu is the preserver' and 50/50 about the claim 'Ra makes the Sun move across the sky'. Do you utterly reject the claim 'Thor is the reason there is thunder'? What religious claims do you not 'fully reject', and why some and not others?

[Camarohusky]

At 1/29/13 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Atheists aren't "The people who are 100% certain there is no God". That's like nobody ever.

Then what exactly are atheists in your dogma?

[Earfetish]

At 1/30/13 12:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/29/13 09:00 PM, poxpower wrote: Atheists aren't "The people who are 100% certain there is no God". That's like nobody ever.

Then what exactly are atheists in your dogma?

I know you've heard this all before, but nobody should be '100% certain' that there is no Matrix, or that they are not hallucinating this reality, or that there isn't an invisible alien living in their wallspace.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/30/13 12:45 PM, Earfetish wrote: I know you've heard this all before, but nobody should be '100% certain' that there is no Matrix, or that they are not hallucinating this reality, or that there isn't an invisible alien living in their wallspace.

So the fact that Atehists are 99% certain means they are actually agnostic?

RIGHT.

You do know there is a difference between not being 100% something and rejecting that thing outright.

Let's put it this way:

Theists take the stand that there is a god/gods.
Atheists take the stand, (but not wholly) that there is no god/gods.
Agnostics take the stand that we do not have enough information to take a stand at all on the subject.

See the difference here?

[Earfetish]

At 1/30/13 12:49 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/30/13 12:45 PM, Earfetish wrote: I know you've heard this all before, but nobody should be '100% certain' that there is no Matrix, or that they are not hallucinating this reality, or that there isn't an invisible alien living in their wallspace.

So the fact that Atehists are 99% certain means they are actually agnostic?

RIGHT.

You do know there is a difference between not being 100% something and rejecting that thing outright.

Let's put it this way:

Theists take the stand that there is a god/gods.
Atheists take the stand, (but not wholly) that there is no god/gods.
Agnostics take the stand that we do not have enough information to take a stand at all on the subject.

See the difference here?

I dunno, these semantic discussions make no sense to me. Hows about this other concept?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

[Earfetish]

Aye and I think ignosticism should be the starting-point for these discussions anyway. When people say 'I am agnostic as to whether God exists', or 'I am atheist as to whether God exists', they must first define the God they're talking about. Agnostics could be 'atheist' about Jehovah or Vishnu, and atheists could be 'agnostic' about Matrixism.

What is this whole 'God' thing we're talking about? Did he start the universe, or does he care about us, or did he do both? You could spend hours e-arguing with someone about the existence of God, only to discover the only thing they're 'agnostic' about is the concept that 'a being might have started the universe'. Like Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question.

[abbiegale]

At 1/30/13 12:37 PM, Earfetish wrote: I think that is a foolish comment. I think any atheist would change their viewpoints immediately if presented with 'undisputable evidence'. We're not hard-headed or close-minded, despite what you might think.

What I see as foolish is insulting someone because they have a different opinion than you, and judging by their last post without at least taking a look at their whole contribution to the discussion. Who's "we" and who's "I"? I think, if you had bothered, it would have been clear that I don't believe in god either. Despite what you might think.

Does believing IN god (how much more can I stress that?) solely mean aknowledging his existence?

What does it mean for an agnostic to not 'fully reject' religion? You can't simultaneously be 50/50 about the claim 'Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin and resurrected after three days' and 50/50 about the claim 'Vishnu is the preserver' and 50/50 about the claim 'Ra makes the Sun move across the sky'. Do you utterly reject the claim 'Thor is the reason there is thunder'? What religious claims do you not 'fully reject', and why some and not others?

It means that s/he doesn't exclude the possibility that one of these or something else might be true. It means not believing without tangible proof.

[poxpower]

At 1/30/13 12:54 PM, Earfetish wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Oh man this is stupid haha.
100% of all this confusion comes strictly from soft-brained atheists without a clue and professional religious debaters who's only chance at winning a debate is to confuse morons.

These damn atheist minus ultra-PC people who think they're being clever because they figured out philosophy 101 concepts like the Matrix or a Dream world. OH WHAT IS REALITY? WHO CAN KNOW? PERHAPS NOTHING IS TRUE, THEREFORE I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

No, no you're not. You're about as agnostic about Gods as you are about gravity or nut allergies. If you're really that open-minded, why aren't you at a Casino right now betting all your savings on fucking 21? 50/50 chance of winning, but you get 36 times your money back! Holy shit!
Wait forget this, the lottery! Or you can just dance like a monkey for 20 minutes since I have just decided that it gives you a 50/50 chance of having eternal life and superpowers.

WHAT, YOU'RE NOT OPEN-MINDED AND AGNOSTIC ABOUT THE MONKEY DANCE? WHAT?

I mean, how fucking presumptuous does a person have to be to think that NOBODY ELSE has figured out that reality could be all an illusion or that God, having infinite magic powers that defy logic, could always potentially exist on top of any reality or theory of reality?

Like, you REALLY think you're the first to figure this out and all these scientists and people with double your IQ and triple your years of education have been calling themselves "atheist" for decades without realizing this?

BLASDSAKFSDAFSpeoplewhyyoudothiswhyyyy

p.s. I am just antagonizing so it makes it harder to admit you were wrong, because it's funny to see people rationalize obvious falsehoods just to avoid looking stupid :D
p.p.s. I used to call myself "agnostic" until someone explained this to me, then, not being a dumbass, I changed my terminology.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/30/13 03:28 PM, poxpower wrote: p.s. I am just antagonizing so it makes it harder to admit you were wrong, because it's funny to see people rationalize obvious falsehoods just to avoid looking stupid :D
p.p.s. I used to call myself "agnostic" until someone explained this to me, then, not being a dumbass, I changed my terminology.

Yes you are being antagonizing, and yes you are being a dumbass.

YOU ARE NOT THE ARBITER OF WHAT IS SMART IN THE WORLD. Please stop acting like it. Pulling some bullshit flying spaghetti monster fallacy out of your ass is not you proving anything wrong. In fact the only thing you;re proving there is how much of a dick you are.

You merely saying "monkey dance = god" does not mean an agnostic will say "50/50". That's fucking stupid of you to even think that.

Agnostic doesn't mean believing every possibility or thing a person says could be true or not true. It merely means not taking a stand on the issue of wether or not there is a god or supernatural force.

An agnostic can believe you're full of shit with your monkey dance garbage and still not take a stand on the existence or non-existence of a god.

So seriously, get over yourself. Your logic is NOT sound like you think it is.

[Earfetish]

At 1/30/13 02:01 PM, abbiegale wrote: What I see as foolish is insulting someone because they have a different opinion than you, and judging by their last post without at least taking a look at their whole contribution to the discussion. Who's "we" and who's "I"? I think, if you had bothered, it would have been clear that I don't believe in god either. Despite what you might think.

ok then, what did you mean when you said agnostics would believe if there was indisputable proof of God, but atheists would not? Atheists are presented with indisputable proof that they are incorrect but carry on believing in a falsehood?

It means that s/he doesn't exclude the possibility that one of these or something else might be true. It means not believing without tangible proof.

So Thor makes thunder, or the Sun is actually a God called Ra - would an agnostic exclude the possibility that these concepts are correct?

Pox - I don't even know what you're talking about. Ignosticism says that it is useful to define what 'God' is before discussing whether or not he exists. I missed the part in your post where you did that.

[poxpower]

At 1/30/13 04:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Agnostic doesn't mean believing every possibility or thing a person says could be true or not true. It merely means not taking a stand on the issue of wether or not there is a god or supernatural force.

Yeah they do take a stand on it by not doing anything about it, thus why they are atheists.
They don't think there's a 50-50 shot. They think, as atheists do ( because again we're all the same ) that there is an impossibly remote chance and even if there is, it's a chance at something that doesn't change anything anyway.

Agnostics show their true color the second I mention things like the monkey dance, as did you. You instantly thought it was retarded, you didn't go "well I guess there's a remote possibility that it's true".

At 1/30/13 04:12 PM, Earfetish wrote:

Pox - I don't even know what you're talking about. Ignosticism says that it is useful to define what 'God' is before discussing whether or not he exists. I missed the part in your post where you did that.

That's just the same as being a skeptic really, why do we need a word JUST for gods?
I can say ghosts aren't real, except, whoops, LOOPHOLE, for me ghosts are actually slices of bread! YOINK!

No one's ever believed in Gods in any way that wouldn't demand atheism from a rational point of view. Why the need to be "Ignostic"?
Unless I'm talking to someone who can't understand english, I already know whatever their "god" is will be bullshit anyway.

[abbiegale]

At 1/30/13 04:12 PM, Earfetish wrote: ok then, what did you mean when you said agnostics would believe if there was indisputable proof of God, but atheists would not? Atheists are presented with indisputable proof that they are incorrect but carry on believing in a falsehood?

It must look real cool in your post page when you quote only what works for supporting your argument. Keep doing that, it's very interesting.

Let's assume that an atheist has proof that the christian god exists (I apologize for not having your infinite amount of knowledge of other religions so I can set another example - and because you insist on misinterpreting what I say, on purpose or not I don't care, I mean that I don't know them in depth, not that I'm not aware of or know nothing about them). Would he start going to church? Praying? Asking for god's help when in a predicament? Repent for each little sin so s/he ensures his/her place in heaven? In other words, does accepting that god exists automatically make you a religious person? BUT I DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY WOULD STILL THINK THERE IS NO GOD.

So Thor makes thunder, or the Sun is actually a God called Ra - would an agnostic exclude the possibility that these concepts are correct?

Is that what I said? You've been around NG too long for me to assume that you're just a dumb troll, but seriously, if you keep putting words in my mouth I won't respond to you anymore (for all you care).

[Memorize]

It amuses me to watch the atheists on this forum having this psychotic need to evangelize while simultaneously complaining when others do it.

Funnier still when you realize the total irrationality of it considering, to them, whether you believe in fantasy or not, everyone ends up with the same result while the passing of time guarantees that all of their actions result in nothing.

At least with those incompetent religious people it makes some sense that they do what they do. After all, it makes sense that they preach because they believe those things.

That's why I find it so cute, in a rather pathetic sort of way, when atheist go out evangelizing. Since, logically speaking, in their view it won't change anything.

[DickChick]

At 1/30/13 05:35 PM, abbiegale wrote: In other words, does accepting that god exists automatically make you a religious person?

Some atheists might. Regardless of personal feelings that's really not a very good way of defining agnostic.

[Fim]

It's probably the same with Christians not wanting to be lumped into the same category as people like the Westborough Baptist Church..

I think the term atheist is as definitive as you're gona get. Anti-Thiest sounds even more hostile towards religious groups.

[abbiegale]

At 1/30/13 05:56 PM, DickChick wrote:

At 1/30/13 05:35 PM, abbiegale wrote: In other words, does accepting that god exists automatically make you a religious person?

Some atheists might. Regardless of personal feelings that's really not a very good way of defining agnostic.

Probably those who became atheists out of spite. If you have seriously decided that religion has no place in your life, why would you?

Regardless of personal feelings that's really not a very good way of defining agnostic.

Expand, please?

[DickChick]

At 1/30/13 06:06 PM, abbiegale wrote: If you have seriously decided that religion has no place in your life, why would you?

Many reasons. Will I go to hell if I don't participate? Do I find this god appealing? Are there new benefits to religion that I have to consider now?

If something that drastic changed everyone would obviously be forced to reconsider their beliefs.

Expand, please?

That's just not what the word's definition is.