Reply to As an Atheist, what do you tell your little kids?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "As an Atheist, what do you tell your little kids?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Agnostic is the belief that something either is or could be out there but that man doesn’t know what it is. If you look at religion historically, it has always been used as a societal tool by man to acquire power and resources and control others. Religion was the first form of government and religious rules the first form of codified societal norms. It serves a purpose but religion like government unchecked is always corrupt as power inevitably corrupts.[/quote]

"Agnostic" simply means you "don't know" ("Gnostic" = "knowing" or knowledge).

You can be both Atheist and Agnostic, and most atheists consider themselves both. Many Theists do as well.

There are many degrees and definitions of "not knowing"  of course.[/quote]

I am not agnostic. I am an atheist. I know there is nothing. If you aren’t sure, you are agnostic. [/quote]

And your point is....?  Note the words "most" and "you can be both" in the post you are responding to.

ps you make that claim you have the same burden of proof as a theist.  What is your evidence there is "nothing"?  And you need to define "nothing" first as well. (I think you might mean to say there isn't anything supernatural).   Not trying to be argumentative but I don't like double standards.[/quote]

Op here. I just read through the last few pages and I agree with this. I think I’m both agnostic and atheist. [/quote]

In my view, you are one or the other but not both.

If you are confident there is no god, no afterlife, etc you are atheist.

If you aren’t sure you are agnostic.

I don’t see a Venn Diagram with overlap. You should like you are agnostic in how I define it, not an atheist. [/quote]

"How you see it" doesn't matter though, does it?

[img]https://www.stanleycolors.com/wp-content/uploads/atheism.jpg[/img]

[/quote]

There are multiple definitions for agnostic. The way that you “see it” isn’t any more valid than the PP’s way. 
[/quote]

Sure they can see it differently.  Of course, they'd be wrong.

Because "gnostic" means "know/knowledge" and so "agnostic" means "not know".  That's what the words mean.

You can not know and also not believe, just as you likely do about leprechauns.

What PP and others like him are trying to do - unsuccessfully - is place an equal burden of proof on non-believers.  Sorry, that is not how logic works!  The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Nearly all atheists are also agnostic.  Ask them.  There's plenty here!  But it also includes the "famous" ones too - not that that matters.  Theists can be agnostic as well, but for some reason there seems to be fewer of those.  I wonder why?[/quote]

+1. They are literally two different words with two different meanings and it seems no matter how many times people explain some people still don’t get it [/quote]

+1 I think people don't get it because the words seem so different, with "agnostic" seeming "nice" and "atheist" seeming harsh, so many people prefer agnostic.

I know that when a friend called themselves agnostic, they got a lot of pity and kindness - and advice on how to believe in God. Now that they call themselves atheist, they get more coldness and silence.[/quote]

"Atheism" , meaning "not-God ism" is inherently rebellious. Why bring up a concept just to reject it? There are a million things I'm not, and infinite things that don't exist. Why mention them?

Humanist or Secular is often a more useful word than atheist.

I'm American. I'm not "aeuropean".

I'm a "woman" . I'm not a "not-man" .

OK, that one is a bit weird due to misogyny of Latin-based languages.
 [/quote]

This is a very, very silly post.

American and European are not a dichotomy.  Theist and Atheist are a dichotomy.  One believes in a god, one does not.

"woman" is essentially the same word as "a-man".  It's the same concept in the dichotomy of man and woman.  So your example is a point against your position.

"Atheism" is not rebellious in any way.  Maybe you mean "Anti-theist"?  And BTW, not believing in a god is not inherently rebellious as that is the default position.  You expose your presuppositions with this point.

"Humanist" and "secular" have completely different meanings than Atheist.  Please tell me you do not need this explained, but if you do, I am willing.

Overall a very bad post which does not support your silly position at all.[/quote]

DP here -- please explain it to me.  I consider myself atheist, humanist and secular. Atheist because I am not a theist (I don't believe in God). Humanist, because I believe in the power of humans, not gods, which I do not believe exist, and secular because I do not practice a religion.  All three connote lack of religion.  I tend to call myself atheist, but answer to humanist and secular as well.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics