But theism and gnosticism are two separate dimensions relating to belief and knowledge about gods. Theists/atheists believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. Gnostics/agnostics claim to possess knowledge that gods do or do not exist. Thus it is possible to be theist-gnostic, believing and knowing gods exist; theist-agnostic, believing but not knowing gods exist; atheist-gnostic, not believing in gods and knowing gods don't exist or atheist-agnostic, not believing in gods and not knowing gods don't exist.

Since there has never been any evidence of gods, indeed the notion of gods is not provable nor disprovable, I don't see being gnostic as an honest position either way, only agnosticism seems right to me. However on balance of probability atheism seems more rational. Atheist-agnostic me.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

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

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

I must be, if you sayeth so-This is truly a sad day for all trolls, including the ones who post non-stop political party-line rhetoric suggesting 'change' in the form of politics as usual, atheism is best/god is fantasy, and 'cry racism' fare, and who can't consider any transformative alternatives to planetary existence beyond their programmed, DE-evolutionary cattle talk.


Your all hairless apes in a cattle car sir, I mourn the death of art and freedom of thought as well as this sincere user's banned account.

A small group of trollish assholes run this site, who fail to see the forest for the fucking trees they have clear-cut to make way for a stultified meat blob instead of a brain that functions.

See, this is a good example why I wouldn't consider myself an atheist. Just like the religious folk out there insist they know that god exists atheist insist that there can't be one.
The only thing we know as a fact is that many, if not all, the things people think they know about gods and the bigger questions of philosophy are wrong.
Atheism is, like it or not, a belief. Sure, it's guided by scientific fact and therefore much more acurate than most religions (yup, went there, called atheism a religion) but certain concepts (like the idea of divine creators) haven't been proven wrong so far. Maybe some day we will but the important part is this: we haven't yet. I don't even think we ever will. Somehow many people considering themselves atheist seem to think that since we have proven most religious texts to be false and/or unreliable is a proof of the nonexistence of any god. It is certainly not. We proved the bible to be wrong, that's all.
Personally I don't belief in any gods either. Heck, I even reject the concept of "souls". IMO were just happen to be self-aware machines of biological technology (for a lack of a better word) that are here because of whogivesafuckIdontknow. I am probably best characterised as an apatheist. Asking yourself and arguing about the question of any gods existence or possible life after death or even if we have a soul is pointless. At this point there is no answer that can be scientifically proven in sight. Why even bother asking? If the answer to such pressing questions (cause you have at best only 120 years until you die) is out there, it'll find us on it's own. We'll stumble over it if it's necessary.
I certainly support the fight against religious ignorance that has plagued mankind so far (and won't stop any time soon) but I just can't get past the irony of people who know to trust science (science is nothing you can believe in, just like math you accept it's as true or live as the fool who thinks 2+2=4 is a dirty lie) but still think they know answers to questions science can't answer yet.
I don't believe in a white, old, bearded dude living in the clouds watching me masturbate but I'm also not foolish enough to think I know more than the scientists of the world do. Somehow many atheist seem to be that kind of fool.
Let us just appreciate the fact that Pat Robertson of all people embraces the truth of evolution. Who cares if he thinks God is responsible? I doesn't matter. We can't prove him wrong. What matters is that he is siding with the smart people in this debate.

If the flying spaghetti monster isn't real then why does DNA look like fusilli?

Atheism - 0 FSM - 1

Take that empiricism!

That's all wrong. Wikipedia is wrong, and you are wrong. The word atheism has been abused and warped to shy away from what the word of it actually means.

A-theism - not theism.

It's not plus(theism)/minus(atheism). It's plus/zero. Atheism is the neutral; theism is active belief.

Imagine a word like anti-theism would be the opposite of the spectrum; and yet a-antitheism would also be the neutral = a-antitheism == atheism.

Perpetuating a lie doesn't make it true.

Technicalities matter; semantics matter.

@newtboy
fair enough my man.
personally i find the ignore button an un-necessary appendage.it serves no purpose other than to keep my own personal echo chamber free from dissenting voices.

no fun in that at all.

and as you stated.you still see his comments when someone quotes him.so why bother?

while i am reluctant to speak for @chingalera ,allow me to back up my argument in regards to how ya'all are making his case.

i shall channel choggie and attempt to translate his verbal perusings in order to make my case:

QUOTE:"I revel in the destruction of formulaic redundancy, especially when the phenomena occurs from time to time on the sift when a small contingent of back-patters load the place with atheism=great, Christians, etc. (insert faith-based philosophies) =shit, and most political offerings in the form of republicans/conservatives=shit, democrats/liberals=my-shit-doesn't-stink-like-theirs videos. "

TRANSLATION: i detest know-it-all's and will go on the offensive to show them the errors of their ways.

QUOTE:"Also a frequent and predictable phenomena, that a single down-vote, tinctured with an alternative perspective in comments, has the gang come spilling from the douche-works like cockroaches to offer their smarmy, childish two-cents, in order to make themselves feeeeel good. Hate this shit. It shows a lack of a certain social evolution from which I instinctively recoil."

TRANSLATION:it only takes that ONE downvote for other like-minded know-it-alls to come out of the woodwork to add their own smug opinion to belittle a person with a different perspective.i find this a form of bullying and it appalls me.

QUOTE:"As to some ' deliberate affectation designed to make me appear intellectual'
You might want to check your own understanding of intellectual versus one's perception of self, I tend not to place much credence in the concept, overrated and ultimately soulless when used to assert one's own importance or place the herd over some one else.
Intelligence in the grand schemata, does not necessarily connote wisdom."

TRANSLATION: i dont know everything and neither do you.

QUOTE:"Quite simply, when I see atheists deride another belief system with childish and derogatory banter like a gang of hyena stealing meat I treat them like a pack of feral creatures and similarly, I tend to shit on people's assumptions of how the world would be a better place if everyone thought the way "I" do regarding politics.

TRANSLATION: i hate bullies and will call them out every time.

QUOTE:"It's fucking tired and boring and makes the place to myself, look like a very untalented graffiti artist used sub-par aerosols to deface a shrine or temple.

TRANSLATION:i am alone but am fully un-impressed with your boring and unoriginal group-think.

@newtboy
so i guess it all comes down to perception and intent.
how you perceive ching and discern his intent.
though he is incredibly verbose and practices the art of flowery language he has been quite clear on his intentions.

let us examine the responses on this thread shall we?
a number here actually discussed openly chings intentions as if he was not part of this thread.

by discerning his intent and then engaging in a group discussion on that assumption has made chings argument.you guys are behaving exactly as ching accuses you all of being guilty of.

i do not have a problem with @chingalera
but nor do i have a problem with you or @VoodooV or @ChaosEngine.(or anybody else for that matter)

but this has become spectacle rather than substance.
now maybe ching bears some responsibility but that burden is not his alone.
you all bear some responsibility as well....
as do i now..

SONOFA........

I revel in the destruction of formulaic redundancy, especially when the phenomena occurs from time to time on the sift when a small contingent of back-patters load the place with atheism=great, Christians, etc. (insert faith-based philosophies) =shit, and most political offerings in the form of republicans/conservatives=shit, democrats/liberals=my-shit-doesn't-stink-like-theirs videos.

Also a frequent and predictable phenomena, that a single down-vote, tinctured with an alternative perspective in comments, has the gang come spilling from the douche-works like cockroaches to offer their smarmy, childish two-cents, in order to make themselves feeeeel good. Hate this shit. It shows a lack of a certain social evolution from which I instinctively recoil.

Your retort here, predictable as well:
Opening with sarcasm, a self-aggrandizing confession followed-up with an insult with reference to my character. Thank you though, for the black hole comparison, gravity and light do not have a chance of escaping me.

As to some ' deliberate affectation designed to make me appear intellectual'
You might want to check your own understanding of intellectual versus one's perception of self, I tend not to place much credence in the concept, overrated and ultimately soulless when used to assert one's own importance or place the herd over some one else.
Intelligence in the grand schemata, does not necessarily connote wisdom.

Quite simply, when I see atheists deride another belief system with childish and derogatory banter like a gang of hyena stealing meat I treat them like a pack of feral creatures and similarly, I tend to shit on people's assumptions of how the world would be a better place if everyone thought the way "I" do regarding politics.

It's fucking tired and boring and makes the place to myself, look like a very untalented graffiti artist used sub-par aerosols to deface a shrine or temple.

@newtboy Chingy's initial statement was not directed at you personally, I can maybe see why you thought it might but you were mistaken. (he didn't quote or reference you at any stage)

What he was trying to say was that the issue here is not specific to Christianity (or for that matter any other religion) but rather with the mindless repetition of inherited arguments and belief systems (i.e. people not truly thinking for themselves or being able to operate outside of the box they have built for themselves).

Atheists etc. are frequently guilty of the same thing; he was simply suggesting that it's unproductive to reduce the problem to paradigm A. vs paradigm B. when in truth its the very act of limiting ones perception and consciousness to one particular paradigm that causes the problem.

In other words the Pastor is an asshat not because he is a Christian but rather because he is only capable of understanding the world via the adopted assumptions of others. A fault which can be levelled at virtually any system of understanding when practised by those who have not yet understood the entirely relativistic nature of such systems.

This is why he referred to the inevitable banter as "boring and tired". For most it becomes simply "Christianity bad atheism good" (or visa versa or whatever). The truth of the matter is far more complex and moreover is universal to all participants.


@chingalera You are far too clever for your own good sometimes! I'd say something about "staring unto the abyss..." but I know full well you already understand this inescapable compromise when "fighting monsters".

Tread softly though brother, even the best of us are always a mere stumble from falling back unto the darkness we seek to banish...

Had to share this one on FB: "...even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?" ...because I enjoyed it that much. Thanks C.

@SDGundamX Excellent point and personally guilty on both subjects of discourse, as I have hit numerous brick-walls and spent way too much time in my lifetime arguing semantics with both the police (who will never change) and in the realms of religion vs atheism, an equally as banal and dead-end exercise.

Oh and newt? Fuck a thesaurus and your assumptions-I have a larger vocabulary that most volumes will hold wielded like a coach gun with a hair trigger. Fuck yours and y'alls, didactic adherence to unlikely plausibles. Logic be damned, befaced as we are with the exponential rate of changes coming down the pike. Riiiight. You live in a world whose boundaries reside in logic, intelligence, reason and order. The illusion being, you haven't a clue and none of us do.

Everything we believe true is wrong, a healthy mantra.

In the realm of civility? Civility begets the same with me, uncompromising unshakeable, late-stage, hydrophobic atheists haven't discovered what that means yet.

The bitchiness usually is just lurking out of sight, but tends to bubble to the surface especially in "atheism vs religion" and also "cops behaving badly" videos. Some people on the Sift have very strong opinions when it comes to those topics and can't refrain from sarcastically slamming others with different points of view.

For example, if you watch a video of cops potentially behaving badly and don't agree the cops were entirely in the wrong invariably there will be someone on the Sift to accuse you of being a statist or in denail about <insert country name of choice> having become a fascist police state.

Of course, I'll take VS comments over YouTube comments any day of the week. Most people here at least try to be civil even when they're being sarcastic.

I've followed long rabbit warrens before on this, so let's start with definitions:
I am arguing from the definition of the following:
Atheist as the belief that there is NOT a God or Gods.
Agnostic as the belief that one does not, or can not know if there are or are not God(s).

From those definitions, non-theist religions would be completely compatible for an Atheist to be party to. If we already are in disagreement then hurray, we likely agree and it's just semantics.

From the above definitions though, my problem arises with claims that any particular belief or non-belief is far more 'special' than the others and it alone provides great benefit X to society. Those kind of bold proclamations have historically always led to fanatical behaviors and tragedy.

I don't recognize Atheism as being linked one way or another to forcing ones beliefs onto others. Plenty of theist religions claim strong prohibitions against forcing their beliefs on others. Atheism though, as you say, is merely a non-belief in God(s) and so said people can equally support or oppose forcing said belief on others. What might that look like? Well, North Korea perhaps if one must request the most extreme of examples. From strict definitions, I'm pretty sure it is accurate to describe the <ahem>Great<ahem> Leader(s) as atheists who have whole heartedly embraced forcing their own beliefs on their people at threat of death or worse. One can rest assured no North Korean is able to publicly be found out with the belief that some being exists that is greater than the Great Leader without grave repercussions.

It's not so much that dangerous fundamentalist atheism is impossible. As you said, Stalin and Mao proved otherwise, although an argument could be made that their zealotry was politically based, but I digress.

It's more that even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?

My problem is that I think you miss the real flaw when tying fundamentalist attitudes to organized religion. Particularly when you point out that following ideology X(say, atheism) renders one uniquely immune to said fundamentalism.

Zealotry and fundamentalism appear to be in our DNA. Declaring that ANY ideology, system or plan renders a group immune to that zealotry has historically been exactly how each new form of zealotry and fundamentalism is founded and kicked off. The followers of Lenin and Mao all rallied around ideologies of socialism/marxism to justify their atrocities. In particular, the rallying belief that socialism would uniquely create a government that would protect the interests of the people. No organized religion required there, they even used a lot of anti-religious rhetoric too.

My simple point is people claiming that uniqueness for their ideology is EXACTLY the problem and it angers me to see so many flaunting it as the solution.