TenQ:

A blank state strictly means UNCOMMITTED to any position but asking Questions enough to have the blank slate filled with a position.

I think your case is more like: You have already known enough or you require an answer to conform to your thinking such that any other thing will not suffice.

Let me give you an analogy:
Is there water trapped under Venus?
Blank Slate: I don't know but I'm willing to seek for evidence that will support or negate the presence of water (this is true agnostism)
Semi-Blank State: There is no water except I see a superior evidence (this is the position of ALL agnostics Ive met)

Now, to even make it clearer, I can ask you the question:
Which one of these is closest to your position about God?
i. Theist
ii. Atheist
iii. Agnostic-Atheist
iv. Agnostic-Theist

iii. Agnostic-Atheist

hupernikao:



Well, it was drawn from your earlier submission. You inferred below.



How does this comes in?

A belief system or unbelief (which is what is being discoursed) is never same as religion.

A belief can give rise to a religion but it's never the same.

A belief is rooted in conviction, a religion offers a mode to serve and worship what you believe in.
One can believe and not worship same.

So, the focus here is what man believes or not believe, not what he worships.

Ok...

LordReed:


iii. Agnostic-Atheist

Actually, the four positions are not blank.

Only a baby could be truely called pure agnostic. Reason being that he has probably no knowledge to even take a position.

Theists are biased and much as Atheists (extreme end of the two spectrums)

Agnostic-theists and Agnostic-theists are biased either above or below the neutral line.

I guess you get my point.

HellVictorinho3:
What's the essence of atheism?


Martinez39s,1Sharon,CAPSLOCKED, LordReed,adoyi8,kingsmaz,johnnydon22,helineus,MJBolt and every other atheist on Earth.

It's just the lack of belief in a god/gods. nothing more, nothing less. Whatever any Atheist does in regards to his non belief, has nothing to do with Atheism. Just like the lack of belief in ghosts.

TenQ:

Obsession is when what is seemly unimportant dominate your time.

No, please...not at this time.

Well, I know how my time is spent.



................

TenQ:

No.
He means perfect uncommitted neutrality about religious thoughts

That's meant for him to confirm...... I was never in his mind but he does admit that he has no faith in God

kingxsamz:


It's just the lack of belief in a god/gods. nothing more, nothing less. Whatever any Atheist does in regards to his non belief, has nothing to do with Atheism. Just like the lack of belief in ghosts.

So, the atheism can't stop the person from doing certain things neither is it meant to do such....

TenQ:

Actually, the four positions are not blank.

Only a baby could be truely called pure agnostic. Reason being that he has probably no knowledge to even take a position.

Theists are biased and much as Atheists (extreme end of the two spectrums)

Agnostic-theists and Agnostic-theists are biased either above or below the neutral line.

I guess you get my point.

The baby has no faith in God anyway

HellVictorinho3:



So, the atheism can't stop the person from doing certain things neither is it meant to do such....

It's just lack of belief bro. It's not meant to do anything. If we were to give a name for the lack of belief in Santa Claus, it'll still be the same thing.

kingxsamz:


It's just lack of belief bro. It's not meant to do anything. If we were to give a name for the lack of belief in Santa Claus, it'll still be the same thing.

That's the essence of the thread


Atheism is not meant to stop certain people from doing certain things even though those things have certain consequences

TenQ:

Actually, the four positions are not blank.

Only a baby could be truely called pure agnostic. Reason being that he has probably no knowledge to even take a position.

Theists are biased and much as Atheists (extreme end of the two spectrums)

Agnostic-theists and Agnostic-theists are biased either above or below the neutral line.

I guess you get my point.

Of course it's not blank, I have already taken a position. My tabula is no longer rasa. You are looking at my tabula after I have written on it. Like I alluded to, I had the opportunity to rethink a lot of things before now, that period was when my tabula was rasa, not now.

hupernikao:


Man wasnt born an atheist. Religion is not a formation from family creed. You are mixing knowing God existence with secular religion.

The first "religious" man wouldn't have been taught by his parents about God, yet his heart found him.

Parents are only custodian and angels their wards see. They are to guide them in the path of life. Whether theist or atheist, we all have this same responsibilities. Atheist do "indoctrinate" their wards too. Hence never used parental upbringing as the essence of the spread of God's knowledge.

Man's heart is design to search and in that search, he will either find God or struggle with the thoughts of the same

Man was born a blank slate.
A child did not know anything until you taught him/her.

It's only religion that teaches you that children are born sinners from their mother's womb even without having committed any sin.

That alone is enough to deconstruct yourself from religious fallacies.

The first man as you said found religion.
He was irreligious until he found religion. Hence he was an atheist before he became theist.

But I believe while I see the first man as Australopitacus Africanus, you are probably talking of Adam who the bible teaches was religious.
Hence a conflict between Scientific research and religious hearsay.

hupernikao:


Atheism is not about questioning a belief system. Atheism is lack of belief in the system. That's two different things even though close.

Forget those untrained psychologist on NL claiming atheist upanddown. They aren't one. A confused mind looking for identification is their hallmark.

Atheism is not associated with questioning belief, it's the online paraders that have such misinformation.

The ancient world has atheist without science or questioning, it's a conviction. I have met atheist who are unlearned, neither been in school, so it's not about education.

Modern atheist indoctrinate their children in lack of belief in God, they form conviction through that. Isn't that same as what the religion you mentioned do and exactly what the modern atheist claim to stand against.

It's a fallacy to claim atheist is birth from questioning things. It's inherent in man to question things and all men do that.

Questioning a belief system is what everyone who want to know will do, but this is not same as lack of belief in the system.

An atheist, whether with question or not, doesn't belief in a god.

Longtime Bro,

Yes atheism is lack of belief in a god.
But my point is until you pass through lack of believing a god, you will still not have a clear view of whether there's a god or not.
So every inquisitive mind should be allowed to question the belief system they were born into.
After which they can then make the choice of whether continuing as atheists or becoming theists by personal conviction. And not because family or society expects them to be religious.

TenQ:

A blank state strictly means UNCOMMITTED to any position but asking Questions enough to have the blank slate filled with a position.

I think your case is more like: You have already known enough or you require an answer to conform to your thinking such that any other thing will not suffice.

Let me give you an analogy:
Is there water trapped under Venus?
Blank Slate: I don't know but I'm willing to seek for evidence that will support or negate the presence of water (this is true agnostism)
Semi-Blank State: There is no water except I see a superior evidence (this is the position of ALL agnostics Ive met)

Now, to even make it clearer, I can ask you the question:
Which one of these is closest to your position about God?
i. Theist
ii. Atheist
iii. Agnostic-Atheist
iv. Agnostic-Theist

I'm curious... mind shedding more light on Agnostoc-atheist and Agnostic-theist?

Myer:


I'm curious... mind shedding more light on Agnostoc-atheist and Agnostic-theist?

Agnostic-theists are usually church goers.
Their claim is: it's better to be safe (by doing religion) than sorry!

Agnostic-atheists:
Their default is: a disbelieve in God until a physical repeatable proof is established

Atheists and Theists are 100% sure of their position

LordReed:


Of course it's not blank, I have already taken a position. My tabula is no longer rasa. You are looking at my tabula after I have written on it. Like I alluded to, I had the opportunity to rethink a lot of things before now, that period was when my tabula was rasa, not now.

Shouldn't you be a full atheist rather than agnostic if your understanding is now perfect?

HellVictorinho3:



The baby has no faith in God anyway

A baby doesn't know anything: He doesn't even have the concept of God hence he can't take any position!

HellVictorinho3:




That's meant for him to confirm...... I was never in his mind but he does admit that he has no faith in God

He is an agnostic-atheist

TenQ:

A baby doesn't know anything: He doesn't even have the concept of God hence he can't take any position!

It depends on what you mean by knowledge



Knowledge when considered as an exposure is something that babies have since they're living things.



All living things have knowledge/exposure/awareness/consciousness.




All living things experience certain things .......

TenQ:

Shouldn't you be a full atheist rather than agnostic if your understanding is now perfect?

Where did I say my understanding is perfect? Why do you keep saying I said things I obviously didn't?

LordReed:


Where did I say my understanding is perfect? Why do you keep saying I said things I obviously didn't?

So, you are basing an important decision on an incomplete understanding?

Wouldn't that be a form of BELIEVE?

HellVictorinho3:


It depends on what you mean by knowledge



Knowledge when considered as an exposure is something that babies have since they're living things.



All living things have knowledge/exposure/awareness/consciousness.




All living things experience certain things .......

Do babies know about electricity?
Do babies know that scorpions can sting?
Does a baby by instinct know that an electric plate cooker can burn?

So it is with God.
Babies don't have any information or knowledge to make any decision about God. They have zero expectations about anything. A child's perfect agnosticism is based on total lack of awareness!

TenQ:

So, you are basing an important decision on an incomplete understanding?

Wouldn't that be a form of BELIEVE?

Incomplete understanding of what?

LordReed:


Incomplete understanding of what?

You started with a blank slate about God. You arrived at a position of an Agnostic-atheist with an incomplete understanding of God.

Isn't it more sensible to keep the slate blank until you can truly with understanding be either an ATHEIST or a THEIST.

An agnostic-theist in my opinion is not worth anything. He is driven only by feelings and emotions.

Myer:


Yes atheism is lack of belief in a god.
But my point is until you pass through lack of believing a god, you will still not have a clear view of whether there's a god or not.
So every inquisitive mind should be allowed to question the belief system they were born into.
After which they can then make the choice of whether continuing as atheists or becoming theists by personal conviction. And not because family or society expects them to be religious.

Bro, have you seen anyone who claimed he was asked to become theist or atheist at gun point by his family? I guess we need to separate people's influence from enforcement. Life in itself is a product of influence. If your immediate family decides not to influence you, then what are they for? To allow you get influenced by external forces is what seems best to you?

Will you try what you just wrote? To leave your kids to external influence in the name of believe system?

All you see around are ways of providing learning for kids, howbeit in different ways based on your background. But to advocate that man should be left on his own to decide without influence is like saying to draw water from ocean using a farmers basket. It's impossible.

Everything you learn around you are all influence and I don't think any of them are at gun point.

Myer:


Man was born a blank slate.
A child did not know anything until you taught him/her.

It's only religion that teaches you that children are born sinners from their mother's womb even without having committed any sin.

That alone is enough to deconstruct yourself from religious fallacies.

The first man as you said found religion.
He was irreligious until he found religion. Hence he was an atheist before he became theist.

But I believe while I see the first man as Australopitacus Africanus, you are probably talking of Adam who the bible teaches was religious.
Hence a conflict between Scientific research and religious hearsay.

You mixed a lot together.

1. To be irreligious isn't same thing as been an atheist. You need to get that well. Atheism is not at the heart of religion, atheism is at the heart of existence of God. Those are two different things.

Man wasn't born with religion, man was born to believe in things. He learns as he grows to believe in his world, environment, strength and as much as his mind can explore. How does that make him an atheist?

Atheism is lack of believe in God, man born doesn't even have the knowledge of God at birth. That's isn't believe but lack fo knowledge.

Atheism is a choice, lack of knowledge of God at birth isn't a choice, it's innocence of the knowledge, at most.

So get that right. No man was born atheist. Man was born to know his environment. He will find God in it, hence develop prerogative to believe in him or disbelieve him. That's what birth theist and atheism.

2. Thank God you said religion preached man born sinners, not the scriptures. A proper interpretation of the scriptures will show you man is born as I explained in 1 above. Innocent.

Scriptures never taught that.

3. Bible never tends to conflict science except by your own interpretation. You will need to align your knowledge of the scripture to what is truly taught Sir.

TenQ:

You started with a blank slate about God. You arrived at a position of an Agnostic-atheist with an incomplete understanding of God.

Isn't it more sensible to keep the slate blank until you can truly with understanding be either an ATHEIST or a THEIST.

An agnostic-theist in my opinion is not worth anything. He is driven only by feelings and emotions.

I don't think one can have a complete understanding of anything nor is it required to form opinions. One requires sufficient understanding to form reasonable opinions though. I have sufficient understanding of the god concept to realise I cannot hold any belief in it while at the same time declare I don't know if gods exists or not. This also means I am open to modifying my opinions if my understanding changes.

LordReed:


I don't think one can have a complete understanding of anything nor is it required to form opinions. One requires sufficient understanding to form reasonable opinions though. I have sufficient understanding of the god concept to realise I cannot hold any belief in it while at the same time declare I don't know if gods exists or not. This also means I am open to modifying my opinions if my understanding changes.

I agree that one cannot have a complete understanding of everything to come to a position. I think my problem is when your position involves sitting on the fence- agnostics sit on the fence.

I don't have any respect for an agnostic-theist for instance.

In the army, generals take positions based on incomplete understanding and act on them. They don't sit on the fence in the time of war. Sitting on the fence is nativity of the greatest order especially when danger is involved.

Do you think (based on the knowledge of Christianity you know) that God will treat Agnostic-theists differently from full atheists?

hupernikao:



So get that right. No man was born atheist. Man was born to know his environment. He will find God in it, hence develop prerogative to believe in him or disbelieve him. That's what birth theist and atheism.
.

I don’t have a dog in this fight because I’m neither atheist or theist. That being said, if this buffalo could ask Mr. God a question about his environment, I wonder what it would ask?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kZdO5C-EJA

I’m thinking, “WTF?!!!!”

hupernikao:



You mixed a lot together.

1. To be irreligious isn't same thing as been an atheist. You need to get that well. Atheism is not at the heart of religion, atheism is at the heart of existence of God. Those are two different things.

Man wasn't born with religion, man was born to believe in things. He learns as he grows to believe in his world, environment, strength and as much as his mind can explore. How does that make him an atheist?

Atheism is lack of believe in God, man born doesn't even have the knowledge of God at birth. That's isn't believe but lack fo knowledge.

Atheism is a choice, lack of knowledge of God at birth isn't a choice, it's innocence of the knowledge, at most.

So get that right. No man was born atheist. Man was born to know his environment. He will find God in it, hence develop prerogative to believe in him or disbelieve him. That's what birth theist and atheism.

2. Thank God you said religion preached man born sinners, not the scriptures. A proper interpretation of the scriptures will show you man is born as I explained in 1 above. Innocent.

Scriptures never taught that.

3. Bible never tends to conflict science except by your own interpretation. You will need to align your knowledge of the scripture to what is truly taught Sir.

Man was born an atheist. Why?
Atheism means lack of belief in a deity.

How could the first man believe in a deity when he was barely forming knowledge of his environment and his existence?

Religion is simply a creation of man to make sense out of his existence.

TenQ:

I agree that one cannot have a complete understanding of everything to come to a position. I think my problem is when your position involves sitting on the fence- agnostics sit on the fence.

I don't have any respect for an agnostic-theist for instance.

In the army, generals take positions based on incomplete understanding and act on them. They don't sit on the fence in the time of war. Sitting on the fence is nativity of the greatest order especially when danger is involved.

Do you think (based on the knowledge of Christianity you know) that God will treat Agnostic-theists differently from full atheists?

Hmmm, that is something I never really considered but based on what I know yes their treatment would be different because the bible calls for people to believe not to know. An Agnostic-theist believes but doesn't claim to know while an Agnostic-atheist doesn't believe or claim to know. From my understanding the Agnostic-theist fulfils the condition of belief so he passes the test.

Myer:


Man was born an atheist. Why?
Atheism means lack of belief in a deity.

How could the first man believe in a deity when he was barely forming knowledge of his environment and his existence?

Religion is simply a creation of man to make sense out of his existence.

It's likely you just want to firm an argument from this.

Lack of knowledge of God is not same at atheism. Ask an atheist he will tell you or likely refresh what you know about atheism.

Atheism is a rejection not an ignorance. A baby case is not a rejection but ignorance. Except you only want this in a circle, I think it's clear enough.

And mixing religion with a belief is affecting how you see and express your opinion on this issue. Religion and belief isn't same.