Uyi Iredia:

Both are philosophies. Both are beliefs. It's plain dishonesty to disacknowledge this.

I dont believe in the tooth fairy. Is that a philosophy?

Atheism is not a philosophy itself. You can have atheistic philosophy but atheism itself is not a philosophy or a religion.

Uyi Iredia:
Because of the way capitalist & socialist economies are structured. If you read on economic systems of varied lands throughout history you'll note how slavery led to technological development which resulted in the modern economies we have today. BTW read that book I recommended, that is, if you haven't read it yet.

Nonsense. Employee and slaves mean two different things. I showed you how my father and brother are employees to themselves. How can they be slaves to each other? Then who is the master? Keep trying to lie and decieve your way out of the fallacy you created.

Uyi Iredia:
I'm talking about atheism in the Western world, particularly in the UK. You seem to be a relatively new atheist. IOW, you deconverted not so long ago, am I correct ? Atheism is an imported philosophy. Africans are known to be religious.

Atheism is not foriegn. There were African men who went against the local gods or oracle. Atheism is a position not a philosophy.

Christianity is foriegn and it was used to support the slavery of our forefathers.

logicboy:

We are born atheists. Did you believe in God when you were a baby? Someone had to tell you about God

Yes. Because if we go way back we begin from an Almighty Creator, not chimpanzee-like ancestors.

logicboy: Heard of MRI scans? I have seen my brain. Dont be foolish.

That's a SCAN of someone else's brain. Even if it were yours it wouldn't mean you've seen your brain. It would mean you saw a scan of your brain.

logicboy: Truths like we should kill witches and stone homosexuals?

Typical atheist way of quoting the Bible out of context. What you mentioned were [b]laws at a given time [/b]not truths.

Uyi Iredia:

Yes. Because if we go way back we begin from an Almighty Creator, not chimpanzee-like ancestors.

Nonsense. There has never been a shred of evidence for your God. This is why it is called "faith". I dont believe in your God for the same reason you dont believe in Allah

Uyi Iredia:
That's a SCAN of someone else's brain. Even if it were yours it wouldn't mean you've seen your brain. It would mean you saw a scan of your brain.

?? An accurate picture of my brain is evidence for my brain. We have also seen dead people's brains. There is none for your God.

Uyi Iredia:
Typical atheist way of quoting the Bible out of context. What you mentioned were [b]laws at a given time [/b]not truths.

lmao. God gave those laws, remember? Either your God is schizophrenic or an immoral sadist. What changed his mind? Was it ever okay to murder people because of their sexual oreintation?

logicboy:

Nonsense. There has never been a shred of evidence for your God. This is why it is called "faith". I dont believe in your God for the same reason you dont believe in Allah

I believe in Allah in the same way Muslims believe in God. Same being, different names. God's existence is inferred not proven. You infer God from Nature and the existence of abstract truths e.g 1 + 1 = 2

logicboy: ?? An accurate picture of my brain is evidence for my brain. We have also seen dead people's brains. There is none for your God.

You have never & will never see your brain. I'm 100% sure of this.

logicboy: lmao. God gave those laws, remember? Either your God is schizophrenic or an immoral sadist. What changed his mind? Was it ever okay to murder people because of their sexual oreintation?

He was smart. He knew loose sexual appetites as seen in adultery, fornication and homosexuality will result in diseases such as AIDS, syphillis, gonorrhea etc. BTW AIDS came through a homosexual community in the US. The virus is found in apes. I therefore suppose one of the homos messed round with a monkey and got more than what he bargained for . . . and opened Pandora's box.

logicboy:

I dont believe in the tooth fairy. Is that a philosophy?

Atheism is not a philosophy itself. You can have atheistic philosophy but atheism itself is not a philosophy or a religion.

Not believing in gnomes is also a philosophy. It can be expanded upon.

logicboy: Nonsense. Employee and slaves mean two different things. I showed you how my father and brother are employees to themselves. How can they be slaves to each other? Then who is the master? Keep trying to lie and decieve your way out of the fallacy you created.

I made no fallacy. You misunderstand me. You even more my comment that we are slaves to money.

logicboy: Atheism is not foriegn. There were African men who went against the local gods or oracle. Atheism is a position not a philosophy.

Christianity is foriegn and it was used to support the slavery of our forefathers.

Socrates, Plotinus & Empedocles went against their local gods and yet weren't atheist. They foresaw monotheism. I surmise the same went for these so-clled Africans you mention. I repeat: theism is foreign. You can mention names to counter my reply.

Uyi Iredia:


Not believing in gnomes is also a philosophy. It can be expanded upon.

You just lost the argument. Epic fail. Please, don not even try to explain or come back to this point.

Uyi Iredia:
I made no fallacy. You misunderstand me. You even more my comment that we are slaves to money.

We are not slaves to money. Money is only important to our lives. Before money was trade by barter. Were those people slaves to goods?

Uyi Iredia:
Socrates, Plotinus & Empedocles went against their local gods and yet weren't atheist. They foresaw monotheism. I surmise the same went for these so-clled Africans you mention. I repeat: theism is foreign. You can mention names to counter my reply.

Plato was an agnostic at least and an atheist at best. Try again.

Uyi Iredia:
Many & any atheist club/activity make a study of evolution their watchword. To say that evolution isn't central to atheism is to be a most uninformed atheist.

"Atheist clubs" do emphasize a lot of things. Evolution might just happen to be one of them, and I wouldn't fault them at all. After all, it is the theists who constantly make attempts to show how evolution is "false", as it does not seem to agree with the creation story of the bible. Even at that, I disagree that they make the study of evolution their watchword. Do you know what a watchword is? If anything at all, their watchword would usually center on the use of reason and logic, first and foremost.

Again, evolution is NOT central to atheism. When will you folks learn to understand that there are NUMEROUS atheists that do not even subscribe to the theory of evolution in the first place? This is the kind of problem you will normally face when you try to lump all atheists into one dubious belief system. You easily forget that the ONLY thing that atheists have in common UNIVERSALLY is their non-belief in deities, and nothing else. There are atheists who probably have no idea who Darwin is, or what evolution is even about.

Uyi Iredia:
When I say it was a necessary process I mean that it was the only possible path to take given the times. Are you forgetting it is fellow Africans who sold their brothers to get the white men's goods ? Are you also forgetting this coincided with the Industrial Age and the increased demand for agricultural produce for newly-birthed factories ? Are you also forgetting that many of the comforts & laws you now enjoy was from the available leisure time which allowed people to apply their brains to witty inventions ?

And HOW ON EARTH did all these things you mentioned make slavery a necessary process? Africans selling their brothers, Industrial age, etc. I know a bit of history myself, so thanks for the short lesson. But you still failed to point out HOW any of these things suggested that slavery was the "only possible path to take given the times". You mean to say that none of these things would have been possible without slavery? That there would have been no increased demand for agricultural produce if some people had not decided to dish out inhumane treatments to certain other people that they considered subhuman? That there would have been no witty inventions if an entire race had not been constantly subjected to immense physical and mental toture? Is that your point? I sincerely hope not.

Uyi Iredia:
Your comment here has little or nothing to do with my statement.

Oh yes, it does. Your comment was a response to logicboy's statement where he said "Atheism has no rituals or rites or set of moral conducts which many religions have". Employing the opinion or suggestions of a single, albeit popular atheist to suggest the contrary is not only shallow, but intellectually dishonest. Going by your logic, I could as well point out the opinions and acts of Christian leaders and argue that since some Christians are "willing to implement" them, that makes it a "Christian thing". Surely, even you must cringe at the folly of this reasoning.

Uyi Iredia:
He was smart. He knew loose sexual appetites as seen in adultery, fornication and homosexuality will result in diseases such as AIDS, syphillis, gonorrhea etc.

lol. This very much reminds me of my old theistic self. I would give what I felt were perfectly reasonable explanations in order to "bail" God out in such situations as this. I vividly remember presenting similar arguments here on Nairaland a few years back while debating those "ignorant", "arrogant" and "godless" fellas called "atheists". Oh, how things change.

Uyi Iredia:
BTW AIDS came through a homosexual community in the US. The virus is found in apes. I therefore suppose one of the homos messed round with a monkey and got more than what he bargained for . . . and opened Pandora's box.

Without even going into why the omnipotent and omnibenevolent God never bothered to prevent the occurrence of those diseases in the first place (having supposedly created a perfect world), so you mean to tell us that those "laws at a given time" are no longer applicable in the modern world, even though they were originally given by an omniscient, never-changing God?

And might I remind you that the above short history (you seem to love telling stories, however irrelevant) has absolutely nothing to do with the "fact" that the bible God supposedly once gave homophobic laws that included killing gay people. I'll repeat logicboy's succinct question which you skillfully dodged earlier: What changed his mind?

Purist:

lol. This very much reminds me of my old theistic self. I would give what I felt were perfectly reasonable explanations in order to "bail" God out in such situations as this. I vividly remember presenting similar arguments here on Nairaland a few years back while debating those "ignorant", "arrogant" and "godless" fellas called "atheists". Oh, how things change. [/b]

Are you an atheist, Purist?

Oh, and by teh way, as per the OP - one should not bother with these sorts of discussions. The notion that atheism is a religion is just iddiotic.

Deep Sight:
Oh, and by teh way, as per the OP - one should not bother with these sorts of discussions. The notion that atheism is a religion is just iddiotic.

Thank you!

A simple thread ... is just look up the word "atheism" in the dictionary ... But it seems that here before reading or thinking, many write ...
Only an slowpoke could think that atheism is a religion.
Only a fool ...
But even so simple, there are many "Nonsense" ... "slaves" ... "fallacy created you."
How much ignorance and bigotry ...

Ptolomeus: A simple thread ... is just look up the word "atheism" in the dictionary ... But it seems that here before reading or thinking, many write ...
Only an slowpoke could think that atheism is a religion.
Only a fool ...
But even so simple, there are many "Nonsense" ... "slaves" ... "fallacy created you."
How much ignorance and bigotry ...

Uruguay 1 Venezuela 1

Nice football!

Deep Sight:

Are you an atheist, Purist?

To be honest, I have no real answer to this question. Considering the fact that words are being constantly defined and redefined nowadays, it is really difficult to apply any theological/philosophical labels to myself (I consider such labels to be highly unnecessary actually, especially as identifying with a particular label would make people have stereotypical views of you).

My answer to that question would depend on what you mean by "atheist". In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am. But do I think that there could possibly be a god somewhere? I do entertain that thought from time to time and have never for once ruled it out, even though as I am constantly gaining more knowledge, I am beginning to think that it is highly unlikely. Based on this, I mostly consider myself to be agnostic -- an agnostic with largely atheistic tendencies, you know, like an Agnostic Atheist of some sort (although I still think that label does not paint a true picture of my actual position). However, I find myself expressing Ignostic views more often than not. More appropriately though, I think the generic word "Skeptic", suits me better.

But even if somehow, it can be proven that there is a god or gods, do I think it is the Christian/Muslim/AnyOtherReligion God? Certainly NOT! For that, I am fairly certain. The Deist God then? Perhaps. But even then, a belief or disbelief in it would change nothing. It would make no difference, as there are no consequences or rewards for believing or disbelieving in it. See, my position is not a stagnant one; it's not definitive. I am constantly adjusting my views as I gain new insights and new knowledge and as I deem fit. Who knows, I may eventually become a full-fledged atheist some day, or an "evangelical" deist like yourself, but I very much doubt that I will ever be a theist again. Nigeria would probably transform into Utopia first before that would ever happen.

To be honest, I could really care less about whether there is a deity or not, and would barely attempt to even convince anyone about its non-existence [EDIT: Apathetic Agnosticism]. I guess that would make me an implicit atheist then or simply a non-theist, which I feel is the most appropriate (you see, there are many labels that could be applied to me, depending on how you see me). I have so many people around me - including friends - that have not the slightest clue that I am irreligious, and that's because I barely talk about my stance in real life. As a matter of fact, people always instinctively assume that I am a Christian for reasons best known to them, even though they are fully aware that I don't go to church. (Many do in fact often tell of how they find my knowledge of the bible so impressive for a non-church goer.)

Now, when people begin to act based on what they think their God wants, and such actions affect me in some way, then it begins to appear like I actually care about the existence of this deity. When governments begin to make laws that border on theocracy, or people begin to form opinions and make decisions that affect me directly or indirectly, based on their religious convictions (which they always do) - and which I must mention, are NEVER objective - then I begin to take serious offense in these things. Just yesterday, I read that a Jehovah's Witnesses couple were forced by a court in the US to allow their almost-dying daughter have a blood transfusion in order to save her life. These parents genuinely believe that their God would be so pissed should they allow the transfusion. This is just one of countless sick stories you hear and read about on a daily basis.

I do think that it is possible for there to be a god. But I do not think that such a god would be so concerned to bother itself about what we eat, drink or wear, whether we talk to him constantly, thank/praise him for everything, who we choose to marry, who we choose to have s[i]e[/i]x with - including when and how we do it, how we address him, etc. In short, the only type of god I believe there could possibly be would be an impersonal God, which even barely makes sense to me. The gods of the monotheistic religions are so ridiculous that the existence of any one of them is highly improbable. The Christian/Muslim/etc God who has a reputation for being so whimsical and totalitarian could very well decide to change his mind at the last minute and allow only atheists into heaven, and would do so with impunity. After all, "his ways are not our ways."

Dang! Did I just type all that?! ^^^

logicboy:


Uruguay 1 Venezuela 1

Nice football!

Dear friend.
It was worse than a sermon by a Christian pastor!
hahahaha
We played very badly ... it was a very bad result ...
Hopefully the "celeste" react ...
Thank you for your friendship!
A hug whatever!

Uyi Iredia:
To say that evolution isn't central to atheism is to be a most uninformed atheist.

Both are beliefs. It's plain dishonesty to disacknowledge this.

[size=21pt] X[/size]

logicboy:

I dont believe in the tooth fairy. Is that a philosophy?

He would soon tell you that its a belief in the non existence of the tooth fairy (which makes it a religion)

Purist:

Again, evolution is NOT central to atheism. When will you folks learn to understand that there are NUMEROUS atheists that do not even subscribe to the theory of evolution in the first place? This is the kind of problem you will normally face when you try to lump all atheists into one dubious belief system. You easily forget that the ONLY thing that atheists have in common UNIVERSALLY is their non-belief in deities, and nothing else.

You run the risk of shouting yourself hoarse. Some people will not be reasoned with.

Deep Sight:
Oh, and by teh way, as per the OP - one should not bother with these sorts of discussions. The notion that atheism is a religion is just idiotic.

Purist:

To be honest, I have no real answer to this question. Considering the fact that words are being constantly defined and redefined nowadays, it is really difficult to apply any theological/philosophical labels to myself (I consider such labels to be highly unnecessary actually, especially as identifying with a particular label would make people have stereotypical views of you).

My answer to that question would depend on what you mean by "atheist". In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am. But do I think that there could possibly be a god somewhere? I do entertain that thought from time to time and have never for once ruled it out, even though as I am constantly gaining more knowledge, I am beginning to think that it is highly unlikely. Based on this, I mostly consider myself to be agnostic -- an agnostic with largely atheistic tendencies, you know, like an Agnostic Atheist of some sort (although I still think that label does not paint a true picture of my actual position). However, I find myself expressing Ignostic views more often than not. More appropriately though, I think the generic word "Skeptic", suits me better.

But even if somehow, it can be proven that there is a god or gods, do I think it is the Christian/Muslim/AnyOtherReligion God? Certainly NOT! For that, I am fairly certain. The Deist God then? Perhaps. But even then, a belief or disbelief in it would change nothing. It would make no difference, as there are no consequences or rewards for believing or disbelieving in it. See, my position is not a stagnant one; it's not definitive. I am constantly adjusting my views as I gain new insights and new knowledge and as I deem fit. Who knows, I may eventually become a full-fledged atheist some day, or an "evangelical" deist like yourself, but I very much doubt that I will ever be a theist again. Nigeria would probably transform into Utopia first before that would ever happen.

To be honest, I could really care less about whether there is a deity or not, and would barely attempt to even convince anyone about its non-existence. I guess that would make me an implicit atheist then or simply a non-theist, which I feel is the most appropriate (you see, there are many labels that could be applied to me, depending on how you see me). I have so many people around me - including friends - that have not the slightest clue that I am irreligious, and that's because I barely talk about my stance in real life. As a matter of fact, people always instinctively assume that I am a Christian for reasons best known to them, even though they are fully aware that I don't go to church. (Many do in fact often tell of how they find my knowledge of the bible so impressive for a non-church goer.)

Now, when people begin to act based on what they think their God wants, and such actions affect me in some way, then it begins to appear like I actually care about the existence of this deity. When governments begin to make laws that border on theocracy, or people begin to form opinions and make decisions that affect me directly or indirectly, based on their religious convictions (which they always do) - and which I must mention, are NEVER objective - then I begin to take serious offense in these things. Just yesterday, I read that a Jehovah's Witnesses couple were forced by a court in the US to allow their almost-dying daughter have a blood transfusion in order to save her life. These parents genuinely believe that their God would be so pissed should they allow the transfusion. This is just one of countless sick stories you hear and read about on a daily basis.

I do think that it is possible for there to be a god. But I do not think that such a god would be so concerned to bother itself about what we eat, drink or wear, whether we talk to him constantly, thank/praise him for everything, who we choose to marry, who we choose to have s[i]e[/i]x with - including when and how we do it, how we address him, etc. In short, the only type of god I believe there could possibly be would be an impersonal God, which even barely makes sense to me. The gods of the monotheistic religions are so ridiculous that the existence of any one of them is highly improbable. The Christian/Muslim/etc God who has a reputation for being so whimsical and totalitarian could very well decide to change his mind at the last minute and allow only atheists into heaven, and would do so with impunity. After all, "his ways are not our ways."

Very well written. We are alike in many respects. I have coloured the similarities.

As to the possibility of a god somewhere, I allow the possibility since I do not possess the knowledge to say otherwise. However, all the cases being made for such a god eg first cause et al, necessarily fail as they are based on gaps in our knowledge. A god/gods may exist (or have existed) and we may never discover this fact. Until we know for certain, I will allow the possibility of a deity/deities no matter how remote I consider that possibility to be. I however do not "believe".

One more thing Purist, you are an atheist as long as you do not believe. It wouldnt matter if you called yourself an agnostic. Its just a fancy term for someone who has not realized he/she is an atheist.

jayriginal:

Very well written. We are alike in many respects. I have coloured the similarities.

As to the possibility of a god somewhere, I allow the possibility since I do not possess the knowledge to say otherwise. However, all the cases being made for such a god eg first cause et al, necessarily fail as they are based on gaps in our knowledge. A god/gods may exist (or have existed) and we may never discover this fact. Until we know for certain, I will allow the possibility of a deity/deities no matter how remote I consider that possibility to be. I however do not "believe".

One more thing Purist, you are an atheist as long as you do not believe. It wouldnt matter if you called yourself an agnostic. Its just a fancy term for someone who has not realized he/she is an atheist.

@the coloured part: Funny how you pretty much summed up my entire view point in just one sentence. Exactly my sentiments.

Purist:

To be honest, I have no real answer to this question. Considering the fact that words are being constantly defined and redefined nowadays, it is really difficult to apply any theological/philosophical labels to myself (I consider such labels to be highly unnecessary actually, especially as identifying with a particular label would make people have stereotypical views of you).

My answer to that question would depend on what you mean by "atheist". In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am. But do I think that there could possibly be a god somewhere? I do entertain that thought from time to time and have never for once ruled it out, even though as I am constantly gaining more knowledge, I am beginning to think that it is highly unlikely. Based on this, I mostly consider myself to be agnostic -- an agnostic with largely atheistic tendencies, you know, like an Agnostic Atheist of some sort (although I still think that label does not paint a true picture of my actual position). However, I find myself expressing Ignostic views more often than not. More appropriately though, I think the generic word "Skeptic", suits me better.

But even if somehow, it can be proven that there is a god or gods, do I think it is the Christian/Muslim/AnyOtherReligion God? Certainly NOT! For that, I am fairly certain. The Deist God then? Perhaps. But even then, a belief or disbelief in it would change nothing. It would make no difference, as there are no consequences or rewards for believing or disbelieving in it. See, my position is not a stagnant one; it's not definitive. I am constantly adjusting my views as I gain new insights and new knowledge and as I deem fit. Who knows, I may eventually become a full-fledged atheist some day, or an "evangelical" deist like yourself, but I very much doubt that I will ever be a theist again. Nigeria would probably transform into Utopia first before that would ever happen.

To be honest, I could really care less about whether there is a deity or not, and would barely attempt to even convince anyone about its non-existence. I guess that would make me an implicit atheist then or simply a non-theist, which I feel is the most appropriate (you see, there are many labels that could be applied to me, depending on how you see me). I have so many people around me - including friends - that have not the slightest clue that I am irreligious, and that's because I barely talk about my stance in real life. As a matter of fact, people always instinctively assume that I am a Christian for reasons best known to them, even though they are fully aware that I don't go to church. (Many do in fact often tell of how they find my knowledge of the bible so impressive for a non-church goer.)

Now, when people begin to act based on what they think their God wants, and such actions affect me in some way, then it begins to appear like I actually care about the existence of this deity. When governments begin to make laws that border on theocracy, or people begin to form opinions and make decisions that affect me directly or indirectly, based on their religious convictions (which they always do) - and which I must mention, are NEVER objective - then I begin to take serious offense in these things. Just yesterday, I read that a Jehovah's Witnesses couple were forced by a court in the US to allow their almost-dying daughter have a blood transfusion in order to save her life. These parents genuinely believe that their God would be so pissed should they allow the transfusion. This is just one of countless sick stories you hear and read about on a daily basis.

I do think that it is possible for there to be a god. But I do not think that such a god would be so concerned to bother itself about what we eat, drink or wear, whether we talk to him constantly, thank/praise him for everything, who we choose to marry, who we choose to have s[i]e[/i]x with - including when and how we do it, how we address him, etc. In short, the only type of god I believe there could possibly be would be an impersonal God, which even barely makes sense to me. The gods of the monotheistic religions are so ridiculous that the existence of any one of them is highly improbable. The Christian/Muslim/etc God who has a reputation for being so whimsical and totalitarian could very well decide to change his mind at the last minute and allow only atheists into heaven, and would do so with impunity. After all, "his ways are not our ways."

Brilliantly written. Could not disagree with a single word up there. Luffly!

[size=4pt]But something niggles me. Do you think you will ever disclose to us the identity of the former christian incarnation on NL which you have often alluded to?[/size]

jayriginal:
One more thing Purist, you are an atheist as long as you do not believe. It wouldnt matter if you called yourself an agnostic. Its just a fancy term for someone who has not realized he/she is an atheist.

Oh no please, the distinction is quite real.

Uyi Iredia:
Not believing in gnomes is also a philosophy. It can be expanded upon.

Indeed!!! In fact, I am Agnomstic because I'm not sure about the eistence or non existence of Gnomes.

Uyi Iredia:
BTW AIDS came through a homosexual community in the US. The virus is found in apes. I therefore suppose one of the homos messed round with a monkey and got more than what he bargained for . . . and opened Pandora's box.

Wow!!

Deep Sight:

Oh no please, the distinction is quite real.

We have touched this more than once.

Let me ask simply. Does an agnostic believe in "God" ?

No long answers please, the question is simple. If you ask an agnostic if he/she believes in 'God' can the person answer with a 'yes' ?

logicboy:


You just lost the argument. Epic fail. Please, don not even try to explain or come back to this point.

This is a debate not a wrestling match. The point is pretty obvious, mocking it wouldn't make affect its veracity.

logicboy: We are not slaves to money. Money is only important to our lives. Before money was trade by barter. Were those people slaves to goods?

You are a slave of money. You do not work for money but for what money can do and the respect it brings. Red the book recommended.

logicboy: Plato was an agnostic at least and an atheist at best. Try again.

So what. The other 2 weren't theist, were they ?

Purist:

To be honest, I have no real answer to this question. Considering the fact that words are being constantly defined and redefined nowadays, it is really difficult to apply any theological/philosophical labels to myself (I consider such labels to be highly unnecessary actually, especially as identifying with a particular label would make people have stereotypical views of you).

My answer to that question would depend on what you mean by "atheist". In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am. But do I think that there could possibly be a god somewhere? I do entertain that thought from time to time and have never for once ruled it out, even though as I am constantly gaining more knowledge, I am beginning to think that it is highly unlikely. Based on this, I mostly consider myself to be agnostic -- an agnostic with largely atheistic tendencies, you know, like an Agnostic Atheist of some sort (although I still think that label does not paint a true picture of my actual position). However, I find myself expressing Ignostic views more often than not. More appropriately though, I think the generic word "Skeptic", suits me better.

But even if somehow, it can be proven that there is a god or gods, do I think it is the Christian/Muslim/AnyOtherReligion God? Certainly NOT! For that, I am fairly certain. The Deist God then? Perhaps. But even then, a belief or disbelief in it would change nothing. It would make no difference, as there are no consequences or rewards for believing or disbelieving in it. See, my position is not a stagnant one; it's not definitive. I am constantly adjusting my views as I gain new insights and new knowledge and as I deem fit. Who knows, I may eventually become a full-fledged atheist some day, or an "evangelical" deist like yourself, but I very much doubt that I will ever be a theist again. Nigeria would probably transform into Utopia first before that would ever happen.

To be honest, I could really care less about whether there is a deity or not, and would barely attempt to even convince anyone about its non-existence. I guess that would make me an implicit atheist then or simply a non-theist, which I feel is the most appropriate (you see, there are many labels that could be applied to me, depending on how you see me). I have so many people around me - including friends - that have not the slightest clue that I am irreligious, and that's because I barely talk about my stance in real life. As a matter of fact, people always instinctively assume that I am a Christian for reasons best known to them, even though they are fully aware that I don't go to church. (Many do in fact often tell of how they find my knowledge of the bible so impressive for a non-church goer.)

Now, when people begin to act based on what they think their God wants, and such actions affect me in some way, then it begins to appear like I actually care about the existence of this deity. When governments begin to make laws that border on theocracy, or people begin to form opinions and make decisions that affect me directly or indirectly, based on their religious convictions (which they always do) - and which I must mention, are NEVER objective - then I begin to take serious offense in these things. Just yesterday, I read that a Jehovah's Witnesses couple were forced by a court in the US to allow their almost-dying daughter have a blood transfusion in order to save her life. These parents genuinely believe that their God would be so pissed should they allow the transfusion. This is just one of countless sick stories you hear and read about on a daily basis.

I do think that it is possible for there to be a god. But I do not think that such a god would be so concerned to bother itself about what we eat, drink or wear, whether we talk to him constantly, thank/praise him for everything, who we choose to marry, who we choose to have s[i]e[/i]x with - including when and how we do it, how we address him, etc. In short, the only type of god I believe there could possibly be would be an impersonal God, which even barely makes sense to me. The gods of the monotheistic religions are so ridiculous that the existence of any one of them is highly improbable. The Christian/Muslim/etc God who has a reputation for being so whimsical and totalitarian could very well decide to change his mind at the last minute and allow only atheists into heaven, and would do so with impunity. After all, "his ways are not our ways."

To cut the long story short: You are an atheist.

Purist:

"Atheist clubs" do emphasize a lot of things. Evolution might just happen to be one of them, and I wouldn't fault them at all. After all, it is the theists who constantly make attempts to show how evolution is "false", as it does not seem to agree with the creation story of the bible. Even at that, I disagree that they make the study of evolution their watchword. Do you know what a watchword is? If anything at all, their watchword would usually center on the use of reason and logic, first and foremost.

Some honest atheists also argue against evolution. Richard Sternberg is one. Keep in mind didn't say all, I said many.

Purist: Again, evolution is NOT central to atheism. When will you folks learn to understand that there are NUMEROUS atheists that do not even subscribe to the theory of evolution in the first place? This is the kind of problem you will normally face when you try to lump all atheists into one dubious belief system. You easily forget that the ONLY thing that atheists have in common UNIVERSALLY is their non-belief in deities, and nothing else. There are atheists who probably have no idea who Darwin is, or what evolution is even about.

I perfectly understand that there are a variety of atheists. I'm focusing on their commonalities. Atheism is not the only thing atheists have in common. The growth of atheists organisations should put paid to that notion.

Purist: And HOW ON EARTH did all these things you mentioned make slavery a necessary process? Africans selling their brothers, Industrial age, etc. I know a bit of history myself, so thanks for the short lesson. But you still failed to point out HOW any of these things suggested that slavery was the "only possible path to take given the times". You mean to say that none of these things would have been possible without slavery? That there would have been no increased demand for agricultural produce if some people had not decided to dish out inhumane treatments to certain other people that they considered subhuman? That there would have been no witty inventions if an entire race had not been constantly subjected to immense physical and mental toture? Is that your point? I sincerely hope not.

You are looking at the inhumane treatments I'm considering the economics. Simple. Modern-day capitalism also has its inhumane aspect too.

Purist: Oh yes, it does. Your comment was a response to logicboy's statement where he said "Atheism has no rituals or rites or set of moral conducts which many religions have". Employing the opinion or suggestions of a single, albeit popular atheist to suggest the contrary is not only shallow, but intellectually dishonest. Going by your logic, I could as well point out the opinions and acts of Christian leaders and argue that since some Christians are "willing to implement" them, that makes it a "Christian thing". Surely, even you must cringe at the folly of this reasoning.

But I clearly pointed out how atheists are pushing for their own kind of burials, marriages etc. That should also put at ease any opposing point - which you're yet to proffer.

jayriginal:

As to the possibility of a god somewhere, I allow the possibility since I do not possess the knowledge to say otherwise. However, all the cases being made for such a god eg first cause et al, necessarily fail as they are based on gaps in our knowledge. A god/gods may exist (or have existed) and we may never discover this fact. Until we know for certain, I will allow the possibility of a deity/deities no matter how remote I consider that possibility to be. I however do not "believe".

God's existence is inferred from Nature not from 'gaps in our knowledge'. Nature can't have existed in a vacuum because of the law of cause & effect. We therefore infer a Creator of Nature and the humans within it. Simple.

jayriginal: One more thing Purist, you are an atheist as long as you do not believe. It wouldnt matter if you called yourself an agnostic. Its just a fancy term for someone who has not realized he/she is an atheist.

Thanks for drumming that into the Purist's head.

Uyi Iredia:

God's existence is inferred from Nature not from 'gaps in our knowledge'. Nature can't have existed in a vacuum because of the law of cause & effect. We therefore infer a Creator of Nature and the humans within it. Simple.


.

The cause and effect argument has been debunked many times. Sharaap

Uyi Iredia:

God's existence is inferred from Nature not from 'gaps in our knowledge'. Nature can't have existed in a vacuum because of the law of cause & effect. We therefore infer a Creator of Nature and the humans within it. Simple.



Thanks for drumming that into the Purist's head.

Uyi, I have addressed that before. Cause and effect doesnt help your case one bit.

Start from here, where Deep Sight and I discuss the Cosmological Argument. He pretty much bases his arguments on 'cause and effect'. https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/5#10375976

And yes, Purist is an atheist because he doesnt believe.

Uyi Iredia:

To cut the long story short: You are an atheist.

I bet the Holy Spirit revealed that to you.

"In the broadest sense of the word - non-belief in deities - I would say, yes, I am."

In any case, I don't do labels.

Uyi Iredia:
Some honest atheists also argue against evolution. Richard Sternberg is one.

Red herring alert. So atheists that argue for evolution are dishonest?

Uyi Iredia:
Keep in mind didn't say all, I said many.

Are you denying now? You said many AND any. What does that mean?

Uyi Iredia:
I perfectly understand that there are a variety of atheists. I'm focusing on their commonalities. Atheism is not the only thing atheists have in common. The growth of atheists organisations should put paid to that notion.

You're focusing on their commonalities? And in your infinite wisdom, such commonalities include evolution?

"Atheism is not the only thing atheists have in common"? Am I the only one that thinks this statement does not make any sense at all?

I doubt that you "perfectly understand that there are a variety of atheists", otherwise, you wouldn't make such ignorant claims as "evolution is central to atheism".

Uyi Iredia:
You are looking at the inhumane treatments I'm considering the economics. Simple. Modern-day capitalism also has its inhumane aspect too.

What "economics"? You deviate yet again, this time with your "modern-day capitalism" quibble. Kindly explain HOW any of those things you mentioned make slavery was a NECESSARY PROCESS.

Uyi Iredia:
But I clearly pointed out how atheists are pushing for their own kind of burials, marriages etc. That should also put at ease any opposing point - which you're yet to proffer.

You pointed out how some atheists are pushing for their burials, etc. It still does not validate your false point that atheism has its rituals and rites, thus making it a religion. Atheism is just a position. That some atheists choose to adopt certain practices does not suddenly transform that position into a religion.

Uyi Iredia:
Thanks for drumming that into the Purist's head.

If I were you, I'd be more worried about which appropriate label should be "drummed" into my head. I hope you do realize that you are not considered a proper Christian by many in the Christendom. You don't believe hell fire exists, do you?

jayriginal:

We have touched this more than once.

Let me ask simply. Does an agnostic believe in "God" ?

No long answers please, the question is simple. If you ask an agnostic if he/she believes in 'God' can the person answer with a 'yes' ?

No, but the atheist will answer with a heavy No. The agnostic will neither say yes nor no. He will say he does not know. Herein lies the difference.

jayriginal:

Uyi, I have addressed that before. Cause and effect doesnt help your case one bit.

Start from here, where Deep Sight and I discuss the Cosmological Argument. He pretty much bases his arguments on 'cause and effect'. https://www.nairaland.com/869536/darwins-day/5#10375976

And yes, Purist is an atheist because he doesnt believe.

Oh yes, and let us verily recall that you verily shied away from verily mentioning a single verily thing which verily is not known to be caused. . . . . . .