Deep Sight:

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.

Deep Sight:

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. . . . . . .

jayriginal:

As long as he cannot say "Yes! I believe", he is an atheist. Like I said earlier, an agnostic is one who doesnt yet know he is an atheist (or doesnt want to admit).



That is neither here nor there and was addressed in the thread.

Area_boy:

you wrong on this one mate. Let me break it down to the level you can understand (assuming you are a Christian or any religious person)

Both religious people and atheists alike have no solid evidence for the existence of a "God".

Atheists say since there is no evidence, it is bullshit. no God

Religionists have no evidence but I believe by faith. there's God

Agnostics say No evidence but I cant simply believe by "faith". So I am doubtful and will do things my own way until I see proof. They are the guys on the fence

Area_boy:

you wrong on this one mate. Let me break it down to the level you can understand (assuming you are a Christian or any religious person)

Both religious people and atheists alike have no solid evidence for the existence of a "God".

Atheists say since there is no evidence, it is bullshit. no God

Religionists have no evidence but I believe by faith. there's God

Agnostics say No evidence but I cant simply believe by "faith". So I am doubtful and will do things my own way until I see proof. They are the guys on the fence. They are just doing the opposite of believing by "Faith".

logicboy:

An agnostic is an atheist without balls

Area_boy:


you see?, this is the beauty of being an atheist! we all are for different reasons and all have different ways of looking at it. Religionists on the other hand cant think for themselves and only follow what they have been told.


Here's the reason behind that "Fence sitting" action. Scientists can look back and see how the universe was created up on to milli milli seconds of the BigBang. Now there is no general theory for everything else before the Big Bang. is that room enough for the supernatural? no one is entirely sure.


Another reason is the light barrier we face when we look out in space. we can see 13.7billion light years in all directions from earth. Now does that put us in the centre of the universe? very unlikely as we are not even in the centre of our own solar system much more milkyway.

So now Imagine a planet at the edge of that 13.7billion light years diameter, what will astronomers there see? the same 13.7billion is all directions? now you can see the concept of infinitely large universe and the concept of multi-verses creeping in.

If the universe is infinitely large, then it is safe to assume that some distant planet right now will have a "LogicBoy" who is a strong believer in Joseph Smiths teaching (Mormon) HA HA HA HA HA HA


Does that get you thinking now??

For me, I not only think, but know that religion is a figment of our imagination and made up by individuals that claimed to be "wise" and had answers to the world they lived in. Crap!! lol.

jayriginal:
The key thing is belief. Its either you do or you dont.

jayriginal:

As long as he cannot say "Yes! I believe", he is an atheist. Like I said earlier, an agnostic is one who doesnt yet know he is an atheist (or doesnt want to admit).

That is neither here nor there and was addressed in the thread.

Purist:

What if I have no idea what "god" even truly means? I may have heard various versions and vague concepts, and may be at a loss as to what you're actually inquiring when you ask, " Do you believe in God?"

Deep Sight:

I don't know if you are just in the business of seeking to brand anything and everything atheist. There is a clear and lucid distinctinction between atheists and agnostics. It is a real distinction. You know the distinction, so please do not muddy the concepts. I wonder if you are now seeking to join Mr. Idehn in his noble business of deleting words from human language. Has he delegated the task of deleting the word "agnostic" to you?

No need to fuss: the thread is there for posterity, the meaningless assumptions and bundle of contradictions you served up are there for any to read and see. Such as your argument that relying on the law of cause and effect in making arguments amounts to making assumptions and arguing from ignorance - even when you said you accepted same law. I read the whole thread again yesterday and I was sincerely amused.

Purist:

I get your point, and I quite agree with you to some extent on this. However, I think you may be committing the false dilemma fallacy here. What if "god" is meaningless to me? What if I have no idea what "god" even truly means? I may have heard various versions and vague concepts, and may be at a loss as to what you're actually inquiring when you ask, " Do you believe in God?" What if I'm ignostic (which is a type of agnosticism^[1], and which I am sometimes)?

Surely, you cannot limit me to just those two options. Saying 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure' would be a perfectly reasonable and honest response. Belief demands that I fully grasp what you're on about first, before I can respond with either a Yes or a No. In other words, with belief, it's either you do, you don't, or you're not sure whether you do or you don't.

------
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism

In other words, with belief, it's either you do, you don't, or you're not sure whether you do or you don't.

jayriginal:

Purist, if 'god' is meaningless to you, you cannot believe in 'god'. It is still the same thing.

If I made up something say 'dambadi', it would mean nothing to you. If I asked you if you believe in 'dambadi' you cannot possibly answer yes to that question.

As for the link you posted, I am not oblivious of the way atheism and agnosticism have come to be defined today. Instead, I argue for the strict application of the words.
By strict application, an atheist does not believe in god. End of story.

If you cannot say that you believe in god, then you are an atheist, whether you are undecided or you actually deny the existence of 'god', or you couldnt care either way.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that if something isnt one thing, it must be its opposite (eg, if you dont believe in god, you believe there is no god). This is not true.

And yes I agree with you. Saying you dont know or that you are not sure is a very honest and acceptable response. Better that than to invent some ridiculous concept that needs to be explained using extreme verbosity all in the need to replace the religion one lost on the way.
The thing however is that saying you dont know or that you are not sure means that you do not believe,and are thus an atheist.
In many quarters there is a negative reaction to atheism and it stems from a misunderstanding as many on nairaland have shown. I can be an atheist and hold different views from the next one.



Quite so and only if you believe, can you separate yourself. The rest are atheists.

Purist:

I quite agree with this view. Your argument is very much like that of George Smith in his book, "The Case Against God", where he argues that so far one cannot answer "yes" to the question, "do you believe in God?", then that person is not a theist, hence an atheist.

I just feel that the label "atheist" (which is actually a very broad term) comes with too much assumptions and stereotypes, that I would rather not be referred to as one.

logicboy:


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

Uyi Iredia:

It has been roundtripped not debunked.

Deep Sight:

I don't know if you are just in the business of seeking to brand anything and everything atheist. There is a clear and lucid distinctinction between atheists and agnostics. It is a real distinction. You know the distinction, so please do not muddy the concepts. I wonder if you are now seeking to join Mr. Idehn in his noble business of deleting words from human language. Has he delegated the task of deleting the word "agnostic" to you?

Uyi Iredia:

Allow me to pop in here. Agnosticism was coined by (
Thomas Huxley to denote a state of undecision about the validity of God's existence. History shows his ideas weren't at all novel. The Hellenistic age provided Skeptics with precisely that same attitude on a much grander scale. However Huxley's_ and by extension Purist's_position is fraudulent because it is an epistemological position not a metaphysical one as Deism, Theism etc. It is disingenious to say one cannot know about God's existence when one practically disbelieves in God.

Purist:

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.



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



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



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".



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.



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.



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?

Purist:

Yet another pointless "historical lesson".

@jayriginal: You see what I mean when I say I don't do labels? See the bold part.

And may someone remind Uyi Iredia of my June 5 commentary and ask him to point out where I specifically identified with any particular position?

Of all possible labels I listed, he conveniently singled out the one that is easiest for him to bounce on. It seems it is far more convenient for religionists to put others into a category and "unload all manner of assumptions on them" in order to make their attacks easier, so they can say: "This is your position XYZ and it is a fraudulent one because it is an epistemological position and not a metaphysical one and blah blah blah. Therefore, you're wrong. End of!"

Uyi Iredia:
* Nonsense. It is inevitable to use labels for clarity. If you leave the Relgion tab blank on your CV (or some other form) and insist it be that way you would have given yourself of, wouldn't you.

Uyi Iredia:
* From what I gather most are. However, I may be wrong.

Uyi Iredia:
* Check your dictionary for the meaning of 'Any'. I generally assume my discussant has a good mastery of the English Language.

Uyi Iredia:
* Precisely. You can read the Secular Humanist Manifesto of 2011 and other atheistic creeds.

Uyi Iredia:
* I should think you were apt. Consider that they are human beings and generally disbelieve in heaven or hell.

Uyi Iredia:
* Saying otherwise doesn't change the fact that I know there are a variety of atheists. Lemme ask you a question; Do YOU beloeve in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution ?

Uyi Iredia:
* My answer was self-explanatory. Get this straight again: You are merely harping on the inhumane aspects
Of slavery & capitalism has its inhumane aspects. The
Logic behind slavery was simple. Huge tracts of arable land were procured in the New-World, manpower was needed to farm the land and fashion trade between the New World & Eurasia. Ready supply of slaves were gotten from the African continent (West Africa in particular). You can whine all you like but the fact remains is that the Industrial Age & eventually the IT Age was founded on the Inter-Atlantic slave trade.
Also, don't forget, you are a slave to money; think about it: Why do you work for something intrinsically worthless ?

Uyi Iredia:
* That my dear Purist is what makes it a religion, no matter how the likes of you & Deep Sight object. What makes my line of reasoning valid is that such rites is precisely how virtually all religions developed. Once a sufficient number of people systematized their philosophy & and made it exclusive it became a religion. Google Ethical Church for starters.

Uyi Iredia:
* I'm your friendly neighborhood Christian pantheist. As a Christian I fully agree with & believe in the Nicene creed and by vortue of that believe in hell. As a pantheist I believe God's persona is understudied by all religions and sciences. A study of history (Christian history in particular) reveals this.

Uyi Iredia:
Have a good time pondering all I've written thus far.

Uyi Iredia:

Yet another peurile rant. Your labels were a fraud. Simply say your are an atheist, no need sermonizing it.

Uyi Iredia:
BTW I was simply using one of your labels to correct Deep Sight and you. The label agnostic is quite needless IMHO.

([1] thanks for that line, @jayriginal )

Purist:

@jayriginal: You see what I mean when I say I don't do labels? See the bold part.

([1] thanks for that line, @jayriginal )

Purist:

There is indeed a need to "sermonize" it because of fraudulent people like you who always seek to fraudulently lump everybody into a single category in order to unload all manner of assumptions on them^[1] without bothering to understand that there are significant distinctions between their[b] beliefs[/b] even if a single label encompasses them all, as clearly evident in your inane submissions on this thread so far.



Thought you said "It is inevitable to use labels for clarity". So you have now assumed the role of deciding which label is needless and which is needful. Nonsense.


([1] thanks for that line, @jayriginal )

Uyi Iredia:

The part I bolded is what I'm focusing on. You have a belief, there's a label for it stop with the hanky-panky and use the label. Stereotypes are a general & inevitable aspect of life so stop quibbling over it.

Purist:

Putting "none" in the Religion tab of whatever form does not tell much apart from the fact that one does not simply subscribe to any religion, so I don't understand what you mean by "giving yourself off". And you need not be irked by my refusal to be identified with any label. I shall not offer you that comfortable platform which you desperately seek.



Would be nice to see the evidence backing this "informed opinion" of yours. However, you ARE wrong.



Oh, get off your high horse! You said "many and any" atheist clubs make the study of evolution their watchword. Anyone following would readily see the manner in which you intended to use the word "any" in that context. But after being called out on your goof, you are now making a complete u-turn in a pathetic attempt to deny what you really meant to say. In any case, here is one dictionary definition for you:

an·y   [en-ee]:

every; all: Any schoolboy would know that. Read any books you find on the subject.

Luckily for you, the word has multiple definitions which have their applications in different contexts. I expect you will now desperately cling on to one of the other definitions to bail yourself out, but it won't work, so don't bother.

So now, you tell me how much of a PhD holder in English Language you are? Learn to display some humility, mate, or at least, pretend.

Needless to say, this is quite an irrelevant point by the way.



You know, you frequently give the impression of a well-read and well-informed person, but it still amazes me how you constantly fail miserably at simple reasoning tasks. Since when did the "Secular Humanist Manifesto of 2011 and other atheistic creeds" become the "bible" of atheists worldwide? Until this moment, even I was unaware of the existence any such manifesto or creed. So in your lofty reasoning, this is the ultimate proof that evolution is central to atheism, since they said so in some manifesto/creed, thus ultimately making atheism a religion. *Epic facepalm of epic proportions*.



This statement makes no sense. What do you mean by "atheism is not the only thing atheists have in common"?



What I believe is irrelevant to this discourse. What we're discussing is whether atheism is a religion, which you have significantly failed to demonstrate at every attempt. Stick to the point. You cannot claim to be "perfectly" aware of the varied variety of atheists in existence and then proceed to make false claims and arbitrarily attach concepts to a position that is as generic as atheism.



Okay, this slavery thing is becoming tiring, and quite frankly, is a distraction to the main issue at hand. In any case, the point is not whether slavery eventually proved beneficial or not, which seems to be your point. What I am starkly against is you stating that it was a necessary process, which seems to imply that the emergence of the Industrial and IT Age would not have been possible if there had been no slavery. My point is that this is a ludicrous notion, as you or anyone else for that matter cannot possibly know this for certain. For all we know, we could have well advanced beyond this stage if Africans had been left alone to do their thing, and there would have been another, perhaps far more effective method employed to get the world going. Who knows, it could have even come from the Africans themselves.

Being a slave to money is totally beside the point here.



You keep making the same mistakes, and I keep pointing them out to you. Don't you ever learn? You constantly point to one or two examples then draw wild, ridiculous conclusions from them. Who reasons like that, seriously? Your line of reasoning cannot possibly be valid because you base your argument on probabilities - the likelihood of an event occurring - on the back of a few previous examples and then conclude that the one in contention is already IN that path as well. That is not a sound argument at all. In fact, your entire premise is deeply flawed. Using the practices of individual atheists, or even atheist groups, to justify your claim is like arguing that, since the Catholic church (being the richest, the largest and the most powerful Christian sect in the world) is anti-birth control, that makes their ridiculous ideals "central" to Christianity.

Atheism is not and can never be a religion in the same sense that theism is not and can never be a religion -- no matter how the likes of you and your ilk object. You probably repeat it to yourself every morning and recite the line all day that you now believe it to be true, but sorry, it's not.

Paraphrasing Bill Maher now, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a s[i]e[/i]x position."



"Christian pantheist" is an oxymoron. Pantheists do not believe in a personal god, which is a contradictory stance if you claim to be a Christian. Long story short, you are a false Christian at worst, or an "intellectual Christian" at best. Most of your brethren would eagerly place you in the former though.



Have a good time pondering whatever you're going to respond with next before clicking the "submit" button.

Uyi Iredia:

Atheism has rites.

Uyi Iredia:
* Nonsense. It's simply shows you are ignorant of aspects of atheism which make it a religion or where you are confronted with such you ignore them. Saying you are ignorant of the creed doesn't exonerate you since it virtually aligns with the beliefs you enunciated here. BTW many Christians don't know of the Nicene creed there are various Bibles (as you-a former Christian) should know which clearly suggests that Christianity isn't wholly dogmatic as say Islam.

Uyi Iredia:
* Answer the question. Your answer is to hit home the point I made that evolution is central to atheism something you've denied thus far. I've stuck to my guns defending points raised as to my stance that atheism is a religion. BTW the points by me thus far have been very germane. All I get from you is WORTHLESS flak & I must say I expected much better.

Uyi Iredia:
* Another retarded comment. Follow the logic. Religions have rites. Atheism has rites. Atheism is a religion. But that's not all I also in my opening post drew out more similarities. Your answer is simply a sharp dismissal. You must have also missed the part where I decively dealt with the fraudulent comparison of Theism to atheism. The example of the Ethical Church which I pointed out is also not a 'probability'. I have more up my sleeve. The question remains: Will you HONESTLY consider them ? Especially after ignoring a vital one I posed.

Uyi Iredia:
* And you show your lack of depth because the founder of pantheism was infact a Christian. Pick up any book which includes the correspondences Spinoza had. Pantheism isn't a mere equation of the physical world to God and Leibniz understood that hence the term panentheism. Simply put pantheism is not at all in conflict with the idea of a personal God. The main difference is that Christianity is dualist (in that it seperates God from Nature) while pantheism is monist (it harmonized a metaphysiacal God with Nature).

Purist: @Uyi

I'm going to ignore all those comments that really have nothing to with the topic at hand (slavery, etc).

Purist: I am frankly amazed that you still stand by your point. When you make statements like this, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. However, I am optimistic that you would see reason and give up all the nonsense you have spewed so far. Although at this rate, I am gradually losing any hope of making you apply basic common sense in this discourse. I strongly suspect that you are simply arguing for the sake of it, and that you have already seen my point. If you genuinely think that atheism is a religion because evolution is central to it, having being mentioned in some atheistic creed, then you aren't half as smart as you probably think you are. Just don't go around spewing such inanities within well-informed circles. By extension, I expect that you would readily accept purgatory to be central to Christianity, based on your warped logic.

Purist: lol. Na by force? I am not obliged to answer your question. And you needn't delude yourself: you have offered NOTHING reasonable so far on this thread. Even if I subscribe to the evolution theory, it still wouldn't prove your point in anyway. There are Christians that preach evolution as well. Evolution is not central to any theological standpoint, although theists are generally more averse to it since it negates their creation story. I hope you get this simple explanation this time.

Purist: This probably takes the cake for the most asinine comment you have spewed so far. You, sir, deserve a medal for redefining stupidity. Perhaps, when you outline these "rites" which are peculiar to atheism, rather than just pointing to certain practices by one or two atheists, I might just begin to "follow" your "logic". Again, you delude yourself: you did not decisively deal with anything. All you did was blow some nonsense grammar and you thought you made sense. Jeez! you're one conceited fellow, I swear!!

Purist: @the bold: And so what? Still doesn't make it any less of an oxymoron. The founder of Christadelphianism was also a Christian, and not many in the Christendom really reckon with him or his ideologies (many of which contradict biblical teachings). Even you acknowledge the differences, and somehow, still manage to marry them (very typical of religious people). Good luck with your Christian Pantheism. I wonder if your ideals are in unison with what the bible really teaches. In fact, I am willing to wager that you will also start your own religious movement in a few years with your "Christian pantheistic" ideologies and give it some fancy name; that's if you haven't started already. Matter of fact - you only just confirmed what many irreligious people already recognize, namely, all religious beliefs are man-made.

jayriginal:

I do see, and I understand. It is the unfortunate lot of the non believer that the fraudulent theist tries to imbue non belief with the defects of his religion. Therefore, atheism becomes a religion. Most fail to see that when the logic by which atheism is a religion is applied impartially, non atheism is also a relgion. Non worship of every and any deity also becomes a religion.

There have been dictionaries and reference materials that hold that religion does not necessarily include the supernatural. I call bullsh1t on that. It is those same kind of reference materials that hold that atheism = the belief that there is no god (bullsh1t too).

Anyone can define anything to be something they want it to be. That will not affect its validity.



Anytime brother.

Uyi Iredia:

The bolded comment displays gross ignorance on the evolution of religions. I want you to do a bit of research on religions such as Sikhism, Buddhism, Taoism & Zen Buddhism. These are religions which were simply rules for living (akin to a code of conduct) over time due to political changes they became religions. Atheism is a non-worship of deity but atheists are coming together to give structure to their beliefs & that my friend is how a religion starts. Check history.

jayriginal:

After reading what you yourself bolded, perhaps you are the one displaying monumental ignorance ?

Uyi Iredia:

How ?

jayriginal:
Most fail to see that when the logic by which atheism is a religion is applied impartially, non atheism is also a relgion. Non worship of every and any deity also becomes a religion.

There have been dictionaries and reference materials that hold that religion does not necessarily include the supernatural. I call bullsh1t on that. (bullsh1t too).