I've lived in GA almost my entire life. Deep in the heart of the Bible belt, and my experience is that the vast majority of Christians aren't pushy or mean. I'm the only non-Christian in my office of 22 people. I'm one of a few that aren't an active member of a church, but not one of them are pushy or mean regarding their religion. Certain Christian sects are obvioiusly more that way than others, but I think in general there are only so many outspoken pushy Christians because there are a larger overall number of them, while the percentages are probably similar.
Atheists believe there is no God. No where did I say you could actually prove that, but if you wanted it to be accepted, you would have to prove it. It is not the default position, which would be agnostic. No idea either way. There is no real burden of proof on anyone because it is unprovable either way. Only if you treat either as a fact are you required to put forth proof. RoxOn RoxOffs initial response to you even says the question is rhetorical. I had not read your post from the other thread until now, which you clearly didn't treat it as if God did not exist. I'm still unsure as to why this thread was started, as it wasn't really a demand of proof from anybody. It feels like you were baiting Christians into an argument of which there can be no real right or wrong. I have no God, if you were unsure. God to me is purely the explanation for the unexplainable. Perhaps nothing more than the cloud of dust that the universe is believed to have come from.
Nope, as an atheist myself I do not believe there is no God, nor do I claim that I know there isnt one. This has been repeated over and over again in previous posts. It's simply a rejection of religious claims because they have not been able to provide sufficient evidences to back up their claims, not the other way around it. I don't think it's fair to assume that I started this thread to bait. No, it was not my intention. I started probbaly less than 5 threads ever since I joined this site. It was simply a question that came up to me in another thread, Roxon mentioned that I have to prove there is no God, I respectfully disagree.Therefore this thread. I have no interests in baiting anyone, all I wanted is civil conversations and inputs, I'm not too worried about right or wrong. A
That kind of thinking would get you dead in about 2 minutes in many places in the middle east. One person's "justification" is another persons fairytale. Speaking of respect, I doubt you're gaining much yourself.
Your own chart earlier in this thread showed that atheist believe there is no God. It just varied on whether that belief was absolute or not. Agnostic defined the skeptisim, while Atheism/Theism defined the belief of existence.
This is how I have always interpreted it... Agnosticism deals with knowledge. From the latin word 'gnostic' which means "to know". Either you claim that you know or you don't. While Atheism/Theism deals with strictly belief. Either you do or you don't. They are exclusive from the other. So a person can be an agnostic atheist. Which simply means, you don't know if there is a god or not but you certainly don't find any evidence that the religious claims provide enough evidence to prove the claim.
Is that a threat? Or is it just something that you threw it out there as a scarecrow? whats the point? Luckily Im living in a secular country where more than half the population are atheists/agnostics, we can talk about/discuss religions when and wherever we want and people wouldnt be bummed out because of it. I can question an elder without being scrutinized and ridiculed. There are no religions being taught as facts in public schools and there are of course private schools for that matter. No, I do not have to respect your religious belief, it doesnt mean that I do not hold mutual respect towards you as a person, a human being, it's just your religious belief that I have no good reason showing any respect towards.
Like I said a couple times those 2 terms are not mutually exclusive, technically I'm an agnostic atheist, its fine if you think Im either.
I agree that you are, but your definition of atheism was closer to the definition of agnostic. You can certainly be both. You don't believe God exists (atheist), but you do not dismiss that it is possible (agnostic).
Yes. I'm coming to kill you right after the Rockets game tonight. Where do you live again? Secular country was it? (in case you can't catch the dripping sarcasm above...No, its not a threat) You're too wrapped up in your own argument to understand that amongst most human beings if you can't respect their core beliefs then you can't respect them. Note that "respect" and "belief in" are 2 separate entities. Nobody is asking you to believe. And those that do believe would prefer to not be asked to "not believe".
That is the definition of Agnostic. Your statement is only dealing in the knowledge, without the belief.
There are 2 things in play here... Do you know if god exists or not (agnosticism) Do you accept the factual claims about god to be true or not (theism/atheism)
I believe the burden of proof is on religion because they actually have a detailed step by step story or account of what god is and how god functions. Most who do not believe in god admit to not having the answer to whether god exists. So that leaves the burden on those who have a detailed account of a higher being.
Exactly. An American citizen has the right to follow their religion to their hearts content as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. And I'm allowed to dissect, scrutinize, make fun of religion as much as I want as long as I am not interfering with your right to practice your religion. A religious person being butt hurt does not count. The reverse holds true also. A Christian can scrutinize, dissect, and make fun of atheism/agnosticism to their heart's content.
That isn't atheism. Don't believe in any God = Atheist Belief in a God = Theist Factual claims are irrelevant to atheism/theism. Fact would be more relavant to agnostic vs. gnostic. If you see it as fact, you would be gnostic (since you would be knowing). Agnostic you would not see it as fact (since you can't prove it to be true)
Except that it tends to be the atheists that want the proof. If they want proof of something, the burden is on them. Believers generally accept that their beliefs are based on faith rather than proof, and I'm not sure most would care if someone else agreed with them or not. Of course you can - has anyone suggested otherwise? Depending on your approach, it may make you an *******, but there's nothing that stops you from doing it.
It tends to be the atheists that want proof because that's what you ask for when someone claims a fact. It's not my burden to substantiate your claim of fact. That's your burden. If you want to say this is what I believe but that's my faith and my belief, I don't claim it to be a fact then that's entirely different. Nobody demands proof that superstitions, lucky whatevers, are real but people don't typically claim superstitions to be fact.
Wait a minute, that thought process is weird... When was the last time you got a loan from the bank just because they cant prove you are unable to make repayments? Those are extrordinary claims made by theists, they will have to provide extordinary evidences to justify their claims(in this case, belief) not the other way around.
