Can Anyone Truly Be Atheist or Just Agnostic?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Can anyone truly be atheist or are they merely agnostic?

 

[gschjetne]

I can't say I'm a true atheist. I tend to disregard my religion in politics and science, but I can't completely disregard it when it comes to philosophical issues.

If a person is brought up with no religion at all I guess he or she would require a substitute: science. Both science and religion tries to explain both nature and society. How can we distinguish religion and science?

 

[Flexor]

Most atheists are agnostic. But then, there will always be people who make atheism into a religion.

 

[Thor]

Can anyone truly be atheist or are they merely agnostic?

If 'God' is defined as he who created the Universe, then I am truly an atheist. I have no doubt whatsoever the existence of the Universe is NOT the result of cause and effect. The phenomenon of 'Existence' is explained by a principle, not a process.

 

[Pensador]

I'm not sure what "true atheism" is, but if it is the notion that reason denies belief in God (a position commonly taken by people who proud themselves of being rational), then true atheism involves a contradiction.

In order to deny the existence of God, you must first acknowledge that the concept of God is meaningful. You can't possibly deny the existence of a meaningless concept, for meaningless concepts cannot "not exist" for the same reason they cannot exist. By acknowledging the meaningfulness of the concept of God and at the same time declaring it irrational, atheists are making the same categorical error they accuse "true believers" of making.

By the way, agnosticism suffers from the same kind of incoherence. To declare one cannot say anything about God is a self-contradictory statement. For one thing, it is a statement about God.

The only rational position on the God issue is to ignore it altogether.Talking about God requires transcending the realm of reason. Which is why God is a subject for faith, religion, and art, not for science and reason.

 

[Enos]

If I believe that there was never any creation, then what am I?

 

[Icebreaker]

Depends how one defines "God". I do not believe in most common definitions of "God".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Depends how one defines "God". I do not believe in most common definitions of "God".

I don't think there is a neccesity for god in a religion. Certain sects of Budhism and other religions don't believe in a "god" per se but I would hardly call them atheists.

 

[rygar]

By the way, agnosticism suffers from the same kind of incoherence. To declare one cannot say anything about God is a self-contradictory statement. For one thing, it is a statement about God.

huh? how do you figure?

for one, you're not really talking about 'God', you're talking about your knowledge in regards to human concept of 'God'. they are not the same thing.

but does any agnostic really declare that you can't say anything about God? at best, i think they would declare that you can't know anything about God. and it's certainly possible to claim that you can't know anything about God!

it may not be possible to say that "God is something which cannot be known about", but that would be a characteristic of God. saying "you can't know anything about God" only makes a claim about a characteristic of humans, not God.

 

[Icebreaker]

I don't think there is a neccesity for god in a religion. Certain sects of Budhism and other religions don't believe in a "god" per se but I would hardly call them atheists.

By strict definition, if the Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods, then they are atheists. You know, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that that person isn't active spiritually.

 

[rygar]

there are many atheist buddhists, and many jewish buddhists. even some christian buddhists, but I'm sure they're a minority.

anyway, i consider buddhism more of a philosophy than a religion, at least the way i view it... there are many forms of buddhism.

religion is pretty vague. a lot of people strictly take religion to mean theism, so buddhism wouldn't be a religion. of course, some people have extremely broad definitions of religion, and they can call almost anything a religion!

 

[Dayle Record]

There are a lot of people who are true atheists. There are many children who are brought up without any mention of god in their lives, by people who were brought up without any mention of this. If religion is mentioned it is mentioned as a social phenomenon that other people engage in. Viewed from the outside, it is absolutely a different phenomenon, than when viewed from the inside.

I tend to think that people are atheists because there is no god, rather than because they don't believe in god, or they fell away from god, or they haven't been properly introduced. I think that church is where children first learn that adults tell lies. They have their choice of accepting this abuse of reason and playing along, or they step outside and find their own way of seeing the world.

I don't have any problem stating that I think that the practice of religion is a delusional activity. The fact that the religions that stem from the old testament are still perpetuated, is an indication of the horrific nature of the abuses that existed in those societies early on, so grave were they, that the religions that ensued, constitute the longest running case of post traumatic stress reaction, or Stockholm Syndrome, ever.

These statements are not fraught with hatred, or even much energy or interest, atheists just look at things differently. It is difficult to see the biosphere destroyed because religions ban birth control, or because fictional historical accounts give man "dominion" over this world. I just see that stuff as self-serving nonsense, drivel. There are a lot of people that feel exactly this way.

Theists would like to condemn them, or bring them onto their playing field to do battle, but they aren't going to armageddon with the theists.

Atheists don't believe in any of that stuff, and they don't have to. They just get to say, I want to talk about something else.

I don't think that there is an express human need to have a belief in a "guy god" that atheists are going to sublimate, with the study of science. I don't think there is a religious explanation for which science will be a subsitute. The chicken came first and layed the egg, and before that, a bird that was a great deal like a chicken layed the egg. We weren't around for the beginning of the process. Scientists continue to do a very good job of picking through our past, better than historians, by far.

I hope we all do a better job in the future.

 

[hypnagogue]

Can anyone truly be atheist or are they merely agnostic?

Of course people can be 'true' atheists. An atheist is just one who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. There is nothing to really constrain what people can believe or not believe. Justification of belief is another issue, but really, what is to stop anyone from merely believing (or disbelieving) anything? If I were suitably deceived (or suitably insane), I could believe that a talking banana follows me wherever I go, or that I don't have hands, or pretty much anything else.

I think you may have intended to ask a more substantial question, but it didn't quite come through. If that's the case, you might want to rephrase your question more precisely.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By strict definition, if the Buddhists do not believe in a god or gods, then they are atheists. You know, just because someone is an atheist, it doesn't mean that that person isn't active spiritually.

The basic dictionary definition of a theist is one who believes in a god or gods but I don't think it neccisarily needs to stop there. Most Buddhists believe in some sort of higher order as far as I understand it, they just don't label it "god". As far as my own personal beliefs go I woundn't label what I believe in "god" but nor would I consider myself an atheist. The particular word "god" has certain conotations to it that do not translate into many religious views. Simply because a religion does not project their higher power/order into a male or female personafied form does that make them atheists? It seems to me that the "god" problem is far more complex and diffuse than most people give it credit for. If it isn't boiled down to an argument against christianity it's still usually one pointed toward monotheists in particular.

 

[ShawnD]

<----- Agnostic but continues to blame god for putting the whole universe against me

Agnostic = God's existence is doubtful (scientist perhaps?)
Atheist = OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS NO GOD!1 (angry used-to-be christian?)


Sure, athiests exist. They're just as annoying as Christians.

 

[hypnagogue]

Agnostic = God's existence is doubtful (scientist perhaps?)

That's not quite what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the position that we can never know whether or not a god or gods exist. Basically, agnosticism is an epistemological position (we cannot know if god/gods exist), whereas atheism is an ontological one (disbelief in the existence of god/gods). Being an agnostic is compatible both with being a theist and with being an atheist.

 

[infidel]

I'm going to try to explain it as I see it...hope this comes out ok. :D

Theists think god exists without proof.
Agnostics think we cannot know whether god exists.
Atheists think god does not exist without proof.

I am an atheist. That doesn't mean I 'know' any more than a theist 'knows.' No one seems to say theists can't exist since they can't know. So is it just 'faith' that there is no god? To me, it's more like science than faith. I 'believe' in quantum mechanics, too, but if a reliable experiment came along to prove it wrong (or incomplete) I'd have to accept it. There is a difference between evidence and proof. I believe there is lots of evidence the universe could become what it is without a god. I do not have 'proof.'

Ultimately, this is an argument that produces a lot of heat but no light. Saying there are no atheists is really splitting hairs. If I can't be an atheist without proof god doesn't exist, I'm sunk, since you can't prove a negative. I still refer to myself as an atheist and I think it describes my personal belief much more accurately than agnostic. People know what I mean. If you want to split hairs, go for it, but I don't have to pay attention to you. (You here being the rhetorical 'you', BTW, not anyone in particular.)

And really, it's up to the believers to prove god does exist. No one has ever shown evidence that a process can, for example, violate the conservation of angular momentum, so I believe no such process exists. If someone does create a reliable and repeatable experiment that shows a process that does violate CAM then I must accept it and seek a more accurate theory. It would certainly be a refinement and not a whole new theory. Meanwhile, God is a concept I have no need for. So I'm comfortable with my atheism.

The idea that atheists are 'angry ex-Christians' is just a stereotype that stifles discussion, IMHO.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I consider my self a complete atheist.

Atheist = OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS NO GOD!1 (angry used-to-be christian?)

Sure, athiests exist. They're just as annoying as Christians.

That is the same is if I say:

THEIST: OMG YOU GUYS ARE ST00PID, THERE IS A GOD!1

 

[sneez]

Just to remind ourselfs that God can not be proven using science => it then goes it cannot be disproven => belief necessary either for existence of nonexistence.
Agnostics may oscilate but they oscilate between faith so it makes no difference.

I do not see it any more diffilcult than this.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Agnostic means believing that one cannot know the nature of god. ("a+gnosis"=without knowledge). An atheist does not have a theology ("a+theist"). Antitheists are a subset of atheists who believe that there is no god. I am an antitheist..."truly"

 

[Evo]

Agnostics may oscilate but they oscilate between faith so it makes no difference.

I do not see it any more diffilcult than this.

That's incorrect, agnostics do not have any faith, nor do they "oscillate" between faiths.

Hypnagogue, infidel, and Dissiident Dan's definitions above are correct.

I am agnostic.

 

[cronxeh]

I'm an atheist and I have enough reasons to write a dissertation. My procrastination is enough reason not to :)

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Agnostic means believing that one cannot know the nature of god. ("a+gnosis"=without knowledge). An atheist does not have a theology ("a+theist"). Antitheists are a subset of atheists who believe that there is no god. I am an antitheist..."truly"

oh, then I'm an antitheist atheist.

 

[sneez]

I believe that if anyof you claim that your agnostics or atheist, your personal state of mind with all its emotions and stimuly, dogma and tradition and etc goes beyond the webster definition of the word. If not that we are lying to ourselfs.

Lets not miss the point again. Do antitheist or atheist PROOF for what they claim? They may think so but so will think the theist => given above all of you have a faith in what you beliefe (and as much as this word may trigger negative emotions it is so). You genuenly believe that there is no god. Well the keyword is believe!
Faith -strong conviction of ones belies ! Therefore the more you claim that you are antitheist atheist and what have you the more you are reinforcing belief => building faith.

Therefore agnostics as much as i like the definitions above by reason is "oscillating". He does not reject (by faith) nor does he conform (to existence of god). He/she is not sure in other words. But that is not definition to be put in dictionary but rather my thought so don't get mad, get HAPPY :)

 

[cronxeh]

The burden of proof is on believers, and you are confusing principle we call Atheism with religions we call Zen Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism.

 

[sneez]

Well, like i said in my many other post. The "burden" is not really a burden. God cannot be proven empirically. Religion is not trying to do so. Its a hype that some ppl got into their head that God must be proven (meassured) and predicted.

On the same token atheism and theism are both belief systems. Can we dispute that?

 

[eNathan]

If 'God' is defined as he who created the Universe, then I am truly an atheist. I have no doubt whatsoever the existence of the Universe is NOT the result of cause and effect. The phenomenon of 'Existence' is explained by a principle, not a process.

Will you still be certian once you die? Perhaps you should study things before you make a conclusion.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

On the same token atheism and theism are both belief systems. Can we dispute that?

yes we can. atheist deny the existence of god. Theist aprove the existence of god.

I think there is a clear difference. But as I know that you will say that we have to look feather in I'l do so.

You say that atheism and theism are the same because both create believes (faith).

Well, theism is religion, and there is an important fact you all are forgeting...

Religion (or theism) isn't only about god and his existence. Religion gives dogmas that the followers of those religions are supposed to follow.

Whiles atheism is completely against that. Like Dissident Dan wrote, atheism is not having theology (religion, dogmas...).

So atheists are completely againsts and different to theist.

Antitheism is the deny of god existence. But again, it doesn't create the believe of god's un-existance in the way of creating faith, antitheism leaves each to think what they want about why/how god doesn't exist.

 

[sneez]

You are right that religions created! dogma. However, you are wrong in the assumption that religion aims at that. Pppl did that to the religion . Neverthelless dogma is in religions by human desires not by nature. But atheist will not escape that easy either. They too have dogma and traditions. I come from a country that is called the paradise for atheist. The system is absolutelly atheistic and that affects progams in tv, education, work place relations, etc. WHat i see in this is dogma, there was even a time when religion was prohibited completely.

So therefore creating (artifitially) atheist from child to adult, ie, set of beliefs with rules and regulations enforced by authority => "religion" ?. THerefore I am comfortable calling atheism a belief system comparable to the theistic notion of religion.

Unfortunatelly i must disagree with you that atheism does not create believe of god's un-existance. I does and it is highly exploitable by ppl. I agree with you that not all atheist if put in power are going to enslave humanity into some atheistic dogma but there are certain ppl who will do so and entire nations (Russia) were beaton to death by atheistic dogma.

 

[The Rev]

The existence or non-existance of God is arbitrary, since there is no evidence either way. To say, "God does not exist" is just as much a matter of faith as saying, "God exists." It just seems more sensible since there's no evidence of any other powerful supernatural entities prowling around.

I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW.

\Phi

The Rev

 

[sneez]

"I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW"

Absolutelly Rev.

 

[Evo]

"I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW"

Absolutelly Rev.

I disagree. Here is the dictionary explanation of "faith" from Meriam-Wester

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

(2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Aetheists do no fall into any of these categories.

Aetheists have no belief in something for which there is no proof You will not find this in the definition above of faith.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I disagree. Here is the dictionary explanation of "faith" from Meriam-Wester

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

(2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

Aetheists do no fall into any of these categories.

Aetheists have no belief in something for which there is no proof You will not find this in the definition above of faith.

More definitions of faith...

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

It would seem that having a belief that "god" does not exist when there is no proof would require some form of faith. Logically without faith in "god's" lack of existence you could then only, honestly, be agnostic. There is no proof (no knowledge) and so no means to decide.
I don't get why people want to argue whether or not being an atheist requires faith. I have a very atheist friend who will fully admit that his belief requires faith since there is no proof.

 

[Math Is Hard]

If someone is a "true atheist" does that mean that he/she believes that the statement "God does not exist" is necessarily true in the same way that "Round squares do not exist" is necessarily true? It seems that there is a level of 100% certainty required in the first statement that would be difficult for anyone to assert.
"True theists" would face the same problem. "God exists" must be necessarily true to them, or appear to be true in all possible worlds, to the extent that saying "God does not exist" would produce a logical contradiction.
I don't think either side has a good case for 100% certainty.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

You are right that religions created! dogma. However, you are wrong in the assumption that religion aims at that. Pppl did that to the religion . Neverthelless dogma is in religions by human desires not by nature. But atheist will not escape that easy either. They too have dogma and traditions. I come from a country that is called the paradise for atheist. The system is absolutelly atheistic and that affects progams in tv, education, work place relations, etc. WHat i see in this is dogma, there was even a time when religion was prohibited completely.

So therefore creating (artifitially) atheist from child to adult, ie, set of beliefs with rules and regulations enforced by authority => "religion" ?. THerefore I am comfortable calling atheism a belief system comparable to the theistic notion of religion.

Unfortunatelly i must disagree with you that atheism does not create believe of god's un-existance. I does and it is highly exploitable by ppl. I agree with you that not all atheist if put in power are going to enslave humanity into some atheistic dogma but there are certain ppl who will do so and entire nations (Russia) were beaton to death by atheistic dogma.

What country are you referring to as the "atheists paradise"?

You are confusing law or moral (in the filosofical context) statements with dogma.

At a first loook they might seem the same, but no. Dogmas are religion statements that are to be followed and un-broken to be a correct believer.

Atheism doesn't have statements to be followed, atheists are free, can't you stop and read for a moment the posts of many atheists in this thread. Some are atheist that believe that there is no god for no empirical prove, there are atheist that believe there is no god because its illogical, there are atheist that believe there is a god but not to be followed by religion or theology, there are agnostica theist that believe there isn't a god but that they can't prove it...

Comparing, in all cases you have to follow the fact that god exist. But not only that, but in religions they HAVE to follow the dogmas and HAVE to believe they are correct and obey them. If not, you would be called a heretic or blasfemer...But in atheism, you wouldn't.

Resuming, atheism is a (meaning no) theism. not a (meaning one of the) theism.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

"I don't think anyone can truly be an athiest without faith, IOW"

Absolutelly Rev.

You are complicating things.

I am an atheist but I don't have the faith that god doesn't exist. I just have as a basis the lack of god's emprical prove. You may said that god can't be proven empirically, but If it can't, I will never believe in him/her/it. If there WOULD be emprical prove for god's existence, (don't post that the tipical things like "he is around you" "look every where" "look at the good things" "and you will be looking at god"...) then I would bleieve in god.


but there isn't.

And it is not about dis-proving god, but about proving him.

 

[sneez]

Prove empirically love. How do i konw that I am in love ? And let's stay in the empirical world. (serious explanation only ).

What country it is is not important (but try google and you will not miss it). No i don't think that moral and phylosophical can be confused. Or do we have moral empirical proove ? WHy to be moral. If i don't want to! Who is forcing me? society? I want to steel and lie and have excees of alcohol and sex and money, that's what i want to strive for. Why is society putting all these rules ? Its from phylosophy. Look how it evolved...

What do you mean, if you are atheist you have to believe that there is no god. Or do you have certain knowledge (empirical) that you can tell me look god does not exists and i show you evidence. OK. so it is believe like Rav pointed out. And atheism is not synonymous to freedom. I have been living in communist country ruled by dogmatical atheism which i explained in above post. It has DOGMA in the same sense as religion. Or who is to stop me in no following certain practices imposed on believers and still calling my self believer? It just ppl who have some agenda who will call me non-believer but what matters is intention! Dogma and Dogama is the same, religious or atheistic. Both came from the need to manipulate ppl and both used the same techniquest. i.g. Early christians burned ppl who said that Earth is not the center of universe (even though it just migh be) becasue they feared some imagined consequences of loosing control over ppl. With the same token stalin killed milions of religious ppl for the same fear that they will undermin his system.

But regardless, belief is belief. Atheists unless they have proof for what they claim are belief based so are theist. I don't see how this issue can be about whos job is to prove or disprove god. (god cannot be either prooved or disprooved empirically [for a reason]).

sneez

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Faith in science is different from faith in religion. One is inherently more logical than the other, according to most scientific philosophy. However, one can not fully prove that God doesn't exist - that being said, one cannot prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, but we can induce with a high level of certainty (over 99%) that he isn't real.

Concerning God, one must support Agnosticism to be truly philosophical; however, there is also "Agnostic Atheism" - the belief that we cannot know whether God exist, but we can assume, with a high probability, that he doesn't.

While I am Agnostic Atheist, Isaac Asimov has a good argument for Strong Atheism:

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

 

[loseyourname]

Prove empirically love. How do i konw that I am in love ? And let's stay in the empirical world. (serious explanation only ).

You experience the feeling of being in love. That's what empiricism is - the epistemological stance that one will only believe what can be confirmed through experience. As the poster you are responding to has presumably never experienced anything that compelled him to believe in the existence of God, he does not believe. What's so wrong with that?

 

[sneez]

Nothing is wrong with that, does love not exists if i do not experience it? Like i said, some ppl claim that they experience god at some level? Whats wrong with that?

But the original post was about atheism being a belief. Which none of you could not disprove. The same arguments you present i can use to justify belief in god.

Dont confuse that I am trying to prove that belief in god is the right way. I am just saying that it is the same at the core.

Back to Isaak Asimove. (this is not meant religiously) Moses was prophet and said that god exists... nothing new in the argument. Atheism/Theism --so far i have to regard them as beliefs.

 

[Jameson]

The "experience" of love is far different than the abstract concept of it. If you are merely talking about how you feel when you are with someone you romantically love, then that can easily be explained through chemical processes, not through faith nor some kind of magic. There are many definitions of love, and to dwell on this would be off topic from the main idea of this post, but I must say that this is a common example of how faith is supposedly something we all live by, and I personally just find it a bad example.

Jameson

EDIT: loseyourname already addressed this. way to go.

 

[Jameson]

Early christians burned ppl who said that Earth is not the center of universe (even though it just migh be)

sneez - I don't understand what you are trying to say. Are you calling the Earth the center of the universe, or even saying that the universe has a center at all? And if the universe has a center, are you for or against some form of the big-band theory?

 

[sneez]

Well, how can we tell? It means i do konw if Earth is the center of the universe neither any human as of right now. We have theories which one of them indeed considers a place of observer the center of the universe.

I meant nothing more nothing less by it.

That was exactly my point. Many times (mostly teenagers) think that they are in love while all they experience is chemical processes with hormones. But as you pointed out there is no simple definition of love. We cannot even define it (of cause for everyday use we have webster) but from phylosophical point of view from the "begining" of humanity love is being captoured into songs, poems, buildings etc but we cannot tell if some one is in love only that person knows it.

sneez

 

[Jameson]

Right, only that person can claim that he or she has those feelings and that he or she is in a certain state of love, whatevery that may be. I think I see your point from your original point, that something does not exist because some believe it or not, it exists alone without belief. I agree with you on this and it's a valid point.

The main point I wish to express here is how an atheist takes a different approach than someone who chooses to believe in some kind of god. I have heard many times that "everyone has faith, even the atheist. the atheist must have faith in their belief of no god". I would like to point out as previous posters have that "faith" is a word that many take differently. I do not believe faith is a way to know something, while a belief in God relies on it faith being a way to have knowledge. For those who do not believe in God, they do not have faith in it, any more than they have faith that we really exist in this world, we are not in The Matrix, blah blah. Many people do not justify the world through this type of faith, and I think it is unfair to claim that they do.

Why do people with strong faith in the supernatural try to logically justify their beliefs? If the beliefs were justifiable in that way, I would think faith would not be needed.

 

[sneez]

"Why do people with strong faith in the supernatural try to logically justify their beliefs? If the beliefs were justifiable in that way, I would think faith would not be needed."

That is correct. They should not unless one asks them, but on the other hand that does not mean that it is illogical to have faith. As an example: If you would ask me why do i love my wife after 50 years of marriage? i would tell you ," you would not understand". Its all the seconds of intense intra and inter psychological interactions the bad and the good the happy etc (if you know what i mean) i could not just tell you and even if i had the time to explain you it is not the same because it was my life spent with her not yours. Is it illogical for you to tell me that i stil love one woman ? I even may not have any logical justification for that (maybe she died already) and i stil love her. (I hope i made my point).

It just might be similar to faith.

As far as atheistic faith goes its not faith per se. It does not start with faith (but neither does belief in god start with faith). Faith is an end result of long process. SO not every theist or atheist have to have faith in what he beliefs, but if i claim with the stronges claims that there is not god than i don't see difference between a guy who claims the opposite. They cannot possibly resolve this issue. Its matter of belief.

waiting for constructive argument

sneez

 

[gonpost]

I think that though some people may believe they are completely and truly athiest, that is not the case. I have yet to see a man whom when faced with death does not beg for God's help (however you may define who/what God is), or if he has time, completely change his attitude about faith. I'm not saying that God exists, just that no one could ever be a complete athiest, thus there are only varying degrees of agnosticism.

*first post*

 

[Humber]

I think that though some people may believe they are completely and truly athiest, that is not the case. I have yet to see a man whom when faced with death does not beg for God's help (however you may define who/what God is), or if he has time, completely change his attitude about faith. I'm not saying that God exists, just that no one could ever be a complete athiest, thus there are only varying degrees of agnosticism.

*first post*

Gongpost, how many men have you seen beg for God's help in the manner you describe?
I would describe myself as a "true atheist", and have found myself in several life-threatening situations, but did not call upon God. You will simply have to take my word for that.
When I say to people that I am an atheist, the reply is often "So you don't believe in God, then?". It is not a matter of disbelief. I simply see no evidence for God.
Just because religion has put forward the idea of God, does not mean that I have to respond to it in a way that is acceptable to the faithful.
There is no agnosticism involved. God is a simply not an issue for me. I am not denying something that I think might "really" be true, but does not fit my publicly declared scientific viewpoint, and therefore likely to be recanted when I am in a tight spot.

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah, I came pretty close to death twice and never begged for anyone's help. In fact, I had an odd sense of complete apathy. I didn't care at all. I never imagined I would be that accepting. How many people have you actually witnessed face to face with death, Gon?