|
the official god faq (caution, witty) :) | by binabik | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
the official athiest faq (caution, witty) :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 06:47:46 |
|
Methinks you missed the point of Atheism | by wheresthefish | 2004-09-24 07:33:18 |
| I thought I hit the target, but who knows :) |
by sstacks |
2004-09-24 08:19:34 |
Atheists state "there is no God."
Those that waffle on the issue and aren't completely sure are agnostics. Agnostics feel they don't have enough info (aka "evidence") to decide one way or the other and mentally file the issue under "probably", "maybe/maybe not", or "probably not" while waiting for more data.
Then there are those that state "there is a God." These people are theists.
It's interesting to note that not all theists are Christians, a point that might seem obvious to some, but in Western culture (especially the Southern U.S.) most people equate theism with Christianity.
Christians (like myself) place their faith in (and submit to) Jesus Christ. We know that he was both human and divine, that he died as a perfect sacrifice for our sins and that he was raised from the dead and ascended to Heaven. We also know that he is coming back, an event referred to alternately as both the "Blessed Hope" and "Second Coming."
In order to be a Christian we admit we are sinners and trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation.
But I digress :)
Is there any room to agree that to say "based on the evidence at hand I say there is no God" is actually an *agnostic* viewpoint and not an atheistic one?
Just food for thought :D
Best,
Shane |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Plenty of room for that... | by Naruki | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
More definitions :) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 08:44:09 |
|
Am I the only one who sees | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 10:05:29 |
|
No you are not the only one to notice | by cristobal | 2004-09-24 10:07:28 |
|
Just so ya know... | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 10:14:34 |
|
Oh, I wasn't blaming you. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 10:35:28 |
|
There are a couple of the biased ones. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 10:55:35 |
|
I don't see the counter bias in the first. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:19:44 |
|
I didn't see such an implication | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:07:23 |
|
Consider: There is nothing to deny without | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:17:59 |
|
In other words | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:25:20 |
|
Ah, but you expressed both as assertions. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 11:35:36 |
|
Considering that the word itself | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:49:09 |
|
LOL I was waiting for that ;> (n/t) | by sstacks | 2004-09-24 12:00:25 |
|
No it isn't, and no. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 12:01:26 |
|
In that case | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:04:50 |
|
That's when you get into the "strong" and "weak" | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:15:45 |
|
That agrees with my understanding | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:18:12 |
|
That's the point. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:24:39 |
|
Going by the original Greek, yes. | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 12:36:19 |
|
If you reversed it, the theists would see it. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 11:35:42 |
|
I still don't see it | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 11:47:05 |
|
Do you deny the non-existence of God? | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:13:23 |
|
I think I understand | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:19:48 |
|
Exactly. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 12:21:49 |
|
Next question, then: | by Matthewdba | 2004-09-24 12:31:03 |
|
Not necessarily, but possibly. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 13:43:55 |
|
I think you summed that up nicely. (n/t) | by BloodyViking | 2004-09-24 13:58:15 |
|
Thanks. | by Naruki | 2004-09-24 14:05:20 |
|
I would call that an atheist | by tigermouse | 2004-09-24 08:46:40 |
