Why?

[iruinedyourday]

this is how some feel about it: http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Scientific_method

[paulgiamatti]

Agnosticism simply is, by definition, atheism. There isn't a spectrum between the two.

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Agnosticism simply is, by definition, atheism. There isn't a spectrum between the two.

Thats not true as far as I know...do you have a reference? By definition, A-Theism : Greek for 'No Diety'. A-Gnosticism : 'No Knowledge'.

[Borak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think paulgiamatti is saying that, while agnosticism and atheism are technically distinct, if you drew a Venn diagram of people that hold each position they'd almost completely overlap.

[Sidelle]

Atheists and religious people are often so similar to each other in these threads. Both sides have excellent skills at being self-righteous pricks when they're shoving their beliefs or non-beliefs down the throats of people around them.

Yeah I know, I didn't answer your question -- sorry. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I was just making a general observation based on my experiences of reading the metric shit-ton of religious discussion posts that blow up threads like this every time...

Carry on.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by Sidelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Atheists and religious people are often so similar to each other in these threads. Both sides have excellent skills at being self-righteous pricks when they're shoving their beliefs or non-beliefs down the throats of people around them.

Yeah I know, I didn't answer your question -- sorry. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I was just making a general observation based on my experiences of reading the metric shit-ton of religious discussion posts that blow up threads like this every time...

Carry on.

I agree with this completely. Unfortunately, though I am tolerant in my personal life, I'm also the most opinionated person probably in the history of Earth. Because of this, I'd argue with a fence post. I'm pretty sure this self analysis applies to about 95% of the people who post in the religion threads.

As for religion, people just need more education. If you are taught science, math, history, sociology... etc etc, even if you are devout like I am, you still don't want to kill people or persecute them. The problem is certainty. If you are 100% certain that your position is correct, historically, you have been very willing to bring about radical change (often in a violent way) to see your one sided worldview brought into fruition. This could be said of the Lord's Resistance Army (Christians in Uganda), any Communist party (you could claim militant atheism, or simply a militant political belief, that despite lacking any actual evidence, thought itself to be the solution to humanity's problems), to the numerous Islamic extremist groups. Hell, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were technically secular, but they had a nationalistic / Hindu extremist sentiment. Killing people or persecuting them is wrong 100% of the time. Teach that in schools and all of us, regardless of belief system, will be able to get along.

For that matter, give children everywhere ANY type of schooling that isn't religiously based and I think you'll see this problem subside. But yeah, there is definitely a fuckton of self-righteousness in these religion threads. I'm so glad we have two more of them now on the front page of RnF. I will do my best not to post in them, but damn do I love arguing.

[Bazia]

i think atheists apply the scientific ideal that lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove something's existence

the acceptance of something's existence requires some type of facts/proof, not the lack of facts/proof that something doesn't exist

[fadetree]

Originally Posted by Bazia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i think atheists apply the scientific ideal that lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove something's existence

the acceptance of something's existence requires some type of facts/proof, not the lack of facts/proof that something doesn't exist

Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. And by evidence I mean 'scientific evidence', not emotionalism or faith or just deciding you don't like something.

[Bazia]

Originally Posted by fadetree [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. And by evidence I mean 'scientific evidence', not emotionalism or faith or just deciding you don't like something.

no it doesnt cut both ways, if u want something to be considered acceptable u have to have to some kind of proof or facts

[paulgiamatti]

It's just common sense really. The moment you go from believing in a god or deities to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. Atheism is a prerequisite for being an agnostic.