Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

I dunno, I think there should be a category for that kind of people that's different from atheism and agnosticism.

Actually no, I don't want to be labeled.

[Bohandas]

On a more serious note, I find that atheism is the least caring. If your mind never even comes close to the subject of religion then I'd say you're an atheist.

No, that would be agnostic. Disbelief implies that you necessarily must have thought about it at least a little bit, whereas one who has never thought about it at all would default to agnosticism.

[Zangi]

On a more serious note, I find that atheism is the least caring. If your mind never even comes close to the subject of religion then I'd say you're an atheist.

No, that would be agnostic. Disbelief implies that you necessarily must have thought about it at least a little bit, whereas one who has never thought about it at all would default to agnosticism.

So... if I understand this...(which I probably don't...) if someone talks about religion around you and your mind idly thinks of said religion...  you are no longer agnostic?

[The Darkling Wolf]

Nah, it's if you've considered the religion, and decided you don't believe it; you're an atheist. You need to make the conscious decision to think "This is BS" basically. That's my understanding of what he's saying anyway.

[Darvi]

Yeah. If you either go "Meh, who cares" or "Interesting idea, but who can tell if it's true?", then you also count as agnostic.

[penguinofhonor]

On a more serious note, I find that atheism is the least caring. If your mind never even comes close to the subject of religion then I'd say you're an atheist.

No, that would be agnostic. Disbelief implies that you necessarily must have thought about it at least a little bit, whereas one who has never thought about it at all would default to agnosticism.

I disagree. I think agnosticism requires you to have thought about it a bit. If someone has never heard of dragons, we don't say "Ha, that guy thinks dragons might exist since he's never consciously rejected the idea." Atheism can either be from rejection or the blank slate.

[Darvi]

And that's why labels are stupid. An utter lack of universal definitions.

[MagmaMcFry]

On a more serious note, I find that atheism is the least caring. If your mind never even comes close to the subject of religion then I'd say you're an atheist.

No, that would be agnostic. Disbelief implies that you necessarily must have thought about it at least a little bit, whereas one who has never thought about it at all would default to agnosticism.

I disagree. I think agnosticism requires you to have thought about it a bit. If someone has never heard of dragons, we don't say "Ha, that guy thinks dragons might exist since he's never consciously rejected the idea." Atheism can either be from rejection or the blank slate.

I think we should have different labels for the "rejection" and "blank slate" atheists.

[Hanslanda]

I believe in dragons. That is all.

[Darvi]

I think we should have different labels for the "rejection" and "blank slate" atheists.

But if we do that then the "Meh"-gnostics will get labeled next! Nooooo!

I believe in dragons. That is all.

Comodo dragons, fuck yeah!

[Hanslanda]

Komodo dragons are big ugly lizards. I mean real dragons, firebreathing, winged beasts of myth and legend. Also note I said I believe in them. Not I believe they are real.

[penguinofhonor]

On a more serious note, I find that atheism is the least caring. If your mind never even comes close to the subject of religion then I'd say you're an atheist.

No, that would be agnostic. Disbelief implies that you necessarily must have thought about it at least a little bit, whereas one who has never thought about it at all would default to agnosticism.

I disagree. I think agnosticism requires you to have thought about it a bit. If someone has never heard of dragons, we don't say "Ha, that guy thinks dragons might exist since he's never consciously rejected the idea." Atheism can either be from rejection or the blank slate.

I think we should have different labels for the "rejection" and "blank slate" atheists.

Why? Lack of belief is lack of belief. I wasn't raised religiously so I never rejected a religion, but I have the same views as my friends who did.

[Scoops Novel]

Why Christianity didn't pull a roman and take all the badass bits of Greek mythology baffles me. I mean, come on. I would have actually gone to church if we were being preached to about Hercules and the Illiad.

[Darvi]

Why? Lack of belief is lack of belief.

That would lump both atheists and agnostics together. What differentiates the two is that the former outright defies any theistic belief.

[Descan]

I consider myself an atheist, as in I actively disbelieve in anything supernatural. As in I believe if something were to exist, were to  make an impact on reality even if it were to exist outside our universe, it would fall out of religion and into science. Out of the supernatural and into the natural, because we could measure it, test it, and harness it.

But if somehow (a) god(s) were proven tomorrow, if something supernatural were to be proven tomorrow, I'd say "Sure, I believe in him."

I just wouldn't worship him. Guy would have to be a world-class asshole, considering the world as it is. I might even contemplate finding a lawyer to file a class-action lawsuit against him. Why, with all the deaths and disasters pinned on "Act of God" already, that alone would be a cinch.

... I wonder, if capital-g God exists, that might mean Hell exists. Which means we might be able to get there, and rescue all the people there. Which would pretty much make everything humans have ever done worth having been done.

And it would be just -fascinating!- to watch science unravel him into an explained phenomenon, including how all the stuff we know now as godless phenomenon would be explained with god(s) in the picture.