Atheism: A Leap of Faith

[PopeTom]

Recently a friend made the statement that Atheism required a leap of faith.
To me this sounded similar to the argument that Atheism is just another belief system or religion and I attempted to explain that that view wasn't quite correct.

My argument came down to trying to explain the difference between the ideas 'I believe there is no God' and 'I do not believe in God'. The more I thought about the approach I took the less satisfied with it I was and have attempted to put the idea into better words.

I think I have managed to get somewhat better words, but wanted to run it by a, generally, Atheist group of folks to see if it's good. And also see if maybe it has been said by someone else already and I should give credit.

'It does not require a leap of faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence.'

Does that look good? Is there an even easier way of explaining that faith does not need to figure into Atheism?

Thank you in advance.

[jimtron]

Yes, you're on the right track. You could ask your friend if he/she believes in the tooth fairy. If not, then you could point out that your friend is an atheist when it comes to the tooth fairy. Did that require a leap of faith? eta: what belief system was required to not believe in the tooth fairy? Common sense? Sanity?

Atheism basically means lack of belief in god. Religion requires a leap of faith, because generally speaking one must believe in something without evidence (ie, god). It would be crazy to by default believe anything anyone told you, no matter how outlandish, until evidence was shown that it's not true. Proving a negative can be difficult or impossible. The skeptical position , in my view, is to keep an open mind, but require evidence.

[Flo]

Atheism: a leaf from faith !

[Puppycow]

This is a tired old trope.
I like jimtron's idea:

Atheism requires a leap of faith only in the same way as atoothfairyism or asantaclausism requires a leap of faith. In other words, when words no longer have any real meaning.

Atheism by the way does not claim absolute certainty of anything. Atheism is like teapot agnosticism: I don't know whether there is a teapot orbiting Mars, but I rather doubt it. Does that assumption require "a leap of faith"?

Another way to put it is: Does it require a "leap of faith" not to believe in Thor, Jupiter, or Amon Ra? Are you not an atheist about those Gods? If so, what is so special about your God?

[Sinisterdan]

If your atheism is based on the absence of evidence of the divine, then it cannot (by definition) be a leap of faith; you are not making a existential jump to cover for facts that are not in evidence. Rather you are acting precisely because of the state of the evidence.

Plus, I know very few atheists who state things absolutely and without even the remote possibility for change. For example, while I find it to be staggeringly unlikely, I can still remain open to eventual evidence of the divine should it ever present itself.

My intellectual stance tells me that there has never been any, and so there almost certainly never will, but at least I remain open to the admission of new fact.

Faith is not open to being contradicted. Not the same thing at all.

[zooloo]

Is not believing in all the other gods that they reject a "leap of faith" too?

[Sinisterdan]

I'm assuming that by 'they' you mean theists?

No - and yes; really, its the same leap of faith A person makes one leap of faith and then are required to exclude the others.

[Beerina]

Be nice about it, though. "I'm not trying to be flippant, but..."

[prewitt81]

Is "not baseball card collecting" a hobby?

[vIQleS]

Is "not baseball card collecting" a hobby?

Nice - i am so going to use this...

[PopeTom]

I wish I could post a Reader's Digest version of the conversation that followed as my friend seemed to completely miss the point I was trying to make.

A lot of the issue seemed to revolve around a misunderstanding of faith, a misunderstanding of the scientific method, and a misunderstanding of why anecdotal evidence isn't nearly as good as empirical evidence.

I did point her to the JREF Forums though and hope she is willing to sign up and posit her ideas/arguments in the proper forums.

Is there a good 'The Scientific Method and why it works' site I could point her at?

-PT

[juniper_ann]

A lot of the issue seemed to revolve around a misunderstanding of faith, a misunderstanding of the scientific method, and a misunderstanding of why anecdotal evidence isn't nearly as good as empirical evidence.


When the quantities of ignorance are this large, I begin to fear that you are dealing with a parrot. You can demolish a brick wall with your head before you convince a parrot of anything.

You may need to:

1. Hope that the parroting is compartmentalized and just not talk about this subject. Say something neutral like, "I think our view points are so different that this discussion will not convince either of us of anything and could harm our friendship. Let's go get a drink/see a movie/do whatever it is that we, as friends, do."

2. On the spectrum of "friendly acquaintance" to "friend," downgrade this person to "this person's parroting does not drive me insane."

[PopeTom]

When the quantities of ignorance are this large, I begin to fear that you are dealing with a parrot. You can demolish a brick wall with your head before you convince a parrot of anything.

You may need to:

1. Hope that the parroting is compartmentalized and just not talk about this subject. Say something neutral like, "I think our view points are so different that this discussion will not convince either of us of anything and could harm our friendship. Let's go get a drink/see a movie/do whatever it is that we, as friends, do."

2. On the spectrum of "friendly acquaintance" to "friend," downgrade this person to "this person's parroting does not drive me insane."

In regard to #1 we've mostly reached that point. We seem to have now moved onto if someone purposely circumvents the scientific process does that mean that to continue trusting the process require faith. Made a thread about in in the science forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91705)

I am not always as good at articulating the point I am trying to make as I would like to be. It is therefore possible that the misunderstanding is due to my not getting my message across properly. But I am fairly certain she misunderstands why empirical is better than anecdotal as one of her arguments can seem to be summed up as 'If so many people in the world believe in God/gods/similar beings that that must mean something'

[prewitt81]

Nice - i am so going to use this...

Qapla'

[jimtron]

I am not always as good at articulating the point I am trying to make as I would like to be.

It helps to articulate and diplomatic, and to have a sense of humor about it. On the other hand, the problem with this kind of dialog is that skeptics and those inclined to believe in religion and other woo seem to be talking in different languages. Even if you were the epitome of eloquence and diplomacy, and made ironclad, logical, rational arguments, I'd be willing to be that you would change few if any minds.

I know many people who are intelligent, reasonable people for the most part, but when it comes to these topics, it's hard to get through to them (and them to me).

[PopeTom]

I know many people who are intelligent, reasonable people for the most part, but when it comes to these topics, it's hard to get through to them (and them to me).

She is all those, and and Atheist to boot.
It just so happens she's an Atheist who thinks that Atheism requires a leap of faith. Which is where the communication channels seem to get scrambled.

[jimtron]

She is all those, and and Atheist to boot.
It just so happens she's an Atheist who thinks that Atheism requires a leap of faith. Which is where the communication channels seem to get scrambled.
That's an interesting situation. I think I kind of understand what she's getting at (though I disagree). I wonder what kind of knowledge or belief she thinks does not require a leap of faith. What does she think of agnosticism? Does she think agnostics take a leap of faith?

Some people seem to think that atheism means, "I know for certain that god doesn't exist." I don't think this is the case--I'm guessing most atheists wouldn't say they were absolutely certain god doesn't exist, just that they haven't seen evidence and it seems highly unlikely. But maybe that's where she thinks the leap of faith is--in saying, "I know for certain there is no god." That does actually take a leap of faith, if I'm not mistaken.

[PopeTom]

Some people seem to think that atheism means, "I know for certain that god doesn't exist." I don't think this is the case--I'm guessing most atheists wouldn't say they were absolutely certain god doesn't exist, just that they haven't seen evidence and it seems highly unlikely. But maybe that's where she thinks the leap of faith is--in saying, "I know for certain there is no god." That does actually take a leap of faith, if I'm not mistaken.

I had touched on this too.

"I do not believe in God because there is no evidence, short of anecdotes, for his existence. But I would be happy to reevaluate my stance if new creditable evidence is ever presented."

That just got me an, "Oh well you're actually an agnostic then," response from someone else. :)

It just got to the point where trying to explain Atheism, the scientific method, and the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence[1] to two different people started to become bothersome. Mostly due to my and their responses starting to just rehash themselves over and over.

I guess on the bright side it never hurts to get the practice in explaining these concepts to people, even if this one particular time it did not seem to have an impact.

[1] Don't even ask about the part of the conversation that involved me defending Discodianism.

[arthwollipot]

That just got me an, "Oh well you're actually an agnostic then," response from someone else. :)

Did you point out that one can be both atheist and agnostic?

[jimtron]

That just got me an, "Oh well you're actually an agnostic then," response from someone else. :)Yeah, I used to call myself an atheist, but I realized a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) assume that means that I am absolutely certain god doesn't exist, which does not represent my view. Agnostic felt too wimpy before, but when I call myself an agnostic I think that people have a more accurate view of my position.

eta: One problem with the term atheist, is that some people are ignorant about what it means. Another problem, is that atheism and agnostic, if I'm not mistaken, don't have strict meanings.

[arthwollipot]

I think a lot of people are ignorant about the meanings of both "atheist" and "agnostic".

[Loss Leader]

There is absolutely no belief in the universe that does not fit your friend's definition of "faith."

This being the case, the definition she is using is, at the very best, utterly useless.

All it does is create a giant relativistic muddle into which all human thoughts disappear.

[PopeTom]

Did you point out that one can be both atheist and agnostic?

No, the thought did not occur to me.
Of course it's still not occurring to me, could you elaborate?

[PopeTom]

There is absolutely no belief in the universe that does not fit your friend's definition of "faith."

This being the case, the definition she is using is, at the very best, utterly useless.

All it does is create a giant relativistic muddle into which all human thoughts disappear.

I guess if the topic comes up again I'll make a point of getting her definition of faith right off that bat. Then see how it compares to the one Webster has.

[arthwollipot]

No, the thought did not occur to me.
Of course it's still not occurring to me, could you elaborate?

Atheism/thesim is one's position on the existence of a god or gods. Atheist says no, theist says yes.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is one's position on whether the existence of god or gods can be directly known. Agnostic says no, gnostic says yes.

One can be atheist/agnostic, in which case one believes that there isn't a god, but acknowledges that it is impossible to know. Once can be theist/agnostic, in which case one believes that god exists, but acknowledges that it is impossible to know. One can be theist/gnostic, in which case one believes that god exists, and that it is possible to know directly. Once can even be atheist/gnostic, but I've met no-one who admits to this position.

A lot of people see it as a straight line continuum: theist - agnostic - atheist. This is based on imprecise definitions. It's more of a two-dimensional matrix, the x axis being atheist-theist, and the y axis being agnostic-gnostic.

Some people even conflate agnosticism with apathism.

[PopeTom]

OK, I understand, thank you.

My idea of the Theist - Agnostic - Atheist had always been of the straight line continuum. From your explanation I can see where it can cause a bit of confusion.

Could a person who does not believe in a god but be willing to examine evidence be considered Atheist/Gnostic? Or would he/she be a Atheist/Agnostic who immediately would become a Theist/Gnostic if absolute proof of a god was ever presented to them?

By the way I am quite aware that 'absolute proof of god' is an entirely different can of worms. And while I find it unlikely to ever be presented can it be assumed for the preceding paragraph.

[arthwollipot]

Could a person who does not believe in a god but be willing to examine evidence be considered Atheist/Gnostic? Or would he/she be a Atheist/Agnostic who immediately would become a Theist/Gnostic if absolute proof of a god was ever presented to them?

Absolute proof would turn anyone gnostic. No, wait. Absolute proof would turn everyone gnostic. Agnosticism would not be a reasonable position to maintain in the presence of absolute proof.

By the way I am quite aware that 'absolute proof of god' is an entirely different can of worms. And while I find it unlikely to ever be presented can it be assumed for the preceding paragraph.

Theists frequently claim direct experience of the presence of God. Gnostic theists are ten cents for twelve. "Gnostic atheist" I feel to be a bit of an oxymoron. How can you have direct experience of the absence of something?

[PopeTom]

How can you have direct experience of the absence of something?


Get thrown out of the air lock?

:)

[arthwollipot]

:scarper:

[juniper_ann]

Atheism/thesim is one's position on the existence of a god or gods. Atheist says no, theist says yes.

Agnosticism/gnosticism is one's position on whether the existence of god or gods can be directly known. Agnostic says no, gnostic says yes.

Thanks, arthwollipot. Now I know what to call myself--I'm an agnostic atheist, or maybe an atheist agnostic. Hm...in which of those is agnosticism more important than atheism?

[slyjoe]

Just say "I'm a six".


(Of course, you have to read The God Delusion for this to make sense.)

[CplFerro]

Does that look good? Is there an even easier way of explaining that faith does not need to figure into Atheism?

Thank you in advance.

Dear PT,

Atheism is shrugging your shoulders in response to a hopeless maze of conflicting religious claims and withering crossfires of damnation threats. It's a "prove it or shove off" philosophy of life. When everyone shoves off, what you're left with is practical atheism, acting as if one were an atheist. Actually believing there is no God, or there is no whatever, is functionally immaterial. Atheist is as good a name as any for not believing in any god because there is no clear evidence for any of them.

Cpl Ferro

[JoeEllison]

Dear PT,

Atheism is shrugging your shoulders in response to a hopeless maze of conflicting religious claims and withering crossfires of damnation threats. It's a "prove it or shove off" philosophy of life. When everyone shoves off, what you're left with is practical atheism, acting as if one were an atheist. Actually believing there is no God, or there is no whatever, is functionally immaterial. Atheist is as good a name as any for not believing in any god because there is no clear evidence for any of them.

Cpl FerroBravo!

[CplFerro]

Bravo!

Well, thank you.

Cpl Ferro

[DoubtingStephen]

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
--Don Hirschberg

[PopeTom]

Dear PT,

Atheism is shrugging your shoulders in response to a hopeless maze of conflicting religious claims and withering crossfires of damnation threats. It's a "prove it or shove off" philosophy of life. When everyone shoves off, what you're left with is practical atheism, acting as if one were an atheist. Actually believing there is no God, or there is no whatever, is functionally immaterial. Atheist is as good a name as any for not believing in any god because there is no clear evidence for any of them.

Cpl Ferro

Agreed, I think for the foreseeable future if the subject of God/Atheism all of my answers will be along the lines of 'Who cares, let us go get beer.'

[Tressa]

Agreed, I think for the foreseeable future if the subject of God/Atheism all of my answers will be along the lines of 'Who cares, let us go get beer.'

Change that to a soda and I'm with you on that!

[skeptifem]

I hate those kinds of statements(atheism is a belief/requires faith), they always have that "youre not any better than i am!!" tone to them. blech.

[FSM]

I've heard this argument as well.

To it, I simply reply,

"Well, I guess it would be nice..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XesXjkDLImg

This is the only 'Faith' I've ever really experienced. (HEY, I grew up in the 80's...):blush:


And then I show off my collection of non-collected baseball cards, my Loreal (tm) Bald Man nudey calendar and my weekly magazine subscription to "Nonpublished Weekly." :boggled:

[balrog666]

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
--Don Hirschberg

Atheists don't believe in any gods.
Agnostics don't believe in any religions.

[Last of the Fraggles]

If someone was born with a medical condition such that they were incapable of 'faith' what would we label their attitude with respect to God?

Surely atheist?

[DoubtingStephen]

If someone was born with a medical condition such that they were incapable of 'faith' what would we label their attitude with respect to God?

Accurate

[articulett]

Accurate

:D

Agree.

If people don't shove gods into your head, you don't go searching for proof of them. Demented and mentally retarded and brain damaged people often have nothing resembling a belief in a diety... but belief is such a nebulous "define as you will" concept that believers will surely assign something as proof they they believe.

It's just the silly game believers play so they can pretend faith is as good away as knowing as facts and that non-believers are just as irrational as them. They have "faith" that you believe even when you tell them you don't.
And we all know how faith is not amenable to reason. Belief and faith are often words used to keep you in a stupid semantic loop so that believers can prop up their delusions. When it turns to semantics-- suspect a religious meme infection.

[Oliver]

If someone was born with a medical condition such that they were incapable of 'faith' what would we label their attitude with respect to God?

Surely atheist?


That would rely on whatever he thinks about a meaning of life or a supreme being. If he would believe there is nothing like that, then he would believe as well - because even such a person wouldn't be able to proof or disproof god.

I don't know if I understand the term Atheist - because it sounds like a faith to me, too: "Believing in something based on no facts whatsoever".

On the other Hand, the phrase "I'm a Bible-Atheist" would make sense for everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible - because the Bible can be debunked using logic and scientific facts.

[Tricky]

I don't know if I understand the term Atheist - because it sounds like a faith to me, too: "Believing in something based on no facts whatsoever".
How many times do you have to have this explained, Oliver? Atheism is a lack of belief.

If you don't understand it then it is only because you have not heard a single word that others have said to you. I'm hoping it is just stubbornness on your part, because any other reasons for your inability to grasp this simple concept will reflect poorly on your perceptive abilities.

[zooloo]

On the other Hand, the phrase "I'm a Bible-Atheist" would make sense for everyone who doesn't believe in the Bible - because the Bible can be debunked using logic and scientific facts.

The existence of the god called God is based only on the Bible.

If the source has no credibility on any other matter it seems reasonable it has no credibility in regards to the god it proffers.

I don't believe in gods in the same way i don't believe in the tooth-fairy. Do you think people ought to keep an open-mind about the tooth-fairy just in case?

[Oliver]

Atheism is a lack of belief.


No, this is a fallacy. There only can be a "lack of belief" if you have no
Idea whatsoever what a belief is.

Once you understand the concept of belief, then you cannot make the
claim that Atheism is a lack of belief.

Do you understand the simple logic?

Or to make an example:

Me: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."
You: "I don't believe that there are Aliens in this Galaxy."

Ergo: We both don't know it - therefore we're both believing in a contrary way about Aliens within this Galaxy.

You can, however, say that it's a lack of belief on your side if you don't know what Aliens or a Galaxy are.
In this case this is truly a lack of Belief.

Do you know what I mean?`

[balrog666]

Or to make an example:

Me: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 Galaxy."
You: "I don't believe that there are Aliens in this Galaxy."`

In the first case, "Me" is a lunatic. Run away very fast.
In the second, the meaning is clear but ambiguous with respect to any firmly held beliefs.

Clearly this indicates a lack of understanding on your part which you appear to be doing nothing to alleviate. In spite of all the help that has been proffered.

[Oliver]

In the first case, "Me" is a lunatic. Run away very fast.
In the second, the meaning is clear but ambiguous with respect to any firmly held beliefs.

Clearly this indicates a lack of understanding on your part which you appear to be doing nothing to alleviate. In spite of all the help that has been proffered.


Why should that be more lunatic on my side then on your side?

I know this would be a far-fetched belief on my side. But if you cannot
proof that there are no Aliens in this Galaxy, then this has nothing to do
with any logic or facts - it's just your belief.

[balrog666]

Why should that be more lunatic on my side then on your side?

I know this would be a far-fetched belief on my side. But if you cannot
proof that there are no Aliens in this Galaxy, then this has nothing to do
with any logic or facts - it's just your belief.

See? You are a looney!

[RandFan]

'It does not require a leap of faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence.'

Does that look good? Looks good to me.

Ask your friend the following or something similar.

Does not believing that there is a troll living under my bed require a leap of faith?
Does not believing in invisible pink unicorns require a leap of faith?There are an infinite number of things that could be true but do not have any evidence to support them. Do all of them require a leap of faith not to believe in them?

[Oliver]

See? You are a looney!


No. It would be the behavior of a loony to claim that someone
else is a Loony without any evidence.

But at least it would be your emotionally based belief - without any evidence.

[RandFan]

Oliver: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."

RandFan: To date there is no evidence for aliens living in the NGC 4414 Galaxy. Untill there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in them.

RandFan: To date there is no evidence that an invisible troll lives under my bed. Untill there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in one.

RandFan: To date there is no evidence for tea cup orbiting the sun. Until there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in one.

No fallacy.

Oliver, do you lack a belief that a troll lives under your bed?

[Oliver]

RandFan: To date there is no evidence for aliens living in the NGC 4414 Galaxy. Untill there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in them.

RandFan: To date there is no evidence that an invisible troll lives under my bed. Untill there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in one.

RandFan: To date there is no evidence for tea cup orbiting the sun. Until there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in one.

No fallacy.

Oliver, do you lack a belief that a troll lives under your bed?


No, I don't believe in trolls since there is no evidence that they exist.
And by that I don't mean I have any facts about trolls living somewhere,
I literally "believe/have the faith" that there are no such thing like trolls.

( Disclaimer: Besides forum-trolls :p )

[skeptifem]

I literally "believe/have the faith" that there are no such thing like trolls.



why do you need to? If there were said bridge trolls there would be evidence of it.

[Foster Zygote]

No, this is a fallacy. There only can be a "lack of belief" if you have no
Idea whatsoever what a belief is.

Once you understand the concept of belief, then you cannot make the
claim that Atheism is a lack of belief.

Do you understand the simple logic?
So what do you call your position on the Easter Bunny? Do you not have a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny?

Or to make an example:

Me: "I believe there are Aliens within the NGC 4414 (http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9925a.html) Galaxy."
You: "I don't believe that there are Aliens in this Galaxy."

Ergo: We both don't know it - therefore we're both believing in a contrary way about Aliens within this Galaxy.
This part is true. Neither party can say with certainty that their position is correct. But try this example instead:

You: I believe there are aliens within the NGC4414 galaxy.
Me: It is possible that there are aliens within that galaxy. It may well be that all galaxies harbor life in great quantities. But I will not state a position on this matter until I have some evidence one way or the other.

But there's another major flaw with your example: we already have evidence of the existence of life. While absolute confidence in the existence of life on another world and absolute confidence in the existence of invisible pink unicorns are both irrational, the irrationality of the former does not result from the certainty of the existence of life (as we already know life to exist), it is a result of the certainty that it exists in a location that we cannot presently survey. The irrationality of the later belief results from the fact that invisible pink unicorns have never been shown to exist outside of human imagination.

So let's try this example:

You: I believe there are invisible pink unicorns living within the NGC4414 galaxy.
Me: I do not believe that there are invisible pink unicorns living anywhere. I will amend this position if ever there is evidence for the existence of invisible pink unicorns. But given the unlikelihood of their existence I will live my life as though they do not exist.

You can, however, say that it's a lack of belief on your side if you don't know what Aliens or a Galaxy are.
In this case this is truly a lack of Belief.

Do you know what I mean?`
This is nonsensical.

P.S. I'm curious to know why you felt the need to link to the NGC4414 galaxy. Does the actual existence of this galaxy lend support to any part of your argument?

[Foster Zygote]

No, I don't believe in trolls since there is no evidence that they exist.
And by that I don't mean I have any facts about trolls living somewhere,
I literally "believe/have the faith" that there are no such thing like trolls.

( Disclaimer: Besides forum-trolls :p )

How is this lack of belief any different from the belief or lack of belief in extraterrestrial life?

[RandFan]

No, I don't believe in trolls since there is no evidence that they exist.
And by that I don't mean I have any facts about trolls living somewhere,
I literally "believe/have the faith" that there are no such thing like trolls.I think there is a disconect there somewhere.

[RandFan]

How is this lack of belief any different from the belief or lack of belief in extraterrestrial life?You beat me to it. You hit the nail on the head.

[Foster Zygote]

You beat me to it. You hit the nail on the head.

Well you beat me to it with this:

RandFan: To date there is no evidence for aliens living in the NGC 4414 Galaxy. Untill there is such evidence I will simply lack a belief in them.

;)

[Oliver]

So what do you call your position on the Easter Bunny? Do you not have a lack of belief in the Easter Bunny?

This part is true. Neither party can say with certainty that their position is correct. But try this example instead:

You: I believe there are aliens within the NGC4414 galaxy.
Me: It is possible that there are aliens within that galaxy. It may well be that all galaxies harbor life in great quantities. But I will not state a position on this matter until I have some evidence one way or the other.

But there's another major flaw with your example: we already have evidence of the existence of life. While absolute confidence in the existence of life on another world and absolute confidence in the existence of invisible pink unicorns are both irrational, the irrationality of the former does not result from the certainty of the existence of life (as we already know life to exist), it is a result of the certainty that it exists in a location that we cannot presently survey. The irrationality of the later belief results from the fact that invisible pink unicorns have never been shown to exist outside of human imagination.

So lets try this example:

You: I believe there are invisible pink unicorns living within the NGC4414 galaxy.
Me: I do not believe that there are invisible pink unicorns living anywhere. I will amend this position if ever there is evidence for the existence of invisible pink unicorns. But given the unlikelihood of their existence I will live my life as though they do not exist.

This is nonsensical.

P.S. I'm curious to know why you felt the need to link to the NGC4414 galaxy. Does the actual existence of this galaxy lend support to any part of your argument?


The Easter Bunny is something that we have enough facts or logic
imagination to certainly say that it doesn't exist.

Same goes to Unicorns, Dragons or Human Gods with white beards.

Now you might agree with scientists like Stephen Hawkins that the
probability of life as we know it is infinitely small:

"We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small (http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/life.html). "

Just like the chances for life in another part of the Galaxy is very high.

These are scientific facts - and on both arguments (life elsewhere/origin of life itself) you can argue that you do believe in the scientific probabilities or you refuse to do so.

But no matter what you believe concerning the two examples, there are only 3 options you can choose from once you're familiar with the topic:

A. I don't believe it based on the probability.
B. I believe it based on the probability.
C. I don't know/ I don't care/ I don't understand.

Now strong Atheists claim they have a "lack of Belief".

And I agree with this concept if we're talking about the "Gods
and Religions we know". Because all of them are debunkable.

But I cannot agree to claim that a "supreme Being/Energy/etc..."
doesn't exist. There is no evidence that there is no such thing.

Quite the contrary: The complexity of life itself is high enough
to doubt about the Idea that there is no concept whatsoever behind
life itself.

But no matter if you agree or disagree with that - you have to
base your belief on believes. You cannot claim to say "Oh my, I
have a lack of opinion". Unless, of course, you don't care, understand
or know.

But unfortunately, most Atheists do care, do know and do understand.
Do you understand this conflict between the Atheistic claim and the
facts (The missing evidence)?

BTW: I chose this Galaxy randomly. I doubt that there is life -that's
my belief/opinion unless someone proofs me wrong. And no - this isn't
a lack of opinion - it is my opinion.

[Civilized Worm]

Do you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

[Oliver]

Do you believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?


I never heard about it - but since my imagination about it points
towards a ridiculous claim on your side that something like this could
exists, yes - I believe something like that doesn't exist. And no, I have
no evidence for my claim besides "common sense" (which, by the way,
is a human, psychological system based on knowledge and beliefs).

[articulett]

I never heard about it - but since my imagination about it points
towards a ridiculous claim on your side that something like this could
exists, yes - I believe something like that doesn't exist. And no, I have
no evidence for my claim besides "common sense" (which, by the way,
is a human, psychological system based on knowledge and beliefs).

Then... that's what being a non-believer is like. Exactly like that. No buts or anything. All the non-beliefs you make excuses for are the same as our non-belief about gods. The same. For the SAME reasons. If you want to call that a belief-- be our guests... it's not like there's evidence that anything will change your mind. Any measurable replicable evidence for god, could change ours. But after all these eons-- there's nothing... just the "gee whiz how can this all be a coincidence" non-sequitar.

[Civilized Worm]

I never heard about it - but since my imagination about it points
towards a ridiculous claim on your side that something like this could
exists, yes - I believe something like that doesn't exist. And no, I have
no evidence for my claim besides "common sense" (which, by the way,
is a human, psychological system based on knowledge and beliefs).


You just don't understand the difference between a belief and a lack of belief do you?

[Oliver]

You just don't understand the difference between a belief and a lack of belief do you?


Yes. Christianity for example:

A. I know about it and believe it.
B. I know about it and believe it's crap.
C. I have a lack of believing because I don't know/understand what it is about.
D. I'm not sure what to believe.

[Civilized Worm]

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

[Oliver]

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?


Once I found evidence that this guy was a real person, I may think
about that. But I doubt it already.

[articulett]

Do you believe there was a real Jesus?

Do you believe he was the son of whatever god it is you believe in? A part of him?

[Oliver]

Do you believe there was a real Jesus?

Do you believe he was the son of whatever god it is you believe in? A part of him?


I can't believe in Jesus because I doubt that a god would be
a human-like being, Or that he would care about humans at all.

[balrog666]

I can't believe in Jesus because I doubt that a god would be
a human-like being, Or that he would care about humans at all.

Dude! That's not about a god! That's about religion!

Learn the difference.

[articulett]

What possible evidence could there be for something not existing. There should be measurable evidence for all things that do exist--

but you are asking for the impossible if you are saying that you consider atheism a belief unless someone gives you evidence that god doesn't exist. Exactly what would you expect that evidence to be?

Doesn't it all boil down to, "no matter what the non-believers say"-- Oliver will say that atheism takes a leap of faith or that it's a belief. There is no evidence or nothing we can say that will make him conclude otherwise.

[Oliver]

Dude! That's not about a god! That's about religion!

Learn the difference.


Uhm, Articulett asked me about Jesus and God.
I replied to her answers.

Your point ... ? :confused:

[articulett]

I can't believe in Jesus because I doubt that a god would be
a human-like being, Or that he would care about humans at all.

Okay... is this a leap of faith.... a belief?

[articulett]

Uhm, Articulett asked me about Jesus and God.
I replied to her answers.

Your point ... ? :confused:

I don't know either... :confused:

[Oliver]

What possible evidence could there be for something not existing. There should be measurable evidence for all things that do exist--

but you are asking for the impossible if you are saying that you consider atheism a belief unless someone gives you evidence that god doesn't exist. Exactly what would you expect that evidence to be?

Doesn't it all boil down to, "no matter what the non-believers say"-- Oliver will say that atheism takes a leap of faith or that it's a belief. There is no evidence or nothing we can say that will make him conclude otherwise.


Well, that's why I made the example of the mathematical
probability of life outside our solar system.

There is no shred of evidence that there is life.

Nevertheless, many Scientist share the Belief that there
is life - basing their belief on the high mathematical probability.

Therefore they have the Faith that there is life. And interestingly
enough - this faith keeps them going to explore the universe.

Why is this faith? - Because the lack of evidence regarding this scientific
attempt to understand life outside our solar system. Probabilities are no
facts.

And no - Santa Claus, Spaghetti-Monsters or the Easter-Bunny
fail to be considered as scientific issue.

[Foster Zygote]

The Easter Bunny is something that we have enough facts or logic
imagination to certainly say that it doesn't exist.
No we don't. The existence of the Easter Bunny somewhere in the universe cannot be discounted unless we are able to survey the entire universe. The chance of the existence of the Easter Bunny is therefor not zero, but rather as close to zero as makes no odds. However this is not a good reason to believe in the Easter Bunny.

Now you might agree with scientists like Stephen Hawkins that the
probability of life as we know it is infinitely small:
No I would not agree with anyone who says this. And I'm quite sure that Hawking never said this. If the probability of life developing were infinitely small then that would be equivalent to zero. But we know it is not zero because we exist. It may be that the chance of life arising on any one world is vanishingly small, but the universe is a staggeringly immense place so we know for certain that it is at least likely enough to have occurred once.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial]"We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small (http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/life.html). "

Just like the chances for life in another part of the Galaxy is very high.

These are scientific facts - and on both arguments (life elsewhere/origin of life itself) you can argue that you do believe in the scientific probabilities or you refuse to do so.
We currently suspect that the chances of self replicating molecules arising by random fluctuation are small, but we do not yet have enough evidence one way or another to make any statements as to its probability. What if we find evidence of life having independently evolved on Mars and Europa? And we cannot say that the chance of life arising elsewhere in the galaxy or universe is high either. Only that it is high relative to the chance of life evolving on a single world. What are the odds of a single die roll coming up "six"? How about the odds that at least one of a thousand die rolls will come up "six"?

You have presented no scientific facts. And you have not even made an argument representative of the positions of those you are debating. This tangent has nothing to do with the argument about whether or not atheism requires faith.


But no matter what you believe concerning the two examples, there are only 3 options you can choose from once you're familiar with the topic:

A. I don't believe it based on the probability.
B. I believe it based on the probability.
C. I don't know/ I don't care/ I don't understand.
I'm now quite sure that you are being deliberatly obtuse. These are not the only available options and they do not, in my experience, represent the positions of most here. For example, you are consistently ignoring another option.

D. I do not currently believe due to a total lack of evidence and I will not believe until such time as evidence is provided suporting the existence of said thing.



Now strong Atheists claim they have a "lack of Belief".
You are still confusing lack of belief with denial.

And I agree with this concept if we're talking about the "Gods
and Religions we know". Because all of them are debunkable.

But I cannot agree to claim that a "supreme Being/Energy/etc..."
doesn't exist. There is no evidence that there is no such thing.
There is no evidence that there is such a thing. No one here is saying that there is evidence that there is no such thing. The only "evidence" is that there is no evidence.

Quite the contrary: The complexity of life itself is high enough
to doubt about the Idea that there is no concept whatsoever behind
life itself.
God of the gaps. If there is such a being then it is up to you to provide positive evidence of its existence. Our inability to fully understand the workings of the universe is not evidence of the existence of a supreme being. Your assertion only leads to the question of what could have led to the existence of this complex being itself.

But no matter if you agree or disagree with that - you have to
base your belief on believes. You cannot claim to say "Oh my, I
have a lack of opinion". Unless, of course, you don't care, understand
or know.
Incorrect. I can base my beliefs on evidence and hold those beliefs provisionally pending further evidence.

But unfortunately, most Atheists do care, do know and do understand.
Do you understand this conflict between the Atheistic claim and the
facts (The missing evidence)?
Randfan is right. There is a definite disconnect here.

BTW: I chose this Galaxy randomly. I doubt that there is life -that's
my belief/opinion unless someone proofs me wrong. And no - this isn't
a lack of opinion - it is my opinion.
I asked why you linked to the article not why you chose that galaxy. And while your opinion may be a positive thing your doubt is a lack of positive belief. For example: "My opinion is that there are no gods or other supernatural beings in the universe".

[RandFan]

The Easter Bunny is something that we have enough facts or logic imagination to certainly say that it doesn't exist. Yes. Agreed. And of course we can say the same for god.

Thank you.

But I cannot agree to claim that a "supreme Being/Energy/etc..."
doesn't exist. There is no evidence that there is no such thing.
So you argue from ignorance?

Quite the contrary: The complexity of life itself is high enough
to doubt about the Idea that there is no concept whatsoever behind
life itself. Inteligent design has been debunked. Do you have another argument?

But no matter if you agree or disagree with that - you have to base your belief on believes. You cannot claim to say "Oh my, I have a lack of opinion". Unless, of course, you don't care, understand or know. Huh? Jeez, can you make up your mind? Is there or is there not an Easter Bunny?

But unfortunately, most Atheists do care, do know and do understand.

Do you understand this conflict between the Atheistic claim and the facts (The missing evidence)?I understand that atheists don't usually argue from ignorance, you?

BTW: I chose this Galaxy randomly. I doubt that there is life -that's my belief/opinion unless someone proofs me wrong. And no - this isn't a lack of opinion - it is my opinion. ?

I gotta say, that post was one of the most convoluted I've seen in a long time.

I honestly don't know what your position is, do you?

[Oliver]

Well, it's pretty easy - and I copied that reply from the poll I started:

All I say is that we don't know that a supreme being
exists. Therefore: Everything else is a belief. Not a lack of Belief.

Is this so hard to understand? : Atheists don't know if a supreme being exist.
Everything else is a logical fallacy.

[RandFan]

All I say is that we don't know that a supreme being exists. Therefore: Everything else is a belief. Not a lack of Belief.

Is this so hard to understand? : Atheists don't know if a supreme being exist.

Everything else is a logical fallacy.No, no it is not. Asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

Atheists DON'T know if the Easter Bunny exists.
Atehists DON'T know if a tea pot is orbiting the sun.
Atheists DON'T know if invisible unicorns exist.

I lack belief in these things. That's it. That's all. Is THAT so hard to understand?

[articulett]

And no - Santa Claus, Spaghetti-Monsters or the Easter-Bunny
fail to be considered as scientific issue.

And so do invisible, immeasurable forms of consciousness-- like gods

for the exact same reason.

[Foster Zygote]

Well, that's why I made the example of the mathematical
probability of life outside our solar system.

There is no shred of evidence that there is life.
Yes there is. You are communicating with it right now. This is not a valid analogy because you are trying to analogize something for which there is no evidence with something that we know to exist.

Nevertheless, many Scientist share the Belief that there
is life - basing their belief on the high mathematical probability.
No. They strongly suspect that there is life based on the evidence we have about life and cosmology as we know it.

Therefore they have the Faith that there is life. And interestingly
enough - this faith keeps them going to explore the universe.
No, they do not. Again, they suspect that there may be life elsewhere in the universe based on the available evidence. What keeps them going is the possibility that life may be found elsewhere in the universe. I'm sure any good scientist will tell you that what is important is not "finding life" but rather finding the truth. Even if we were somehow to learn that we are alone in the universe then this would be a truth very much worth knowing. Science doesn't look for a specific, pleasing answer. It looks for the answer, period.

Why is this faith? - Because the lack of evidence regarding this scientific
attempt to understand life outside our solar system. Probabilities are no
facts.
It is not faith to say "While I acknowledge the possibility of life elsewhere, I will entertain no positive belief in it until such time as evidence of its existence is discovered. And as I've already stated, life is something that we already know to exist. The same cannot be said of supernatural beings.

And no - Santa Claus, Spaghetti-Monsters or the Easter-Bunny
fail to be considered as scientific issue.
For the same reason that gods fail to be considered.

[articulett]

No, no it is not. Asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

Atheists DON'T know if the Easter Bunny exists.
Atehists DON'T know if a tea pot is orbiting the sun.
Atheists DON'T know if invisible unicorns exist.

I lack belief in these things. That's it. That's all. Is THAT so hard to understand?

Well yah-- because then he'd have to realize that a lack of belief is not the same as a belief... and maybe question his motives for this semantic game.

[Oliver]

No, no it is not. Asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

Atheists DON'T know if the Easter Bunny exists.
Atehists DON'T know if a tea pot is orbiting the sun.
Atheists DON'T know if invisible unicorns exist.

I lack belief in these things. That's it. That's all. Is THAT so hard to understand?


Atheists DO KNOW that life exist. (Please note: Life, not pink easter-unicorns)
Atheists DON'T KNOW if life evolved by accident or by a "supreme being".

ERGO:
Atheists DON'T KNOW. They BELIEVE they know nevertheless. That's a Belief as well. Not a "lack of Belief".

[RandFan]

Atheists DO KNOW that life exist. (Please note: Life, not pink easter-unicorns)
Atheists DON'T KNOW if life evolved by accident or by a "supreme being".

ERGO:
Atheists DON'T KNOW. They BELIEVE they know nevertheless. That's a Belief as well. Not a "lack of Belief".

I DON'T absolutely KNOW anything!!!!!!

Have you ever read Greek philosophy? Do you have any inkling of the limits of knowledge? We don't know anything in an absolute sense. I don't know that you exist. I don't know that I'm not in the Matrix or that this isn't all a solipsists dream.

So, what are we left with? Reason. We could say, well, we don't know that there isn't an Easter Bunny somewhere delivering candy to a few children. That we don't know is not reason to argue from ignorance.

I could say that I don't believe that there is no god but that is just semantics. I lack belief in god.

So, let's get to the brass tacks, we have a little thing called parsimony. What is more parsimonious, god or no god? No god.

No leap of faith required. Just good ol' logic and reason. Thanks William (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham).

[Oliver]

I DON'T absolutely KNOW anything!!!!!!

Have you ever read Greek philosophy? Do you have any inkling of the limits of knowledge? We don't know anything in an absolute sense. I don't know that you exist. I don't know that I'm not in the Matrix or that this isn't all a solipsists dream.

So, what are we left with? Reason. We could say, well, we don't know that there isn't an Easter Bunny somewhere delivering candy to a few children. That we don't know is not reason to argue from ignorance.

I could say that I don't believe that there is no god but that is just semantics. I lack belief in god.

So, let's get to the brass tacks, we have a little thing called parsimony. What is more parsimonious, god or no god? No god.

No leap of faith required. Just good ol' logic and reason. Thanks William (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham).


Let me put it simple for you:

Do you believe there is no god?

[balrog666]

Atheists DO KNOW that life exist. (Please note: Life, not pink easter-unicorns)
Atheists DON'T KNOW if life evolved by accident or by a "supreme being".

ERGO:
Atheists DON'T KNOW. They BELIEVE they know nevertheless. That's a Belief as well. Not a "lack of Belief".

Well, just d@mn! So what?

For the sake of argument, let's assume a "god" shows up tomorrow in Times Square and farts out the complete works of Shakespeare via flying monkeys and strap on typewriters! So what?

Go ahead and tie that to any one of the last 5000 religions invented by mankind in the last 30,000 years!

[RandFan]

Let me put it simple for you:

Do you believe there is no god?Let me put it simple for you.

I lack a belief that there is a god.
I lack a belief that there is an Easter Bunny.
I lack a belief that there is a Santa Claus.

You are playing a semantical game to turn my lack of belief into a belief that is equivalent to a leap of faith.

It's intelectual dishonesty on your part. Is that simple enough?

[Foster Zygote]

Atheists DO KNOW that life exist. (Please note: Life, not pink easter-unicorns)
Atheists DON'T KNOW if life evolved by accident or by a "supreme being".
So far, no supreme being has been necessary to explain how life could generate. Perhaps when we have a reliable theory of abiogenesis it will include the discovery of some sort of manufacturers label.

ERGO:
Atheists DON'T KNOW. They BELIEVE they know nevertheless. That's a Belief as well. Not a "lack of Belief".
You are still incorrect. They see no evidence leading them to conclude the exisence of a god or gods. They therefor do not have a positive belief in gods any more than they do faireys or anything else for which there is no evidence.

[RandFan]

:rolleyes: That's our Oliver.

[Oliver]

Well, just d@mn! So what?


If you mean why this point of view from Atheists is interesting for me:
Because I thought they might have something new, inspiring for me.

But at least I found out that I seem to be an agnostic.
Can you explain the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

[Oliver]

Let me put it simple for you.

I lack a belief that there is a god.
I lack a belief that there is an Easter Bunny.
I lack a belief that there is a Santa Claus.

You are playing a semantical game to turn my lack of belief into a belief that is equivalent to a leap of faith.

It's intelectual dishonesty on your part. Is that simple enough?


No, dodging about a simple question is dishonest. And so far every
Atheist refused to answer this simple question. Man enough to answer it?

Do you believe there is no god?

[RandFan]

But at least I found out that I seem to be an agnostic.Do you have to make a leap of faith to be an agnostic?

[RandFan]

No, dodging about a simple question is dishonest. Sorry, no. You are playing a semantical game. What does it mean to say "I believe there is no god"? To me it means "I lack any belief in god.

So, I can say with all sincerity that I believe that there is no god and you are playing semantical games.

[Oliver]

Do you have to make a leap of faith to be an agnostic?


What does the phrase "Leap of Faith" mean? :confused:


My translator says:

leap
v. jump, hop, lunge, spring into the air; move suddenly, act quickly

x
n. act of jumping, lunge, spring; distance jumped; sudden change, abrupt transition


Babylon English-German

leap
v. springen; hervorspringen; überspringen

x
n. Sprung; Satz

[RandFan]

{snipped}

[RandFan]

What does the phrase "Leap of Faith" mean? :confused::confused: What does obfuscate mean?

[Foster Zygote]

No, dodging about a simple question is dishonest. And so far every
Atheist refused to answer this simple question. Man enough to answer it?

Do you believe there is no god?

Do you still rob banks? Yes or no?

[balrog666]

If you mean why this point of view from Atheists is interesting for me:
Because I thought they might have something new, inspiring for me.

But at least I found out that I seem to be an agnostic.
Can you explain the difference between an agnostic and an atheist?

You have an incorrect idea that you refuse to think through or let go of. People have explained both why it is incorrect and why you should stop repeating it as if it was new, unexamined or unrefuted. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of reason, logic, or human nature. Just go away, troll.

[Oliver]

Sorry, no. You are playing a semantical game. What does it mean to say "I believe there is no god"? To me it means "I lack any belief in god.

So, I can say with all sincerity that I believe that there is no god and you are playing semantical games.


No, I'm not playing semantical games. I tried to find out if
Atheists believe as well - or if they know for sure.

And because I found the answer to that, I see no reason to continue to ask.

[GeeMack]

Atheists DON'T KNOW. They BELIEVE they know nevertheless. That's a Belief as well. Not a "lack of Belief".

Looks like another lie. Although some atheists take a position of reasonable certainty that there are no gods, atheists in general don't claim to know, either way or the other, which is exactly what is meant by a "lack of belief."

Oliver, you're making a complete fool of yourself here. Do yourself a favor. Go find someone in your area who is very familiar with the subtleties and nuances of both the English and German languages. Ask that person to explain to you how these two phrases are not the same: "I believe that gods do not exist," and "I do not believe that gods exist." Because they are not the same.

Then go locate someone who is particularly competent in the application of logic. Perhaps a college level instructor in math or science, maybe computer sciences. Have that person explain to you how those two phrases are not the same and how neither follows as a corollary of the other. Because they are not the same nor do they have a corollary relationship.

Then come back here and let us know, honestly for a change, what you've learned. You see, if you really don't understand how those phrases have distinctly different meanings, and if you wish to continue this conversation while maintaining even a shred of your dwindling dignity, you clearly need outside help.

[RandFan]

No, I'm not playing semantical games. I tried to find out if
Atheists believe as well - or if they know for sure.

And because I found the answer to that, I see no reason to continue to ask. I've not a clue what answer you found but I'm glad you found it. Good luck with that, whatever it is.

[Taffer]

Oliver, please consider the following pseudo-logical notation:

Let G = The existance of God
Let B = I have a belief

B = ~G
~(B = G)

Do you see the difference between the two?

[RandFan]

Oliver, please consider the following pseudo-logical notation:

Let G = The existance of God
Let B = I have a belief

B = ~G
~(B = G)

Do you see the difference between the two?Bump though I seriously doubt that Oliver will respond.

Just trying to think this through, what would be the result if we constructed a disjunction?

Let X = Belief in god.

X or not X, B = ~G and ~(B = G) are both a subset of not X.

I think this is where Oliver is making his mistake, he sees all not X as equal.

[Taffer]

Bump though I seriously doubt that Oliver will respond.

Just trying to think this through, what would be the result if we constructed a disjunction?

Let X = Belief in god.

X or not X, B = ~G and ~(B = G) are both a subset of not X.

I think this is where Oliver is making his mistake, he sees all not X as equal.

Quite correct. Not all "~X" are of equal weight.

[articulett]

Wow... I understood it and math is in my long ago past. It took a second... but I think it's clear... I think Oliver should understand. Just because the words are the same, doesn't mean the same things when you rearrange them.

X (a-b) is the same as X(a) - b. Orders of words matter in regards to meaning and clarity.

Oliver, if you want people to accept that you have a belief in something you call "god"... I think you ought to take their word for it when they say they don't have a belief in such an entity. We could play the same semantic game and claim that you are really a non-believer because your god doesn't do anything or seem to be anything except a notion that makes you feel like your life has "higher meaning". That's what you are doing to non-believers with your word games.

[arthwollipot]

You: I believe there are aliens within the NGC4414 galaxy.
Me: It is possible that there are aliens within that galaxy. It may well be that all galaxies harbor life in great quantities. But I will not state a position on this matter until I have some evidence one way or the other.

This is agnosticism.

You: I believe there are invisible pink unicorns living within the NGC4414 galaxy.
Me: I do not believe that there are invisible pink unicorns living anywhere. I will amend this position if ever there is evidence for the existence of invisible pink unicorns. But given the unlikelihood of their existence I will live my life as though they do not exist.

This is atheism.

[arthwollipot]

Thanks, arthwollipot. Now I know what to call myself--I'm an agnostic atheist, or maybe an atheist agnostic. Hm...in which of those is agnosticism more important than atheism?

Neither. Both.

[Taffer]

Thanks, arthwollipot. Now I know what to call myself--I'm an agnostic atheist, or maybe an atheist agnostic. Hm...in which of those is agnosticism more important than atheism?

Neither. Both.

To further explain this point. Agnosticism is agnosticism. Atheism is atheism. One can be agnostic and be a theist.

[arthwollipot]

To further explain this point. Agnosticism is agnosticism. Atheism is atheism. One can be agnostic and be a theist.

Or rather they are not mutually exclusive. One can be heterosexual and a vegetarian. Neither is more important than the other, but both are very important in and of themselves.

[Taffer]

Or rather they are not mutually exclusive. One can be heterosexual and a vegetarian. Neither is more important than the other, but both are very important in and of themselves.

Far better said then I, sir. :o

[arthwollipot]

You're welcome.
:cool:

[RandFan]

One can be heterosexual and a vegetarian.Ok, but can I be the an effeminate carrot or a bi-sexual cabage?

[RandFan]

Then again, I've always wanted to be a Narwhal.

Oh, hell, I'm spamming the thread.

Say good night gracie.

[balrog666]

Then again, I've always wanted to be a Narwhal.

Oh, hell, I'm spamming the thread.

Say good night gracie.

Still it was entertaining.

[articulett]

Ok, but can I be the an effeminate carrot or a bi-sexual cabage?

Of course... but not an effeminate carrot AND a bi-sexual cabbage. Being one vegetable precludes you from being another vegetable. (And cabbage has two "b"s besides.)

[articulett]

Then again, I've always wanted to be a Narwhal.



And what's the point? Ah, that's right... the thing on it's head.

(you started the derailment... I have poor impulse control... I blame you for my participation...)

[RandFan]

Of course... but not an effeminate carrot AND a bi-sexual cabbage. Being one vegetable precludes you from being another vegetable. (And cabbage has two "b"s besides.) You know, after I went to bed I realized that there was something Freudian about a carrot and a Narwhal.

Where does the cabbage fit in?

I'm going to be all day trying to figure that one out.

[RandFan]

And what's the point? Ah, that's right... the thing on it's head.

(you started the derailment... I have poor impulse control... I blame you for my participation...)Hey, I get it, trust me. :)

[Hokulele]

You know, after I went to bed I realized that there was something Freudian about a carrot and a Narwhal.

Where does the cabbage fit in?

I'm going to be all day trying to figure that one out.


I thought about making a comment along the lines of, "The head is the most useful part", then decided to keep my mouth shut.

Oh, wait . . .

[RandFan]

I thought about making a comment along the lines of, "The head is the most useful part", then decided to keep my mouth shut.

Oh, wait . . ."keep my mouth shut".... good thing you changed your avatar.