Atheist in the Foxhole:

[Clair de Lune]

Go to track 5 on the embedded music player


I know this is the only life I'll ever lead.
Yet you kindly offer dogma I don't need:
False forgiveness, earthly business made a chore.
Please, I feel unsafe with that kind of faith so I believe in something more.

I believe in only things that I can see, and I believe in what I know speaks true to me.
Pious eyes may threaten fire down from the skies,
but I seek shelter in the truth before lies.

I've neither heart nor art to feign that I believe,
No matter what the fate this world invents for me.
And I don't wonder what waits under or above.
Instead I embrace my own kind of grace and I embrace this life I love.

Life can comfort, lies can soothe as they deceive.
And I won't judge you, won't begrudge your lies you need.

No indeed.

I'm a Christian-turned-agnostic here. Although I think atheists are just as taking the same leap as the theists, I like the song. It's damn catchy.

They're a very new indie startup band like the thousands you see in every city trying to make it. I happened to see them live at a bar one night. They won my heart. A good light-hearted break from all that Arch Enemy and Opeth I've been listening to.

 

[Turin39789]

you are an agnostic atheist.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

/lawnchair
/beer

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Nah I remain neutral on the fact that we cannot absolutely and conclusively prove nor disprove there is a god.

I just enjoy life, unlike faith-spewing or anti-faith spewing of both parties.

I'd like to think I'm an agnostic pluralist.

 

[HumblePie]

Good to see not every band is trying to be like the crap and dribble out there. Don't need another Creed for example. One was good enough.

 

[Turin39789]

screw it

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
Although I think atheists are just as taking the same leap as the theists.

No, they're taking the same leap as people who don't believe in the one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater.

/flamesuit

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Correct.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Nah I remain neutral on the fact that we cannot absolutely and conclusively prove nor disprove there is a god.

I just enjoy life, unlike faith-spewing or anti-faith spewing of both parties.

I'd like to think I'm an agnostic pluralist.

Atheists don't necessarily believe that god can be disproven, they only lack an active belief. If you don't actively believe, but you don't believe that a negative can be proven (as any scientist would agree), you are an agnostic atheist -- at least that's what most atheists would consider you (and I'd speculate, themselves)

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Nah I remain neutral on the fact that we cannot absolutely and conclusively prove nor disprove there is a god.

I just enjoy life, unlike faith-spewing or anti-faith spewing of both parties.

I'd like to think I'm an agnostic pluralist.

Atheists don't necessarily believe that god can be disproven, they only lack an active belief. If you don't actively believe, but you don't believe that a negative can be proven (as any scientist would agree), you are an agnostic atheist -- at least that's what most atheists would consider you (and I'd speculate, themselves)

Ok now I'm back in

I stole this from here

You?re misusing and conflating the definitions of ?atheism? and ?agnosticism.? Agnosticism says nothing whatsoever about belief.

Atheism is a statement about belief, or, more accurately, lack thereof. An atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. Theism is a belief in a god or gods, atheism is the denial of that claim.

Agnosticism (from the Greek ?gnosis,? for ?knowledge?) is a statement about epistemology rather than belief. An agnostic does not claim to know whether or not a god or gods exist. The claim of agnosticism says nothing about the agnostic?s belief about said deities, only his knowledge.

Thus it is hardly contradictory to claim the mantle of ?agnostic atheist,? as the two labels deal with completely different things. An agnostic atheist (?weak atheist?) is one who makes no claim to know whether or not a god or gods exist, and also lacks the belief that they do.

Given this definition, it becomes clear that many people who self-identify merely as ?agnostics? are probably weak atheists as well.

By contrast, an ?agnostic theist? makes no knowledge claim about the existence of his chosen deity, but possesses a belief in this deity.

Completing our little Punnet Square of meanings are the ?gnostic theist? and ?gnostic atheist,? the former who claims to both know and believe that a god or gods exist, and the latter who claims to know that there is no god/gods and (quite obviously) lacks a belief in it/them.

Moreover, your claim that ?There is no proof there is no god? ignores that, lacking evidence for god, there is no reason to believe she/he/it exists; the onus of proof is on those claiming the phemonemon. There simply cannot be conclusive ?proof there is no god,? but the complete lack of evidence in favor of the god-proposition is a pretty good tip-off. Are you agnostic towards Bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? Mothman? All of these phenomena lack any real evidence for their existence, but no critical thinker will tell you that you should remain ?strictly agnostic? (in your sense of ?suspending belief?) about the claims. Inherent in your question is the idea that one must suspend belief about any claim made in the absence of evidence, which means one must remain ?agnostic? about the great majority of possible propositions, be it unicorns, celestial teapots, or child-devouring monsters who live under beds but disappear whenever anybody looks for them there. This is a fairly ridiculous claim to make.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Nah I remain neutral on the fact that we cannot absolutely and conclusively prove nor disprove there is a god.

I just enjoy life, unlike faith-spewing or anti-faith spewing of both parties.

I'd like to think I'm an agnostic pluralist.

Atheists don't necessarily believe that god can be disproven, they only lack an active belief. If you don't actively believe, but you don't believe that a negative can be proven (as any scientist would agree), you are an agnostic atheist -- at least that's what most atheists would consider you (and I'd speculate, themselves)

And as I like to put it, it's also possible for dragons to pop out of the Large Hadron Collider, and it's also possible that every proton in the Solar System will suddenly undergo radioactive decay at the same time.

I haven't even painted up my "The End is Nigh" cardboard placard yet.

Let's just say, I'm not particularly concerned.


More good religious music. NSFW lyrics.
If you're at work, get back to work.


I just hope that God has all of the genocide out of his system.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Nah I remain neutral on the fact that we cannot absolutely and conclusively prove nor disprove there is a god.

I just enjoy life, unlike faith-spewing or anti-faith spewing of both parties.

I'd like to think I'm an agnostic pluralist.

Atheists don't necessarily believe that god can be disproven, they only lack an active belief. If you don't actively believe, but you don't believe that a negative can be proven (as any scientist would agree), you are an agnostic atheist -- at least that's what most atheists would consider you (and I'd speculate, themselves)

Ok now I'm back in

I stole this from here

You?re misusing and conflating the definitions of ?atheism? and ?agnosticism.? Agnosticism says nothing whatsoever about belief.

Atheism is a statement about belief, or, more accurately, lack thereof. An atheist lacks belief in a god or gods. Theism is a belief in a god or gods, atheism is the denial of that claim.

Agnosticism (from the Greek ?gnosis,? for ?knowledge?) is a statement about epistemology rather than belief. An agnostic does not claim to know whether or not a god or gods exist. The claim of agnosticism says nothing about the agnostic?s belief about said deities, only his knowledge.

Thus it is hardly contradictory to claim the mantle of ?agnostic atheist,? as the two labels deal with completely different things. An agnostic atheist (?weak atheist?) is one who makes no claim to know whether or not a god or gods exist, and also lacks the belief that they do.

Given this definition, it becomes clear that many people who self-identify merely as ?agnostics? are probably weak atheists as well.

By contrast, an ?agnostic theist? makes no knowledge claim about the existence of his chosen deity, but possesses a belief in this deity.

Completing our little Punnet Square of meanings are the ?gnostic theist? and ?gnostic atheist,? the former who claims to both know and believe that a god or gods exist, and the latter who claims to know that there is no god/gods and (quite obviously) lacks a belief in it/them.

Moreover, your claim that ?There is no proof there is no god? ignores that, lacking evidence for god, there is no reason to believe she/he/it exists; the onus of proof is on those claiming the phemonemon. There simply cannot be conclusive ?proof there is no god,? but the complete lack of evidence in favor of the god-proposition is a pretty good tip-off. Are you agnostic towards Bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? Mothman? All of these phenomena lack any real evidence for their existence, but no critical thinker will tell you that you should remain ?strictly agnostic? (in your sense of ?suspending belief?) about the claims. Inherent in your question is the idea that one must suspend belief about any claim made in the absence of evidence, which means one must remain ?agnostic? about the great majority of possible propositions, be it unicorns, celestial teapots, or child-devouring monsters who live under beds but disappear whenever anybody looks for them there. This is a fairly ridiculous claim to make.

Wow, I'm going to have to bookmark that. Pretty good definition. I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "denial of that claim" at the beginning, because it sounds positively negative even though it isn't intended to be. Damn you English!

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Turin39789
you are an agnostic atheist.

Nah I remain neutral on the fact that we cannot absolutely and conclusively prove nor disprove there is a god.

I just enjoy life, unlike faith-spewing or anti-faith spewing of both parties.

I'd like to think I'm an agnostic pluralist.

I suppose you then also think there could be a invisible pink unicorn in the corner of your room, then?

The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

 

[Clair de Lune]

God, ATOT has completely taken this song into a religion thread.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: videogames101
I suppose you then also think there could be a invisible pink unicorn in the corner of your room, then?

The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

I think it would be possible for some powerful alien life form to exist, which would be to us as we are to bacteria. Billions of years more advanced.
But it still wouldn't be a god.

The "God" in the Christian text is a fabrication of active imaginations seeking an answer to how things came to be, just as many others have done in contriving many other religions and creation myths throughout the ages.

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
God, ATOT has completely taken this song into a religion thread.

......exactly what were you expecting?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

Of course there isn't. If there were an all knowing, all powerful god, would he/she/it not know what that evidence was?

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
God, ATOT has completely taken this song into a religion thread.

Don't blame God
Seriously though, mention "atheist", "God", or "evolution" (not to mention other automatic triggers) and it automatically turns into a debate.
Hopefully Nemesis won't show up (no offense, Nemesis). His response always leave me

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

Of course there isn't. If there were an all knowing, all powerful god, would he/she/it not know what that evidence was?

And if there's proof, there's no need for faith, one of the major tenets of a lot of modern religions.
What then, time to rewrite the religion to suit the evidence? Again?

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
God, ATOT has completely taken this song into a religion thread.

Don't blame God
Seriously though, mention "atheist", "God", or "evolution" (not to mention other automatic triggers) and it automatically turns into a debate.
Hopefully Nemesis won't show up (no offense, Nemesis). His response always leave me

On that, we certainly agree.
Just hope that the state of goes away after awhile. I'm worried that I might be left that way indefinitely.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

Of course there isn't. If there were an all knowing, all powerful god, would he/she/it not know what that evidence was?

I think you skipped a step in logic there. I'm asking what evidence do atheists require.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
God, ATOT has completely taken this song into a religion thread.

Don't blame God
Seriously though, mention "atheist", "God", or "evolution" (not to mention other automatic triggers) and it automatically turns into a debate.
Hopefully Nemesis won't show up (no offense, Nemesis). His response always leave me

Don't worry, they leave us all that way. I really think he's a parody character. Don't worry, those of us on the other side don't take him as a representative of the rest of you.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

Of course there isn't. If there were an all knowing, all powerful god, would he/she/it not know what that evidence was?

I think you skipped a step in logic there. I'm asking what evidence do atheists require.

I feel like I'm being clear, so maybe you can point out where I made a jump I'll try again.

As you said, atheism isn't a belief system so there is no "agreed upon" standard. But I think we'd agree that an all powerful, all knowing god would know what was necessary to prove himself to 100% of us.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
God, ATOT has completely taken this song into a religion thread.

Don't blame God
Seriously though, mention "atheist", "God", or "evolution" (not to mention other automatic triggers) and it automatically turns into a debate.
Hopefully Nemesis won't show up (no offense, Nemesis). His response always leave me

Don't worry, they leave us all that way. I really think he's a parody character. Don't worry, those of us on the other side don't take him as a representative of the rest of you.

I don't think he is, though. His stuff isn't funny or trolling in an way, just really trippy. I think he said one time he was on (prescribed) drugs/IV or something.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

Of course there isn't. If there were an all knowing, all powerful god, would he/she/it not know what that evidence was?

I think you skipped a step in logic there. I'm asking what evidence do atheists require.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

there ya go.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: videogames101
The point is, athiest isn't simply not beleiving in a god, it's not saying that a god does not exist, but instead, says we have no reason to believe such a thing, and we won't believe it until someone produces scientific evidence for it.

Is there an agreed upon level of scientific evidence that would prove God exists? Like say, if "this and this happened, we would be forced to acknowledge God exists"? Or does it vary from one atheist to another (because Atheism isn't a belief system)?

yeah, there's an agreed upon level of scientific evidence. It's called science. If science can find evidence to suggest such a thing exists, then we can claim it exists. Science uses this wonderful thing called the scientific process.
Basically, short of seeing God himself, and seeing him do something god-like... there is nothing that can prove his existence. Now, if this thing ever comes down and shows itself for the entire world to see, then I'd say we'd be safe saying it exists. Physical evidence is proof said physical evidence exists.