The First Single Celled Organisms

[avsfan 0]

[crowTrobot 2]

The Agnostic refrains from judgment due to insufficient or lack of evidence. The Atheist makes a judgment on insufficient evidence or lack of evidence. I would say there is a very clear distinction..

there is a clear distinction between those definitions, but discrete classifications don't exist in the real world. in reality for bothpeople that consider themselves atheist and agnostic the existence of god (either a specific version or the general concept, whichever you're talking about) is a matter of probability and the scale is continuous.

[crowTrobot 2]

I am not talking about basing a belief system on faith. I am talking about accepting a belief system as valid takes faith.

people accept science as painting a valid picture of reality for practical purposes because it leads to accurate predictions.religious faith is effectively the opposite. there is no relevant parallel there. this seems like a stupidly obvious point.

[rjkdb8 1]

I think there is a valid parallel in the initial acceptance of beliefs/systems. Something makes us take that first leap.

No faith is required to simply recognize the superiority of logic and reason. Unless you mean that we have to have faith that the world exists more or less as we perceive it, which is a practical prerequisite for conducting our everyday lives and having debates like this. If you are honestly taking the position that faith is required to acknowledge that the scientific method represents the best way to achieve knowledge, I believe you are being purposefully difficult.

For the sake of debate if your an atheist you should be an atheist. Atheist -One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Aqnostic-1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

You do realize that dictionaries are sadly not the ultimate authority when determining the definition of a given word, right? Somewhere along the way it was decided that dictionaries are supposed to describe language instead of prescribe language, which is insane, but that's a whole different debate. Athiest is very rarely used as defined above.

The Agnostic refrains from judgment due to insufficient or lack of evidence. The Atheist makes a judgment on insufficient evidence or lack of evidence. I would say there is a very clear distinction..

Atheists almost universally subscribe to the idea that there is no reason to believe in god based on insufficient evidence of existence. I don't know anyone who believes the existence of god is impossible. But your attempt to characterize atheists as making a judgment based on a lack of evidence, while agnostics simply refrain from judgment, is lame. The only rational default position is atheism. We do not assume the existence of invisible beings as a default position: we assume nothing. Similarly, in all other areas of discourse, we do not refrain from taking the default position that something does not exist until presented with evidence of existence. Someone who suggested your proposed default position in any other area would be quickly encouraged to have their head examined. When I say that I do not believe that Bigfoot exists, would you criticize me for making a judgment based on lack of evidence instead of refraining from judgment due to the lack of evidence? Atheism is the only rational position until you have a reason to believe something else. But since "having a reason" is impossible for anything "faith-based", all other positions are irrational.

[jmkiser 0]

AVS, by your definition, is there anything left to do on this planet that doesn't require a little faith? If you generalize the term so broadly, how can you then scoff at both sides for their "leaps of faith"?On another point, your definitions don't apply to reality. There are ridiculously few atheists that would actually claim to know that there isn't possibly a god. Most people claiming to be atheist are what you are so adamantly saying are agnostic. So in your world, there are extremely few real atheists and tons of agnostics.At this point, the semantics don't really matter. What makes up a modern "atheist" to most people is pretty clear. Sorry it clashes with your worldview? :: shrugs ::What conflict is there inside you that is causing this debate? Are you upset that so many people are using the word because it has to mean what you say it means? Are you against non-believers and just trying to find anything you can grab to throw? Or do you mistakenly believe that there really is a large population of people who clearly deny the possible existence of god? You're connection of "hard atheism" to religious fundamentalism isn't something that anyone would deny. You're just severely misinformed if you think there are a considerable number of people that actually believe that.Most "atheists" are what you would probably consider "agnostics leaning towards atheism". Does that clear up the debate?

[avsfan 0]

Unless you mean that we have to have faith that the world exists more or less as we perceive it, which is a practical prerequisite for conducting our everyday lives and having debates like this.

YES! Exactly! That is exactly what I meant when I typed; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground." I never wanted to take a position for debate. A few ppl just flipped out at my statement. I am not trying to be difficult I just stated something that I thought was beautiful. I am a structuralist at heart. If I am guilty of something here it is not letting my statement be something it was not intended to be. I never wanted to be profound or deep. I am sure that still won't clear things up.....now I have to talk about atheist and agnostics. huh?

[avsfan 0]

I also want to add. That when ppl where confused about what I was meaning. I added the a definition that clearly expressed my intentions in my statement. The definition was, "Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea.". I never intended anything beyond what this definiton covered. That is why I used and referenced that definition. I was not playing games or going for anything beyond that. Call me superficial etc.....but that is all i was meaning in my statement; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."now I have to address some one who thinks I am Scoffing at religion...WtF. Dude! My statement was, "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground." How is that Scoffing at religion? Where and How am I scoffing ate religion? I personally think Religion and Science are beautiful.

[avsfan 0]

You're really attached to these definitions! lol.

The best way i know to qualify exactly what I or others mean.

[avsfan 0]

there is a clear distinction between those definitions, but discrete classifications don't exist in the real world. in reality for bothpeople that consider themselves atheist and agnostic the existence of god (either a specific version or the general concept, whichever you're talking about) is a matter of probability and the scale is continuous.

You initially claimed there is no difference. I think it valid to use definitions to understand words.

[avsfan 0]

people accept science as painting a valid picture of reality for practical purposes because it leads to accurate predictions.religious faith is effectively the opposite. there is no relevant parallel there. this seems like a stupidly obvious point.

If ppl are accepting science as valid they are accepting "a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea" which would be a acceptable defined meaning of faith.

[jmkiser 0]

YES! Exactly! That is exactly what I meant when I typed; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground." I never wanted to take a position for debate. A few ppl just flipped out at my statement.

"Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea."

With your extremely broad view of the word faith, then why is there any beauty? Is everything beautiful to you?Also, in reality, there isn't much common ground between the believer and the non-believer. Except for the fact that most believers are non-believers for every other religion/god-figure, but their own.

[avsfan 0]

You do realize that dictionaries are sadly not the ultimate authority when determining the definition of a given word, right? Somewhere along the way it was decided that dictionaries are supposed to describe language instead of prescribe language, which is insane, but that's a whole different debate. Athiest is very rarely used as defined above.

They can help qualify words. So we understand a common meaning, this helps us avoid confusion......ideally for example pointing me to information on weak/implicit agnostic atheism would have helped me understand the arguments better

Atheists almost universally subscribe to the idea that there is no reason to believe in god based on insufficient evidence of existence. I don't know anyone who believes the existence of god is impossible. But your attempt to characterize atheists as making a judgment based on a lack of evidence, while agnostics simply refrain from judgment, is lame. The only rational default position is atheism. We do not assume the existence of invisible beings as a default position: we assume nothing. Similarly, in all other areas of discourse, we do not refrain from taking the default position that something does not exist until presented with evidence of existence. Someone who suggested your proposed default position in any other area would be quickly encouraged to have their head examined. When I say that I do not believe that Bigfoot exists, would you criticize me for making a judgment based on lack of evidence instead of refraining from judgment due to the lack of evidence? Atheism is the only rational position until you have a reason to believe something else. But since "having a reason" is impossible for anything "faith-based", all other positions are irrational.

*my orginal response I am not here to debate atheism and agnosticism. I just want express the intentions of my statement; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."**my response after learning about weak/implicit agnostic atheism

Atheists almost universally subscribe to the idea that there is no reason to believe in god based on insufficient evidence of existence. I don't know anyone who believes the existence of god is impossible.

So the God concept is possible. Would this not contradict weak/implicit atheism absence of God Theory?

But your attempt to characterize atheists as making a judgment based on a lack of evidence, while agnostics simply refrain from judgment, is lame.

Yes it was lame that is why I looked up the definitions and posted them after.

The only rational default position is atheism. We do not assume the existence of invisible beings as a default position: we assume nothing. Similarly, in all other areas of discourse, we do not refrain from taking the default position that something does not exist until presented with evidence of existence.

I am confused here. Oh, i get it. You think the god concept is possible but you assume nothing so that the religious have to prove the god concept..very sneaky sis.

Someone who suggested your proposed default position in any other area would be quickly encouraged to have their head examined. When I say that I do not believe that Bigfoot exists, would you criticize me for making a judgment based on lack of evidence instead of refraining from judgment due to the lack of evidence?

I have had to have my head examined. I have a tumor in my mid brain canal and a deformity in the part of my brain that produces melatonin. But that is neither here nor there.It is very wise to say Big foot does not exist. Big foot is a fraud. So if you know the history of Big foot it is obvious not to believe in Big Foot. It would be hard atheism to say God does not exist though. I do feel when atheism crosses the line and say's God Does not exist it takes a default position...but that was not your point...perhaps you do not know big foots history as a fraud

You do realize that dictionaries are sadly not the ultimate authority when determining the definition of a given word, right? Somewhere along the way it was decided that dictionaries are supposed to describe language instead of prescribe language, which is insane, but that's a whole different debate. Athiest is very rarely used as defined above.

They can help qualify words. So we understand a common meaning, this helps us avoid confusion......about things like weak/implicit agnostic atheism!!!!

Atheism is the only rational position until you have a reason to believe something else. But since "having a reason" is impossible for anything "faith-based", all other positions are irrational.

It definitely has tightened its ability to be debated.You got what I was intending when you said;

Unless you mean that we have to have faith that the world exists more or less as we perceive it, which is a practical prerequisite for conducting our everyday lives and having debates like this.

[crowTrobot 2]

You initially claimed there is no difference.

in practice there isn't.

I think it valid to use definitions to understand words.

the people responding to you are debating what goes on in real life, not semantics.

[avsfan 0]

AVS, by your definition, is there anything left to do on this planet that doesn't require a little faith?

Yes! Exactly! I find that extremely interesting. This is the exact motive behind my statement; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."

If you generalize the term so broadly, how can you then scoff at both sides for their "leaps of faith"?

I Absolutely would never ever ever scoff at either side. I hold both systems in the highest of regard and respect,

On another point, your definitions don't apply to reality.

Definitions serve an important function in anchoring words to meaning so we can have a clear understanding of there definition. This is important and helps us avoid confusion and miss understanding...ideally

There are ridiculously few atheists that would actually claim to know that there isn't possibly a god. Most people claiming to be atheist are what you are so adamantly saying are agnostic. So in your world, there are extremely few real atheists and tons of agnostics.At this point, the semantics don't really matter. What makes up a modern "atheist" to most people is pretty clear. Sorry it clashes with your worldview? :: shrugs ::

Intresting. fwiw, I am not here to debate atheism. I just. defined the two terms. No need to be sorry. It is not clashing with my world view. I do believe semantics matter.

What conflict is there inside you that is causing this debate? Are you upset that so many people are using the word because it has to mean what you say it means? Are you against non-believers and just trying to find anything you can grab to throw?

I am absolutely not against non-believers or believers. I am just trying to clarify my original statement.

[crowTrobot 2]

If ppl are accepting science as valid they are accepting "a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea"

not in any way that can be meaningfully compared to religious faith.

[avsfan 0]

With your extremely broad view of the word faith, then why is there any beauty? Is everything beautiful to you?

The way ppl find validity in ideas is beautiful to me. Just like the point is beautiful to a mathematician.

Also, in reality, there isn't much common ground between the believer and the non-believer. Except for the fact that most believers are non-believers for every other religion/god-figure, but their own.

Reality is a subjective thing. There is a difference between believing in no god and no belief in god.

[avsfan 0]

in practice there isn't.

In definition there is.

the people responding to you are debating what goes on in real life, not semantics.

perhaps you are debating your own ghost and not what I intended. Are my intention unclear still?

[avsfan 0]

If ppl are accepting science as valid they are accepting "a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea" which would be a acceptable defined meaning of faith.

not in any way that can be meaningfully compared to religious faith.

I mean faith as in a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. My statement is concerned with the point where system/belief is accepted as valid.statement;"The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."fwiw i am not grammatically gifted maybe you can refine my statement to better meet my intentions.

[crowTrobot 2]

The way ppl find validity in ideas is beautiful to me. Just like the point is beautiful to a mathematician.

i dunno. religious faith seems like a pretty ugly thing given that it saps adaptability and intellect.

Reality is a subjective thing.

for practical purposes it obviously is not.

There is a difference between believing in no god and no belief in god.

more like there is a continuous scale between 100% belief there is no god and "not leaning either way",and most non-believers are somewhere between those. no matter what you read in websters discrete classifications don't exist.

[crowTrobot 2]

I mean faith as in a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. My statement is concerned with the point where system/belief is accepted as valid.statement;"The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."fwiw i am not grammatically gifted maybe you can refine my statement to better meet my intentions.

the trouble is you don't understand what atheism is in practice, not your grammar.

[vbnautilus 48]

I mean faith as in a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea. My statement is concerned with the point where system/belief is accepted as valid.statement;"The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."fwiw i am not grammatically gifted maybe you can refine my statement to better meet my intentions.

sure, no prob I'll refine it for you: "The religious rely on faith while the atheists do not. "seriously though, the problem is that since you're posting in the religion forum and you're talking about faith in regards to religious people, we are going to naturally take the religious meaning of the word faith. i still am not really sure what you're trying to say if its just that both groups believe things?

[avsfan 0]

sure, no prob I'll refine it for you: "The religious rely on faith while the atheists do not. "seriously though, the problem is that since you're posting in the religion forum and you're talking about faith in regards to religious people, we are going to naturally take the religious meaning of the word faith. i still am not really sure what you're trying to say if its just that both groups believe things?

My statement is concerned with the point where we accept something as valid. I think this was fairly clear;

Unless you mean that we have to have faith that the world exists more or less as we perceive it, which is a practical prerequisite for conducting our everyday lives and having debates like this.

YES! Exactly! That is exactly what I meant when I typed; "The religious and the the atheist both rely on Faith. It is beautiful how things so polar can have such common ground."

I'll assume this is confusing because weak/implicit aka agnostic atheism is the widely accepted norm to this forum. This would explain the confusion and controversy.

[avsfan 0]

the trouble is you don't understand what atheism is in practice, not your grammar.

I am studying. I have learned what weak/implicit aka agnostic atheism is now. You could have referenced me to this, fwiw.

[avsfan 0]

i still am not really sure what you're trying to say if its just that both groups believe things?

Unless you mean that we have to have faith that the world exists more or less as we perceive it, which is a practical prerequisite for conducting our everyday lives and having debates like this.

That clearly expresses my statements intention

[avsfan 0]

I now think that when weak/implicit agnostic atheism try's to protect strong atheism it is going over the line.