Deidre Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Lol no, not really. Maybe there are "other dimensions" after this life. Why would that automatically point to a "god?" Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I don't think anyone knows if there is anything after death or not. But in terms of the existence of god, I am a hard atheist. I absolutely do not believe in the existence of god. Is that a contradiction? Lol no, not really. Maybe there are "other dimensions" after this life. Why would that automatically point to a "god?" Right? Who knows? Maybe when we die, we open our "eyes" and find ourselves surrounded by giant cats. Or stalks of broccoli. Perhaps as I approach my death, I will be sure to have catnip and a steamer with me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 If you go and sample some of my posts I think I can back up the claim that i am an agnostic in the truest sense of the word. I don't know, it can't be proven, and except when people who do have faith that there is or is not a deity intrude upon my life I usually don't care. That said, the concept can make for some interesting discussions at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubtingNate Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 My understanding (I can't read the whole thread tight now so I could be repeating someone here):A theist believes in a personal and transcendent God who created the universe and intervenes with it in some way.An atheist does not believe this; in other words they are not convinced by the evidence given. Deists and pantheists are not theists; they would technically be atheists and would probably identify as such if 'atheist' weren't such a loaded word with certain undesirable connotations. An agnostic believes there is no way you can know for sure. These two concepts usually overlap, but they don't have to. Some people believe they are absolutely certain that no god exists. And some people might believe in 'something out there, even if they are 'agnostic' in the sense that they don't think they can know for sure.To summarize, they are two separate but related concepts that often overlap, but not 100% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I don't think anyone knows if there is anything after death or not. But in terms of the existence of god, I am a hard atheist. I absolutely do not believe in the existence of god. Is that a contradiction? Lol no, not really. Maybe there are "other dimensions" after this life. Why would that automatically point to a "god?" Right? Who knows? Maybe when we die, we open our "eyes" and find ourselves surrounded by giant cats. Or stalks of broccoli. Perhaps as I approach my death, I will be sure to have catnip and a steamer with me. I can't stop laughing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I think a common misconception about atheism -- the soft kind -- can be summed up nicely with a simple analogy. Consider the difference in meaning between the words 'raise' and 'rise.' We use raise to imply a controlled action, such as raising our hands. We use rise to imply something that occurs naturally without control, such as the sun rises. Hence, the confusion surrounding the word disbelieve. It implies control. More accurately, however, the soft atheist doesn't control this action, it is just the natural consequence of what occurs when no evidence is forthcoming -- thus, disbelieve to a soft atheist is closer to rise than raise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The analogy fails due to semantics. I rise each morning. It is a controlled action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 24, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted April 24, 2014 The analogy fails due to semantics. I rise each morning. It is a controlled action. There is a part of me that also rises every morning, but it is not a controlled action; often it's due to dreaming about Beyonce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The analogy fails due to semantics. I rise each morning. It is a controlled action. I don't think it fails so much as you found an exception to the rule. English is riddled with them. http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/cw-raise-rise.htm If you raise something, it means that you elevate it - you move it up or lift it to a higher level. If something rises, it means that it elevates itself - it goes up itself. No external force is needed to lift it. But note that there is not always a physical movement; sometimes the meaning is just "to increase". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 That is not the problem it used to be, sadly. But seriously, the main difference between rise and raise is that one is an intransitive verb and the other transitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Unfortunately, transitive and intransitive is gobbledygook to this non-linguistics major. But I do know I can't rise myself in the morning. I've always thought we speak of it as if it's a natural, thoughtless process -- one of those quirks of language and how we think about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 25, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted April 25, 2014 I hate to argue with a fellow home brewer, Ro-bear, but I have to stick with Vigile on this one. It rises whether I want it to or not. This morning it was Rhianna's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Going back to the thought that "there is nothing between atheist and theist" I would add that reality is frequently too messy for absolute categories, even in science. Light is both a particle and a wave, for example. There's a continuum that extends from belief to non-belief and many people linger in the middle. Agnostic is a useful term for that lingering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Orbit, I must respectfully disagree with you in that I do not consider myself to be "lingering" as you put it. I am an agnostic, pure and simple. I don't know, and to some extent do not care, if there is a "God" (or gods) or not. So far as I know, it can not be proven either way. I have upset more than a few people on this forum by saying that in my opinion, there is little difference between a Christian who is steadfast in their belief and an athiest who is stadfast in their disbelief. I would be willing to accept either position based upon an acceptable proof. (Given that even "logic" itself is incomplete thanks to Godel, that will be a difficult task, indeed.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 You can be permanently in the middle, which is what the agnostic category is. I didn't mean to suggest an inevitability of motion towards one or the other, I agree with your characterization of atheists as being steadfast in their beliefs. The thing that probably upsets people is that atheists' beliefs are based on evidence, and theists' beliefs are not, and they perceive that as an important difference, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts