Libertus Posted November 20 Report Share Posted November 20 Hello ExC! It has been a day or many more since I was last here. I don't how many, if any, of my old friends here are still around, but hi to them and to all of you more new people. I'm so glad that Dave still has this place up and running, especially for those early in their process. I first showed up in 2003. I was excited to see the archive with all of those old posts. Anyway, I hope everyone is doing well! Here's my old repost of my story from when we changed over to the new forums: https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/37-libertus-story/ ~ Libertus 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator TABA Posted November 20 Moderator Report Share Posted November 20 Hi Libertus! Really glad you stopped by to say Hi, both to those of us who came here more recently, and to anybody who was around back then. I deconverted and came here in 2014-2015. I wish I had deconverted sooner for various reasons. It would have been nice to have known the folks who were here in the early days. Yes, Dave has performed a huge service by maintaining this site over the years. It’s been a great source of encouragement, fellowship and ex-christian wisdom for so many of us. I get satisfaction now from encouraging the new folks, and I owe a debt of gratitude to those like you who came before me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 20 Super Moderator Report Share Posted November 20 Meh. If you were a True Ex-christian you'd have never left us. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 20 Moderator Report Share Posted November 20 8 hours ago, Libertus said: Hello ExC! It has been a day or many more since I was last here. I don't how many, if any, of my old friends here are still around, but hi to them and to all of you more new people. I'm so glad that Dave still has this place up and running, especially for those early in their process. I first showed up in 2003. I was excited to see the archive with all of those old posts. Anyway, I hope everyone is doing well! Here's my old repost of my story from when we changed over to the new forums: https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/37-libertus-story/ ~ Libertus You'll be glad to know that agnostic atheism still runs strong around here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted November 22 Report Share Posted November 22 On 11/20/2021 at 11:35 AM, Joshpantera said: You'll be glad to know that agnostic atheism still runs strong around here. Of course it's OK to call yourself an agnostic atheist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism But a pure atheist does not have to prove there is no God to be an atheist. Although there is a mountain of evidence to prove that an Abrahamic God in accord with the Bible is pure BS, it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist, especially if it is asserted to be invisible. Simply, if you believe there is no God you can call yourself an atheist and the dictionary will back you up. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The burden of proof will always be on the persons who claim the existence of spiritual, or invisible corporal entities. Atheists simply have to say "show me the evidence" if they like to argue or laugh a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 22 Moderator Report Share Posted November 22 1 hour ago, pantheory said: Of course it's OK to call yourself an agnostic atheist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism But a pure atheist does not have to prove there is no God to be an atheist. Although there is a mountain of evidence to prove that an Abrahamic God in accord with the Bible is pure BS, it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist, especially if it is asserted to be invisible. Simply, if you believe there is no God you can call yourself an atheist and the dictionary will back you up. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist The burden of proof will always be on the persons who claim the existence of spiritual, or invisible corporal entities. Atheists simply have to say "show me the evidence" if they like to argue or laugh a lot. It's answering two separate questions: 1) Knowledge - gnostic / agnostic 2) Belief - theist / atheist If you simply choose to answer only one of two questions, then you've only answered one of two separate questions. When people claim agnostic atheism, it reveals to others (at least others who are in the know) that they've done their homework and understand the two question reality of belief and knowledge taking up two, as opposed to just one category of contemplation. The burden of proof requirement has to do with question 1. The options being gnostic, claiming knowledge and therefore carrying the burden of proof for that claim, or agnostic and not claiming knowledge and therefore not carrying the burden of proof for a positive claim. Question 2, concerning belief, doesn't have to entail any knowledge claims at all. Some one can simply believe or not believe for any reason or no reason at all. So you're description of a pure atheist is in reality the very same thing as what we are calling an agnostic atheist. That's the person who says show me the proof of god and who has no burden of proof themselves, and who lacks belief in the positive claim. The agnostic atheist IS the 'pure atheist' that you envision above. Richard Dawkins, for a good example, is an open agnostic atheist. And ring leads what would be considerably 'pure atheism' from that very platform. And the video maker here can't seem to wrap their head around it. Thinking that he's an agnostic NOT an atheist. Completely missing the point of agnostic atheism answering two separate questions: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted November 22 Report Share Posted November 22 20 hours ago, Joshpantera said: It's answering two separate questions: 1) Knowledge - gnostic / agnostic 2) Belief - theist / atheist If you simply choose to answer only one of two questions, then you've only answered one of two separate questions. When people claim agnostic atheism, it reveals to others that they've done their homework and understand the two question reality of belief and knowledge taking up two, as opposed to just one category of contemplation. The burden of proof requirement has to do with question 1. The options being gnostic, claiming knowledge and therefore carrying the burden of proof for that claim, or agnostic and not claiming knowledge and therefore not carrying the burden of proof for a positive claim. Question 2, concerning belief, doesn't have to entail any knowledge claims at all. Some one can simply believe or not believe for any reason or no reason at all. So you're description of a pure atheist is in reality the very same thing as what we are calling an agnostic atheist. That's the person who says show me the proof of god and who has not burden of proof themselves, and who lacks belief in the positive claim. The agnostic atheist IS the pure atheist that you envision above. Sounds correct to me but many who call themselves agnostic atheists or simply atheists still may have some "hidden-to-themselves" lingering doubts concerning religion IMHO. For me, If one claims to be an atheist I would have a tough test for them. Take a look at themselves in the mirror and say I will bet my immortal soul against a six pack ( or their favorite drink ) that there is no God as portrayed by the Bible and that I hope to go to hell if I'm wrong. Next they could say I hope my wife and all my children and relatives go to Hell also if I'm wrong. In this way it would be fairly certain that that person was a pure atheist and thinks such ideas are not only stupid, but hilarious, ridiculous, and/or impossible. My impression is that one who calls themselves an agnostic atheist does not have to be that certain. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 23 Moderator Report Share Posted November 23 On 11/21/2021 at 9:07 PM, pantheory said: My impression is that one who calls themselves an agnostic atheist does not have to be that certain. It's just a newer term. Combining the two is a thing now. And doesn't mean a lack of confidence about god not existing. I'm confident that fairies, Santa, and the Easter Bunny don't really exist, but I know that it's possible to prove a negative. So I don't go there. That's what the agnostic qualifiers is for. Don't know - agnostic Don't believe - atheist Don't care - apatheist These terms can and do often all run together. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 23 Super Moderator Report Share Posted November 23 30 minutes ago, Joshpantera said: Don't know - agnostic Don't believe - atheist Don't care - apatheist These terms can and do often all run together. This is why, as I've said before, I consider myself a gnostic apatheist; because I know I don't give a shit about the existence of god. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.