Question

Agree or disagree? Atheism is the lack of belief in ****, NOT the believe that there is no ****.

Answer 1

Atheism does not acknowledge the existence of ****.

Atheists do not use the word belief at all.

Answer 2

Christians do like to claim that Christianity is "better" and more tolerant than Islam, but that is only because the west is secular rather than theocratic, and Christianity "became" tolerant by force of law.

When religion sets the rules, people tend to start losing their freedom and/or their lives. American Christians are working overtime in their misguided attempts to take away Americans freedoms as we speak.

Take care!

Answer 3

The English language is rarely logical. I find the gnostic/agnostic forms of atheism an easier way to categorize people, so I haven't put much thought into it. I would, however, define atheism closer to a "lack of belief in ***" than "not believing in ***."

Answer 4

I guess you're using the idea of gnostic as having some sort of special knowledge that confirms one's views as opposed to agnostics who would admit to not knowing with certainty whether *** does or doesn't exist. So, the gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are what I would see as the zealots. I'll have to add this to my understanding. Thanks.

Answer 5

I'd say the bigger zealots would be the gnostic anti-theists, as opposed to gnostic atheists (although a lot of them would fall into that category).

Answer 6

Wow - Enter the anti-theists. [You can't see it; but, I'm smiling.]
But how could a person who is opposed to the actions or the will of *** or the **** be a gnostic atheist since you're defining the latter as a person who says there is no *** and he or she knows for certain that there is no ***? There is, therefore, no object (Object) for them to oppose.

Answer 7

They always turn up sooner or later.

As I've always seen it, anti-theism opposes religious belief or religion in general. So a person who lacks the belief in ***, knows for certain they are right in their lack of belief, and (typically) scoffs at other people's belief in that ***/that religion with the notion that the belief/***/religion is inherently evil. I don't necessarily think it must be opposition to the *** (that would be pretty ridiculous?) but the interpretation of that ***, and the belief of others, if that makes any sense.

Answer 8

I am an agnostic anti-theist because of the harm religion can cause. I used to be an agnostic Christian anti-theist. My dislike of religion started with learning about the horrors of the inquisition. It has been affirmed by abortion clinic bombings by Christians and even Christians hate Islam and what it can do to its followers.

Answer 9

There's far too many abuses in history, and people are far too quick to forget the senseless hate and intolerance which led to these things. I didn't care for a long time until I learned about the "treatments" some religious parents would subject their ********** and *********** ******** to (like Leelah Alcorn, which was truly horrific).

A lot of people like to pretend that Christianity is a very tolerant religion, and the brutality of the Inquisition and the crusades was an issue of the times, but people are, in reality, just as brutal.

(It's frustrating to no *** when Christians here talk about being better than Muslims by some ***-given right.)

Answer 10

Yes - defining an anti-theist as one opposed to religion or certain beliefs about *** (or ****) makes more sense since, as you say, it's ridiculous to oppose *** and not believe in *** at the same time.
I'm just glad to have learned that gnostic can be an attitude of certainty and not necessary a Gnostic set of beliefs.

Answer 11

Agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism are different things, and still separate from agnosticism.

Answer 12

I've been on several threads now about defining atheism/agnosticism and you are the first person I have seen actually show ANY shift In understanding, or even openness to explanations other than the one they hold.

Most here (believers anyway) only try to attempt to "redefine" atheism as a positive "claim" that **** do NOT exist, thereby shifting the burden of proof onto those who in fact, just lack belief.

Many fail to understand (willfully?) when I explain to them that I am agnostic as well as atheist. I don't "know" (agnostic) if *** exists, but I do not "believe" that any **** do exist.

I do not see agnosticism as some non-committal, middle ground between theism and atheism, where people who can't decide hide, but many people do. For example when I describe myself as agnostic I often get comments that tell me believers think they have a chance of convincing me that **** exist, even though it is impossible for me to believe.

Take care!

Answer 13

Thanks for the compliment. I actually do come here to learn how other people think and I do not come here with that foolish attitude that I necessarily know more than some else ... which doesn't mean I won't get into a debate on an issue.
I have often called myself a deist - and that rather fits into the idea of being an agnostic theist.

Answer 14

You are part of quite an illustrious group as a deist. Quite a few great thinkers of the past were deists. I spent some time as one myself!

Take care!

Answer 15

Thanks

Answer 16

There may be ****, just as there may be fairies and dragons. But I don't believe in them.

Answer 17

Believers like to make the claim that unbelievers have the burden of proving that their imaginary *** does not exist. Obviously no one cannot prove a negative, showing the dishonesty of this argument right up front.

I cannot prove that unicorns DON'T exist, but I do not "believe" they do. Those who DO believe that unicorns exist have the burden of proof, not those who don't. They need to show us unicorn skeptics that unicorns in fact DO exist. Demanding that I prove unicorns don't exist is just as ignorant and dishonest as demanding that I prove you *** doesn't exist.

I have an invisible, sacred Venusian lesser Zogreb living in my **** as we speak. Don't believe me?

You need to prove there isn't a Zogreb living in my ***, or admit that there must be one snuggled up in there. It's sacred so you also need bow down before my *** and pray to Zog or she will send you to Venusian **** forever!

I hope this makes it clear to anyone that the attempt to shift the burden of proof is actually a wonderful example of extreme religious dishonesty (lies).

The greater question is why do religious people NEED to lie in defense of their faith? Perhaps because their faith itself is a lie? Just something to think about.

Answer 18

I don't think that the vast majority of religious people lie in defense of their faith. I think that most say what they believe.
I don't see shifting the burden of proof as lying either. Just faulty logic.

Answer 19

Okay - so the agnostic and gnostic atheists are both atheists ("I don't believe in a ***") and both the theistic and atheistic agnostic admit to uncertainty. The gnostic label seems to refer to the theist or atheist "with attitude" (ie: suffering from the delusion of certainty).

But, theologically, gnosticism has never referred to a disbelief in the existence of *** and being a "gnostic atheist" is probably illogical in as much as it purports to prove a negative.

But, this string isn't about who is right or wrong - it's just about how to categorize them - and it's fine with me if the label 'gnostic' can refer to uncertainly.

Answer 20

Answer 21

Yep, that's very accurate or in other words: 'not convinced by the theistic claims about ****.'

Answer 22

That definition is very accurate.

Answer 23

Thanks

Answer 24

Answer 25

thank you

Answer 26

Except i would be that they don't think there are ****.

Answer 27

Thank you

Answer 28

I was born an atheist, just like everyone else . . . then I was indoctrinated into Roman Catholicism, which I believed until I reached the Age of Reason, when I returned to my original state of No Belief.

Answer 29

Thank you

Answer 30

Thank you

Answer 31

Atheism is the affirmation that *** does not exist not a lack of specific beliefs about a *** (or ****) which may or may not exist. The latter is agnosticism.

Answer 32

thanks

Answer 33

Theism is, by definition, the belief in a *** or ****.
Atheism is, by definition, the absence of theism.

Pretty straightforward.

Answer 34

Thanks

Answer 35

Why is this even an "agree/disagree" question? It's not an opinion - the definition of Atheism is a lack of belief in ****.

Answer 36

Well, some people are not of the same opinion as you

Answer 37

And some people believe humans walked among dinosaurs 40,000 years ago.

Answer 38

Many (most) young earth creationists believe that there were dinosaurs in the garden with Adam and Eve, only 6-10 thousand years ago, because that's what Bishop Usher calculated by adding up the genealogies in the bible.

They hold strong beliefs on it and most do not realize that this dogma came from some dude just a hundred years ago or so. It was made up as an early "reaction" to the new at the time, theory of evolution.

They think the are believing what the bible actually teaches, but are clinging to a lie that a religious MAN made up in the very recent past. Rather than ancient "wisdom" it is nothing but a modern lie!

Take care!

Answer 39

Incest and dinosaurs - it sounds like a party.

Answer 40

True. Many are just repeating what they have been told is true. Many don't really know what the believe well enough to articulate it or defend it.

However, there are more than a few here who have been corrected many times about the burden of proof and their faulty logic.

When one has been educated about where the burden of proof lies, and yet continues to claim it lies where it doesn't that is intellectual dishonesty.

Of course not all believers lie constantly. But the more professional apologists seem to be constantly dishonest.

Remember, just because one truly believes a lie does not make it the truth.

There are plenty of good honest Christians out there, and then there are also a lot of "Liars for Christ" out there as well.

Take care.