Yes it does—the assertion that there is no God, the belief that there is no God. Agnosticism says there is uncertainty either way and makes no assertions. Atheism is a belief system, the belief there is no God.



This is easy; I have yet to find any evidence or had any experience that my belief system is logically inconsistent. Secondly please note that the IF above was a hypothetical acceptance not absolute.

APL, thanks for answering me. I wasn't sure where you were coming from...anyhow, I get what you were saying now.


For the sake of argument (don't we all just LOVE to argue about god?)...what are some of the characteristics of your god, APL? Is it the god we are familiar with from the bible, or something else entirely?

Im really sorry, but you are wrong. Do you claim to have a belief system in faries, unicorns and elves? Most people would say no. A negative belief can never be a system because there is simply nothing there.

Agnosticism is much deeper than what you are claiming and there are many diffrent varities of agnosticism. There are those who are apathetic agnstics, there are "god is unknowable, therefore (dis)belief is impossible", "we just dont know now", etc....



Well, for one I dont think there is any real evidence for your beliefs (outside of 'personal experience', so that right there should be reason enough to discard belief. However i do not know enough about your beliefs, (and I hate to assume too much) to make a critical assessment.

APL is 110% correct and right on target.

An atheist believes there is no God.
An atheist believes the Bible is a work of fiction.

An atheist does believe in something - therefore, how can you say atheism is a lack of belief?

Beliefs are formed through many personal experiences - dealing with the different personalities and events we encounter every day. If you believe in your way of thinking and process your thoughts to control your actions - then in your way of thinking, you are correct. By the same measure, another's processing of their thoughts that controll their actions, makes them correct also.

Some think it is a game of sport to consistantly put others down for their way of thinking because it's not in line with their beliefs. I think thats a form of insecurity.

What famous Indian said: Judge no man till you walk in his moccasins? A very wise proverb.

NYGG: I assume nothing - I learned a long time ago..... To Assume....
makes an Ass out of you and me. Maybe another wise proverb.

A lack of something is NOT something.

Like I said about faries, elves, and such, no one would call the fact that you do NOT believe in those a belief system. This must also mean that you have a belief system in anything that can be fabricated by the human mind.

For example, a gobbledeegook. (yes, i really just made this up) Now, you dont believe in this gobbledeegook. So, does this mean you actually have a belief system about this imaginary being? No, and its absurd to think otherwise. Yours is an absolutely illogical conclusion.

Problem is far to many people base their beliefs solely on personal experiences. I dont see how people can assume that their experiences dictate truth. That seems to be a bit of an irrational view.

If people cant take criticism then they should place their belief in the public. Belief deserve no special protection from criticism, and the exposure of the contradictions within those beliefs are not insults, but actual facts.

Words work a lot like math, and sometimes A =/= B. Its not insulting to say this to someone, it just is what it is, incorrect.

This is why im not judging anyone. Only their beliefs.

Which is why i dont. However you really should make sure you are not guilty of what you criticize others of.

"I think thats a form of insecurity." - sounds like an assumption.

YEP,you added the dee in the middle, therefore a made up word of yours.

gobbledygook correct word and spelling -generally unintelligible jargon.

The only yardstick we human beings have to form opinions with, is our own personal daily experiences. Yes, we can do a lot of research to learn more, however we are really basing fundamental principles on someone else's observations. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong. Just because someone says so doesn't necessarily make it true.

I had the privilege of working with two atheists. Both were basically intelligent men. They worked very hard trying to convert all who would listen to them. The kicker was, their Father was a Babtist minister. For them to become atheists - did they perhaps see out of the people around them - practice the opposite of that being preached? Only they know for certain.

I absolutely stand in judgement of no one. I do indeed think for myself and form opinions about certain things coming down the path of life. A lot of my opinions I keep to myself. I do not make fun of anyone for the way they think. If I disagree with their way of thinking I will not try to change them. I never want to lead anyone down a path that may be wrong for them. I'm a firm believer everyone makes mistakes and if we learn from our mistakes - we are the better person for it.

By this definition, one can never not believe in war because that is a negative belief. I do claim to have a belief system about fairies, unicorns and elves (and any absurdity you wish to place here), I believe they do not exist until such time I have proof otherwise.



No matter the depth of reasoning it amounts to a belief system where there is doubt on both sides of the existence of God question.



My question to you—what evidence can you accept for any belief that does not involve personal experience?

I know ive heard the word before. Didnt know if it was real. heh

However, it isnt JUST their observations.

Take for example something like global warming. Its based not on just observations, but repeated observations, testing, re-testing, etc...

This is why im more inclined to believe them, than those who havent done such, even if they claims their observations say otherwise.


?



So you wouldnt try to change a conservatives mind about wanting to vote for Bush?

Perhaps negative was the wrong word.

That is NOT a belief, if it is, then its an irrational belief because you really cant PROVE they dont exist. Its not that I actively DONT believe in god, I just LACK belief in god. I dont assert that god DOESNT exist, I just lack a belief. I make no assertions, and because there is no assertions, there can be no belief.



No, agnosticism isnt always about doubt. Some think its unknowable. Thats not doubt.



Testable evidence.

NYGG - You are right. Never would I try to tell anyone how to vote.

Just because I personally dislike a specific candidate is not reason enough for me to try to tell anyone how to vote. Trying to tell others what to do smacks of Dictatorship. I am no dictator and I would rebel against a dictator. Right or wrong - I make my own decisions and I only have myself to blame for my mistakes.

I have in my lifetime voted for Democrats and Republicans. I have also made mistakes in my choices, which I tried to correct the next time at the polls. Politicians in general are full of hot air and they will tell you anything they think will get your vote. All we can do is vote for the one we think will do a good job for every person and our country.

Take a good look at the ones we put in, in the last election. I personally think they are letting our country down. They are not doing the job I expected of them. Most voters go to the polls and cast their vote. How many follow the progress of their choice to see how they are performing?

I make VCR tapes of their promises and then I go back to see if they meant what they said. But then I place a lot of stock in what anyone says. We are no more or no less than our word. My Dad taught me - think before you speak - and when you speak, mean what you say. Another thing he used to say - if more people would think before they speak - more people would have less to say. If more people would put action where there mouth is - bad situations would not get worse. I guess what I'm really saying - if more people would have gotten involved, when it counted, our country might not be in the shape it's in today. Just speculation on my part - can't truthfully say anything would be any different.

Dee, i think you know whaty my point it. I think its morally reprehensible that someone would never bother to challenge another's beliefs. I think its our intellectual duty to challenge that for which we dont agree. Its better for everyone when we do.

Imagine if everyone went around saying :You can believe what you want, i wont challenge you.

Progress would stagnate.

It is the most rational of approaches. As I stated before, I follow Descartes and the empiricists that followed him. I begin with doubt extended to a basic belief that something doesn't exist until proof of existence occurs.

For someone that makes no assertions, you seem awful quick to attack belief in God by others.



I spent 25 years as a test engineer. It was only by performing tests and 'experiencing' the results that I was able to come to any conclusions. Observation is a form of personal experience and the one that I have come to rely on in forming my belief system. As such I believe and actively assert that Bush is a war criminal, nothing irrational about it.

My personal opinion of Bush - He is too stupid to really be anything but a puppet on a string. I think Cheney is the master puppeteer pulling the strings, for the publics benefit. The looks from that males eyes reeks evil, sneaky connotations. His facial expressions are almost smirks daring anyone to have an inkling of whats to come or being able to do anything about it. Watch the eyes - the doorway to the soul. Mouth may say one thing but eyes say truths.

But it goes much deeper than I think the average citizen thinks. A whole picture is yet to be revealed. The whole picture will not be revealed until the master planners think they have all the people in such a bind, we won't be able to do anything about any given situation. We are almost there, but I don't think all the people will just lay down and allow it to happen. For the most part most people believe they cannot fight city hall. But even a rat - when cornered will come out fighting. When people truly realize just what is at stake and what we are losing - that will be the straw that broke the camels back.

I hope it doesn't come to violence but I can visualize Washington D C in rubbles and our elete representatives all tarred and feathered and placed in stockades.

Then I wonder where/what your evidence is.

Thats because you are taking a statement about one subject and using on a different subject.



But to PROVE bush is a war criminal, it would require more than JUST observation.'

Imagine if scientists just stopped at the 'observation' phase of the scientific method!

I stated this before; It is an intensely personal experience that I make no claim of application beyond myself. Every individual needs to cover this path for themselves and trying to convert others or belittling differing beliefs is just plain rude.


I'm very confused by this statement, just what were the two subjects? I believed were talking about the existence of God. One subject only.



Specifically, what would be this next step? Observation 1: Bush lied to start an immoral and illegal preemptive war. Observation 2: Hundreds of thousands have died as a result. Conclusion: Bush is a war criminal.

Scientists routinely stop at the observation step, when the observation is consistent with the hypothesis. Publishing results is NOT really part of the scientific method.