You ever feel that some TEs are atheist in disguise?

[Dannager]

i like specially when he say "You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months."

Unfortunately, you begin to realize that there are some people living in America who are actually proud of things like that.

 

[Willtor]

I think the "Atheist" and "Agnostic" labels (like any labels) are useful insofar as they go. Dannager's distinction is a really good one, but it isn't how all Atheists and Agnostics use the terms. Like any label, I think it's a starting point to see how a person relates him/herself to others, but one really has to get to know the person to get a good sense as to what he/she thinks about all these things.

But lolz, Mavros!

 

[theIdi0t]

Not really, reason why i am atheist is evidence or actually lack of it. If somebody show evidence that god exist i will believe right away.

No, you wouldn't.

If you were seeking God the first thing you would know is that the pursuit of God is not a pursuit of a being, it is a pursuit of being.

You're not seeking God, you are seeking his nonexistence.

The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He said to them in reply, "(In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red';

and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times.)

An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah."

I see TE as atheists without balls

I've never taken much offense to unbelievers who say my faith is based on thin ice, as I do from believers who make similar accusations. Because it is much easier to remove the mote from the unbelievers eyes that do not see, than the eyes of a creationist who does not see.

I was an unbeliever for quite some time, and it was in the company of unbelievers that I came to believe. I assume when you say I have no balls, that it is just a way of saying that there is some box that I have not looked in, but this only shows one's ignorance of another's belief, as well as the history of belief as well. I refuse to leave a box unturned, and I have always enjoyed discussion among unbelievers to see who is really leaving boxes unexamined.

I read the Bible as an atheist, while the unbeliever reads the Bible as if he believes. I look at religion as one who does not believe, and I have come to believe. I seek to be disturbed, so i can marvel.

Learn what it means.

 

[theIdi0t]

an agnostic possesses one, simply believing the divine to be beyond the scope of human understanding. .

I don't believe this to be a fair definition of agnosticism, particularly since the idea of the divine being beyond the scope of human understanding was common among believers of old, in nearly every religious tradition.

The agnostic possession is more inclined to say that the divine may or may not exist, rather than taking the position that the divine exists but it is just beyond our understanding.

God exists but we just cannot fathom him, is not the position of an agnostic, but of one who believes. An agnostic position is that a god even one beyond our understanding may or may not exist. This distinction is quite important.

 

[artybloke]

I fail to see what is point believe in book that have so many errors.

See, I've never really got this objection, but then I consider the Bible to be a work of divinely-inspired imagination, not a work of science or history.

I mean, I don't refuse to see the insights on human nature in a Shakespeare play because he got his facts wrong about history.

 

[InTheCloud]

True, most excatholic non believers I know are agnostics or deists. Since catholics do not believe in a literal Bible, biblical errors have little effect of their faith.
Militant atheists seems to be more like a protestant phenomena these days since they put higher faith on the Bible´s literality or lack of it.
For me natural science is really agnostic, questions about Gods or Souls are senseless since they cannot be proven or unproven with the methods of science. Going the atheist, deist or theist way implies a certain leap of faith. Most atheists I know seen to be religious in a negative sense. They are like the Lucca Brazzis of philosophy, please someone prove me. Agnostics just do not care. They see the theme of God proof of existance as nonsense since God is often defined in a way it cannot be proven or uproven.

 

[InTheCloud]

BTW some of the "creationists" on the creation vs evolution subforum seen to post in the Landover Baptist forum, i can swear I recognize their writting styles.