[catarleriarly]

British

Is talking fast and loud and barely understandable supposed to be funny?

[oraltyrap]

Another thread about religion started by an atheist is kind of repetitively redundant.

Agnostic actually, with a very considerable sympathy towards the christian religion. I would like to have faith but I don't feel it.

[mp3 free]

Ah, a lapsed Muslim claims a final say on who is or isn't a Christian. Kind of like a bizarro version of the brouhaha over Obama...

[Xzmwskxn]

Ah, a lapsed Muslim claims a final say on who is or isn't a Christian. Kind of like a bizarro version of the brouhaha over Obama...

Oh really?

From a non-denominational Protestant source:

http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/questions-of-christians/why-cant-I-live-my-life-as-an-agnostic

There are logically only two options: either we have full-bodied theism with life after death where true and ultimate justice is meted out, or we have no meaningful basis for our ethical decisions and actions. If there is no God, all of your ethical conclusions are meaningless. While Kant stopped short of embracing God in more traditional ways, contrary to the understanding of some Kant was a theist. He embraced God through reason in ethics, and insisted that we must live as though there is a God.

In other words, if there is no just God, and morality is flexible. Why be moral at all—if I can be immoral, get away with it, and better my position? Carried to its logical conclusion, immoral behavior, even at its worst, does not matter. As explained by R. C. Sproul, a moral choice without God would be an effect without a cause, which is irrational! The agnostic must ask himself, "Why should I be moral today?"

Put more simply, either God is or God is not. Even atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair recognized that there is no in between on this issue. She said that an agnostic is just an atheist without guts. As put by Phillip Johnson (in his book Reason in the Balance), it may be rational to argue about whether God is real or unreal, but it is clearly irrational to assume that a God who is real can safely be ignored. And put yet another way, "practical atheism" is really the acknowledgement of God, but living life without God.
And from Cardinal Camillo Ruini describing the Papal position:

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/125081?eng=y

The reply that Joseph Ratzinger gives to this problem brings us back toward the reality of life: in his judgment, in fact, agnosticism cannot actually be lived out in practice; it is an impracticable program for human life. The reason for this is that the question of God is not only theoretical, but is eminently practical, impacting all areas of life.

In practice, I am, in fact, forced to choose between two alternatives, already identified by Pascal: either to live as if God did not exist, or to live as if God did exist and were the most decisive reality of my existence. This is because God, if He does exist, cannot be an accessory to be removed or added without changing anything, but is instead the origin, meaning and end of the universe, and of man within it.

If I act according to the first alternative, I adopt a de facto position of atheism, and not only of agnosticism; if I decide in favor of the second alternative, I adopt the position of a believer. The question of God is, therefore, unavoidable. It is interesting to note the profound similarity that exists in this regard between the question of man and the question of God: both, because of their supreme importance, must be faced with all the rigor and commitment of our intelligence, but both are always eminently practical questions as well, inevitably connected to our concrete decisions in life.

[unfolaReemoma]

JM, do you believe (haha) that belief without evidence is rational because of the psychological benefits? That is, you're going to enjoy the game more if you believe your team will win, or you're going to be more motivated to change the healthcare system if you believe the alternative is better? Well Jon answered, but I'd like to answer you too. I believe because I believe the bible is more likely to be true than anything else. That' pretty much it. What I feel is irrelevant, it doesn't change what is true.

[Zarekylin75]

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

[Evdokia]

Look, braindead, there are only two options as Cardinal Ruini summarizing the Pope and alluding to Pascal pointed out... you believe God exists and so you worship him (whether it's the Christian God or whatever else) or you don't believe he exists and you don't worship him.

Those are the only logical positions. God exists but you don't worship him and God doesn't exist but you worship him are not viable positions.

He said he doesn't believe in a god. Believing and knowing are different things. He doesn't claim to know if there are any gods.

[arrendabomnem]

Why do you care what the vatican thinks? I thought you were a muslim apostate? And since when did the vatican have the right to tell everyone else what atheism is? The world doesn't revolve around them.

Is there a practical difference between agnostics and atheists? No. That's pretty trivial but I guess you don't have anything interesting to say.

[Shinegayboyx]

No.

[JasminBerkova]

When it comes to practical matters you either believe or you don't (as you said about the "existence of a god"). "Don't know" is a theoretical distinction which goes indeed to the question "Is there a god?"

But you can't seriously believe if you answer "I don't know if there's a god" to that. If otoh the question is "Do you believe?" then "Don't know" doesn't seem like a sufficient answer.

[euylvaygdq]

Albie. I don't know if there is a god. That does not mean that I believe in god. It does not mean that I believe there is no god.

If there is a god then he will continue to exist whether I believe in him or not. If there is no god then one would not suddenly spring into existence if I decided to believe in god.

You may argue that there are only two options in respect of the existence of a god. He either exists in some form or does not exist.

There are three options in respect of believing in god. They are
1. believe in god
2. believe there is no god
3. don't know (including not sure or don't care)

Do you live your life as though God exists?
Do you live your life as though God does not exist?

If it's the latter, you are an atheist.

[fujitsusi]

Stop being a dumbass.

You are a ****ing dumbass. You just post one line insulting comments. What do you even do? You have no response. I have quoted a Cardinal and Richard Dawkins on this very issue to support my position; if I'm a dumbass, so are they. I can also turn to Sam Harris and J. J. C. Smart if necessary. What have you done? You haven't even given any position or any evidence to counter my points.


Atheism is the absence of belief in God. Does braindead believe in God? No. He is an atheist.

[tefraxKedWere]

He's repeatedly explained to you why he says he's an agnostic. You're just too dumb to get it.

"Don't know" is an absence of belief; it is atheism. "Don't know", assuming it is not accompanied by worship of God, as is given by braindead, is practical atheism as well.

[UriDepkeeks]

Some file agnosticism generally under atheism, some don't. Personally I think people can easily say they're agnostics when it comes to the underlying filo probs like "is there a god" "can there be proof of a god" etc. where atheists and agnostics can give distinctive answers (and I disagree with your last post: atheists often do hold a conviction of the non-existence of g - and this is not neccessarily equivalent to having faith in the non-existence of him).

[JJoon077]

Disbelief is not equivalent to denial.

The prefix 'dis-' means not/lacking. Disbelief can mean anything from an active repudiation to a passive lack of belief.

You lack belief. You posses disbelief in God. You are an atheist.

[phpfoxmods]

Braindead, disbelief in an idea is not the same thing as believing that the idea is not true. Mere disbelief in the truth of an assertion is not equivalent to the belief that the assertion is false and that the opposite of the assertion is true.