Author Topic: Atheist Furs  (Read 12128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholai

  • Hero Member
  • "This will all end in tears"
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1972
    • FA
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2009, 11:35:35 pm »
*flings up paw*

Count me in!
Science geek, Richard Dawkins fan, and all that crazy stuff!

Anybody else here ever read his books? I might get The Greatest Show on Earth, looks quite intriguing...
"When you cannot joke about the darkness of life, that's when the darkness takes over."
-Amanda Palmer
-------
Cheetah: World's most adorable High-speed killer
Jaguar: World's most adorable Stalk-and-ambush killer
Hybridization: Murderously adorable. <3
---
Fun fact: I write music. If you have a second, have a listen.
http://soundcloud.com/grigori-wolf[/url

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 28546
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2009, 11:46:30 pm »
Ok, I'm curious to ask. For all those that said they are atheist, What specifically is your reason? Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof? Or something else?

Offline Serathano

  • Hero Member
  • R A W R
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 613
    • Kobaj.net
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2009, 12:01:32 am »
Two things.

To reply to Kobuk, I find it simply nonsensical. There is no evidence to back up the beliefs that most people have about religion.  And it's true about the fighting that occurs because of it. Almost an equal number of wars and battle have been fought over religious reasons as for land acquirement. Simply put, believing in a god, or any number of gods is just not for me.

Yes, I consider myself Atheist or at least not part of an organized religion. If i had to choose, and couldn't not believe in something, I'd go with the Norse gods. Those guys, and gals, were pretty awesome and didn't mind killing a few people that offended them. At least they were upfront about it. I also honestly think that too much emphasis is placed on religion as a whole. It's kind of a annoying to me that the word 'god' is still a part of my language. I find it hard to not say it when talking. It is also a part of my frequently used reservoir of curses. Shame that. Anyway, [/rant].
My Furry Code: FFTw3a A C- D+ H+ M- P- R++ T+++ W Z- Sm++ RLCT* a- cn++++ d+ e- f h* iwf++ j+ p++ sm--

Signature Picture by: Neifon Baako

Offline DeltaFur

  • Sr. Member
  • Philosopher/Scientist in the making
  • ****
  • Male
  • Posts: 402
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2009, 12:04:41 am »
Hey, what is R. Dawkins opinion of Agnosticism? I would love to know.

Also, I find that the true scientist should keep his mind open and should not take any facts for granted. So, since we cannot prove whether God(s) exist(s) or do(n't) exist, I refuse to go either way.

~Delta~


Pet's name: Pepper

My Furry Code: (PM me if I got it wrong somehow) FFD2amw A>+ C-> H++ M+ R+ T++ W>+ Z?> Sm RLU>MH a19 cl++ d+ e->++++ f+ h*>++ i+ j+ p*> sm>m+

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2009, 12:12:20 am »
Logic, rationality, math, science, and valid reasoning led me to where I am, and it's close enough to be considered as a responce to your question
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Arbutus

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Rabbit
  • Also known as Sir Bunny-Face
  • *****
  • Posts: 8322
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2009, 12:33:37 am »
Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof?

Both. I'm an atheist because the alternative - believing in a god - just seems... irrational and mystifying to me. My parents didn't raise me with any religion, so I never had anyone putting ideas into my head about mystical all-powerful beings and such. And I highly doubt that I'll ever find a reason to start believing in one.

Of course, in the absence of definitive proof, it does take a bit of faith to believe that there aren't any gods out there.  I don't dispute this. However, I submit that it requires a MUCH smaller leap of faith not to believe in a god than to actually believe in one.

I guess I could have summed this post up just by saying the words "Occam's Razor."

Offline Nicholai

  • Hero Member
  • "This will all end in tears"
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1972
    • FA
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2009, 12:34:14 am »
My atheism is born of my own mode of thought. I am a very scientific and mathematical person. (My best subjects in high school; math and science!)  
Religion does not pan out on a scientific level, therefore it is something I treat with an extreme amount of incredulity.
I prefer to see the world through a lens of science and reason, as it is far more mentally stimulating, then through the lens of religious teachings.
"When you cannot joke about the darkness of life, that's when the darkness takes over."
-Amanda Palmer
-------
Cheetah: World's most adorable High-speed killer
Jaguar: World's most adorable Stalk-and-ambush killer
Hybridization: Murderously adorable. <3
---
Fun fact: I write music. If you have a second, have a listen.
http://soundcloud.com/grigori-wolf[/url

Offline Onion

  • Hero Member
  • Kupo!
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2009, 01:50:57 am »
Ok, I'm curious to ask. For all those that said they are atheist, What specifically is your reason? Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof? Or something else?

 :) Well to answer the question. Its not a lack there of, but more of an over whelming amount of evindince. As I said before, I arrived to my conclusion through scientific reasoning.

You see its simple, I use to study allot of Mythology. And my other favorite freelance studies were Existencialism, Anthropology, And basic Medical Sciences. Combining them with basic sciences and  my understanding of mythology made things very clear.

Using the basic rules of Scientific deduction, The formulation I used brought me to my conclusion. Ecological Evolution, Instermental Desires, And Religious Mythological construction helped to formulate the bases of my conclusion very well.

You see, Through what I do know. The origins of The universe is not concluded and may never be. So I cannot conclude a judgement of any kind to the origins of existince.

Although, we have observed many scientific findings. From what we do know of our universe. It is far more vast then our equipment has been able to track. And the propperties spaces and planets can have many different properties. So it is easy to see how one can cestain life and form a complex ecosystem. seeing that there have been other planetes with simalure properties in near by galaxies.

From our scientific findings. The world was formed billions of years ago. And after a great deal of time, the world went through many stages of evolution. Some where during this course basic life was formed. And after much time, basic micro mutations and adaption, helped to create Macor mutations (Evolution). Down the stage, man began to acimulate more sophisticated thought patterns and conclusion. during the line of our existince what we have become today.

Man is a social beast. he forms his ego through the the enteractions, experinces, and conversiones we share with one another. And because we have a need to prove our existince, We constantly question our reality and seek the gratifacation from one another. Down the line of mentalage we loose our parental figure. And desire the Comfort/Security of another (Husband, Wife, Gods). At the core of mans being is a fundamental encompletioncy. This void creates fear. All our efforts and achievements have been made in the hope of filling this void, and providing proof we exist.

Since man first began to think on a higher scale, he has observed and questioned his world. During his younger days, Man was not as sophisticated. His understanding of the world was very limited. So when he found something he could not explain, we marked it as an act of a God/Monster/Beast/Creature/Ect. For example, Men could not understand Lightening. So he explained it as an act of an angery God "Zues". And through out man existince there have been many different religions. Over time some religions gained popularity, while others died off. "Christianity" flurished while "Noris" died.

Combinding, The answers become simple. Man fears what he does not know or understand. We fear death because he does not know what lies behound. We desire an Answer to our origins. We need acceptince and proof of our existince. And most of all we need answers. The God figure in said. was formulated by early man to explain these things and others they could'nt riddely explain with their limited kowledge. The God figure became populare because it provided Answers, Comfort, Hope, Security, and gave Meaning to our existince here.

Provided the popularity, most religions use the opposite affect to not only draw in people, but lock them in with fear. Such as "Damnation", Most people would like to think there is an after life. And that it's blissful, Rather then agoniseing and painful. So you are givin a loaded choice with most religions. "Worship said God and be faithful, to wich you will be rewarded! Or be damned" sounds like a winning question to me. Givin this is really much of a choice at all.  :D

And seeing as all proof to any gods existince is man made. Or suggestable by idealistic associations. I see no proof of a higher being. I do however, see allot of sciences and educational findings of evolution and coincadince.

Regaurdless of being, conciousness is absalute. even if there was a god. he is nothing more then another conciousness, that of whom is only sepperated in value by the concept of power, is nothing more then another body of conciousness. such as myself who is valued lessed due to lack of power or idealistic of. To force rule due to having power, would be nothing more then tyrany. The concept of ownership is entrinsic value and holds no physical bases on reality. As such, Hell is associted with bad feelings and heaven with good. But take away the fire and torture, and it is just a piece of land. same as heaven without the Bliss and happiness. they hold no real value, other then conceptual desires.

Again these are my views, I am not writing this in affence of anyone.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 02:08:23 am by Onion Knight »

Offline Alexandre

  • Hero Member
  • Back to waggles
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 4242
    • Alexandre's Fur Affinity Account!
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2009, 02:20:23 am »
Ok, I'm curious to ask. For all those that said they are atheist, What specifically is your reason? Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof? Or something else?
Ooh, a daring question!  I love these.  :)

While I'm agnostic and not atheist, I'm trying to see things the way an atheist would look at the world.  People within religion seem to think of atheism as something very miserable and bleak, but I can see a lot of beauty in it, as well.  I have a friend who tells me his belief in God is what keeps him living; to see atheists not only live life but be good people baffles him.

To me, if people are doing good things and trying to make the world around them better, they are doing what's right whether they believe in a God or not.  I'll sort out my own religious beliefs in time, but I don't think a belief in God necessarily makes a person good; it can help or hurt, depending on the person.
Allasso, Volume 2: Saudade is now out!  Feel free to check it out ^_^

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2009, 07:27:26 am »
Anybody else here ever read his books? I might get The Greatest Show on Earth, looks quite intriguing...

I've read The Greatest Show on Earth, it's very good. Go buy it.

Ok, I'm curious to ask. For all those that said they are atheist, What specifically is your reason? Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof? Or something else?

Simple. There's no evidence that God exists.
And as to the claim that there's no evidence that God does not exist...

Hey, what is R. Dawkins opinion of Agnosticism? I would love to know.

Also, I find that the true scientist should keep his mind open and should not take any facts for granted. So, since we cannot prove whether God(s) exist(s) or do(n't) exist, I refuse to go either way.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion has this to say:

Quote from: Dawkins
It is a common error, which we shall meet again, to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and his non-existence are equiprobable. Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot:
Quote from: Russell
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attention of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots; but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot. Yet strictly speaking we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotism. ... Russel's point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers. Mine is the related point that the odds in favour of the teapot (spaghetti monster / Emserelda and Keith / unicorn etc.) are not equal to the odds against.

So if you claim to be agnostic because there's no proof of God's nonexistence then you should also be agnostic about everything from orbiting teapots to the flying spaghetti monster to the tooth fairy. Which, if I may say so, is a pretty bizarre belief system.

Offline KuroOokamiTsume

  • Skunk + Fox = SOX!
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 1053
    • Kuro's Artsy Fartsy Page!
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2009, 01:08:57 pm »
Ok, I'm curious to ask. For all those that said they are atheist, What specifically is your reason? Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof? Or something else?
To me, if people are doing good things and trying to make the world around them better, they are doing what's right whether they believe in a God or not.  I'll sort out my own religious beliefs in time, but I don't think a belief in God necessarily makes a person good; it can help or hurt, depending on the person.

THIS. THIS THIS THIS A THOUSAND TIMES OVER.

I have been trying to tell my parents that for so many years, even when I wasn't Christian. I talked to my dad about how, even though my faith may not be the same, I'm not different than him, (On a scale of good and bad, I mean).

Of course, they wouldn't hear it. *shakes head some*

Grouping people's attitudes and actions simply by religion is like grouping by race. You have your good people and your not so good people, and then the small percentage that have that "I'm better than any other person in my group." mentality.

If there is possibly a label a person can put on themselves, you can bet their will be personality variations from person to person - it's what makes us unique. ^^


EDIT: Fixed some grammar issues. ^^;
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 01:11:31 pm by KuroOokamiTsume »
Like my avatar? I take commissions: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/kuroookamitsume
Into each life, some rain must fall, to water the gardens of our souls." - Me.

Offline Kay Alett

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Gryphon
  • part-time hobbyist
  • *****
  • Female
  • Posts: 5149
    • Only The Strong: Wanderers
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2009, 01:53:18 pm »
I have a question that was somewhat mentioned earlier in a way, to the atheists who say they arrived at atheism bue to science.

You say you have found no scientific evidence to support god's existence and while I cannot deny that there is no physical evidence that proves his/her/its existence, there is no evidence to say god does not exist.

I'm open to the idea that god may very well just be the invention of a lonely species crying out for attention and while the belief in god has caused  lot of hardship, turmoil, fighting and death over our existence can you say without doubt that fundamental proof for the absense of god would really do the world a favor?
Think of the people who, like Alex's friend, say that their faith in god is what keeps them living from day to day.
Can you imagine the chaos it might bring to have indesputable evidence that god doesn't exist?

I'm not asking you to change your beliefs or even open up to the idea that god can exist, but I do ask this: "Can you accept the idea that humanity needs god to exist because many cannot live without the idea of god?"

As I said before, I believe god does exist but that gods' influence in our lives isn't anywhere near what many think and that if anything god was simply our orginator. You could easily argue that my universal views do not even require god to exist, so why do I still believe? Mostly because I have found no scientific evidence to say god does exist.

A rediculous answer I know, but I wish to make that leap of faith. :)
Semi-Retired from Furry.
 - - - -
Come bitter Rain,
And wash from my Heart
That saddest of all Words: Home

Offline DeltaFur

  • Sr. Member
  • Philosopher/Scientist in the making
  • ****
  • Male
  • Posts: 402
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2009, 05:23:37 pm »
As I said before, I believe god does exist but that gods' influence in our lives isn't anywhere near what many think and that if anything god was simply our orginator. You could easily argue that my universal views do not even require god to exist, so why do I still believe? Mostly because I have found no scientific evidence to say god does exist.

A rediculous answer I know, but I wish to make that leap of faith. :)
That's not ridiculous. That's called Deism. The founding fathers were deist, I think. Or at the very least, their most enduring work was.

Anybody else here ever read his books? I might get The Greatest Show on Earth, looks quite intriguing...

I've read The Greatest Show on Earth, it's very good. Go buy it.

Ok, I'm curious to ask. For all those that said they are atheist, What specifically is your reason? Is it because you don't believe in a higher power? Or is it because of a lack of scientific proof? Or something else?

Simple. There's no evidence that God exists.
And as to the claim that there's no evidence that God does not exist...

Hey, what is R. Dawkins opinion of Agnosticism? I would love to know.

Also, I find that the true scientist should keep his mind open and should not take any facts for granted. So, since we cannot prove whether God(s) exist(s) or do(n't) exist, I refuse to go either way.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion has this to say:

Quote from: Dawkins
It is a common error, which we shall meet again, to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and his non-existence are equiprobable. Another way to express that error is in terms of the burden of proof, and in this form it is pleasingly demonstrated by Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot:
Quote from: Russell
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attention of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
We would not waste time saying so because nobody, so far as I know, worships teapots; but, if pressed, we would not hesitate to declare our strong belief that there is positively no orbiting teapot. Yet strictly speaking we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice, we move away from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotism. ... Russel's point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not the non-believers. Mine is the related point that the odds in favour of the teapot (spaghetti monster / Emserelda and Keith / unicorn etc.) are not equal to the odds against.

So if you claim to be agnostic because there's no proof of God's nonexistence then you should also be agnostic about everything from orbiting teapots to the flying spaghetti monster to the tooth fairy. Which, if I may say so, is a pretty bizarre belief system.


Then I guess I have a very bizarre belief system.
~Delta~


Pet's name: Pepper

My Furry Code: (PM me if I got it wrong somehow) FFD2amw A>+ C-> H++ M+ R+ T++ W>+ Z?> Sm RLU>MH a19 cl++ d+ e->++++ f+ h*>++ i+ j+ p*> sm>m+

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4007
    • Furaffinity
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2009, 08:18:03 pm »
Theism: belief in a god or gods.
Atheism: lack of that belief.

It is a common misconception that atheism is a belief that there is no god. This is incorrect. It's a LACK of a belief that there is a god of gods; even if your answer is "I don't know", that's still disbelief. That's still atheism. One does not need to accept the counter claim in order to disbelieve a claim.

Similarly, It is a common misconception that agnosticism is some kind of middle ground. It's not. Agnosticism comes from the root word "gnosis" meaning knowledge. Thus:

Gnostic: You know (or think you know) that there is a god or gods
Agnostic: You don't know whether there is a god or gods.

Thus Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.  There is also a special form of Agnosticism which is the belief that whether a god exists or not is unknowable. I honestly find this to be a ridiculous position because it itself is making a claim that is unjustified. Just because we don't know something at present does not mean it is unknowable.  However, most people that use the term Agnostic, use it to avoid the stigma that often comes with the label Atheist, even though by definition they are atheists.

-----
As for me personally, I was raised in a Christian household with Christian beliefs. But I have came to see that there is no truth in it. There is no evidence to support such notions and further, one must accept irrational propositions in order to accept it.  As for why I'm an atheist, it's because I'd prefer to have my beliefs match reality as much as possible. I care about what is true.

Also, I have learned a bit about the origins of Christianity and the Bible, and it has become quite clear to me that these are constructed works. For example, the old testament uses several words for god that originated from older beliefs. Different gods that were fused together to form the one God many people belief in today.  Plus, learning about how memes work it becomes quite clear how Christianity has changed over time as our scientific body of knowledge grows. It has became far more defensive. It has morphed to the point that it is untestable, because every time they make a testable claim, science shows it to be wrong. Prayer, for example, has many times been shown to have no greater rate of success than simple chance.

I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on Christianity here, it's just what I was raised with, and what is most prevalent here in the US. To my knowledge, there is not one religion that has any actual evidence to support it. In fact there is no evidence at all for anything supernatural. And if there were, it would almost certainly become well known quite quickly.

Having said all this, I do respect the right of others to believe what they want. I just wish people would learn to be more rational.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 08:21:24 pm by Vararam »

Offline DeltaFur

  • Sr. Member
  • Philosopher/Scientist in the making
  • ****
  • Male
  • Posts: 402
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2009, 11:06:08 pm »
That was actually incorrect. http://m-w.com/dictionary/Atheism http://m-w.com/dictionary/agnosticism There you go. Disbelief (atheism) and unwillingness to pass judgment on the existence of God (agnosticism). Please listen to the October 22, 2008 edition of 2Sense for a better version of what I just said.
~Delta~


Pet's name: Pepper

My Furry Code: (PM me if I got it wrong somehow) FFD2amw A>+ C-> H++ M+ R+ T++ W>+ Z?> Sm RLU>MH a19 cl++ d+ e->++++ f+ h*>++ i+ j+ p*> sm>m+

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4007
    • Furaffinity
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2009, 01:50:57 am »
That was actually incorrect. http://m-w.com/dictionary/Atheism http://m-w.com/dictionary/agnosticism There you go. Disbelief (atheism) and unwillingness to pass judgment on the existence of God (agnosticism). Please listen to the October 22, 2008 edition of 2Sense for a better version of what I just said.
Wow, I'm surprised that Merriam-Webster's would fail to have the definition of atheism that I spoke of, especially since it's the literal meaning of the word.  I understand why they'd have the other definition that's there since it is widely used. But it's almost always theists that push that definition, not atheists.  Check out the wikipedia article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
As I said, it is a common misconception. A VERY common misconception. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

"Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

Plus, if you do a bit of internet searching you'll find many other examples of exactly the definition I was talking about. It goes to the root of the words: Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix "a-" means "not" or "without". Thus an atheist is someone who is not a theist. They are "without the belief in a god or gods".  This does not necessarily mean that they believe positively that there is no god, but only that they reject the claim that a god or gods exist. Rejecting a claim does not mean that you accept the opposite claim.  Many atheists (including myself) do accept the opposite claim, but that's not required to be an atheist. The only thing required to be an atheist is the lack of a belief in any god or gods. 

As for agnostic, I again refer to Wikipedia:
"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable."

As I said, agnosticism is dealing with knowledge, not belief. Thus agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Despite the common usage, the word "agnostic" is not actually tied to a god or gods. It can be used about any claim. If someone is agnostic, it means they are unwilling to commit to a claim. So while, yes, someone can use the term "agnostic" if they are unsure whether a god exists or not, it does not mean that this someone is not an atheist.  In fact, a person can be either an atheist or a theist and still be agnostic about it. For example: "I don't know that God exist, but I believe that he does" or "I don't know that God doesn't exist, but I do not believe that he does".

Knowledge is a subset of belief. That is, to know something, you must also believe it, but you can believe something without knowing it. Knowledge can be thought of as a belief in which you have great certainty. (note: this does not necessarily mean it's true, only that the person is strongly convinced that it is.)

Imagine you have a scale of certainty of belief:
[A-|-------|-------|-B]
A = certain of the existence of god
B = certain of the non-existence of god

"Knowledge" would be at the far ends of the scale on both sides. ("Absolute knowledge" would be the very tips, but the concept of absolute knowledge is completely useless since we can never have absolute certainty of anything. I'm talking about a practical use of the term "knowledge" here.)

To be a theist, one must be on the left side of the scale.
To be an atheist, one must not be on the left side. (thus being directly in the middle, you'd be an atheist)
To be agnostic, one can be anywhere except the far left or far right of the scale.

There are some who use the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" to differentiate between atheists that claim there is no god from those that do not make this counter claim.  I don't particularly care for that terminology myself since "weak atheism" sounds derogatory.

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2009, 08:04:27 am »
That was actually incorrect. http://m-w.com/dictionary/Atheism http://m-w.com/dictionary/agnosticism There you go. Disbelief (atheism) and unwillingness to pass judgment on the existence of God (agnosticism). Please listen to the October 22, 2008 edition of 2Sense for a better version of what I just said.
Wow, I'm surprised that Merriam-Webster's would fail to have the definition of atheism that I spoke of, especially since it's the literal meaning of the word.
As am I. The first definition of atheism listed in the Collins English Dictionary is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God or that the assertion of his existence is meaningless." If you say "God almost certainly does not exist" you are a gnostic atheist. If you say "maybe God exists and maybe He doesn't, but if He doesn't, so what?" then you are an agnostic atheist. Atheism =/= Disbelief.

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4007
    • Furaffinity
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2009, 02:05:03 pm »
Atheism =/= Disbelief.
Which pretty much sums up all the stuff I said earlier.

I should point out that when I used the term "gnostic" above, this should not be confused with the religious belief of "Gnosticism". I was using the term for it's root meaning. Specifically, it's root meaning as it applies to the existence of a god or gods.  (like agnostic, there is nothing in the literal meaning of the word that ties it to a god or gods.)

So what's the point of stressing this definition stuff?  To promote better understanding. For example:

You say you have found no scientific evidence to support god's existence and while I cannot deny that there is no physical evidence that proves his/her/its existence, there is no evidence to say god does not exist.
The default position for ANY claim is to reject it until there is sufficient evidence. People use this "well you can't prove he doesn't exist" kind of argument a lot. Which is really dodging the fact that they have not met the burden of proof.

To illustrate: There are invisible creatures everywhere that like to destroy things, but they are a bit mindless. They attempt to destroy things by pulling them into the core of the Earth. This is why we have gravity. Likewise, there are larger creatures that are trying to pull the entire Earth into the Sun.  

If you can't prove this isn't true, you should believe it, right?
NO. The default position is to reject the claim until there is sufficient evidence.

-----
I'm not asking you to change your beliefs or even open up to the idea that god can exist, but I do ask this: "Can you accept the idea that humanity needs god to exist because many cannot live without the idea of god?"
First, although I can't speak for all atheists, I am completely open to the idea that a god could exist should sufficient evidence be produced to support it.  As for your question, no, I cannot accept that.  Why? Because it doesn't fit the facts.  There are people all over the world with vastly different beliefs. Some cultures have a god or gods, while others do not. There is nothing to suggest that humanity cannot exist without the idea of god.  The "idea of god" only exists because it was passed on from previous generations.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 02:07:07 pm by Vararam »

Offline DeltaFur

  • Sr. Member
  • Philosopher/Scientist in the making
  • ****
  • Male
  • Posts: 402
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2009, 03:23:18 pm »
Look, Van, I am not saying that we should believe that which we cannot disprove. I am just saying we should disbelieve that which we cannot prove nor disprove. And I think I trust Merriam Webster more than I trust Wiki. Although they should both be taken with a grain of salt...
~Delta~


Pet's name: Pepper

My Furry Code: (PM me if I got it wrong somehow) FFD2amw A>+ C-> H++ M+ R+ T++ W>+ Z?> Sm RLU>MH a19 cl++ d+ e->++++ f+ h*>++ i+ j+ p*> sm>m+

Offline Sskessa

  • Hero Member
  • magically delicious
  • *****
  • Posts: 2520
    • 14 Nights -- A webcomic
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2009, 05:24:29 pm »
Another Atheist here. In response to Kobuk's question...Atheism seems like the default position, don't you think?

Quote
People within religion seem to think of atheism as something very miserable and bleak, but I can see a lot of beauty in it, as well.

I'm glad you think so, Alex. It's not bleak and miserable, not for me at least. When I think about the fact that out of all the planets in the universe, life just randomly happened here on Earth...I find that pretty humbling. It didn't have to happen at all, but it did. There's no one up in the sky watching out for us, so we have to take care of each other. Thinking about that makes me feel more connected to the world. I imagine religion is a different path to the same conclusion.
Someone Else's Problem: My adventures in China



I have never had a deep interest in revenge. Revenge is the concern of those who are at some point or other beaten.
-- The Tale of the Body Thief

Offline Arbutus

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Rabbit
  • Also known as Sir Bunny-Face
  • *****
  • Posts: 8322
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2009, 10:44:03 pm »
When I think about the fact that out of all the planets in the universe, life just randomly happened here on Earth...I find that pretty humbling. It didn't have to happen at all, but it did. There's no one up in the sky watching out for us, so we have to take care of each other. Thinking about that makes me feel more connected to the world. I imagine religion is a different path to the same conclusion.
I feel the same way, but I start from a different point: We are alone. We arose spontaneously, evolved into our current forms, and will eventually die out. And there's nobody watching over all the stuff that happens in the middle. But, that's wonderful! That means it's all up to us. We shape our world and our lives, with our imagination serving as the only limit. We find our own meaning. We create our own meaning. Every one of us has limitless potential to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. That, to me, is inspirational and beautiful.


People within religion seem to think of atheism as something very miserable and bleak, but I can see a lot of beauty in it, as well.  I have a friend who tells me his belief in God is what keeps him living; to see atheists not only live life but be good people baffles him.
I've heard that view expressed before. Personally, I'll flip it around: I couldn't imagine living a life so empty, so barren, that a belief in a super-being whose existence is unproven is the only thing that holds it together. And it baffles me that that sort of life is held up by so many people as the only way to be a good person.


Atheism seems like the default position, don't you think?
Huh. I never thought of it that way before. Interesting. Of course, when you think of it like that, it makes it even more bizarre that atheists, not theists, are the ones who are routinely called upon to defend their beliefs.

Offline DeltaFur

  • Sr. Member
  • Philosopher/Scientist in the making
  • ****
  • Male
  • Posts: 402
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2009, 11:22:39 am »
When I think about the fact that out of all the planets in the universe, life just randomly happened here on Earth...I find that pretty humbling. It didn't have to happen at all, but it did. There's no one up in the sky watching out for us, so we have to take care of each other. Thinking about that makes me feel more connected to the world. I imagine religion is a different path to the same conclusion.
I feel the same way, but I start from a different point: We are alone. We arose spontaneously, evolved into our current forms, and will eventually die out. And there's nobody watching over all the stuff that happens in the middle. But, that's wonderful! That means it's all up to us. We shape our world and our lives, with our imagination serving as the only limit. We find our own meaning. We create our own meaning. Every one of us has limitless potential to live a fulfilling and meaningful life. That, to me, is inspirational and beautiful.



That is a really mature way of looking at things, Arbutus. All the responsibility rests on our shoulders. Let's hope we don't nuke ourselves more than we have already.
~Delta~


Pet's name: Pepper

My Furry Code: (PM me if I got it wrong somehow) FFD2amw A>+ C-> H++ M+ R+ T++ W>+ Z?> Sm RLU>MH a19 cl++ d+ e->++++ f+ h*>++ i+ j+ p*> sm>m+

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4007
    • Furaffinity
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2009, 12:48:56 pm »
Look, Van, I am not saying that we should believe that which we cannot disprove. I am just saying we should disbelieve that which we cannot prove nor disprove. And I think I trust Merriam Webster more than I trust Wiki. Although they should both be taken with a grain of salt...
Van? There is no N in my name. You can call me Varr or Var. Anyways....

You say that we should disbelieve that which we cannot prove nor disprove. This could be taken one of two ways:
1) "disbelieve" meaning "believe as untrue". Thus you'd be saying that if we can't prove or disprove the existence of God than we should believe that he does not exist.
2) "disbelieve" meaning "not believe". Thus you'd be saying we should reject the claim, but not necessarily accept the opposite claim.

Which did you mean?  Given that you call yourself an agnostic, I'm pretty sure you mean #2, but if you accept that broader definition of "disbelief" than the first definition of atheism listed by M-W matches the definition I gave exactly. But I don't care for that terminology because many people would take "disbelief" to mean "believe as untrue".

...it makes it even more bizarre that atheists, not theists, are the ones who are routinely called upon to defend their beliefs.
And this is exactly why I'm making such a big deal about the definition. Because the default position is to reject the claim until there is sufficient evidence, and theist will try to use this "but you can't prove he does not exist" argument even though they have never met their burden of proof.

-----
When I was a Christian, I did my best to let God guide me. But my life never really got anywhere until I decided to do things for myself. And unlike some people who would thank God when they make it though college, I could see that no, it was all me. I did it. God had nothing to do with it. Further, not only did I realize that I did it myself, that there was no divine power guiding me, but that others would insert this "divine guidance" when there is no evidence for it. No reason to insert that except to prop up their faith.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 01:01:56 pm by Vararam »

Offline DeltaFur

  • Sr. Member
  • Philosopher/Scientist in the making
  • ****
  • Male
  • Posts: 402
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2009, 01:24:45 pm »
I am sorry Var, (I was rather tired at the time, blame my weird sleep schedule) I messed up. What I meant to say was if we cannot disprove or prove something (and there is no way of accumulating any evidence for either side, much like this), we should not make a judgment on it. We should not disbelieve or believe it either way. I think this should clear up my stance on this issue.
~Delta~


Pet's name: Pepper

My Furry Code: (PM me if I got it wrong somehow) FFD2amw A>+ C-> H++ M+ R+ T++ W>+ Z?> Sm RLU>MH a19 cl++ d+ e->++++ f+ h*>++ i+ j+ p*> sm>m+

Offline Corbenik

  • Hero Member
  • Species: White wolf
  • I has ADOS. Attention Deficit-Oo Shiny!
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 643
Re: Atheist Furs
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2009, 01:35:25 pm »
Heaven...hell...Both I have some opinions on.  But as for a God.  I neither believe or disbelieve.  I am athiest, but am accepting of others' religions.