Why are atheists and agnostics so sad?

[Lootifer]

I'm confused,why does disbelief require faith?It's not as if atheism requires an alternative explanation..

Utterly. Please define what a god is and how we would recognize one.

I'm not avoiding being labelled an athiest because I believe god exists. Atheism is defined as having certainty that god does not exist (as opposed to agnostic - agnostics have no certainty). I am fairly certain that popular religions are full of poop, but I can't, hand-on-heart, say that it wasnt some god entity that kicked off the big bang or similar, mostly because I cant know either way.

Sorry m8 but you're definitions are just plain wrong,atheism is lack of belief in the existence of gods,not certainty which is only a subset of atheism called gnostic atheism.As an agnostic atheist I share your antipathy for such certainty,holding to disbelief but no certain knowledge.

Fair enough. I have always defined athiests as having certainty otherwise they are simply agnostic, no need to classify as athiest.

[john9blue]

Sorry m8 but you're definitions are just plain wrong,atheism is lack of belief in the existence of gods,not certainty which is only a subset of atheism called gnostic atheism.As an agnostic atheist I share your antipathy for such certainty,holding to disbelief but no certain knowledge.

Fair enough. I have always defined athiests as having certainty otherwise they are simply agnostic, not need to classify as athiest.

atheists enjoy blurring the line between atheism and agnosticism because it makes atheism look more popular and rational.

tell me chang, according to your definition of atheism, are there any agnostics that are NOT atheist?

as an actual agnostic, i can say that i'm mostly angry, not sad. but i wouldn't go so far as to make the claims presented in the OP, because those are made by gnostics.

[chang50]

Sorry m8 but you're definitions are just plain wrong,atheism is lack of belief in the existence of gods,not certainty which is only a subset of atheism called gnostic atheism.As an agnostic atheist I share your antipathy for such certainty,holding to disbelief but no certain knowledge.

Fair enough. I have always defined athiests as having certainty otherwise they are simply agnostic, not need to classify as athiest.

atheists enjoy blurring the line between atheism and agnosticism because it makes atheism look more popular and rational.

tell me chang, according to your definition of atheism, are there any agnostics that are NOT atheist?

as an actual agnostic, i can say that i'm mostly angry, not sad. but i wouldn't go so far as to make the claims presented in the OP, because those are made by gnostics.

Well,if they don't actually BELIEVE in the existence of gods....maybe we are closer than you imagine.It's ridiculous to treat the terms as mutually exclusive when they pertain to what i see as sufficienty seperate entities (knowledge and belief) although I fully expect you to argue they are more closely entwined.

[john9blue]

Well,if they don't actually BELIEVE in the existence of gods....maybe we are closer than you imagine.It's ridiculous to treat the terms as mutually exclusive when they pertain to what i see as sufficienty seperate entities (knowledge and belief) although I fully expect you to argue they are more closely entwined.

i don't think they are mutually exclusive. your definition seems too broad, though. do you have an answer to my question? do you think there are agnostics that are not atheist?

[chang50]

Well,if they don't actually BELIEVE in the existence of gods....maybe we are closer than you imagine.It's ridiculous to treat the terms as mutually exclusive when they pertain to what i see as sufficienty seperate entities (knowledge and belief) although I fully expect you to argue they are more closely entwined.

i don't think they are mutually exclusive. your definition seems too broad, though. do you have an answer to my question? do you think there are agnostics that are not atheist?

Sorry I thought I had,ok if an agnostic does not actually believe in the existence of gods he is IMHO also an atheist,agnostic atheists are quite common,on the other hand if he does he is not,although I haven't encountered many agnostic theists,in theory they could exist.

[jonesthecurl]

I guess they'd believe in god(s) but have no idea what the god(s) were like.
Which does make me wonder why they'd believe in it/them

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

I guess they'd believe in god(s) but have no idea what the god(s) were like.
Which does make me wonder why they'd believe in it/them

Nicely put.It seems much more sensible to say you disbelieve TEOG'S,due to the paucity of evidence for it,whilst not claiming certainty about matters so far beyond human ken,than to believe in TEOG's although you admit to no certain knowledge of it.The onus as ever is with the claimant.
TEOG'S..the existence of gods.

[chang50]

[Double post..sorry

[chang50]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought:
Atheists do not believe in God. Period.
Agnostics do not believe in God but acknowledge that God could exist.

My understanding is you are correct about atheism,but that agnosticism refers to the absence of knowledge as distinct from belief.So an agnostic atheist disbelieves but does not know..in my case 'cos I think it's probably unknowable.So what really matters is what you believe, and I see a paucity of evidence for your God,or any other to be accurate.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought:
Atheists do not believe in God. Period.
Agnostics do not believe in God but acknowledge that God could exist.

My understanding is you are correct about atheism,but that agnosticism refers to the absence of knowledge as distinct from belief.So an agnostic atheist disbelieves but does not know..in my case 'cos I think it's probably unknowable.So what really matters is what you believe, and I see a paucity of evidence for your God,or any other to be accurate.

But see, this makes no sense. What you're saying is, you're acknowledging that God could exist, but say there is not sufficient evidence for us to know. So basically, under your world view, either:
a) God doesn't exist
b) God exists, but he is not powerful/wise/caring enough to supply sufficient evidence for you to believe in him

Now there are many who just accept option A and move one.
But to think that option B is even a possibility is ludicrous. If God does exist, do you really think hes going to sit aimlessly in a cloud, watching us without purpose or reason? He has supplied sufficient evidence for you to believe in Him, there is a reason Christianity is called a belief. If you're sitting down waiting for God to come down to earth so you can test his DNA in a test tube it is just is not going to happen.

Unbelievably arrogant,why are homo sapiens one of countless mammalian species on a tiny speck in the middle of the vast cosmos even likely to register on any gods radar?
Your summary of my view,it is not a worldview,only an opinion on one subject,is totally inaccurate.I hold neither a or b.It's really easy;in the almost total absence of evidence to the contrary I disbelieve in the existence of gods,as I would anything with a similiar lack of evidence.I am not arrogant enough to claim to know this certainly,'cos I think such knowledge is beyond our limited partially evolved brains ability to know.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Gillipig]

Because they are right!?

[chang50]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought:
Atheists do not believe in God. Period.
Agnostics do not believe in God but acknowledge that God could exist.

My understanding is you are correct about atheism,but that agnosticism refers to the absence of knowledge as distinct from belief.So an agnostic atheist disbelieves but does not know..in my case 'cos I think it's probably unknowable.So what really matters is what you believe, and I see a paucity of evidence for your God,or any other to be accurate.

But see, this makes no sense. What you're saying is, you're acknowledging that God could exist, but say there is not sufficient evidence for us to know. So basically, under your world view, either:
a) God doesn't exist
b) God exists, but he is not powerful/wise/caring enough to supply sufficient evidence for you to believe in him

Now there are many who just accept option A and move one.
But to think that option B is even a possibility is ludicrous. If God does exist, do you really think hes going to sit aimlessly in a cloud, watching us without purpose or reason? He has supplied sufficient evidence for you to believe in Him, there is a reason Christianity is called a belief. If you're sitting down waiting for God to come down to earth so you can test his DNA in a test tube it is just is not going to happen.

Unbelievably arrogant,why are homo sapiens one of countless mammalian species on a tiny speck in the middle of the vast cosmos even likely to register on any gods radar?

Arrogant to say we are even on God's radar? Are you serious...God created us in his image and allowed his own son to be crucified for us, and you presume that we aren't "on his radar"?

I think such knowledge is beyond our limited partially evolved brains ability to know.

In the possibility that God does exist (which you have confirmed that you believe is a possibility- regardless of how minute you think the chance is), do you really think that God would create us under circumstances where we aren't capable of comprehending a universe with God?

What's so damn special about us?

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Gillipig]

Sounds like 3haha is having some doubts. You don't feel his presence anymore is that it? Don't worry man it will go over, you will find yourself more liberated when you get the yoke of religion off your back.

[chang50]

What's so special about us?

I absolutely agree.
We as humans are manipulative, violent, deceitful and treacherous, amongst other things. We know what is right and yet continually do wrong (that is common to both Christians and atheists).
That's what makes God love for us and Christ's selfless sacrifice for us the biggest marvel of all time.

Nice dodge now answer my point if you can,please?There's nothing remotely humble about thinking creation happened with us specifically in mind..

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[Gillipig]

How can I resist trolling a religious nutjob? You are so fun to mock. Know that I love you baby.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

Sounds like 3haha is having some doubts. You don't feel his presence anymore is that it? Don't worry man it will go over, you will find yourself more liberated when you get the yoke of religion off your back.

Have you not realised yet that no one is responding or really even paying much attention to your pithy attempts at trolling? If you aren't part of the discussion, perhaps add something constructive in or find something else to do.

What's so special about us?

I absolutely agree.
We as humans are manipulative, violent, deceitful and treacherous, amongst other things. We know what is right and yet continually do wrong (that is common to both Christians and atheists).
That's what makes God love for us and Christ's selfless sacrifice for us the biggest marvel of all time.

Nice dodge now answer my point if you can,please?There's nothing remotely humble about thinking creation happened with us specifically in mind..

I wasn't dodging your question- I was agreeing with you. There is nothing special about us, in our own stead.
Hence why God's fervent attention toward us and Christ's death for us is absolutely remarkable.
As for your last point I did not claim that creation happened with us specifically in mind. All I have claimed is that we are on God's radar, contrary to what you put forth.

Why (your words) gods fervent attention?In the vastness of the universe why?It's more than absolutely remarkable..why even our species on earth?Can you not even see a shred of narcissism in that?Or self-importance out of all proportion to our insignificance on the comic scale?

[macbone]

I think you're mistaking size for significance. What would a star be without the smallest atom of all, hydrogen? What would a hydrogen atom be without its lone proton?

Or take the Lord of the Rings (though in fairness, it might not count, since Tolkien's worldview influenced his writing). Frodo is one of the smallest, least powerful characters in the book, but none are more important than he, except for perhaps Sam and Gollum, who are also among the weakest and least significant. All have their role to play.

Or the Bothans - we don't even see them in Star Wars, but without them, the first Death Star wouldn't have been destroyed.

Or Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

Or Batman among the gods of the Justice League.

I agree, it would be the height of narcissism if human beings proclaimed that they were the most important person in the entire multiverse. But if there were a ruler of that multiverse, and if the ruler decided one race of insignificant apes on an insignificant world were the tools he intended to use for great good, that's not narcissistic at all. This is what Christians believe (well, maybe not the multiverse part, or that we're apes, but the gist of it is the same (= ).

And because I love this video so much, I have to respond to the original OP - no, athiests and agnostics are not all sad, just as not all Christians are bundles of sunshine. =)

[chang50]

I think you're mistaking size for significance. What would a star be without the smallest atom of all, hydrogen? What would a hydrogen atom be without its lone proton?

Or take the Lord of the Rings (though in fairness, it might not count, since Tolkien's worldview influenced his writing). Frodo is one of the smallest, least powerful characters in the book, but none are more important than he, except for perhaps Sam and Gollum, who are also among the weakest and least significant. All have their role to play.

Or the Bothans - we don't even see them in Star Wars, but without them, the first Death Star wouldn't have been destroyed.

Or Huey, Dewey, and Louie.

Or Batman among the gods of the Justice League.

I agree, it would be the height of narcissism if human beings proclaimed that they were the most important person in the entire multiverse. But if there were a ruler of that multiverse, and if the ruler decided one race of insignificant apes on an insignificant world were the tools he intended to use for great good, that's not narcissistic at all. This is what Christians believe (well, maybe not the multiverse part, or that we're apes, but the gist of it is the same (= ).

And because I love this video so much, I have to respond to the original OP - no, athiests and agnostics are not all sad, just as not all Christians are bundles of sunshine. =)

Interesting take Mac..just seems like an enormous if to me.

[macbone]

Yeah, I know, chang. If you don't accept the first proposition, none of the rest follows.