That's not something I know nothing of, that's a rational conclusion based on completely solid evidence. You can't prove God exists and you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore atheism and theism are irrational. I'd be wrong if you could provide some proof that God doesn't exist, then atheism would be rational. But you can't, so it isn't.

And that's where you got me wrong. For I'm not your definition of an atheist, when I'm my own definition of an atheist. For I just simply figuring out how everything works, by me not applying the theists' explanation of everything. Therefore it's not my fault for not listening to what both the agnostics and the theists are rationalizing, 'cause that's just not why I'm here for. In other words, I just have no use of God for what I do.

I agree, but would also like to make certain that these two camps aren’t mistaken for “right,” and “wrong.” Like I said in my previous post, there’s no real reason to say that a rational conclusion is “better,” than a intuitive conclusion.





As far as the rest of what you’ve been arguing about, I agree. In terms of rationality, I think that agnosticism should be our default position until we find evidence to pull us in one direction or the other. Until evidence is conclusive I don’t think we should take a strong stance. We can say, “this inconclusive evidence suggests A so I lean towards A as opposed to B,” but not, “well this inconclusive evidences seems to suggest B so I conclude that B is true and A is false.”

I also think that agnostics are the most intellectually honest individuals and the most open minded individuals when it comes to this issue. Atheists and theists make it a battle of who’s right instead of what’s true, but agnostics are neither right nor wrong. While an atheist tries to find evidence to establish his position, a theist tries to find evidence to establish his position, an agnostic simply tries to find which position to take and refrains from either until the issue is resolved.

The only one who knows anything about god is the one who knows that he doesn’t know anything about this issue.

My definition of atheism is what the definition of atheism is, which is the belief that no deities exist. If that's not a theory you accept, then you're not an atheist.

So you just disagree with theism and it's explanation of the universe, that's fine, but that doesn't make someone an atheist. I disagree with theism too.

Well I'm just saying that according to the theists, what I'm doing as an atheist is wrong because I don't listen to their explanations.

But when what I do is just to make sense out of everything, despise all of the contradictions of my explanations as compared to the ones taught by the theists. What's more are that my findings and discoveries and explanations work in real life, as real technologies that are benefiting mankind as well as building civilzation, while theists OTOH just can't do what I do due to who they are. Who's being right? But the theists are making an atheist's life a rather difficult one, simply by the fact that they're the supermajority.

Atheists think theists are wrong and theists think atheists are wrong. The difference between a free or open minded individual and a puppet is that the open minded individual has no qualms about listening to explanations. They may not be swayed into a new position by each explanation, but so many theists and atheists just completely close their mind to the opposite side’s point of view and refuse to consider it. They’re so caught up with right and wrong that they’ve completely lost sight of true and untrue. Like Richard Dawkins. The man has let his hatred of religion take him so far that even prominent atheists have admitted he sacrifices academic integrity and honesty for the sake of activism.



I’m not exactly sure what you said…are you saying that you’re right because technology works? I’m sorry, but I don’t see how that’s in anyway relevant.



Forgive us if our existence is too off putting for you. Should we start a holocaust against theists? Or perhaps you would have us all abandon our way of life and conform to yours, since it’s clearly superior? This is such a primitive, militaristic attitude. You make it into a war between “us,” and “them,” where everyone either has to join you or be eradicated.

This is what I despise about organized religion and orthodox Christianity. This is why there’s been so much misuse of jihad in the Islamic empire, and this is why the Jacobins started butchering women, burning children, drowning pregnant mothers, and massacring nuns and preachers during the French Revolution. This, “there’s too many of them, they make our life hard simply by their numbers…” is the same reasoning that culminated in European anti-Semitism and anti-Ziganism. This is the same reasoning that resulted in the Tulsa race riots, the inquisition, the massacre of the 95% of the Aztec Empire’s population.

And Yei doesn't have his own definition of Atheist. He's just using the word the way it's meant to be used:

Atheist: unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Then what's the word for someone who just doesn't believe. Because now I got no word to refer myself.

And I didn't just not listen to the theists, when I assimilated their explanation and found out for myself that it just doesn't work. Not unless that I pretend to ignore observational facts, which BTW is the theory of sociology is based on.

Finally I'm just saying that if the religious world as a whole simply has no use for technologies and civilization, because they have their God/gods to be in charge of everything. Then just don't use it. And as a supermajority they don't need the physical minority, which BTW are the scientists.

'So your saying being agnostic is rational.. What is rational about a person who said I know their is no evidence for Santa Claus, but their is not evidence against Santa as well so he could be their. What is rational about saying I know their is no evidence for Godzilla but their is no evidence that Godzilla is not real as well. What is rational about saying I know their is no chance in hell their be a apple pie hovering around the moon but their is no evidence their is no apple up there. What is rational about saying I know that the doctor saved his life, but their is no evidence that Thor did not save him acting as a doctor. Neanderthal once lived on earth, well what you know I can believe that because their is evidence for it..!!!!! Pixies taking children teeth wile they sleep... No evidence that their is not pixies stealing teeth, so you must be agnostic about that as well right.. (that is so Rational!!! )

Doesn’t believe in what exactly? I don’t know why you are so eager to label yourself. Labels are tools that we use to avoid thinking. We employ them to stereotype ourselves so that we can avoid thinking –for- ourselves by fitting neatly into a mold. We employ them to stereotype others so we can generalize them and often demonize them.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a word for every different combination of perspectives. If I were you, I would just continue calling myself an atheist and then elaborate. I, for example, identify myself as a Christian. When it becomes necessary I explain that I am a “Mystical, spiritualist Christian with some deistic tendencies.” There’s no word for mystics with a touch of deism in their approach to theology. Indeed, deists and mystics tend to have profoundly contradictory perspective.



I’m actually taking a sociology class this semester and I hate it. Sociology uses inductive “logic,” which is false logic. You basically make sweeping conclusions about the general based on examples of the specific. Like, “All the black people I have seen are poor; therefore, all black people are poor.” It’s just forming stereotypes. With this line of “logic,” (inductive,) you can look at a single thread in a tapestry and say, “this thread is white; therefore, the tapestry is white.” Then if you take a step back you realize that your thread is a part of the white of a man’s eye, the man himself is black, and the background is multicolored.



What are you talking about? The forefront of technology has been traditionally sponsored by religion especially in the Middle Eastern world. It was the Muslim scholars, for example, that produced the advanced tools and methods of navigation that allowed European explorers to reach China and the New World by sea. The field of modern medicine began with the church, and today statistics show that medical scientists are peculiar in that most of them have religious beliefs while scientists in fields such as physics are mostly agnostic.

Which brings up the next point, you can’t say that theists are a supermajority and scientists are a minority. Those two groups overlap. In Saudi Arabia the vast majority of scientists are Muslims. In Israel they’re mostly Jewish. In America most statistics show that most express “personal doubts in god,” but still have beliefs that can be classified as theistic. (They may believe in a higher power or spirituality.)

It’s not “scientists and religious people,” it’s just, “people.” A small number are scientists and a large number are theists, but not all scientists are atheists and not all theists are non-scientists. That's like saying cable workers are a minority to Americans.

I'm saying that by a theist's definition I would've been an atheist. Which is partially true because I do "reasoning" instead of "believing".

I'll be taking sociology this summer, thereby I'll attempt to reform society and redefine sociology altogether. The reason why sociologists were using "inductive" logic theory back then is because they didn't what to attract public scrutiny, by them making standardized general theory of the human society. You should read some new books in the field of sociology, I can recommend you some if you want.

Finally, the minority I was referring to is none other than myself.

I never said that quantum theory is a theory of god. I just said that the Schroedinger's cat box may be a good analogy in judging whether a god exists or not. I never meant the analogy to be exploited as well by theologists. I'm just saying that unless the box is opened, no one will know the real truth. It was supposed to be a reasonable excuse for people who thinks that withholding judgment on the existence of a higher being is more logical than being on the other side. It's being on the gray side.

I believe that the existence of a god is just uncertain. That is all there is to it. I believe that is correct. Unless a god just goes and proves that he really is god. Then my statement will remain correct. My point is this: You can never prove god's existence unless everyone sees it in their own naked eyes with no possibility of it being an illusion. And that you can never prove that a god does not exist because he is an existence that you may never meet even at least once in your lifetime. What if god is just hiding from us humans? We never know.

I'm not sure if I'm correct but do not try to use the term "theologists". I believe that you are misusing it with Theodicy. Theology is the study of god under the light of reason. While Theodicy is the study of god under the light of faith. And I believe that you can't argue with me when I say that you cannot guarantee that theologists are making an excuse to absolutely do nothing. Believe me. The study of god in either the light of reason or faith is a very heavy subject far more heavier than Calculus. That is because the current capacity of human knowledge pooled from our very ancestors to us are not enough. They can only debate with either faith or reason. But they will never win. That's why this is one scenario when "your opinion does not count" (like the title states) not because you are not a professional in the field of gods, but because of ignorance. You cannot judge things that you cannot apprehend. And if you cannot judge, you cannot reason. That is the basic theory of Logic.

Good day.

Then your logic is flawed because you just passed judgment on your belief being correct, which is not something logical according to your gray stance.

Not really. But I can at least apprehend that the nature of god is uncertain. Therefore, I can judge with my apprehension. Perhaps I may be wrong. But like I said, that will remain correct unless a god showed up on all of us and prove that he really is god.

Then isn't it correct to say that you're being wrong as long as you're remaining in the gray about a God that does nothing?

I'm withholding my judgment which means that I never judged anything except that the existence of god is uncertain. I can't be wrong but I can't be right. I acted like that because I believe that my knowledge is insufficient which is why I remain on the gray. That is all my motive. In the Congress, I believe that the term is "abstain". But perhaps it may be correct to assume that I never cared whether god exists or not.