I'm an agnostic Christian. Agnostic because I don't think science has proven without a doubt the non-existence of any wholly other 'god'. Christian because 'European cultures' (including the US) are so infused with Christian culture that to deny Christianity would be to deny the basis of so much of our morals, laws, ways of thinking, ways of feeling.

Hm... Interesting combination

I'm an agnostic Christian. Agnostic because I don't think science has proven without a doubt the non-existence of any wholly other 'god'. Christian because 'European cultures' (including the US) are so infused with Christian culture that to deny Christianity would be to deny the basis of so much of our morals, laws, ways of thinking, ways of feeling.

Are those christian values ??
Were the people before the suggested life of Christ (near 0 AD) such barbarians who would rape/kill/murder/steal at random ??
I don't think so.......

http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/Striker88.pdf

The ancient greeks did way more for our morality, law system and ways of thinking then the christians (who descended from desert tribe nomads) did.

Furthermore any further progress from the original morality we had inherited from the Greeks and Romans was not associated with the church itself but rather came along because of the changing Zeitgeist of the people in different era's.

One could even argue that humanity developed it's morals not only without religion, but was actually hampered in it's progress because OF religion:

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_3.html

Ancient Greeks/Romans: The majority were theists. Thus, your ideas combined: "Atheists are more intelligent, because ancient theists influenced the West more than modern theists." To argue in favor of atheism by bringing up polytheists is odd.

The zeitgeist argument: This applies to all people and all periods of history. You are merely defining zeitgeist and then saying that, since you have defined zeitgeist, it is proof that zeitgeist is the reason behind your argument.

"One could even argue that humanity developed it's [sic] morals not only without religion, but was actually hampered in it's [sic] progress because OF [sic] religion." Yes, that is true. But that is not the argument I made. So you dislike organized religion. That's wonderful. But a dislike does not prove the non-existence of anything. I dislike many things. They still exist. You may dislike Christianity, but it has still influenced Western cultures and you.

If you are an atheist with superior logic, reasoning, and wisdom, why do you beat around the bush? Prove gods don't exist! Prove that atheist culture would replace the polytheistic (not only Greco-Roman or Scandinavian, but the polytheistic base of all European cultures) and monotheistic (Christian) elements of the past. Do that and I'll become an atheist in a heartbeat.

Yet for all your logic, reasoning, and wisdom, I doubt you are able to prove the most basic points of your beliefs. You can't prove gods don't exist; theists can't prove gods do exist; and you both argue about trivial details unrelated to your ultimate premises, mainly by personal attacks (be it on an individual or group) that are personal opinions dressed up in logical verbiage to make them appear to be universal facts. No wonder you hate each other so.

Aranka, would you still be an atheist if belief in science and logic were classified as a religion? It seems your atheism comes from a disdain for religion more than a belief in the non-existence of any gods, since you talk of the former and say nothing of the latter.

I'm quite disappointed in the atheists here. The best we get is youtube clips, quotes from dead people, and Aranka.

You are atheists! Superior beings in logic, reasoning, and wisdom! Why do you hide your logic, reasoning, and wisdom from us? What made you decide to identify yourselves as atheists? Maybe that will get to the heart of the matter.

Just becuase we cannot prove something does not exist it does not follow that it does exist.

We are unable to prove that God does not exist nor can we disprove Thor, The Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns or Zeus.

The faithfull congregation choose not to wait for the proof but instead rely on the words of other men who say they have spoken with God. Has anyone spoken with God? How do you know there is some great diety listening? Or is your faith based on second hand knowledge passed down the generations?

Before I was 12 I believed in Catholasism but then after I stopped. Why? Because I started to question the writings of the Bible and what the clergy were spouting. As I gained confidence in my reasoning and my right to question the answers that came back were weak or contradictory. At first I was bordering agnostic with athiesm but then by the time I was 24 I was fully athiest.

I grow more skeptical with age and resentful to the bullshit lies I was made to learn as a child.

I think we humans are better than this. We should have faith in ourselves and not rely on some "Great leader" or his son the "Dear Leader" to solve our problems.
In terms of morality, I rely on sympathy, empathy and reasoning to make sure that I choose the right paths. I don't steal or kill beacuase a) I wouldn't want it to happen to me, b) I imagine the pain that it causes to do these crimes and this feeling of empathy or sympathy helps me not commit crime. I don't need to be threatened with damnation or bribed with an eternal reward. I do it because I know through experience what is right.

So you were raised in a Christian environment and in a Christian family? After learning certain (Christian?) values from your parents and community, you questioned some of the theoretical teachings (but had already internalized certain ethical teachings?). And now, the basis of your thought and actions has absolutely nothing to do with your early environment and familial background?

So, ultimately, you at first accepted the existence of god. Later, you denied this. Then, you were unsure. Now, you are certain that there is no god (you became an atheist at 24)...but you also admit that it is not possible to prove any of this.

So Aranka the Atheist is really just angry and disturbed with religion. And Wordsworth the Atheist is really just agnostic?

Any other atheists out there? So far your kind isn't very impressive. The 'European' (including US) tunnel vision that we inherited from our Christian past seems to be influencing too much of your 'post-Christian' logic, reasoning, and wisdom.

Qi, if there is a god, than which god is he/she ? Do the Christians believe in the true god or do Muslims? There have been thousands of gods created through out time; how do I know the Romans or the Persians didn't believe in the right god? My argument is this: If there is one god; than why does he let humans believe in other deities? Wouldn't it be counter-beneficial for him/her to let humans waste time on something nonexistent? (Anyway, guys I hope we can have a civil discussion on this subject.)

I would also consider myself atheist. I was raised as a Catholic, but begin to doubt many of the church's teachings. By high school, I was pretty much an atheist. I had no quarrel with or hatred towards my former religion; instead, I simply found the ideas silly and a little archaic. The biggest turnoff for me wasn't even the actual church. What really irked me was the narrow minded beliefs of the other Christians (I'm in the bible belt btw). Anyway, my main point is that atheism for me (and hopefully most people) was more of a logical conclusion rather than a rebellious attitude.

Gui, I found your post interesting. However, I would argue that the community itself, not religion is responsible for the "Christian" values. There are plenty of biological/sociological explanations for things like morals, ethics, etc. Becoming an atheist doesn't require you to abandon your moral compass; it means you chose a better way to explain its existence.

I'm sorry if that didn't make any sense. It's pretty early in the morning for me.

Man, I can hear the atheists laugh at you with their superior logic, reasoning, and wisdom. Myhand is getting a youtube clip and some quotes by a famous dead guy ready for you. Aranka is about to tell you about zeitgeist and something unrelated to your questions. Wordsworth the Agnostic Atheist has something coming too.

Yo Z-Dog:

'European cultures' (including the US) are so infused with Christian culture that to deny Christianity would be to deny the basis of so much of our morals, laws, ways of thinking, ways of feeling.

- Qi, "Christianity in America," Seattle: Warlight Inc., 2013.

Is Christianity the cause of the morals, laws, and ways of thinking? Or is it shaped by the societies in which it exists? Both are true, of course, but to what degree?

Qi: Improve your reading skills. I said I went through a transition period of agnostic/athiestic before I confirmed my athiesm at the age of 24. I am not agnostic now but I am surely athiest.

Actually, I was a very naughty boy when I was growing up under the influence of the church. I think I became a more responsible person during my early 20s when I had abandoned religion and could decide for myself what was right.

You also talk of proof. Well, the onus of proof is on Christianity and the other religions. We have only thw word of fellow humans who as we know can lie or just get things wrong or muddled.

spend an eternity in damnation and do ...
or spend an eternity with fully clothed angels and don't do ...

your choice *evil laugh*

Sex is not the epitome of a fulfilled life Warlightvet-boy

what is?

Yes. You went through a transition. Then you said you cannot prove the non-existence of gods. If atheism is based on superior logic, reasoning, and wisdom, and you have no proof for the non-existence of any gods, then I suppose your atheism merely a belief system (or religion), not a science. If it is without proof and absolute certainty, why not call it agnosticism? Isn't agnosticism uncertainty?

It's all about probability.
While you have multiple options it doesn't always have to mean all options are equally probable to happen.
So while I can not discredit belief in a god (in which the description of god is undefined) we can actually discredit to a high degree the probability if there is such a god as is taught us in Judeo-Christian and Islamic texts and religios cult.

Going back to the ancient greeks again we already see strong argument in this way:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then he is not omnipotent.



If he is able, but not willing

Then he is malevolent.



If he is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil?



If he is neither able nor willing

Then why call him God?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)

Qi, if it's all about certainty then you are forced into solipsism. (I even find "I think therefore I am" to be a little presumptuous. It should be "thought is occurring, therefore something is".)

As Aranka mindlessly quotes, you can prove that God cannot exist by definition. So saying "God does not exist" is a belief to the same degree that "I exist" is a belief.

I'd also like to note that I can happily concede that God exists, and it would not change a single one of my other philosophical standpoints. I thoroughly believe that "God exists" is a philosophical cul-de-sac. The only relevant conclusion that can be derived therefrom is that free will does not exist - but we know that anyway, don't we?

The leap from theism to any single religion is undoable and unjustifiable. To get from "God exists" to "I should attend church on Sunday", in a logical and coherent way, is impossible. The existence or non-existence of God has absolutely no tangible outcome.


It always helps to think in terms of individual actions when contemplating an argument. The worth of an argument is relative to its effect. It also sharpens your focus, which is evidently difficult for a lot of you. Let digressions be digressions and asides be asides and let's not argue for the sake of talking. To do so denigrates the concept of philosophy.

Nice quote Aranka!

Qi: Do you believe in fire breething dragons? I cannot disprove their existance but then I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the believer. Let them prove it!

I must say life would be fun with dragons and unicorns around even though they maybe dangerous. Unfortunatley, there is no proof of their existance and so they remain in our imaginations just as should whatever god/s you may conjure up in your minds.