Well personally I am going to have to disagree about the going wrong for the country and government part....look at a China, definately not going wrong for the country or government they are prosperous....with some human rights issues, but seriously what country doesn't have a few human rights peoples these days, and theism isn't always a choice, to many they are born into a religious family which they are brought up to be religious , it's no longer a choice at that point. It's not like chrisitan parents or mulsim parents don't force their religious views on little Johnny or Mohammad. It's is forced on them at a very young age.

Now why should we allow religious ideas to prosper? I mean sure everyone is allowed to believe in whatever they wants, however it does not mean A) that it should prosper amoungst other people, B) that it is good for a society C) that it is good for the individual. Especially when those people with delusions of a invisible deity that knows everything they do, knows their private thoughts and will punish them for not following the rules of an ancient ignorant society (of today's standards) are trying to make others follow those rules and that those rules should be enforced by the state. Now that is what I fight against, and that the belief that one should respect someone else's belief, well sorry no I do not have to respect those beliefs, especially if those beliefs are founded on nothing more than feelings, delusions or personal fears of death. There is absolutely no evidence that there is a god of any sorts, as such there is no reason to follow those rules in the holy texts of various religions around the world. So why should I back down for this stance that religion is bad and belief in an invisible no provable deity is wrong? Oh and you haven't bothered to check this site, I have never seen anyone say OMG DELETE THE FUCKING THEISTS.....it's kinda goes against the idea of this site.

My biggest problem with religion is it trying to infiltrate our schools. There's zero value in having some sort of religious backed classes (i.e., science classes) in public schools. You want to teach it in a private religious school, have at it. Publicly funded schools, no way. There's plenty of time in college to learn about religion if the student wants to (and pay for), but, for it to be shoved down kids throats that don't have a choice, that's wrong and only serves to dumb this nation down even further.

Now your just misquoting me, I never said that one belief is allow to take precedence, however a rational and logical response (I never said atheism is this, there are plenty of atheists that are non rational or logical, it just means no belief in a deity of any kind) should take precedence over religious ideology. Chrisitans have had a bad history of persecuting people in the past, just like muslims have as well. Even christians today (Rwanda is a perfect example) have been known to rise and kill or persecute non believers or those they consider infidels. I never said that we should put people in asylums either. however religions can be treated as a mental illness and the proper steps can be taken to help those people, but even today not every single person with mental illness is locked up, if that was the case, anyone with depression would be locked up.

Currently there are great fuck ups as well, as in the education field, specifically in sex ed in which religious idiots want abstience only teaching, even though it shows not to work and actually be worse in the long run, with higher cases of STD's and teenage pregnancies (look at states teaching abstience only vs those teaching proper sex ed, which does include abstience as a choice). Then there is the medical field, where a vaccine to prevent the most common strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer is refused and fought by parents because they fear it is going to make their kids sexually active. Or in the field of stem cell research where religious morons try to stop that as well. Then there is the case of in B.C. in the fraser valley that the religious idiots refused vaccinations because it's against their religious views and we get the first mass case of the mumps in Canada in a very long time....to be exact 116 people from the same area, now we have to spend unnecessary money in treating these people because they refused a cheap and simple vaccination. Yes it is a mental illness in the long wrong, and should be treated as such, doesn't mean they should be locked up.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the announcement stickied at the top of this forum.  Theists can post anywhere else on these forums - just not on this board.  Most of us atheists are tired of dealing with religious people all day.  These forums are for atheists and freethinkers - not for theists.  This is a community of atheists, the theists have their own "theist-only" forums and ban atheists on sight.  The fact that we are goodly enough to allow theists (even trolling ones) to have a voice here is a testament to our level of tolerance.  But even we need to have a part of the board just for us freethinkers.  That is why this community exists - as an outlit for those who live in a country dominated by ignorant sky-daddy-believing theists who want to control their lives and take away their (our) rights. 

in response too rook, lol if your implying im a troll cause of my name well i cant blame you, but if i was trolling you, you would know it. in case you havent noticed i have not shoved religion down your throat with my posts, nor said anything really that offensive. I just want to debate, im not a religious fanatic, nor am i bible thumper however i guess my problem is more political than spiritual with this idea you seem to have. i am willing to listen, and counterpoint as best as i can, I am not saying you are all wrong, and atheism is wrong, im not trying to troll you. Well maybe a little if you count debate as trolling.

It certainly was not implied.  What are you reading?  I was just making the point of fact clear that we even allow trolling to an extent.  I never indicated that you were a theist nor that you were a troll.

I thought you said you were an atheist?  I'm confused now.  Are you an atheist or are you a theist?  You cannot be anything but one or the other. 

You need to read this: Am I Agnostic or Atheist

You cannot be anything but an atheist or a theist.  You either believe in god or you don't.  Knowledge is a separate question all together.  I did not ask you if you know a god exists, I asked you your belief pertaining to that god.  If you believe in a God but do not know if a God exists, you are what is called an agnostic-theist.  I am an agnostic-atheist.  I lack belief in a god, but I would not say for certain whether or not one exists.  There are also gnostic-atheists (those who claim to know for certain there is no God) and gnostic-theists (those who claim to know for certain there is a God).  Most members on this message board would call themselves agnostic-atheists.  Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism - it is a qualifier for both.  You are qualifiying what type of theist or atheist you are when you claim agnosticism. 

So again, which one are you?

you know that sort of "black and whiteness" kinda reminds me of christian fundamentalism, but anyway. If i had to PICK A SIDE i would say im a little more towards the beleif in a higher power, but its alot more complicated than that. You can say "oh well your a theist then." I dont find it that simple. Personally I thought agnosticism meant. (you didnt know one way or the other.) and i also considered a person who was a "theist" to be someone who beleive in "theology" meaning religion which you would most likely receive from religious text, which i think doesnt matter. So you could say this is a complicated response, which i know you probably will but i dont beleive its that black and white, it doesnt seem rational to me and if theres one thing i hate its when people force that sort of narrow minded outlook upon me, if you were my christian fundamentalist Uncle (essentially hes an idiot) I would give you the exact same response. So if your going to play the "Oh you sorta beleive in a higher power therefore you are a theist and have a biased oppinion card" I would tell you that I would do the exact same thing to a fundie. I may be assuming things, but i like to cover all my bases.

I find this particular twisted definition of "agnostic" to be the very epitome of intellectual cowardice. Hiding behind an agnostic position in order to avoid answering a simple question. Utter claptrap.

I'm an agnostic. Given the plastic nature of the concept of "god" and given the (profoundly remote) chance that there is, indeed, some super-entity out there who might just meet the criteria for a "god", I'm forced to be agnostic about god. I can not prove such an entity exists nor can I prove that one does not.

I'm an atheist. Given that there has never one time been a need for a god hypothesis to explain anything in the universe, I see no reason what-so-ever to believe such an entity exists. I do not need any proof to come to this conclusion, any more than I need proof to not believe in faeries or ghouls.

Please note the difference between "have no belief/not believe" and "believe it does not exist".

If the OP bothered to read the essay Rook pointed out to him, he would have understood that the nature of the question "do you believe in god?" is yes-or-no/black-and-white. It's not a question about the existence of the entity, it's a question of what one believes about the existence of the entity.

I apologize for not making myself more clear. I read what you wrote and was bascially saying that is my particular beef with religion.

I've never been religious and was never baptized. So, I can't really say anything about the bible other than I think it should be on the same shelf at the book store as Astrology, palm reading, numerology, big foot, etc...

I think this world would be a better place with a lot less or no religion. You can still have charity, self worth, love, friendship and have no belief in god or a reliance on religion. All the good, all the bad can be placed squarely on the shoulders of humans. Take away religion, Hitler would still be one of the most disgusting people to ever walk this earth. Humans seem to have an outstanding ability to blame other things (god, satan, the dog) for their faults and actions.

In my opinion, religion just is not needed. If people would take personal responsibility for their actions and look at things logically, a lot of lifes "mysteries" would be solved. You're broke because you don't have any money, not because god has plan for you. Your loved one died because of a sickness, accident, old age, whatever, not because god decided it was that persons 'time'.

Religion also has ZERO business in politics too. I can force my religious beliefs on others, I can also get them punished if they don't obey. That is beyond wrong, which is a good reason to fight those people every chance you get. For example: Sorry, I could care less if a man wants to marry a man or if a woman wants to marry a woman. Someone please explain to me, how in the world that affects me in any way shape or form. I'll still be getting the same paycheck, I'll still be paying the same for food, gas, clothes, entertainment, I'll still be able to listen to what music I want to listen to, I'll still be just as married to my wife as I was the day we got married, etc...absolutely ZERO affect on me. Yet, you have these religious nut jobs thinking that the world will come to a screeming halt if gays can marry. Give me a break. Gay marriage is just one example of many, where the religious dimwits want to force their beliefs on others.

So, I don't think anyone is 'really' trying to take away anyone's right to believe, but, more calling people out on their bovine scatos and to keep it to themselves and not force feed it down anyone's throats. I'm not speaking for anybody but myself, but that's the impression that I get. However, I am rather new here and if I'm wrong, I'm sure it will be pointed out to me, which I'm ok with.

So. Fucking. True.

No doubt the OP will brand me a bigoted fundamentalist, but I swear, it seems the worse the grammar/spelling,the more likely the writer is a theist. Usually when there's a block of incromprehensible text, it's in the letters section or from a recently joined theist.What's up with that?

And for the thousandth time, how can anyone be agnostic? You believe or you don't. It's like getting pulled over and telling the cop you're agnostic about licenses.You have a driving license or you don't. You believe or you don't.

If many of the world's religions are true, 'agnostics' are as screwed as atheists and everyone of other religions.So just call yourself atheist.

Edit: AH!  So that's what this is.  Can we please stop these people at the door and ask them to educate themselves first?  Responding to this kind of ignorance all the time must be getting tiring for everyone.

Hi new poster. You need to spend some serious time here reading at RRS. Your tired questions have been answered 1000's of times. LOL and thanks for caring. Yeah WTF?

My horse: I have no belief of anything which does not exhibit evidence of itself.

Your horse: I believe there is something that does not exhibit any evidence of existence. 

My horse is definitely higher than yours.

Face it, religion has played some type of roll in damned near everything bad that has happened throughout history.  Early xtians killed each other over minor disagreements in their respective camps. When they got tired of killing each other they started holy wars to kill those of other religions.  The Dark Ages (which may come again here in the U.S.) was responsible for the murders of millions and it lasted some 700 years, not an isolated incident.  Wars have been fought over Dog, each side believing the same Dog was on their side.  In every war ever fought each side believed their particular deity would champion their cause.  Witch burnings, slavery, murder, genocide, rape, child molestation, and repression of all sorts have been justified by religion. Read your damned bible, it's all in there.  You can't pick and choose, either your religious texts are true or they aren't. 

We don't advocate outlawing religion any more than we advocate arrest and detention of theists merely for believing.  What we are endeavoring to do is to educate.  Once people use their mind instead of being lazy and swallowing everything some preacher says without following up to verify, and to educate themselves, religion will lose its grip on societies.  Education is the best defense against the arrogance and ignorance of religion.

Quite frankly, I don't give a crap if you believe in Mickey Mouse, as long as you keep it to yourself and don't try to convince anyone else, your own children included, that Mickey is real.

Atheism has not been used as a reason to suppress religion in the past.  Religion is suppressed by despotic dictators because they believe it is a real threat to their power, not because they don't believe in Dog.  Hitler believed in Dog and enlisted the protestant and catholic churches to aid in his search for Jews to gas.  He believed wholeheartedly that he was doing Dog's work in eliminating the Jews.  He also hated them for his own failures or feelings of inadequacies.  Stalin and others simply felt religion was dangerous to the State's authority and suppressed them.

All we are trying to do is educate in an effort to lessen and eliminate, if possible, the whole concept of an ideology that is inherently dangerous. it is dangerous because it draws charismatic asshats who use religion to control the minds of the ignorant masses who need something to believe in because they can't or won't belive in themselves, who need something to relieve them of responsibility for their own shortcomings. 

Can religion contribute to mental illness? Yes it can.  Religion figures prominently in many types of psychoses.  When a person becomes dangerous to society as a result of his/her obsession with religion or the idea of Dog, gods or other supernatural beings then they can be and often are institutionalized for treatment.  Religion has not been outlawed and it shouldn't be outlawed.  Education is the answer and many theists are against education in the sciences because it shows religion for what it is; mythology.  Nothing less and nothing more.

Moderate and even liberal theists need education as well.  They are a part of the problem because they look at fundies as harmless and defend them when confronted by logic and reason.  This has allowed fundies in the U.S. and elsewhere to wield influence in governments. The U.S. is not that far off from becoming a theocracy.  Had McLame chosen Huckafuck as veep and the were to win the election, I daresay some fanatical xtian somewhere would have shot McLame so the Huckafuck could tear the Constitution apart and replace it with the bible, which is essentially what Huckafuck said in a speech to a xtian audience not too long ago.

We are working to maintain this country as it was established and to keep tyranny of all kinds out of it.  If you don't believe this country was set up with a secular government you need to do some reading.  Do it yourself.  Your preacher has his career at stake and will lie his ass off about this being a xtian nation.  Read, and I mean read to comprehend, all of the papers of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin and others.  Their intent was to keep god completely out of politics.  Anytime in history that religion has had undue influence in the affairs of the nation's government it has been disastrous.  There can be no argument there.  If you don't agree with this fine.  I don't care.  Just expect us to push back when religion overreaches.

This is a false dichotomy. Agnosticism is a position of i don't know. Atheism defined by the Oxford English dictionary as "the theory or belief that God does not exist." And theism is defined as a "belief in the existence of god or Gods". Agnosticism is position that "contains neither faith nor disbelief in the existence of God."

If i don't have faith in you making a particular three pointer, this doesn't necessarily mean that I believe you won't make it. You might just be a 50/50 three point shooter, you might make it, you might not, i don't have faith either way. 

We can clarify this with even the beliefs of mythicist, and those that believe that Jesus was a historical person. Mythicist do not believe that Jesus existed as  a historical person, while others believe that Jesus did exist as a historical person, and yet we find an abundance of individuals on this forum that don't subscribe to either camp, and proclaim agnosticism on the issue the "i don't know", most of them would explicitly oppose being labeled mythicist.

An atheist as defined by the dictionary is an individual who does not believe God exists, a theist is a person who believes God does exist, and agnostic is a individual who neither disbelieves of believes, but doesn't know. 

I can continue to make examples out the silliness of labeling agnostics as atheist, but I feel I made my point adequately enough. 

As I said before, just because I lack belief in something, doesn't mean that I disbelief in it either. 

Disbelief: is defined by the oxford English dictionary as the  "inability or refusal to accept something as true or real"

Just because I don't believe something is true, doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it is false, I can believe it's not true because I am not to sure if it's true or not, it's my uncertainty on it being true (as well as false) that leads me undecided or agnostic on whether it true or false. 

We can play the semantic game all we want, but it starts to become silly, and desperate for atheist to claim agnostic as one of them, as would for theist to claim agnostics as they're own. And it follows in a trite trend among unbelievers to label everyone they possibly can into the atheist camp, including Jesus, and individuals who believe in God, just not a personal one (as Dawkins claims in the God Delusion). And my suggestion to atheist is that they buck this trend, rather than risk looking shallow and desperate to find credible members to their party. 

There are not just two options to the question, "Either you believe of your don't believe in God", agnosticism allows one to be unsure, undecided, to say I don't know if I believe or disbelieve in God. 

Unlike most individuals here, I've been an agnostic for some time as well. Labeling me a theist would have been just as false as labeling by an atheist, I neither believed in God, nor disbelieved in him. I was pulled by notions that led me to believe, and equally pulled by notions that led me to disbelief, that I myself could not decide if i believed or not. 

I didn't know resorting to the dictionary definition of disbelief, counted as redefining it? 

Stridently defending it? I'm arguing against an erroneous characterization of it.  Claiming that there are no agnostics, and that you are either a theist or atheist is silly, I argue this as I would argue a theist who claim that atheism is a religious belief. 

Well, I don't consider agnosticism of atheism a "belief system", and your confusion maybe a result of how you're defining my use of  "belief" for me.

I'm using "belief" in the same context as i would in saying:

I believe the earth is round

I believe evolution is true

I believe the earth is a few billions years old

I believe I don't know, in regards to if OJ is guilty of not. 

This is the same context I use it in, to say:

An atheist believes that god does not exist. 

An agnostic believes he doesn't know. 

I'm using belief as a synonym for conclusion, and not a creed or dogma. 

I'm using belief as the dictionary defines it as "an acceptance that a statement is true" rather than as a "religious conviction"

Well, I'm working with dictionary definition of atheism, here's a direct quote:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|noun the theory or belief that God does not exist.

(New Oxford American Dictionary)

The dictionary defines atheist as those who believe that God does not exist. Modern atheist are the one attempting to redefine the definition, because religious individuals have made them dread the word "belief". But it's erroneous to claim that I'm working with a wrong definition, when the english dictionary backs me up on it.

 What I don't get is that earlier you were trying to distinguish to know, from to believe, and now you seem to treat them the same? Atheist conclude from a supposed lack of evidence that God does not exist, you can replace conclude here with believe, and say the same exact thing: Atheist believe from a supposed lack of evidence that God does not exist. 

Another asshat misusing the dictionary.

I believe I am as compelled to believe, as I am to disbelieve, therefore I am agnostic. 

I am not compelled to believe in the slightest for lack of evidence.

If you call yourself simply an agnostic it means literally you do not know anything.

Since the discussion here is about an alleged god you are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Hi, I'm theidiot - I'm a loser with no life who likes to pretend I know something.  I'm just a dingbat with his thumbs up his ass.  Call me a loser from now on, please.  I like being ridiculed for having my thumbs up my ass.