15 Apr 07
Originally posted by whodeyIf the atheist "demands" that there is no God, does that mean that the theist "demands" that there is a God?
So we have asked the question about Christians, how about atheists? It seems pretty clear cut to me, however. An atheist simply demands that there be no God. Atheists seem much easier in labeling than the theists. Does anyone agree/disagree?
See how silly that sounds?
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaYou must not be talking to atheists. Theists generally mischaracterize the atheist position, though jammer doesn't seem to be. Then again I don't know if he's a theist or not though I have that impression.
If that were the definition accepted of all atheists I might reconsider. That's a very interesting perspective, one not commonly heard.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaThis atheist (weak) is sometimes known as a skeptic.
Well, all I had ever heard was that athiests were absolute, concrete, no-second-thoughts about "there is no God." I've never heard "most likely not a God" before.
I think most people fall in this catagory. We don't claim to know the answer. That's the distinction IMO.
Theists and true Atheists claim to know FOR SURE one way or the other.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
15 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerThere you again, spouting that nonsense, 'True Athiests' as you call them, in no way have to be hard-line, as you are suggesting.
This atheist (weak) is sometimes known as a skeptic.
I think most people fall in this catagory. We don't claim to know the answer. That's the distinction IMO.
Theists and true Atheists claim to know FOR SURE one way or the other.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by wittywonkaA favorite tactic of the theists is to try to portray atheism as a competing belief system, in which the atheist claims to "know" that there is no god. They do this in order to try to escape from having to share the entire burden of proof themselves, or to make their faith appear more rational.
Well, all I had ever heard was that athiests were absolute, concrete, no-second-thoughts about "there is no God." I've never heard "most likely not a God" before.
If they successfully tar atheism as being a competing belief system that takes a hard stance on the non-existence of god, then they go on to say that since both are belief systems that cannot be proven, then neither is more illogical than the other. The burden of proof must then be equally shared by both camps in this scenario.
If we correctly recognize atheism as being a withholding of belief from theistic claims, then we clearly see that the entire burden of proof rests with the theists to substantiate their claim, and that their firm belief in their hypothesis, in light of the complete absence of any supporting evidence, is indeed illogical.
Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocal atheists around, does not claim to know that there is no god. He limits himself to saying that it is highly unlikely that a god exists. And I say the same thing. I cannot know if a god exists, but I find it highly unlikely and will assume he does not until shown otherwise. All the while I freely admit there is a chance I may be wrong.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know either .. i'll have to look it up.
You must not be talking to atheists. Theists generally mischaracterize the atheist position, though jammer doesn't seem to be. Then again I don't know if he's a theist or not though I have that impression.
............
the·ism /ˈθiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).
................
ThAT is what I WANT TO believe .. but ..
....................
de·ism /ˈdiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
...............
I might be closer to that belief, but, truth is .. I believe I don't know .. and can't know as a condition of being born a human with incomplete information.
It's something I want to believe .. that I can be immortal in the "next life" .. that I won't end.
Ego allows me to think that just might be possible.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerIf there is something you don't know, and cannot know, then how can you justify believing it to be literally true?
I don't know either .. i'll have to look it up.
............
the·ism /ˈθiɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in ...[text shortened]... he "next life" .. that I won't end.
Ego allows me to think that just might be possible.
If I claim to have a goose which lays golden eggs, but am either unable or unwilling to demonstrate any proof for my claim, then you would rightfully doubt the truth of it. It wouldn't be up to you to disprove that I have such a goose, but it would be up to me to prove that I do. And until I do so, you would be perfectly justified in saying that my claim was probably false. The fact that you can't disprove it doesn't mean my claim is just as likely to be true as false.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerAren't those Agnostics, those who have doubts and don't claim to know the answer, or who claim the answer is unknown or unknowable?
This atheist (weak) is sometimes known as a skeptic.
I think most people fall in this catagory. We don't claim to know the answer. That's the distinction IMO.
Theists and true Atheists claim to know FOR SURE one way or the other.
15 Apr 07
Originally posted by rwingettI have no idea what you're on about here.
If there is something you don't know, and cannot know, then how can you justify believing it to be literally true?
If I claim to have a goose which lays golden eggs, but am either unable or unwilling to demonstrate any proof for my claim, then you would rightfully doubt the truth of it. It wouldn't be up to you to disprove that I have such a goose, but ...[text shortened]... fact that you can't disprove it doesn't mean my claim is just as likely to be true as false.
I don't claim to "know" and don't think I can know, and I sure don't claim God to be literlly true.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by jammerMy point is that the only logical stance would be to doubt the existence of god. You seem to be granting an unknowable proposition a 50% likelihood of being true. Because it is either true or not true does not mean the chances are 50%. It does not follow that god is just as likely to exist as to not. While we are unable to quantify god's likelihood of being true, we can logically assume it to be unlikely.
I have no idea what you're on about here.
I don't claim to "know" and don't think I can know, and I sure don't claim God to be literlly true.
16 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI think there is a difference in saying there is no proof for something than saying that there is no evidence for something. For example, if everyone around me or a large percentage of people around me believed that gooses layed golden eggs it would be evidence that the possibility exists. I might even look into the matter just to chase any doubts they had planted in my head. After all, they are all saying that for a reason so it would behoove me to undergo an investigation as to why before casting judgements upon them. Having said that, there are other evidences for God's existence such as fine tuning the universe so as to allow life to exist as well as the very existence of life itself. So tell me, if abiogenesis attempts to explain how life burst onto the scene yet there is no proof why believe it? In fact, scientists cannot even so much as produce a living cell in a laboratory yet we are expected to believe that it just happened. I know, I know, it would take an X number of years and an X amount of money, none of which is feasable, so just accept it as fact. So, if there is something you don't know, and cannot know, then how can you justify believing it to be literally true?
If there is something you don't know, and cannot know, then how can you justify believing it to be literally true?
If I claim to have a goose which lays golden eggs, but am either unable or unwilling to demonstrate any proof for my claim, then you would rightfully doubt the truth of it. It wouldn't be up to you to disprove that I have such a goose, but ...[text shortened]... fact that you can't disprove it doesn't mean my claim is just as likely to be true as false.