Originally posted by kevcvs57It is easy to know that the atheists must be wiped out. 😏
Things are always simple for theist's and atheists, that is why theist's and atheist's get on so well, one does not really make sense without the other.
You can tell me I am a weak/agnostic atheist until you are blue in your strong/gnostic atheist face, but it will only be true for you, from your atheist viewpoint
I understand your strategy of dividin ...[text shortened]... of god or gods.
We need more knowledge, belief is meaningless in it's subjectivity.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by vivifyI do not consider myself an expert on Solomon. However, the wikipedia article on Solomon states the following:
1) You say "ex-believers" were never really believers...what about Solomon, who revered God, but turned to worshipping other gods later in life? Since his heart turned from God, are you willing to assert he was never really a believer?
2) The thing with your "spouse" example, is that I don't need faith to believe she's real. You need faith to believe you ...[text shortened]... his army)?
If so, please re-evaluate whether you're deceived or not.
The Qur'an denies that Solomon ever turned away from Allah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon
So my question to you is who is Allah?
Originally posted by kevcvs57You CAN NOT truthfully say there is no evidence for a creator God, if you do not know how heaven and Earth and life came into being. If you know that this all came about in another way, then there may be no evidence for God's existence. You CAN truthfully say you don't know if the heavens and Earth and life is evidence for God's existence, since you do not know how they came into existence. Then you are no different from anybody else. You make the choice to believe something based on what little you know. Your disbelief in God does not make you intellectually superior to those that believe in God. 😏
I could argue that I think anyone who calls them self a weak atheist, should simplify their lives and fess up to being an agnostic, ( all language is a bit semantic, ) but I have never tried to label someone against their will.
"So, as an agnostic, you cannot (logically) think that there is a god—that is all that absence of belief (in the standard episte ...[text shortened]... ing my ears pinned firmly back in case some knowledge concerning my own existence drifts by.😞
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by AgergYou are not being truthful, because you don't know. That makes you a Liar in need of repentance just like me. 😏
[b]and woe betide any atheist I catch telling a theist that god, or gods do not exist.
Assuming by "god" you mean capital 'G' "God" (which I refer to as "G"od) am I assume you would not, in the hypothetical scenario that someone doubted you were not actually a pink fire breathing racoon, tell any doubters there are no pink fire breathing racoons!? (and ...[text shortened]... od doesn't exist)
I do say without any trace of doubt that "G"od does not exist.[/b]
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThis response isn't for you as much as I'm exploiting your gibbering to clarify my position to others.
You are not being truthful, because you don't know. That makes you a Liar in need of repentance just like me. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
I DO know that "G"od doesn't exist. Similarly I know there exist no pink fire-breathing racoons. However, I cannot prove there are no pink fire-breathing racoons...indeed I have not yet found a way to observe every nook and cranny of this entire planet at one specific time to be sure they aren't hiding somewhere; also I cannot be sure (even if I could search the planet) that some pink fire-breathing racoons aren't cleverly disguised as humans - and that the notion that no animal (including racoons) can talk in the various human languages, or do human things, is some great big conspiracy to keep me in disbelief.
Indeed there is no way whatsoever to cast-iron prove there are no pink fire-breathing racoons, yet in spite of this I know they don't exist because their existence would contradict basic physical laws of the universe.
Similarly I know your "G"od doesn't exist because it breaks the basic laws of logic (and is a downright silly little god)
Originally posted by AgergYour logic is very good on the pink fire-breathing racoon and on gods in general. However, when we come to the creator God of the Holy Bible, your logic breaks down. We see the proof of His existence from the existence of His creations. We have testimony of His words from eyewitnesses. They saw Him crucified on a cross and put into the grave and then saw him alive again after three days and nights. We have a worldwide religion testifying of His existence. Then we have the empty tomb from which he arose from the dead on display in Jerusalem. We have His burial clothing that have been examined and show a testimony of His crucified body miraculous imprinted in and on the linen with traces of His A-B blood still remaining.
This response isn't for you as much as I'm exploiting your gibbering to clarify my position to others.
I [b]DO know that "G"od doesn't exist. Similarly I know there exist no pink fire-breathing racoons. However, I cannot prove there are no pink fire-breathing racoons...indeed I have not yet found a way to observe every nook and cranny of this ent ...[text shortened]... exist because it breaks the basic laws of logic (and is a downright silly little god)[/b]
Part 1 of 4
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57
Apatheist I like it without even googling it. From this point on I consider myself an Apathetic Agnostic or Apatheist.
There is a big difference between having a label you do not like imposed on you, and one you do like proffered.
My only reservation is at the very end:
"Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their beh t were proved that God exists' is it? Because clearly, if that happens all non bets are off.
My only reservation is at the very end:
"Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change."
This is not the same as 'if it were proved that God exists' is it? Because clearly, if that happens all non bets are off.
That's a good catch. I can read it two or three ways. First, something can be possible to prove as existent, and yet never actually be proved to exist. So mere possibility of proof does not cause a change of behavior in the apatheist. Second, slightly different, the apatheist will not change their behavior because they are already behaving as if it were possible that God exists. Third, subtly different yet, they have decided that how they live will not be contingent on God's existing.
I like this third reading. Look at it from God's perspective. "If how a person chooses to live contingent on whether I exist, why is that? To avoid punishment? To show his love for Me? Show it to whom? I know if he loves me. If he chooses to live a good life only because I exist, how deep are his convictions? I'd like to see him not make how he lives contingent on whether I exist."
So the apatheist decides that living a virtuous life will not be contingent on God's existing.
Originally posted by JS357Apatheist it is then. Even if it transpired that the existence of God was provable, as you say there is no reason for me or anyone else to live as if it's existence would, in fact, be proven.My only reservation is at the very end:
"Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change."
This is not the same as 'if it were proved that God exists' is it? Because clearly, if that happens all non bets are off.
That's a good catch. I can read it two or three ways. First, something can ...[text shortened]... atheist decides that living a virtuous life will not be contingent on God's existing.
furthermore if it was proven, the potential types of God that could be proven are so close to infinite that to live as if you were trying to appease this potential God, would be to live your life based on a strategy that had astronomical odds against it being the correct one.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes I can truthfully say that from my perspective there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God or gods, what's more RJ there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the character you present to this forum as God does not exist.
You CAN NOT truthfully say there is no evidence for a creator God, if you do not know how heaven and Earth and life came into being. If you know that this all came about in another way, then there may be no evidence for God's existence. You CAN truthfully say you don't know if the heavens and Earth and life is evidence for God's existence, since you do not ...[text shortened]... erior to those that believe in God. 😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
"Your disbelief in God does not make you intellectually superior to those that believe in God."
No of course it doesn't.
Mainly because I do not have an active disbelief in God or god's, but not having a belief in your pet God makes me think there is still hope for me to develop my intellect.
Originally posted by kevcvs57First of all, thanks for the discussion, and for pressing the point—keeps me on my toes. I don’t have a strategy here, by the way, and I admit that there are subtleties; but I suspect that they mostly lie at that level of justification: why one thinks this or that (or does not).
I could argue that I think anyone who calls them self a weak atheist, should simplify their lives and fess up to being an agnostic, ( all language is a bit semantic, ) but I have never tried to label someone against their will.
"So, as an agnostic, you cannot (logically) think that there is a god—that is all that absence of belief (in the standard episte ...[text shortened]... ing my ears pinned firmly back in case some knowledge concerning my own existence drifts by.😞
The way I see it, there are two possible logical propositions for any person P: either (1) “it is the case that P thinks there is a god”, or (2) “it is not the case that P thinks there is a god.” These propositions render a true logical disjunction: (T or ~T).
(1) describes a theist; (2) describes an atheist—of either the weak or strong variety. What differs is the justification: the strong atheist asserts that sufficient evidence indicates that there is no god; the weak atheist asserts that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant thinking there is a god.
If P says “I don’t know”, then clearly it is not the case that P thinks there is a god, for agnostic reasons.
The allusions to semantics are valid. The word “atheism” would not exist if it were not for the concept that there are gods—theism. The word “godless” only has meaning vis-à-vis some notion of god. The proposition ~X implies the proposition X. We generally think of an affirming proposition as preceding the relevant negating one; negation is always negation of something.
However, that may not be strictly correct. Prior to any thought of X whatsoever, it is the case that no one thinks X; prior to a child being taught the concept of god, it is not the case that the child thinks there is a god.* And if we are talking of a true logical disjunction (which I think we are), then the implicit negation (existentially?) precedes the affirmation. In this case, implicit atheism precedes both theism and explicit atheism. If asked about god, the response of the implicit atheist might well be: “Huh?”
Of course, I might be wrong. 🙂
____________________________________________
* You might note that I have avoided the word “belief” throughout—and this last example, I think, illustrates your concern about using that word, since this is the kind of area where “belief” sometimes might be turned into something else.
Originally posted by vistesdWell if you might be wrong then we may end up agreeing, cause I think I might be wrong too.🙂
First of all, thanks for the discussion, and for pressing the point—keeps me on my toes. I don’t have a strategy here, by the way, and I admit that there are subtleties; but I suspect that they mostly lie at that level of justification: why one thinks this or that (or does not).
The way I see it, there are two possible logical propositions for any pers ...[text shortened]... rd, since this is the kind of area where “belief” sometimes might be turned into something else.
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThat is fine from your perspective, but we only have an issue if you are demanding that I share your certainty, given that you offered no evidence whatsoever for there not being a "G"od.
[b]and woe betide any atheist I catch telling a theist that god, or gods do not exist.
Assuming by "god" you mean capital 'G' "God" (which I refer to as "G"od) am I assume you would not, in the hypothetical scenario that someone doubted you were not actually a pink fire breathing racoon, tell any doubters there are no pink fire breathing racoons!? (and od doesn't exist)
I do say without any trace of doubt that "G"od does not exist.[/b]
Anyway things have moved on, I am now an Apatheist, and concerning the existence or non existence of "G"od or gods I am declaring a position of total disinterest ( whilst retaining the option of commenting on the subject in the broader sense 😕 ) does this help at all.