what's your thought on this

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]And there really is no such thing as an atheist, because a pure thoroughbred atheist, would have their proof that there is no god, and they dont have proof so their really agnostic.
so atheist means god disprover does it??? 😞[/b]

to Agerg

It has to be that, to be authentic atheism, so really they will remain agnostic, till the day arrives that they prove god doent exist.

When they prove god doesnt exist, that will be the day they are a true blue atheist.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Agerg

It has to be that, to be authentic atheism, so really they will remain agnostic, till the day arrives that they prove god doent exist.

When they prove god doesnt exist, that will be the day they are a true blue atheist.

vishva

No! atheists at the very leasts lack belief in gods, they don't in general assert the non-existence of gods (there are some that do and they are known as 'strong' atheists); this is just another facet of your ubiquitous ignorance. Moreover in many cases (in particular mine) the notion of God is meaningless (how can anyone who is not supernatural be informed with respect to the supernatural???), and thus it makes no sense to talk about the existence of gods or lack thereof. It is mostly a matter of convenience on my part that I don't refer to myself as an agnostic atheist.

Anyway, even a strong atheist need not actually disprove any gods for them to bear that title. Similarly, theists need not prove their own god or gods etc... to justify their title.

Originally posted by Agerg
No! atheists at the very leasts lack belief in gods, they don't in general assert the non-existence of gods (there are some that do and they are known as 'strong' atheists); this is just another facet of your ubiquitous ignorance. Moreover in many cases (in particular mine) the notion of God is meaningless (how can anyone who is not supernatural be informed wi ...[text shortened]... itle. Similarly, theists need not prove their own god or gods etc... to justify their title.

to Agerg

It is not a matter of convenience at all, that is an exscuse, to hide the fact that you dont know, because to admit that Agerg doesnt know something is too humbling for your ego, so you hide behind the term atheist.

And every living thing is a spiritual being, (supernatural) including the Agerg, and therefore may no his origin.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to Agerg

It is not a matter of convenience at all, that is an exscuse, to hide the fact that you dont know, because to admit that Agerg doesnt know something is too humbling for your ego, so you hide behind the term atheist.

And every living thing is a spiritual being, (supernatural) including the Agerg, and therefore may no his origin.

vishva

Far from it Vishva, I'm always ready to say I don't know, if that is actually the case. A case in point being my lack of knowledge of the mathematics underlying quantum mechanics; to this end one of my arguments in a discussion between myself and Finnegan was undermined and I had to acknowledge a weakness in my position accordingly.

In addition, I do not know if there exists a supernatural or not. There is no reliable evidence for the existence of such though and so I operate as though it does not exist. Note I said "operate as though" as opposed to "believe".

You on the other hand blindly pontificate on matters which you are either completely ignorant about (like evolution) or are by definition unknowable to you. I fail to recall any occasion you came even close to implying you lack knowledge on some area of discussion.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Children dont think about god or evolution, there too busy playing marbles and eating ice-cream, and its when they get older that that they develope an uneasiness about their monkey origons.

So your accusation of child abuse, and claims that children will get depressed from thinking about evolution is disputed by yourself?

What age range are you referring to when you say 'children'?

I know that I thought about God an evolution before the age of 12. At 12, I figured out that theism was unsubstantiated and I became an atheist.

I know that children grade 1 are often told by their parents and teachers that if they are bad, they will go to hell. Quite often the parents will say this even when they don't believe it. That, to me, is a form of child abuse.

And there really is no such thing as an atheist, because a pure thoroughbred atheist, would have their proof that there is no god, and they dont have proof so their really agnostic.

How do you feel about that, you are not an true blue atheist, until you have firmly proved the non existence of god, so good morning Mr agnostic how are you.
'atheist' and 'agnostic' are just words. Neither is a religion, so I don't really care which you use for me. All that matters is that when I use one of them, you understand what I mean. So rather than use a label that you might misinterpret, let me state my position:
I have no proof that no god exists, largely because the word 'god' is so loosely defined that it could refer to almost anything.
I do have proof that certain particular descriptions of god do not exist. Sometimes the proof is as simple as showing that the description is illogical, sometimes the description contradicts scientific findings.
I do not believe that a god, as described by the main religions I am aware of, exists. I am so sure that no such god exists, that I would bet my life on it.

Since you have not proven the existence of God, do you too label yourself agnostic?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your accusation of child abuse, and claims that children will get depressed from thinking about evolution is disputed by yourself?

What age range are you referring to when you say 'children'?

I know that I thought about God an evolution before the age of 12. At 12, I figured out that theism was unsubstantiated and I became an atheist.

I know t ...[text shortened]...

Since you have not proven the existence of God, do you too label yourself agnostic?

to TwhiteHead

your comments are directed at the chritians, because their the hell believers, not me, an by checking my posts before, you can see my position, that i am against false religion, so these questions have been answered.

I will not get side tracked into another subject of child phsycology.

The proof that god exsists, is accessed by insight and you may not have sufficient insight to see the proof all around you, but give it time.

vishva

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your accusation of child abuse, and claims that children will get depressed from thinking about evolution is disputed by yourself?

What age range are you referring to when you say 'children'?

I know that I thought about God an evolution before the age of 12. At 12, I figured out that theism was unsubstantiated and I became an atheist.

I know t ...[text shortened]...

Since you have not proven the existence of God, do you too label yourself agnostic?

Why would he label himself anything? They are just words,right? 😉

Originally posted by vishvahetu
your comments are directed at the chritians, because their the hell believers, not me, an by checking my posts before, you can see my position, that i am against false religion, so these questions have been answered.

I know your position and have not accused you of believing in hell or any such thing.

I will not get side tracked into another subject of child phsycology.
It was your claim that teaching evolution to children is child abuse. Therefore you brought up child psychology not me. All I am asking for is some sort of substantiation for your claim. So far, all you have done is argue against yourself (by saying that children do not think about such things anyway).

The proof that god exsists, is accessed by insight and you may not have sufficient insight to see the proof all around you, but give it time.
I do not consider insight that cannot be communicated to another to be proof. I too have insight into the fact that there is no God, or gods. But I do not call it proof because I cannot communicate all my reasoning to you. The best I can do is state that I am sure of myself.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Why would he label himself anything? They are just words,right? 😉

Exactly, I was just trying to make him think about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know your position and have not accused you of believing in hell or any such thing.

[b]I will not get side tracked into another subject of child phsycology.
It was your claim that teaching evolution to children is child abuse. Therefore you brought up child psychology not me. All I am asking for is some sort of substantiation for your claim. So ...[text shortened]... cannot communicate all my reasoning to you. The best I can do is state that I am sure of myself.[/b]

to TwhiteHead

You didnt quote me correctly, read it again.

Anyhow if a child is instructed incorrectly that is abuse, it is the duty of the adults to see to it, that children are given correct instruction, for it makes for a better life.

Now, i wonder if you are going to ask me to prove that instructing a child incorrectly is child abuse.

Children do not consider the meaning of life, like we adults, that comes later.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You didnt quote me correctly, read it again.

Which bit did I quote incorrectly?

Anyhow if a child is instructed incorrectly that is abuse, it is the duty of the adults to see to it, that children are given correct instruction, for it makes for a better life.
I agree that it is the duty of parents to teach children correctly. But I disagree that poor instruction amounts to abuse. And surely an adults duty is to instruct their children with what they believe to be the truth, not what vishva claims is the truth.

Now, i wonder if you are going to ask me to prove that instructing a child incorrectly is child abuse.
No, I merely want to know why you consider it abuse. You were asked before and you ended up arguing against yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which bit did I quote incorrectly?

[b]Anyhow if a child is instructed incorrectly that is abuse, it is the duty of the adults to see to it, that children are given correct instruction, for it makes for a better life.
I agree that it is the duty of parents to teach children correctly. But I disagree that poor instruction amounts to abuse. And surel ...[text shortened]... know why you consider it abuse. You were asked before and you ended up arguing against yourself.[/b]

to TwhiteHead

Abuse is not always black and white, there is grey areas of abuse, anyway any incorrect knowledge given to a child, is abuse,and you are aware of that.

vishva

Originally posted by twhitehead
But rules non-the-less which is sufficient.

[b]A revelation, as it has to do with the knowledge of God, cannot be observed by any scientific methodology I know of.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. Observation does not require scientific instrumentation, it merely requires some form of input of information.
If you claim to have received ...[text shortened]... that it is subject to scientific scrutiny - otherwise you must fall back on blind faith.[/b]

Then you don't understand what I am saying.
Sure I do, but you keep adding terminology. Which is a form of obfuscating.

Observation does not require scientific instrumentation, it merely requires some form of input of information.
You see? I never said "instrumentation". I said methodology. The method is to test a theory. For example: The theory is that there is a God. The method of scientific inquiry is observation. The information is the universe. Upon observation of the universe it is reasonable to conclude that it had an origin.
How so you say? Because it exists.

If you claim to have received a revelation, then you or others can apply scientific methods to your claim, and study scientifically the underlying rules of revelation.
Ok. How about this? A guy named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God is crucified and buried. Three days later He is raised from the dead.

You would continue to insist that there was evidence for God even if I showed that the existence of creation was not evidence for his existence.
Then what is all that exists evidence for?

Here's a revelation for you to apply scientific scrutiny to.

Your mind is not made of anything material as everyone has been taught to believe. You think you think with your brain. The brain isn't thinking at all. It is your mind(spirit) that thinks.

Of course you don't believe that do you?

The brain is merely a receptacle. A conduit through which information received through the senses is gathered and stored.

Thought is a product of the mind or spirit and is not subject to any kind of scientific study.

How do I know that you ask? Revelation. 😉

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to TwhiteHead

Abuse is not always black and white, there is grey areas of abuse, anyway any incorrect knowledge given to a child, is abuse,and you are aware of that.

vishva

No, I am not aware of that. By that definition, all parents are child abusers, your self included. I simply don't think that is a useful definition of 'abuse'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am not aware of that. By that definition, all parents are child abusers, your self included. I simply don't think that is a useful definition of 'abuse'.

to TwhiteHead

Yes, the parents are a type of child abuser, because they dont know any better, and they pass on their erroneous beliefs to their children, and thats how we end up with a world of ignorant people, and thats why the world is so troubled.

vishva