Originally posted by AThousandYoungNOTE: I edited my last post; added a few thoughts, if you'd like to respond. I have to go now, but will get back to you later.
You see the word "atheist" as meaning what I call "strong atheist". I agree, the position is absurd to say you know that God does not exist. That's not the only kind of atheism though.
Weak atheism, agnostic atheism, agnosticism generally mean the same thing, which is what I am, and pretty much all other atheists are; we're just not convinced. W ...[text shortened]...
There MIGHT be super torture leprechauns, but most of us still wear green on occasion.
Originally posted by epiphinehasUnlike a baby, I am not an implicit atheist. I am an explicit atheist. I am aware of the arguments for god, I understand them, but find them unconvincing. I have no idea if a god exists. I don't think it is possible to know. Lacking any evidence for believing in one, however, I am forced to conclude that the hypothesis does not warrant belief. I will therefore withhold belief from your alleged god without making any knowledge claims as to whether it (or any other gods) actually do exist. If you come up with a more convincing argument, I may reconsider. Lacking that, however, the verdict is 'not proven and assumed to be false.'
I'm suspicious of that statement, "atheists simply lack belief in God." If you provisionally assume that no God exists, you have taken a position based on your exposure to the positive statement, "God exists." To "simply lack belief in God" is something only non-rational, non-reflective beings like babies and fruit flies are capable of, whereas you hav ...[text shortened]... efend your rationale for doing so, and (2) making the same claims as an agnostic.
Originally posted by BadwaterYou apparently did not read my post. I do not assert that god does not exist. How would I know? Lacking a belief in something does not equal a belief in the opposite. I have no idea if a god exists, but see no reason to believe one does. Seeing as the theist has failed to satisfactorily substantiate his claim, I will work from the tentative assumption that there is no god.
What I'm saying is that disbelief in god/God is also a belief system. The existence of some unknown creator force cannot be proven or disproven. If one is going to assert that god/God (s) does not exist then it does not absolve one from proving how one's belief (or disbelief, as the case may be) is a fact.
Note that I'm making a distinction between some ...[text shortened]... alking about the philosophy and logic of the given belief/disbelief systems at their core.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettOriginally posted by josephw
No, it is not something we both can agree on.
Atheists do not believe there is no god. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. There may or may not be a god, but there are no sufficient grounds to believe that there is one. Therefore the claim must be doubted and it may be provisionally assumed that there is no god. An atheist will act as if there is no god, without claiming to know whether or not that is the actual case.
"There are two types of people in the world: theists and atheists."
Now here's something we can both agree on.
But if I may tweak it just a bit; Atheists believe there is no God, but they could be wrong.
And some theists, if not most, believe in God, but don't really know Him.
No, it is not something we both can agree on.
I was referring to your statement that there are two types of people. I agree with that statement. Therefore we agree.
"Atheists do not believe there is no god. Atheists simply lack a belief in a god. There may or may not be a god, but there are no sufficient grounds to believe that there is one. Therefore the claim must be doubted and it may be provisionally assumed that there is no god. An atheist will act as if there is no god, without claiming to know whether or not that is the actual case."
{b]"An atheist will act as if there is no god, without claiming to know whether or not that is the actual case."[/b]
I sometimes say things I wish I could reword, but this statement is ridiculous.
So you go around acting as if there is no God just because you "provisionally assume" there is no God based on "[in]sufficient grounds to believe that there is one?"
I want to remind you that I know you know God made you. 🙂
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am not defending any position. I am attacking yours. As I said to KJ earlier, in order for your claim to be believable it must stand up to scrutiny. And I am scrutinizing your claim.
But the atheist is making a positive claim, otherwise atheists would not hold to and defend the position that God doesn't exist. The evidence that atheists defend a positive claim is the fact that they attack theistic arguments and promote atheistic principles. You can't both lack a belief in God and believe that God does not exist ...[text shortened]... is having to defend his or her positive claim that God doesn't exist, an untenable position.
To defend the positive claim that god does not exist would be an untenable position. That's why I do not make it.
Originally posted by josephwIs this supposed to be like the scene from 'Santa Claus Is Coming To Town' when Kris Kringle gave the Winter Warlock a choo-choo? 😉
I wouldn't go so far as call you a hero, but you're alright with me.
Even if you are an atheist. Why should that stop me from appreciating you?
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettyes but tell Amolv how secretly i am your hero, a Christian who has shunned the pursuit of wealth, one who eats French fries as if i was sitting in Van Goghs potato eaters masterpiece, hewn from the soil itself with my own hands. Tell it like it is!
It's good to know that somebody appreciates my efforts. 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt'll be our little secret.
yes but tell Amolv how secretly i am your hero, a Christian who has shunned the pursuit of wealth, one who eats French fries as if i was sitting in Van Goghs potato eaters masterpiece, hewn from the soil itself with my own hands. Tell it like it is!
Here are four Van Goghs we have at the Detroit Institute of Arts:
http://www.dia.org/art/search-collection.aspx?searchType=new&department=&keyword=van+gogh
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe also doubt the existence of super torture leprechauns who burn people with acid forever if they wear too much green in life.
You see the word "atheist" as meaning what I call "strong atheist". I agree, the position is absurd to say you know that God does not exist. That's not the only kind of atheism though.
Weak atheism, agnostic atheism, agnosticism generally mean the same thing, which is what I am, and pretty much all other atheists are; we're just not convinced. W ...[text shortened]...
There MIGHT be super torture leprechauns, but most of us still wear green on occasion.
I find this defense unconvincing. I get it, that you're expressing how ridiculous the existence of God strikes you. But all it does is make me question your judgment. A flying spaghetti monster obviously doesn't exist, for instance, and neither could one be responsible for the creation of a universe even if it did. It just isn't plausible. It's a farce. By contrast, a God like the one described in scripture, Who is infinite, all-powerful, boundless, etc., certainly does have the attributes to, if He does exist, plausibly create a universe. Super torture leprechauns don't appeal to reason. An infinite creator God does.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasSee, that's the thing. Atheists don't agree that the Biblical God is more convincing or that this being appeals to reason.
[b] We also doubt the existence of super torture leprechauns who burn people with acid forever if they wear too much green in life.
I find this defense unconvincing. I get it, that you're expressing how ridiculous the existence of God strikes you. But all it does is make me question your judgment. A flying spaghetti monster obviously doesn't ex universe. Super torture leprechauns don't appeal to reason. An infinite creator God does.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI am aware of the arguments for god, I understand them, but find them unconvincing.
Unlike a baby, I am not an implicit atheist. I am an explicit atheist. I am aware of the arguments for god, I understand them, but find them unconvincing. I have no idea if a god exists. I don't think it is possible to know. Lacking any evidence for believing in one, however, I am forced to conclude that the hypothesis does not warrant belief. I will theref ...[text shortened]... econsider. Lacking that, however, the verdict is 'not proven and assumed to be false.'
I question the basis upon which you've found them all so unconvincing.
If you come up with a more convincing argument, I may reconsider. Lacking that, however, the verdict is 'not proven and assumed to be false.'
What evidence would you consider sufficient and reasonable?
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's like saying a three-headed troll could fit the part of Rick Blaine in Casablanca as well as Humphrey Bogart did. But the character, Rick Blaine, requires an actor with at least the attributes of a human being (among others). Three-headed trolls lack the essential attributes. Likewise, the Flying Spaghetti Monster lacks the essential attributes to be a reasonable substitute for the creator God of Christianity. What examples like super torture leprechauns underscore are the ridiculousness of the chosen caricature rather than God as He is presented in scripture, who at least possesses the attributes which it is conceivable that such a being would require.
See, that's the thing. Atheists don't agree that the Biblical God is more convincing or that this being appeals to reason.