theism vs. nontheism: athiesm and agnosticism

Originally posted by nihilismor
Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?

Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?

Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

Nihilists: Why don't you tell the agnostics the answer is 42?!?!

1. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" so our faith is all the evidence we need.

2. We feel no call to the altar, because we cannot believe or accept the creed of the believers.

3. We are not sure, but at least we epitomise the eternal enigma of mankind. "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve" and we cant decide.

4. Because it doesn't matter, nothing does.

Originally posted by nihilismor
Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?

Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?

Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

Nihilists: Why don't you tell the agnostics the answer is 42?!?!

Boring idiots: Why do you keep posting this crap?

Originally posted by amannion
Boring idiots: Why do you keep posting this crap?

Presumably because this is the place to do so.

Originally posted by nihilismor
Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?

Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?

Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

Nihilists: Why don't you tell the agnostics the answer is 42?!?!

Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?

Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?

…

Placing these two very similar statements one above the other like this, inadvertently, makes it look like that you can make a comparison between the concepts of theism and atheism as if they where, vaguely put, “mirror images” of one another and there is a “perfect plain of symmetry” between them. I think this can, inadvertently, give the impression that one is no more or less valid than the other.

But they are not, vaguely put, “mirror images” of one another! For there is a fundamental difference between them that, vaguely put, completely messes up any supposed “perfect plain of symmetry” between them:

The question put to the theists: “How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?” is a perfectly reasonable one because it is perfectly reasonable to deny that something exists if you cannot see it (and not even detect it indirectly).

But, The question put to the atheists: “How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?” is an unreasonable one because, again, it is reasonable to deny that something exists if you cannot see it (and not even detect it indirectly).

That’s why comparing theists with atheists is not like comparing two sides of the same coin.
I have said something very similar in another thread but:

The burden of proof is NOT on the person that refutes the claim of the existence of something X (such as the claim of the existence of a “god&ldquo😉, the burden of proof is on the person that supports the claim of the existence of something X. If it is you that is claiming X exists then it is you that has to provide evidence to rationally justify your claim that X exists. All the person that refutes X exists (for example, an atheist that refutes that there exists a “god&ldquo😉 has to do to justify his claim that the probability of that X existing is vanishing small is to point out that, according to all known science and/or observations (excluding observations that can be demonstrated to be hallucinations, mirages etc) there is no evidence to support that claim that X exists -that is all!

If that wasn’t the case then how would you argue against somebody that claims Santa exists and correctly asserts “nobody has proven that Santa doesn’t exist!”?

…Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?…

I assume that agnostics would answer that question by claiming it is impossible to rationally come to a decision over the “greatest question of all” (assuming that they think that that question is the “greatest question of all” - I certainly don’t!).

Originally posted by nihilismor
Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?

Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?

Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

Nihilists: Why don't you tell the agnostics the answer is 42?!?!

Theists: How can you believe in the existence of something you can't see?

--- Personally, I think they think it up and talk themselves into it or have been conditioned by upbringing to believe, notwithstanding anything that can or cannot happen outside of themselves -- they don't learn from experience out of choice or conditioning. They make up these thoughts just as those who made up the Greek or Teutonic myths did, or just as Tolkein made up Middle Earth -- and it makes them feel so good, they accept what is between their ears as reality.

Alternatively, they believe in the same way a blind person believes he has encountered a solid object -- someone tells him he's in a first class seat on the train -- and even if he is not, how would the poor guy know?

Atheists: How can you deny the existence of something you can't see?

Not much point in trying to prove a negative - so if they are absolutely certain there cannot be some kind of vast being that has created the universe, then they assume too much on faith, just as the faithful do.
Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

Nihilists: Why don't you tell the agnostics the answer is 42?!?!

Because the question doesn't add up to 42 in real terms, it's more like 442, because you have to adjust for inflation.

Besides, if nothing exists and everything is an illusion, I definitely paid too much for my dinner saturday night.

Originally posted by nihilismor
Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."

Originally posted by Scriabin

Agnostics: How can you not come to a decision over the greatest question of all?

that leaves agnostics.

You must know what an agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac does, don't you? Stays up all night wondering whether there really is a dog.

what would count as a "decision?" do you know why you exist and is it because of some purpose provided by someone or some thing outside of yourself? If so, how do you know?

How can one not decide this question? Easily, just keep an open mind and procrastinate, as hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always pays off right now.