Why he is dishonest.

Originally posted by Dasa
Any group or individual who rapes, murders, assaults and tortures another - has given up their right to live amongst the civilized people.

Surely rape, murder, assault and torture are a matter for criminal prosecution of the offenders, rather than for genocide perpetrated against a whole group of people?

Originally posted by Pianoman1
I'm sorry, googlefudge, but i think you have your facts wrong here. The atheist's position is a positive disbelief in a god. He does not take his position out of an absence of evidence. That is the position of the agnostic. The agnostic doesn't believe in god because he has no evidence. He is keeping his options open. The atheist positively disbelieves. He ...[text shortened]... lines of enquiry and become, like the believer, closed to all evidence. Both are inflexible.

Where does an 'agnostic atheist' fit into all this?

Originally posted by Pianoman1
I'm sorry, googlefudge, but i think you have your facts wrong here. The atheist's position is a positive disbelief in a god. He does not take his position out of an absence of evidence. That is the position of the agnostic. The agnostic doesn't believe in god because he has no evidence. He is keeping his options open. The atheist positively disbelieves. He ...[text shortened]... lines of enquiry and become, like the believer, closed to all evidence. Both are inflexible.

Agnostism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.

What you are thinking of with the absolute positive view that there definitely is no God is "strong atheism". Weak atheism is a subset of "agnostic atheism". You can also have "agnostic theism".

Considering there is so much variation on people's viewpoints, there is even flexibility on what atheism is. However, as there are a vast amount of possibilities on what people believe, it is much easier and more practical to break it down to just atheism and theism. If you want to know more, just ask that person and they might give more detail on how they view things.

Agnostism by itself is far too vague.

Richard Dawkins doesn't even say there is definitely no God.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Gah!

Can the type font on that page possibly be any smaller? Lol.

I gotta run and get my final hours of sleep before work. But I'll bookmark and read this page and get back to you here in the morning.

P.S. I did take a moment to scan it. You're not gonna like what I have to say about it, but I'll refine my comment and make it in the morning, after further reading of this page and others on that site.

I want to say this after reading the url provided.
There are too many arguments the human race has with regards to God. These arguments differ from many reasons why there could not be a God to more and more reasons why there really could not be a God. These arguments are what we think and we have planted those seeds in our own thoughts and arguments and discussions but the only thing being done is that we satisfy the mind in the moment so we can live the life we want or need. It doesn't matter when we're dead - but you have to ask yourself "DO I KNOW THIS FOR A FACT?"

All these excuses humans are "inventing" to why God can not exist are making people blind by having a poor morality within them from the start.

I have read very nice stuff about reasons why God can not exist and was "attracted" to this false nonsense. But after looking at it again, I just realized that we being here on earth is an act of God, everything around and within us is God's creation...proving clearly God exists. Why atheists can't see this beats me, but then I get it, atheist have made a clear choice to not believe and therefor invent reasons which they belief are facts that must be teached to our children.

If you ain't willing to learn God, He will not exist to you, and so it is with everything in life.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
I'm sorry, googlefudge, but i think you have your facts wrong here. The atheist's position is a positive disbelief in a god. He does not take his position out of an absence of evidence. That is the position of the agnostic. The agnostic doesn't believe in god because he has no evidence. He is keeping his options open. The atheist positively disbelieves. He ...[text shortened]... lines of enquiry and become, like the believer, closed to all evidence. Both are inflexible.

I am sorry but tell me precisely how you get to decide what MY position is? (rhetorical, you don't, nobody but
atheists get to define what atheism means, and we have, I have many links in my bio)

Every single major atheist organisation, and all the famous tv atheists (including the four horsemen of atheism
(one deceased)) and every atheist I have ever met or talked to defines atheism as an absence of belief in a god,
not a belief in the absence of god.

Also about 50% of atheists are she's not he's.

Atheism is the absence of belief, agnosticism is about claims of knowledge. read my bio for details.

So I am sorry Pianoman but you are talking rubbish, trying to define your opponents position to something you
find it easier to argue against is called a strawman fallacy, nobody here is going to fall for it.


EDIT: and for those who haven't/wont read my bio.... hear it is.


If you believe in god and claim to know he exists then you're a "gnostic theist".

If you believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic theist".

If you don't believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic atheist".

If you don't believe in god and claim to know he doesn't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".

I am an Agnostic Atheist....

But this tells you almost nothing about me.

In the same way that telling you I don't believe in the Easter bunny tells you almost nothing about me.

It is a statement of the absence of belief.

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistdefine.html

http://www.atheists.org/atheism

http://www.atheistalliance.org/atheism

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/atheistmoral.html

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=143800&page=1

Originally posted by Dasa
In the Vedic times long ago.........violent groups of people who encroached upon the rights of the innocent public where not allowed to exist.

The weak governments of the world allow all manner of violent individuals and groups to go unchecked.

Vedic society doesn't allow this.

Any group or individual who rapes, murders, assaults and tortures another - has given up their right to live amongst the civilized people.

So why deny that you said this. What does your holy book say about people who deny their believes. I am sure it is not too happy with such dishonest people

Originally posted by Dasa
In the Vedic times long ago.........violent groups of people who encroached upon the rights of the innocent public where not allowed to exist.

The weak governments of the world allow all manner of violent individuals and groups to go unchecked.

Vedic society doesn't allow this.

Any group or individual who rapes, murders, assaults and tortures another - has given up their right to live amongst the civilized people.

So why deny that you said this. What does your holy book say about people who deny their believes. I am sure it is not too happy with such dishonest people

Just a note, I have tweaked my bio slightly since posting to make it more generalised
so I talk about "a god or gods" and "it and they" rather than "god" and "he".
So as to make it clear it doesn't just refer to monotheistic Christian belief.

Originally posted by googlefudge


[b]
If you believe in god and claim to know he exists then you're a "gnostic theist".

If you believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic theist".

If you don't believe in god and don't know if he exists then you're an "agnostic atheist".

If you don't believe in god and claim to know he doesn't exist then you're a "gnostic atheist".


[/b]

Thanks - this is interesting. I stand corrected.

🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
I will await with interest. :-)
Sorry about the type size, but you can indeed zoom on both firefox and I.E.

Yes, I was able to see and read the page fine with Firefox.

However, I have to beg off on my response to this website for the day because I have far too much on my to do list and the day has already grown too short for me from all the reading I did on this website today.

Tomorrow, I promise.

Originally posted by Pianoman1
I'm sorry, googlefudge, but i think you have your facts wrong here. The atheist's position is a positive disbelief in a god. He does not take his position out of an absence of evidence. That is the position of the agnostic. The agnostic doesn't believe in god because he has no evidence. He is keeping his options open. The atheist positively disbelieves. He ...[text shortened]... lines of enquiry and become, like the believer, closed to all evidence. Both are inflexible.

And here is the clinker: At the end of the atheist's life and at the end of the total theist's life, there is no carrot, no afterlife, when we die, our carbon gets recycled.
So we better do what good we can right now and not be expecting some kind of foolish redemption and rebirth, as much as billions and billions of people want it.

Originally posted by FMF
Surely rape, murder, assault and torture are a matter for criminal prosecution of the offenders, rather than for genocide perpetrated against a whole group of people?

They are all bad. It is just a matter of "terms" in the language. It does
not make one worse than the other except in our own minds.

Originally posted by lausey
Agnostism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive.

What you are thinking of with the absolute positive view that there definitely is no God is "strong atheism". Weak atheism is a subset of "agnostic atheism". You can also have "agnostic theism".

Considering there is so much variation on people's viewpoints, there is even flexibility on what atheism is. Ho ...[text shortened]... s far too vague.

Richard Dawkins doesn't even say there is [b]definitely no God.[/b]

There is no degrees in atheism. You are either an atheist are you are not.
The atheist believes positively that there is no God. If He were to have a
doubt, then the term for him is agnostic for he doesn't really know. The
atheist is different from the agnostic because he is arrogant enough to
think he knows there is no God. (God meaning the God of the Hoy Bible)

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no degrees in atheism. You are either an atheist are you are not.
The atheist believes positively that there is no God. If He were to have a
doubt, then the term for him is agnostic for he doesn't really know. The
atheist is different from the agnostic because he is arrogant enough to
think he knows there is no God. (God meaning the God of the Hoy Bible)

It's a simple concept Mr 2200+ there are more than three positions of belief in gods!. As such the terms atheism, agnosticism, theism must have degrees within if they are to serve as a cover for the human species.
Indeed for some premise A, one can have at least 5 stances:

1) belief that A is true
2) lack of belief that A is true
3) belief that A is not true
4) lack of belief that A is not true
5) indifference

Those 5 are all different

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is no degrees in atheism. You are either an atheist are you are not.
The atheist believes positively that there is no God. If He were to have a
doubt, then the term for him is agnostic for he doesn't really know. The
atheist is different from the agnostic because he is arrogant enough to
think he knows there is no God. (God meaning the God of the Hoy Bible)

You have learned nothing since you joined this site and declared that atheists believe that there is no god.

Atheists don't believe in god, that is all.

You know this, you have been told literally hundreds of times.

So you are just lying at this point.