• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

For Atheists

So, if you ask an agnostic, is there a God, they would claim, I don't know?
And if you ask an atheist, is there a God, they would claim, No?

Agnostic says that God is improbable or unlikely, with no evidence, while an atheist says God is not believable or possible, with no evidence?

Sounds like splitting hairs over minor degrees of disbelief?

Without proof, I don't see how anyone can really believe, without 'blind faith'?

No.

Agnosticism and atheism are not part of the same spectrum. They are not "degrees of disbelief." They are totally unrelated concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

An agnostic (some of whom DO believe in a god) says knowledge of god is unattainable.

An atheist says there is no evidence for a god. That is it. That does not mean there is not one. It just means that there is absolutely no reason to believe there is when there's no evidence it exists.

An atheist may or may not believe such knowledge is attainable. A religious person may or may not believe such knowledge is attainable.
 
An agnostic is one who, as your source states, is one who states that whether or not a god exists is not known, or unknowable. That is a far cry from saying there is no evidence for a god so I do not believe in one.

Not believing in a God for lack of information is agnostic. Believing there is no God is atheistic. In a very much wider definition people will say of themselves they are Atheists, when they do not believe in a deity. Of course, the wider a definition, the more precision is lost. But, if you want to use a less precise definition your statement would be true.
 
No.

Agnosticism and atheism are not part of the same spectrum. They are not "degrees of disbelief." They are totally unrelated concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

An agnostic (some of whom DO believe in a god) says knowledge of god is unattainable.

An atheist says there is no evidence of god. That is it. That does not mean there is not one. It just means that there is absolutely no reason to believe in such with what we have.

An atheist may or may not believe such knowledge is attainable. A religious person may or may not believe such knowledge is attainable.


I can't say I completely agree with that assessment. I think it's possible to believe in God or not, but not to know anything about God, except what God wants you to know. And many atheists I've encountered here, exclaim that there's no possibility of a God, because of the lack of evidence. I've seen varying degrees of belief and disbelief.
 
No.

Agnosticism and atheism are not part of the same spectrum. They are not "degrees of disbelief." They are totally unrelated concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

An agnostic (some of whom DO believe in a god) says knowledge of god is unattainable.

An atheist says there is no evidence for a god. That is it. That does not mean there is not one. It just means that there is absolutely no reason to believe there is when there's no evidence it exists.

An atheist may or may not believe such knowledge is attainable. A religious person may or may not believe such knowledge is attainable.

Wherein you are richt is, that many people say of themselves that they do not believe in a deity and that therefore they are Atheists. This is the widest and least precise definition you are using. There is, however, a more precise definition of a person that does nor believe in a deity for lack of information. Such persons are called Agnostics. Now there is no reason to describe a Dachshund as a Dachshund. You would be perfectly right to call him a dog.
 
I can't say I completely agree with that assessment. I think it's possible to believe in God or not, but not to know anything about God, except what God wants you to know. And many atheists I've encountered here, exclaim that there's no possibility of a God, because of the lack of evidence. I've seen varying degrees of belief and disbelief.

Well, those are the actual meanings of the words, and there are atheists and theists who are either gnostic or agnostic, or both depending on how you define "god." So, yes.

Whether or not YOU know anything is totally separate from whether you think it is possible to know.

No one here has claimed any such thing. You've got probably around 10 atheists in this thread, not a single one of whom has claimed that. And if you want to get broader, even Dawkins doesn't claim that, and he's one of the most extreme examples you can find of an atheist.

Again, this is just theists constructing a strawman of what they want atheists to believe in order to make it easier for them to shoot it down. And no matter how many of atheists they see who defy that baseless strawman, or how many times the word is defined for them, they just refuse to acknowledge it and continue on, in order to make themselves feel better about their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Wherein you are richt is, that many people say of themselves that they do not believe in a deity and that therefore they are Atheists. This is the widest and least precise definition you are using. There is, however, a more precise definition of a person that does nor believe in a deity for lack of information. Such persons are called Agnostics. Now there is no reason to describe a Dachshund as a Dachshund. You would be perfectly right to call him a dog.

No, they are not. See the post you quoted for the definition of "agnostic." An atheist may or may not be agnostic. Some religious people are agnostic too.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in deities, or not. Nothing. Simply pretending otherwise displays a poor grasp of philosophical discourse, not a valid argument. The word means what it means.
 
Not believing in a God for lack of information is agnostic. Believing there is no God is atheistic. In a very much wider definition people will say of themselves they are Atheists, when they do not believe in a deity. Of course, the wider a definition, the more precision is lost. But, if you want to use a less precise definition your statement would be true.

No, you are still getting it wrong. There is no evidence of a god, so I do not have a belief in one. That is not the same thing as saying it is unknown or unknowable.
 
No, they are not. See the post you quoted for the definition of "agnostic." An atheist may or may not be agnostic. Some religious people are agnostic too.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in deities, or not. Nothing. Simply pretending otherwise displays a poor grasp of philosophical discourse, not a valid argument. The word means what it means.

I have this personal theory that most people, religious or not, are actually agnostics. I have come across very, very few people who actually have zero doubts about their beliefs or lack thereof. Most people when really pressed for an honest answer will eventually admit that they don't really know.
 
No, you are still getting it wrong. There is no evidence of a god, so I do not have a belief in one. That is not the same thing as saying it is unknown or unknowable.

You sound like this:
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." (Th. Huxley)

Wherein do you see the difference?
 
No, they are not. See the post you quoted for the definition of "agnostic." An atheist may or may not be agnostic. Some religious people are agnostic too.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in deities, or not. Nothing. Simply pretending otherwise displays a poor grasp of philosophical discourse, not a valid argument. The word means what it means.

I guess you might say that of Th Huxley too, I guess. In any event, if you want to talk of dogs instead of Dachshunds, be my guest.
 
For those that are atheist...you claim that there is no god/s/ess/es. You claim that there is no proof of such and therefore there is none. You claim that those that believe in such are "loons", "looney", "crazy", "delusional", etc etc etc.

There is a problem with your claims. You cannot prove that there is no higher power. The only way to prove such is to explore every square inch of the Universe and every square inch of every other dimension possible, or...if they exist...alternate dimensions. But that is quite impossible, at least at our current knowledge level. In the realm of science lack of proof =/= "there is no proof". Any true scientist, when faced with a question of the unknown, would simply respond with "I don't know" or "it's improbable" or something along those lines. Those lines leaving the possibility open for such to exist/happen. Or to put into simple terms the possibility of it being improbable is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%....but NEVER would it be 100.00%.

Why? Because no true scientist would use the phrase 100% positive in anything that is unknown or there is a 100% incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence, of there being a higher power or not, is simply not obtainable at this time.

I can understand agnostics. They admit that they are not sure either way. But atheist's? Atheist's claim to base their belief on fact. Well...fact is there is no proof that there is no higher power.

Now frankly I do see that some will no doubt claim that religious folks need to be held to this same standard but quite frankly I don't hold them to such. Why? Because 9 times outta 10 they admit that their system is based on "belief". Not fact. Atheists on the other hand will claim their belief is based on fact, and they do this pretty much most of the time. As such there are different standards.

One cannot prove the statement "God exists" through empirical evidence anymore than one can prove the statement "((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i)^3 = i". Both statements are derivable from pure reasoning and as such are by nature absolutely certain.
 
I have this personal theory that most people, religious or not, are actually agnostics. I have come across very, very few people who actually have zero doubts about their beliefs or lack thereof. Most people when really pressed for an honest answer will eventually admit that they don't really know.

Maybe it's a regional thing. The vast majority of religious people that I know, actually believe. They will admit that they cannot prove it, but they believe it to their core. With the exception of the few atheists I know, and a decent number of people whom I consider to be rather indifferent or neutral, I am one of the few people I know of personally, who tends toward the agnostic end of the spectrum, and even that isn't saying much, because even if it were proven that there is no God, I'd still have a religious tendency in that my impulse to see meaning and purpose is very strong, and my perceptions tend toward the inner life, rather than outward.
 
For those that are atheist...you claim that there is no god/s/ess/es. You claim that there is no proof of such and therefore there is none. You claim that those that believe in such are "loons", "looney", "crazy", "delusional", etc etc etc.

I claim that I don't believe that there are any such higher powers. I also claim that those such as you display the symptoms of being delusional and unable to understand simple ideas properly. The difference between believing that there are no gods and being able to prove that there are no gods being the most obvious at this point.
There is a problem with your claims. You cannot prove that there is no higher power. The only way to prove such is to explore every square inch of the Universe and every square inch of every other dimension possible, or...if they exist...alternate dimensions. But that is quite impossible, at least at our current knowledge level. In the realm of science lack of proof =/= "there is no proof". Any true scientist, when faced with a question of the unknown, would simply respond with "I don't know" or "it's improbable" or something along those lines. Those lines leaving the possibility open for such to exist/happen. Or to put into simple terms the possibility of it being improbable is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%....but NEVER would it be 100.00%.

See above. Do you believe in the celestial flying teapot which orbits between the Earth and Mars? If not why not? Just because we have not detected it does not prove that it's not there.

Why? Because no true scientist would use the phrase 100% positive in anything that is unknown or there is a 100% incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence, of there being a higher power or not, is simply not obtainable at this time.

Atheist and scientist are different things. Again you show your inability to think straight.

I can understand agnostics. They admit that they are not sure either way. But atheist's? Atheist's claim to base their belief on fact. Well...fact is there is no proof that there is no higher power.

Just like you cannot prove the non-existence of Santa.

Now frankly I do see that some will no doubt claim that religious folks need to be held to this same standard but quite frankly I don't hold them to such. Why? Because 9 times outta 10 they admit that their system is based on "belief". Not fact. Atheists on the other hand will claim their belief is based on fact, and they do this pretty much most of the time. As such there are different standards.

So you are happy that your beliefs are as true/silly as the Hindu's then?

You claim that those that believe in such are "loons", "looney", "crazy", "delusional", etc etc etc.

Yes I do claim that a belief in something which is inherently impossible to show any evidence for and is contrary to all known ways that the universe works is crazy. I also, and separately, claim that you have a problem thinking straight.
 
One cannot prove the statement "God exists" through empirical evidence anymore than one can prove the statement "((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i)^3 = i". Both statements are derivable from pure reasoning and as such are by nature absolutely certain.

I challenge you to show either.

I am confident that you are not able to do such maths. Much less do a mathematical proof.
 
LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU
I guess I am called an atheist

To start at the beginning. When I was 13, and starting High school, I and the whole auditorium of kids were informed of the makeup of an atom by a guest lecturer, It was explained how the parts of the atom,--Nucleus, Electrons, and Positrons were comparable to our own solar system with comparatively speaking, as much space between the particles as there is between the sun and the planets, thus, if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force, you could pass one thru the other without fear of colision . Thus you could also pass one hand right thru the other. This started me on my road to knowledge.
Further, Science has told us that solids, (matter) is simply energy which has become relatively stationary, thus the mini universes with all their relative space, because of some magnetic force become solid and perhaps a part of our bodies.as fingers, toes, and kidneys.


At that time it was taught that there were millions of stars in the universe, and many universes Now we know there are untold billions of stars in the universe, and billions of universes. And in the past few years they are finding a multitude of planets around these stars. This is where the first ofthree unanswerable questions come in.

HOW FAR IS UP” & WHERE ARE WE?

Einstein said that space is curved thus implying it is like a ball. I don't believe that. As we know space, it is between this and that. Beween two walls, then two fields—two towns, , two countries, two planets, two stars, two galaxies. But what is on the other side of that last viewed galaxy ???
a stone wall? another series of galaxies? We simply don't know, and when we arrive at that point, what is on the other side of that? And where are we located.? --In a ball of matter of unimaginable size? And then,of course, where is that ball of mud???

We have also learned that within these atoms (mini solar systems) in a much smaller scale are particles which could (repeat) COULD be be like “ mini micro” solar systems in turn, made up of even smaller particles but similar to our own? Is it possible that our present solar system is simply an atom in a gigantic organism so huge that we can't comprehend? WE JUST DON'T KNOW*

Science has also informed us that in each of the galaxies there is a so-called black hole that is so dense that even light can't escape.( Thus,it is called a BLACK hole.) Contrary to my own belief, these holes swallow up all matter in it's vicinity to become even larger and denser, and if it
came close enough to this planet, it would eat us up. Hmm! Yet in billions of years we, and the milky way are still here. Further knowledge of the present beliefs concerning black holes lead me to believe that at some point the Black hole becomes unstable, and emits a stream of energy known as a “quazar” It is believed that the stream of energy later slows down and become matter ---which in turn becomes stars and ultimately, with planets.
The big bang theory suggests that this all started with an exclamation point of nothingless and exploded to become the universe. I do beieive that what might really have happenedwas that there was a multitude of miniature big bangs called quazars, which in our own case created the milky way. To me, that is my original “CREATOR” except that before that there had to be other Galaxies which had black holes which emitted quarzars, etc. thus the 2nd unanswerable question

“ WHO or WHAT BEGAT THE BEGATOR”

(and it continues to who or what begat it. I simple don't believe it was a grey haired man looking down on us from above.
Some weeks ago I was watching the beginning of a 12 part miniseries led by a preacher who promised an insight into the disparages between Creationism, and Evolution. I am always trying to learn, so I tuned in, The first introduction was interesting enough that I tuned into the 2nd. However when he started explaining that Tyrantisourus Rex roamed the earth in the past several thousand years, and god had somehow sped up time to cause those bones to petrify, and be buried far below the surface, I ceased tuning in.
I realize that many religous people still believe that God created earth several thousand years ago, but I believe there is an abundance of evidence that it simply isn't true. There are Ruins of structures scientifically dated back as much as twelve thousand years, and many of those ruins and structures are built with such precision that primative man could not have accomplished --such as stonework carving which appear to have been cut by lasers They are so intricly and precisely carved it could only have been done with*
something like a laser. (But supposedly there was no lasers back then). Throughout the world, there are structures similar in nature to have been planned and designed by the same persons in places of the world so distant and
remote as to be literally impossible for our primativesto have raveled there, For instance,some 12 years ago, the remains of a fourth pyramid was discovered, and is now being excavated. One which would have been larger than
the so-called Tower of Gisa, and not only was it constructed, it was also destroyed,and most of the massive blocks of stone with which it was constructed have somehow disappeared. ----WHERE?? and HOW??

PAUSE!!!!

I'm going to change my approach to this issue to an installment process because I see it is going to be much longer and complicated than I thought. Therefore, I will indicate a future set of related issues for later instalment with some preliminary incite as to their content,

BUT BEWARE, I will likely upset some of your most cherished Religious beliefs with my future offering such as:
Proof that the world wide flood could not have happened ( to a -more localized area,like the Black sea area, one is likely)
That Alien lifeforms are likely here and have been almost forever, and have played agreat role in our development and culture
Most specifically, that the story of Jesus is a near duplicate of the story of a simila rperson and circumstances, referenced in ancient Hebrew texts at least two thousand years before Christ. And that tho the Bible is a greatsource of history, There is scientific proof of, and reasons for many of the*Bible stories.

In the meantime I will go back to the start of this thread, and attempt to answer all of my soon to be detractor's present questions.

I'LL BE BAAAAACK!!
 
For those that are atheist...you claim that there is no god/s/ess/es. You claim that there is no proof of such and therefore there is none. You claim that those that believe in such are "loons", "looney", "crazy", "delusional", etc etc etc.

There is a problem with your claims. You cannot prove that there is no higher power. The only way to prove such is to explore every square inch of the Universe and every square inch of every other dimension possible, or...if they exist...alternate dimensions. But that is quite impossible, at least at our current knowledge level. In the realm of science lack of proof =/= "there is no proof". Any true scientist, when faced with a question of the unknown, would simply respond with "I don't know" or "it's improbable" or something along those lines. Those lines leaving the possibility open for such to exist/happen. Or to put into simple terms the possibility of it being improbable is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%....but NEVER would it be 100.00%.

Why? Because no true scientist would use the phrase 100% positive in anything that is unknown or there is a 100% incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence, of there being a higher power or not, is simply not obtainable at this time.

I can understand agnostics. They admit that they are not sure either way. But atheist's? Atheist's claim to base their belief on fact. Well...fact is there is no proof that there is no higher power.

Now frankly I do see that some will no doubt claim that religious folks need to be held to this same standard but quite frankly I don't hold them to such. Why? Because 9 times outta 10 they admit that their system is based on "belief". Not fact. Atheists on the other hand will claim their belief is based on fact, and they do this pretty much most of the time. As such there are different standards.

So much anger in your post. Basically, when it comes to god, I don't know. There might be one, but I don't see it. I don't see any proof or evidence that there is one.

Not belief, just looking at the facts, I'm not going to believe in something supernatural that defies the laws of physics unless I see some proof or evidence. Like Redress said " Absence of belief is not the same thing as belief of absence."

Live and let live, you aren't going to change anyone, no more than you want someone to change you.
 
I challenge you to show either.

I am confident that you are not able to do such maths. Much less do a mathematical proof.

((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i)^2 = ((3/4)^(1/2))^2 + (2)((3/4)^(1/2))(.5i) +
(.5i)^2 = (3/4) + ((3/4)^(1/2))i - .25

((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i)^3 = (((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i)^2)((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i) = ((3/4) + ((3/4)^(1/2))i - .25)((3/4)^(1/2) + .5i) = (3/4)^(3/2) + (3/4)i - (1/4)((3/4)^(1/2)) +(3/8)i - (1/2)((3/4)^(1/2)) - .125i = i
 
I'm an atheist, and I don't believe there is a god (big or small "G", whatever you prefer), but I would never claim 100% either way. Hey, maybe there's a god. I've never seen a lick of evidence that he or she actually exists, so I don't see any reason to buy into the idea, but hey, if there is one, whatever.

Then you're an atheist. You either believe in a god or you don't. There is no third option. If you believe in a god, you're a theist. If you do not, you're an atheist. It's binary.
 
Then you're an atheist. You either believe in a god or you don't. There is no third option. If you believe in a god, you're a theist. If you do not, you're an atheist. It's binary.

There is, indeed, a third option; I believe that there may be a "god" (a superior being with superpowers) but have not yet been shown sufficient evidence of the existance of such a being. The same argument can be made for alien UFOs - some say they have faith that UFOs frequently visit Earth, others have faith that UFOs do not exist and a third group (the largest?) believe that UFOs might exist yet have doubts as to whether they have vistied (or will ever visit) Earth.
 
LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU
I guess I am called an atheist

To start at the beginning. When I was 13, and starting High school, I and the whole auditorium of kids were informed of the makeup of an atom by a guest lecturer, It was explained how the parts of the atom,--Nucleus, Electrons, and Positrons were comparable to our own solar system with comparatively speaking, as much space between the particles as there is between the sun and the planets, thus, if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force, you could pass one thru the other without fear of colision . Thus you could also pass one hand right thru the other. This started me on my road to knowledge.
Further, Science has told us that solids, (matter) is simply energy which has become relatively stationary, thus the mini universes with all their relative space, because of some magnetic force become solid and perhaps a part of our bodies.as fingers, toes, and kidneys.

You must be very old, before the development of quantum physics. The solar sytem model went out with the Ark.
 
There is, indeed, a third option; I believe that there may be a "god" (a superior being with superpowers) but have not yet been shown sufficient evidence of the existance of such a being. The same argument can be made for alien UFOs - some say they have faith that UFOs frequently visit Earth, others have faith that UFOs do not exist and a third group (the largest?) believe that UFOs might exist yet have doubts as to whether they have vistied (or will ever visit) Earth.

Quite right. There are parallels between UFOs and religion.
 
For those that are atheist...you claim that there is no god/s/ess/es. You claim that there is no proof of such and therefore there is none. You claim that those that believe in such are "loons", "looney", "crazy", "delusional", etc etc etc.

There is a problem with your claims. You cannot prove that there is no higher power. The only way to prove such is to explore every square inch of the Universe and every square inch of every other dimension possible, or...if they exist...alternate dimensions. But that is quite impossible, at least at our current knowledge level. In the realm of science lack of proof =/= "there is no proof". Any true scientist, when faced with a question of the unknown, would simply respond with "I don't know" or "it's improbable" or something along those lines. Those lines leaving the possibility open for such to exist/happen. Or to put into simple terms the possibility of it being improbable is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%....but NEVER would it be 100.00%.

Why? Because no true scientist would use the phrase 100% positive in anything that is unknown or there is a 100% incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence, of there being a higher power or not, is simply not obtainable at this time.

I can understand agnostics. They admit that they are not sure either way. But atheist's? Atheist's claim to base their belief on fact. Well...fact is there is no proof that there is no higher power.

Now frankly I do see that some will no doubt claim that religious folks need to be held to this same standard but quite frankly I don't hold them to such. Why? Because 9 times outta 10 they admit that their system is based on "belief". Not fact. Atheists on the other hand will claim their belief is based on fact, and they do this pretty much most of the time. As such there are different standards.
Something can be a FACT without being Provable.
Valid Generalizations/statements can be made that are not airtight/100% True or laws/provable.
Probability/Lack of, is a valid reason to believe/disbelieve something.

OF COURSE we can't prove there's No god. (A Negative)
EVERYONE understands this.
Also of course, YOU can't Prove I'm not god!
Which doesn't make it a valid proposition.... either.


That's WHY FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster (and Pink Unicorn) was/were created.
To show the that these supernatural Fabrications, which also "cannot be Proven/Disproven", are also NOT valid reasons TO believe them.
Ergo, the OP is kinda elementary/Juvenile argumentation.

I addressed this very point the other day in response to X Factor 2 days ago.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...ectuals-laugh-atheists-11.html#post1063911060
Let me help with this.
I am an atheist.
I believe there is No god
Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.
Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.

Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".
If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
So at least 3/4 of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it. Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, NOT any universal truth/god.
IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a geographical/cultural accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.

So in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.
Until and unless, Atheism is the most/only logical position
.
 
Last edited:
I claim a lot more than that. You see, i met this "god" and i distinctly recall him telling me he does not exist in any form. Therefore i know i'm right.

This is the kind of lunacy that religion is predicated on. If the religious would stand back and consider the thousands of alternate belief systems, they would realize they too are atheist, at least regarding 99.9% of deities mankind has thought fit to worship.
 
For those that are atheist...you claim that there is no god/s/ess/es. You claim that there is no proof of such and therefore there is none. You claim that those that believe in such are "loons", "looney", "crazy", "delusional", etc etc etc.

There is a problem with your claims. You cannot prove that there is no higher power. The only way to prove such is to explore every square inch of the Universe and every square inch of every other dimension possible, or...if they exist...alternate dimensions. But that is quite impossible, at least at our current knowledge level. In the realm of science lack of proof =/= "there is no proof". Any true scientist, when faced with a question of the unknown, would simply respond with "I don't know" or "it's improbable" or something along those lines. Those lines leaving the possibility open for such to exist/happen. Or to put into simple terms the possibility of it being improbable is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999%....but NEVER would it be 100.00%.

Why? Because no true scientist would use the phrase 100% positive in anything that is unknown or there is a 100% incontrovertible evidence. Such evidence, of there being a higher power or not, is simply not obtainable at this time.

I can understand agnostics. They admit that they are not sure either way. But atheist's? Atheist's claim to base their belief on fact. Well...fact is there is no proof that there is no higher power.

Now frankly I do see that some will no doubt claim that religious folks need to be held to this same standard but quite frankly I don't hold them to such. Why? Because 9 times outta 10 they admit that their system is based on "belief". Not fact. Atheists on the other hand will claim their belief is based on fact, and they do this pretty much most of the time. As such there are different standards.

Theist = someone who believes in a deity

Atheist = someone who doesn't believe in a deity

Theism and atheism make no claims on "knowing" whether there is a god or not. An atheist or a theist may "claim" to know if there is a god, but that doesn't have anything to do with their theism or atheism.

You are making these claims that "Atheists on the other hand will claim their belief is based on fact, and they do this pretty much most of the time." Find me a few atheists that will make this claim. Bet you money that you can't.
 
Back
Top Bottom