Morer Questions For The Atheist [W:839] (3 Viewers)

[joG]

Although the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who believes that God does not exist,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, 14% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit.



5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center



By all definition, you are an agnostic, unless you believe that God does not exist.

Does it surprise you that some people are not well educated. Why there are people here that will argue all night that there is no difference between not believing there is a god and believing God does not exist.

 

[tosca1]

 

[tosca1]

Dawkins admits being an agnostic!

 

[roughdraft274]

Analyze the definitions of both. It says it the way I pointed it out.

Furthermore:

The word atheism comes from the negative a which means ‘no,’ and theos which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’


I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult. Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists. Whichever definition you accept, atheism denies God.

What is atheism? | Define atheism | Explain what atheism is.

I have literally seen a dozen atheists give you the definition of atheism as "a lack of belief in a god" or something very close to it, yet you still make the argument that atheists are claiming there is no god.

You are being dishonest in your dealings if you continue to make this assertion. If you want to argue against a group of people's beliefs, the first thing you should do is ask them what they believe and then argue against that, not what you falsely accuse them of believing.

 

[roughdraft274]

Dawkins admits being an agnostic!

You can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Why are you ignoring what atheists are actually telling you they believe in?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Let me just correct your definition of agnosticism.


Agnosticism..... is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Big difference.

I'm sorry, that is incorrect. That qualifier makes the assumption that "truth values" or moral sources are exclusive to faith, and that is not the case. You are again making up definitions to make a point, no matter who the religious source is for your assumptions.

 

[zyzygy]

I have literally seen a dozen atheists give you the definition of atheism as "a lack of belief in a god" or something very close to it, yet you still make the argument that atheists are claiming there is no god.

You are being dishonest in your dealings if you continue to make this assertion. If you want to argue against a group of people's beliefs, the first thing you should do is ask them what they believe and then argue against that, not what you falsely accuse them of believing.

And also desist with the "proof" by Yootoob.

 

[zyzygy]

I'm sorry, that is incorrect. That qualifier makes the assumption that "truth values" or moral sources are exclusive to faith, and that is not the case. You are again making up definitions to make a point, no matter who the religious source is for your assumptions.

I've noticed that both truthers and the religious have the same Humpty Dumpty approach to language.

 

[tosca1]

I have literally seen a dozen atheists give you the definition of atheism as "a lack of belief in a god" or something very close to it, yet you still make the argument that atheists are claiming there is no god.

You are being dishonest in your dealings if you continue to make this assertion. If you want to argue against a group of people's beliefs, the first thing you should do is ask them what they believe and then argue against that, not what you falsely accuse them of believing.

Corrections. In this thread, I'm not arguing about what people believe.



Nothing dishonest in pointing out that as soon as you believe in God or a god - you can no longer be called an atheist.

Nothing dishonest in pointing out that as soon as you doubt the non-existence of God or a god(s) -
you can no longer be called an atheist.

 

[tosca1]

I'm sorry, that is incorrect. That qualifier makes the assumption that "truth values" or moral sources are exclusive to faith, and that is not the case. You are again making up definitions to make a point, no matter who the religious source is for your assumptions.

That definition was taken from Wiki. Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Here's the def from Oxford.

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

 

[tosca1]

And look at that. Put them both together and you have someone who thinks the truth value of this god claim is unknown or unknowable,

and as such does not have a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

If the truth value of a God claim is unknowable, please explain where he came to the conclusion that God does not exist.

How on earth did he happen to know that God does not exist....if that's unknown or unknowable?

 

[tosca1]

tosca1

Agnosticism..... is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

If the truth value is thought to be unknown or unknowable then for the same reasons we do not believe god exists we cannot make a positive assertion that a god does not. Your threads fail.

READ. Don't open the champagne yet. Don't get all excited. You haven't proven anything.


That's just the DEFINITION of AGNOSTICISM. :lol:

We're simply looking from an agnostic's point of view.



I'm not an agnostic.

 

[roughdraft274]

Corrections. In this thread, I'm not arguing about what people believe.



Nothing dishonest in pointing out that as soon as you believe in God or a god - you can no longer be called an atheist.

Nothing dishonest in pointing out that as soon as you doubt the non-existence of God or a god(s) -
you can no longer be called an atheist.

that's false.

I can doubt the non-existance of a god and still be an atheist. I am an atheist right up until the point that I believe in a god.

It is that simple. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. They are direct logical negations of each other. The atheist can go on to say that he thinks that there could possibly be a god, but until he actually believes in that god, he is an atheist.

 

[OrphanSlug]

That definition was taken from Wiki. Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Here's the def from Oxford.

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Sure, when attempting to "Qualifying agnosticism" and explicitly in the context of "religious claims"... not religious fact.

 

[Your Star]

I've always liked Penn Jillette's opinion on this.

 

[tosca1]

that's false.

I can doubt the non-existance of a god and still be an atheist. I am an atheist right up until the point that I believe in a god.

It is that simple. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. They are direct logical negations of each other. The atheist can go on to say that he thinks that there could possibly be a god, but until he actually believes in that god, he is an atheist.

Eh? What convoluted reasoning you have.

You say,

It is that simple. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist.
There is no middle ground.


then you say.....

I can doubt the non-existance of a god

If you doubt the non-existence of God - then obviously you believe in the possibility that He might exist.
You no longer have the belief that He doesn't exists.

And yes, in that case, I agree with you. There is no middle ground. It is that simple.

 

[tosca1]

The atheist can go on to say that he thinks that there could possibly be a god, but until he actually believes in that god, he is an atheist.

That would make him an agnostic.

He is unsure .......because the existence of God, or a god, is unknown to him.


He could later on become a theist (if he ends up believing that God exists)....or an atheist (if he ends up believing that God does not exist)....or remain an agnostic until the end.

 

[Manc Skipper]

An atheist only has to lack a belief. Active disbelief is not necessary, of even the same as non-belief.

 

[Thorgasm]

There is no god. Odin told me.

 

[marduc]

If the truth value of a God claim is unknowable, please explain where he came to the conclusion that God does not exist.

How on earth did he happen to know that God does not exist....if that's unknown or unknowable?

One does not have to know that god does not exist to have the belief that he does not. Even if one holds that the truth value is unknowable, one can still hold a belief on one side of the coin or other without a need to insert a truth value. I feel that the truth value of this questionis false.. I do not and feel I cannot KNOW that it is false (just as I cannot know it is true), but that is not a prerequisite for belief.

this is NOT a conclusion, and this is where you fail miserably. You continue to try to insist that it is a conclusion, when it is merely a belief (or more accurately a lack of).
One can be athiest and agnostic at the same time, few claim to know that a god/gods/higher powers absolutely do not exist - but one does not have to do this to not have a beleif in the existence of god/gods/higher powers.

I (and many others) are both athiest and agnostic by definition - definitions that you yourself graciously provided. Your ship was a disastrous leaky vessel to begin with (especially your thread on "burden of proof") but you personally launched the torpedo that doomed your pathetic fallacious little boat to the bottom of the sea.

 

[marduc]

That would make him an agnostic.

He is unsure .......because the existence of God, or a god, is unknown to him.


He could later on become a theist (if he ends up believing that God exists)....or an atheist (if he ends up believing that God does not exist)....or remain an agnostic until the end.

If one does not hold a belief that god exists then one is "not having a belief in the EXISTENCE a god or gods."

this is even using YOUR defintion of the term "atheist" verbatim. Thus, a person in this position is both atheist and agnostic. These terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

[marduc]

If you want to argue against a group of people's beliefs, the first thing you should do is ask them what they believe and then argue against that, not what you falsely accuse them of believing.

Why are you ignoring what atheists are actually telling you they believe in?

This just does not sink in with her, I have been trying to convey this point over and over, you managed to do so rather succinctly, thank you.

She would rather continue with her straw men. It is audacious that she (or any of the "authorities" she tries to appeal to) thinks she can tell us what our thoughts are when they flat out dismiss us when we elucidate them for their edification over and over and over again.

 

[marduc]

Eh? What convoluted reasoning you have.

You say,

It is that simple. If you believe, you are a theist. If you don't believe, you are an atheist.
There is no middle ground.


then you say.....

I can doubt the non-existance of a god

If you doubt the non-existence of God - then obviously you believe in the possibility that He might exist.
You no longer have the belief that He doesn't exists.

And yes, in that case, I agree with you. There is no middle ground. It is that simple.

One can believe that there is a possibility that god exists (no matter how remote) while still retaining the belief that he does not. THESE ARE NOT ASSERTIONS, these are beliefs.

I believe that there is a possiblility that there is a raccoon in the crawlspace under my house. Even though I believe this is a possiblility, I DO NOT believe that there is a raccoon in the crawlspace under my house.

Now just insert "god" into above statement to replace "raccoon in the crawlspace under my house" to see how ludicrous your post is.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But Catholics and Jews are both theists! That's a poor analogy.


You claim to be an a-theist

- and yet you believe in the existence of God or a god - what's wrong with that picture?

How is that hard for you to understand? I can believe in animals yet still doubt the existence of a duck that eats tigers and can talk to people. Believing that there may be a god (a being that nobody can see) does not mean that one must accept your description of that god or that god's commandments.

 

[roughdraft274]

That would make him an agnostic.

He is unsure .......because the existence of God, or a god, is unknown to him.


He could later on become a theist (if he ends up believing that God exists)....or an atheist (if he ends up believing that God does not exist)....or remain an agnostic until the end.

Agnostic isn't a middle ground between atheism and theism. It's a position on knowledge. You've been told this dozens of times.