What do atheists think of agnostics, and vice versa? (reject, Jesus, experience)

[cncracer]

I see Atheist, Agnostics, and Deist as all being on the same road, just different positions. I saw in one book where Agnostics were known as “Atheist lights”, and Deist known as “Atheist Ultra lights” I think that is how I look at it.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by manygeese

I acknowledge that you say I am right but you illustrate the point none the less.

Booze exists beyond claim. I have seen drunks.

Yes. But my point was about the apparent use of a term describing what one does not not do (believe in gods or drink booze) as a description of a person who probably is much more than just that.

It was not used as an analogy of God with booze implying that because one is real the other must be real, too! And it should not be so used as that would be a false analogy and quite invalid as any sort of 'proof' of 'God'.

In fact a simple test shows this. The effect of Alcohol and religion may have similarities but the existence of booze is easy to prove. the existence of God is not.

[Chicagoland60426]

Originally Posted by cncracer

I see Atheist, Agnostics, and Deist as all being on the same road, just different positions. I saw in one book where Agnostics were known as “Atheist lights”, and Deist known as “Atheist Ultra lights” I think that is how I look at it.

Deist believe in a God, but they believe he created the world and abandon it.

[cncracer]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

Deist believe in a God, but they believe he created the world and abandon it.

That is close enough for this Atheist. It at least keeps them out of my drive and off my front porch on Sunday afternoon. I still think Atheist ultra Light fits them well.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Yes. But my point was about the apparent use of a term describing what one does not not do (believe in gods or drink booze) as a description of a person who probably is much more than just that.

It was not used as an analogy of God with booze implying that because one is real the other must be real, too! And it should not be so used as that would be a false analogy and quite invalid as any sort of 'proof' of 'God'.

In fact a simple test shows this. The effect of Alcohol and religion may have similarities but the existence of booze is easy to prove. the existence of God is not.

This is getting very intellectual. I am out of my depth.

You are saying something exists (atheism) as a reaction to something that doesn't exist (god).

My brain isn't good enough to handle that, AREQUIPA. I'll bow to you.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by manygeese

This is getting very intellectual. I am out of my depth.

You are saying something exists (atheism) as a reaction to something that doesn't exist (god).

My brain isn't good enough to handle that, AREQUIPA. I'll bow to you.

I think most brains capable of operating a computer are able to understand the basics of atheism.
Suggest you start with the basic premise that there are NO gods of any religion. That nothing is to be assumed without some good reason.

Do you exist? You think therefore you (probably) are. Does that computer exist? You can feel it and see it so, on all evidence it does. Isn't it possible that it is all your imagination? Well -did you want those pop - ups or that virus or the sudden loss of all your work? Nope.
The indication is of other realities outside your own imagination. On all evidence the solipsistic universe is an unsupported theory and the evidence indicates that our material world is real.

Having then taken on board the evidence for geography, history and science, we have a pretty good working knowledge of how it operates.

Now ask what evidence there is for any of these god - claims? If it doesn't seem to have good evidential support, then not - knowing and not- believing is the only logical and reasonable option.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Suggest you start with the basic premise that there are NO gods of any religion. That nothing is to be assumed without some good reason.

"Suggest you start with the basic premise (presumption/assumption) that there are NO gods..."

"...nothing is to be assumed (premised) without some good reason."


A logical contradiction.

[manygeese]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I think most brains capable of operating a computer are able to understand the basics of atheism.
Suggest you start with the basic premise that there are NO gods of any religion. That nothing is to be assumed without some good reason.

Do you exist? You think therefore you (probably) are. Does that computer exist? You can feel it and see it so, on all evidence it does. Isn't it possible that it is all your imagination? Well -did you want those pop - ups or that virus or the sudden loss of all your work? Nope.
The indication is of other realities outside your own imagination. On all evidence the solipsistic universe is an unsupported theory and the evidence indicates that our material world is real.

Having then taken on board the evidence for geography, history and science, we have a pretty good working knowledge of how it operates.

Now ask what evidence there is for any of these god - claims? If it doesn't seem to have good evidential support, then not - knowing and not- believing is the only logical and reasonable option.

Perhaps I out intellectualized you and even my self.

My point was if god doesn't exist, how can atheism exist?

Put it another way.

Remove all concepts of god from the universe and if you still have any atheism left, you still have a belief in god left.

Atheism its self is a contradiction in terms. A real nowhere man.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

"Suggest you start with the basic premise (presumption/assumption) that there are NO gods..."

"...nothing is to be assumed (premised) without some good reason."


A logical contradiction.

Not at all. You misunderstood the argument which was, for the purposes of falsification you start by assuming NOTHING, which includes no-gods. And start from there.

It was an understandable slip on your part perhaps but does show up the impossiility of you thinking logically because you cannot think without the basic assumption of this god-reality.

No, do go and read some logical website, because I've already wasted too much time on you.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by manygeese

Perhaps I out intellectualized you and even my self.

My point was if god doesn't exist, how can atheism exist?

Put it another way.

Remove all concepts of god from the universe and if you still have any atheism left, you still have a belief in god left.

Atheism its self is a contradiction in terms. A real nowhere man.

That's absolutely right. If there was no god - belief, no religion, and no -one even thought about it, atheism would not even be mentioned and we wouldn't have to spend time being it.

As it is we have to spend a lot of time countering the various illogical myths being peddled and fighting, really, for our right not to have it forced on us.