Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I think is funny is when a theist says Atheist don't believe in God the Atheist says "No! No! It's not that. It is we have a disbelief in God."
Of if you say "Atheist don't believe God exists" they exclaim "No! It's not that! It is we have a disbelief God exists." As if that is really any different.
You know why there should never be an atheist scientist? Because they can't prove God does not exist. At most, all scientists can only be Agnostic. In fact, all Atheists should be Agnostic because no one can prove God does not exist. The best they can do is to say "we just don't know if God exists or not." There must be a possibility He does.
It is funny indeed, or it would be if it were not so irritating. Because, old mate,it wouldn't be necessary to be meticulous about the distinctions or semantics if it was not that theist apologetics try to make it some kind of argument against the logical rationale of atheism. Namely a disbelief in the god -claim (that is any god) is twisted to look like a knowledge claim that there is no god.
Not surprisingly you got confused about what the Semantic wrangle is. Any atheist would say he or she does not believe in God and the same person would say they also have a disbelief in God and that they are the same thing. Of if they don't believe that a god exists it is the same as a disbelief that a god exists. And that it is the same thing.
If you find it funny, we do too, but not for the same reason It is even funnier to hear you rehearse the illogical (if not ignorant) fallacies abut where the burden of proof lies and the position of agnosticism as the basis of atheism. But, in fact old son, we have all come to realize that you generally do not know what you are talking about and, sadly, you would prefer not to.
Now, I believe, (or perhaps I should say, I do not disbelieve) what you have in mind is the difference between not having a belief in a god and having a disbelief in a god.
It is (we know) a subtle point and (as I said) it really wouldn't matter were it not that theist apologists try to force us into a denial position that is irrational. "You are saying that No gods exist - well, how do you know? Have you looked everywhere in the universe? Do you claim to know everything?"
We have all heard it before. So not having a god -belief is a bit more passive and just waiting for some persuasive evidence. A disbelieve is a bit more proactive in that it is really considering specific god -claims and finding reasons to reject them.
And of course when it comes to personal gods, then we can say "There is no God" just as reasonably as we say "there is no Santa Claus". And the logic of the claim is equally valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Tomato Tomawto.
My God. You make a huge deal about semantic fiddling and when it turns out not to suit you, you just wave it away. Browsers take note if they didn't already know, that our pal Eusebius is the dictionary definition of intellectual dishonesty and is now worth two divisions and a Panzer regiment to us.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-13-2016 at 08:57 AM..
Still it is improper to make the claim by atheists that there is no God because of the lack of evidence.
You see, a scientist would never make such a blunder, or at least shouldn't because he/she knows that just around the corner, evidence could appear proving God exists. Or the proof may not come in his/her lifetime but maybe after they die proof could arrive. Or maybe the proof is right before their eyes but they just can't see it. It should always remain open-ended . . . just in case.
I have not heard of the group called Atheist/Agnostic. It was either Atheist or Agnostic.
I know I'm not wrong about God's existence because I have His spirit in me.
Monumental ignorance and delusion. But Let's give you a chance.
Once, ignorance in excusable.
twice, forgetfulness is forgivable.
Thrice, and there is no excuse.
So listen and lean, if your learning capacity hasn't been totally compromised by too much Faith in your own Rightness. A scientist would be perfectly happy with the idea of disbelief in anything that had no adequate evidence. If the evidence comes to hand, then ok you believe it, but not until then.
This is quite simple and any scientist would get it, but Theists, accustomed to thinking in terms of Faith in what is unproven, constantly present the 'They didn't believe the Wright Brothers' fallacy.
Which is that it was RIGHT not to believe it until it was proven. If it can be made to look foolish because in fact it was possible, even if nobody knew it, the fallacy is shown up with cold fusion. If it had been accepted on Faith we would all believe what wasn't true.We HAVE to be skeptical until a claim is validated.
The other thing I'll tell you twice at most and then I expect you to remember, is that agnosticism is the basis of atheism
Agnosticism- "I do not know whether a god exists"
Atheism- "So I will not believe until I do know". Very simple.
Now of course, we cannot go through life believing nothing on the grounds that something may invalidate everything we know.
Not even theists do that, even if they use the argument. They rely on what science knows every single hour of every day of their lives.
Validated knowledge counts and the way evidence points is persuasive. Demanding 100% proof is a misdirection in order to give naysayers a way of denying even strong evidence.
So, when we say "There is no God", we are talking about the very specific God of the Bible and Christianity. We are assessing the evidence and the claims and the parameters and we are saying that it belongs in the same bin as the Flat earth and the Geocentric system. No scientist would have any problem with that and in fact the great majority of scientists agree with it.
Cue list of God -believing scientists But a look at one or two would, I am sure, explain a few things. and
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-13-2016 at 09:00 AM..
True, there are many different definitions of God. The one you often use is so amorphous and far from what anybody else means as to be useless.
What you say here is nothing more than your erroneous opinion.
"Anybody else" would denote all others anywhere and everywhere.
Pantheism is one of the most commonly embraced ideologies in the history of mankind.
MOF, some have determined that more Pantheists have existed than anything else.
Have they? Can you produce some figures? I should have though more who believed in personal gods outnumbered them. But I guess that a lot depends on what you take "Panthesm" to mean. It would possible for example to say that it it makes the term "God" cover everything including all the personal god - concepts.
That'd do it all right, but hardly anyone would be happy with such a semantic swindle.
Or, you could use the words properly and understand that most atheists are, by strict definition, agnostic atheists. Which is to say that they are agnostic because they do not have complete knowledge because there is always some possibility of error, and they are also atheists because they believe that there is no God because of the lack of evidence.
The same holds for you. I suspect that you view yourself as a gnostic theist, or somebody who claims absolute knowledge that a God exists. It seems more reasonable to be an agnostic theist, somebody who admits that they might be wrong because of uncertainty, but believe God exists anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
The problem you exhibit with this statement is that you don't know the definitions of the words Atheist and Agnostic.
An Agnostic is "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable."
An Atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Therefore, it is perfectly consistent to say Atheist/Agnostic. As an Atheist, a person does not believe that God exists, but, as an Agnostic, believes that ultimate knowledge about the existence of God is not possible.
From reading what the members say in the Atheism & Agnosticism forum, I have come to the conclusion that Atheist/Agnostic is the most common self-descriptor they have.
Either one believes a God entity exists....they don't believe a God entity exists...or they believe it to be not known if a God entity exists.
Atheists...who many times hammer on the necessity to be "logical and reasonable", and demand evidence (replete with their "Prove It!" mantra) and "objective substantiation"...seek to separate themselves from the Argument From Ignorance logical fallacy that they have typically based their position on.
They have been called out on their use of "no evidence" as evidence! Using absence of evidence as evidence of absence, is, (as they love to say) an "Epic Fail!".
SO...they try to come up with something to cover their illogical position.
Thus, this "Agnostic Atheist" stuff gets put on the table. I guess nobody hipped them to "The First Rule Of Holes"! Stop digging.
About as reasonable as noting "Engaged Married" people!
Here is the Real Deal: Atheist | Definition of Atheist by Merriam-Webster
It is now up to the Atheist to substantiate that position with a logical argument that has its basis in a valid premise.
BTW..."No Evidence" is not a valid premise for any conclusion or determination other than "There is no evidence".
It is kinda moot anyway: Pantheism presents the unequivocal, objective existence of GOD...thus rendering Atheism and Agnosticism null and void. Unless specifically qualified to refer only to the myriad Religious Deities, and not "G-O-D".
If a person states God's existence is unknown and unknowable, they are an Agnostic. That is basically what I was saying when I stated: ""we just don't know if God exists or not."
And the Atheists on these boards said: "We have a disbelief in God." If they got that wrong, you need to let them know that they don't know the definition of Atheist.
Regarding these statements, a distinction needs to be made between the God of the Bible and the more general idea of "God."
We can say with a great deal of scientific certainty that there was no God or spirit being that did most of the things attributed to God in Genesis 1. The Genesis authors simply had no scientific knowledge about these things at the time of their writing. They were essentially winging it and leaving it for us to discover how false their writings were - thousands of years later. Because, until fairly recently, science had no answer for how most things in nature came to be.
On the other hand, if we define God to be a supreme being who exists outside of time and space, who blurted out our universe and then simply left it alone, never to return ... then we would have to be much more agnostic about this concept of God. Because there is simply no way to determine whether such a God exists. All we can say is there has never been any direct evidence of such a God.
Agnostic - "I'm not sure and I don't care if there is a god or not"
Atheist - "I don't give a flying rat's butt about any god, as much as I don't give a flying rat's butt about leprechauns."
Cleared up the mystery for you?
No. Because it is no "mystery". Just the bias and insult of your statement.
You conflate imaginary entities (typically childish stuff like "leprechauns"...indicative of the mentality being employed) known not to objectively exist in reality (and of which their invention is fully known) with "G-O-D", which can be proved to objectively exist.
Now that you have broken out the "I don't care" (replete with more *flying rat's butt* dumbstuff spew) argument. You and your ilk are really grasping at straws now.
Either one believes a God entity exists....they don't believe a God entity exists...or they believe it to be not known if a God entity exists.
Atheists...who many times hammer on the necessity to be "logical and reasonable", and demand evidence (replete with their "Prove It!" mantra) and "objective substantiation"...seek to separate themselves from the Argument From Ignorance logical fallacy that they have typically based their position on.
They have been called out on their use of "no evidence" as evidence! Using absence of evidence as evidence of absence, is, (as they love to say) an "Epic Fail!".
SO...they try to come up with something to cover their illogical position.
Thus, this "Agnostic Atheist" stuff gets put on the table. I guess nobody hipped them to "The First Rule Of Holes"! Stop digging.
About as reasonable as noting "Engaged Married" people!
Here is the Real Deal: Atheist | Definition of Atheist by Merriam-Webster
It is now up to the Atheist to substantiate that position with a logical argument that has its basis in a valid premise.
BTW..."No Evidence" is not a valid premise for any conclusion or determination other than "There is no evidence".
It is kinda moot anyway: Pantheism presents the unequivocal, objective existence of GOD...thus rendering Atheism and Agnosticism null and void. Unless specifically qualified to refer only to the myriad Religious Deities, and not "G-O-D".
No, sunshine. You have got it back to front as usual. The argument from ignorance is NOT that we do not know whether there is a god or not, so atheists know nothing and can be ignored.
It means the we do not know a lot of things, so "God" is popped in as the explanation and then presented as evidence that there is a god. It is a fallacy and illogic.
Negative evidence is just one more of the misused and misunderstood and misrepresented fallacies that theists find handy.
What has to be understood is the parameters of what has no evidence. If Theism has any doubt about this, let's take a simple example. You look in a drawer for a banana. There is no sign of a banana. This is very good evidence that a banana is not there.
Let's take archeology and a claim by a theist historian that because there is no trace of a people mentioned in the Bible (at a particular date) does not mean they were never there. In fact, archeology would show whether the occupation layer had been removed and, if it had not, that is proof they were never there. Since the parameters required are known, negative evidence is compelling.
It is the same with Eusebius' Temple on Opel. There is NO evidence that the 2nd temple was ever there. Now the same argument was made that the occupation level was removed. But this is not true. The occupation level is there and there is no temple. That is compelling evidence that the 2nd temple was never on Ophel.
The same negative evidence applies (less strongly) to the Jews in Egypt and the Exodus. But in all cases, the rule is - if there is no evidence, you don't believe it until there is. True, the Claim of Exodus and indeed resurrection and God are made and exist, in the Bible and there has to be good reason to doubt them.
I at least accept that burden of proof and that has been adequately discharged: on Historical, textual and scientific grounds, the Bible is not reliable.
Therefore the burden of proof is back on the Bible believers to validate the claims made therein.
So what and where is absence of evidence Not evidence of absence? Why, where we do not know the parameters. This applies for example to the cosmos and alien life. We know so little about it that to say a lack of evidence of alien life is evidence that there is none is absurd. And Sagan said so and the remark was picked up by theists and used to counter the atheist disbelief. Which of course it doesn't. because even though negative evidence does not disprove aliens, it certainly does not do a single darn thing to prove them.
Nether does the lack of any decent evidence for a god disprove it (apart from where the parameters are known, such as Biblegod) but it does not a single damn' thing to make a case for a god of any kind.
Furthermore, (and Abiogenesis is crying out to be heard ) there is (or are) indirect or circumstantial parameters. If for example we had archaeology of a tribe moving into Roman land and then -nothing. We look at the archaeology and find a particular area was cleared for a reservoir or gladiator barracks or a medieval monastery so the evidence, could have been removed. But if Roman records make no mention of the tribe, it suggests that they never arrived.
So indirect evidence suggests that life had to start somewhere as indeed the cosmos did. There is no direct evidence. But the indirect evidence suggests that natural processes were engaged in the formation of the universe and in the evolution of Life. And it also suggests an absence of the 'Design' we should expect from Goddunnit.
This is good reason, therefore,to propose (if we can) mechanisms that do not need a divine miracle. and even if we can't, we should prefer topstulate some natural cause.
That should clarrfy the natter and hopefully head off any such semantic cheating as saying that "miracles are Natural, after all"
I am sorry for the length, but one of the Arq axioms is: "It takes less words to say: 'There are fairies at the bottom of my garden.' than to explain why there probably aren't"
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
No. Because it is no "mystery". Just the bias and insult of your statement.
You conflate imaginary entities (typically childish stuff like "leprechauns"...indicative of the mentality being employed) known not to objectively exist in reality (and of which their invention is fully known) with "G-O-D", which can be proved to objectively exist.
Now that you have broken out the "I don't care" (replete with more *flying rat's butt* dumbstuff spew) argument. You and your ilk are really grasping at straws now.
You have no idea how seriously many Irish, to this day, believe in leprechauns and trolls. You'd have to be there and know them to understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is even funnier to hear you rehearse the illogical (if not ignorant) fallacies abut where the burden of proof lies and the position of agnosticism as the basis of atheism. But, in fact old son, we have all come to realize that you generally do not know what you are talking about and, sadly, you would prefer not to.
So not having a god -belief is a bit more passive and just waiting for some persuasive evidence. A disbelieve is a bit more proactive in that it is really considering specific god -claims and finding reasons to reject them. 
But Let's give you a chance. 
is that agnosticism is the basis of atheism
