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.
I assume most people have some degree of certainty about what they believe. Some more than others. This applies to both theists and atheists.
As far as the definitions posted in the FAQ in the A&A forum, nobody redefined any terms. I was already moderating the forums when some of the members approached us about creating a FAQ. We bounced drafts around probably 20 times to make sure what was said was clear and understandable as well as being consistent with dictionary definitions. I checked the definitions myself at dictionary.com. Nobody redefined any terms.
As far as the burden of proof goes, the issue is discussed in this Wikipedia article. You may not agree with it, but it seems to be widely accepted in debate circles.
I don't expect any response to this post. This is just to set the record straight.
What I get when I click on your link...
Burden of proof (philosophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Dialog-information on.svg Did you mean: Burden of proof (philosophy)?
There is a link there that then takes one to what I think is worth reviewing, and reflecting upon in terms of how we're all doing...
Are you implying that believing a universal creator god coming into being without cause IS a rational conclusion?
I don't think anyone is suggesting the universe came into being without cause but we are saying the cause was not a prior causeless superbeing.
I was with you right up to that last part, without cause but "we are saying the cause was..."
I for one have no problem suggesting the universe came into being without cause, as in without willful action, so think again about that assumption anyway or do we need to better define our terms again?
The term is in one of the sticky threads. It is also contested by some, but I remember coming across it back in 198? something when I was transitioning from theism to atheism, so it isn't a new concept.
Basically, because I do not claim certainty of knowledge, I am agnostic.
Based on what knowledge I do have, and the likelihood that it is accurate, I do not believe in a god, therefore I am an atheist.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that I am an atheist who acknowledges that I may be wrong. In my case, I think the likelihood that I am wrong is vanishingly small.
If you/we must, but I am an atheist because there is no convincing evidence a God exists. Not sure I should complicate matters any from there or why anyone feels the need to do so.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Ask an "agnostic atheist" how sure they are that God does not exist and the usually answer is something like 99.9999999999999%. They don't want to say 100% because they know that would paint them as irrational, but they think 0.000000000000001% doubt is adequate for them to be able to identify as a "rational" agnostic atheist. That in itself is not rational. The reality is that most of these people who call themselves "agnostic atheists" are more accurately described as anti-theists -- and they give moderate atheists a bad name.
The redefining of terms by atheists is an attempt to insulate themselves from criticism and to avoid having to defend their own beliefs. Formula: Keep the burden of proof on the religious person and avoid making anything but vague claims about their own beliefs.
Do you have any idea how infinitesimally small 0.000000000000001% is? For all intents and purposes it is exactly equal to zero. Certainly not big enough to justify the claim of 'not rational'.
Atheists don't have any beliefs or claims to defend. We are not claiming a god exists, we are not claiming a man died on the cross then came alive and became a god.
I have made that same statement many times. The reality is that anti-theists are hostile to actual discussion of religion and spirituality on the R&S forum. It's an unfriendly environment for anyone who actually wants to discuss religion and spirituality. That is reality, and it's healthy to not want to engage in that type of interaction. I understand that's frustrating for those you are just seeking opportunities to mock and ridicule, but why should I waste my time just to provide them that opportunity?
These anti-theist quotes will provide some insight about what they see as the purpose of R&S. Does it seem like they have genuine interest in civil discussion? Be honest...
"This is a campaign against Organized religion, specifically Christianity"
"the reason we are here is because the Big Lie of Christianity"
- TRANSPONDER
"we non believers are waiting in ever growing packs to eviscerate the poor foolishly unprepared religious newbies who stumble in to the forum"
"They stop briefly for a chance to preach to the unwashed unbelievers. But then they quickly witness their make believe world view being not only eviscerated, but effectively eviscerated. And they disappear in horror."
- TIRED OF THE NONSENSE
"You are the enemy who tries to shove your religion down the throats of people who don't want it.”
“my primary purposes here is to say to some christians -- back off"
- PHETAROI
"As for respect, don't ask for it, you won't get it because you don't deserve it"
“What they don't have is the right to demand 'respect' for those beliefs.”
- RAFIUS
So despite my offer to have an actual conversation based on a very specific area of WLC's apologetics, this is what you come back with? It seems to me that your interest isn't actually in R&S, but in attempting to chastise people for their opinions. I could be wrong, I am only judging you on this recent exchange.
Do you have any idea how infinitesimally small 0.000000000000001% is? For all intents and purposes it is exactly equal to zero. Certainly not big enough to justify the claim of 'not rational'.
Atheists don't have any beliefs or claims to defend. We are not claiming a god exists, we are not claiming a man died on the cross then came alive and became a god.
This back-and-forth forever reminds me of this scene, and since there is at least one person who is especially fond of videos, here's to you and the 0.000000000000001%ers...
Do you have any idea how infinitesimally small 0.000000000000001% is? For all intents and purposes it is exactly equal to zero. Certainly not big enough to justify the claim of 'not rational'.
Atheists don't have any beliefs or claims to defend. We are not claiming a god exists, we are not claiming a man died on the cross then came alive and became a god.
"For all intents and purposes it is exactly equal to zero."
That was my point. Why not just say 100% if you feel that confident?
To be agnostic is different from being an atheist. To be agnostic or atheist is different from being a theist. Can we maybe stick to the KISS principle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
The term is in one of the sticky threads. It is also contested by some, but I remember coming across it back in 198? something when I was transitioning from theism to atheism, so it isn't a new concept.
Basically, because I do not claim certainty of knowledge, I am agnostic.
Based on what knowledge I do have, and the likelihood that it is accurate, I do not believe in a god, therefore I am an atheist.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that I am an atheist who acknowledges that I may be wrong. In my case, I think the likelihood that I am wrong is vanishingly small.
If you/we must, but I am an atheist because there is no convincing evidence a God exists. Not sure I should complicate matters any from there or why anyone feels the need to do so.
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
That's me.
Your definition of atheism is a standard definition. If someone were to ask you 'do you believe in god?' your answer, according to that definition, would be a resounding 'No, I don't.'
But you not believing in god doesn't say anything as to the truth of the claim of whether or not god actually exists. The truth claim is a knowledge claim and this is where agnosticism/gnosticism comes in. If you say 'Sure, I don't believe in god, but who knows if god exists or not,' then you're an agnostic atheist. If however, you say 'I don't believe in god, because I'm 100% certain it doesn't exist', you'd be a gnostic atheist. The same could be extrapolated to the theist position.
Basically, because I do not claim certainty of knowledge, I am agnostic.
Based on what knowledge I do have, and the likelihood that it is accurate, I do not believe in a god, therefore I am an atheist.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that I am an atheist who acknowledges that I may be wrong. In my case, I think the likelihood that I am wrong is vanishingly small.
I think you stated this very well.
I don't think we have to continually post that we may be wrong. I don't think any of us...well, damned few of us...have claimed we are without reservation correct.
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.
