Question For Atheists

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, you think that your average Christian would convert to Islam if the "evidence" pointed it to be more likely correct?

If your answer is "yes", congratulations on your naivety.

did you get that from what i posted?

if your answer is "yes", congratulations on your dubious interpretive skills. :p

Originally posted by Penguin
Theist:
"All the other religions in the world, that claim knowledge of absolute truth, are wrong. My religion, that also claims knowledge of absolute truth, is right. No amount of argument or contrary evidence can change my mind"

Well maybe my last sentence there is more representative of a fundamentalist view than a general theist view but I thin ...[text shortened]... ther religion is bound to seem strange and incomprehensible by comparison.

--- Penguin.

i certainly agree with all of that.. blinkers are religion's enduring success. "All the life and power of religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind." it hardly leaves room for healthy skepticism!

theism, though, is surely too broad a term to debate this accurately. for one thing, a philosophical theist needn't be religious.

Originally posted by pootstick
did you get that from what i posted?

if your answer is "yes", congratulations on your dubious interpretive skills. :p

You refuted the assertion that every theist believes that their religion is right and others wrong. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't be that religion now, would they?

Welcome to Logic-ville.

Originally posted by Penguin
Theist:
"All the other religions in the world, that claim knowledge of absolute truth, are wrong. My religion, that also claims knowledge of absolute truth, is right. No amount of argument or contrary evidence can change my mind"

Well maybe my last sentence there is more representative of a fundamentalist view than a general theist view

Originally posted by Penguin
Theist:
"All the other religions in the world, that claim knowledge of absolute truth, are wrong. My religion, that also claims knowledge of absolute truth, is right. No amount of argument or contrary evidence can change my mind"

Well maybe my last sentence there is more representative of a fundamentalist view than a general theist view


No. When you are prepared to accept the explanation that "a magic man did it" then no amount of evidence will change your mind, since you obviously have no connection with reality.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. I don't believe in God whatsoever. It's a crock of crap.

Now, tell me why atheists are ignorant.

Can you prove it??? You can't, so begone with such opinions until you'll be able to support it. I'm a Chrstian, but won't say that atheism is crock of crap,and that I have an ULTIMATE THRUTH.
You atheists are so arrogant... 😞

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You refuted the assertion that every theist believes that their religion is right and others wrong. If they didn't think so, they wouldn't be that religion now, would they?

Welcome to Logic-ville.

Your logic-ville is a bit weird town,i presume. If you've got your favourite soup, is it neccesary for you to everyone admit it is the best??? No,you eat this soup and let the rest be. So can't you imagine doing the same with religion???

Originally posted by Choreant
Can you prove it??? You can't, so begone with such opinions until you'll be able to support it. I'm a Chrstian, but won't say that atheism is crock of crap,and that I have an ULTIMATE THRUTH.
You atheists are so arrogant... 😞

As a mathematician I dislike using the word proof when dealing with reality as proof implies rigorous logic derived from certain definitions and axioms. As we don't really know the axioms of reality rigorous proofs can be rather hard.
However I do claim to have sufficient hard evidence for my atheist stance for me to consider it fact that God does not exist.

I find it strange that you claim to be a Christian but don't actually seem to believe in it. Surely you should be professing to be agnostic?

Originally posted by twhitehead
As a mathematician I dislike using the word proof when dealing with reality as proof implies rigorous logic derived from certain definitions and axioms. As we don't really know the axioms of reality rigorous proofs can be rather hard.
However I do claim to have sufficient hard evidence for my atheist stance for me to consider it fact that God does not ex ...[text shortened]... tian but don't actually seem to believe in it. Surely you should be professing to be agnostic?

While clearly a theist I don't suppose i have right to claim my religion as the best. I actually BELIVE,which is far from certainty(hence the word). What am I quite sure about is the existence of the God, and claim that have enough evidence to support it. What I hate is extremism of atheists,who so easily disapprove theism, without understanding it...

Originally posted by Choreant
While clearly a theist I don't suppose i have right to claim my religion as the best. I actually BELIVE,which is far from certainty(hence the word). What am I quite sure about is the existence of the God, and claim that have enough evidence to support it. What I hate is extremism of atheists,who so easily disapprove theism, without understanding it...

You are wrong about the word "Believe", in a religious context usually implies that you are sure something is true.

I see no need to understand theism in order to know that it is false if you already know that there is know God and that theism depends on the premise that God exists.
You are also incorrect in assuming that atheists on average have less understanding of theism than theists. Many atheists such as myself were once theist and therefore can claim to have at least as much understanding as we had at the time we were theist.
Also considering that every theist is unique no-one can really claim to understand all brands of theism.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are wrong about the word "Believe", in a religious context usually implies that you are sure something is true.

I see no need to understand theism in order to know that it is false if you already know that there is know God and that theism depends on the premise that God exists.
You are also incorrect in assuming that atheists on average have less ...[text shortened]... dering that every theist is unique no-one can really claim to understand all brands of theism.

not exactly. belive means to assume,but without need to have certainty,not being certain. all those mechanism,you wrote about work,but in the opposite direction,for all theists,who once was atheists.

Originally posted by Choreant
While clearly a theist I don't suppose i have right to claim my religion as the best. I actually BELIVE,which is far from certainty(hence the word). What am I quite sure about is the existence of the God, and claim that have enough evidence to support it. What I hate is extremism of atheists,who so easily disapprove theism, without understanding it...

I have seen absolutely no evidence to convince me that there is a god. Therefore, far from being an extremist position, it is quite sensible to withhold belief from the rather speculative god hypothesis. When seen in the proper light, we soon realize that it is not even possible for atheism to be an extreme position. A lack of belief simply cannot be extreme. It is only belief that can be carried to extreme lengths.

I hope this cleared up some of the obvious misconceptions that you were laboring under.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have seen absolutely no evidence to convince me that there is a god. Therefore, far from being an extremist position, it is quite sensible to withhold belief from the rather speculative god hypothesis. When seen in the proper light, we soon realize that it is not even possible for atheism to be an extreme position. A lack of belief simply cannot be extrem ...[text shortened]... ths.

I hope this cleared up some of the obvious misconceptions that you were laboring under.

Of course,that atheism can be overstreched to extremism. Just beacuse it denies, rather than state it is free from such a threat??? So,what is the antitheism??? In fact,the only, pure reasonable stance is agnosticism.

Originally posted by Choreant
Of course,that atheism can be overstreched to extremism. Just beacuse it denies, rather than state it is free from such a threat??? So,what is the antitheism??? In fact,the only, pure reasonable stance is agnosticism.

Many people like to believe that agnosticism is some reasonable middle ground, but this is based on a false assumption. It is simply not true that there are two competing claims for agnosticism to nestle snugly between. There is only one claim in play, namely the theist claim that there is a god. Both agnosticism and atheism are reactions to that solitary claim, and the burden of proof rests entirely upon the shoulders of the theist. The atheist reaction is that if the theist cannot sufficiently substantiate his claim for the existence of god, then the claim must be doubted. It must be assumed that the god hypothesis is false, unless shown otherwise.

So you see, in reality the reaction of the atheist is quite reasonable. Your mischaracterization of atheists is the most strident thing around here.

Originally posted by rwingett
Many people like to believe that agnosticism is some reasonable middle ground, but this is based on a false assumption. It is simply not true that there are two competing claims for agnosticism to nestle snugly between. There is only one claim in play, namely the theist claim that there is a god. Both agnosticism and atheism are reactions to that solitary c ...[text shortened]... s quite reasonable. Your mischaracterization of atheists is the most strident thing around here.

I once again than ask you what is an antitheism,than??? What's more if atheism would have been only reaction to the theists claim,atheists would not react actively,like I would not have reacted if someone had told me that he is,let's say, a King of Atlantis. But I wouldn't try to proof that he is not right.

The matter of the burden of proof is also a bit clouded. As to main principles you're right. But...

The matter is not if the God existence has been proven. Many assume that I has been. Historical evidence supporting Bible, miracles et.caetera. If they are true than the task is fulfilled. Many people will say,that those facts are real proofs for God's existence. Atheists discard them,of course,but as for now,they never manged to proof that they are all false. So ,we're dealing with facts, and arguing about their meaning or cause. Of course,they might be false,and prove nothing. But yet,we don't know. And that's why i call agnosticism as the most reasonable.

Originally posted by Choreant
I once again than ask you what is an antitheism,than??? What's more if atheism would have been only reaction to the theists claim,atheists would not react actively,like I would not have reacted if someone had told me that he is,let's say, a King of Atlantis. But I wouldn't try to proof that he is not right.

The matter of the burden of proof is also a bi ...[text shortened]... othing. But yet,we don't know. And that's why i call agnosticism as the most reasonable.

Why don't you tell me what you think antitheism is? I looked it up in the dictionary but it wasn't in there, so I'm assuming that you made it up.

Atheists react as they do because they do not want to live under a theocracy. Which is where theists would take us if they were given a free hand in running things. Somebody's got to keep them in line. You can claim you're the King of Atlantis all you want, but don't expect me to actually honor you as king.

The existence of god has not been proven, regardless of what many people may claim. If it had been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Atheist, on the contrary, do not need to prove god false, nor do they even necessarily try to do so. As I've said, the burden of proof lies solely on the theist. If we don't know if god is true, then there's no reason to assume he is. And if we grant no belief to the god hypothesis, then we are without theism, which is to say that we are atheists.

I do not believe that agnosticism is a separate category to itself. All agnostics are really agnostic theists, or agnostic atheists. Actually, I think the term agnosticism is superfluous and that everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you are not a theist, then by definition you are an atheist.