What is this "God"?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
atheism is the lack of belief in a god

Yes

and/or the belief that there is no god.

No, this is false.

The two statements carry vastly different meanings.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's an outline of historiography, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Some of the common questions of historiography are:
Who wrote the source (primary or secondary)?
For primary sources, we look at the person in his or her society, for secondary sources, we consider the theoretical orientation of the approach.
What is the authenticity, authority, bias/inter ...[text shortened]...
Please inform me which of the above factors are arbitrary and should thus be removed.

Perhaps now you could apply these factors and demosntrate that all other religious scriptures are fabricated and hence only the christian God is veritable. I suspect that you can't and consequently you are arbitrary (because that is how you are applying these factors) and even prejudiced.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you have left the atheist with two possibilities. Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd) or there exists some other uncaused cause enacting agent (probability-wise more logical). The atheist chooses the absurd over the logical.
Hooray for the atheist!

And of course, believing in God is completely logical (depending on definition employed).

Why is everyone so prejudiced against something out of nothing?
It happens all the time. There just part of the bizarre consequences of quantum mechanics.

Also Freaky, why is it more logical that an uncaused agent caused instead of just matter as its "own uncaused cause"? Cause and effect might just be a logical paradigm of this universe (and no preceeding one). So our universes existence may have no cause.

Originally posted by Halitose
Which science seems to have a problem with.

Good thing that atheism isn't beholden to what scientists think. Besides, science is completely silent on the question of whether the universe had a beginning.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In essence, the same thing. Either it caused itself, or it always was. So either God is God, or matter is God.

No, don't get confused. Matter is matter, not God (because there is no such animal). See? No problem for the atheist.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]atheism is the lack of belief in a god

Yes

and/or the belief that there is no god.

No, this is false.

The two statements carry vastly different meanings.[/b]

Huh? How so? An atheist either lacks a belief in a god, and/or believes there is no god.
How false, then?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Huh? How so? An atheist either lacks a belief in a god, [b]and/or believes there is no god.
How false, then?[/b]

As an atheist I deny the existence of god. This is not a belief that god does not exist, since that would be to accept his existence as a possibility, but to hold a belief that this position is false. Instead I withhold any belief in god at all.

I'm sure you would love to attach the 'and/or' to atheism, but it is not there.

Originally posted by Starrman
As an atheist I deny the existence of god. This is not a belief that god does not exist, since that would be to accept his existence as a possibility, but to hold a belief that this position is false. Instead I withhold any belief in god at all.

I'm sure you would love to attach the 'and/or' to atheism, but it is not there.

I agreed with you at first... sadly you've lost me.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I suspect that you can't and consequently you are arbitrary (because that is how you are applying these factors) and even prejudiced.

Originally posted by Rolfey
how would you know which is correct


There are several standards by which these types of things can be judged.

This is the original posting to which subsequent postings refer. The "several standards" were challenged as being "arbitrary," without the benefit of knowing what standards were being referenced. So much for objective challenges, I guess.

Upon supplying a workable list of the standard, no one has been able to challenge the standard, so you are left to now call me arbitrary in my application of the same. Typical.

These standards (and others, but these will do for a precursory excursion) have been employed by me in my search. It falls to you to determine whether the standard I have suggested is adequate, and further, whether any of the world's religion's can pass muster.

demosntrate that all other religious scriptures are fabricated
Come on! All Scriptures are fabricated. How could I possibly demonstrate the falsity of such a claim?

Originally posted by Starrman
As an atheist I deny the existence of god. This is not a belief that god does not exist, since that would be to accept his existence as a possibility, but to hold a belief that this position is false. Instead I withhold any belief in god at all.

I'm sure you would love to attach the 'and/or' to atheism, but it is not there.

I didn't attach the and/or; it was there to begin with. I'm afraid you lost me, as well.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Originally posted by Rolfey


[b]demosntrate that all other religious scriptures are fabricated
Come on! All Scriptures are fabricated. How could I possibly demonstrate the falsity of such a claim?[/b]

Fabricated as in the story is fabricated as in the story was completely made up, ergo, the story is a lot of hot air baloon.

Are you making a startling apostasy?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Fabricated as in the story is fabricated as in the story was completely made up, ergo, the story is a lot of hot air baloon.

Are you making a startling apostasy?

If you're looking for one of those, allow me to offer one, "Manuscript Found," undertaken in the early 1800's, by one Reverend Solomon Spalding.

After a little literary treatment, it became a huge seller, the basis of one of the world's (now) fastest-growing religious movements. Fascinating stuff, really.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you have left the atheist with two possibilities. Either matter is its own uncaused cause (absurd) or there exists some other uncaused cause enacting agent (probability-wise more logical). The atheist chooses the absurd over the logical.
Hooray for the atheist!

Be careful appealing to probabilities. I may just ask you to construct them. So far that hasn't turned out too well for evangelicals on this board.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here's an outline of historiography, courtesy of Wikipedia.

Some of the common questions of historiography are:
Who wrote the source (primary or secondary)?
For primary sources, we look at the person in his or her society, for secondary sources, we consider the theoretical orientation of the approach.
What is the authenticity, authority, bias/inter ...[text shortened]...
Please inform me which of the above factors are arbitrary and should thus be removed.

Oh geez not this paltry Josh McDowell tripe. They taught me this cheap shod apologetics in my old xian school. Ok, Freak, go to town. We'll tear it up once you're done.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
God, not being matter--- moreover, being outside of matter--- does not, therefore, require a cause.

There is no law that says that things "outside of matter" require no cause. You're just making stuff up, which is okay since it's all make believe anyway.