Jump to content


Photo

A Few "more" Questions For Atheists


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
30 replies to this topic

#21 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 December 2011 - 08:50 AM

lol. im sorry, its sad that some will do this, just admit that you dont know if there is a god and why

is it that hard to be honest.. i have seen some of you do it.



It’s especially hard because ALL of the logical, rational and scientific evidence is against them. Further, because of their “faith based” world view, they are more often defining themselves as agnostic, and yet at the same time denying their agnosticism.

#22 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:54 AM

i love that i can know make the theistic evos dance with the simple truth of the words of the bible. just had one dance around the fact that he said death was gods plan all along. then after i make my case he says if god didnt allow adam and eve to eat of the tree of life they wouldnt lived forever.


which is it? evolution or his word. i maid my case with the idea that sin without the law cant be sin and they would have to already know by then lying etc was bad.

thus negating being innocent.

#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:36 AM

It’s especially hard because ALL of the logical, rational and scientific evidence is against them. Further, because of their “faith based” world view, they are more often defining themselves as agnostic, and yet at the same time denying their agnosticism.

What I experienced was that they describe themselfes as atheists, deny that atheism is a religion and when challenged to tell what they are actually believe ("I don't see (or know of ) any evidence, that's why I don't belief etc. "), make statements that meet the criteria of agnosticism.
I think on needs to distinguish two positions:
1.) "I do not believe there is a god". Which actually means "I believe there is no God".
2.) "I don't believe in god".
The first is definitely atheism. The second could be agnosticism. Atheists usually try to appear convinced of position one, but when they are challenged with burden of proof, they switch to the second. A switch that is accompanied by the assertion that atheism isn't a religion, because "atheists don't believe in god or deities". But they are hardly disinterested agnostics or areligious. Otherwise they won't do any of the following. Doing things like arguing on forums against other religions, even start their own forums, societies, write books on their beliefs, etc. That's not areligious agnosticism, that's evangelical atheism!

#24 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 19 December 2011 - 10:28 AM

I don’t know Mark; “Both” faith-statements can be espoused as either “Atheistic” OR Agnostic. BOTH can espouse numbers one and two; but, the crux is “how they got there”.

The Agnostic (no knowledge) got there by saying (by definition) “You cannot KNOW God”, or “You cannot KNOW ABOUT God”, because “God is unknowable” OR “there isn’t ENOUGH INFORMATION to make a definite decision”.

The Atheist (no God or gods) got there by saying (by definition) “there IS/ARE NO God(s)!”


The atheist and agnostic BOTH are stating beliefs (faith statements); the problem is that the atheist, to remain an atheist (by definition) cannot sustain the atheistic argument, so they fall back on the agnostic’s world-view by proxy! The atheist attempts to day “there is not enough evidence FOR God(s). But that claim belongs to the agnostic, therefore the atheist is blurring the line between world-views (conversion by definition) because the cannot maintain the atheistic argument, or live as an atheist.



#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 December 2011 - 11:09 AM

Neither atheism nor agnosticism are monolithic ideologies. There is some flow in that. And then there is some rhetorical flow between them, but as I pointed out this maybe done for practical purposes.

#26 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2011 - 05:40 AM

I would disagree Mark, it begs the question: has the the new nontheistic religon become Agtheist; or Athnostic?

Anyway, it has become a necessary convenience for the atheist.

#27 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:03 AM

There is a difference between the stance they may take and what beliefs they really may entertain. You get those that will proudly profess that there is no god. Others will just say that they didn't get any convincing evidence and hence they "don't believe". Both would often attribute rationalism, scientific-mindedness, logic, free thinking and being enlightened to themselves. They of course get some backing from academia with Darwinism being one example. Hence they've to defend that against debunking.

#28 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:12 AM

There is a difference between the stance they may take and what beliefs they really may entertain.


Entertain is a good choice of words here.


You get those that will proudly profess that there is no god.

= Atheist


Others will just say that they didn't get any convincing evidence and hence they "don't believe".

= Agnostic



Both would often attribute rationalism, scientific-mindedness, logic, free thinking and being enlightened to themselves. They of course get some backing from academia with Darwinism being one example. Hence they've to defend that against debunking.


And yet the use of "rationalism, scientific-mindedness, logic, and free thinking" are not being displayed in such thinking.

#29 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 December 2011 - 07:54 AM

I'd assign the terms in the same way. Where it gets sophisticated is the point where they blur "no convincing evidence" with "having evidence against the existence of god". The shell game is then started around this sophistry.For some reason it seems to be important for them to have on the one hand some religious stance in terms of "There is no god". And on the other hand being able to claim that they aren't religious (and hence dispute that atheism is a religion).

#30 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 January 2012 - 07:45 AM

I'd assign the terms in the same way. Where it gets sophisticated is the point where they blur "no convincing evidence" with "having evidence against the existence of god". The shell game is then started around this sophistry.For some reason it seems to be important for them to have on the one hand some religious stance in terms of "There is no god". And on the other hand being able to claim that they aren't religious (and hence dispute that atheism is a religion).

Key word here is “Blur”…

#31 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 February 2012 - 10:10 AM


I'd assign the terms in the same way. Where it gets sophisticated is the point where they blur "no convincing evidence" with "having evidence against the existence of god". The shell game is then started around this sophistry.For some reason it seems to be important for them to have on the one hand some religious stance in terms of "There is no god". And on the other hand being able to claim that they aren't religious (and hence dispute that atheism is a religion).



The word "convincing", then, in this context is subjective and not objective. Further, since the atheist totally rejects ALL the evidence for God (gods, a god etc…), they do so from denial NOT form evidence, because they have provided absolutely NO evidence to support their assertions. Further, they have absolutely NO logical, rational, or empirical scientific evidence to support a materialistic origins for the universe, life OR intelligence.

Therefore the atheist is living their lifetime in the religion of denial, and they do so dogmatically, and with a great zeal, whenever they attempt to defend this “everything from nothing”, or “the universe is infinite”, or “everything simply IS” world-view; because they are applying the exact same subjectivism for their lack of evidence, as they do for the theists actual evidence.

Conclusion: The atheist lives by a greater amount of faith then does the theist.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users