atheists don't have the right to be atheists.
- Thread starter scifes
- Start date
-=-
IF the OP were correct, it would mean no 1 has the right to be a theist.
The OP, of course, is not correct as has been shown here so many times.
IF the OP were correct, it would mean no 1 has the right to be a theist.
The OP, of course, is not correct as has been shown here so many times.
People have the right to believe what ever they like. And the burden of proof is on those who assert that something 'is' rather than 'isn't'.
i think being an atheist without evidence of god is just as dumb as being religious without evidence of god. it's an itellectual and close-minded decision that's obviously based on an agenda, otherwise in regards to a lack of evidence, people would have the balls to say, "i don't know", which i think is what scifes point is here.
-=-
For the trillionth time, the atheist position is "I don't know". Some atheists often say this. Some atheists say they do know until they're pinned down. Either way, an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in gods, regardless of whether they say "I don't know". I know an atheist who believes in reincarnation & 1 who believes Earth has been visited by aliens. An atheist may believe or not believe anything except they lack belief in any god(s).
No agenda is required to be an atheist & is often not there.
Scifes, as usual, has no point.
For the trillionth time, the atheist position is "I don't know". Some atheists often say this. Some atheists say they do know until they're pinned down. Either way, an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in gods, regardless of whether they say "I don't know". I know an atheist who believes in reincarnation & 1 who believes Earth has been visited by aliens. An atheist may believe or not believe anything except they lack belief in any god(s).
No agenda is required to be an atheist & is often not there.
Scifes, as usual, has no point.
Most atheists are agnostic in the sense that they acknowledge that they don't know and/or cannot know with certainty whether one or more gods exist.
The terms are not mutually exclusive. The first is a description of knowledge; the second is a conclusion based on evidence. As an agnostic-atheist, I conclude that there is no good reason to accept the existence of a god or gods but recognize that I haven't the ability to test the entire universe (or even a substantive portion), so I cannot say none exists and is hiding somewhere out of observation.
Atheist simply means godless; without a god. In that sense, we're probably all atheists, for if a god doesn't exist, we are equally without it, leaving some deluded into it's belief.
Let me repeat: I conclude, based on evidence, that there is no good reason to accept the positive claims made by those that believe god(s) exist. Since delusion has been shown to exist within human populations, this is a more parsimonious explanation.
But I remain ready to revise my conclusion with new evidence, thus I remain an agnostic-atheist.
But I remain ready to revise my conclusion with new evidence, thus I remain an agnostic-atheist.
Agnostics are atheists. You are either a theist, or not a theist. Agnostic certainly aren't theists, so they are atheists.
Of course, the OP is flawed, because theists cannot prove the existence of God, that's why they have faith. I guess that also means you can be an agnostic theist, if you indulge in Pascal's wager, and in fact, if they were true to themselves, theists would have to admit they don't actually know, but I guess it's that admission to the self that it's unknowable that eludes the deluded. Sorry, theists.
Basically, the term agnostic is pretty pointless therefore.
Of course, the OP is flawed, because theists cannot prove the existence of God, that's why they have faith. I guess that also means you can be an agnostic theist, if you indulge in Pascal's wager, and in fact, if they were true to themselves, theists would have to admit they don't actually know, but I guess it's that admission to the self that it's unknowable that eludes the deluded. Sorry, theists.
Basically, the term agnostic is pretty pointless therefore.
You mean like hearing a voice in his head? I think most people would seek professional advice if that happened.
well what you do with the evidence is up to you.
So it's okay for a theist to believe in god even though they can't prove he exists, but not okay for an atheist to not believe in god even though they can't prove he doesn't exist?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What evidence ?
exactly.
StrangerInAStrangeLa,
No it's not.
If you deny something, then it stands to
reason that you know what you're denying.
The "i don't know" angle is a cop out.
Atheists just don't believe in God, period.
Neither of these subjects, are religious, so believing in them neither
makes you theist or atheist
I beg to differ, there is an atheist agenda, I would have
thought that would be obvious by now.
jan.
No it's not.
If you deny something, then it stands to
reason that you know what you're denying.
The "i don't know" angle is a cop out.
Atheists just don't believe in God, period.
Neither of these subjects, are religious, so believing in them neither
makes you theist or atheist
I beg to differ, there is an atheist agenda, I would have
thought that would be obvious by now.
jan.
It's 'evidence' for a psychological disorder, not God.
The sooner you get that, the sooner you get well.