atheists don't have the right to be atheists.

Atheists should admit there is no absolute proof of the non existence of all concepts of God. However, most of the common concepts of God are either demonstratively false or simply unnecessary and obsolete. I cannot prove or disprove many useless concepts (celestial teapot).
 
spidergoat said:
Atheists should admit there is no absolute proof of the non existence of all concepts of God. However, most of the common concepts of God are either demonstratively false or simply unnecessary and obsolete. I cannot prove or disprove many useless concepts (celestial teapot).
Click to expand...

I agree, but as I have mentioned plenty of times, although we might not have proof of such concepts, we can still speculate based on observable phenomenon, while of course acknowledging that it is only speculation.

Thus a celestial teapot becomes a rational conclusion if you were to observe

- tea pouring across space


God, in the sense of a higher intelligence, is not in itself an illogical or irrational idea. The problem is that religions propose many other details and "facts" that lack a basis.

The basis of god is this:

1) intelligence exists
2) intelligent entities can alter [stuff]

Both of these statements are observable right here on Earth.

If the universe had a beginning, based on our current understanding and observation, we can suppose that either it began with, or without, intelligent cause or intervention.

There is no reason to necessarily accept the former as undeniable truth, but it remains, in my book, a very real possibility.
 
um, thanks to many who contributed well, the others who pulled at this in every direction other than the one it was intended to may rot in hell..

so, where to start......

either;
1-agnostic describes a state of atheism..(of not knowing)

2- agnostic is actually different from atheism, by not sticking to the belief of "no god"..which atheism is based upon..

so an agnostic either sticks to the state of evidence(which being unsupportive of god's existance- in their view-), but upon the state of evidence changng, he changes with it..

or, as i though, agnostics are who say" we don't know" when theists say god exists, and atheists say he doesn't, like neutral..

i'm just looking for the difference between the two terms in relation to disproving god's existance..in relation to evidence or otherwise..
 
Lori_7 said:
well, how about the coincedences that i have found to be prolific?
Click to expand...
Coincidences are by nature prolific, we live in an information rich environment. It would be far stranger if no coincidences happened.

scifes said:
um, thanks to many who contributed well, the others who pulled at this in every direction other than the one it was intended to may rot in hell..

so, where to start......

either;
1-agnostic describes a state of atheism..(of not knowing)

2- agnostic is actually different from atheism, by not sticking to the belief of "no god"..which atheism is based upon..

so an agnostic either sticks to the state of evidence(which being unsupportive of god's existance- in their view-), but upon the state of evidence changng, he changes with it..

or, as i though, agnostics are who say" we don't know" when theists say god exists, and atheists say he doesn't, like neutral..

i'm just looking for the difference between the two terms in relation to disproving god's existance..in relation to evidence or otherwise..
Click to expand...

Agnostics are different than atheists. It was a supportable position at one time, but scientific discoveries have made it obsolete. It is now possible to say there is no God beyond a reasonable doubt. The tiny window of possibility that there is some kind of God is countered by the fact that there is no need for one. If there is a God who designed the universe, He left no mark. Such a God is not one that most people concieve of and is probably not worthy of or even concerned about being worshipped.
 
Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms. You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic deist, an agnostic theist... Whatever you like. Most atheists designate themselves as such because they have a strong dislike of fundamentalist theists, and enjoy irritating them. However, it is important to remember that atheism can not only refer to the lack of a belief in a God, but also the lack of belief into theism as a whole. The former is a more accurate description.

Atheists do not have an agenda either, I assure you. Most are simply frustrated at the elevated position of such an irrational system of thought, even in the modern age, today. To coin a phrase Dawkins uses, "Atheists are like cats." We are highly independent, and nearly impossible to gather into a "pack," as we are only unified, loosely at that, by a single lack of belief. Very unlike the doctrines of religions. We are the catma, to the theists' dogma. See what I did there. :D
 
Enmos said:
Yea well, if they are coincidences that kind of moots your point.
Click to expand...

not if i don't believe in coincedence. i think everything happens for a reason and that there's meaning in everything.
 
Lori_7 said:
not if i don't believe in coincedence. i think everything happens for a reason and that there's meaning in everything.
Click to expand...

That's probably why humans invented God. Lots of things do happen for a reason, but we now know that many things do not. Even things that happen for a reason do not necessarily relate to our personal lives in a comprehensible way, although are brains are up to the task of making connections where there aren't any. People want, for example, the death of a baby to make sense, to have meaning, a purpose. I know an extremely religious couple with a 2 year old child. One night the kid rolled off the bed into a pile of clothes and suffocated. Were they sinners? Is God teaching a lesson? What a perverse God He would have to be then.
 
Agnostics don't know, a sort of inability to commit to the idea of god or the idea of no god.

Atheists simply DO NOT BELIEVE, they are committed to the idea of there being no god.

Atheists are diametrically opposed to the theist who chooses to believe in god.

Theists claim to know and so does the atheist.

Enmos: At any rate, hearing voices in your head isn't anywhere near evidence for gods existence. It's sooner evidence for something else.

Yes conventionally knows as mental illness.
 
Lucysnow said:
Theists claim to know and so does the atheist.
Click to expand...
Not quite: atheists generally go with the weight of probabilities.
Not simply belief.

Yes conventionally knows as mental illness.
Click to expand...
Try the link above: IIRC someone had a different idea of what "voices in the head" could be (or once have been).
 
That's true Oli. I'm not committed to the idea of no God, it's just that unless there were compelling evidence to warrant a belief in God, the idea is invalid. I only claim to know beyond a reasonable doubt, given our state of knowledge at present.
 
Oli said:
Not quite: atheists generally go with the weight of probabilities.
Not simply belief.


Try the link above: IIRC someone had a different idea of what "voices in the head" could be (or once have been).
Click to expand...

Come on Oli I can't read the bloody book for the purpose of this discussion, give us a short rundown will you please.

Well I know there are a lot of probabilities but I still simply do not believe in god. I also do not believe there will be any evidence to change my opinion.
 
scifes said:
they should all be agnostic, because they can't prove god's nonexistence.

deal?
Click to expand...
actually agnostic atheist would be more apt.

Scifes, YOU are an atheist for millions and millions of Gods (and Alien Overlords) too :)
 
scifes said:
they should all be agnostic, because they can't prove god's nonexistence.

deal?
Click to expand...

how about this perspective

I don't have to prove whether god is true or not

I just disagree with this gods behaviour , which is childish when you think about it

kind of like an immature god , as sort of dictator

and I believe in my own being , first and foremost
 
scifes said:
they should all be agnostic, because they can't prove god's nonexistence.

deal?
Click to expand...
No. I cannot prove to you that the universe started with a bang, but, if you had the patience to sit through an extremely long lecture that includes a lengthy segment on protein kinases, I could give you ample reason to believe that you are very stupid to believe that you have a "soul." If you did accept this offer, you should realize that, under most scenarios, you would have to pay a considerable tuition fee to learn these sorts of things. I think that giving you a free education in biochemistry should amply pay for my right to state that my beliefs are probably a great deal more well-founded than yours. And, before you give me the usual, ridiculous comeback that you do not need to believe in souls to believe in a supreme being, remember that your god absolutely does depend upon this, and he does not exist if souls do not exist.

The origin of the universe is a mystery. A mystery is exactly that. A mystery is not the same as a situation in which, if you invent an explanation, it should automatically be deemed true. A mystery is a situation in which, if you invent an explanation and make it into a religion, you should have your head dunked in acid.
 
scifes said:
they should all be agnostic, because they can't prove god's nonexistence.
Click to expand...
And the theists likewise, of course. So we'd have to invent words for the different kinds of agnostic. Any candidates come to mind?

Meanwhile, one can make reasonable judgments and come to decisions without proof.

That's the common situation, in real life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top