Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism

Signal said:
Absolutely. When someone makes a claim (such as "There is no God", "God is merely an illusion"), then they need to substantiate it.
Click to expand...

It's an opinion that can be given reasons but someone certainly does not NEED to substantiate it.

How are you going to substantiate reincarnation?
 
Dywyddyr said:
God revealed Himself to man
Click to expand...

When? Where? How do you know?

and if it were not the case, I can say with certainty that I would have remained an atheist.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. You've convinced yourself (or been convinced) the above is true.
Click to expand...

Unless you are saying what you're saying simply to provoke the other poster,
you are actually assuming yourself to be omniscient when you say
"You've convinced yourself (or been convinced) the above is true [ie. that God reveals Himself to man]."

How do you plead?
 
John99 said:
It's an opinion that can be given reasons but someone certainly does not NEED to substantiate it.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that people engage in discusssion/debate about theism on far too wannabe terms - wannabe as far as their philosophical proficiency and their personal integrity are concerned.

Most people think that they can't say much about nuclear physics or advanced chemistry, for example, that it takes a lot of knowledge and expertise to meaningfully talk about such topics.

But it appears that almost everyone thinks they are well-equipped to discuss theism.

Talk about quackery!


How are you going to substantiate reincarnation?
Click to expand...

Do you mean "How are you going to convince people that they too should believe in reincarnation?"
 
Signal said:
Unless you are saying what you're saying simply to provoke the other poster,
you are actually assuming yourself to be omniscient when you say
"You've convinced yourself (or been convinced) the above is true [ie. that God reveals Himself to man]."
How do you plead?
Click to expand...
Er, he stated "God revealed Himself to man": this has not been shown to be the case.
 
Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter
Athiests: Prove that God dosen't exist
Click to expand...

Prove any negative. Go ahead, give it a try. Looking forward to your reply.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Er, he stated "God revealed Himself to man": this has not been shown to be the case.
Click to expand...

How do you know?
How do you know it is not simply your personal ingnorance that prevents you from seeing God revealing Himself to man?
 
I noticed "Ignosticism" has not been mentioned. I would like to hear from the theists, because by your own tenants "God is unknowable", so let's hear hear you break the logic behind this theological position...
 
Signal said:
How do you know?
How do you know it is not simply your personal ingnorance that prevents you from seeing God revealing Himself to man?
Click to expand...

Ingnorance? Yup, I've got lots of that. :p

Okay, how about I rephrase it: it has not been shown conclusively to be the case.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Ingnorance? Yup, I've got lots of that. :p

Okay, how about I rephrase it: it has not been shown conclusively to be the case.
Click to expand...

My point is that self-declared atheists place far too much responsibility on theists - and yes, I realize how awkward this can sound.

I have noted earlier about passive and reactive tendencies of atheists.
Being passive and reactive, they tangle themselves up in endless fights with theists, with nothing ever getting resolved. It is a kind of codependency, instability, immaturity.


Without the conviction that God is evil - how much theist/atheist debate can there be?
 
Signal said:
Being passive and reactive, they tangle themselves up in endless fights with theists, with nothing ever getting resolved. It is a kind of codependency, instability, immaturity.
Click to expand...
Immaturity? :eek:
Wait 'til playtime and I'll get you!

I dunno, for my part at least it's more querying claims made, which, as you've probably seen, I don't restrict to theistic claims only.
If someone states something to be so then I want to know how they know, and what justification they have for such a claim.
I'll admit that there's a further element with theistic claims in that, as I've said more than once: in general these claims are then used to state that I (we, one) should behave in certain ways. If I'm expected to conform to a particular lifestyle/ code of behaviour then I want to know why.
And it's easier to ask questions and get responses here on Sci than to buttonhole the nearest theist in the middle of the street. (At least I can get up and make a mug of coffee in the middle of an exchange ;)).
 
Signal said:
No, you are behaving childishly. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Ok Mr. Smiley.

I said why he was wrong. You don't try to refute it. You just ignore it and call me childish. I guess that's a way to debate. Not one I'm willing to waste my time on though. So please, if you want to talk with me, you can start by not making primitive ad homs or simply ignoring my posts.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
Physics theories have proposed other dimensions exist outside/between our known universe. This is often called parallel universes. Something similar had been the claim about God, cmany enturies before the physics proposed the same thing. For example, Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. It was not about matter like we know.

As a scientists, if I want to prove or disprove something, I need to make sure I am unising the correct experimental conditions. You can't prove turtles can't fly, by looking under the water; yup no flying turtles; QED.

Unless you can go between the proposed dimensions, as postulated by science, looking in this particular universe will not set up the proper experimental conditions. It may be a while before science can catch up with the technical capability for a real experiment.
Click to expand...

Still can't have complexity as the First.

Theists are looking in the complete wrong direction, toward the simpler and the simpler, and so the notion of God couldn't be more wrong, nor would any higher evolved mind in the future count as God since it would not be fundamental either.

Belief in God is but a human mammal construction, probably based on the family structure.
 
Randwolf said:
I noticed "Ignosticism" has not been mentioned. I would like to hear from the theists, because by your own tenants "God is unknowable", so let's hear hear you break the logic behind this theological position...
Click to expand...
Off topic. This thread isn't about believers proving God exists, it's about definition of atheism and agnoticism and atheists proving God dosen't exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top