Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Off topic. This thread is about atheists proving God dosen't exist.
Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Off topic.
Stick to the topic, people! If you can't prove God dose't exist, than either just say so or don't post in this thread.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
This is one of the most interesting sentence EVER!!!
(Emphasis mine)
Ummm...
I thought Ignosticism was about defining Agnosticism, or at least a subset thereof. I provided a link and all, ya know? Just for those who may be ignorant of the definition of Ignosticism. Did you even look? I'm trying to reply directly on topic.
:bugeye:
How narrow do you want the scope of your thread? Just funnel us all through the eye of a needle?
Critics are allowed to use a weaker standard than a creator. If someone with a new idea says X is true, they have a burden of proof. But the critic can say, everyone knows Y is true, therefore you are wrong. One can appeal to emotion or dogma as long as the critic defend traditions. The atheist use that standard. One side has to prove god, while the atheist can mock them under the guise of defending traditions.
The agnostics attempt to have the critic and creator both play by the same rules for proof. The pro-side is not be able to prove god. But to an agnostic that is only half of the burden of proof. The other side can't disprove god to complete the full proof. They leave the option of God open, until the full burden of proof is met.
The agnostics attempt to have the critic and creator both play by the same rules for proof. The pro-side is not be able to prove god. But to an agnostic that is only half of the burden of proof. The other side can't disprove god to complete the full proof. They leave the option of God open, until the full burden of proof is met.
I personally can not choose between ignosticism and weak agnosticism.
lol wat?
1st of all: No. No it's not. It's about defining atheism and agnosticism.
2nd: I was exemplifying to show just how fucking retarded it is to think that the ones who don't believe a supernatural phenomenon that some claim exist, are the ones who have to prove it doesn't exist.
Last edited:
What is it about that sentence that you find interesting? That an agnostic can hold a belief in the existence of something that they can know nothing about?This is one of the most interesting sentence EVER!!!
Agnostics don't believe in God, by definition.
Not at all. I disproved God for Mind_Over_Matter and he didn't refute it, nor has anyone, but emotional belief trumps all, it seems. (Complexity can't be First)
You havent disproved god by any means and have actually solified my idea that god could have came from nothing.
Complexity being the premise is a contradiction to you apparently.
But you acknowledge 0 = infinity. What is time to you?? Time is an illusion, you acknowledge this yourself.
Non localized consciousness cannot exist? Why not. It has to permeate physical matter and energy to create experience for physical reality to exist exclusive to our system of senses and corresponding stimili. Why cant this contigent source of consciousness if it exists be god?
Last edited:
You guys (Sci & Joey) are very off topic... Just sayin...
Yeah, we are, but at least it shows the thinking process behind one's thoughtful position, yet it is actually enough to be an atheist on the grounds that theism can't show its promise of being truth and fact. I'll leave Joey's stuff unanswered.
Save a step (Occam's razor). The universe came from nothing... After all, if something as complex as GOD can come from nothing, why can't the universe?
Stick to the topic, people! If you can't prove God dose't exist, than either just say so or don't post in this thread.
OK, only I can post here.
Within a Parentheses of Eternity
The ancients just found themselves there, most of science yet to come, and wondered how all could be. They looked unto their harsh world, the calamities, cause and effect, their powerful rulers, the slaves, even to their own family structure, many of those with a strict father and a mother of no say.
They came up with a simplistic notion based on themselves, although they thought it the most wonderful answer: a terrible and demanding male being God, an idea for most unto this day. Having an answer was important, and they extended this notion with various myths and legends into many more structures layered upon, the humans inventing and writing all the scrolls and scripture.
It brought both fear and comfort, making some behave better in some ways, and worse in others, as to the unchosen tribes, protecting the notion, at least. There were some alterations and modifications, yet the main concept of a God remained. Only science really progressed.
Thousands of years came to pass, and then SciWriter solved all mystery, unrefutable now and ever beyond. There could be no First Complexity; nothing to make anything of; and that the nothing basis was forever beyond creation—the infinite and eternal nothing being the prime mover, the only possible candidate; and the cosmos was seen that it could be no other way than it is. Amen.
P.S. Then the world ended, within a year, the final benediction. The cosmos continued on, as it ever had done, and always will, heeding not the puff of smoke that was once a pale blue dot.
OK, only I can post here.
Within a Parentheses of Eternity
The ancients just found themselves there, most of science yet to come, and wondered how all could be. They looked unto their harsh world, the calamities, cause and effect, their powerful rulers, the slaves, even to their own family structure, many of those with a strict father and a mother of no say.
They came up with a simplistic notion based on themselves, although they thought it the most wonderful answer: a terrible and demanding male being God, an idea for most unto this day. Having an answer was important, and they extended this notion with various myths and legends into many more structures layered upon, the humans inventing and writing all the scrolls and scripture.
It brought both fear and comfort, making some behave better in some ways, and worse in others, as to the unchosen tribes, protecting the notion, at least. There were some alterations and modifications, yet the main concept of a God remained. Only science really progressed.
Thousands of years came to pass, and then SciWriter solved all mystery, unrefutable now and ever beyond. There could be no First Complexity; nothing to make anything of; and that the nothing basis was forever beyond creation—the infinite and eternal nothing being the prime mover, the only possible candidate; and the cosmos was seen that it could be no other way than it is. Amen.
P.S. Then the world ended, within a year, the final benediction. The cosmos continued on, as it ever had done, and always will, heeding not the puff of smoke that was once a pale blue dot.
Whose definition??
Agnosticism is an epistemological position. (A)theism is an Ontological position.
Agnosticism rationally leads to non-belief... but as this site should demonstrate, not everyone is rational.
There ARE people who accept that God is unknowable, yet still believe. Anyone who believes due to Pascal's Wager would fall under this category, for example.
There is nothing in Agnosticism that is mutually exclusive with one's position on Belief... it is just not a usual position to hold both agnosticism and a belief in the same matter.
Not really, it actually describes deism.