What would convince you?

VitalOne said:
Really? So all I need to do is get to show the effectiveness of prayer and that's it? Seems pretty easy to me...all I need to do is train 100 people or so to be good at prayer...most people pray incorrectly and get no results...I'll easily get results this way...
Click to expand...
And yours would be just another study into the power of prayer to arise at the conclusion that it doesn't work.

Strong atheists do, and if you don't say it's definitely false then why are you an atheist, why not agnostic?
Click to expand...
I am both. Until you understand the very real difference between them you will remain confused.

...the sad thing is you atheists really think "evidence causes something to become true", which is why you believe something is false until proven true....
Click to expand...
Please indicate where "we atheists" say this. There might be the odd one or two, but the majority on this site do NOT say that.

I'm accusing atheists of being irrational, illogical, and abandoning reasoning, which they do...
Click to expand...
You're accusing SOME atheists of this. If you think you are accusing ALL atheists then you are WRONG.

No I'm not, in fact you are, you said you REFUSE to believe something exists until it is proven, therefore you saying something is false until proven true...
Click to expand...
Your conclusion does not logically follow the statement. "Not believing in X" is NOT THE SAME as "believing in not-X".

I'm not guilty of using the argument from ignorance, my reasons for God existing isn't because there is no evidence
Click to expand...
Your argument for God's existence is....?

...the evidence is my personal experiences...
Click to expand...
Ah - yes - which you have most likely irrationally concluded as evidence for God, rather than some far more mundane and likely explanation.
Care to reveal what those experiences are/were?
 
Sarkus said:
And yours would be just another study into the power of prayer to arise at the conclusion that it doesn't work.
Click to expand...
Great faith-based conclusion...blind faith is all there is for an atheist...all other studies never measured doubt or had people pray correctly..it's like someone saying "Why is it that if I take all the incorrect medicine I get no results?" "Why would I need to take the correct medicine to be healed?"

Sarkus said:
I am both. Until you understand the very real difference between them you will remain confused.
Click to expand...
There really is no difference, atheists enjoy pretending there is in order to preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system...

Let's see the difference "Well I kind of don't believe God exists" and "I definitely don't believe God exists" woah great difference...

Sarkus said:
Please indicate where "we atheists" say this. There might be the odd one or two, but the majority on this site do NOT say that.
Click to expand...
Atheists indirectly say this because they say that something is false until proven true (an argument from ignorance)...

What atheists leave out is that there is no reason to believe NOR disbelieve in the existence or non-existence of God...

Sarkus said:
You're accusing SOME atheists of this. If you think you are accusing ALL atheists then you are WRONG.
Click to expand...
No, I accuse ALL atheists of this, the rational conclusion is to say the existence of God is unknown since it's unverifiable...atheists on the otherhand have no belief but only disbelief...when the rational, logical conclusion is to have neither disbelief nor belief in God...

Sarkus said:
Your conclusion does not logically follow the statement. "Not believing in X" is NOT THE SAME as "believing in not-X".
Click to expand...
Yes it is, unless you have neither belief nor disbelief, otherwise if you only have disbelief that something is true then it's exactly the same...

"I don't believe X person is a murderer"
"I believe X person is not a murderer"

It's exactly the same unless you said "I don't believe nor disbelieve that X person is a murderer"...

Sarkus said:
Your argument for God's existence is....?

Ah - yes - which you have most likely irrationally concluded as evidence for God, rather than some far more mundane and likely explanation.
Care to reveal what those experiences are/were?
Click to expand...
Why is it irrational?
 
Last edited:
Beliefs are abundant and many people need to believe in something in order to get through life. These beliefs are important to people in order for them not to give up hope or to think life is worthless. I won't try to stop another person in believing what they want to as long as they allow me to not believe in any of their dogma.
 
VitalOne said:
...all other studies never measured doubt or had people pray correctly..it's like someone saying "Why is it that if I take all the incorrect medicine I get no results?" "Why would I need to take the correct medicine to be healed?"
Click to expand...
Then please feel free to prove us wrong. We await your results with interest.

There really is no difference, atheists enjoy pretending there is in order to preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system...
Click to expand...
There really IS a difference - and you keep pretending, it seems, to give you something to bleat about in this forum - where every one of your posts is seemingly based on the same poorly-informed drivel.

Let's see the difference "Well I kind of don't believe God exists" and "I definitely don't believe God exists" woah great difference...
Click to expand...
Of course there's a difference when you wrap it up in your amazing cloak of STRAWMAN FALLACIES.

Spot the difference:
A: "I have the belief that God exists".
B: "I do not have the belief that God exists, but I also do not have the belief that God does not exist."
C: "I have the belief that God does not exist".

A is a theist.
B is an atheist (often referred to as "weak atheist").
C is also an atheist (ofren referred to as "strong atheist").

Learn this.
Understand this.
Stop posting drivel.


Atheists indirectly say this because they say that something is false until proven true (an argument from ignorance)...
Click to expand...
They only do this in your delusional mind.
Please point out at least FIVE atheists on this site who have said it.
I only ask for FIVE as, according to you, we all do it - so FIVE should be easy for you.
Please.
Go on.

What atheists leave out is that there is no reason to believe NOR disbelieve in the existence or non-existence of God...
Click to expand...
The majority of atheists do not leave this out. It is why the majority of atheists on this site are also agnostic.

No, I accuse ALL atheists of this, the rational conclusion is to say the existence of God is unknown since it's unverifiable...
Click to expand...
I agree that the rational conclusion is to say that the existence of God is unknown. But how do you rationalise that with the fact that I AM AN ATHEIST.

Yes it is, unless you have neither belief nor disbelief, otherwise if you only have disbelief that something is true then it's exactly the same...

"I don't believe X person is a murderer"
"I believe X person is not a murderer"

It's exactly the same unless you said "I don't believe nor disbelieve that X person is a murderer"...
Click to expand...
They are NOT the same.
You are merely demonstrating your inability to see subtlety in our language.

There are two Bricks - Brick A and Brick B.
Brick A says "I believe there is a God".
Brick B says "I believe there is NO GOD".

The definition of a theist is someone who holds Brick A.
The definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't hold Brick A.

Brick A and Brick B are mutually exclusive in that you can not hold both at the same time, you agree.

You now see it as there being 2 options - to hold Brick A or to hold Brick B.
There is a 3rd option - to not hold either.
This 3rd option is ALSO ATHEISM.

Get this through your skull and into that brain-matter of yours.
It grows wearisome to explain it to someone who obstinately refuses to listen when they have been told the same thing over and over and over again by so many different people.

Why is it irrational?
Click to expand...
To tell you that I would need to know what the experience is/was. But I'm guessing that there is an explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor before requiring God as an explanation.
If this is the case then to go with the God belief in favour of a simpler explanation would be irrational.
 
Sarkus said:
Of course there's a difference when you wrap it up in your amazing cloak of STRAWMAN FALLACIES.

Spot the difference:
A: "I have the belief that God exists".
B: "I do not have the belief that God exists, but I also do not have the belief that God does not exist."
C: "I have the belief that God does not exist".

A is a theist.
B is an atheist (often referred to as "weak atheist").
C is also an atheist (ofren referred to as "strong atheist").

Learn this.
Understand this.
Stop posting drivel.
Click to expand...
Option B is agnosticism...not atheism...saying the existence of God is unknown is not atheism...

Sarkus said:
The majority of atheists do not leave this out. It is why the majority of atheists on this site are also agnostic.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, in fact almost ALL atheists leave this out...they always say "There is no reason to believe in God" and completely leave out "There is no reason to disbelieve in God"

Sarkus said:
They are NOT the same.
You are merely demonstrating your inability to see subtlety in our language.

There are two Bricks - Brick A and Brick B.
Brick A says "I believe there is a God".
Brick B says "I believe there is NO GOD".

The definition of a theist is someone who holds Brick A.
The definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't hold Brick A.

Brick A and Brick B are mutually exclusive in that you can not hold both at the same time, you agree.

You now see it as there being 2 options - to hold Brick A or to hold Brick B.
There is a 3rd option - to not hold either.
This 3rd option is ALSO ATHEISM.

Get this through your skull and into that brain-matter of yours.
It grows wearisome to explain it to someone who obstinately refuses to listen when they have been told the same thing over and over and over again by so many different people.
Click to expand...
Nothing you said demonstrated how it was not the same, in fact you agreed with me completely that it's only different if you have neither belief nor disbelief...the 3rd option is NOT atheism it is agnosticism...
 
VitalOne said:
Option B is agnosticism...not atheism...saying the existence of God is unknown is not atheism...

...

Nothing you said demonstrated how it was not the same, in fact you agreed with me completely that it's only different if you have neither belief nor disbelief...the 3rd option is NOT atheism it is agnosticism...
Click to expand...
And therein lies the flaw at the heart of ALL your arguments.

Until you realise that agnostics, if they do not hold belief in the existence of gods, are ALSO atheist - then your arguments are worthless.

I, like many on this site who actually post here, are AGNOSTIC ATHEISTS.
It is possible to be an Agnostic theist - as has been explained to you on other threads.
It is possible to be a non-agnostic atheist or a non-agnostic theist.

Agnosticism is NOT the middle ground between Atheism and Theism.

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html
http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/atheism.html
 
VitalOne said:
Option B is agnosticism...not atheism...saying the existence of God is unknown is not atheism...
Click to expand...
No, "agnosticism" refers to the belief that it's impossible for people to know one way or the other. It's not the same as simply not believing. Often laymen use the word "agnostic" when they really mean "undecided", but that's not the correct definition. Although if you want, you can define anyone who simply lacks belief (rather than having an active disbelief) as an agnostic, in which case many agnostics would also be atheists (since an atheist is a person who lacks belief in a god).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Atheists can be divided into strong atheists (people who are certain that a god or gods don't/couldn't exist) and weak atheists (people who simply lack belief.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

VitalOne, you appear to want to argue with strong atheists. The problem, as you have no doubt noticed, is that there aren't very many strong atheists - most atheists are weak atheists. Now I suppose you could redefine all weak atheists as agnostics if you wanted, but that wouldn't be very productive since the definitions of agnostic, strong atheist, and weak atheists are well-established in the philosophical community, and most people wouldn't be interesting in using your new definitions.

Of course, it should be noted that it's possible to have an active disbelief in a particular religion while still being a weak atheist in general. For example, a person might say "I am a weak atheist because I just don't see any good evidence that a god exists. But I am sure that Christianity is false, because lots of things in the Gospels were clearly plagiarized from the holy texts of other religions, and because many of the events in the Gospels are strongly contradicted by historical evidence."
 
Last edited:
I’ve never understood why so many Christians seem desperate to redefine week atheism as agnosticism. What’s the point? Simply changing definitions won’t change anyone’s beliefs. Why not try to address what the people who you are talking to actually believe, rather than arguing like mad over whether or not they are labeling themselves correctly?
 
Sarkus said:
Then please feel free to prove us wrong. We await your results with interest.

There really IS a difference - and you keep pretending, it seems, to give you something to bleat about in this forum - where every one of your posts is seemingly based on the same poorly-informed drivel.

Of course there's a difference when you wrap it up in your amazing cloak of STRAWMAN FALLACIES.

Spot the difference:
A: "I have the belief that God exists".
B: "I do not have the belief that God exists, but I also do not have the belief that God does not exist."
C: "I have the belief that God does not exist".

A is a theist.
B is an atheist (often referred to as "weak atheist").
C is also an atheist (ofren referred to as "strong atheist").

Learn this.
Understand this.
Stop posting drivel.


They only do this in your delusional mind.
Please point out at least FIVE atheists on this site who have said it.
I only ask for FIVE as, according to you, we all do it - so FIVE should be easy for you.
Please.
Go on.

The majority of atheists do not leave this out. It is why the majority of atheists on this site are also agnostic.

I agree that the rational conclusion is to say that the existence of God is unknown. But how do you rationalise that with the fact that I AM AN ATHEIST.

They are NOT the same.
You are merely demonstrating your inability to see subtlety in our language.

There are two Bricks - Brick A and Brick B.
Brick A says "I believe there is a God".
Brick B says "I believe there is NO GOD".

The definition of a theist is someone who holds Brick A.
The definition of an atheist is someone who doesn't hold Brick A.

Brick A and Brick B are mutually exclusive in that you can not hold both at the same time, you agree.

You now see it as there being 2 options - to hold Brick A or to hold Brick B.
There is a 3rd option - to not hold either.
This 3rd option is ALSO ATHEISM.

Get this through your skull and into that brain-matter of yours.
It grows wearisome to explain it to someone who obstinately refuses to listen when they have been told the same thing over and over and over again by so many different people.

To tell you that I would need to know what the experience is/was. But I'm guessing that there is an explanation that satisfies Occam's Razor before requiring God as an explanation.
If this is the case then to go with the God belief in favour of a simpler explanation would be irrational.
Click to expand...

IMO, both weak and strong atheism are flawed positions. Weak atheism doesn't take into consideration the evidence contradicting specific claims of 'God'; whereas, strong atheism issues the claim that a generic 'God' does not exist.

The only position that I see actually working is what's in between. 'Firm' atheism :). It discounts all human-issued claims of 'God' because of the evidence against them and issues no claim about some generic life form that no human would have any knowlege of.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
IMO, both weak and strong atheism are flawed positions. Weak atheism doesn't take into consideration the evidence contradicting specific claims of 'God'; whereas, strong atheism issues the claim that a generic 'God' does not exist.
Click to expand...
You can be a weak atheist but still believe that a specific religion is wrong. Much like you can be an independent voter, but be certain that there are some political parties that you would never vote for.
 
Nasor said:
You can be a weak atheist but still believe that a specific religion is wrong. Much like you can be an independent voter, but be certain that there are some political parties that you would never vote for.
Click to expand...

That is apparent and it seems that the distinctions between weak and strong atheism seem to be missing something if a weak atheist can take into consideration contradictory evidence and a strong atheist can take into consideration any evidence.
 
I won’t respond to all your points as others already have done so. It is clear that you are ranting against strong atheism but refuse to accept this.

VitalOne said:
Well that's how it seems...in general atheists consider theists to be inferior and lower...
Click to expand...
What you are saying is incorrect VitalOne. You can try and get away with it by saying “that’s how it seems” but it is still incorrect. Just because you have a different stance to someone else that doesn’t mean that you think you are better. This goes for theists and atheists.

VitalOne said:
Strong atheists do, and if you don't say it's definitely false then why are you an atheist, why not agnostic?
Click to expand...
Ah so you do know what strong atheism is?

I may be agnostic. I know I am an atheist though. I am closer to a weak atheist than a strong one.

VitalOne said:
Yeah, it's basically the same...why did most atheists instead of giving examples just give the typical atheistic propaganda?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the internet. Most of the time when you start a thread you will get unhelpful responses.

VitalOne said:
You can only say something is likely or unlikely to be true if there is some type of medium to work with, otherwise you can't, for instance the many-worlds interpretation is unverifiable, you can't say it's unlikely nor likely...
Click to expand...
We agree. There is no evidence for it so you will not believe it is true yet. Just like me with all these gods, you think it is possible but you aren’t going to believe in it until there is evidence. We don’t think it is definitely false. See we are not that different.

VitalOne said:
You don't need to prove that God doesn't exist, you just need evidence of absence...
Click to expand...
Which is proving a negative. If something never existed it there tends to be a distinct lack of evidence left behind ...you know, for the entity that was never there.

So what evidence would prove the absence of god? Can you think of some?


VitalOne said:
A lot of religious figures weren't like Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, or Lao Tzu because they didn't possess full knowledge of the truth like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and Lao Tzu...these advanced beings had full knowledge of the truth and tried to explain the truth to mankind...the things they say aren't vaguely similar like morals, but similar in how they explain reality...
Click to expand...
So you now admit that most religious figures don’t say very similar things but explain it away because the other religions did not have access to some mystical truth.


VitalOne said:
Well I don't really have enough knowledge of who Thor is...I know more about Egyptian mythology....

"Now the earth was formless and empty, and there was darkness above primeval ocean, and God's wind was blowing above the water"

There are differences in creation myths, but most have the same essential truth
Click to expand...
Similar to above, I showed you how different the creation myths often are and you backpedal and invoke some mystical, essential 'truth'.

I don’t want to discuss all creation myths though VitalOne; I am just curious how you can believe in the existence of gods from more than one religion (Yahweh and Ra) and not see any problems with the contradictions.

What personal experiences have you had with elf-like creatures?
 
Last edited:
Vitalone,

Your post is all wrong, disbelief in something is exactly the same as saying something is not true, unless you possess neither belief nor disbelief...
Click to expand...
You haven’t thought this through completely yet.

Here is the relevant quote from the ref:

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

The difference is real and critical. Until you see this important difference your arguments around this will remain invalid, and very frustrating for those of us who have moved past this.
 
VitalOne said:
No I'm not, in fact you are, you said you REFUSE to believe something exists until it is proven, therefore you saying something is false until proven true...an argument from ignorance...instead of saying it is unknown until it becomes verifiable (the rational conclusion)...
Click to expand...
To belief something does NOT in any way make it true.
To not belief something does NOT in any way make it false.
To have evidence of something makes it VERY likely to be true, it depends on how strong the evidence for it to be true is.
To not have evidence of something makes it VERY likely to be false, it depends on how strong the evidence for it to be false is.

Belief is totally unfounded, there is no evidence needed for something to be believed.
And if you say you KNOW God exists you must have evidence of it. And if you actually manage to come up with irrifutable evidence of Gods existence you are no longer a believer, because you then KNOW God exists.
 
Enmos said:
VitalOne said:
Yeah that's right, but I never said God exists because there is no evidence that God doesn't exist...I said the existence of God is unknown since it's unverifiable...
Click to expand...

So what do you say to support the existance of God ?
Or are you not sure if God exists ? This means you are agnostic.
Click to expand...

I see you conveniently chose to ignore this post..
 
Cris said:
Vitalone,

You haven’t thought this through completely yet.

Here is the relevant quote from the ref:

"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not.

The difference is real and critical. Until you see this important difference your arguments around this will remain invalid, and very frustrating for those of us who have moved past this.
Click to expand...
No, it's exactly the same UNLESS the person neither believes nor disbelieves, having no idea if it's true or false....

Saying something isn't true is the same as saying it's false...that's the definition of false, "not true"...

"I believe in God"
"I don't believe in God"
"I neither believe nor disbelieve in God"
 
VitalOne said:
No, it's exactly the same UNLESS the person neither believes nor disbelieves, having no idea if it's true or false....

Saying something isn't true is the same as saying it's false...that's the definition of false, "not true"...

"I believe in God"
"I don't believe in God"
"I neither believe nor disbelieve in God"
Click to expand...

So is, in your view, saying you belief in something the same as saying something is true ? :bugeye:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top