No an agnostic believes nothing, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s). No knowing.
Why do christians limit their reading material of extra-biblical sources?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
No an agnostic believes nothing, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s). No knowing.
no I have'nt check the sticky http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.
"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.
If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.
To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist
The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.
From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:
The thing exists.
It is unknown if the thing exists or not.
thus the burden of proof must fall on the shoulders of the person claiming a thing exists.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, an atheists utter contempt for religion can also blind them to even the remote possibilty that the Bible can be true.
Medicine Woman
Registered Member
*************
M*W: Let me rephrase the question:
"Why do christians not read the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?"
Many claim they read extra-biblical materials, but they are unable to discuss or comment on any parallel research. What are they afraid of? (The truth?)!
M*W: Let me rephrase the question:
"Why do christians not read the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?"
Many claim they read extra-biblical materials, but they are unable to discuss or comment on any parallel research. What are they afraid of? (The truth?)!
That's so silly Med Woman.
Which "parts of it," James R, do you think are true?
Perhaps it's their disdain for the nature of god in the bible that disturbs them.
As a "god believer", I know it disturbs me.
Many gods and goddesses have been created by mankind to represent the supreme being and Yahweh is one of the most contadictory and cruel. Some good qualities, but too much of a dark sinister nature for me to embrace. I chose the Goddess Aset (the goddess of wisdom in ancient egypt). Many good qualities and teachings minus the heinous evil acts committed by some other gods.
Hey James R, where'd you go?
Which "parts of it," the Bible, are true to you?
Which "parts of it," the Bible, are true to you?
what's your definition of true?
So where did you get the idea that King David is an historical figure, hmmmmm?
Last edited by a moderator:
Medicine Woman
Registered Member
*************
M*W: I, personally, do not believe he was an historical figure. I believe he was a mythological and metaphoral character of the zodiac. (Not that I believe in astrotheology as anything other than the original religion). However, I still read what biblical scholars and archeologists have to say in their research which is contrary to what the bible says about him. I'll form my final opinion when I feel I have gone as far as I can go with the credible research of the scholars.
First you say he existed, now you say you don't know, please get your story straight.
Medicine Woman
Registered Member
*************
M*W: I quoted from a biblical scholar who believed he existed. Just because I don't believe he did, I still have respect for the research of credible scholars. Therefore, I cite references... something you know nothing about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where is your reference that Solomon and David were supposedly ancestors of Moses?
Many of the Christians I know in the real world hold advanced degrees in a variety of disciplines, including physics, philosophy, history, mathematics, biology, psychology, and economics.
On the other hand, I know plenty of atheists and agnostics in the real world who are semiliterate, crack whores, and/or petty internet trolls.
Well done Nutter.
As smart as these learned christians may be.Can any of them provide EMPIRICAL evidence the bible is the word of god?? No, just more preaching and relying on blind faith. Blind faith that is tearing the world apart as the rest of us are caught between two groups of abrahamic nutheads ready to square off .