Answers for Atheists

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Easy question ghost...don't beat yourself over the head trying to figure it out...

Do you believe in god? It's a simple yes or no question.

A2D

I know this question is for ghost, but id like to answer too.

As an agnostic I would have to say that this isn't a simple yes/no question.

Can we prove there's any creator/god/supreme being? No

Can we prove there isn't any creator/god/sipreme being? No

Does that mean he/she/it does or doesn't exist? No

Personally I don't believe either way, but evidence would suggest that there is more likely not.

We can't know for sure until there is evidence, which there is none for either side.

And exactly what evidence could there be to prove the non existence of god? Why would you bring up this old ass falacy again? You cannot "prove" the non existence of anything. But you bring it up like it is actually a thing and that you've never been told that you can't prove a negative. Logically impossible. This is what the religious position always boils down to, this is the best argument you have? Lame.

If you read the whole thing I actually said (in not so many words) there is no evidence either way.

But why do you act like there is a 50/50 chance that god is floating around out there?

Because I
1, Can't prove there is
2, Can't prove there isn't

It really is that simple for me.

So what are the odds that odin or any other extraordinary claim is valid?

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

You can only disprove a god that is ascribed qualities to it

Yes, that's what that topic states. Why are you parroting it? Or have you lost so much will to respond validly you simply don't follow the information being posted?

a reply to: Ghost147

because you have no reason to doubt the validity of my sources ...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

because you have no reason to doubt the validity of my sources ...

A2D

I like how that's the only thing you responded to in that comment...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Abysha

I'm an agnostic theist...I absolutely accept I don't know as an answer...Also, I didn't use "God"....at least on the entire last page I didn't...if I did, then I did it unknowingly...

You do, in every one of your posts. In your signature. It doesn't matter, anyway.

As for what you said about how some atheists and agnostics probably lean towards the other further than they realize, I actually agree with that. I've met both examples before. Honestly, I believe that both are probably the most logical positions to take. I don't fall in either category but, then again, I have never been overburdened with logic, hah!

a reply to: Ghost147

The point is beaten to death...I just decided that we could agree 2 disagree and move on...

A2D

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Easy question ghost...don't beat yourself over the head trying to figure it out...

Do you believe in god? It's a simple yes or no question.

A2D

I know this question is for ghost, but id like to answer too.

As an agnostic I would have to say that this isn't a simple yes/no question.

Can we prove there's any creator/god/supreme being? No

Can we prove there isn't any creator/god/sipreme being? No

Does that mean he/she/it does or doesn't exist? No

Personally I don't believe either way, but evidence would suggest that there is more likely not.

We can't know for sure until there is evidence, which there is none for either side.

And exactly what evidence could there be to prove the non existence of god? Why would you bring up this old ass falacy again? You cannot "prove" the non existence of anything. But you bring it up like it is actually a thing and that you've never been told that you can't prove a negative. Logically impossible. This is what the religious position always boils down to, this is the best argument you have? Lame.

If you read the whole thing I actually said (in not so many words) there is no evidence either way.

But why do you act like there is a 50/50 chance that god is floating around out there?

Because I
1, Can't prove there is
2, Can't prove there isn't

It really is that simple for me.

So what are the odds that odin or any other extraordinary claim is valid?

I would say about the same as any other deity existing.

Notice I never once referred to "God", but god/supreme being/creator? That pretty much covers every religion and anything else (even just a council us collective).

ETA How cool would it be to go to Valhalla?

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

The point is beaten to death...I just decided that we could agree 2 disagree and move on...

I never denied that an atheist could state that "There is no god".

The only thing I've been responding to is your insatiable need to reject that an atheist can lack a belief in a god.

So, considering you used an encyclopedia and a dictionary to prove your point (that I never denied in the first place), you must that also fully accept my encyclopedia and dictionary references.

So, yes or no? Can an atheist simply "lack a belief" in a god?

a reply to: Abysha

Ah, I see. and yeah, I tend to think that both agnostic positions are probably the most logical...with agnostic atheism being even more logical than agnostic theism....however, personal experiences have made me lean towards theism...

A2D

a reply to: Ghost147

From my understanding...no.

You either believe there is a god. Or you believe there is not a god. theism or atheism....

A lack of a belief in god would most closely resemble agnosticism...but it's not the same, as agnosticism deals with evidence and not belief...

(Philosopher)William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God, whereas an atheist disbelieves in God."

but...we can agree2disagree and move on...yes?

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

From my understanding...no.

Good choice! Rejecting reality is always a safe bet...

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
A lack of a belief in god would most closely resemble agnosticism...but it's not the same, as agnosticism deals with evidence and not belief...

Right... Like how I'm a non-stamp-collector or like how "off" is a channel on a TV.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147
but...we can agree2disagree and move on...yes?

Hardly.

If you don't want to respond, that's up to you. However, I cannot get over the fact that despite using a dictionary and an encyclopedia as a valid form of reference to back your position, you reject the definitions within a dictionary and an encyclopedia as a valid form to back the opposition.

If you cannot simply accept that Atheism can in fact be a "lack of belief" then you either are too proud to ever state you're wrong, willfully choose to stay ignorant, or simply lack the cognitive ability to comprehend the subject at hand.

There really is no excuse.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: MrConspiracy

But we're not programmed to understand it.

So you were catholic (raised) and yet you think you were programmed; Is god a programmer, are you software?

Quite possibly.

a reply to: Ghost147

Good choice, being civil is overrated.

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Good choice, being civil is overrated.

A2D

There's nothing uncivilized about referring to the truth.

If I am incorrect then perhaps you could explain to me why you continue to believe that the only defining property of Atheism is "a belief that no god's exist", despite your proof being from a source which provides other defining properties?

If there's complete lack of acknowledgment for the other defining properties -in the very sources you used as your proof- then what else does that show us other than a lack of ability to understand the subject, willful ignorance, or being too proud to simply admit you were unaware of the other definition?

a reply to: Ghost147

Maybe you can explain why you continue to believe that atheism has nothing to do with belief when all the definitions provided clearly state otherwise...

A2D

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Ghost147

Maybe you can explain why you continue to believe that atheism has nothing to do with belief when all the definitions provided clearly state otherwise...

Ghost147
When did I ever deny that some atheists claim "there is no god?"

Ghost147
"Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's a position which dictates that there is no god!"
An individual certainly can state that they believe no gods exist, and that individual could very well be an Atheist

What was that again?

a reply to: Ghost147

There is strong atheism which makes a claim about God and weak atheism that makes no claim and simply holds no belief in God. At least in philosophy. I have even heard people claim deism is an Atheist position because it opposes theism as an explanation of what God could be. Labels are dumb sometimes anyway. Most non theists don't have a common system of "beliefs" or "non beliefs"

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147

There is strong atheism which makes a claim about God and weak atheism that makes no claim and simply holds no belief in God. At least in philosophy.

Absolutely correct

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Ghost147
I have even heard people claim deism is an Atheist position because it opposes theism as an explanation of what God could be. Labels are dumb sometimes anyway. Most non theists don't have a common system of "beliefs" or "non beliefs"

I agree, labels can be so diluted by the variations that it becomes confusing and nonsensical.

Honestly, there wouldn't even be an "atheism" if there wasn't a 'theism'.

Kind of like the whole non-stamp-collector analogy.

If 80% of the world collected stamps, only then would "non-stamp-collecting" be some sort of title.

Titles/labels are weird that way.

a reply to: Ghost147

Titles/labels are weird that way.

And yet you seem to label others a lot lately.

If there's complete lack of acknowledgment for the other defining properties -in the very sources you used as your proof- then what else does that show us other than a lack of ability to understand the subject, willful ignorance, or being too proud to simply admit you were unaware of the other definition?

And all that jazz, all the feverish debate, why? To prove what point exactely? That you can define atheism best? Like a real theologian?

originally posted by: Willingly
And yet you seem to label others a lot lately.

I never stated you shouldn't. Only that the concept of what dictates what a label is can be weird.

Labels can be extremely useful otherwise.

originally posted by: Willingly
And all that jazz, all the feverish debate, why? To prove what point exactely? That you can define atheism best? Like a real theologian?

No, of course not. It has nothing to do with my personal view or stature.

There was claim that was made, the claim was false, the information that was provided showed that that claim was false.

The purpose was to provide valid and accurate information, nothing more.