Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 36715


Sorry, I should've specified larger apes like gorillas. There are no gorilla-chimp hybrids. Moreover, we do not see tailed monkeys become tailless. We're missing the transitional evidence in the monkeys.

Okay, so you do not understand evolution. If you ask proper questions people will answer them for you.

 

[Ayjaydee]

View attachment 36715


Sorry, I should've specified larger apes like gorillas. There are no gorilla-chimp hybrids. Moreover, we do not see tailed monkeys become tailless. We're missing the transitional evidence in the monkeys.

Some monkeys are tailless

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 36715


Sorry, I should've specified larger apes like gorillas. There are no gorilla-chimp hybrids. Moreover, we do not see tailed monkeys become tailless. We're missing the transitional evidence in the monkeys.

That small segment of the tree of life can be confusing to creationists. There is no need for humans to be on the far right. That can unfortunately mislead creationists into thinking that man was a goal of evolution. Man is merely a result. One could take any of the various nodes on that illustration and rotate the species by 180 degrees. It would still say the same thing. So bonobos and chimps could be switched with man. Or bonobos, chimps, and man, could be switched with gorillas. Or any such combination one wants. As long as the nodes themselves are still the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some monkeys are tailless

And some apes grow tails:

WEIRD NEWS: Strange people born with tail

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail.[16] All mammals have a tail at some point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis.[17] This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old.[18] The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. In rare cases, congenital defect results in a short tail-like structure being present at birth. Twenty-three cases of human babies born with such a structure have been reported in the medical literature since 1884.[19][20] In rare cases such as these, the spine and skull were determined to be entirely normal. The only abnormality was that of a tail approximately twelve centimeters long. These tails were able to be surgically removed, and the individuals have resumed normal lives.[21]

So we all have tails at some point. But in development they almost always go away.

 

[sojourner]

You know - for a duly ordained Christian minister - you, Sir, are dangerously close to Advaita (with bolded underlined pieces of your statement above)

I believe Jesus was too. “The Father and I are One.”

 

[sojourner]

That small segment of the tree of life can be confusing to creationists. There is no need for humans to be on the far right. That can unfortunately mislead creationists into thinking that man was a goal of evolution. Man is merely a result. One could take any of the various nodes on that illustration and rotate the species by 180 degrees. It would still say the same thing. So bonobos and chimps could be switched with man. Or bonobos, chimps, and man, could be switched with gorillas. Or any such combination one wants. As long as the nodes themselves are still the same.

And the tree ignores the fact that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal coexisted for a period. There is more than one species of human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the tree ignores the fact that Homo sapiens and Neanderthal coexisted for a period. There is more than one species of human.

Yes, it was highly simplified. It only shows living members of the tree and none of the predecessors. Also we may never know very much about chimpanzee evolution for example, or gorilla. The environment that a species lives is often the deciding factor if they leave any fossil evidence or not. Damp forests are very very poor environments for fossilization. One of the reasons that we do have fairly good fossil evidence of our more recent ancestors is because they left the forest.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, it was highly simplified. It only shows living members of the tree and none of the predecessors. Also we may never know very much about chimpanzee evolution for example, or gorilla. The environment that a species lives is often the deciding factor if they leave any fossil evidence or not. Damp forests are very very poor environments for fossilization. One of the reasons that we do have fairly good fossil evidence of our more recent ancestors is because they left the forest.

That they left the forest is obviously proof of God’s existence AND the forest not leaving a fossil record is obviously proof of Intelligent Design. Because mathematical formula.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it's a logical argument for God if the universe had a beginning. We assume the p portion.

No, you are assuming both the 'p' and the 'p=>q'. The problem is that 'p=>q' is, at best, unproven and is most likely simply false.

 

[night912]

Exactly that is the point of the OP here. One claims a belief in God by faith and the other claims they do not believe in God or have a lack of belief in God by faith.

One cannot have faith in something that they are lacking. Faith only concerns "belief."

Ok so we agree in the above first section that those athiests that believe there is no God or in the existence of God have the same type of belief those who believe in God do. It is to these that the OP is directed. However I want you examine this lack of belief in God of gods in relation to the etymological root for the word meaning of atheism.

If you're going to argue from an etymological stand point, then both atheism and theism does not have anything to do with the belief that a god exist or not. It's basically a moot point. But if talking about belief, then theism(theos) is the belief that a god exist. And atheism(atheos) means without
the belief of a god.

Are you really saying here that this form of Athiest is really agnostic? - think it through.

No, because agnosticism deals with the knowledge, not belief. That's why someone can be an agnostic or gnostic atheist. It's the same as someone being a Christian theist, Christianity deals with religion and theism deals with simply the belief that a god exist.

What is the belief of someone that is agnostic?

In regards to god, the existence of a god is not known. See how their belief is not about the belief that a god doesn't exist.

Is not a lack of beleif really another term for no belief or someone who does not believe in God or does it mean a person that has some belief in God

Some atheist see it as a big difference. One cannot have any beliefs if they are lacking in belief, so they have no belief. Someone who does not believe, does lack the belief that a god exist. The difference comes when it goes into further details.

or futher more does it mean that I person is open to believing in God?

That's two separate things. Being open to believing in a god doesn't define what atheism is about.

If a person is open to believing in God how can he be Athiest when an Athiest is defined as...

Again, being open has nothing to do with atheism. Just like a theist being open to the idea of no god exist. They still believe that a god exist.

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.

Theism can be both. What's important is the usage in "context." A proposition is true or false, but not in the way that you might think. Being true or false is hinges on what the proposition is.

This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism.

Propositions are not required to argue for or against them.

If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Nope, you're wrong. But as I said, being true or false it is dependent on the proposition. In this case, it is believe a god exist, so if you believe that a god exist, it is true. If you don't, then it is false. Theism is not god exist. You even said it yourself, it's "believe that a god exist." So the proposition would be, "you believe that a god exist." Let's dissect it, I color coded it. R is obviously the who. B is the action, the deciding factor of being true or not. G is the what, that correlates to the action. The "a-" in atheism stands for, "without" belief or "not" believe , it doesn't matter. See how the proposition plays the role? You have to know what that is and how it is being presented. And being dishonest by changing the meaning of theism didn't work because I'm using the definition, quoting exactly what you said, "is best understood as," the belief that a god exist.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". (Wiki).


No do not midunderstand what is being shared here. I understand that there is many brands of Athiesm as there are Christianity and there is no misunderstanding of the two propositions only the questioning of them.

Thanks for your thoughts. Hope you better understand where I am coming from.

Atheism, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of a god, is the result of theism when used as a proposition.

 

[night912]

Not really. Not believing in God for example is a belief that does not believe in God.

Nope. Not believing in god cannot be an example for a belief that does not believe in god. Believing and not believing are two separate things. Use yourself as an example. You not believing that no god exist is not an example for you believing that a god exist because you not believing tells nothing about you believing.

If you do not believe in God and have no evidence for your belief then you are living by faith just as much as those who believe in God

And here's where you are wrong. I'll play along and show you the difference. I'm not living by faith, I live by evidence. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that my belief is true and can support it with sufficient and justifiable evidence. My evidence is that I believe that I lack the belief that a god exist because I am not lying to myself.

 

[james bond]

No, you are assuming both the 'p' and the 'p=>q'. The problem is that 'p=>q' is, at best, unproven and is most likely simply false.

If p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. Do you agree with this? If not, then good bye haha.

p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. What does this represent?

It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

 

[Ayjaydee]

If p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. Do you agree with this? If not, then good bye haha.

p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. What does this represent?

It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

No it doesnt

 

[night912]

There is a difference between what one off people believe vs claims made by 1/3 of the worlds population. If some individual person says "I believe in pink unicorns" and no one else has you would recommend them to see a doctor. If 1/3 (billions of people) of the worlds population say God has revealed himself to them you would have to ask the question why IMO.

Your statistics are wrong. There are actually billions of people, 99.99% of the world's population believes in invisible pink unicorns because they said that those unicorns has revealed themselves to them on numerous occasions.

Asking the question, "why?" Would be the wrong and/or bad question to ask. A better question to ask would be, "How did you determined that real invisible pink unicorns had actually revealed themselves to you and not invisible blue unicorns that changed the color of your vision to see pink?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. Do you agree with this? If not, then good bye haha.

p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. What does this represent?

It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

If one cannot justify a premise then it can be rejected. You are applying logic incorrectly.

 

[night912]

You seem to have thought about things alot without trying and putting things into practice and from what I see have made up your mind to have a closed view of God. My experience that I cannot prove to you was that God led me to know him when I did seek him through prayer. He lead me to a prayerful study of the scriptures where he revealed himself to me through answered prayers and other things in my life. I know him and he know me. His presence brings me peace as I abide in him. I feel no need to prove him to anyone because I know he is real. I can only tell you of my experience with him. He revealed himself to me only after I did seek after him through prayer and through believing and following him through his Word (his appointed way). I know those who want some kind of sign or miricle evidence before they believe will never understand this but I am ok with it because simply I know my own experience.

How did you determined that it was god and not satan pretending to be god? If it was satan ever since from the beginning, how would you even know the difference, that it wasn't god. Even if you were able to determine that it wasn't a dream using your last experiences as reference and comparison, what did you use as reference to compare that it was god?

These questions are purposely not asking about your state of mind at that time. They're not questions of doubts regarding whether or not you actually some kind of experiences and believe it to be god. But they will help in figuring out about what really transpired. Did the events happen accurately and/or the way you thought it did. Mistaken identity? Because if you never eaten chicken before and someone gave you food claiming it as being chicken, you cannot know that what you are tasting is the actual taste of chicken.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists

Doesn't follow.

If universe had a beginning, then God exists. What does this represent?

Invalid logic with an assumed conclusion.

It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

Only in your fantasy fallacious logic.

 

[3rdAngel]

It's a common misconception that agnosticism and atheism are two distinct positions.

In reality, they aren't mutually exclusive. They are different answers to different questions.
(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge while (a)theism pertains to beliefs.

Here's a helpfull diagram:

I've never met a gnostic atheist.

Depends I guess if you believe your chart or if you believe the dictionary definitions which do not seem to be agreeing with each other. I have never heard of your definitions before although I am quite aware that there are many variations within and belief or religion.

ATHIESM DEFINITIONS

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)". (Wiki).

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable. (Encyclopedia Britannica)

Atheism a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods; a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods (Merriam Webster dictionary)

Atheism the doctrine or belief that there is no God or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. (Dictionary.com)

Atheism The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists (Encyclopedia of Philisophy).

Athiesm a'-the-iz'-m (atheos, "without God" (Ephesians 2:12)): Ordinarily this word is interpreted to mean a denial of the existence of God, a disbelief in God, the opposite of theism. (International Stantard Bible Encyclopedia)

Athiesm the belief that God does not exist; not believing in any God or gods, or relating to such beliefs (Cambridge Dictionary)

Thanks for sharing your opinion though.

Athiesm the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist godlessness (Your Dictionary)



Someone who believes in Atheism...........?



Atheist, a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism (Merriam Webster dictionary)

 

[3rdAngel]

It's an analogy to make a point about the burden of proof and the nature of belief, which apparantly went over your head.

Not at all I responded to it appropriately. That it seems went over your head. That is why you only part quoted what I said. Read the rest of my post. When I said that I do not know of anyone that believes in pixies or have made a religion out of pixies, I said this for a reason which it seems you missed.. So your example here is not relavant when comparing billions of people that claim God has revealed himself to them personally. If your talking about an isolated case you have to wonder if there is any truth in it. When your talking billions or people throughout time all world-wide all believing the same thing you have collective witnesses of truth that begs investigation IMO. Further you claim is that you do not believe in God yet here you are not able to prove that God does not exist or can you prove there is no God. You simply have no evidence for your view therefore you live by faith just as those who believe there is a God. Without definitive evidence you view is no different to anyone elses except it is in the opposite direction.

It doesn't matter how many people make a claim or believe the claim. What matters is the nature of the claim and the evidence (or lack thereof) for it. Disagree. Number of followers / believers, doesn't change anything about the burden of proof.

Sure it does, that is the part that went over your head I guess. When your talking billions or people throughout time all world-wide instead of one witness all believing the same thing you have collective witnesses of truth that begs investigation.

Consider another analogy: alien abduction. Plenty of believers there. Plenty of people alive today that you can go and talk to that will claim to have been abducted by aliens. They believe it so hard that they'll even pass lie detector tests.

Plenty of believers is a very subjective term IMO. How much is plenty of believers? 10-100? Is this figure from all time or collective? Where are they found etc? How does this compare to 1/3 of the worlds population claiming that God has revealed himself to them in a single generation collectivelty all over the world? It doesn't. Now back to your example. I personally believe that out of the billions of planets in the galaxy we would have to be pretty niave to think we are the only planet that has life on it. Wheather these people have had an experience with aliens or not I do not know. I believe they believe their experience. If I am being honest with myself I do not know what experience they had one way or another. That would be my position as I have no evidence to prove them to be wrong.

I don't believe them for a second. Outlandish claims require outlandish evidence. As it stands, there is zero evidence instead. So no reason to believe them - and no responsability on my part whatsoever to provide counter evidence to justify my non-belief. My non-belief is justified by default, simply because they fail to meet their burden of proof.

Just a few points here. If you do not believe them why do you not believe them? If there are billions and billions of planets out there and our world has life on it why would you think so many other planets or which we are only one do not have any life on them. Just the fact that our world has life is evidence in and of it self that there is the possibility that perhaps other worlds have life on them. Can you prove that these people did not have an experience and if so how? My position as stated earlier is that I cannot prove they did not have their experience I simply do not know. If your making the claims that you do not believe someones experience is true is the burden of proof now on you to prove they did not?

That's not really a claim though, but okay.

Well it is a claim. You claimed in an earlier post you do not believe there is a God and you do not believe in the existence of God. It is your belief and you are entitled to your veiw. I do not beleive your view but I respect you are entitled to your opinion even if you cannot prove it.

I don't need to. Just like you don't need to prove that there are no undetectable pixies in your garage if I claim there are. Your nonbelief of that claim is justified by my inability to meet my burden of proof. Just like you don't need to prove that people have NOT been abducted by aliens. Your nonbelief is justified by their inability to meet their burden of proof for their claim that they were. Nonbelief of a claim that has not met its burden of proof, does not require any evidence. Claims require evidence. The claim here, is that god exists. That's what requires evidence. Failure to provide that evidence, is enough justification to not believe said claim.

Well of course I would disagree here. As a Christian, I believe I have had an experience with God and believe God has revealed himself to me personally through prayer and an finding him through his Word. This is my experience. Though I cannot prove my experience to you I can freely tell you about it as can 1/3 of the current worlds population and people from the beginning of time. I have no definitive evidence to prove that there is a God or the existence of God but I know he is real and maybe if I took a lie detector test it would show I am telling the truth like your alien friends. Now I accept that for some things I believe I live by faith as I do not have definitive evidence to show you God but I am at peace with my belief as you cannot disprove my own personal experience thay I know I have had. At the same time you believe that there is no God and you believe that God does not exist yet you have no evidence to prove that my experience with God is not real like you have no proof that there is no God and God does not exist. So you my friend wheather you agree or not because you have no evidence for your belief or lack of believe are simply living by faith in your view about God. If you believe there is no God and your trying to tell me there is no God then the buden of proof is on you to provide your evidence for which you simply have none.

I didn't share an opinion. I shared facts. Facts about the nature of evidence and the concept of the burden of proof. Facts that seem completely foreign to you.

Here we will agree to disagree. You simply shared your opinions for which you have no evidence that there is no God or that God does not exist. It is your opinion of what you believe for which you have no evidence therefore you also live by faith but in the opposite direction of those who believe in God.

Thanks for sharing your view though TM. I enjoy talking to you

 

[3rdAngel]

Yes really. Not playing football, is not a sport. Not collection stamps, is not a hobby. Barefoot, is not a type of shoe. Bald, is not a hair due. Naked, is not a type of clothing. Not believing, is not a belief. That makes no sense. It's like saying "not playing footbal, is the sport of not playing football". False. I don't know in how many more ways I can explain this to you. I'm thinking it's not going to sink in, no matter how many more times I try.

Nonsense! If you claim you do not believe in God or that God does not exist that is your belief that there is no God and that God does not exist. The examples you provided above are devoid of context to subject matter and non sequitur to the post you are repsonding to. Perhaps you need to think things through before posting.