True.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
While it is possible that "what you see" is not what always true.
But the very same can be said about "what you believe", even more so.
Is it not possible for your mind to play trick on you and on "what you believe in"?
No, alekananada. I think it is even far absurd and more funny to "believe in something" that's not there; I think your comment on "mind's trick", actually apply to believers than they do on non-believers.
No. That A is possible doesn't make not-A possible.
So you have an answer to every yes or no question? How did you manage that, exactly?
"Gnostic" refers to a specific religious movement. "Gnostic atheist" makes no more sense than "Lutheran atheist."
Shad
Veteran Member
This is not required at all and is a direct contradiction to the premise at the start. Being unsure can and does include nothing.
Again not required and a direct contradiction to the first premise
Again no as it would contradict the first premise.
Nope. You have changed your argument. First off it is the box which we can not see inside of that could be empty or not. The jar on the other hand has no such premise. Rather the premise is that there are gumballs that we can see but can not see enough of to conclude if the amount is even or odd.
It matters as it shows a vast difference in your two arguments which you failed to consider then make a blunder as you do not consider your argument at all.
Nope. In this context theists make a claim and atheists reject the claim due to lack of evidence.
Certainly your strawman is as is your distortion of your own argument.
No one said it wasn't a belief. If they did it was made in error. There can be a stance and a belief. Stances typically involve specifics like the Christian God is the true God which is more than just saying God exists.
Not identically but similar. Even if an agnostic concludes there is not enough knowledge to make a conclusion about God there is still the matter of their practical life. Does the agnostic live their life as if God exists or not. Hence what I would call a practical atheist can apply to agnostics. They live their lives as if there is no God.
Yes I know your strawmans are dishonest as is your approach to this topic.
I like to think theists actually spend more than 5 seconds considering the position of atheists and agnostics, how this influences their lives, how they live their lives, etc. Too much to expect no doubt.
Curious George
Veteran Member
usually with a yes or no.
A) Either God exists or it is not the case that God exists. B) Either you believe God exists or it is not the case that you believe God exists; jointly C) either you believe God is non-existent or it is not the case that you believe God is non existent. If you are choosing unknown A, then it is demonstrated by answering the same way for both B and C. Either way is a fully functional way of "reserving" judgment and creating a muany valued logic. This is not revolutionary. Just look to Aristotle. All you are demonstrating is that your belief is subject to change in the future. Now if you want to talk about your present view, I would suggest that you either believe God is existent or you believe God is non existent. This is where the jelly beans come into the equation. Either you believe there is an even number or you believe there is an odd number. You may vacillate between views, but at any one moment you either believed even or odd. Your commitment to the belief is also very small. You are literally on the tipping point at all times. One is just as good as the other, so you could treat both as true (or in your view, one is just as bad as the other, so you can treat them both as false). This seems so easy because you evaluate themail propositions separately. There are an even number of jelly beans; false (or true). There are an odd number of jelly beans; false (or true). But you are not stopping to realize that you are necessarily answering the other question the opposite each time you treat one of the two propositions as false (or true). Then, you are taking a step back and equivocating by talking about a future belief instead of a present belief. You are trying to communicate that you will believe that their are an odd or even number of jelly beans once you have found significant reason to include (or exclude) one of the options.
I know you would like to think that you are merely "suspending" belief. But we are not talking about a future belief that you may or may not have. We are talking about whether it is true or false that there is an even number of jelly beans and consequently whether it is true or false that there is an odd number of jelly beans. And your evaluation of any one proposition is your belief in that moment.
I am an agnostic atheist. I am an atheist because I accept no god claims, and an agnostic because I don't say that gods do or don't exist.
Atheists have no burden of proof. Why would they?
The box contains Schrodinger's cat.
I know the cat is definitely alive in the box (theism)
I know the cat is definitely dead in box (naturalism)
I can never know for certain whether the cat is alive or dead in that closed box (agnosticism)
I do not believe in the proposition that the cat is definitely alive in the box(atheism)
I do not believe in the proposition that the cat is definitely dead in the box (a-naturalism)
I know that the cat is both alive and dead in the box. (Pantheism??!!)
The cat, dead or alive, either suffered or is suffering in the box. (Buddhism)
The box and the cat are one. (Advaita Hinduism)
It depends on the person, the box and the cat. (Subjectivism)
Let's establish what a cat in a box really means. (Socrates)
.....
etc.
Heisenberg and Schroedinger are tooling down the road when they get pulled over by the Highway Patrol. The trooper asks Heisenberg if he knows how fast he was going. "No, but I knew my precise location."
Annoyed, the trooper has the gentlemen exit the car, and begins a search of it, including the trunk.
"Do you know that you have a dead cat back here?"
"I do now," answers Schroedinger.
"Something"I don't care about what's in the box, but rather, who put the box there in the first place.
That something could any sort of
So "something" could be a mindless force of nature?Would theists accept
So "something" could be a mindless force of nature?
Do you find it more likely that 0 gods exist, or that 1+ gods exists?
Haha everyone does, the burden of proof is nonsense. I think what annoys me most is that atheism is totally supportable with reason and evidence. You can make the arguments, and in many cases like Christianity easily win the debate. But for some reason you don't, you want us to think of you as these baby-like entities with no reason or evidence to support your decision. It makes no sense to me.
gnostic
The Lost One
I wasn't referring to Gnosticism's "gnostic"; just the the non-religious gnostic of "knowing".
Why make it a silly word game? Either you have evidence of something supernatural or you don't. And obviously you have no evidence or you would show us. Instead you insult others who aren't as mealy mouthed as you are. Atheist is the correct position until any evidence of the supernatural is shown.
Even with a lowercase "G", "gnostic" generally only ever referred to esoteric, mystical religious knowledge; until the past few years, it wasn't ever used as a catch-all term for every theist who's absolutely certain their god(s) exist... and this new usage hasn't achieved general acceptance, IMO.
That's how I took it.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It's atheists who came up with an make the argument
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case, the theist is making the claim (that God exists). If you make an argument for God's existence, it's up to the atheist to refute it, as long as there is something of substance to refute, but generally it's up to you to support the main claim that God exists.
Atheism at its core is the lack of belief in a theistic god. There is no need for evidence of that. If you're referring to atheism as the claim that a theistic god does not exist, then yes, that can be supported by reason and evidence, and many atheists do. It's possible you haven't come across such atheists, but it seems more likely you have and just choose to ignore them.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I would agree there, and with your logic that- all things being even- the spontaneous mechanism appears the simpler explanation.
But also as you say, it's not an immutable law- as once described classical physics, so reality seems to enjoy breaking our laws as much as we do!
Strong atheist.
Weak atheist.
There would be a whole lot less confusion if you would simple agree to use the proper terms.