• 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!

A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

Status
Not open for further replies.

rational experiences

Veteran Member
We are first all humans.

Before a human the theist who is just a human says let me discuss theories as just a human.

See how a theist pretends their own self does not exist! In human life actually the theist egotist would pretend that other humans don't exist.

How he came about by human pretence to being a God creator.

By status ego.

Ego his destroyer mentality says my group and answers is better than your group.

Yet naturally first the human advice human says I am equal the same as you are and just as powerful....when you argue using a human group teaching.

So as one single hu man I look at you and wonder who you think you are.

You are a human. You live inside a heavens of self present mass it's own body. You are alive until you die.

If the first human highest natural conscious advice.

Now as one human I see you to say two humans.

In natural life.

What does one human egotist see as a theist?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You didn't have a real mother? Goodness!

You're not typing your posts here on a real keyboard? Goodness!

You don't think I have objective existence? Goodness!
The good side of that is you can never cut yourself on a knife, never have a car accident, and live totally free from disease! Admirable albeit not exactly credible!
Then as I said, your question is meaningless. It may as well be about floupxnozelb as God.
Brilliant!
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted.
The truth claim is BELIEVED true.

The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted.
No, it's: I'm not convinced, prove it.

The content of agnosticism is the inability to make a determination, and therefor to make any assertion. There is no need for anyone's "beliefs" to be imposed on the content. The content of each position stands on it's own.
The theist MUST have belief to assert anything. Atheists and agnostics are only responding.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Now if you teach as a theist seeing you hurt human life by science then know why you taught a human is God only.

For science about god then against science.

So human science of God demands you don't argue. As human rights.

Natural human says I never asked you to invent science why you are both wrong.

As thinker brothers.

The God one concept science says a human is instant. Not a human is God instantly it said ....if not for Gods presence no hu man would exist.

As lots of words descriptions stories are told first. Ignored. Thinking time shifted thinking by humans using storytelling explaining reality.

God owned O earth heavens presence water oxygen so the human is instant by looking seeing theorising. As humans.

It is why a human god theist said to occult radiation converters your theories a nuclear reaction by dust is a liar.

We are instantly by God terms natural with God. Not instant by a reaction. As you are self present first to tell stories.

It was never a human science reason why. It was a human argument versus a human theist trying to destroy life by not having life in its natural placement human owned.

As we were in fact arguing against human Satanists destroyer of God mass gases.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Yeah, I don't care. Dictionaries only record all the ways we use words. Including all the stupid ways we use them. They are not an arbiter of the logical use of words.

If you have to run to a dictionary to justify your use of a word because you couldn't do so logically, yourself, then ... I'm not likely to accept your use of the word.
So what you are saying is that you can't establish any credibility through using accepted and proper definition of the words you opt to use.

If your views are correct why can't you skillfully use language and accepted definitions to present them?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Theism posits that God/gods exist. Period.
Tooth Fairy-ism posits that the Tooth Fairy exists. I'll bet she even brought you cash.

Santaism posits that Santa Claus exists. I'll be you got presents with his signature on them.

Wanna go for leprechauns? Irishism implies those. How about Jinn, Islam makes those a certainty!

Why, exactly do we get to say that "God exists," but they do not?

There must be, according to the argument you are insisting on in this thread, a "logical" reason to dismiss them. Perhaps you can tell us what that "logical reason" is.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Yup. An agnostic that chooses to trust in the possibility of a benevolent God.
How does an intellectual mind "trust in the possibility" of anything?

Given little children are diagnosed with deadly genetic diseases, isn't it a possibility that if a God exists it is a sadist? Do you "trust in the possibility" that God is a sadist?
 

night912

Well-Known Member
CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)
We don't choose atheism and/or theism. Those two are just the labels that we used to identify the positions of a proposition. And you're mistaken about agnosticism. It's not the default and/or middle position in regards to atheism and theism. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas atheism and theism deals with belief. There are agnostics on both sides of the proposition. There are atheists who are agnostic and there are theists who are agnostic. Atheism and theism deals with a specific proposition, the existence of a god. Agnosticism can deal with other propositions. Someone can be an agnostic regarding the existence of extra terrestrials, bigfoot, and the lochess monster. If you want to compare "agnosticism with something, then it should be with, "gnostic."

It's rational for someone to nnot be
I also understand taking a position of uninformed indifference
So you do understand the position of the majority of atheists.
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't care. Dictionaries only record all the ways we use words. Including all the stupid ways we use them. They are not an arbiter of the logical use of words.

If you have to run to a dictionary to justify your use of a word because you couldn't do so logically, yourself, then ... I'm not likely to accept your use of the word.
If you have to redefine the meaning of two different words in order for you to have confidence in presenting your argument, then I would have to conclude that once people give logical explanations why your arguments are fallacious, you're just going act like you're trying out for the Olympic gymnastics team while spewing out illogical responses. And I'm assuming that you'll be aiming for the gold medals in the competition of strawmaning and special pleading. So I've decided to not continue having this with this discussion with you, unless it becomes different.


Have a nice day. Later.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
As a limited human, you can't have the truth of God because even if you had it, you couldn't know it was the truth of God. How could you? What possible evidence could there be that you could not logically doubt?

I find this disingenuous because if someone asked if Osirus or Romulus was real you probably wouldn't say, "Osirus might be real because I'm human and cannot have the truth".

Before you talk about the "truth of God" you have to demonstrate God exists. Then demonstrate there is some super God truth that humans cannot have. wYou could say this about Santa Clause or any fictional character in mythology.
Yes one can doubt evidence but maybe this God could start with some evidence, even evidence that could be doubted.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You don't understand that none of this is about what anyone "believes".

Eum.... theism / atheism is ONLY about what people believe (concerning gods / religions)........


Theism posits that God/gods exist.

This leaves us with three possible responses:

1. We agree: God/gods exists.
2. We disagree: God/gods do not exist.
3. We are undecided: lacking sufficient information to make a determination.​


This is a false trichotomy.

Take number 2 for example. To disagree with a statement, DOES NOT MEAN that you would agree with the opposite statement.

Ever heared the gumball machine analogy? There's this gumball machine with a bunch of gumballs in it. You have no access to the contents, so you can't get them out and count them.

The number of gumballs is either even or odd. Just like god either exists or he doesn't.

Some guy comes up and claims "the number of balls is even!"

You can either accept that claim as true, or you don't.
Since I have no way to verify the number of balls to determine if it is even or odd, I have insufficient information to commit to believing the claim that the number is even.

That does not mean that I claim the number is odd, or that I would agree with that claim!
It JUST means that I have insufficient reason to commit to the statement "the number is even".

Atheism posits that no God/gods exist.

This is false.

Agnosticism posits that we lack sufficient information to determine whether or not God/gods exist. (#3)

Which does NOT prevent you from believing it anyway, or not believing it.

Again, agnosticism is NOT mutually exclusive to (a)theism. It just isn't.
It deals with a DIFFERENT subject.

(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.
(a)theism pertains to beliefs.

The question I am asking is that if you claim to be an agnostic atheist, as many here do, then by what logical reasoning did you choose to presume no gods exist as opposed to simply remaining undecided. It's a simple, reasonable question.

I don't make the claim that no gods exist. I tend not to make useless and meaningless claims.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No one is asking that question.

It is implied whenever someone makes a claim.
You can either agree with the claim (believe it) or not (not believe it).

No one is asking you ANY questions (but me).

Whenever someone makes a claim, you can either agree / believe, or disagree / disbelieve.

Theism posits that God/gods exist. Period.

And by doing so, takes on a burden of proof.
They fail to meet that burden of proof.
Therefor, I don't believe the claim.

It's not rocket science.

Theism is not asking what you believe about it or even what you think about it. It simply posits a truth claim.

Again, the question "do you agree?" is implied by making the statement.

And you are left with three possible responses to that truth claim.

Nope. Just two. You can believe the statement or disbelieve the statement.
And once more: disbelieving a statement does NOT mean you automagically will believe the opposite claim. cfr the gumball machine analogy.

If agnosticism is part of your response, then we have to ask you why you also chose one of the other two responses given that you have already acknowledged that you lack sufficient information to do so.

I don't need to defend your strawman about me.
My atheism is determined ONLY by disbelieving theistic claims.
That's it. You can either deal with that or double down on the strawman. Your choice.

You must have some OTHER reasoning besides sufficient information.

Nope.
Having no evidence whatsoever in support of a fantastical claim, is more then enough for me to not believe said claim.

BTW: I submit that it is more then enough for you to, when it comes to any other subject.

Or will you just believe me that aliens kidnapped both me and Jessica Alba last night and had me have sex with her on their spaceship to study human breeding processes?
My bet is that you will dismiss that claim at face value and that you would require serious evidence (sufficient reason) to believe it.

At the same time, can you rule it out that this happened to me last night? Can you disprove my claim? No, you can't. So by necessity, you are agnostic about my claim as well, since you can't know.

So, in summary: you don't know and you don't believe it.
Now replace my alien claim with the theistic claim. Not know and not believe = agnostic atheist.

And I am inquiring as to what that other reasoning is.

There is none.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That's all there's to it.

Again, it's not rocket science. There's no reason to overcomplicate this at all. It is really simple.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Which is why it's so important that in a conversation such as this, we stay as clear and concise as possible, and not get all caught up in personal beliefs and opinions and contexts, and all that


And yet..................... you stubbornly refuse to actually listen to what atheists have to say about their actual position and (dis)beliefs and instead insist on your very own personal and narrow definition of these terms and consequently pretend that YOUR understanding of it, MUST be their position. Regardless of the fact that every single atheist in this thread is telling you that that is not their position.


How ironic..............................

I suggest you take your own advice and "not get all caught up in your personal beliefs and opinions" and instead just listen to what people are saying.


Atheism is the counter claim.

It is not.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yeah, I don't care. Dictionaries only record all the ways we use words. Including all the stupid ways we use them. They are not an arbiter of the logical use of words.

If you have to run to a dictionary to justify your use of a word because you couldn't do so logically, yourself, then ... I'm not likely to accept your use of the word.



HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It's doesn't get any more blatant then that.................................
For crying out loud.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism.

Indeed. They deal with different subjects. They are different answers/positions to different questions/claims.

The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist.

Right, because agnosticism is not some third mutually exclusive choice between theism and atheism.
As an agnostic, you can be both a theist and an atheist.


So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism.

Nobody said otherwise.

Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.

No.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism. And agnosticism is not atheism.

Nobody is claiming that atheism is agnosticism but the sets have an intersection, you can be both.
The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist.

I know, these sets have an intersection too. This is what everybody has been trying to tell you.
So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism.

Again, nobody has claimed this.
Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.

No, it doesn't. Atheism and theism are disjoint sets but agnosticism is a set that has intersections with both. This isn't complicated logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top