And atheism responds: I'm not convinced.Theism posits that God/gods exist. Period.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And atheism responds: I'm not convinced.Theism posits that God/gods exist. Period.
Brilliant!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.
The truth claim is BELIEVED true.Because belief has nothing to do with the content. The content of 'theism' is the truth claim being asserted.
No, it's: I'm not convinced, prove it.The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted.
The theist MUST have belief to assert anything. Atheists and agnostics are only responding.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.
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.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.
Tooth Fairy-ism posits that the Tooth Fairy exists. I'll bet she even brought you cash.Theism posits that God/gods exist. Period.
How does an intellectual mind "trust in the possibility" of anything?Yup. An agnostic that chooses to trust in the possibility of a benevolent God.
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."CAN ANYONE ELSE, HERE, EXPLAIN TO ME THE LOGIC OF CHOOSING ATHEISM? (Given agnosticism as a baseline human premise)
So you do understand the position of the majority of atheists.I also understand taking a position of uninformed indifference
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.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.
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?
Exactly correct, and I am astonished how many theists and sometimes atheists make this basic error in semantics.
You don't understand that none of this is about what anyone "believes".
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.
Atheism posits that no God/gods exist.
(#2)
Agnosticism posits that we lack sufficient information to determine whether or not God/gods exist. (#3)
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.
No one is asking that question.
No one is asking you ANY questions (but me).
Theism posits that God/gods exist. Period.
Theism is not asking what you believe about it or even what you think about it. It simply posits a truth claim.
And you are left with three possible responses to that truth claim.
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.
You must have some OTHER reasoning besides sufficient information.
And I am inquiring as to what that other reasoning is.
The content of atheism is the counter truth claim being asserted.
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
Atheism is the counter claim.
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.
Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism.
The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist.
So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism.
Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.
Logic dictates that atheism is not agnosticism. And agnosticism is not atheism.
The main reason being that even theists can be agnostic, but they can't be atheist.
So atheism can't be defined as agnosticism.
Atheism has to be defines as the only position that's left - gods don't exist.