Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[leibowde84]

A perfect illustration of the dishonesty I speak of. You're describing agnosticism and pretending it's atheism.

No, you just don't understand what "atheism" actually is. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God/gods. Weak atheism is agnosticism. Strong atheism is when there is a belief that God does not or cannot exist.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[1137]

No, you just don't understand what "atheism" actually is. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God/gods. Weak atheism is agnosticism. Strong atheism is when there is a belief that God does not or cannot exist.

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Yes, I know the definition of atheism, and why it differs from agnosticism. I also know that agnosticism and theism, as compared to "agnostic atheism", are not mutually exclusive like you pretend. This isn't even getting to the fact that a lack of belief in gods is logically identical to believing there are no gods.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I know the definition of atheism, and why it differs from agnosticism. I also know that agnosticism and theism, as compared to "agnostic atheism", are not mutually exclusive like you pretend. This isn't even getting to the fact that a lack of belief in gods is logically identical to believing there are no gods.

You are wrong. "Agnostic atheism" is the same as "weak atheism". Theism, on the other hand, is the belief in god or gods. So, you can't be both agnostic and theist.

And, to lack is merely "to be without", so, you are wrong. Lacking belief in god is not the same as believing there are no gods. All agnostics (or weak atheists) "lack belief in God", as they are without belief in God.

lack
lak/
noun

1. 1.
   the state of being without or not having enough of something.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No creationists believe rain leaked onto the Earth from above. NONE. Genesis says subterranean water took care of things! I know we both have biases, and I think we’re fishing in the wrong pond (pun not intended).



Hell—both believers and unbelievers will be transformed to have eternal, durable bodies. It’s like asking, “Would you rather die of thirst (Earth) or live forever wanting water (Hell)?”



I have a personal testimony here. I made a decision as an adult to trust Jesus. Why? Because it seemed logical that I would be barred from a utopia, because by nature, I do things that are ethically wrong, and would ruin Heaven for others. It also made sense that the perfect Christ died a horrible death by torture and rose from the grave to switch places with me—His love shedding His perfection upon my imperfection.

My anecdotal knowledge regarding abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries is that they had personal testimonies of trusting Jesus for salvation. The man who wrote “Amazing Grace” was a former slaver who brought slaves overseas and found Christ. What a wretch [we] were! How saved we were!

I agree that Christians do many things not deriving from their Christianity. So, what term can we use so we know we’re both discussing people who may or may not have been born or raised Christian (I’m a circumcised Jew who had a Bar Mitzvah!) but do things out of a conversion to Jesus?

Thank you for sharing your theology.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You are wrong. "Agnostic atheism" is the same as "weak atheism". Theism, on the other hand, is the belief in god or gods. So, you can't be both agnostic and theist.

And, to lack is merely "to be without", so, you are wrong. Lacking belief in god is not the same as believing there are no gods. All agnostics (or weak atheists) "lack belief in God", as they are without belief in God.

lack
lak/
noun

1. 1.
   the state of being without or not having enough of something.

That's actually not true, you can be both Agnostic and a Theist, because these terms describe different types of things rather than the same thing along a scale.

Atheism/theism is a matter of belief. You either believe or you don't.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a matter of knowledge instead. An agnostic believes it can not be known if god or goddess exist.

It's perfectly possible to believe in a god, while at the same time admitting you might be wrong because you can't definitively know. Hence, agnostic theism.

 

[1137]

You are wrong. "Agnostic atheism" is the same as "weak atheism". Theism, on the other hand, is the belief in god or gods. So, you can't be both agnostic and theist.

And, to lack is merely "to be without", so, you are wrong. Lacking belief in god is not the same as believing there are no gods. All agnostics (or weak atheists) "lack belief in God", as they are without belief in God.

lack
lak/
noun

1. 1.
   the state of being without or not having enough of something.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on certainty, atheism/theism is a position on belief. A gnostic atheist is certain that his belief in a godless universe is true, whereas an AA believes no gods are more likely than one or more, but they don't claim certainty. Same with theism, it's a belief vs certainty in the belief. True pure agnosticism states that we don't even have the knowledge to think one side is more likely. You really should learn these definitions.

This is something I wonder about when dealing with atheist dishonesty: are you just like embarrassed of being agnostic so pretend your an atheist? Or do you feel atheism has so little supporting it that you have to pretend it's agnosticism? Or do you just not have any type of background in these terms and are genuinely confused?

 

[leibowde84]

Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on certainty, atheism/theism is a position on belief. A gnostic atheist is certain that his belief in a godless universe is true, whereas an AA believes no gods are more likely than one or more, but they don't claim certainty. Same with theism, it's a belief vs certainty in the belief. True pure agnosticism states that we don't even have the knowledge to think one side is more likely. You really should learn these definitions.

This is something I wonder about when dealing with atheist dishonesty: are you just like embarrassed of being agnostic so pretend your an atheist? Or do you feel atheism has so little supporting it that you have to pretend it's agnosticism? Or do you just not have any type of background in these terms and are genuinely confused?

Again, you are wrong about the definition of atheism:
Atheism is the disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of god or gods. Lack means to be without. So, anyone who is without a belief in the existence of god is an atheist. Pretty simple. You should really learn these definitions.

 

[leibowde84]

Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on certainty, atheism/theism is a position on belief. A gnostic atheist is certain that his belief in a godless universe is true, whereas an AA believes no gods are more likely than one or more, but they don't claim certainty. Same with theism, it's a belief vs certainty in the belief. True pure agnosticism states that we don't even have the knowledge to think one side is more likely. You really should learn these definitions.

This is something I wonder about when dealing with atheist dishonesty: are you just like embarrassed of being agnostic so pretend your an atheist? Or do you feel atheism has so little supporting it that you have to pretend it's agnosticism? Or do you just not have any type of background in these terms and are genuinely confused?

An atheist can be withholding belief either way (neither believes in God's existence or non existence) due to lack of evidence. That is where I come in these days. I certainly do not believe that God does not exist. But, I am not quite a believer that God does exist. I go back and forth sometimes.

 

[Willamena]

Weak atheism is agnosticism.

It really isn't agnosticism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[leibowde84]

It really isn't agnosticism, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Yeah, I agree. But, there are two ways that "agnosticism" are used. The technical meaning is not believing that we have the capability for knowledge of god. But, the more common usage is neither having a belief or non belief in god's existence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on certainty, atheism/theism is a position on belief. A gnostic atheist is certain that his belief in a godless universe is true, whereas an AA believes no gods are more likely than one or more, but they don't claim certainty. Same with theism, it's a belief vs certainty in the belief. True pure agnosticism states that we don't even have the knowledge to think one side is more likely. You really should learn these definitions.

This is something I wonder about when dealing with atheist dishonesty: are you just like embarrassed of being agnostic so pretend your an atheist? Or do you feel atheism has so little supporting it that you have to pretend it's agnosticism? Or do you just not have any type of background in these terms and are genuinely confused?

Agnostic atheism is the only rational position available regarding gods.

And being irreligious seems to be the healthier choice. It was in my case. Being a believer had no benefits to me or the people around me, but there were costs.

Do you have any arguments for why Christianity should be defended or protected even if it is wrong? Maybe you'd like to argue that it generates more intellectual and moral people.

 

[1137]

Again, you are wrong about the definition of atheism:
Atheism is the disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF in the existence of god or gods. Lack means to be without. So, anyone who is without a belief in the existence of god is an atheist. Pretty simple. You should really learn these definitions.

If you don't believe in gods, you logically believe that no gods are more likely than gods. Keep on proving my point there champ!

An atheist can be withholding belief either way (neither believes in God's existence or non existence) due to lack of evidence. That is where I come in these days. I certainly do not believe that God does not exist. But, I am not quite a believer that God does exist. I go back and forth sometimes.

Which do you believe is more likely: that there are 0 gods or 1+ gods? Now sure I get that you're an agnostic atheist, that's totally possible. I myself am an agnostic theist, at least for now still. But if you find the above question is a coin flip then you're simply an agnostic, no atheism or theism because you have no belief either way. It sounds to me like you're agnostic, but it's not for me to tell. There are both reasons for an agnostic to pretend to be an atheist and visa versa.

 

[1137]

Agnostic atheism is the only rational position available regarding gods.

And being irreligious seems to be the healthier choice. It was in my case. Being a believer had no benefits to me or the people around me, but there were costs.

Do you have any arguments for why Christianity should be defended or protected even if it is wrong? Maybe you'd like to argue that it generates more intellectual and moral people.

I certainly disagree that it's the only rational position, and so would any unbiased, rational person. Now, why the hell are you asking me about Christianity when my obvious Setian henotheism is literally all over my profile here? Thank you for another wonderful example of atheistic logic, I'm a theist so I must be Christian!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you don't believe in gods, you logically believe that no gods are more likely than gods. Keep on proving my point there champ!

Which do you believe is more likely: that there are 0 gods or 1+ gods? Now sure I get that you're an agnostic atheist, that's totally possible. I myself am an agnostic theist, at least for now still. But if you find the above question is a coin flip then you're simply an agnostic, no atheism or theism because you have no belief either way. It sounds to me like you're agnostic, but it's not for me to tell. There are both reasons for an agnostic to pretend to be an atheist and visa versa.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. After saying that person can be an agnostic atheist, you then refer to agnostics pretending to be atheists and vice versa.

Why would anybody pretend to be either?

Incidentally, not believing in gods is not saying that they are unlikely. It is perfectly reasonable to not believe in something for lack of supporting evidence without making a judgment on how likely it is that it is or isn't true.

 

[1137]

You seem to be contradicting yourself. After saying that person can be an agnostic atheist, you then refer to agnostics pretending to be atheists and vice versa.

Why would anybody pretend to be either?

Incidentally, not believing in gods is not saying that they are unlikely. It is perfectly reasonable to not believe in something for lack of supporting evidence without making a judgment on how likely it is that it is or isn't true.

An agnostic may pretend to be an atheist to avoid being judged as a "fence sitter," it's very defensive. An atheist may and often do pretend to be agnostic to avoid holding a position/belief, thus avoiding and "burden of proof," and is simply dishonest.

I'm really quite finished with the whole "I see no reason to believe in gods, but I'm too dishonest to admit I find them unlikely" garbage. And it's really just that: garbage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An agnostic may pretend to be an atheist to avoid being judged as a "fence sitter," it's very defensive. An atheist may and often do pretend to be agnostic to avoid holding a position/belief, thus avoiding and "burden of proof," and is simply dishonest.

I'm really quite finished with the whole "I see no reason to believe in gods, but I'm too dishonest to admit I find them unlikely" garbage. And it's really just that: garbage.

Why would anybody who considers gods unlikely be reluctant to say so?

You see atheists as inherently dishonest and deceptive - corrupt and dishonest - hence the name and OP for this thread.

We're simply people who don't accept god claims or believe that gods exist without necessarily saying that they don't or can't.

I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of gods except those that are capable of being known and want to be but still aren't, and on logically impossible gods.

 

[1137]

Why would anybody who considers gods unlikely be reluctant to say so?

Because it's a belief, thus needs to be defended.

You see atheists as inherently dishonest and deceptive - corrupt and dishonest - hence the name and OP for this thread.

Incorrect, I just have noticed most arguments you see online from atheists are dishonest or simply illogical.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Because it's a belief, thus needs to be defended.

No belief needs to be defended unless you want it believed and it is being attacked. I don't feel any need to defend my beliefs here. I may choose to elucidate them, but defend them? Why would I feel a need to do that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Incorrect, I just have noticed most arguments you see online from atheists are dishonest or simply illogical.

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Can I just say how cute I think it is when a Christian thinks something is far-fetched?" - Sterling Crowe

He's not a Christian.