Lack of Believe vs Belief in Lack of

[Curious George]

An agnostic says "I don't know". He says nothing about what he believes.

Are you suggesting that the agnostic doesn't believe he doesn't know?

 

[Willamena]

Are you suggesting that the agnostic doesn't believe he doesn't know?

That would be a contradiction.

 

[Curious George]

That would be a contradiction.

I would think so.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you suggesting that the agnostic doesn't believe he doesn't know?

LOL. If a person says "I don't know" he's an agnostic. If he says "I don't know but I believe god exists" he's an agnostic theist. If he says "I don't know but don't believe god exists" he's an agnostic atheist.

 

[Curious George]

LOL. If a person says "I don't know" he's an agnostic. If he says "I don't know but I believe god exists" he's an agnostic theist. If he says "I don't know but don't believe god exists" he's an agnostic atheist.

So if they believe they don't know whether gods exist or not, they are an agnostic. Seems pretty simple.

 

[ArtieE]

So if they believe they don't know whether gods exist or not, they are an agnostic. Seems pretty simple.

LOL they don't "believe" they don't know they just don't know.

 

[Willamena]

LOL they don't "believe" they don't know they just don't know.

Do they know they don't know?

 

[1137]

I'm sorry but I don't even feel comfortable encouraging this silliness anymore, especially as this is not a debate sub. If you won't stand by your judgement then I'd suggest reconsidering it, though it does speak volumes on the atheistic position.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm sorry but I don't even feel comfortable encouraging this silliness anymore, especially as this is not a debate sub. If you won't stand by your judgement then I'd suggest reconsidering it, though it does speak volumes on the atheistic position.

I do stand by my judgement. I think some god concepts are absolutely implausible. I just don't think all concepts of gods are implausible, and am waiting for someone like you to give me a good reason to believe their god claims are more than just self-indulgent fantasy. But that'll have to wait for a debate sub.

 

[Milton Platt]

I understand it is difficult to separate who we are from that which gives us life but certainly death teaches us there is a difference.

The unseen force within.
It is our birthright, our inheritance.
It is the force that gives us life.
When we use up our inheritance, or die because we have finished what we came to do, the life force leaves the body.
It is the force that we call life, when we no longer have it, we call that death.
This is not some mysterious thing i am talking about.
The mystery is that it is both part of us and also separate from us.

This is not something that man can create, it is what we use in order to create.
Do not think this power we have that allows us to exist and create is something that belongs to us, what we have is only ours to the degree that we use it properly, it can be taken at any time.

So what it is that we achieve in this life should be a humbling experience, knowing that our ability to do so is a gift from that which is our source of life.
It is the power of which is lacking in organized religion.
It is the power to change lives.

Any evidedence to go with all those assertions?

 

[allfoak]

Any evidedence to go with all those assertions?

You, me and all of nature is all the proof given.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why? It is not up to atheists to prove there is no god

Neither is it up to theists, to prove there is a 'god/s/', or deity

 

[McBell]

Neither is it up to theists, to prove there is a 'god/s/', or deity

Yes it is.
Unless of course theists are not claiming god exists....

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes it is.
Unless of course theists are not claiming god exists....

No, actually, your position seems to assume that the non-theism or atheism, is somehow different /position wise/, than theism. It actually isn't. Both are positions on theism, that do not require 'proof', unless presented in an argument. Most likely, you are assuming some sort of inherent 'argument', position for theism, /by default, but that is incorrect.

 

[McBell]

No, actually, your position seems to assume that the non-theism or atheism, is somehow different /position wise/, than theism. It actually isn't. Both are positions on theism, that do not require 'proof', unless presented in an argument. Most likely, you are assuming some sort of inherent 'argument', position for theism, /by default, but that is incorrect.

The one making the claim, be it the theists (who is always making the claim god exists) or the atheists (but only the ones making the claim that there is no god), has the burden of proof.
I make no claims of which claim is "wiser".
So you are just plain flat out wrong, proof is required for those who make a claim.
It matters not if the claim is that god exists or that god does not exist.

The ONLY ones who do not have burden of proof, are the ones who do not claim either way.

 

[Desert Snake]

The one making the claim, be it the theists (who is always making the claim god exists) or the atheists (but only the ones making the claim that there is no god), has the burden of proof.
I make no claims of which claim is "wiser".
So you are just plain flat out wrong, proof is required for those who make a claim.
It matters not if the claim is that god exists or that god does not exist.

The ONLY ones who do not have burden of proof, are the ones who do not claim either way.

Position=claim. An argument is simply a presented claim, or position. Neither atheism nor theism, has the burden of proof, inherently. Proof isn't required for a claim, merely an argument. Your theory of course is necessarily wrong, because there aren't parameters established for determining 'proof', unless they are agreed upon in a debate context. So, your original statement, that theists have the burden of proof, is not only wrong, it doesn't even make sense.

 

[McBell]

Position=claim. An argument is simply a presented claim, or position. Neither atheism nor theism, has the burden of proof, inherently.

Wrong.
Theism is by its very definition the claim that god exists.
Thus they hold the burden of proof for their claim.

Proof isn't required for a claim, merely an argument. Your theory of course is necessarily wrong, because there aren't parameters established for determining 'proof', unless they are agreed upon in a debate context. So, your original statement, that theists have the burden of proof, is not only wrong, it doesn't even make sense.

Careful now.
You are revealing just how weak your faith is.

 

[Desert Snake]

Wrong.
Theism is by its very definition the claim that god exists.
Thus they hold the burden of proof for their claim.

If you hold that position, then atheism has the burden of proof as well.

Careful now.
You are revealing just how weak your faith is.

/Faith has more than one definition, your statement is vague
/Faith is not relevant in this context /discussion
/Who brought up faith? If you are having a problem with your faith, that's your problem.

 

[McBell]

If you hold that position, then atheism has the burden of proof as well.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Or is it perhaps you need to read the whole post?
I already stated that atheists who claim there is no god also have burden of proof.