The Most “Post-Christian” Cities in America

[Road Warrior]

Evidence varies with specific beliefs and, confronted with no evidence, the reasonable position would be to defer belief till more evidence manifests.

Atheists are agnostics, and withholding belief in God, or unicorns, or faeries, or Thor, till credible evidence is produced, is not a "belief."

Agreed, hence why agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheists, like Theists, are asserting beliefs without evidence.

LOL. "Atheists are agnostics"? Dude, you'd never pass a college level course sticking to that false belief.

 

[Road Warrior]

Those of your previous posts in this thread.

Cite one. Stop playing coy like a virginal girl on her first period. Speak plainly, like a man.

 

[Road Warrior]

Those aren't the beliefs of atheists.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief about whether god(s) exist. That's it.
Other than that, atheists can believe just about anything. Some atheists believe in ghosts, some believe in nihilism, some believe in conservatism, etc., etc., etc. The one and only thing that binds atheists to each other is there lack of belief in god(s). But that's it.

Umm, that's not it as exemplified by the posts of "atheists" on this forum including your own post that includes "ghosts".

 

[Road Warrior]

....I'm an agnostic atheist....

Translation: I want to be cool, but I'm not sure what I believe.

ROFL. Thanks for the chuckle!

 

[Road Warrior]

What would atheists need to give evidence for? We're not the ones making a claim.


I'm an agnostic atheist.

Only hard atheists claim that "there are no god(s)." I agree that they would have to provide evidence for that claim. Most atheists don't say that though.

When a person uses the Royal "We", I question their veracity.

You're claiming there is nothing beyond the physical without evidence. It's like claiming "There is no other life except that on Earth". As far as evidence proves, that's correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a person uses the Royal "We", I question their veracity.

You're claiming there is nothing beyond the physical without evidence. It's like claiming "There is no other life except that on Earth". As far as evidence proves, that's correct.

No, he is simply stating a lack of belief without evidence. There is a big difference between that and claiming there is nothing beyond the physical. Though claiming there is such a thing does sound quite a bit like claiming that Russell's Teapot exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, hence why agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheists, like Theists, are asserting beliefs without evidence.

LOL. "Atheists are agnostics"? Dude, you'd never pass a college level course sticking to that false belief.

You have that backwards, most agnostics are atheists.

Tell me, what god do agnostics believe in?

 

[Road Warrior]

No, he is simply stating a lack of belief without evidence. There is a big difference between that and claiming there is nothing beyond the physical. Though claiming there is such a thing does sound quite a bit like claiming that Russell's Teapot exists.

I have no problem with not believing something without evidence. It's when they claim there isn't something without evidence that makes them hypocrites. Again, space aliens.

Russell's teapot is a good example. Claiming it exists without evidence is wrong. OTOH, claiming it doesn't exist without evidence is equally wrong.

 

[Road Warrior]

You have that backwards, most agnostics are atheists.

Tell me, what god do agnostics believe in?

Ummm, no, but I can see why young people want to have it both ways.

They don't. They simply admit they don't know an unknowable.


ag·nos·tic /aɡˈnästik/ noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem with not believing something without evidence. It's when they claim there isn't something without evidence that makes them hypocrites. Again, space aliens.

Russell's teapot is a good example. Claiming it exists without evidence is wrong. OTOH, claiming it doesn't exist without evidence is equally wrong.

Sp then why the attack on atheists? Most do not claim that a God definitely does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ummm, no, but I can see why young people want to have it both ways.

They don't. They simply admit they don't know an unknowable.


ag·nos·tic /aɡˈnästik/ noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Then by that definition they are also atheists. One has to be careful with dictionaries. At least historically the odds are that the person writing the definition of "atheist" was a Christian. That would be as bad as relying on a Muslim for the definition of "Christian". In fact the definition that you listed is a bit self contradictory.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Second, what is patently false?

What is patently false is what you said, that my (as an atheist) beliefs "are as much a religion as anything else." I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you really don't understand the meaning of the word "religion,"

Yes, it is true that I believe many things, as do we all. And yes, it is also true that my beliefs (my honest beliefs) inform my actions. But my beliefs are also always and forever to reappraisal when I am presented with new information.

Finally, I will say again, as I and others have over and over and over to perennially deaf ears, a lack of belief in a deity is no more a BELIEF than is the lack of belief in gnomes and trolls. There is precisely zero evidence for either outside of stories that people tell (that is true of gods and trolls and gnomes and elves and fairies and Invisible Pink Unicorns and Cthulhu).

There are other beliefs, to be sure, that I cannot "prove," in any way, but for which there appears to be sufficient evidence that belief is warranted. I believe my partner loves me, for example, because for 26 years, all of his actions have supported that belief. I believe that women should have all the same rights as men, and that eating a healthy diet and getting adequate exercise generally leads to a longer life, because despite the notable exceptions, the evidence appears to support those beliefs.

 

[Road Warrior]

Sp then why the attack on atheists? Most do not claim that a God definitely does not exist.

You see disagreement as an attack. Why don't you accuse me of attacking the Bible thumpers when I disagree with them?

Do you even know what atheist means? Obviously not as a person who claims to be an agnostic atheist. Millennials claim there are 63 genders so I guess they'll accept an atheist agnostic theist panentheist pantheist as a legitimate point of view since they strongly believe anyone who wants to believe anything is okay with them regardless of the facts or definitions.

 

[Road Warrior]

Then by that definition they are also atheists. One has to be careful with dictionaries. At least historically the odds are that the person writing the definition of "atheist" was a Christian. That would be as bad as relying on a Muslim for the definition of "Christian". In fact the definition that you listed is a bit self contradictory.

QED re Millenials and 63 genders.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have no problem with not believing something without evidence. It's when they claim there isn't something without evidence that makes them hypocrites. Again, space aliens.

Russell's teapot is a good example. Claiming it exists without evidence is wrong. OTOH, claiming it doesn't exist without evidence is equally wrong.

But you see, you clearly are not looking at what the "evidence" could be for Russell's teapot. First and foremost, is the question of the manufacture of said teapot, and second is the manner of it's conveyance from the place of manufacture to an orbit around Saturn. Certainly, it is possible that teapots have been manufactured on planets other than earth, and for reasons unknown, and with capabilities not understood, the makers decided to put it in orbit around Saturn. But is there any reason to suppose such a thing, any reason whatsoever? None, and therefore most thinking people believe that it is not there, rather than disbelieve that it is. And that's a subtlety that seems beyond you.

 

[Road Warrior]

But you see, you clearly are not looking at what the "evidence" could be for Russell's teapot. First and foremost, is the question of the manufacture of said teapot, and second is the manner of it's conveyance from the place of manufacture to an orbit around Saturn. Certainly, it is possible that teapots have been manufactured on planets other than earth, and for reasons unknown, and with capabilities not understood, the makers decided to put it in orbit around Saturn. But is there any reason to suppose such a thing, any reason whatsoever? None, and therefore most thinking people believe that it is not there, rather than disbelieve that it is. And that's a subtlety that seems beyond you.

There is no evidence either way. Ergo, the logical position is to have no position. For the truly curious, like myself, let's go out and take a look. Until then, it is illogical to assert a claim either way.

 

[Valjean]

Atheists, like Theists, are asserting beliefs without evidence

Strong atheists assert that there is no God, but most atheists simply withhold belief pending evidence. Most atheists have no beliefs. They just lack a particular belief.

LOL. "Atheists are agnostics"? Dude, you'd never pass a college level course sticking to that false belief.

Would you explain the difference, then? These are overlapping sets.

When you say "atheist," unmodified, it's assumed you're referring to atheism in its essential or definitive sense.
A definition involves a unique feature, common to all examples of the category. In atheism this feature is lack of belief. It's the single feature common to all the various forms of atheism.
If you need to refer to some other flavor of atheism, such as one asserting that God does not exist, you should add a modifier.

I have no problem with not believing something without evidence. It's when they claim there isn't something without evidence that makes them hypocrites. Again, space aliens.

Where's the hypocrisy? They're just making an incompletely supported claim.
I claim the sun will rise tomorrow. This is incompletely supported, but based on strong historical evidence. I don't see it as hypocrisy.

Russell's teapot is a good example. Claiming it exists without evidence is wrong. OTOH, claiming it doesn't exist without evidence is equally wrong.

Close, but no cigar. They're not quite equally wrong. There is better support for one assertion over the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see disagreement as an attack. Why don't you accuse me of attacking the Bible thumpers when I disagree with them?

Do you even know what atheist means? Obviously not as a person who claims to be an agnostic atheist. Millennials claim there are 63 genders so I guess they'll accept an atheist agnostic theist panentheist pantheist as a legitimate point of view since they strongly believe anyone who wants to believe anything is okay with them regardless of the facts or definitions.

Yes, I do. I have a feeling that you do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QED re Millenials and 63 genders.

No, no need to bring that up. Now you have only demonstrated that you do not understand how to use a dictionary.

Tell me, who gets to define what a Christian is? What is your best source? Who gets to define what a Buddhist is? Do you ask some cracker from Alabama what a Sikh is or how to even pronounce it?

 

[blü 2]

I'll pray [...] for you, too, that you will stop trolling believers with every other post at RF.

The debate boards are open for debate, and there are other boards that aren't. That's how this site works.

And someone has to keep you rascals honest.