Atheism

@layman,

Quote:

I've already said this once, but you didn't respond to it, so I'll try again. If I'm reading you right, if you're 99.99999% sure that there is no god, and another guy is 99.9999999% sure there IS a god, then you are both "agnostic atheists."
There is no continuum, it's all either BLACK or WHITE. The only theists are the "gnostic theists." Virtually everyone else is an atheist of the agnostic variety.

The question has been answered. I would be only repeating myself.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

These guys taking over the thread are not saying anything particularly new and certainly nothing that has not already been argued to death on scads of other threads. Trolls, they are.

I am not a troll...and neither are the two guys I am speaking with.

The definition of troll is not...whoever doesn't do what you want!

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

they disrespect littlek

True, but I don't think she cares anymore. I haven't seen her around here in years.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

If I have misread your posts, Beth...I apologize...and I do so sincerely.

I thought you have been identifying yourself as a theist right along...and something you wrote about a month ago seemed to say that you are newly an atheist. If you actually just said you are newly a non-theist, my apology covers that.

If you are not an atheist...and you feel the way you have been suggesting you feel...why are you here in this thread detracting from its stated purpose and insulting LittleK?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I can tell you what's wrong with your definitions: they are based on an artificial distinction between knowledge and belief; and they leave "strong atheists" (those who believe that there is no god) out of your definition of atheism. But this has been pointed out by layman already.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. I don't need to know something to believe it. whether it is right or wrong.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
they disrespect littlek

True, but I don't think she cares anymore. I haven't seen her around here in years.

I suppose you are just pulling legs again, Thomas. Right?

I am not disrespecting LittleK. I am conversing in a thread in a forum where I am a member.

If doing so causes Little K to feel disrespected...that is going to be her problem. But I certainly do not intend it to be disrespect.

0 Replies

I'll get back to Layman and Argome later. Gotta pull dinner together. Nancy just got home from work.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Most of what you "know", is in fact only a belief. Especially anything you "know" about gods is in fact a belief.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Most of what you "know", is in fact only a belief. Especially anything you "know" about gods is in fact a belief.

as much as I know about the flying spaghetti monster. Razz

But really the above statement is sophistic babble

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

But it does pertain to people who hijack a thread and go off the deep end like this. So, yes, you are, in instances like this one.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Semantics are not neutral, rather they are often part of an argument. I don;t need a new definition of atheism or agnosticism, unless somebody shows me what's wrong with the definition I use.

As I guess is obvious, I tend to agree, Ollie. As I've said, I see it more as an attempt to create a false dichotomy in order to limit, rather than encourage, true discussion. I'm not accusing Arg of that personally. I just think that's the motivation behind those doing it at the websites he refers to.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Enjoy, Frank

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

As I guess is obvious, I tend to agree, Ollie. As I've said, I see it more as an attempt to create a false dichotomy in order to limit, rather than encourage, true discussion. I'm not accusing Arg of that personally. I just think that's the motivation behind those doing it at the websites he refers to.

This is why there can be no honest discourse.

I asked a question. Into day's world If I told you I was an Atheist would you think I was saying I was a Christian? That is what the Romans called the Christians.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Actually I find it quite easy to calculate. It isn't all that hard to assign a value. Lets start with"Do you have any piece of empirical evidence? if so I would like to examine it. I haven't seen any.

Second, what are the rational and logical argument that has stood up to rational examination? If you can make an argument for I would love to hear it. one of the most popular arguments of theist is the TAG argument and that has been trounced over and over again.

Okay...so apparently you are saying that you think the probability of any god is minimum. (Option 1...which surprises me greatly.)

The reasons you have given do not seem particularly logical.

Most of your reasoning seem to be of the “there is no evidence for their existence” variety. That is not evidence that there are no gods…just evidence that there is no evidence.

Let’s take this from another angle.

I have absolutely NO empirical evidence whatsoever that there is any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. None!

But to use that as evidence that there is no sentient life on any of those planets would be illogical.

As for the “rational and logical arguments” for life on any of those planets…I have absolutely none. But that is not evidence that there is no life on those planets…just evidence that I have no evidence.

Your assertion that the probability of a god is minimal is gratuitous, Argome.

Lastly, Pascal's wager sucks...big time...and would not apply to what we are discussing here.

1 Reply

@layman,

Ed's been a crank lately. When he is cranky...he throws the "troll" charge around. Pay him no mind.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

With all respect, I say that Neil's approach represents a unique niche worth examination. I, a 'foam at the mouth' believer, follow here, seeking to profit from the divergent views. And, indeed, views here are as divergent as posters.

Having said that, I return to the audience.

Ite. Missa est.

What do you seek to profit in, exactly?

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

Into day's world If I told you I was an Atheist would you think I was saying I was a Christian? That is what the Romans called the Christians.

Well, Arg, unlike some, I don't take "today's world" to be what some militant advocacy group with a special agenda to promote defines it to be. Long, still-current usage lasting for preceding centuries will generally suit me just fine, thanks.

You still haven't really addressed the question I tried to ask, Arg. Do you think there is any significant difference, anything at all worth acknowledging, between the views of a guy who is 99.9999999999% sure that THERE IS NO GOD, and those of a guy who is 99.9999999999% sure that THERE IS A GOD? I do.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Okay...so apparently you are saying that you think the probability of any god is minimum. (Option 1...which surprises me greatly.)

The reasons you have given do not seem particularly logical.

Quote:

Most of your reasoning seem to be of the “there is no evidence for their existence” variety. That is not evidence that there are no gods…just evidence that there is no evidence.

No because the Question would be if some one asked me about god(s)" where is the evidence for this god(s)?
let not shift the burden

Let’s take this from another angle.

Quote:

I have absolutely NO empirical evidence whatsoever that there is any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. None!

No, because we do have empirical evidence for sentient life. Now whether one accept it or not is anther story.

But to use that as evidence that there is no sentient life on any of those planets would be illogical.

But we are talking about proving god(s) existence.

Quote:

As for the “rational and logical arguments” for life on any of those planets…I have absolutely none. But that is not evidence that there is no life on those planets…just evidence that I have no evidence.

the topic is about the existence of god(s). if you choose to test the evidence for it's validity it would be wise to do so

Your assertion that the probability of a god is minimal is gratuitous, Argome.

Lastly, Pascal's wager sucks...big time...and would not apply to what we are discussing here.

this s just a straw-man argument Frank

show me the evidence for god(s)? lets discuss that.

P.S. Are you getting any snow? it's geing bad over here.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Neo, lumbering out of comfortable chair. . .
Knuckle walking to podium. . .
Ahem.
Discovering reasons for disbelief, such as:
... Excesses of the clergy
... Multitude of conflicting beliefs
... Noting those who seem most reasonable vs those who simply parrot others.
... Most have valid reasons, IMO
... Etc

Shuffle . . .
Returning to audience via the open bar

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Actually I am agnostic . Only foolish people claim to be an atheist because it means they can prove God doesnt exist .

This is utterly false, and something which has happened repeatedly in this thread, and which has been commented on repeatedly. There are many types of atheists, and many observers estimate (without knowing to a certainty) that the majority are implicit atheists. They don't know that there is no god, they just don't believe it. I suspect that many of them, like me, don't care, either. The overwhelming majority of atheists i have encountered in my life are in this category. They have no burden of proof.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know