Question for atheists and believers

Re: Question for atheists and believers


Believer here
I ask the person what they want.
If a cogent discussion can develop from that question, then I try to explain the existence of G-d.

As i am not in the habit of seeking authorization or validation for my belief, nor the lack thereof, from randomly selected strangers, this situation has never arisen for me.

Believer here too

In my experiences, when an atheist approaches me and wants me to prove or back-up the existence of God, they are just looking for an argument, and are not willing to listen to reasoning. If i could make it as obvious as 2+2=4, they still would deny it. HOWEVER the same goes for a christian approaching an atheist (i have been guilty of this before).

I would fist ask if they wanted a serious conversation where we could agree on certain base principles. Then we could derive conclutions based on these. (and no i dont use the bible as proof)

Armageddon outta here

I agree with the other believers. My conversations with them usually include something about "faith." Of course this becomes hard to explain, but if it wasn't, then the word/meaning of faith probably wouldn't exist.

Faith to me is the belief in the highly improbable. If it is this belief - it is unreasonable. Thus if I am asked ths question - I can give them no reasons because that would not be an explanation of faith - but an explanation of reason.

Thus, if I am asked why I believe I answer 'I just do.'

TTF

and I just dont

Well put steve.

TF

A believer KNOWS God exists.

An athiest KNOWS god does not exist.

I'm one who does not think we can KNOW either.

Guess that makes me an agnostic.


(Though I do sometimes "feel" a kind of greater, wondrous, cosmis-esque connection with all living things. Not at all sure what label that generates.)

Angie - Believer does not imply keeper of knowledge. I think knowing is a bit strong for thiesm.

TF

No, an atheist simple denies the contention that others make that gods exist--and that is a significant difference. Atheists are only atheists to the extent that others claim, without the least verifiable evidence, that deities exist. To the extent that the existence of a deity has never been proven, every one is "atheist"--that is, without god--whether they believe it or not.

If someone pushes their beliefs on me, I push back. Rest of the time, I allow them to do their thing unmolested.

i do not know if i believe or not. i guess i fall in line with science. there is to much to be explained. i do not frown or force anyone to believe what i do, nor would i ever. i think the bible was originaly writen to "put the fear of god" into people to help maintain order. if you look at the world today, people in the church are just as bad, even worse, than the people not in a church. i also don't want to believe that my husband is a distant cousin (adam and eve). i also don't believe in the devil. i do comefrom a religious background, my grandfather was a pastor, my grand parents all went to church, my parents go, my son goes with his grand mother, and i do not condem this. but i do not believe this is the "truth".

Not sure I get what you;re saying here.

Are you saying: "An atheist believes that we cannot PROVE God exists ?"

But wouldn't that make him an agnostic ?

Actually, I am convinced Angie is correct. Most atheists do know that no gods exist. It's so transparent that they are constructs out of the human imagination.

Thiests and Athiests are believers just the same. Both have no conclusive proof for thier belief - but they have a set of facts that they rely on for thier belief.

I think Angie is saying that thier belief claim is so strong that they 'know' that God does not exist. I see this as a fallacy on the part of the believer. They don't 'know' in any way shape or form - they simply have strong belief.

Also, Agnostics have two meanings - undecided (I believe in a God - I am just not sure if any religion or which for that matter describes the God I believe in) and unknowable (God exists but it is impossible to know him at all).

TTF

For me, thethinkfactory comes closest to defining agnosticism.

T. H. Huxley, a friend of Darwin, wrote his own definition. The following is a little of what he felt, as a scientist, defined agnosticism:

Agnostic definition
http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm


Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 1895) came up with the

word agnostic while searching for a term to

describe his own beliefs. He did not consider

himself an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a

materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian and

while he had much in common with freethinkers, he

wanted a term to describe himself more accurately.

His difference with the people who gave themselves

the above labels was that he did not feel certain

of his knowledge- or gnosis- that he had

successfully solved the problem of existence.


The essential problem was that Huxley believed the

problem was unsolvable. And thus far, despite the

existence of famous thinkers like Emmanuel Kant

and David Hume who philosophically agreed with him

on the matter, there wasnt a name for someone who

believed you could never know the source of, nor

reason for existence

God is a dick
Look back over the last 3 years, if there is a god he's a jack ass

No Angie--and others--i am not saying that. I am saying that atheists respond to the claim of the existence of deities by denying that which is not demonstrable. Thinkfactory's comment about what atheists "believe" is exactly the sort of claptrap we've argued about here again and again. The agnostic preens their intellect by insisting that they are the only honest ones, denying that they know, while theists and atheists believe they know. In fact, a theist states that a god or gods exist, and the atheist asks how one is to know. When the response is that one must have faith, or that one simply need look around them, the atheist responds: Nonsense . . . i need to go wash my hair, bye . . . "