Agnostic vs Atheist

BDV wrote:

How can any christian denounce Shiva, Vishnu, and Ganesh as if they do not exist? Do you know they don't exist, I don't recall anywhere in your book that clearly states Shiva, Vishnu, or Ganesh as false Gods. Plus I never wrote the article i am only quoting it.

Eorl wrote:
BDV,

Presumably every Christian applies their own godlike abilty to declare that Shiva, Vishnu, and Ganesh do not exist?

So being a Christian is actually a logical fallacy? No Christian really exists?

You've lost me.

The quote you posted suggests that to be an atheist requires godlike knowledge of the absence of God.

My response is .... this is obviously crap since it requires that christians posess godlike knowledge to claim the absence of Shiva.

It's a strange and illogical reversal of the burden of proof applied only to those who don't agree with them....i.e. propaganda.

0 Replies

Why is that crap? how can they prove or disprove this Gods existence, show me the science or evidence behind it.

0 Replies

Somehow I don't think BDV understands belief. It has little to do with proof.
I happen to think all those who think atheists, that is, a-theists, believe there are no gods are missing the simple concept of void.

One who doesn't believe in something doesn't have any impelling from others to prove what he or she doesn't believe in doesn't exist. That is a construct of believers or believer possibles.

0 Replies

What ossobuco said.

0 Replies

Well said osso!

If I claim the chair I am sitting in doesn't exist, I can be shown to be in error.
However If there was no way to demonstrate I was in fact sitting in a chair, to challenge my assertion would be meaningless. I would be in no way burdened with the responsibility of proving the nonexistence of this chair. That would rest soundly on anyone making an affirmative claim regarding the chairs existence.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the affirmative claim. It's the only way to arrive at any kind of meaningful conclusion about anything.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Well said osso!

If I claim the chair I am sitting in doesn't exist, I can be shown to be in error.
However If there was no way to demonstrate I was in fact sitting in a chair, to challenge my assertion would be meaningless. I would be in no way burdened with the responsibility of proving the nonexistence of this chair. That would rest soundly on anyone making an affirmative claim regarding the chairs existence.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the affirmative claim. It's the only way to arrive at any kind of meaningful conclusion about anything.

Right.

And when atheists make an assertive or affirmative claim about gods not existing...they assume a burden of proof.

0 Replies

Wrong, agnostic boy. Just stating the obvious.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Well said osso!

If I claim the chair I am sitting in doesn't exist, I can be shown to be in error.
However If there was no way to demonstrate I was in fact sitting in a chair, to challenge my assertion would be meaningless. I would be in no way burdened with the responsibility of proving the nonexistence of this chair. That would rest soundly on anyone making an affirmative claim regarding the chairs existence.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the affirmative claim. It's the only way to arrive at any kind of meaningful conclusion about anything.

Right.

And when atheists make an assertive or affirmative claim about gods not existing...they assume a burden of proof.

Exactly. The key is being able to distinguish between the assertion
'there can not be gods, it is impossible!' and the assertion
' there is no evidence of any gods, come back later when you have some.'
The latter, I would think, describes most atheists.

I know, I know, you like the word 'agnostic'. I find it insulting. Other than this we basicly see eye to eye here.

0 Replies

BDV wrote:

Why is that crap? how can they prove or disprove this Gods existence, show me the science or evidence behind it.

How much simpler can I make this?

The christians (in this case) are saying:

"Atheists must be like gods themselves to know that our god does not exist"

what they are NOT saying is;

"We christians are like gods ourselves because we know that Shiva does not exist"

....yet this logically MUST follow from the first statement. If they acknowledge the second statement to be false, then the first statement is also false.

..and yeah, what everybody else said!

0 Replies

So, LaVey's deciple and Frank see eye to eye, the difference being the terms they perfer to use for what they see, athiest for the former, agnostic for the latter.

Edgar prefers a different definition all together for his use of 'atheist,' something along the lines of 'without god,' 'don't have any use for god,' right?

Can't you all just accept that your differences are semantical, shake hands and leave it at that?

0 Replies

It's disciple.
And yes, basically.
Semantics is pretty important when written communication is the medium by which to be understood.

0 Replies

No fun in that.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Semantics is pretty important when written communication is the medium by which to be understood.

Well, of course it is. And that there can be endless debate about these terms is evidence in itself that these terms are pretty poor coinages for the ideas they're supposed to purport.

In this case of endless back-and-forth about the terms 'atheist,' and 'agnostic,' it's all a matter of everyone involved in the discussion acknowledging each other's different takes on the definitions thereof.

Quote:

It's disciple.

No **** sherlock.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

No fun in that.

True that.

And the fun is predicated on everyone involved in the endless back and forth basically ignoring the fact that it all amounts to differences in semantics.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Wrong, agnostic boy. Just stating the obvious.

Yeah, Jerkhoff...just like they think they are.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

And when atheists make an assertive or affirmative claim about gods not existing...they assume a burden of proof.

Exactly. The key is being able to distinguish between the assertion
'there can not be gods, it is impossible!' and the assertion
' there is no evidence of any gods, come back later when you have some.'
The latter, I would think, describes most atheists.

I know, I know, you like the word 'agnostic'. I find it insulting. Other than this we basicly see eye to eye here.

Most real atheists see it as the former...rather than the latter. In fact, until Thomas Huxley coined the term "agnostic"...just about every atheist on the planet (at least all who wrote about the issue) saw it that way.

The agnostic position woke SOME atheists up to the absurdity of their position...and the fact that if the asserted their atheism the former way...they opened themselves up to a demand for proof of their assertion...so rather than change to agnostic...some atheists simply took the agnotic position but cowardly retained the atheist designation.

EdgarBlythe and ci...for instance...ASSERT THERE ARE NO GODS.

My arguments here are not with the atheists who simply don't have the guts to proclaim their agnosticism...but with the real atheists.

0 Replies

Why is it 'cowardly' to use the word atheist to refer to those that lack a belief in gods?
To me, agnostic represents a fence sitting position, a position where gods are as likely as no gods.
I am an atheist because in my mind, no-gods is infinitely more likely and plausible than gods (although not impossible.) I just can't find a logical use or role for gods to fill. To use the term agnostic in reference to my position would not to it any justice, as it would lend a modicum of credibility to something I do not think is due it.
Therein lies my objection to 'agnosticism'

0 Replies

Agnostics have allowed the fog of self doubt to cloud their vision. They think they are being fair, and perhaps they are, but they ultimately have nothing on which to place any conclusions. Rudderless, adrift, unable to acknowledge what they ultimately must believe, somewhere in the crevases of their own reality.

0 Replies

In the end, the religiously agnostic are ultimately hypocrits. They selectively choose that about which they will be credulous. Their "guesses" about the "guesses" of others are guesses, but they either can't or won't see the irony inherent in their rant. They also will not admit that they proceed into life with a certainty about the most of their existence which is common among reasonably functional adults--all the while philosophically ranting about the impossibility of certitude.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Why is it 'cowardly' to use the word atheist to refer to those that lack a belief in gods? To me, agnostic represents a fence sitting position, a position where gods are as likely as no gods.
I am an atheist because in my mind, no-gods is infinitely more likely and plausible than gods (although not impossible.) I just can't find a logical use or role for gods to fill. To use the term agnostic in reference to my position would not to it any justice, as it would lend a modicum of credibility to something I do not think is due it.
Therein lies my objection to 'agnosticism'

I have no idea of what the likelyhood of gods versus no-gods is...and I goddam well guess that you don't either. But you want to pretend that it is "infinitely more likely and plausible" that there are no gods...just as your fellow traveller theist want to pretend it is "infinitely more likely and plausible" that there is a god.

Both positions are a joke...espoused by people with so little integrity, honesty and guts that using the word "cowardly" to desribe them is probably giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I especially love when their lack of integrity, honesty and guts lead them to derogate the agnostic position....which is superior to the atheistic position is every aspect...except the silly considerations of the atheists.

0 Replies

Agnostic vs Atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know