Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You just described an Agnostic
You just described an Agnostic
if you choose to believe so, yes i doCool you have a bridge to sell me too?
There is a lot missing. Type of thing I'd rather do in person.
all of which point to one differenceI believe i can sell my farm for one million. I know I can when the check has cleared the bank.
The fighter believes he is the best, he knows he is when he wins the title fight.
The theist believes there is a God. He knows there is when he gets to Heaven.
The atheist believes there is no God. He never knows if he is right.
We all draw the line at different places. At some point we decide if we have enough evidence to make a determination and some people don't have strict requirements while others may never have enough evidence to decide in good conscience.i think, in the truest sense of the word, atheist means... to be open minded to the evidence presented...when it comes to god
but isn't that trait within us all?
what differs is the criteria one holds on to, which defines what evidence is to that person, rendering criteria as a subjective standard.
Of course, this also means that "I believe in 'God' (i.e. what you say)" is neither true belief in God, nor theism."I don't know for a fact that god doesn't exist" is a statement that undermines the atheist's claim of disbelief, provided that the claim is about the existence of God. I would suggest that that's not actually the claim that atheism addresses. When the atheist says, "I don't believe in God," it means that they do not believe the claims of theism. There is nothing else, per se, for them to declare disbelief.
Theism: I believe in God.
Atheism: I don't believe in 'God' (i.e. what you say).
We all draw the line at different places. At some point we decide if we have enough evidence to make a determination and some people don't have strict requirements while others may never have enough evidence to decide in good conscience.
Sounds like your just being skeptical about what someone claims to believe. Thats something only the individual could no for sure.Of course, this also means that "I believe in 'God' (i.e. what you say)" is neither true belief in God, nor theism.
Yeah I tend to question peoples standards if they don't like to use science. Sometimes I think peoples standards are too high but I can understand why there would be hung juries cause we hardly ever know enough.exactly.
which begs the question, why hold your standard for belief above someone else's? now you may question their standard of course
(i don't mean you personally, just to clarify)
That's atheism in a nutshell: it's a response to theism, not a position in its own right."I don't know for a fact that god doesn't exist" is a statement that undermines the atheist's claim of disbelief, provided that the claim is about the existence of God. I would suggest that that's not actually the claim that atheism addresses. When the atheist says, "I don't believe in God," it means that they do not believe the claims of theism. There is nothing else, per se, for them to declare disbelief.
Theism: I believe in God.
Atheism: I don't believe in 'God' (i.e. what you say).
I'm not sure I follow you. If the theist can't express what they mean by "God" (or God), then there's no work for the atheist to do: if the theists are all only saying "I believe in 'God'" and (if I understand the point you're driving at), 'God' is not the same thing as God, then no claims for God have actually been put forward, and it's not necessary for the atheist to actually reject anything.Of course, this also means that "I believe in 'God' (i.e. what you say)" is neither true belief in God, nor theism.
It's no less a position. With nothing more to work with, it's no less, "I don't believe in God." It's just never going to be disbelief in what the theist is investing belief in.That's atheism in a nutshell: it's a response to theism, not a position in its own right.
I met a non-theist who expressed what I meant by "God" (or God). It's not like it can't be done.I'm not sure I follow you. If the theist can't express what they mean by "God" (or God), then there's no work for the atheist to do: if the theists are all only saying "I believe in 'God'" and (if I understand the point you're driving at), 'God' is not the same thing as God, then no claims for God have actually been put forward, and it's not necessary for the atheist to actually reject anything.
It's a response to a claim. If the theist can't express their belief in the form of a claim that actually reflects what they believe, this isn't the atheist's problem.It's no less a position. With nothing more to work with, it's no less, "I don't believe in God." It's just never going to be disbelief in what the theist is investing belief in.
I agree with Willamena. It's a rare duck that can express it. Atleast to the level where an atheist can't bombard him/her with every logical trick and pony up his sleeve. I was telling Meow Mix just the other day how you can easily get a PhD in metaphysics without ever encountering any medieval philosophy and classical theistic arguments. They are extremely complex. Some of the brightest philosphers barely have a grasp of it. I know I don't and I ask these guys questions constantly.It's a response to a claim. If the theist can't express their belief in the form of a claim that actually reflects what they believe, this isn't the atheist's problem.
However, I also disagree with your main point. I don't think that theists are as bad at communicating as you make them out to be.
I believe i can sell my farm for one million. I know I can when the check has cleared the bank.
The fighter believes he is the best, he knows he is when he wins the title fight.
The theist believes there is a God. He knows there is when he gets to Heaven.
The atheist believes there is no God. He never knows if he is right.
well if he never knows then, yeah...he's right
Indeed: there is usually no problem for either. Each is secure in their stance.It's a response to a claim. If the theist can't express their belief in the form of a claim that actually reflects what they believe, this isn't the atheist's problem.
That wasn't my point , it's just what you made it out to be. Now that's communication.However, I also disagree with your main point. I don't think that theists are as bad at communicating as you make them out to be.