Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Robert.Evans]

3Ym

Made up words are not going to change the fact that the terms I used do already have definitions. There are gnostic theists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists.

There is no such meanings, only delusional people. You cannot be an agnostic theist. Agnostic means to not know. One cannot believe in God without 'knowing', it is that FACT that allows you to know in the first place.

If someone has not heard of a deity then they lack belief in that deity, which makes their position on that deity one of atheism.

If we are starting from a point of view of Theist, Agnostic, Ignostic, Atheist: then anyone who has ''not heard of a deity'' is ignostic (ignorant of). It would be pointless saying they had no belief and therefore were atheist, as we already know that. We know that also for the agnostic. To give the words meanings that are understood, there has to be a difference. You can't have red blue.

In general Christians lack belief in the Hindu deities, which means that their stance on the Hindu deities is one of atheism (but that does not make them Atheists because they do have belief in one theistic deity). Its not a hard concept to grasp.

A theist is someone who says there is a God or gods. They cannot therefore, by definition, be atheists. They just believe in a different God or gods. This has been brought about by atheists in the main trying to be clever with words to validate their poor position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Huh? I wrote sentient beings, non-''object'' gods, /like an idol or such/, classical ideas of gods, and that you could essentially present any argument within those parameters. What exactly is the problem with those parameters?

For one thing, this could include at least three broad categories of gods, each with very different arguments against them:

- pantheistic gods ("God is everything" / "the universe is God"): for these - at least for me - the argument focuses on the question "why call this 'God'?"

- non-interventionist/deistic gods: the argument focuses on the question "how could you know that such a god exists?"

- interventionist gods or gods of revealed religion: if the justification for belief in these gods is based on purported evidence of their actions, the the argument focuses on what this evidence actually is and whether it justifies the conclusion of the god... but the specifics of these arguments really depends on what is being claimed by the theist.

 

[Yerda]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism?

Nope.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can't be one of atheism, if you are being technical. You would have to be ignostic, a play on the word ignorant, which is what they are to you. It does depend on ones definition of the words however.

It does depend on definitions. Incorrect definitions, like the one you're using, will lead to incorrect positions.

An ignostic is someone who asserts that the term "god" hasn't been defined well enough to evaluate whether gods exist or not.

Ignosticism is based on a positive assertion and therefore can't be a default position. It's also a subset of atheism anyway (since if you can't even parse "gods exist", you can't agree with "gods exist").

 

[Revoltingest]

This then means that atheists are relying on the theists claims to be incorrect, or obviously wrong, etc

Once again, you're making an error by ignoring the other option we heathens have, ie, that
your claims are unverifiable. This doesn't make the claims "wrong"....just irrelevant to us.

This raises a new question.....
Can you convince me that you understand what atheism is to atheists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If we are starting from a point of view of Theist, Agnostic, Ignostic, Atheist: then anyone who has ''not heard of a deity'' is ignostic (ignorant of).

Please stop making up definitions to words you don't know. There are plenty of online dictionaries to help you.

 

[Demonslayer]

The definition of ''evidence'' is something that leads one to a conclusion or decision about a thing or things. Thus there is evidence.

That is not the definition of evidence. Webster has this definition.
------------------------------
evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
----------------------------

Religious people like to think the feeling of awe they see when they look at a sunset is evidence of God. "Oh just look at that beauty, there MUST be a God!" That's not evidence. A mountain range, a chubby baby, or the consideration of the complexity of the universe is NOT evidence of God. Sorry.

People also like to say you can't disprove God. While that is technically true, we can sure disprove a lot of the claims people make about him. Prayer is an example. There have been countless studies on prayer and they all show the same thing...prayer has no effect on anything. All that praying your doing to get that job, for your sick loved one, or that it won't rain on your vacation...it's not working. It's been proven.

 

[dust1n]

okay, i will run with this, just once mind.
If it is a squirrel, which is all you said, it would be dead as life cannot live on Mars. Secondly, I would have to question how it got up there in the first place. So on the balance of things, I would say that should be convincing enough.

Not convinced. Of course a squirrel can't live on Mars. But Lars is no ordinary squirrel.

Theism, on the other hand, relates to something metaphysical. It is not therefore as easy to dismiss, but it is a good answer to everything....intelligence rather than luck

"Who Made the World?" Lars. "Who Made the Universe?" Lars. "Who knows how many hairs someone has on their head?" Lars.

See, Lars is a good answer to everything, too. In fact, there is no mystery in the universe that Lars can't adequately address.

By the way, the fact that God is supposedly metaphysical while Lars supposedly not... I could rephrase the question and say... actually I'll just quote the OP again.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It does depend on definitions. Incorrect definitions, like the one you're using, will lead to incorrect positions.

An ignostic is someone who asserts that the term "god" hasn't been defined well enough to evaluate whether gods exist or not.

Ignosticism is based on a positive assertion and therefore can't be a default position. It's also a subset of atheism anyway (since if you can't even parse "gods exist", you can't agree with "gods exist").

That is why I said it depends on the definition. Your definition is inclusive of people WITHIN the subject. Mine is to include those OUTSIDE of the subject. Otherwise what do you call those who do not believe, and are ignorant of the subject?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Please stop making up definitions to words you don't know. There are plenty of online dictionaries to help you.

I have given the answer to this in your other post

 

[dust1n]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll have to simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.
I'm an honest person, not religious, this isn't a ''trick'' question. Non atheists can answer to

/fun thread

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my belief that God has a God himself? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is not the definition of evidence. Webster has this definition.
------------------------------
evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
----------------------------

That is not a good definition. You should try others. Evidence does not always show something is true. Think of a court case. That is why there are JUDGES, becasue they judge.
You are thinking of proof.

Religious people like to think the feeling of awe they see when they look at a sunset is evidence of God. "Oh just look at that beauty, there MUST be a God!" That's not evidence. A mountain range, a chubby baby, or the consideration of the complexity of the universe is NOT evidence of God. Sorry.

It would be evidence of God if you understood it just as listening to a German speak is evidence they are German.... though not to someone who does not speak German. To them it is a foreign language and no more.

People also like to say you can't disprove God. While that is technically true, we can sure disprove a lot of the claims people make about him. Prayer is an example. There have been countless studies on prayer and they all show the same thing...prayer has no effect on anything. All that praying your doing to get that job, for your sick loved one, or that it won't rain on your vacation...it's not working. It's been proven.

There has also been studies to show it helps. But I will say this, as you are not supposed to 'test God' and there will be 'no sign' how is it you think, or anyone else, that that test would represent anything? If he wanted it to be known to all that he existed he would just open your mind like he did the vast majority of the world.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not convinced. Of course a squirrel can't live on Mars. But Lars is no ordinary squirrel.



"Who Made the World?" Lars. "Who Made the Universe?" Lars. "Who knows how many hairs someone has on their head?" Lars.

See, Lars is a good answer to everything, too. In fact, there is no mystery in the universe that Lars can't adequately address.

By the way, the fact that God is supposedly metaphysical while Lars supposedly not... I could rephrase the question and say... actually I'll just quote the OP again.

It is still not a good answer as you said it was a squirrel, and squirrels evolve in this universe, a universe they are supposed to have created. Doesn't ring true. Silly. Whereas invisible-conscious-energy has a far truer ring to it and would give an explanation to the horrendous odds of the universe existing and so many people believing. It is backed up in many ways for thousands of years. It is the easiest answer,.. to use the razor that is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my belief that God has a God himself? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.

Nothing wrong with God having a God himself. But eventually it has to stop. The beginning has to BE and nothing else. Can't have continual regression.

 

[McBell]

The definition of ''evidence'' is something that leads one to a conclusion or decision about a thing or things. Thus there is evidence.

That is not the definition of evidence. Webster has this definition.
------------------------------
evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
----------------------------

Religious people like to think the feeling of awe they see when they look at a sunset is evidence of God. "Oh just look at that beauty, there MUST be a God!" That's not evidence. A mountain range, a chubby baby, or the consideration of the complexity of the universe is NOT evidence of God. Sorry.

People also like to say you can't disprove God. While that is technically true, we can sure disprove a lot of the claims people make about him. Prayer is an example. There have been countless studies on prayer and they all show the same thing...prayer has no effect on anything. All that praying your doing to get that job, for your sick loved one, or that it won't rain on your vacation...it's not working. It's been proven.

Evidence is anything that convinces someone of something.
Some people say that our very existence is evidence that god exist.
And for them, that is correct.

The problem is when someone says "that is not evidence" all they really mean is that the evidence that convinced one person is not going to convince them.
Thus, the one saying it is not evidence is also correct that it is not convincing to them.


And before people start whining let me add...
If you are looking for objective empirical evidence than you really need to specify you are wanting objective empirical evidence.
The conditional modifiers exist for reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is why I said it depends on the definition.

Indeed. For instance, if we define "ignostic" as "ice cream cone", then an ignostic is a nice treat on a hot day (and I prefer waffle ignostics).

Your definition is inclusive of people WITHIN the subject. Mine is to include those OUTSIDE of the subject. Otherwise what do you call those who do not believe, and are ignorant of the subject?

Implicit atheists.

 

[dust1n]

It is still not a good answer as you said it was a squirrel, and squirrels evolve in this universe, a universe they are supposed to have created.

You assume all squirrels have the same traits and properties. Have you examined all squirrels? I told you, Lars is no ordinary squirrel. Also, he has a space suit. Now normally, I shouldn't be telling you this since it's cheating on the premise so far, but I can let this bit of information slide.

Doesn't ring true. Silly. Whereas invisible-conscious-energy has a far truer ring to it and would give an explanation to the horrendous odds of the universe existing and so many people believing. It is backed up in many ways for thousands of years. It is the easiest answer,.. to use the razor that is.

Mm... we must be working with a different set of ears or microphones then.

 

[dust1n]

Nothing wrong with God having a God himself. But eventually it has to stop. The beginning has to BE and nothing else. Can't have continual regression.

I mean, I can say that Chinese government can't build a ten-story building. But when I say can't happen, doesn't make it so. It only rings true to me that a preceding invisible-conscious-energy can be responsible for another invisible-conscious-energy. Otherwise, how did the first one get there?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I mean, I can say that Chinese government can't build a ten-story building. But when I say can't happen, doesn't make it so. It only rings true to me that a preceding invisible-conscious-energy can be responsible for another invisible-conscious-energy. Otherwise, how did the first one get there?

From a singularity-of-existence. Don't ask me how to answer that. But it has to be. It has to exist and it has to be one.

 

[dust1n]

From a singularity-of-existence. Don't ask me how to answer that. But it has to be. It has to exist and it has to be one.

But there is nothing explicit about the universe that demands that there has be a terminating cause of events in the metaphysical world. Nothing about the metaphysical implies that there must be a beginning or that it must exist.