Is God proven in Theism, for there is dogma of His Existence?

[questfortruth]

So really, what you are saying there is the following
- there are people that believe X is real and consider it sufficiently proven
- there are people that don't believe X is real and can't disprove X since X is unfalsifiable
- therefor X should be considered sufficiently proven for all


So really, find ANY person that believes an unfalsifiable claim hard enough and you can say the exact same thing about that person's beliefs as you do about yours - INCLUDING beliefs that are in contradiction to yours.

You are making the most common fallacy. Mixture together of two steps into Faith:
1. Separate atheism from theism.
2. Find out which beliefs are true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are making the most common fallacy. Mixture together of two steps into Faith:
1. Separate atheism from theism.
2. Find out which beliefs are true.

This has nothing to do with the logic / reasoning you employed in your bolded statement.
I used the exact same "logic" to equally "demonstrate" Lord Xenu.

If this "logic" only works when it suits your argument, then you are guilty of special pleading.
Either the logic is valid or it isn't.

If it isn't, then your opening argument is debunked.
If it is, then it also supports Lord Xenu and scientology.

It really is that simple.

 

[questfortruth]

This has nothing to do with the logic / reasoning you employed in your bolded statement.
I used the exact same "logic" to equally "demonstrate" Lord Xenu.

If this "logic" only works when it suits your argument, then you are guilty of special pleading.
Either the logic is valid or it isn't.

If it isn't, then your opening argument is debunked.
If it is, then it also supports Lord Xenu and scientology.

It really is that simple.

The first step to Faith means, that there is difference between any theism and the atheism. Atheism is unlike any theism. There is nothing in common between atheism and a theism. Correct?

 

[questfortruth]

This has nothing to do with the logic / reasoning you employed in your bolded statement.
I used the exact same "logic" to equally "demonstrate" Lord Xenu.

The first step to Faith means, that there is difference between any theism and the atheism. Atheism is unlike any theism. There is nothing in common between atheism and a theism. Correct? To be a theist means not to be atheist. To be theist is to accept the main dogma of any kind of theism, which is "God exists".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The first step to Faith means, that there is difference between any theism and the atheism. Atheism is unlike any theism. There is nothing in common between atheism and a theism. Correct?

Sorry, could you rephrase all that so that it actually makes sense?

Sounds like you're overcomplicating it. Probably to try and muddy the waters.

It's really simple: a theist is a person that accepts theistics claims as true (on faith).
An atheist is a person that doesn't.

Period.

 

[Audie]

The first step to Faith means, that there is difference between any theism and the atheism. Atheism is unlike any theism. There is nothing in common between atheism and a theism. Correct?

Kind of like being well is unlike any disease.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To be a theist means not to be atheist.

No, that's not what it means.
To be a theist means that you believe the claims of theism.
To be an atheist means that you do not believe the claims of theism.

it's not rocket science.

To be theist is to accept the main dogma of any kind of theism, which is "God exists".

Yes.
An atheist is someone who doesn't accept such claims.

 

[Audie]

No, that's not what it means.
To be a theist means that you believe the claims of theism.
To be an atheist means that you do not believe the claims of theism.

it's not rocket science.



Yes.
An atheist is someone who doesn't accept such claims.

A theist is someone who cannot accept
anything an atheist says.

 

[amatuerscholar]

You are making the most common fallacy. Mixture together of two steps into Faith:
1. Separate atheism from theism.
2. Find out which beliefs are true.

I'm not sure what you consider the most common fallacy, but I can for sure say he wasn't making it. There are also more than two steps into faith.

Faith has nothing to do with separating atheism from theism. There really is no reason to do that because atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in a god. That's really all. What separates the two is the stance on the belief in a god.

Truth is also subjective. You can find what beliefs are true for you, but you can't prove it definitively as we are talking about faith.

The first step to Faith means, that there is difference between any theism and the atheism. Atheism is unlike any theism. There is nothing in common between atheism and a theism. Correct? To be a theist means not to be atheist. To be theist is to accept the main dogma of any kind of theism, which is "God exists".

I think you're purposely trying to overly complicate this in order to distract from the lack of information you're saying. To be a theist simply means to have a faith in a god. Why make it more complicated than that?

 

[amatuerscholar]

A theist is someone who cannot accept
anything an atheist says.

That isn't true. As a theist, the only thing I cannot accept from an atheist is if they say that God certainly doesn't exist. Other than that, I can accept pretty much anything an atheist says.

 

[Audie]

That isn't true. As a theist, the only thing I cannot accept from an atheist is if they say that God certainly doesn't exist. Other than that, I can accept pretty much anything an atheist says.

Oh I know. Of course not all theists are so deranged.

BTW-
I never heard anyone say that "god definitely does
not exist', which is a stupid thing to say in any event.

I HAVE, though heard theists the opposite, and often.
Though that is an equally stupid thing to say.

Anyhow, I do not mean to lump all those
who believe in god into one group of
benighted souls, far from it.

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure what you consider the most common fallacy, but I can for sure say he wasn't making it. There are also more than two steps into faith.

Faith has nothing to do with separating atheism from theism. There really is no reason to do that because atheism simply refers to the lack of belief in a god. That's really all. What separates the two is the stance on the belief in a god.

Truth is also subjective. You can find what beliefs are true for you, but you can't prove it definitively as we are talking about faith.

I think you're purposely trying to overly complicate this in order to distract from the lack of information you're saying. To be a theist simply means to have a faith in a god. Why make it more complicated than that?

See "obscurantism", a known vice.

 

[questfortruth]

Yes.
An atheist is someone who doesn't accept such claims.

Let me point you to your mistakes:
"God exists" is not claims, but single dogma common for all theisms. Can you get it?

 

[Audie]

Let me point you to your mistakes:
"God exists" is not claims, but single dogma common for all theisms. Can you get it?

False. Bet you cant even figure out why.

 

[RabbiO]

False. Bet you cant even figure out why.

Maybe we could all chip in and buy him an English dictionary. It will look nice on his bookshelf next to the book on English grammar that we should also get for him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me point you to your mistakes:
"God exists" is not claims, but single dogma common for all theisms. Can you get it?

"God exists" is a claim, no matter where it comes from or however you twist it.

It's a claim about reality. That it's an unquestionable dogma within the confines of a religion, is of no relevance to the fact that it is a claim.

 

[questfortruth]

"God exists" is a claim, no matter where it comes from or however you twist it.

It's a claim about reality. That it's an unquestionable dogma within the confines of a religion, is of no relevance to the fact that it is a claim.

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

 

[tas8831]

To be theist is to accept the main dogma of any kind of theism, which is "God exists".

That seems to be the case for Christian (and Muslim) theology. But it is not the case for some other religions.

You are not so good at this.

 

[tas8831]

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

Non sequitur.

"A" criticism against biblical creation is not at all a bold statement.

A bold statement might be "Yahweh never existed."

A truth claim is something like 'there is no supporting evidence for biblical creation.'

This is defensible. In fact, the one making the claim need not present any evidence FOR the claim, since history shows that those claiming the opposite have utterly failed to present any actual evidence in favor of biblical creation.

Also in fact, creationists rely on a logical fallacy when claiming that attacking evolution produces evidence FOR creation. At best, if their attacks had merit, one could conclude that evolution is false. But seeing as how there is no rational, logical, evidence-based reason to think biblical creation happened as described, one could not logically or rationally conclude that, therefore, creation is true. That is just childish nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

The bible is the thing making the bold claims, Einstein.