Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[ArtieE]

In 1968 in Zeitoun, Egypt over 250,000 Egyptians testify to seeing the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic Cathedral over the course of maybe 20 evenings that summer. Are they all hallucinating the very same image? Or is everyone waiting for an even greater miracle before they start realizing?

I'm not waiting for any miracle. If the Virgin Mary is still alive it would be nice if she stopped hanging around on top of coptic cathedrals and just showed up in a television studio for an interview. I bet Oprah would be delighted to do it.

 

[JTCarrieres]

Agnosticism is a philosophical position that asserts the existence of God can not be proven or disproved by means of reason. It does not indicate whether one does or does not believe in God. One person can be an agnostic theist while another might be an agnostic atheist.

 

[Pudding]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty.

A group of people does not know what is in the box, it could be something, it could also be nothing, they just don't know. Some theists know or believe there is something inside this box and they use either argument or evidence to convince this group of people, unfortunately this group of people think the argument/evidence is unconvincing, so they don't believe those theists' claim that there is something in the box. At the same time neither does this group of people claims they know/believe there is nothing in the box. Why don't they claim they know/believe there is nothing in the box? Because to make such claim they have to actually know/believe there is nothing in the box. In order for them to know/believe there is nothing in the box, they first need to convince there is nothing in the box by argument/evidence, sadly they have not meet any argument/evidence which able to convince them that there is nothing in the box, so neither do they say they know/believe there is nothing in the box.
As you can see, this group of people does not know what is in the box, they don't believe there is something in the box, neither do they believe there is nothing in the box. This group of people is call agnostic atheist(s).

Another group of people say they know or believe there is nothing in the box, because they have been convince by specific argument/evidence. This group of people is call strong atheist(s).

For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature.

There is a box somewhere there, i'm unsure what is in the box, it could be something, it also could be nothing, i simply don't know what is in the box.
As a result, why do i have to accept there is something in the box in order for me to be simply unsure what is in the box?

Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

There're two analogies, don't mix them together.

Analogy 1: There is some number of things in a jar. The total number is either even or odd. Even refer to God(s) doesn't exist. Odd refer to God(s) exist.
“I know it’s an even number” (strong atheist, also gnostic atheist)
“I believe it’s an even number” (strong atheist)
“I don’t know, it could be even, it could also be odd, i just don't know. Do i believe it's even? No. Do i believe it's odd? No too. I don't believe either way.” (agnostic atheist)
“I believe it’s an odd number” (theist)
“I know it’s an odd number” (gnostic theist)

Analogy 2: There is a box, what is in this box? Nothing refer to God(s) doesn't exist. Something refer to God(s) exist.
"I know there is nothing in it" (strong atheist, also gnostic atheist)
"I believe there is nothing in it" (strong atheist)
“I don’t know, it could be something, it could also be nothing, i just don't know. Do i believe it's something? No. Do i believe it's nothing? No too. I don't believe either way.” (agnostic atheist)
“I believe there’s something in it” (theist)
“I know there’s something in it” (gnostic theist)

In analogy 1, a group of strong atheists argue that there’s an even number of things in the jar.

In analogy 2, a group of strong atheists argue that the jar is/seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief.

Position/Stance 1: Believe God(s) exist? No.
Stance 2: Believe God(s) doesn't exist? No.
Stance 3: believe/know God(s) doesn't exist.
Stance 4: believe/know God(s) exist.

Agnostic atheist have stance 1 and 2, don't have stance 3 and 4.
Strong atheist have stance 1 and 3, don't have stance 2 and 4.
Theist have stance 4 regarding to the God(s) they believe/know exist.

If you encounter any atheist (whether they're agnostic atheist or strong atheist) who say they are not taking a stance, please ask them what stances they're talking about. Is it stance 1, 2, 3 or 4? Please ask them.

Agnostic atheist don't have stance 3, their stance 1 and 2 is not belief.

Strong atheist have stance 3, their stance 3 is belief.

The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

You have many misunderstanding about atheist, atheism, agnostic atheist and strong atheist.

 

[Willamena]

Of course it isn't logical. But 1137 keeps insisting and I quote "All beliefs have a burden of proof, including the belief that the universe is godless." If that is correct, then Christians must first prove that the god they believe in exists, and then they must prove that all the gods they believe don't exist don't exist.

Again, you cannot prove an impossibility.

 

[ArtieE]

Position/Stance 1: Believe God(s) exist? No.
Stance 2: Believe God(s) doesn't exist? No.
Stance 3: believe/know God(s) doesn't exist.
Stance 4: believe/know God(s) exist.

Agnostic atheist don't have stance 3, their stance 1 and 2 is not belief.

Strong atheist have stance 3, their stance 3 is belief.


You have many misunderstanding about atheist, atheism, agnostic atheist and strong atheist.

Actually it goes like this:

Theist: Believes at least one god exists. (A stance).
Weak atheist: Absence of belief gods exist, absence of belief gods don't exist. (No stance).
Strong atheist: Absence of belief gods exist, presence of belief gods don't exist. (A stance).
Gnostic theist: Knows at least one god exists. (A stance).
Gnostic atheist: Knows gods don't exist. (A stance).

 

[Pudding]

Actually it goes like this:

Theist: Believes at least one god exists. (A stance).
Weak atheist: Absence of belief gods exist, absence of belief gods don't exist. (No stance).
Strong atheist: Absence of belief gods exist, presence of belief gods don't exist. (A stance).
Gnostic theist: Knows at least one god exists. (A stance).
Gnostic atheist: Knows gods don't exist. (A stance).

Stance
The attitude of a person or organization towards something; a standpoint.

Stance
a way of thinking about something, especially expressed in a publicly stated opinion


Agnostic atheist: Absence of belief gods exist, absence of belief gods don't exist.


Theist say: Do you believe God(s) exist? Do you believe God(s) doesn't exist? What are your stances?

Agnostic atheist say: My stances is that no to both.

 

[Valerian]

I'm not waiting for any miracle. If the Virgin Mary is still alive it would be nice if she stopped hanging around on top of coptic cathedrals and just showed up in a television studio for an interview. I bet Oprah would be delighted to do it.

That would take the whole point out of life then wouldn't it?
No valor in that either.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Yup.
Almost every aTheist argument is actually just agnosticism with a large dollop of egocentric nihilistic cynicism.

Its like they are trying to use reverse psychology on God.
Typical aTheist thinking is like this:
"If I say that God does not exist, then maybe God will prove himself to me by giving me miracles".
Or perhaps they are using such arguments on Theists?
Do they think we will go out of our way to do things for them to prove God exists?
How many Theists actually fall for this, and make themselves the servants of the aTheists?

 

[Valerian]

Yup.
Almost every aTheist argument is actually just agnosticism with a large dollop of egocentric nihilistic cynicism.

Its like they are trying to use reverse psychology on God.
Typical aTheist thinking is like this:
"If I say that God does not exist, then maybe God will prove himself to me by giving me miracles".
Or perhaps they are using such arguments on Theists?
Do they think we will go out of our way to do things for them to prove God exists?
How many Theists actually fall for this, and make themselves the servants of the aTheists?

I fall for it all the time.

Your first line was funny.

But when you say “they are using such arguments on Theists” --- what are you referring to? Thanks.

 

[Thumper]

... If I am right then neither Hinduism nor any other religion can be close to the most important dogma. They may contain some moral truths but their god is not God. It cannot be both. ...

And they feel exactly the same about your belief.

 

[Repox]

If you had a revelation about what is in the box, you wouldn't have to look. Knowing you know, some people would ask you to tell them. Others who know you know what is in the box may be envious. Some may doubt you know what is in the box because they don't believe anyone can possible know. In short, don't tell anyone you had a revelation. Bet with them about what is in the box and make lot of money.

I know is about one's faith, just thought I'd have fun.

However, I have had revelations about God, heaven, angels, Satan, paradise and the Bible. From experience, I have found it best to say nothing, I don't like dealing with adverse comments. However, on this forum I have talked about it. Thus far, there have been no adverse comments, just, well, I can't deal with that, or "Are you sure that is what your dream said?" Anyway, it has been interesting. I have an advantage however because I don't spend any time worry about whether or not God exists.

 

[Valerian]

Evolution starts with observations, has no premises, and is the only existing explanation for what is observed.

So goes the party line.
A reminder, we are not talking about evolution, yea or nay, we are talking about a necessity for supernatural intervention in the process, yea or nay.

There are a host of competing religious claims involving supernaturalism, but none has any explanatory power, has any supporting evidence, includes any mechanism, predicts anything, or has generated any productive ideas.

Hard for me to believe one can hold such an opinion. I cannot understand.
But it reminds me of an exchange from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov:

Alexei (to his atheist brother): “I feel sorry for you, Ivan.”

Ivan: “Why is that?”

Alexei: “Because you want to believe there is a God, but you cannot.“

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are a host of competing religious claims involving supernaturalism, but none has any explanatory power, has any supporting evidence, includes any mechanism, predicts anything, or has generated any productive ideas.

Hard for me to believe one can hold such an opinion. I cannot understand.

You don't engage the comments of others. You offer no explanations, mechanisms, predictions, or fruitful results from competing supernaturalistic explanations as counterexamples, just your incredulity - what you find unbelievable.

With all due respect, others simply aren't interested in what you believe or can understand, just what you know and can demonstrate or argue convincingly.

 

[Blackdog22]

I am saying this: blackdog says if God must have come from nothing or by chance, then why could not the universe and life have done as well? And I said, the only reason you are saying the universe could come from nothing is because you are saying God originated the same way. That logic fails for me, but I am going to leave it at that.

Again, not what I am saying. I am not saying God originated from something at all. I am saying the Universe existing, or have always existed, blows my mind. However, here we are. You are saying, as far as I can tell, you are equally blown away by the Universes existence and all life therein. Now somewhere along the lines you have come to the conclusion that the Universe is impossible, so something MORE impossible had to have created it. All you are doing is adding another factor that is far more unlikely, and somehow that sits just okay with you. Again, its like saying you cant imagine lifting a tiny pebble, but somehow, a pebble the size of Jupiter you could imagine lifting just fine. Logically this makes zero sense. If the Universe coming to be, or always existing, blows your mind, then God should be a mental nuclear explosion on your mind.

 

[Blackdog22]

I think it is wrong because of empirical evidence for the Judeo-Christian G-d. If I am right then neither Hinduism nor any other religion can be close to the most important dogma. They may contain some moral truths but their god is not God. It cannot be both. And the miracles I have cited dwarf the supernatural occasional manifestations of Hinduism or Islam. But Judaism and Christianity stand on pillars of history, reason and revelations that go far beyond just miracles.

In 1968 in Zeitoun, Egypt over 250,000 Egyptians testify to seeing the Virgin Mary on top of a Coptic Cathedral over the course of maybe 20 evenings that summer. Are they all hallucinating the very same image? Or are doubters waiting for an even greater miracle before they start realizing?

I am then assuming you also believe in Aliens, Bigfoot, Leprachauns, Fairies, the Tooth Fairy, Ghosts, etc. I mean, people have claimed to see all of these things by the thousands. Also, Jesus man you are bringing up things from 68? 68?!?! Really? That is all it takes for you is some statement from 68 and you are sold so quickly? Yeah, we for sure would never get anywhere conversing. If that little was needed for me to believe I would have to believe in a whole lot of things. Also, statues dripping oil isn't some supernatural miracle that DWARFS Hinduism or Islams miracles. They have people riding out on winged horses bro. You got to work on your miracle game, and read more.

 

[Blackdog22]

That would take the whole point out of life then wouldn't it?
No valor in that either.

How would Jesus' mom saying hello destroy the entire point of my life? Did she somehow destroy the point of all 250,000 people lives in Egypt or something? Are you saying miracles destroy the point of everyones life? Did Jesus rising from the dead do the same? What is that point exactly? It sounds like you are now making it sound like miracles are super evil, so we can have some "point" in life, so you can then come up with a horrible explanation for why miracles dont happen on camera. Man, it must be exhausting being this dishonest.

 

[Blackdog22]

And they feel exactly the same about your belief.

Oh come on Thumper being objective and looking at this situation from all perspectives would require a whole crap load of honesty and self reflection man! We can't have that because then many religions look a little odd.

 

[Blackdog22]

Alexei (to his atheist brother): “I feel sorry for you, Ivan.”

Ivan: “Why is that?”

Alexei: “Because you want to believe there is a God, but you cannot.“

I also want to believe in Superman, because that would be REALLY really cool. However, I cannot because reality exists. Why should anyone feel sorry for me for not believing in any imagined beings?

 

[ArtieE]

Agnostic atheist: Absence of belief gods exist, absence of belief gods don't exist.

Agnostic weak atheist: Absence of knowledge if gods exist, absence of belief that gods exist, absence of belief that gods don't exist.
Agnostic strong atheist: Absence of knowledge if gods exist, absence of belief that gods exist, presence of belief that gods don't exist.

Theist say: Do you believe God(s) exist? Do you believe God(s) doesn't exist? What are your stances?

Agnostic atheist say: My stances is that no to both.

Agnostic weak atheist says: I don't know and I have no beliefs regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. I have no stance.
Agnostic strong atheist says: I don't know but I believe that gods don't exist and that is my stance.

 

[ArtieE]

If you had a revelation about what is in the box, you wouldn't have to look.

Of course I would have to look to see if my revelation was correct. If you have revelations try to think of a way of getting them scientifically confirmed so we can expand our knowledge base. Tell scientists: "I had a revelation and here's what we can do to check if what was revealed to me is actually true".