Are you saying that atheism can't thoughtfully reflect on the issue of origins and give a rational defense of that position?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is your belief in regards to God?
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
oh...so you deny the believer's point of view....
but have no rational of your own?
the op presents the issue.
believers have a response.
you don't?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
worthy or not (in your opinion)....He holds a stacked deck
Are you sure you want to define your God as 'God of the Gaps'?? Seems an unusual position for a theist to admit to.
I will take that as a "no, I do not".
No, Thief, you somehow miss the situation entirely.
The deck is stacked against him. He is neither real nor honorable, therefore he can not win.
No, it definitely can not.
Not even hypothetically.
Heck, atheism can't even tell me the time of the day. That comes with being an absence of what turns out to be a minor characteristic in the first place, I suppose.
On the other hand, atheism also can't stand in the way of rational thought, so that is something.
Which reminds me that you should consider how odd this set of expectations of yours is.
1. Why would there be an issue of origins? Are you implying that it must be possible to meaningfully ask why things exist? That is by no means a given, you know.
2. Why would atheism (as opposed to any of several conceivable rational stances that atheism, being an absence, fails to inhibit) actually do anything?
3. Also, from post #452 I take it that you may somehow think of some conception of deity as an answer for "the origin of that which exists"? That would be giving a non-answer - as a matter of fact, an entirely mythological concept - to a question that does not even need an answer and may well refuse any.
Why would you, or anyone, do that, let alone demand others to?
Nope. Atheism isn't a world view, although it increasingly seems to be defined as such by some theists and atheists alike.
It's a lack of theism.
Atheists (me included) obviously have views about the world, but they are about as consistent as theist worldviews are...as opposed to being as consistent as Catholic, or Sunni, or Wiccan views are, for comparative purposes.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your mythology does not say anything about a universe. the authors had no idea of said concept.
The earth did not come about by biblical mythology.
The earth formed right after our sun formed.
Our universe probably formed from a super massive blackhole that expanded, possibly 2 blackholes that hit each other.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
no....as the Cause
Thief
Rogue Theologian
that makes you the Almighty.
good luck holding that crown.
Look at these "answers?" from the Atheists. No substance. No actual engaging of the premise. Where is your final arbiter of truth? (science) Like the other major questions of life - morality, purpose, metaphysics etc...nothing. No logical, ethical, personally satisfying answer. We see fear. We see strawmen. We see rabbit trails. Through the expression in their vitriolic language (the default tool of the atheist) we see hatred of the inescapable evidence within and without of the existence of the Christian God they refuse to submit to and His children that present to them His truth. But take heart. While there is life there is hope.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
When you say that you KNOW that your god exists, what evidence do you provide? I think the best you can do is to merely make the CLAIM to know. And as an atheist, I make a difference between knowledge and faith. These are two different terms for two different kinds of thoughts.
It seems that a lot of apologists conflate the meanings of words in order to hide the fact that they don't have a good reason to believe ... whatever it is they believe. Faith is not a reliable method for knowing what is true. You might have faith that your god is true, but you don't really know. You might pretend to know. People do like to pretend.
So, now that you say that you DO know that your god is real, I have to ask you HOW do you know? By way of faith?...
You missed the point of the /dialogue. Try reading it again, with the element of the use of ''agnostic'', then it might make more sense.
/
The 'gnostic theism', was a answer to the usage of ''agnostic'', ie, if 'agnostic'' has a usage next to theist or atheist, then so does 'gnostic'.
Last edited:
One hardly needs to be "almighty" in order to recognize an amoral bully.
Even if he turns out to be a mythological character.
I'm still talking about your use of the argument from consequences.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
there are consequences for any argument.
don't believe in life after death?
then eternal darkness is yours.
no form of light follows anyone into the grave.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
if you can't push the big guy around.....you then deny His existence.
that won't make the 'bully' any smaller.
It's only a fallacy when the desirability of the consequences of an argument are used as evidence for the legitimacy of that argument.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Your atheism isn't ''knowledge''. It's your guess.
You are pretending that your atheism isn't merely a subjective guess. Your contradicting yourself.
You clearly do not understand that your subjective /opinions etc., are not 'facts'. That is why you didn't understand the argument against a usage of agnostic theist, //that label making sense./So, now that you say that you DO know that your god is real, I have to ask you HOW do you know? By way of faith?...