Who has the burden of proof?

[Thief]

Yes, baseless.
As in you have nothing to support it other than more baseless opinion.

So...you would contend that substance is 'self' starting?

If so....you must have a great fear of gravel drive ways!

 

[raw_thought]

My opposition's definitions are,
1, Atheist= does not believe in God.
2. Theist= does not not believe in God.
3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God.
Now, that means that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!

.

If one says that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief, then one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!
Since the conclusion is absurd and the argument is valid, that means that the original proposition ( that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief ) is absurd!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If one says that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief, then one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!

Atheist = does not believe in a God.
Theist = believes in a God.
Agnostic = doesn't claim to know whether God exists or doesn't exist.

Atheism and theism deal with BELIEF, agnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.

Repeating your obviously inaccurate misrepresentation of our opinion doesn't do you any favours.

Since the conclusion is absurd and the argument is valid, that means that the original proposition ( that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief ) is absurd!

Considering you seem incapable of reading, you're definitely incapable of formulating or identifying a syllogism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If one says that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief, then one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!
Since the conclusion is absurd and the argument is valid, that means that the original proposition ( that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief ) is absurd!

If an agnostic still believes in a god then they are not atheists. However many agnostics are atheists.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

If one says that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief, then one is forced to the absurd conclusion that all agnostics are atheists and they are also all theists!!!!
Since the conclusion is absurd and the argument is valid, that means that the original proposition ( that atheism is the lack of belief and not a belief ) is absurd!

So, both your reading comprehension AND logic are bad, then?
Or are you just being blatantly dishonest at this point?

 

[Sapiens]

So, both your reading comprehension AND logic are bad, then?
Or are you just being blatantly dishonest at this point?

Give him the benefit of the doubt ... go with reading comprehension difficulties for now.

 

[raw_thought]

Atheist = does not believe in a God.
Theist = believes in a God.
Agnostic = doesn't claim to know whether God exists or doesn't exist.

Atheism and theism deal with BELIEF, agnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.

Repeating your obviously inaccurate misrepresentation of our opinion doesn't do you any favours.


Considering you seem incapable of reading, you're definitely incapable of formulating or identifying a syllogism.

????? read post 562 again. I used YOUR definitions not mine. Your definitions lead to an absurdity as shown in my post.
Here I will make the syllogism easier to understand.
The absurdity of your position is similar to saying.
1. Dogs are not reptiles.
2. Cats are not birds.
3. Bats are not reptiles or birds. Therefore, bats are dogs and/or cats.
If anyone that does not believe in God ( your definition, note that I am not saying that an atheist believes that there is no God) is an atheist and a theist is anyone that does not not believe in God ( again your definition ). Since the definition of agnostic is someone that does not believe in God and also does not not believe in God, then an agnostic is an atheist and a theist!!!! I prefer more precise definitions.
I do not agree with my opposition’s contention that atheist and agnostic are two different terms for the same concept* Imagine that you are at a university debate. You prove to a theist that one cannot be certain about the existence of God. You then say,” I have proven atheism!” I can guarantee that the professor will grimace and say, “You have proven agnosticism not atheism.”
As for the distinction you make between knowledge and belief, I do not think that someone can believe something even tho they know it is false. In the context of what we are talking about , you are saying that that is possible!

* Please explain what the difference is if both refer to uncertainty. A 51% theist is still an agnostic. If a 51% atheist is considered an atheist and a 51% theist are considered theists then the only agnostics are 50-50. That leaves the absurd conclusion that there are only 2 or 3 agnostics in the world!


PS; with all the ad hominums, its obvious that I'm winning the debate. My opposition cannot come up with an actual argument , only insults!

 

[Awkward Fingers]

????? read post 562 again. I used YOUR definitions not mine. Your definitions lead to an absurdity as shown in my post.
I do not agree with my opposition’s contention that atheist and agnostic are two different terms for the same concept* Imagine that you are at a university debate. You prove to a theist that one cannot be certain about the existence of God. You then say,” I have proven atheism!” I can guarantee that the professor will grimace and say, “You have proven agnosticism not atheism.”
* Please explain what the difference is if both refer to uncertainty. A 51% theist is still an agnostic. If a 51% atheist is considered an atheist and a 51% theist are considered theists then the only agnostics are 50-50. That leaves the absurd conclusion that there are only 2 or 3 agnostics in the world!
PS; with all the ad hominums, its obvious that I'm winning the debate. My opposition cannot come up with an actual argument , only insults!
If anyone that does not believe in God ( your definition, note that I am not saying that an atheist believes that there is no God) is an atheist and a theist is anyone that does not not believe in God ( again your definition ). Since the definition of agnostic ( using your terms) is someone that does not believe in God and also does not not believe in God, then an agnostic is an atheist and a theist!!!! I prefer more precise definitions.

As for the distinction you make between knowledge and belief, I do not think that someone can believe something even tho they know it is false. In the context of what we are talking about , you are saying that that is possible!

Please quote the link to where HE used "3. Agnostic= does not believe in God and does not not believe in God." as HIS definition, as you just stated..
..as for everything else..
..seriously, if you can't even read our posts... there's no reason to write anything else to you..
Show some comprehension, stop constantly misquoting and strawmanning, and maybe people will actually start debating you.
Until then, there is literally no point to it, as you aren't, or can't, even read what is posted to you.

 

[raw_thought]

???? So now you are saying that his position is that an atheist is someone that believes that God does not exist? ( I agree with that definition!) However, the debate was that he said ( see his post above) that an atheist does not believe in God, not that he believes that there is no God.
I give up. PLEASE take a reading comprehension course!!!
Are you claiming that he claims that it is not true that an agnostic does not believe in God and also does not believe that God does not exist? Maybe, but I think he is smarter than that.
Actually, I wish you would read the posts rather than just skimming over them.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

???? So now you are saying that his position is that an atheist is someone that believes that God does not exist? ( I agree with that definition!) However, the debate was that he said ( see his post above) that an atheist does not believe in God, not that he believes that there is no God.
I give up. PLEASE take a reading comprehension course!!!
Are you claiming that he claims that it is not true that an agnostic does not believe in God and also does not believe that God does not exist? Maybe, but I think he is smarter than that.
Actually, I wish you would read the posts rather than just skimming over them.

YOu need to better your reading comprehension. Atheism is the lack of belief. If someone believes god does not exist it is encompassed in the first definition.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

???? So now you are saying that his position is that an atheist is someone that believes that God does not exist?

No, that would be an idiotic definition, because, although someone who believes no god exists would be an atheist, that's not the only definition.
An atheist, as you've been told many times, is anyone who lacks a belief in god.
It's really, really easy..

( I agree with that definition!)

I'm not shocked..

However, the debate was that he said ( see his post above) that an atheist does not believe in God, not that he believes that there is no God.

Yeah, that would also be in that dictionary thingie you keep mentioning, then ignoring half of...
Oxford dictionary Atheist: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
atheism: definition of atheism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

and if you find differing definitions from different dictionaries, maybe you should actually listen to the people that use the label.

I give up. PLEASE take a reading comprehension course!!!
Are you claiming that he claims that it is not true that an agnostic does not believe in God and also does not believe that God does not exist? Maybe, but I think he is smarter than that.

No. That's not what he's saying.

As before POST THE LINK to his quote where he states that.
Please.
Second time I've asked.

Actually, I wish you would read the posts rather than just skimming over them.

As you can see from my sectioned response to you, I do. As you can see by you misquoting people, and strawmanning, you don't...
Let's work on that now.


Can you give a response to this post, that shows you've read ti all, and understand any of it?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

YOu need to better your reading comprehension. Atheism is the lack of belief. If someone believes god does not exist it is encompassed in the first definition.

lol it's actually funny..
He posts his position.. 3-4 people ALL tell him he's not reading what others are posting to him..
Does he even slightly listen?
nope.
..his response? "They're all against me, I must be right!!! They ALL must not be able to read!! STAY THE COURSE, STRAWMEN, AHOY!!!"

 

[Awkward Fingers]

???? So now you are saying that his position is that an atheist is someone that believes that God does not exist? ( I agree with that definition!) However, the debate was that he said ( see his post above) that an atheist does not believe in God, not that he believes that there is no God.

And if you want an honest answer to this..
Why don't you try setting up a poll, for just the atheists, to see what they think.

Wouldn't that be a fair and honest way of finding out?

I can't wait to see you do it, because, of COURSE you care about the truth, and not just plugging your ears, and screaming that you're correct, correct?

Simple poll,
Atheism is
1. The belief there is no god
2. the lack of a belief in god.

Go for it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

????? read post 562 again. I used YOUR definitions not mine. Your definitions lead to an absurdity as shown in my post.

No you did not.

You used my definition of atheist, but then entirely invented a completely ficticious definition of theist and agnostic THAT I HAVE NEVER SAID.

Here I will make the syllogism easier to understand.
The absurdity of your position is similar to saying.
1. Dogs are not reptiles.
2. Cats are not birds.
3. Bats are not reptiles or birds. Therefore, bats are dogs and/or cats.

No, it isn't even remotely similar to that.

If anyone that does not believe in God ( your definition, note that I am not saying that an atheist believes that there is no God) is an atheist and a theist is anyone that does not not believe in God ( again your definition ).

WRONG.

I have never said that. In fact, I clearly gave a definition IN THE VERY POST YOU ARE QUOTING.

Atheist = does not believe in a God.
Theist = believes in a God.
Agnostic = doesn't claim to know whether God exists or doesn't exist.

"Not not believing in a God" is a definition you have plucked out of your own imagination. You are now lying about what my definitions are, despite the fact that I just gave you my definitions.

Since the definition of agnostic is someone that does not believe in God and also does not not believe in God, then an agnostic is an atheist and a theist!!!! I prefer more precise definitions.

THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF AN AGNOSTIC!

Agnostic
noun
1. A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
SOURCE: agnostic: definition of agnostic in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Agnostic
n.
1.a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
SOURCE: agnostic - definition of agnostic by The Free Dictionary

Agnostic
noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
SOURCE: Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."
SOURCE: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How dare you lecture me, or anyone else, about the definitions of words when you yourself don't even know the definitions of the words you're using!

I do not agree with my opposition’s contention that atheist and agnostic are two different terms for the same concept*

NOBODY HERE HAS SAID THAT.

Imagine that you are at a university debate. You prove to a theist that one cannot be certain about the existence of God. You then say,” I have proven atheism!” I can guarantee that the professor will grimace and say, “You have proven agnosticism not atheism.”

As for the distinction you make between knowledge and belief, I do not think that someone can believe something even tho they know it is false. In the context of what we are talking about , you are saying that that is possible!

No. I'm trying to say - AND HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID - that you can still BELIEVE something without KNOWING that it is true!

* Please explain what the difference is if both refer to uncertainty.

THEY DON'T.

Atheism refers to a lack of belief.
Agnosticism refers to a lack of certainty or knowledge.

A 51% theist is still an agnostic. If a 51% atheist is considered an atheist and a 51% theist are considered theists then the only agnostics are 50-50. That leaves the absurd conclusion that there are only 2 or 3 agnostics in the world!

You're talking garbage. Nobody is "51% theist" or "51% atheist". These things can't be broken down into percentages. They are positions with regards to an either/or proposition. You cannot be "51% a stamp collector" and "49% not a stamp collector". You either collect stamps or you do not collect stamps, just as you either possess a belief in a God, or you do not possess a belief in a God.

That's it.

PS; with all the ad hominums, its obvious that I'm winning the debate. My opposition cannot come up with an actual argument , only insults!

It's very hard to argue with someone who seems incapable of actually understanding what has been explained over a dozen times...

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Isn't there some point where trolls can be reported for flame baiting?
I honestly can't believe he just lacks the reading skills to THIS point....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Isn't there some point where trolls can be reported for flame baiting?
I honestly can't believe he just lacks the reading skills to THIS point....

We'll see. Now that I've presented him with four separate dictionary definitions of both atheism and agnosticism, if he continues to misunderstand I can only assume he is a troll and report him for flaming. It seriously is getting absolutely ridiculous...

 

[McBell]

And if you want an honest answer to this..
Why don't you try setting up a poll, for just the atheists, to see what they think.

Wouldn't that be a fair and honest way of finding out?

I can't wait to see you do it, because, of COURSE you care about the truth, and not just plugging your ears, and screaming that you're correct, correct?

Simple poll,
Atheism is
1. The belief there is no god
2. the lack of a belief in god.

Go for it.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/167871-atheists-only-poll.html

 

[Castaigne]

I suppose the next question to follow this up is "If they have no certainty or knowledge of god then why do they believe in god?"

That's called "faith". Faith is trust in an idea, or a belief that is unsupported by evidence or lacks proof. Faith is set apart from reason in that the latter uses deductive reasoning from evidence to inform beliefs, while the former relies solely on assertion to state beliefs are true.

 

[Skwim]

never mind

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's called "faith". Faith is trust in an idea, or a belief that is unsupported by evidence or lacks proof. Faith is set apart from reason in that the latter uses deductive reasoning from evidence to inform beliefs, while the former relies solely on assertion to state beliefs are true.

I know what it is called. Giving it a name doesn't explain it however. "Why do they have faith" is the exact same question.