-
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!
Who has the burden of proof?
- Thread starter Delta-9
- Start date
What are you saying exactly? That the only reason that atheists come to these forums is to pacify doubt in their conviction of a god's non-existence?
Should I interpret this as your audition for a stand up comic gig?
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
Agreed! I have repeatedly said that there are agnostic theists. Agnostics that favor theism.
I also agree with the second half. Agnostics are unsure ( they know that God's existence is unknowable ). However, one can be an agnostic theist. One does not know for sure if God exists, but thinks that it is likely.
McBell
Unbound
What is it you claim I am denying?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I posted in another thread that same notion.....
I have a stand up before heaven.....
I stand up....they laugh.....they throw me out!
Brings you to tears....doesn't it?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Again, you're still not understanding the definitions you are using. How many times do we have to show you the dictionary definitions before you understand them? A a theist is someone who believes that there is a God, not "someone who thinks it is likely God exists". Likelihood doesn't enter into it - it's a matter of belief. You either believe the proposition to be true, or you do not believe the proposition to be true. An agnostic is a person who doesn't claim to know whether God exists or not, or claims that God is unknown/unknowable. So an agnostic theist isn't "one who does not know for sure if God exists, but thinks that it is likely". It is "a person who believes God exists, but doesn't claim to know or regard God's existence as knowable".
Do you understand that there is a difference between knowledge and belief?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Yep!....been dealing with it for over five years.
I have a routine about my posting.
So do they.
Stick around and you will see it.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Just like how theists only come to these forums to pacify doubts in their conviction of God's existence, right?
I mean, you seem extremely insecure. I genuinely think you're struggling with a lot of internal conflict on the matter.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Actually....I've been doing this for a long time.
Got my routine just about squared away.
How about you?
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Could you answer my question? Is the only reason theists come to this forum to pacify their doubts about God's existence?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I wouldn't use the word pacify.
In fact some of my postings are fairly forward.
No doubt some believers don't like my postings.
oh well......
McBell
Unbound
What is it you claim I am denying?
Right, that just goes to illustrate how silly the claim is. I mean, I once spent a (wasteful) amount of time on a Flat Earth Society discussion board trying to convince the flat-Earthers that they were wrong. Does that mean that I am actually a flat-Earther in denial? Or does the fact that I have debated against creationists mean that I have doubts about the veracity of evolution? I even once debated someone about a hypothesis that the Moon had impacted the Earth multiple times in the past, bounced off of it and left imprints behind as "evidence". I guess since I debated against it, I was actually in denial of said proposal's truth...
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
First see my posts 590 and 591
“? A a theist is someone who believes that there is a God, not "someone who thinks it is likely God exists".
Immortalflame. Post 607
I agree! It was your position that one can be a Theist even though one only thinks that God’s existence is likely. Similarly, your position was that one can be an atheist, even though one only thinks that it is possible that God does not exist. (Actually, that would mean that theists are atheists, according to you!!! SEE NEXT POST, post 616! Or at least according to your original definitions, they change so constantly, it’s hard to keep up.) So now you are agreeing with me!!!!
Actually, if you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I said “agnostic theist” not theist.
………………………..
“Firstly, there is a grammatical problem here. Theism and atheism are not, in and of themselves, claims, so you cannot "prove" them. They are specific reactions with regards to a specific claim”
“You cannot "prove" them any more than you can "prove" democracy,”
Immortalflame Post 594
So you think that the proposition “God exists” is not a claim? But wait in post 607 (see above) you claimed that theism is the belief (claim) * that God exists! I agree! The existence of God is impossible to prove. That is why I am an agnostic.
…………….
“I've already explained why this ridiculous comparison to belief as a matter of percentage is ridiculous.
You cannot be "70% a theist" any more than you can be "70% a football player". You either play football, or you do not play football”.
Immortalflame. Post 594
So you are saying that one can only be a 100% theist. I agree. If you are any less than that you are an agnostic theist. I used the percentage argument because you previously embraced it. However, my point does not have to have belief quantified. One can simply favor theism and one is still an agnostic and not a theist. As in my example, one can favor the Republican Party but that does not mean that you are a Republican, you are still an independent.
* Are you now actually going to claim that one can have a belief without making any claims? Are you going to actually say that "God exists" is not a claim?
………
“? A a theist is someone who believes that there is a God, not "someone who thinks it is likely God exists".
Immortalflame. Post 607
I agree! It was your position that one can be a Theist even though one only thinks that God’s existence is likely. Similarly, your position was that one can be an atheist, even though one only thinks that it is possible that God does not exist. (Actually, that would mean that theists are atheists, according to you!!! SEE NEXT POST, post 616! Or at least according to your original definitions, they change so constantly, it’s hard to keep up.) So now you are agreeing with me!!!!
Actually, if you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I said “agnostic theist” not theist.
………………………..
“Firstly, there is a grammatical problem here. Theism and atheism are not, in and of themselves, claims, so you cannot "prove" them. They are specific reactions with regards to a specific claim”
“You cannot "prove" them any more than you can "prove" democracy,”
Immortalflame Post 594
So you think that the proposition “God exists” is not a claim? But wait in post 607 (see above) you claimed that theism is the belief (claim) * that God exists! I agree! The existence of God is impossible to prove. That is why I am an agnostic.
…………….
“I've already explained why this ridiculous comparison to belief as a matter of percentage is ridiculous.
You cannot be "70% a theist" any more than you can be "70% a football player". You either play football, or you do not play football”.
Immortalflame. Post 594
So you are saying that one can only be a 100% theist. I agree. If you are any less than that you are an agnostic theist. I used the percentage argument because you previously embraced it. However, my point does not have to have belief quantified. One can simply favor theism and one is still an agnostic and not a theist. As in my example, one can favor the Republican Party but that does not mean that you are a Republican, you are still an independent.
* Are you now actually going to claim that one can have a belief without making any claims? Are you going to actually say that "God exists" is not a claim?
………
Last edited:
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
“one’s definition logically implies that an atheist does not believe in God and does not not believe in God, which is the definition of agnostic! As I said, previously it is absurd to say that atheist and agnostic are 2 words for the same concept!”
ME
Nobody has said that except YOU,
Immortalflame.
I NEVER said that you or anyone said that agnostic and atheist are two words for the same concept. I said that that is the logical conclusion from your position that atheism is the lack of belief in God and is not the belief that there is no God. Your definition of atheist is also the definition of agnostic. Are you now going to claim that one can be an agnostic and believe in God? Note that I said "agnostic" not 'agnostic theist" . "Agnostic" and "agnostic theist" are not different words for the same concept.
By the way, what is your word for someone that believes that God does not exist?
ME
Nobody has said that except YOU,
Immortalflame.
I NEVER said that you or anyone said that agnostic and atheist are two words for the same concept. I said that that is the logical conclusion from your position that atheism is the lack of belief in God and is not the belief that there is no God. Your definition of atheist is also the definition of agnostic. Are you now going to claim that one can be an agnostic and believe in God? Note that I said "agnostic" not 'agnostic theist" . "Agnostic" and "agnostic theist" are not different words for the same concept.
By the way, what is your word for someone that believes that God does not exist?
Last edited:
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
I am actually an agnostic atheist. I am not trying to discredit atheism ( or theism) I am only trying to make people use the correct terminology.
If anyone can agree on the terminology. The question for atheism is a quesiton of belief and is a simple yes or no, even if your agnostic, its a yes or no, and no means atheist. The question for agnosticism vs gnosticism is a question of what do you know, you know god yes or no, that is probably mostly going to be a no in which case many agnostics believe in god even if they don't know for sure.
raw_thought
Well-Known Member
I have read a lot of the Gnostics ( my favorite is the gospel of Thomas).
I also understand that agnostic used to mean ," believes in God, but God is undefinable." And therefore, in a sense one does not believe in god because one can only believe in something that is defined. Does it make sense to say I believe that X exists? However, one does believe in God!! Its just not in a correspondance theory of truth way.
However, I am using agnostic it its current sense, one that is uncertain about God's existence.
I also understand that agnostic used to mean ," believes in God, but God is undefinable." And therefore, in a sense one does not believe in god because one can only believe in something that is defined. Does it make sense to say I believe that X exists? However, one does believe in God!! Its just not in a correspondance theory of truth way.
However, I am using agnostic it its current sense, one that is uncertain about God's existence.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Christians have the logical high ground on this one because Jesus was seen strutting his stuff for 3 long years by practically the entire 5 million population of Israel plus the Roman garrison, that's a lot of eyeballs..
