-
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!
Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?
- Thread starter Philomath
- Start date
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Actually, you can't make someone else believe something without evidence they will accept. You can believe whatever the hell you want with no qualifiers whatsoever. You just can't convince anyone else unless you jump through the hoops they require for belief. Conversely, if you jump through someone's hoops, they will believe just about anything even if you don't believe it yourself. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Philomath
Sadhaka
I can't wait to be a god...the first thing I'm going to do is re-write the laws of the Universe and make ice cream rain from the heavens
Last edited:
Satan's Right Hand Man
Member
I can't wait to be a god...the first thing I'm going to do is re-write the laws of the Universe and ice cream rain from the heavens
Pssh, ice cream, such petty ambitions
Look at this:
There's a pile of diamonds in Ur-Anus!
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I'll vote for ya! Philomath for El God!I can't wait to be a god...the first thing I'm going to do is re-write the laws of the Universe and ice cream rain from the heavens
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
But... diamonds don't taste as good.Pssh, ice cream, such petty ambitions
Look at this:
There's a pile of diamonds in Ur-Anus!
Philomath
Sadhaka
Pssh, ice cream, such petty ambitions
Look at this:
There's a pile of diamonds in Ur-Anus!
Diamonds are cool but like Ouroboros said you can't eat diamonds lol
McBell
Unbound
That is one of the many definitions of atheist.
A rather popular definition on this forum is "lack of belief in god(s)"
The Wizard
Active Member
Ok, now... Since when did a belief require evidence for others to accept? It is the exact opposite! You're speaking about proclaimed "knowers", not believers. See, this is exactly why belief is so important. No external rules and rulers to control every aspect of human existence..
Ok.. now... This would fall into one's reasoning, not intelligence. Many intelligent believers knowingly use their own beliefs to create and enhance values in their Life, objectively. And, they know it's just their beliefs. They use them to gain a better rhythm or synchronicity in the world than they would have without. Beliefs affect, animate and can transport... imo.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
No. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Agnosticism is lacking esoteric knowledge on the subject.
An Agnostic Atheist is someone who does not claim to "know for a fact" that there is or is not a god but doubts the existence of one.
an Agnostic Theist believes there is a god but does not claim to know it as a fact.
A gnostic theist is someone who claims esoteric knoweldge that his/her god is the real god.
Atheism is nothing more than lacking a belief in god. Agnosticism is lacking the "knowledge" of a deity.
Just to add another level of confusion: while by the above definitions I'm an agnostic atheist, in that I wouldn't claim to know for a fact that no gods of any kind exist, I tend to self-identify as someone who believes no gods exist because until some kind of evidence for gods shows up, there's no real point in wallowing in uncertainty.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
But you don't claim to "know" there are no gods. That is the key difference between gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. The terms weak/soft and hard/strong are intentinoally misleading as they were originally created by theists to sort of trap atheists into saying they believe something which would put them on equal logical footing. I find calling myself a resolute atheist satisfies the meaning I want to protray without falling into any semantic traps.
What makes it confusing (my explanation is probably a little bit weak) is that while I don't claim to know there are no gods, I'm quite happy to behave as though I know there are no gods, at least until a god shows up.
..I guess my conceit is that it's the most scientific way: the best explanation at present is that there are no gods, in that even though absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, it's a reasonable assumption. So I will behave & argue like a gnostic/strong atheist without the absolute requirement for conclusive proof of non-existence (the demand for which is, IMO, stupidity)
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
You select the definition of atheism that you like, which is by definition biased. Your same source provides the following definition:
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
The overwhelming majority of atheists disbelieve the existence of gods based on the lack of evidence.
Stop trying to spin things your way and deal with the way the words are actually used in practice.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
The problem is, the definition of "gnostic" has no real application because claiming knowledge really means nothing if you cannot demonstrate you actually have knowledge. There is a difference between belief and knowledge, knowledge requires some rational basis and theists cannot demonstrate they actually have any real knowledge of gods. Therefore, this definition is pointless because *EVERYONE* has to be agnostic.
A better definition is based on the availability of knowledge. Do you think it is possible to have knowledge of gods? If yes, you are gnostic, if no, you are agnostic. An agnostic atheist in that setting would be someone who doesn't believe in gods, yet doesn't think it's ever possible to know for sure. I, however, would fall into the gnostic atheist camp, I don't believe, but I would have to have knowledge that gods were actually real in order to believe in them. I think it's possible to know, we just don't currently.
It's unfortunate that everyone is working from their own personal dictionary on some of these terms, then expecting the world to fall into line behind them.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
It can be confusing. But there is a disctinct difference between resolution and knowledge. And that is the key difference.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Gnostic doesn't neccesarily imply knowledge concering God, FWIW.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Gnostacism is fundamentally based in the rejection of the physical in light of esoterically procured knowledge.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
Gnosticism isn't neccesarily the rejection of the physical either, but I agree that it is about esoterically procuring knowledge, but that esoterically procured knowledge doesn't neccesarily come from God. A lot of gnosticism says that that estoteric knowledge actually comes from within oneself.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
True. I agree with that. I meant merely to make sure that I made it clear that it was "knowledge". Technically you can have Gnostic athiests who have esoteric "knowledge" there is no god.