|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:36:18 GMT
You do believe in a godless universe.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 15:41:03 GMT
You do believe in a godless universe. Nope, still don't. Really you're only displaying your ignorance and foolishness to everyone here.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 15:44:33 GMT
Your resentment is as personal to you as your worldview (in which a godless universe exists). It's just your view though.
|
|
|
Post by Sergeant Hartman on Feb 13, 2012 15:53:10 GMT
You do believe in a godless universe. Nope, still don't. Really you're only displaying your ignorance and foolishness to everyone here. I must give you an informal warning for this. Take it easy.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 18:43:59 GMT
Nope, still don't. Really you're only displaying your ignorance and foolishness to everyone here. I must give you an informal warning for this. Take it easy. My apologies. It's hard to keep a cool head when someone presumes to know what you believe or not believe.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 13, 2012 18:44:52 GMT
Your resentment is as personal to you as your worldview (in which a godless universe exists). It's just your view though. No, it's your made up fantasy. It's still a non-sequitur no matter how many times you repeat it.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 13, 2012 21:08:22 GMT
That's just your worldview.
|
|
|
Post by pinchbeck on Feb 13, 2012 23:56:24 GMT
Just to make sure, you agree with me? No.
|
|
|
Post by thomaseshuis on Feb 14, 2012 14:19:41 GMT
Just to make sure, you agree with me? No. Then please tell me how you fail to understand the difference between not having a belief and believing something does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 14, 2012 17:21:54 GMT
Why are you so desperate to know if other people agree with you? Is it so that you can educate (preach at) them if they don't? You really can't stand the fact that others have different opinions, can you? I started a thread about why people "debate", maybe you can enlighten me there.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 14, 2012 23:08:47 GMT
I don't believe that god exists and I don't believe that god does not exist. I do not know one way or the other. I don't believe that you are in the united states, nor do I believe that you are not. Without more evidence I do not know enough to commit to one position or the other. I do not consider myself an atheist though, I am an agnostic theist, that is I do not know but I choose to behave as if there are deities. With al due respect a theist is by definition someone who believes in one or more gods. The way you describe yourself you're an agnostic atheist. I'm not. An Agnostic Atheist doesn't know but chooses to assume that there is no god. An Agnostic Theist doesn't know and chooses to assume that there is a god (or several, in my case)
|
|
|
Post by Worldquest on Feb 15, 2012 0:10:31 GMT
And some agnostic atheists believe that they're gnostic. They demonstrate this belief whenever they refuse to seek evidence for god because they think they have all the answers (on the grounds that it's a theist's job to do that for them, when in fact anybody who acknowledges that they don't have all the answers and who is genuinely interested in truth (as opposed to merely reinforcing their view) will be secure enough to do it themselves), so the idea that their view is wrong is unacceptable to them. They define themselves as agnostic but act gnostic. Is it possible for a person to actually get off their ass and seek evidence which challenges their current view, as opposed to evidence which merely reinforces what they already think and believe? Yes. But it takes courage. Not a lot of these forum-atheists have that courage. They rabbit on about the wonders of science and the scientific method, yet they conveniently (and I'd say deliberately) forget that science has mostly advanced by challenging preexisting views. Notice how some atheists try so desperately to crawl into a little zone in which they are immune from the criticism that they throw at theists : Atheism isn't an ism. Atheism does not imply a belief in a godless universe. The burden of proof is on the theist, since they make the claim. Atheism is the default position. Can anyone see a pattern here? When you cut through all the rhetoric everything there is basically a way of saying : I know everything, I'm immune from criticism, I'm better than you. There are two types of atheist. Those who accept that their lack of belief is another expression of an actual belief (in a godless universe), and who are actually interested in seeking truth rather than assuming that if someone else doesn't do it for them then their view is correct. And then there are athe kinds of atheists that preach their view as gospel. They get frustrated when theists don't do as they command, and who don't share their belief that they're superior to theists. Their idea of a discussion is an exercise in preaching and condescension, and then they wonder why they can't convert us to their worldview. Go on, atheists, break my post down into 100 parts and make a snidey comment to each one, just to show me how clever you are. If you need inspiration, go to www.rationalskepticism.org and check out Calilasseia. He's the master of making 100 silly little remarks whilst saying nothing.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 15, 2012 8:41:26 GMT
I have serious issues with "Atheism is the default position" We have more evidence of the workings of the inside of an infant's mind than we do about the existence of or non existence of Xochiquetzal. Or her divine nature. However we do not have anywhere near the required evidence to assume what belief an infant's mind posesses, as far as our divine mistress' presence, absence, or nature. We can tell an infant needs to poop, wants attention, is hungry, or is happy, angry, or sad. That doesn't give us enough information. Making assumptions about the beliefs of an infant is as much a leap of faith as an assumption that there is, or that there is not, a Goddess.
The burden of proof, IMO, is on the person making an absolute statement. Most of the atheists I have seen argue here with any eloquence (Naturally if you might be offended by this you are among those included) do not make absolute statements aside from the statement "I do not know if Xochiquetzal is real and prefer to behave as if she is not" Some of the theists do make an absolute statement. I am the only one I have seen so far arguing from a position of ignorance. Worldquest in particular seems to make some very definite statements about the nature of the divine. GreatestIAm makes some very interesting absolute claims.
|
|
|
Post by flyingteapot on Feb 16, 2012 11:04:23 GMT
With al due respect a theist is by definition someone who believes in one or more gods. The way you describe yourself you're an agnostic atheist. I'm not. An Agnostic Atheist doesn't know but chooses to assume that there is no god. An Agnostic Theist doesn't know and chooses to assume that there is a god (or several, in my case) Agnostic atheism means 1. That they think that the question of god is unknowable 2. They don't believe the claim that "god exists".
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Feb 16, 2012 18:14:30 GMT
I'm not. An Agnostic Atheist doesn't know but chooses to assume that there is no god. An Agnostic Theist doesn't know and chooses to assume that there is a god (or several, in my case) Agnostic atheism means 1. That they think that the question of god is unknowable 2. They don't believe the claim that "god exists". I think you may be misrepresenting slightly. Positive proof of God is always (theoretically) possible, an agnostic of any kind feels that it has not yet been provided.
|
|