He doesn't answer questions. He just asks the same thing over and over and over and over and over. It's worse than a mindless automaton, since an automaton can 'learn' (why it's called AI).
If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
You cannot make evidence just disappear, Void.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Yes, but what qualifies as sufficient evidence to believe something varies from person to person. People believe in Sasquatch, flat earth, astrology, etc.
Ok
Ok
I don't need to. There's no more evidence for the Christian god than there is Harry Potter or Santa Claus, which is why reasonable people don't believe either is real.
The "stuff exists" evidence is only evidence of your God if you already believe in your god., otherwise the existence of stuff can be evidence for any being you pull from a fictional book.
I disagree. IF a GOD exists...EVERYTHING you see, hear, feel, touch, and smell...is evidence of the GOD. But we don't know if any gods exist...so that evidence is AMBIGUOUS.
Anyway, if you want to guess that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does...you are free to do so. The fact that you are doing exactly the same thing theists are doing (except in a different direction) should not stop you.
I do not use the self-descriptor "agnostic" but my take on the issue is definitely agnostic.
There is no way I hate atheists (and certainly "fear' them...nor do I avoid discussing atheism rationally.
Atheists often refuse to discuss it rationally, though
Would you like to do so?
This is all bullshit, gmark. It is beneath you.
If you want to discuss atheism rationally and intelligently...I am more than willing to do so.
Just what he said. It's pretty simple.
It only means one thing. It's meaning has never changed.
No dictionary defines any word. That is not their purpose.
The word 'atheist' first entered the English lexicon around 1570. Stemming from Greek 'theos', meaning 'belief' or 'religion', and the prefix 'a-' negating it.
In other words, it means no religion. It has no stance on whether a god or gods exist or not and simply doesn't care. If a god or gods exist or not, it's all the same to the atheist.
ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument (not a fallacy!) with argument stemming from that.
For Christianity, that initial argument is that Jesus Christs exists and is who He says He is...namely the Son of God.
ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from this initial argument.
The other name for the Circular Argument is the Argument of Faith. This is the very basis on what faith is. In other words, ALL religions are based on faith, and faith alone. It is not possible to prove a Circular Argument True or False. Any attempt to do so causes the Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.
The Church of No God is a religion. It is fundamentalist in nature, even militant.
ZenMode is a member of this religion. Like usual, they try to prove their circular argument True. They often try to quote 'science' (without mentioning any theory of science) as the 'proof' (without providing any).
Another favorite tactic used by members of the Church of No God is to try to prove a negative (which is not possible), and thereby attempt a 'proof' their faith is True.
ZenMode is a fundamentalist in the Church of No God.
The Church of No God often claims to be 'atheist', but they are a religion like any other. Atheism is not militant. It does not try to prove any existence of any god or gods and does not try to prove the non-existence of any god or gods. It simply doesn't go there.
Science is atheistic. It simply doesn't go there.
Mathematics is atheistic. It simply doesn't go there.
Logic is atheistic. It simply doesn't go there.
A very few people are atheists. They simply don't care whether a god or gods exist or not. They simply don't argue the point or even bother with it.
I happen to be Christian. I do not try to prove my religion to be True. I can't. I simply accept it on my own faith. I cannot accept it any other way.
My own experiences have guided that faith, but faith it remains, and faith it always will be.
Even if Jesus Christ were to personally appear and shake my hand, it is by faith that I believe He is who He says He is, and faith alone.
I can describe evidence supporting my beliefs and the beliefs of most any religion (including the Church of No God. That evidence exists, regardless. It cannot be made to disappear, which is what ZenMode is trying to do so desperately due to his own fundamentalism.
Incorrect. The word 'theism' stems from the same root word in Greek. The prefix 'a-' negates the meaning. This is common in Greek and Latin.
Atheism has no faith. It is not a religion. It simply doesn't care.
'Theos' does not mean 'god'. It means 'belief' or 'religion', as in 'belief in a religion'. ALL religions are based on that initial circular argument, or Argument of Faith.
The French use the same Greek root (and the same prefix if it exists) and have the same meaning.
'Theos' does not mean 'god'.
I don't see that at all.
You should. So do I. We agree here.
I do not see it doing that, but present your logic that leads to that. I'll consider it more carefully.
There are many people who are not theists...who do not "believe" that gods do not exist.
I am such a person...and I am willing to defend that position.
I do not agree with that for the reasons I have already stated.
Fence sitter?Both of those fall under the 'Church of No God' classification.
Neither fall under the 'atheist' category.
1) God exists. [theism]
2) God does not exist. [church of no god]
3) I don't accept 1 OR 2 as true. [atheism]
Yes, we agree here.
Yes sir.
So we disagree as to what the word 'atheism' "correctly" means. I think that's really where much of our disagreement lies. Otherwise, I think that we're seeing this topic in a similar light.
1) God exists. --- faith based belief [Into The Night and I are both in this category]
2) God does not exist. --- faith based belief [ZenMode is in this category]
3) There are some people who don't accept either of those statements as true (the "fence sitters", if you will). There is no belief involved there, faith based or otherwise, as none has been expressed by those people. [IBDaMann is in this category]
Because a reasonable guess cannot be made?
C'mon.
ZenMode
Well-known member
"The fact that you are doing exactly the same thing theists are doing..."
I'm not. I don't believe in gods because I have never seen one, spoken to one, have seen no miracles performed by one, etc. So, I have specific evidence to support my belief.
The theist argument isn't one based on if's and shaky, at best, evidence. Using the theist view, there's reason to believe in Santa Clause. St. Nick was a real person, just like Jesus. There are stories written about St. Nick and subsequent stories about Santa Claus.
Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?
Santa Claus existed. He was a real man. He was a Cardinal in what is now Turkey. He was well known for his philanthropy towards children, particularly poor children.
St Nicholas became famous in this way, as news of his philanthropy traveled around Europe. Latin root languages use 'Santa' for 'Saint' (what a Cardinal is called). It was common to shorten the name to 'Claus', particularly in Denmark and surrounding areas.
The story of Santa Claus being a merry old elf with this philanthropy and wearing a red robe (like a Cardinal does) was created by a Coca-Cola ad, and all the embellishments such as reindeer (common in Lapland areas) came later...a nice story to tell children around Christmas time.
You are not an atheist. You belong to the Church of No God.
Attempted negative proof fallacy.
You cannot make evidence just disappear, Void.
Faith is the circular argument. Nothing more or less. That itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to PROVE a circular argument True or False creates the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist, such as you, try to do.
It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False. It is not possible to prove faith True or False. It simply exists.
Your religion requires faith just as mine does and just as gfm's does.
Attempting to prove a negative is a fallacy. That is not possible.
Attempting to make evidence just disappear is a fallacy. It is not possible.
Attempting an argument of ignorance is a fallacy.
Agnostics believe in a god or gods, but cannot describe their character or form.
I don't believe you are.
Atheism is super simple but for some reason you need to expend tons of contorted mystical phrases which only have meaning to you in order to denigrate atheism.
And Cypress is 20X worse with his fake "agnosticism" while he desperately tries to demonize atheism with every single turn.
You two are completely lost in the discussion because you can't understand one simple concept: a failure to believe something is not an active belief.
Just like (wait for it) "NOT collecting stamps is NOT a hobby".
Be what you are. That's the point. When someone doesn't understand atheism it doesn't mean atheists are wrong. It just means you don't understand atheism.
How on earth would YOU know that?
Sure. Let me know when someone with more than one functioning brain cell comes on JPP to discuss it.
The atheist has often been described as a 'fence sitter', but there is no fence. They simply take no position and remain there.
That said, atheists will sometimes come to believe in a religion and cease to be atheists. People can change.
Something remain atheistic, such as mathematics, logic, and science. NONE of these care whether a god or gods exist or not. The simply don't go there.
Here you have it absolutely correct.
I have found many people simply do not understand English, particularly Democrats. They use a language that looks like English, but words in it have no meaning or shifting meaning. I call this the Liberal language. It consists almost entirely of buzzwords.
Using it is a demonstration of illiteracy.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Is there anything you know to be true to the point that faith isn't required or are you trying to say that everything is faith because there are no knowns?
Evidence is not 'qualified' and has no 'qualifiers'. It simply exists. You cannot make it just disappear.
There is evidence of Sasquatch (last sited apparently somewhere in Virginia, there's a website that tracks this).
There is evidence of a flat earth, but that DOES tend to ignore the evidence of a round moon, and the day/night cycle, navigation instruments as old as tall ships, geometry itself, and of course images sent by high flying aircraft and by spacecraft. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical. The so-called 'flat earth' belief is incredibly rare and was never a popular belief.
Astrology is still believed in today, based on an extension of Islam, where the positions of planets appearing in the sky are given attributes controlling various aspects of life experiences.
Harry Potter is a fictional character in a popular series of books (and movies). Created by J.K. Rowling, the series is based on the boarding school model, coupled with a society of witches and wizards and clumsily gleaning aspects from Greek and Roman cultures. Despite this, it was put together well, and many people have enjoyed both the books and the movies.
So Harry Potter exists. He is a fictional character in a book, described that way by the author.
Just like Hobbits, Gandalf, Sauron, a land called Oz, Neo, Superman, and fanciful tales of a merry old elf emulating Saint Nicholas.
As for evidence. You cannot make it just disappear. Quantity is irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.
Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.
Nope. Evidence does not require the existence of any god or gods to exist. It simply exists.
Evidence a book exists is actually a proof by identity.
gfm7175
Jesus is LORD!
Call it whatever you will. It's simply a position that doesn't accept either belief as true.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Yep. I mentioned St Nick in a previous post.
So you agree that it's possible that Saint Nick could have been elevated to a supernatural being, like Jesus, and the books about Santa Claus, people seeing Santa Clause, people interacting with Santa Claus, etc are evidence of that, so it would be reasonable to believe in Santa Claus, right?