Search results

So, with that in mind, would you care to share some arguments for why you hold an atheistic position with such vigor? I'm hoping for it to be a bit more than an agnostic "I lack belief in God" and more along the lines of "here's why I believe God does not exist".

Ha ha, this one caught my eye because of some podcast listening I've been doing recently. In my mind it now seems to me that moral opposition is a pre-requisite for tolerance. So far from the fundamentalist lacking tolerance - it is they who in fact require tolerance more than anyone (since they...

Putting these massive generalizations aside for a second, I think it's worth pointing out that the proponents of ones belief can not be used reliably as proof of a beliefs authenticity or lack thereof. What that means is that the person that acts in a positive manner and calls themselves a...

Idiocies of the bible? I'm a little confused by this statement since for such a thing to be the case, you must show that the concept of Gods omnipotence and omniscience is logically incoherent. Until that point, I can't see how you are saying anything more than "I don't want the God of the...

The first section was a typical reply, that I should have expected. If you still have questions about these things, it may be prudent to go back and re-read our conversation as I feel as though we are now starting the argument all over again. To the second point though. The time that a...

I'll bite :P When most people use the example of belief in a country they have never been to, they are referring to how absolute proof is not necessary for belief. If it were, then the only way to prove to you that "China" exists, would be to take you there and show you (and this is before...

This may the case for the theist that doesn't have much experience in the field. I doubt you will find it to be the case for theists that are trained in apologetics and philosophy however. Most educated theists will look at the data provided and decide whether God still fits in with the data. In...

Great little write up. Thanks for sharing veloc1ty. These are exactly the sorts of arguments I wish we would also discuss in this thread. It seems to me that it would be far more constructive to look at both sides of the fence. At the moment (as far as I can tell) this thread mainly consists...

You see, to me this makes no sense at all. You are claiming that while there is no difference between the weak atheist and the agnostic, there is in fact a difference and you can call yourself an atheist anyway regardless of the fact you acknowledge that there is no difference. In this second...

The distinction to make is that knowing something (or believing it) is very different from showing something to be true. So while many Christians know (or think they know) that that their faith is authentic, they may not be able to show or demonstrate as much to an unbeliever. The bible actually...

Well of course you are just as much as of a non-believer in santa clause as the one who claims that santa clause does not exist! This is because you both lack the belief that santa clause exists - which is what I have been saying all along :P The difference lies in that you're not even claiming...

Well I don't know that the idea of god is unscientific. Certainly if you mean that we can't scientifically test a supernatural being then I agree with you (since supernatural properties cannot be tested naturally). However, I don't think this means that science can't prove useful in looking at...

If you are looking from a theistic perspective, the conclusion I have reached so far is that the first action of God (the creation of the universe) necessitates the beginning of time. Causation cannot exist cannot exist outside of time, but it can exist simultaneously with time's inception...

It was my understanding that the big bang implied that there was nothing physical prior to it's beginning (under the standard definition anyway). As you have pointed out, this raises the question of why anything at all began to exist at the point that it did. Especially since before time...

This new definition certainly helps out the agnostic position, although I don't really think that it does too much for the weak atheist (to whom I was mainly directing my criticism). In fact, if anything I think this shows my point to hold even when under this tighter definition of agnosticism...

Firstly enteebee, I must thank you gratuitously for the way you have replied to my posts. What a pleasant change on these forums! I think you may have mistunderstood what I am saying. I am not trying to say that no one should claim to believe/not believe in a particular thing. What I am trying...

Unfortunately, I just don't buy that definition of atheism. It just seems to be agnosticism renamed. Plus, it doesn't really say all that much since I honestly can't help but see it as a psychological description. Under that definition a huge number of things could be named atheists - newborn...

I think this is the crux of the matter of the matter for me. I can't see at all how this reasoning is an atheistic or theistic argument. It's an agnostic response, so I don't know why I see people on either side of the fence use it as a sort of proof in their argument. I mean sure - the atheist...

I concur with this KFunk - as I do with pretty much everything you say. I do hate it though when the word "claim" is used in a demeaning fashion in order to belittle or invalidate a belief. It's on the same level as using the word "theory" in order to dismiss a position of belief (but I fear...

That summary makes me sad :( I was hoping to get a real look at the arguments put forward - alas, back to my reading and podcasts.