Is religion addictive? (Buddhists, Muslims, faith, Christianity)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does that even mean?
The only thing I can think of is they just don't want to discuss it further with you.
I mean that I can logically prove to you that there was a creator. But that doesn't mean I can persuade you. If you are unwilling to look at the logical argument and instead hold to an illogical belief, there is nothing I can do.
I mean that I can logically prove to you that there was a creator. But that doesn't mean I can persuade you. If you are unwilling to look at the logical argument and instead hold to an illogical belief, there is nothing I can do.
I'm all for hearing a logical argument, so would any atheist.
But, is this going the same way your "only 2 questions to make an atheist backslide" did?
I'm all for hearing a logical argument, so would any atheist.
But, is this going the same way your "only 2 questions to make an atheist backslide" did?
Funny how he's managed to avoid that thread for 3 days...and counting.
I'm all for hearing a logical argument, so would any atheist.
But, is this going the same way your "only 2 questions to make an atheist backslide" did?
Do you have access to all information in the universe and can you say definitively that there is no God?
Do you have access to all information in the universe and can you say definitively that there is no God?
The answer is, no, of course not, which is why any atheist will tell you that the more precise definition of our position, which includes the intellectual one, would be agnostic atheist, which allows for that necessary uncertainly.
Is that supposed to be logical proof that there is one?
The answer is, no, of course not, which is why any atheist will tell you that the more precise definition of our position, which includes the intellectual one, would be agnostic atheist, which allows for that necessary uncertainly.
Exactly. So you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Congratulations. You're a backslider.
Quote:
Is that supposed to be logical proof that there is one?
No. Of course not. I can logically prove to you that there is a creator, using the Cosmological argument. I've employed it numerous times in discussions on this board. I may not have persuaded you or any of a number of other folks to believe in God...but I have proven the existence of God.
Exactly. So you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Congratulations. You're a backslider.
No. Of course not. I can logically prove to you that there is a creator, using the Cosmological argument. I've employed it numerous times in discussions on this board. I may not have persuaded you or any of a number of other folks to believe in God...but I have proven the existence of God.
Point #1...wrong! Haven't backslid at all since that was (as mentioned) the stance to begin with.
Not using both words all the time is to not confuse 'newbies' as to the status and pure convenience.
Point #2....if it's something you've already presented numerous times and nobody has been bit , I guess you have proven nothing to anybody but yourself.
Exactly. So you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Congratulations. You're a backslider.
No Viz, it means nothing of the sort. What it does mean is that you are willfully obtuse, and like playing with strawmen. This has been discussed ad nauseum, atheism is a position about belief in a deity, agnosticism is a position about knowledge. I do not believe it is possible to know that there is or is not a deity (at least based on a transcendent, supernatural sort of deity) therefor I am an agnostic. Based on the exisiting evidence, I do not believe that such a deity exists, therefore I am an atheist.
I use atheist as a label, simply becasue far to many people think agnostic means wishy-washy or open to proselytization, which I am not.
So, you have failed to make anyone backslide. Or indeed, change or rethink their position in any way. Do you honestly think the majority of us are that unfamiliar with logic and apologetics 101? Come on, Viz, that was just weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
No. Of course not. I can logically prove to you that there is a creator, using the Cosmological argument. I've employed it numerous times in discussions on this board. I may not have persuaded you or any of a number of other folks to believe in God...but I have proven the existence of God.
That's because you have not proven anything. The Cosmological argument requires special pleading for an uncreated eternal creator. You simply skip that part... Ignoring rebuttals or counter arguments does not miraculously make an assertion into a proof.
Exactly. So you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Congratulations. You're a backslider.
No. Atheism is a belief position. I see no reason to believe in any gods, including yours. Agnosticism is a knowledge position -- I can't be sure there isn't a god somewhere. Both are true of me, and of most atheists.
It is exactly the same thing as how you likely regard unicorns. You don't see a reason to believe in them, even though you can't say there isn't one hiding under a rug somewhere.
Your contrived belief about atheism allows you to make the "atheism is an arrogant position" argument (which is itself incredibly weak) but the vast majority of atheists are not arrogant in the sense of the nearly non-existent, know-it-all, been-everywhere, I am-god-myself-so-I-know-he-doesn't-exist stereotype.
Your stereotypical belief about agnostics is also handy for you because if you think all agnostics are the specific kind who think gods are somewhat or rather likely but just unproven, then they are more potentially amenable to your sales pitch or at least to some form of Pascal's Wager -- particularly if they're former or cultural Christians.
The truth is that most agnostics see pretty small likelihoods of gods, generically, and even smaller likelihood of specific gods such as yours. Probability influences belief, not knowledge claims.
In software development we call this "separation of concerns". In modeling the real world, it's generally best to allow components to vary independently rather than assuming fixed relationships, as you do here with knowledge and belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
