TOUGH QUESTIONS

[Gordy327]

It has all of the characteristics of a religion. Atheism has it's Priests and scribes, evangelicals, sects and schisms. They even get religious exemptions.

You can argue that churches like Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all in fun, but I'd argue that bellow the snark is an actual article of faith and a belief in the unprovable which is why it exists in the first place.

But it isn't just Pastafarians who make a religion out of their Atheism. Even those who don't profess a religion check all of the boxes.

Or, there are the more honest Atheist like John Dunphy who said:



For Atheists like John there is no God, but there is a Devil...

That is still false, no matter how many times you repeat the same tripe like some mantra.

 

[jmotivator]

That is still false, no matter how many times you repeat the same tripe like some mantra.

No, it isn't. Your handwaving doesn't make a convincing counterargument.

 

[Gordy327]

No, it isn't. Your handwaving doesn't make a convincing counterargument.

Your assertions if atheism being a religion is just plain ignorant and wrong. Consider yourself and your assertion hand waived.

 

[jmotivator]

Your assertions if atheism being a religion is just plain ignorant and wrong. Consider yourself and your assertion hand waived.

No it's not, and your continued hand waving continues to be unconvincing. Agnosticism isn't a religion because it makes no unsupportable claims, and establishes no articles of faith, while Atheism does. It is a Godless religion.

 

[devildavid]

It has all of the characteristics of a religion. Atheism has it's Priests and scribes, evangelicals, sects and schisms. They even get religious exemptions.

You can argue that churches like Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all in fun, but I'd argue that bellow the snark is an actual article of faith and a belief in the unprovable which is why it exists in the first place.

But it isn't just Pastafarians who make a religion out of their Atheism. Even those who don't profess a religion check all of the boxes.

Or, there are the more honest Atheist like John Dunphy who said:



For Atheists like John there is no God, but there is a Devil...

Atheism factually has none of the things that you say and you factually can’t point them out. Pastafarianism is a parody of religions, not a type of atheism. John Dunphy is not a spokesperson for atheism.

You make a lot of claims without basis about atheism.

 

[devildavid]

No it's not, and your continued hand waving continues to be unconvincing. Agnosticism isn't a religion because it makes no unsupportable claims, and establishes no articles of faith, while Atheism does. It is a Godless religion.

Atheism makes no claims.

 

[Gordy327]

No it's not, and your continued hand waving continues to be unconvincing. Agnosticism isn't a religion because it makes no unsupportable claims, and establishes no articles of faith, while Atheism does. It is a Godless religion.

Atheism is a lack of faith/belief in god/s. This has been explained before. Your failure to understand that only makes you look foolish.

 

[jmotivator]

Atheism factually has none of the things

False. It has all of those things. It has sacred texts, it has faith revivals, it has preachers, it has apostates and it has articles of faith in the truth of an unprovable position.

Your hand waving dismissal is no more convincing than Gordy's

that you say and you factually can’t point them out.

I can in fact point them out. I did so above.

Pastafarianism is a parody of religions, not a type of atheism.

So in your position Pastafarianism and Christianity are totally different because one is fake while the other is fake?

John Dunphy is not a spokesperson for atheism.

John Dunphy is no true Scotsman, eh?

You make a lot of claims without basis about atheism.

I have a reason for my claim and I've provided them. This thread and subforum is full of examples of Atheist preachers.

 

[jmotivator]

Atheism makes no claims.

In fact atheism does make a claim. Agnosticism makes no claims while Atheism claims to hold the truth about the existence of God or Gods.

If your position is that there is no evidence of God or Gods then you are an agnostic. If your position is that there is no God or Gods then you are an atheist, and that statement, given that it can't be proven, is an article of your faith.

 

[Gordy327]

In fact atheism does make a claim. Agnosticism makes no claims while Atheism claims to hold the truth about the existence of God or Gods.

If your position is that there is no evidence of God or Gods then you are an agnostic. If your position is that there is no God or Gods then you are an atheist, and that statement, given that it can't be proven, is an article of your faith.

What claim does atheism make?

 

[jmotivator]

What claim does atheism make?

That there is no God.

 

[Gordy327]

That there is no God.

Wrong. Atheism makes no such claim.

 

[jmotivator]

Wrong. Atheism makes no such claim.

No, that is literally what atheism is. You are among a mountain of people who don't seem to know that you are actually an agnostic.

 

[Gordy327]

No, that is literally what atheism is. You are among a mountain of people who don't seem to know that you are actually an agnostic.

Speak for yourself. Atheism is not being convinced there is a God. Affirmative claims of there is/is not a God are logically indefensible. Atheists lack belief in god/s.

 

[jmotivator]

Speak for yourself.

I do, on Christianity because it is entirely a personal thing. Atheism is not personal.

Atheism is not being convinced there is a God.

In fact it is. It says so right on the tin. If you have no claim on whether or not God exists then you are an agnostic.

Affirmative claims of there is/is not a God are logically indefensible.

Agreed, and so Atheism is logically indeffensible. If your position is that you take no position on the existence of god because you lack evidence one way or the other then you are agnostic.

The alternative that you are arguing would create a linguistic situation where agnostic and atheist are synonyms when they aren't. If you want to convince me otherwise then make a meaningful argument that differentiates agnosticism and atheism.

Atheists lack belief in god/s.

No, that is an agnostic. An atheist rejects that God exists.

Simple Question: Does God Exist?

Theist: "Yes."

Agnostic: "I don't know."

Atheist: "No."

 

[Gordy327]

I do, on Christianity because it is entirely a personal thing. Atheism is not personal.

Personal how?

In fact it is. It says so right on the tin. If you have no claim on whether or not God exists then you are an agnostic.

Nope. Atheism makes no claims either way. It's simply being unconvinced of claims made regarding gods.

Agreed, and so Atheism is logically indeffensible. If your position is that you take no position on the existence of god because you lack evidence one way or the other then you are agnostic.

The alternative that you are arguing would create a linguistic situation where agnostic and atheist are synonyms when they aren't. If you want to convince me otherwise then make a meaningful argument that differentiates agnosticism and atheism.

Still wrong. The atheist "position" is remaining unconvinced. Agnostics is something of a misnomer. Agnostic atheists are unconvinced of gods but are open to evidence. Gnostic atheists assert there is no god, much like gnostic theists assert there is a God. Both are logically indefensible. But it's hilarious watching you try to tell an atheist how to atheist.

 

[jmotivator]

Personal how?

Nope. Atheism makes no claims either way. It's simply being unconvinced of claims made regarding gods.

Still wrong. The atheist "position" is remaining unconvinced. Agnostics is something of a misnomer. Agnostic atheists are unconvinced of gods but are open to evidence. Gnostic atheists assert there is no god, much like gnostic theists assert there is a God. Both are logically indefensible. But it's hilarious watching you try to tell an atheist how to atheist.

I'm still correct. "Agnostic Atheists" is a dumb way of saying agnostics.

There are numerous ways that Atheists have tried over the years to complicate the simple. "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" are meaningless contrivances that describe THeists and Agnostics. It makes as much sense as "Atheistic Theism"

I'll repost the simple question for you: Does God exist?

Theist: "Yes."

Agnostic: "I don't know."

Atheist: "No."

 

[jmotivator]

Personal how?

The evidence that a Theist has for their belief in God is all personal.

I believe that God exists. Am I wrong?

 

[Gordy327]

The evidence that a Theist has for their belief in God is all personal.

I believe that God exists. Am I wrong?

Prove God exists! Belief does no equal fact. Neither is belief evidence.

I'm still correct. "Agnostic Atheists" is a dumb way of saying agnostics.

Still wrong! A/gnostic A/theists are established classifications. Look it up!

 

[jmotivator]

Prove God exists! Belief does no equal fact. Neither is belief evidence.

I don't have to prove to you that God exists since my evidence is personal. I am asking YOU if God exists.
You don't really have to answer that since this subforum is full of ample evidence that you don't think God exists.

If the average Atheist had even a hint of the curiosity and openness they pretend to have they would take far less time attacking others for their belief and more time listening to others arguments.. but alas.

The modern Atheist reads books like The God Delusion and then lies to themselves that the book isn't making a declarative statement on the existence of God.

Still wrong! A/gnostic A/theists are established classifications. Look it up!

LOL. I am well aware, and that doesn't make them less stupid. The academic humanities have a way of over complicating things to justify their existence.

 

[Gordy327]

I don't have to prove to you that God exists since my evidence is personal.

You have no evidence. Just mere belief. "Personal" is subjective and anecdotal, which is why it's not evidence for anything. So any affirmative claims for a God lack credibility.

I am asking YOU if God exists.
You don't really have to answer that since this subforum is full of ample evidence that you don't think God exists.

I am not convinced there is a God. There is no objective evidence for any god either. I have made that clear many times in discussions such as this.

If the average Atheist had even a hint of the curiosity and openness they pretend to have they would take far less time attacking others for their belief and more time listening to others arguments.. but alas.

The modern Atheist reads books like The God Delusion and then lies to themselves that the book isn't making a declarative statement on the existence of God.

Atheists are open to evidence, of which there is none for any gods.

LOL. I am well aware, and that doesn't make them less stupid. The academic humanities have a way of over complicating things to justify their existence.

On other words, you can't refute any of it. Consider you and your statement hand waived.

 

[jmotivator]

You have no evidence.

I do, but it's personal. Your declaration tat I have no personal experience is an article of your faith.

Just mere belief.

False.

"Personal" is subjective and anecdotal, which is why it's not evidence for anything. So any affirmative claims for a God lack credibility.

So it is "subjective and anecdotal"... but I don't have it? Do you see the fault in your logic?

I am not convinced there is a God. There is no objective evidence for any god either. I have made that clear many times in discussions such as this.

So you have concluded there is no God and make a habit of telling everyone else that based on your experience we shouldn't believe in God either.... preach, Brother Gordy.

Atheists are open to evidence, of which there is none for any gods.

LOL. False. I mean, a few are, but none that you would listen to.

Here is a solid podcast hosted by a Christian where Christians and Atheists discuss the existence of God. Will you listen to it?

On other words, you can't refute any of it. Consider you and your statement hand waived.

I CAN refute it and I HAVE refuted it. The Trichotomy of Theist/Agnostic/Atheist is a logical division of word with real meaning. Once you get into "Agnostic Atheist" and "Agnostic Theist" you've lost the plot and are ready for "Theistic Atheist" .... Which I guess is what Richard Dawkins is these days as a "Cultural Christian".

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I believe that God exists. Am I wrong?

You are no more likely to be right about that than if you were to believe that Santa Claus has a workshop at the North Pole, or that Cayden Cailean exists, or that Frank Sinatra was abducted by extraterrestrials in 1942 and replaced with a clone for the rest of his career.

Of course, none of those things can be definitively disproven. But in the absence of evidence, a default position of non-belief in all the infinite possible unsubstantiated conjectures is rational.

How strong is your disbelief that an evil faerie has placed a deadly curse on your keyboard that will kill you the next time you touch it?

You can't know for certain that there isn't a deadly curse on your keyboard. So are you going to treat it as a 50/50 chance that you will die the moment you touch your keyboard? Or will you treat that conjecture as nonsense until there is some kind of evidence to warrant giving it some serious consideration?

 

[Lisa]

God never makes anyone gay. Gay comes from the very first sin, which is the sin of pride.

If gay people exist and your supposed god is all powerful and all knowing, as the bible claims, then your god, if it exists, had to create gay people. There is no possible otherwise.

 

[jmotivator]

You are no more likely to be right about that than if you were to believe that Santa Claus has a workshop at the North Pole, or that Cayden Cailean exists, or that Frank Sinatra was abducted by extraterrestrials in 1942 and replaced with a clone for the rest of his career.

Of course, none of those things can be definitively disproven. But in the absence of evidence, a default position of non-belief in all the infinite possible unsubstantiated conjectures is rational.

How strong is your disbelief that an evil faerie has placed a deadly curse on your keyboard that will kill you the next time you touch it?

You can't know for certain that there isn't a deadly curse on your keyboard. So are you going to treat it as a 50/50 chance that you will die the moment you touch your keyboard? Or will you treat that conjecture as nonsense until there is some kind of evidence to warrant giving it some serious consideration?

Would you say that you are agnostic on Santa Claus?