danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 In the absence of any form of falsifiable definition of god then any discussion about such is nothing more than incoherent, noncognitive, nonsensical blather. The statements God exists and God does not exist are meaningless assertions which have no cognitively understandable meaning. jb So is saying- 'Nothing existed before time and space existed', but it's still the most widely accepted position held by atheists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Anyone who partakes in commemorating the dates which signify his birth, death and Resurrection do believe he was the son of God.Nope, and they don't commemorate any of those dates anyway, that has been made up. They occur at the time of pre-existing celebrations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Anyone who partakes in commemorating the dates which signify his birth, death and Resurrection do believe he was the son of God. Anyone that doesn't commemorate it obviously do not. Do you partake in it? False dichotomy. Try again. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So is saying- 'Nothing existed before time and space existed', but it's still the most widely accepted position held by atheists. atheists can believe whatever they want about thew beginning of the universe, as long as it doesn't involve any gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So is saying- 'Nothing existed before time and space existed', but it's still the most widely accepted position held by atheists. That depends on whether it is a falsifiable claim. Atheism relates solely to a lack of belief in a God. That some atheists think that the universe came from nothing, or had an origin which precludes the existence of god is hardly surprising but one does not necessarily follow from the other. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I can, in fact I'm doing so right now. Just because you aren't capable of understanding it doesn't mean its ridiculous. I would add that I find being constantly being told how we must hold our beliefs simultaneously infuriating, funny, and slightly offensive. It seems to happen a lot. "You're an atheist therefore you think this, which means that" usually concluding with "you are evil and eat babies". What we actually say our beliefs are don't seem to matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 atheists can believe whatever they want about thew beginning of the universe, as long as it doesn't involve any gods. Perhaps he could think god was involved but killed in action. Only joking, I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I opened a thread ages ago "Atheism: a new religion?" Some of them do have the "attitude", the same attitude that some religious people have: they think they hold the absolute truth. Amongst the atheist community you find everything from moderate to more radical tendencies. The atheists you brand 'radical' are merely expressing views you don't like. Religious extremists kill, torture, deny people their human rights and seek to control what others think through violence, intimidation, censorship and control of the means of education. The fact that you think there is a comparable degree of fanaticism between people peacefully expressing views you don't like, and those who would impose their beliefs through any means possible, just goes to demonstrate (once more) the warping effect religious belief can have on objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 That the scientific theory is no credible than the creationist argument. Are we to thank The Lord for the computer by which you have transmitted the above message then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yes, and I reckon it's the position held by most people if they are honest. I'm agnostic(1), and since you admit "it's the most appropriate" then I guess you are too. This doesn't preclude you or me from actually holding an opinion on a likelihood on the existence of a god. I don't think there is one, which makes me an a'theist(2). 1 & 2 makes me an agnostic a'theist, and I'm guessing you're an agnostic theist. Simples. I wouldn't say I'm a theist, as I don't believe in God/s as such. I simply hold the position of there being something far greater than myself, something that has a cause and a purpose. I'd say my position is in conflict with the notion that creation needn't have had a cause or indeed have a purpose. I don't know how I could explain what that something is; other than saying it is (in the broadest sense) creation itself. So No, I don't agree with your claim that I'm a theist, however, should you satisfactorily establish how this something equates to "God", then I'd have no problem conceding that I must be theist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.