Lockjaw Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm glad they is someone on this thread that understands.. Sadly, though, that "person" is uber-troll Mrsmith. Why don't you apply the maturity of thought you did on your energy drink thread and take on board the point that numerous posters have made? Atheism means lack of belief in a deity. Simple as that. No argument required because it is a definition. The above assumes, of course, that you are not a troll/forum construct yourself. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Sadly, though, that "person" is uber-troll Mrsmith. Why don't you apply the maturity of thought you did on your energy drink thread and take on board the point that numerous posters have made? Atheism means lack of belief in a deity. Simple as that. No argument required because it is a definition. The above assumes, of course, that you are not a troll/forum construct yourself. HTH The term atheist is only around because theists wanted a name for themselves to distinguish between non believers, you can't say that makes me atheist, im in the middle of theist and atheist, though I think I will just call myself a " freethinker " from now on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 No it can't, they could be some sort of creature capable of living in lava, deep beneath the Earth's crust, or they could live deep in the ocean, or (more likely option) they could have died out millenia ago. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, all you can say is there is no evidence for it's existance. Firstly pink unicorns were mentioned not some creature living below the earth crust, though if you want to believe that creatures are living in lava, then it's up to you but talk of pink unicorns living on the other side of the universe, then my answer to that is again " I don't know", i never said pink unicorns did not exist just that I don't know but it could be proved that they don't exist on earth at the minute though if they have lived millions of years ago then my answer to that is again " I don't know" until someone shows me evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camrat78 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 My point about pink unicorns is that it is impossible to prove a negative. Although we all 'know' they don't exist, scientifically we can't prove it, so hence there is a possibility they do, but until there is evidence showing that they are around I will continue to live my life under the assumption that we are unicorn free. Now, replace unicorn with God... Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I've bolded the relevant bit, which is the wider definition of agnostic with reference to God. You have been arguing from the narrower position as you said in post #118: "Agnostic is a contradiction, you have to know something of the nature of God to be able say the nature of God can't be known. If you don't know what God is how can you claim that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God?" I agreed with you in #120 with reference to the narrower definition, but as to the wider one if you don't know what God is then it is not contradictory to be agnostic and say "nothing is known about God". In fact it's absolutely logical. To make the claim that nothing is know about God is also a contradiction because you must know something about the nature of God to be able to make that claim. How do you know that nothing is known about God if you don’t know what God is? That’s like claiming nothing is known about tables just because you don’t know anything about tables or what a table is. The only claim a non believer should make about God is that they don’t know if God exists because they don’t know what God is. A theist can claim God exists but the claim is silly if they don’t know what it is. If a theist explains what God is, you could then claim that it might, does, or doesn’t exist. But your statement would only apply to that one definition of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Sadly, though, that "person" is uber-troll Mrsmith. Why don't you apply the maturity of thought you did on your energy drink thread and take on board the point that numerous posters have made? Atheism means lack of belief in a deity. Simple as that. No argument required because it is a definition. The above assumes, of course, that you are not a troll/forum construct yourself. HTH A troll is someone who posts off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response. Your post fits this definition which ironically makes you the troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Just been looking at some of my posts and realised I could have been more clearer in what I was trying to say on why I consider why I am just an agnostic rather than a agnostic atheist.. So as my last post on this topic, this is why..... An agnosticism is a stance between belief and knowledge, rather than about any SPECIFIC CLAIM or belief. An agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, where as a theist and an atheist believe or disbelieves respectively. However agnosticism is the view that humanity does not yet posses the knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient grounds to justify the belief that deity or deities either do or don't exist... So because I don't believe nor disbelieve, i am just agnostic, Do you know the difference between NOT believing in God and the belief that God does not exist ? Your earlier response didn't answer the question. Of course you can - if you assume something exists and show that assumption leads to a logical fallacy then you have a well known proof of reduction ad absurdum. That doesn't prove they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 i never said pink unicorns did not exist Yes you did, in post #134 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 The term atheist is only around because theists wanted a name for themselves to distinguish between non believers, you can't say that makes me atheist, im in the middle of theist and atheist, though I think I will just call myself a " freethinker " from now on Like it or not, if you don't have a belief in God or gods, you are in fact an atheist. Somebody can be an atheist through decision/conclusion or they can simply be atheist by default, without giving it any thought, like a newborn baby. You can also be an atheist and be open minded that gods MAY exist. You can call yourself a free thinker and be an atheist, the two things go hand in hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but you seem to be adding an unnecessary step to me. A. Do you believe in Zog? B. What's Zog? A. I don't know, I can't define it. B. Then the answer is obviously no. B. cannot assert that Zog does not exist of course, but doesn't need know what it is and be able to define it to lack belief in it. "B. Then the answer is obviously no." doesn't follow from the previous statements. The only answer you can give is "I don't know", which is perfectly acceptable. Furthermore until Zog is defined the whole concept is somewhat meaningless. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.