Teddybare Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Bizzare. Why not try re-writing it in the morning? What is bizzare? And which part would you like rewriting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Bizzare. Why not try re-writing it in the morning? You do seem to like nosing in threads and trying to say people are wrong or just trying to cause arguments despite not actually being interested in the threads itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 It was either that or mental deficiency/illness and I didn't want to offend anybody. "imagination" just seemed a nicer way of putting it. You appear to be a little over- imaginative in your choice of words in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 If you define God as a subjective idea that exists in the minds of people then yes, it does exist. That in no way gives it an objective reality. I'm also pretty sure most theists think there idea of God also exists outside of the minds of men. If you want a discussion of fairy tales and wild imaginings then cool, go for it. If you want a discussion about things that have objective reality then you're going to have to do better than "I think it exists therefore it does". jb[/Quote] You've lost me. I merely said that ignosticism was irrelevant because people do define God, therefore we can make judgements, based on their definitions (and evidence) as to whether that God exists or not. If you say 'God' in general, with no definition, then ignosticism is relevant, but as most beleivers do have at least some definition of God then you can make a judgement based on that case. I'm not sure re reading this how we went so off track, I apologise for my part in that ETA: Can aliens be described objectively? Yes of course they can, what a bizarre statement. Now I'm intrigued, how can aliens (which we have no concept of or evidence for) be described objectively when God (which we have no concept of or evidence for) can't be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghozer Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 To me, it's forming your own opinion(s), thought(s) and maybe belief(s) based on what you see and hear, not refusing the believe there is a god, but seeing how others may happily believe, but also seeing the reasons on the flip side.. it's being someone who lets others be themselves and what they wish to believe, and not forcing it on anyone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 How do you know you lack belief in its existence without knowing what it is.[/Quote] The default position is lack of belief. Like my idea of 'France' was never there until 'France' as a concept was introduced to me as a child. A question for you. Do you belief it exists, or do you lack belief that it exist. ? Based on the explanation of God given to me by Theists I don't know if God exists or not (agnostic). Because the 'evidence' they claim for Gods existance hasn't stood up to scrutiny I lack the belief that he exists (atheist), but I don't have an active belief that he doesn't exist (anti theist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Don't quote part of my post, read ALL of it! There was no need to quote it all. Your post said Why is that, if there IS a god then one would have to believe it. How can anyone deny something if there is absolute proof to confirm it?[/Quote] The first part doesn't make sense. There may well be billions of creatures that exist without our knowledge, just because they exist it doesn't mean by default we have to beleive in them. If we have no concept or no evidence of them the default position should be non belief, even if they exist. The second part is fair enough, if there is absolute proof we shouldn't deny it. But in the case of God, or aliens, there isn't absolute proof. You put two different positions and married them as one, I took issue with one of them so quoted it, the other was irrelevant to my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 The default position is lack of belief. Like my idea of 'France' was never there until 'France' as a concept was introduced to me as a child. Based on the explanation of God given to me by Theists I don't know if God exists or not (agnostic). Because the 'evidence' they claim for Gods existance hasn't stood up to scrutiny I lack the belief that he exists (atheist), but I don't have an active belief that he doesn't exist (anti theist). Saying it doesn’t make it true, why is it the default position, how do you know that you lack belief in something you can’t describe? How do you know you haven’t seen it or felt it but didn’t realise what it was? Instead of France think of stars, you knew they existed, before you knew what they were, so you didn’t lack a belief in their existence, you just didn’t know what the thing that existed was. So you accept the word of a man that doesn't know what God is and base your belief of its existence on their lack of knowledge. So if someone with a lack of knowledge of tables described a table incorrectly as being an invisible entity that couldn’t be touched you would suddenly lack the belief that tables exist. I doupt it. You are basing your opinion on a preconceived idea about what God is. I could describe God to you and prove that God exists but because my description wouldn’t match your preconceived idea of God you would just reject it. So no amount of proof will ever convince you until it matches your own idea about the nature of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 To me, it's forming your own opinion(s), thought(s) and maybe belief(s) So what would somebody be if they lack belief but are ignorant to these extra things ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I'm not saying that the 2 positions are the same thing though. What I'm saying is that 1. some people consider 'atheist' to mean lack of belief in God 2. some people consider it to mean a belief that God doesn't exist 2 very different positions 3. most online threads on the issue of atheism/God have a mixture of these two types of people and, at least in part, become flame wars due to the fact that either a) they don't realise they're using different defintions, or b)they do (eventually) realise, and then proceed to argue about which of the 2 definitions is correct and how stupid the other side is for sticking to their preferred definition 4. the usual method of deciding whether a definition is 'correct' i.e. checking a dictionary, is not much use because- 5. current dictionaries are a hotchpotch, some using the first definition, some the second, and others, both definitions I can tell from much experience on those threads, that discussion does not progress if it's about convincing the opposition that your preferred definition is correct and theirs is wrong. Discussion can, however, progress, if both sides accept that the other side defines 'atheism' differently, and they simply make clear, when using the term 'atheist', which one they are using. In a debate like this where the position itself is being discussed agreeing to disagree would have no benefit whatsoever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.