Ah, so "God exists" was the unspoken premise in an argument whose intended conclusion was "God exists"?I do believe God is objectively true, which is the basis for everything I've discussed on here.
Right, you making the assertion that there's no evidence for God does equal it being a fact that there's no evidence for God.
I'm saying atheist both think their position is true while claiming it's not a truth claim, which is a contradiction.
You've given me a contradiction. I don't accept contradictions as true because it's irrational to do so.
We don't base our beliefs on the "possibility" of evidence. We base beliefs on evidence that's been shown to exist. It may be possible for evidence to exist...but it's also possible it doesn't.
This is nonsense...I've never said any such thing. All I'm saying is that it's logically correct for me to be an atheist. I've supported that with a logical statement. You haven't shown my logic to be flawed.
What part of what I've said is contradictory?
Is that about the same contradiction as between claiming to be a philatelist and the fact that philatelism cannot be true?It's a fact that you're claiming to be an atheist and it's also a fact that atheism cannot be true.
It's a fact that you're claiming to be an atheist and it's also a fact that atheism cannot be true.
Why can't atheism be true?
Premise 1. Atheism= lack of belief in god.
Premise 2. I lack a belief in god.
Premise 3. It's true I lack a belief in god therefore it's true I am an atheist.
I just showed my atheism to be true right there. Any other questions?
You showed that it's true that you claim to be an atheist. You did not show that atheism is true. The only way atheism can be true is if evidence shows up that disproves theism, but even then atheism would be rendered meaningless.
You realize I cant say theism is true because of the fact that I claim to be a theist, right?
I´m an atheist, and I am not aware of being restricted that way.Yes, atheism implies naturalism.
There is of course a HUGE lobby behind evolutional thinking.I assume they think it's true that life came into existence naturally, they just can't explain why life would come from natural non-life.
I've shown you that it's logically correct to be an atheist. I've shown you it's true that I'm an atheist.
What else were you wanting?
Agreed, an atheist is not necessarily a naturalist.I´m an atheist, and I am not aware of being restricted that way.
If it's logically correct to be an atheist then that means it's illogical to be a theist. If theism is illogical then so is atheism because you can't have atheism without theism. Unless you falsely believe atheism came before theism.
I´m glad to hear that claim is off the table.Agreed, an atheist is not necessarily a naturalist.
It also depends on what definition of "God", of "naturalist" and of "supernaturalist" you use.It also depends on what definition of "atheist" you use.
That´s not how most self-professing atheists use that term, though.I.m.o. a "not-God-ist" means the -ism is about God not existing.
Well, "non believer" doesn´t specify what they don´t believe in - that´s why I don´t find it particularly well-chosen.Otherwise you would be a non believer, not an atheist.
Actually, there are plenty of different definitions of "God" around, but I am happy to leave this debate to theists.Either God exist or He doesn't
I think there shouldn't be much debate about the one-ness of the Original un-caused Cause(r).
Theism and atheism are opposites. They aren't the same thing. If atheism is logical, then theism is illogical.
To the atheists in this thread...
I'm fully aware of the problems with the statements I'm making. I'm only making these statements so I can converse with a certain poster at his level of understanding.
This is just an FYI, there's no need to point out the faults in my posts.
The reason there's an "a" in atheism is because it opposes theism. You cant oppose something if it doesn't exist first. Theism came before atheism, therefore it's impossible for atheism to be logical if theism is illogical. If it's illogical to be a theist then it's illogical to be an atheist as well.
What your saying is similar to saying its right to be amoral and therefore being moral is wrong.