Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

[RisingSpirit]

We don't have the originals and you can't "hindsight" all the subtle translational issues one would get over two eons, so you can't possibly know that.

Your "word for word" assertion is also simply untrue we have differing versions of the gospel of Mark for instance with various interpolations additions and subtractions and differn't endings for Mark 16.

Copies will do. Yep word for word. All in 66 books, not in 73 though. It can also be tested. Rest of the books failed the tests and the Catholics still have them in their Bibles that has more than 66 books.

 

[RisingSpirit]

I see you resorting to insults, but no proof.

You said you can prove it. Go on and prove it...

I just did but you'll have to make that effort to read them. It will take you a while. You want it now so good luck.

Here is a booster: Look up Theomatics

 

[SithDoughnut]

I just did but you'll have to make that effort to read them. It will take you a while. You want it now so good luck.

In other words "I'll pretend the proof exists somewhere else, but I won't provide it because when no one finds it, I can claim that they didn't look in the right place".

Until you provide evidence, your argument has none. Anything that exists outside of a discussion or debate is irrelevant until you provide it. Otherwise we could rightfully suspect you of lying.

 

[quatona]

My definition does not render you a thiest if you hold that it is not possible for a MGB to exist.

Well, I already said that I agree that a MGB must exist. Provided, of course, that "great" is a quantifiable quality (else the superlative doesn´t make any sense).

However if you say that under this definition you are now a thiest and follow that with, "For further discussion it would be necessary to take a closer look at the rather unspecific adjective "greatest", though" and as such would appear to have the belief that you can refute this argument.

I would appreciate it if your responses would focus on what I said instead of what you assume me to believe. I am not going to defend your assumptions.
I don´t even know which argument you feel you have given that you feel I am attempting to refute. We are talking about a claim you made - a claim that I agree with.
A "greatest being" must exist, just like the deepest lake or a the biggest mountain must exist. For to concede such I don´t even need to know what "greatest", "biggest" or "longest" means. I just need to know how grammar works. Your definition is about as generic as it gets. I do know what "biggest" and "longest" mean, but I don´t know what you mean by "greatest" in conjunction with the term "entity/being". Whatever you mean, such a being must exist (I just don´t know what it is supposed to be). I am not trying to refute anything - I am just pointing to the problem that for any further meaningful consideration of your ideas a definition of the keyterm is required.

If you believe you can refute the argument and I'm guessing by that little greay head under your handle that you are not at all persueaded by it's stregth, than your "definition of God can define you into theism" objection is null and void.

Since the assumed conditions given in the first part of your sentence do not apply, the conclusion doesn´t apply, either.

 

[Non sequitur]

I just did but you'll have to make that effort to read them. It will take you a while. You want it now so good luck.

Here is a booster: Look up Theomatics

"Theomatics is a numerological study of the Greek and Hebrew text of the Christian Bible, based upon gematria and isopsephia, that its proponents assert demonstrates the direct intervention of God in the writing of Christian scripture."

 

[Vanderhaust]

My first response will be to point out that you haven't rebutted my points or shown links to sources to support your claims.

GOSH ! But very interesting to see atheist really that picky, already

No, RisingSprirt, atheists have been refuting the bible for years, which is why we don't use as a source to support the claim that God exists.

Anyway the proofs are based on the original Greek and Hebrew and not the English translations. You'll be waiting for ever if your waiting to deeper into the already provided proofs in my previous posts. It'll be a little treasure hunt for ya. You wouldn't bother sense all atheists have already established theres no proof even if they is one cause Salvation ONLY comes from God.

You keep referring to proofs without actually backing them up with anything more than your opinion and conjecture. Try being original and post sources to back up your claims. According to you all the English bibles aren't valid, so quote the original texts if you want. When we refute those, what will you say next? Those aren't valid because man screwed up when he transcribed them? Up to now you've done more harm to your cause than good. I have read all of the posts from the beginning and they have only amounted to the following:
1. Atheist are wrong
2. I am right
3. God made the bible so its true
4. The bible says Gods exists so it's true

Can you stop with the, "It'll be a little treasure hunt for ya.". You're not talking to a bunch of uneducated 5 years olds in Sunday school. It only makes you come across as pompous and small minded. While I was a Christian for 25 years, I did plenty of "little treasure hunts". Maybe for a change you could pick up a valid science journal and do some "little treasure hunts". Even Thomas Payne who believed that the bible was affront to God had more evidence for God than you do.

What does God need to do to show himself for you to believe? UFO and aliens?

Aren't flying spaghetti monsters not good enough?

The short answer is no. Like in Santa Clause, I used to believe in God as well. Unlike you, I let the evidence lead me to the conclusions and not the conclusions lead me to the evidence. For years I believed, but when the evidence, IE: the bible, doesn't add up, what do you do? Keep believing in a false conclusion? When the evidence shows that Santa Clause isn't real, do you keep believing in Santa? When the evidence shows that the earth goes around the sun, do you keep believing that the sun still goes around the earth? If all the evidence pointed to the existence of the god of the bible, then yes, I would have kept my faith in God. But the evidence is overwhelming that the bible isn't the inspired word of God. Like Thomas Payne, I find it completely absurd to even unconceivable that an all powerful loving God could have created the fiction work of horror that you call the bible.

 

[secondtimearound]

If you wish, I can quote plenty of atheist authors on the subject of atheism regarding what atheism is, and they are arguably the experts on the subject, being atheists themselves.

Are we done with the battle of the sources yet? No philosophical issues can be settled simply by looking up dictionary definitions or encyclopedia entries. Let's focus on ideas, argumentation, and evidence.

Yes, please site the many atheists who agree with each other on fallacious reasoning so they may have the advantage come debate.



This wasn't a “battle of the sources”. Yours were copy and pasted from Wikipedia. With their definition of theism Wikipedia states, “Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.” So which one do you believe? Of course Wikipedia is a crude source being as how I can make entries into it. So again here is atheists making an assertions in their favour. My sources were giving an objective meaning of the word before the lack of belief thing became popularized by internet infidels like yourself. (Although it has been around much longer)


Here is why I have such a problem with this:


In 2009 I came onto this site very secure in my belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I wanted to start studying the arguments for both sides to see if a logical conclusion could be reached and so I started a thread called “Atheists, What's Your Problem?????”. I put lots of question marks for the troll effect. The point of the thread was to find what arguments you had to not believe in God and to my utter shock and dismay I was met with not that you guys believe God does not exist, but that you lack belief. I have never even heard of that in my entire life. If asked my beliefs on anything I may reply, "I don't know", but never that I lack belief. It made no sense to me, I had to have it explained and I still couldn't understand it. Unfortunately I was given no good reasons to believe God did not exist as well. Not one. Very disappointing.


So here are my reasons for calling this not only fallacious, but devious. The first reason is never in my life when asked about a belief on anything have I answered “I lack belief”. The very idea of that makes anyone I tell it too raise an eyebrow. I am talking about friends and family who have no dealings arguing on the internet. So it would seem epistemically impossible and intuitively deceptive.


So I looked into the logic behind the reasoning and I believe this to be fallacious on a two tier level.


1) Poison the well
2) Ad Hoc reasoning


Poisoning the well can be 1. Unfavourable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position) 2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.


You do that with your “lack of belief” making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.


Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.


In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.

 

[Ken-1122]

Here is why I have such a problem with this:


In 2009 I came onto this site very secure in my belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I wanted to start studying the arguments for both sides to see if a logical conclusion could be reached and so I started a thread called “Atheists, What's Your Problem?????”. I put lots of question marks for the troll effect. The point of the thread was to find what arguments you had to not believe in God and to my utter shock and dismay I was met with not that you guys believe God does not exist, but that you lack belief. I have never even heard of that in my entire life. If asked my beliefs on anything I may reply, "I don't know", but never that I lack belief. It made no sense to me, I had to have it explained and I still couldn't understand it. Unfortunately I was given no good reasons to believe God did not exist as well. Not one. Very disappointing.


So here are my reasons for calling this not only fallacious, but devious. The first reason is never in my life when asked about a belief on anything have I answered “I lack belief”. The very idea of that makes anyone I tell it too raise an eyebrow. I am talking about friends and family who have no dealings arguing on the internet. So it would seem epistemically impossible and intuitively deceptive.


So I looked into the logic behind the reasoning and I believe this to be fallacious on a two tier level.


1) Poison the well
2) Ad Hoc reasoning


Poisoning the well can be 1. Unfavourable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position) 2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.


You do that with your “lack of belief” making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.


Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.


In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.

I’m an atheist/skeptic and I lack belief in any God, and I don’t believe the Christian God exists. My reasons for not believing are too many to list but let’s just say I see lots of evidence that he does not exist, and zero evidence that he does. I can’t speak for what other non believers claim, just myself.
As far as providing proof that God does not exist, you can’t prove a negative so it can’t be done, but an inability to prove a negative is not a reason to believe it.
Ken

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, please site the many atheists who agree with each other on fallacious reasoning so they may have the advantage come debate.



This wasn't a “battle of the sources”. Yours were copy and pasted from Wikipedia. With their definition of theism Wikipedia states, “Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.” So which one do you believe? Of course Wikipedia is a crude source being as how I can make entries into it. So again here is atheists making an assertions in their favour. My sources were giving an objective meaning of the word before the lack of belief thing became popularized by internet infidels like yourself. (Although it has been around much longer)


Here is why I have such a problem with this:


In 2009 I came onto this site very secure in my belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I wanted to start studying the arguments for both sides to see if a logical conclusion could be reached and so I started a thread called “Atheists, What's Your Problem?????”. I put lots of question marks for the troll effect. The point of the thread was to find what arguments you had to not believe in God and to my utter shock and dismay I was met with not that you guys believe God does not exist, but that you lack belief. I have never even heard of that in my entire life. If asked my beliefs on anything I may reply, "I don't know", but never that I lack belief. It made no sense to me, I had to have it explained and I still couldn't understand it. Unfortunately I was given no good reasons to believe God did not exist as well. Not one. Very disappointing.


So here are my reasons for calling this not only fallacious, but devious. The first reason is never in my life when asked about a belief on anything have I answered “I lack belief”. The very idea of that makes anyone I tell it too raise an eyebrow. I am talking about friends and family who have no dealings arguing on the internet. So it would seem epistemically impossible and intuitively deceptive.


So I looked into the logic behind the reasoning and I believe this to be fallacious on a two tier level.


1) Poison the well
2) Ad Hoc reasoning


Poisoning the well can be 1. Unfavourable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position) 2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.


You do that with your “lack of belief” making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.


Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.


In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.

Blah blah blah. Very long-winded post for what can be answered very easily.

There's two simple questions:
1) Do you believe in God, yes or no? ANYTHING other than a positive answer, makes you an atheist. To reiterate: If you do, believe in a god, IN ANY WAY, you're a theist (that is one WHO BELIEVES IN A GOD.) Any other answer, you're NOT an theist and, thus, you're an atheist.

2) Do you know or believe the existence of a God is something that can be known, yes or no? If you do, you're a "gnostic," any other answer is "agnostic."

Very simple.

At any rate, whether you like the meanings for those words or not, the fact remains that most atheists in these forums probably think the following: "I have no reason to believe that any god exists; thus, I don't."

If you think there are, indeed, reasons for us to believe, then bring them out.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You do that with your “lack of belief” making it so you do not have to bring up arguments of your own but merely get to play the role of the skeptic. If I don't agree with that then the conversation breaks down into one we are having now.


Ad Hoc reasoning simply means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. However here it is not your position you are trying to keep from being falsified, it is the burden of proof on your end. By combining these two things you have made it so all you have to do now is pick away at the arguments without having to launch arguments of your own.


In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists. You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence (something no atheist has ever been able to explain exactly what that is yet) while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist. Alright for the village atheist I guess, but for the people that study this stuff, it's time to grow a pair.

It really is as simple as this: a claim presented without evidence (your theistic claim) can be rejected without evidence. We don't need to provide a positive case against the existence of your deity any more than you need to provide a positive case against the existence of Zeus.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This wasn't a “battle of the sources”. Yours were copy and pasted from Wikipedia.

So? The quote from Wikipedia was backed by other sources, which I quoted in full. So it wasn't just Wikipedia.

With their definition of theism Wikipedia states, “Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.” So which one do you believe?

They are right on the money here. Theism/atheism deals with belief. Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Of course Wikipedia is a crude source being as how I can make entries into it.

Wikipedia is no worse than other other encyclopedia, especially since I quoted the article's sources.

So again here is atheists making an assertions in their favour.

Like you aren't?

My sources were giving an objective meaning of the word before the lack of belief thing became popularized by internet infidels like yourself. (Although it has been around much longer)

Words don't have "objective meaning". Let that sink in.

What atheists have done is to provide the most intelligible and sensible meaning to the word atheist. An atheist is not a theist. An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief. Atheists are a-theistic, literally "god-less".

Consider that you are potentially poisoning the well and engaging in ad hoc reasoning by insisting on your definitions. It works both ways.

Let me bold that for you: it works both ways.

All of your complaints about our definitions boil down to you insisting on your own.

Which is why I am saying that we should get past this and talk about ideas, arguments, and evidence, instead of fighting over definitions and quoting sources that contradict each other.

In closing I feel validated in saying this is outright dishonesty on the part of atheists.

Feel validated all you want. There is no dishonesty here. We really mean what we are saying.

Now, let's move on. Let's talk about ideas, arguments, and evidence. Nothing is going to be settled by definitions.

You have stacked the deck in your favour, asking for an impossible burden of proof for God's existence

If it is impossible, that's your problem.

while not having to defend your reason for thinking He does not exist.

We don't have the burden of proof, and that has nothing to do with definitions. That's a matter of logic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[852derek852]

As a rule of thumb, an agnostic would not be opposed to going to church, whereas an atheist would

 

[Non sequitur]

As a rule of thumb, an agnostic would not be opposed to going to church, whereas an atheist would

I don't and haven't minded, personally.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see what all the fuss is about, they're both probably both just "disordered brain states". Neurology demystifies again.

 

[sandwiches]

I don't see what all the fuss is about, they're both probably both just "disordered brain states". Neurology demystifies again.

They're brain states, that's for sure. Disordered or not, well, that's up to individual opinion.