Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

[Eudaimonist]

Not expandable. If God IS the present and if theres no present then nothing would exist. no present means no future.

Will the atheist stay in the past with no one to reincarnate into?

Huh?

Heres the tip. The atheist cares nothing about the present since they always think about the past or the future.

What?

I do think about the present, past, and future.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RisingSpirit]

---I do think about the present, past, and future.---

Another tip: The closer you think about the present, the closer you'll find the source of your thoughts. There, you will find God being that source. God doesn't want atheists to get to close to Him or they'll become the Elects.

Atheist believe in the past-present meaning their kind of slit-second too late and have no idea what the source of their thoughts are and believe in their own free will saving themselves like the arminians do.

There are no difference between the arminians and the agnostics either.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Another tip

A tip for you. Don't tell me what I will find. I find that I am the source of my thoughts.

Atheist believe in the past-present meaning their kind of slit-second too late and have no idea what the source of their thoughts are and believe in their own free will saving themselves like the arminians do.

Another tip. Don't tell me what I believe. Ask me, and I will tell you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RisingSpirit]

A tip for you. Don't tell me what I will find. I find that I am the source of my thoughts.

If you found the source of your thoughts, you wouldn't be thinking.

You only start thinking, harder, when I tell you have no free will.

Your thoughts are like the stormy waves of the ocean. Your boat can't see God's lighthouse. You were born in a busy minded state.

Prayer brings one to see the lighthouse in a calm sea.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your thoughts are like the stormy waves of the ocean. Your boat can't see God's lighthouse. You were born in a busy minded state.

Like I said, I'll tell you what my thoughts are. You are not in a position to say what my thoughts are like, or what I will find.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Heres the tip. The atheist cares nothing about the present since they always think about the past or the future.

I so need you to tell me what I think.

 

[RisingSpirit]

Like I said, I'll tell you what my thoughts are. You are not in a position to say what my thoughts are like, or what I will find.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you're thinking at all, we're not on the same page.

 

[RisingSpirit]

I so need you to tell me what I think.

If you're thinking at all, we're not on the same page.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Gnostics. Gotta love 'em.

 

[quatona]

If you're thinking at all, we're not on the same page.

I´m not sure I understand this. Is it your confession that you don´t think at all?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you're thinking at all, we're not on the same page.

I fully agree that you're not thinking.

I'm familiar with Zen Buddhism, and had even practiced that for a while, so I may just be more familiar with stilling the mind than you.

Your "mind-reading" games really should end now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RisingSpirit]

I´m not sure I understand this. Is it your confession that you don´t think at all?

The root of any thoughts springs from the pure present. No future or no past. People place God over there, over here, up there, down yonder and not understand the "aliveness" means at all. The closer you get to the stillness of the mind, the more right and wrong isn't present. This whole topic, here, are full of sick minds that think God doesn't exist or places Him elsewhere like over there but not here. Its a place where games can't be played or a Zen Buddhaboy can't discuss the meaning of the perfect Dao. Atheist, arminians and free willers are too busy picking and choosing while blinding themselves to the truth
More like:
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]------------------------------[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]--[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]" The [/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]perfect[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]Dao[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif] is without difficulty, save that it avoids picking[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]and choosing. Only when you stop liking and disliking will all be[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]clearly understood. A split hair's difference, and heaven and earth[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]are set apart! If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]sickness of the mind."[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]--------------------------[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
Wokko atheists think the Tao is a Wok when they hunger for the truth

The Calvinists understands, perfectly, that God is Omnipresent and always in charge of every single event including choosing whom according to His Own Pleasure, alone and by Himself. That includes sending the goats to the bottomless pit.
[/FONT]

 

[Non sequitur]

The root of any thoughts springs from the pure present. No future or no past. People place God over there, over here, up there, down yonder and not understand the "aliveness" means at all. The closer you get to the stillness of the mind, the more right and wrong isn't present. This whole topic, here, are full of sick minds that think God doesn't exist or places Him elsewhere like over there but not here. Its a place where games can't be played or a Zen Buddhaboy can't discuss the meaning of the perfect Dao. Atheist, arminians and free willers are too busy picking and choosing while blinding themselves to the truth
More like:
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]------------------------------[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]--[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]" The [/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]perfect[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif]Dao[/FONT][FONT=arial, sans-serif] is without difficulty, save that it avoids picking[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]and choosing. Only when you stop liking and disliking will all be[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]clearly understood. A split hair's difference, and heaven and earth[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]are set apart! If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]with right and wrong. The conflict between right and wrong is the[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]sickness of the mind."[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]--------------------------[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, sans-serif]
Wokko atheists think the Tao is a Wok when they hunger for the truth

The Calvinists understands, perfectly, that God is Omnipresent and always in charge of every single event including choosing whom according to His Own Pleasure, alone and by Himself. That includes sending the goats to the bottomless pit.
[/FONT]

Deepak, is that you?

 

[Vanderhaust]

Wow! It takes a lot of gusto to make the claim that you understand everything perfectly. Perhaps we should defer all our questions to you for answers, because without any actually prove of anything, you seem to have them all.

I find it absolutely incredible how a Christian will claim to know the mind of an atheist while at the same time make the claim that atheists couldn't possibly understand the mind of a Christian.

 

[secondtimearound]

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos (no God), is the philosophical position that God does not exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" - Academic American Encyclopedia

"Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during The Enlightenment, the age of reason." - Random House Encyclopedia 1977

"Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some athiests supporst this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods." - Oxford Companion to Philosophy 1995

"Atheism is the belief that God dosen't exist" - The World Book Encyclopedia 1991

"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God. That is that the sentence "God exists", expresses a false position" The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1967

"Atheism is the doctorine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good." - Encyclopedia of Religion 1987

"Atheism denies the existence of a diety" - Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia Vol.1

I always hear atheists say, "you can't prove a universal negative" but you can! All you have to do is show something is self-contradictory, like a square circle or a married bachelor.

You folks are more than aware of the standard definition of atheism and I am sure you are also aware of Flew's attempt to have the word re-defined (which never happened by the way). That is where this all stems from, had he not developed this idea (or someone else) you would be on your own with having to present arguments as a positive position for your case instead of just playing the role of the skeptic and pot shotting from the sidelines.

I also believe that no one can actually lack belief of anykind as our entire perception of reality is nothing but belief.

You're not fooling anyone, you're atheists pretending to be agnostics, all the while trying to hold onto the mantle of atheism without having to defend the position itself. That is why it is not honest what you are doing. Nietzsche is rolling over in his grave.

"Agnostics are just atheists without guts!" - Madalyn Murray O'Hair (interview in LIFE Magazine)

 

[secondtimearound]

Bear in mind that you can also have a position on the arguments for the existence of God.

I take ANYTHING that a bear who can type says seriously. Of course you can have a position on a particular argument for God or even all the arguments. God belief does not depend on arguments, they only serve as a logical basis for our faith. The problem is all you do is play the role of the skeptic, not presenting a positive side for your case because you don't have a position to defend or even a case for that matter.

 

[secondtimearound]

Lack of belief =/= belief

What did you call me?

 

[secondtimearound]

If you believe my car is blue and I show you my car and you realize it's red. What belief did I use to show you wrong and to make you change your belief? None. Evidence can be used to counter a belief.

Now, I get that you are really desperate to think that we're equally unjustified in our disbelief or that you're equally justified in your beliefs but we both know it isn't true.

I now BELIEVE that your car is red, that is the BELIEF that counters my previous BELIEF to your car being blue. You showed me evidence to change my BELEIF.

Gotta tell you, this is the longest conversation I have ever had with someone who has a faux-hawk.

 

[secondtimearound]

No, a belief is something you either have or you don't have.

I don’t think you have a “belief” in the absence of fairies or Zeus for instance, or, at least I think it is improper to term it that way.

I believe that any sentence stating "faries or Zeus exists" expresses a false proposition.

 

[secondtimearound]

What makes you think I might not have positions to defend?
You manage to read that into a question? Wow. Unfortunately, your conclusions are wrong.
Again: does not only not follow, but is a wrong wild guess on our part.
That´s funny: You read a question of mine, make up a position for me that doesn´t follow from the question, and then call this position "self-refuting" without even explaining why. That´s rich.

Wait for it...wait for it...

Well, before I can talk about (before I can even make a statement as to whether I believe God exists or not) you would have to tell me what you mean when saying "God".

BOOM! Exactly what I was talking about.

This is where I usually launch into a rant about Verificationism and how questions about God are meaningless because we can't define God in an absolute, followed by the whole verification principle and how it makes the claim that we should only believe what can proven scientifically but how that statement in and of itself can't be verified scientifically therefore self-refuting. Not to mention how this form of philosophy has been dead for half a century after it was found to confining and even making kinds of theoretical science non-starters.

However, I can't scoff at an opportunity to answer that question, although this is a little bit of copy and paste from William Lane Craig at the Reasonable Faith website and I think sums it up quite nice:

It’s easy to give content to the word “God.” This word can be taken either as a common noun, so that one could speak of “a God,” or it can be used as a proper name like “George” or “Suzanne.” Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology. You might protest, “But how do you know God has those properties?” The question is misplaced. “God” has been stipulated to be the person, if any, referred to by that description. The real question is whether there is anything answering to that description, that is to say, does such a person exist? The whole burden of Swinburne’s natural theology is to present arguments that there is such a person. You can reject his arguments, but there’s no disputing the meaningfulness of his claim.

The best definition of God as a descriptive term is, I think, St. Anselm’s: the greatest conceivable being. As Anselm observed, if you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God! The very idea of God is of a being than which there cannot be a greater.

I go with Craig on St. Anselm's greatest convievable being.