Atheism and Agnosticism - Is there a difference?

[RisingSpirit]

That's your proof? According to you God has a bad memory. Look up the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and tell me what was written on the cross about Jesus when he was crucified. Maybe their hands were fighting the will of God?



Scientifically proven bible? Really? So you wouldn't mind posting some sources to back up that claim.

Do we have 4 different writings on the cross? Go the the original texts and tells us what they say.

Anyone can start by searching " Dr Ivan Panin" and then work their way deeper.

 

[Vanderhaust]

Do we have 4 different writings on the cross? Go the the original texts and tells us what they say.

According to your bible, yes there are. I'm quoting the New King James version.
Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

I'm still waiting for links to your sources to back up your claim that the bible is scientifically proven.

 

[variant]

The PROOF includes proof that not a single letter was lost in the 66 books. My confidence has nothing to do with scientifically proven facts. I very confident that 1 plus 1 equals two. The proofs can be repeated as often as one likes and still get the exact same results.

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.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes I can. I can prove that man didn't write it alone. If no man didn't write it then who did? Chimps?
It wouldn't matter anyway to an atheist on proofs since NONE can accept the Saviour. Only God can regenerate the Elects and then the elects wouldn't need proof. Meanwhile proofs, as Dr Ivan Panin explains, are available but for what purpose? It will only make atheists stupider and embarrassing.

I see you resorting to insults, but no proof.

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

 

[secondtimearound]

Thanks for answering my question. Your definition renders me a theist. I believe that there is and must be a "greatest conceivable being". Logic dictates it.
(For further discussion it would be necessary to take a closer look at the rather unspecific adjective "greatest", though).

That´s a good example for what I have been trying to tell you: Depending on the definitions I can label myself the opposite of what I used to be without changing my beliefs at all.

My definition does not render you a thiest if you hold that it is not possible for a MGB to exist. Of course if you hold that this is possible, than the S5 sytem of Modal Logic will bring you into thiesm. This is of course the Ontological Argument and is not something I am willing to get into. Not until I have finished my studies on it. Then I will look forward to debating you.

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. 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.

 

[secondtimearound]

I think it was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It is the theist who is making the extraordinary claim that, not only are there supernatural forces under the direction of a deity, but that the deity has a particular nature that the believer's religion has revealed.

In a similar vein, a claim presented without evidence (such as the claims of theists) can be rejected without evidence. The atheist doesn't need to build a positive case against the existence of the Christian god any more than a Christian has to build a positive case against the existence of Zeus.

The claim that God exists is only an extrordinary claim to the Atheist/ agnostic, the claim that God does not exist is an extrodinary claim to the thiest, so, when debating a positive position for your case you must provide something.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The claim that God exists is only an extrordinary claim to the Atheist/ agnostic, the claim that God does not exist is an extrodinary claim to the thiest, so, when debating a positive position for your case you must provide something.

Provide a positive case for the non-existence of Zeus.

 

[variant]

The claim that God exists is only an extrordinary claim to the Atheist/ agnostic, the claim that God does not exist is an extrodinary claim to the thiest, so, when debating a positive position for your case you must provide something.

Asking people to prove negatives because humanity feels better assuming something is not proper logic.

 

[Non sequitur]

The claim that God exists is only an extrordinary claim to the Atheist/ agnostic, the claim that God does not exist is an extrodinary claim to the thiest, so, when debating a positive position for your case you must provide something.

The person asserting something to exist must provide something.

It's dishonest to suggest that the person who says, "Well, I don't see this. Show me" and someone in return goes, "Positive position! Provide something!"

 

[secondtimearound]

Ok, so how is that different than atheism?

Do you have to argue for the non-existence of faries and Zeus or do the people who believe in them have to present some evidence?

Are you really trying to work in that "I'm an atheist with the exception of one God" silliness? Obviously I am not an athiest as I hold that God exists. If I'm debating a believer in Zeus/ muslim/ jew/ hindu/ buddist/ ad nauseum, then yes I have to present a positive position for my case and refute his/ her case. That is what a debate is all about.

 

[secondtimearound]

Show me a square circle.

I can't, it doesn't exist because it is self-sontrditory. That was the point.

 

[secondtimearound]

I said, "Lack of belief =/= belief".

I didn't call you anything... what do you think I called you?

I know what you typed. It was a joke. You know, trying to lighten the mood. Man you guys are so freaking serious all the time. I was trying to joke that I have no idea what you are trying to say with the =/=. Hopefully not logical equivalency.

 

[Non sequitur]

I can't, it doesn't exist because it is self-sontrditory. That was the point.

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.

So...the atheist argument holds and... you've proven nothing...my head hurts...

 

[Non sequitur]

I know what you typed. It was a joke. You know, trying to lighten the mood. Man you guys are so freaking serious all the time. I was trying to joke that I have no idea what you are trying to say with the =/=. Hopefully not logical equivalency.

My bad.

I've experienced MANY times people saying that and NOT be joking...

 

[secondtimearound]

Anyway guys/ girls. Not a one of you has tried to refute my position that your redefinition of atheism is Ad Hoc reasoning as per my previous posts. I would also say that this is an example of the poisoning the wells fallacy. Also, not a one of you tried to tackle my post with all the definitions of atheism according to the many encyclopedias I cited along with my other points. All in all this has been a bit of a bust and I think shows how weak the position of lacking belief really is.

 

[secondtimearound]

My bad.

I've experienced MANY times people saying that and NOT be joking...

No worries! It is hard to tell the attitude of someone via text. I guess that's what smilies are for.

 

[secondtimearound]

So...the atheist argument holds and... you've proven nothing...my head hurts...

Here's an example you might be able to bite into, the Omnipotence Paradox. This argument was an attempt to show that the idea of Omnipotence was self contracditory and therefore didn't exist. That is a way of trying to prove a negative. That's about as much help as I can offer you in understanding that you can prove a negitive. I would offer you some Tylenol but Ialready polished off the bottle.

 

[Vanderhaust]

Anyway guys/ girls. Not a one of you has tried to refute my position that your redefinition of atheism is Ad Hoc reasoning as per my previous posts. I would also say that this is an example of the poisoning the wells fallacy. Also, not a one of you tried to tackle my post with all the definitions of atheism according to the many encyclopedias I cited along with my other points. All in all this has been a bit of a bust and I think shows how weak the position of lacking belief really is.

I'm going to quote what you posted:
"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

This is what atheists believe. Period. If christians like yourself want to muddy the definition, then by all means knock yourselves out, it wont change the definition of atheism.

For all your intellectual posturing, you haven't actually said much except to provide a proper definition of atheism.

When you claimed, "The writers were under complete trace and allowed their pen to be written by force and inspired by God.", I showed you God's memory must have slipped, you fell silent.

When I challenged you to back your claim of a scientifically proven bible, you fell silent.

And once again you make the claim that no one has tried to refute you? Seriously? I predict that once again you will ignore everyone's rebuttals to your arguments and continue your empty posturing.

And please stop asking everyone to research Dr. Ivan Panin. If you would like to quote him, then post some links to his sources. I'm not about to waste my time to try and prove your point.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyway guys/ girls. Not a one of you has tried to refute my position that your redefinition of atheism is Ad Hoc reasoning as per my previous posts.

If you like, I can quote sources too:

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]

1) Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2011-12-06. "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."
Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion." (page 175 in 1967 edition)

2) Rowe, William L. (1998). "Atheism". In Edward Craig. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415073103. ROUTLEDGE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY: 10 VOLUMES - Edward Craig - Google Books. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. Another meaning of "atheism" is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God. ...an atheist, in the broader sense of the term, is someone who disbelieves in every form of deity, not just the God of traditional Western theology."

3) a b Simon Blackburn, ed. (2008). "atheism". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2008 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Reference Online : Login. Retrieved 2011-12-05. "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the belief that there exists none. Sometimes thought itself to be more dogmatic than mere agnosticism, although atheists retort that everyone is an atheist about most gods, so they merely advance one step further."

4) Religioustolerance.org's short article on Definitions of the term "Atheism" suggests that there is no consensus on the definition of the term. Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions.

Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942 edition). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. A. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought" – entry by Vergilius Ferm

5) "Definitions: Atheism". Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama. http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/aboutreldefinitions.html. Retrieved 2011-04-09.

6) a b Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). 1989. "Belief in a deity, or deities, as opposed to atheism"

7) "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". Theism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "belief in the existence of a god or gods"


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.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[RisingSpirit]

According to your bible, yes there are. I'm quoting the New King James version.
Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

I'm still waiting for links to your sources to back up your claim that the bible is scientifically proven.

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

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.

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

Aren't flying spaghetti monsters not good enough?