Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Some do, some do not.How about ghost? Do atheists also believe in ghost?
Some do, some do not.
Thats the thing, atheism only tells you their stance on a god or gods. Ghosts, spirits, gnomes, goblins, 9/11, globalcooling, aliens etc are all things that you cannot determn a persons stance on merely by the fact they are atheistic.
If a person believed a spirit were a God, he wouldn't be an atheist now would he.Is atheism also materialism?
If an atheist believed in spirit, then the spirit could be his god. Why not?
Proving an negative is not necessary to be an atheistThere are no true atheists, even if a so-called atheist is deceived into thinking he is. Dawkins' mistake is transparent. He touts the certitude that empirical verification provides, and yet he has no empirical verification for believeing that there cannot be a non-empirical realm, which by definition is unreachable via the empirical senses and thus can never be empirically verified. He must remain an agnostic, but prefers to add arrogance to his uncertainty of which I am sure deep within, he is aware.
There are no true atheists, even if a so-called atheist is deceived into thinking he is. Dawkins' mistake is transparent. He touts the certitude that empirical verification provides, and yet he has no empirical verification for believeing that there cannot be a non-empirical realm, which by definition is unreachable via the empirical senses and thus can never be empirically verified. He must remain an agnostic, but prefers to add arrogance to his uncertainty of which I am sure deep within, he is aware.
Do you believe in fairies? You can't prove they don't exist, so you have to be agnostic about them, right? You have to believe they might exist rather than believe they do not. What about other gods like Zeus or Allah? You can't prove they don't exist either, you have to believe they might exist. So you cannot say you believe they don't exist. I wonder what God would say about that?
Supposed I claim that faries trancends the empirical? Does that mean you can't verify the non-existence of them?The typical dawkins-disciple style of atheist declares with the same certitude with which I inwardly disbelieve in Zeus, that "THERE IS NO NON-EMPIRICAL REALM." Period. This not only leaves no room for fairies, it also precludes the existence of a creator of fairies, and worse, a creator of all that is, was or ever will be, imaginary or not.
And this an atheist cannot declare with certitude if he wishes to use his own methodology of empirical verification. One simply cannot empirically verify the non-existence of that which transcends the empirical.
Supposed I claim that faries trancends the empirical? Does that mean you can't verify the non-existence of them?
Ken
No, not so fast! Let's get back to the fairies. Fairies are not defined as creatures that can be observed empirically. So if I claim fairies exist and that they transend the empirical, are you going to do as you ask us to do and remain agnostic about their existence?Fairies by definition cannot transcend the empirical. They can (hypothetically) be empirically verified by sight.
But that is irrelevant. Let's use angels. Yeah, you cannot verify the non-existence of angels.
If you think you can, you might as well present your case here.
The typical dawkins-disciple style of atheist declares with the same certitude with which I inwardly disbelieve in Zeus, that "THERE IS NO NON-EMPIRICAL REALM." Period. This not only leaves no room for fairies, it also precludes the existence of a creator of fairies, and worse, a creator of all that is, was or ever will be, imaginary or not.
And this an atheist cannot declare with certitude if he wishes to use his own methodology of empirical verification. One simply cannot empirically verify the non-existence of that which transcends the empirical.
No, the two are unrelated. One is not nessisary for the other and vice versa.Is atheism also materialism?
You mean in the 'we're all just feeling different parts of the elephant' way? Sure it could be possible that what you call god is actually just one of the spirits the atheist believes in. Or the other way around.If an atheist believed in spirit, then the spirit could be his god. Why not?
If an atheist believed in spirit, then the spirit could be his god. Why not?
There are no true atheists, even if a so-called atheist is deceived into thinking he is. Dawkins' mistake is transparent. He touts the certitude that empirical verification provides, and yet he has no empirical verification for believeing that there cannot be a non-empirical realm, which by definition is unreachable via the empirical senses and thus can never be empirically verified. He must remain an agnostic, but prefers to add arrogance to his uncertainty of which I am sure deep within, he is aware.
There are no true atheists, even if a so-called atheist is deceived into thinking he is.
He touts the certitude that empirical verification provides, and yet he has no empirical verification for believeing that there cannot be a non-empirical realm, which by definition is unreachable via the empirical senses and thus can never be empirically verified.
He must remain an agnostic
but prefers to add arrogance to his uncertainty of which I am sure deep within, he is aware.
There are no true atheists, even if a so-called atheist is deceived into thinking he is. Dawkins' mistake is transparent. He touts the certitude that empirical verification provides, and yet he has no empirical verification for believeing that there cannot be a non-empirical realm, which by definition is unreachable via the empirical senses and thus can never be empirically verified. He must remain an agnostic, but prefers to add arrogance to his uncertainty of which I am sure deep within, he is aware.
Why precisely is someone obligated to prove empirically that a non-empirical realm doesn't exist? It's a senseless request (literally).
But if you can't do the impossible, it must mean that Jesus died to take away the punishment he put on us in the first place for our ancestors doing something they couldn't have known was wrong. Or something like that - I'm a bit fuzzy on how the rationalization works but you get the general idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?