How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

Agnostic is more applicable to what? Your gross over-generalization or me?

The only reason it seems like a gross overgeneralization is because of the unnecessary embellishment of an otherwise clear and simple term.

 

[TBDude65]

The one who is complicating it isn't me. The ones complicating it are those who say it means much more than what it basically says.

I am telling you the simplest possible definition. A-theism means absent theistic beliefs. It really is that simple.

 

[TBDude65]

The only reason it seems like a gross overgeneralization is because of the unnecessary embellishment of an otherwise clear and simple term.

Do what? How do you define a belief and/or argument to an entire group when the only thing that group shares in common is an absence of a belief in a god?

This would be equivalent with me defining all christians as believing in the same things catholics believe. It is a gross over-generalization of a broad group of people.

 

[TBDude65]

The only reason it seems like a gross overgeneralization is because of the unnecessary embellishment of an otherwise clear and simple term.

Or, an even better example than the latter one in my last post, it would be equivalent with me arguing that anyone who doesn't believe in a specific god (Zeus for instance) all occupy the same group and share the same beliefs and use the same arguments. That lumps literally every other religion in together along with atheists and agnostics. It is a gross oversimplification.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dear Loudmouth, you say that you don't definitively deny God to exist.

So, what do you claim at all if any claim you do have at all, on the issue God exists or not?

I claim that there is no positive evidence for the existence for God, so there is no reason to believe that God does exist. This is the same concept that underlies my disbelief in pixies, leprechauns, Bigfoot, and ET.

2. Lead me step by step to come to also harbor the claim or position or whatever it is, that you are if at all into the issue God exists or not.

Step 1: Ask for evidence that God exists from people who claim that God exists.

Step 2: Observe that they are incapable of producing evidence.

Step 3: Conclude that there is currently no reason to believe that God exists.

 

[Radrook]

Do what? How do you define a belief and/or argument to an entire group when the only thing that group shares in common is an absence of a belief in a god?

This would be equivalent with me defining all christians as believing in the same things catholics believe. It is a gross over-generalization of a broad group of people.

Not if you stick to the basic definition as you are supposed to do in order to avoid confusion. If indeed there is confusion I suggest you blame it on your choice to embellish and not on reader incomprehension or irrationality. For all practical discussion purposes merely stating a non-belief in God is sufficient.

 

[TBDude65]

Not if you stick to the basic definition as you are supposed to do in order to avoid confusion. If indeed there is confusion I suggest you blame it on your choice to embellish and not on reader incomprehension or irrationality. For all practical discussion purposes merely stating a non-belief in God is sufficient.

What are you talking about? I'm using the literal definitions of the word. You're the one claiming atheism is more than it actually is. You're the one trying to tell me what I believe and what label I should wear.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.

It would be irrational to insert supernatural actions into a process that is consistent with natural mechanisms.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't see how providing those examples of people agreeing to be irrational changes the irrational nature of the atheist argument.

I don't believe there's a literal Santa Claus that delivers gifts to all the good children on Christmas Eve via chimneys.

Is this a rational, or irrational belief?

 

[Radrook]

Or, an even better example than the latter one in my last post, it would be equivalent with me arguing that anyone who doesn't believe in a specific god (Zeus for instance) all occupy the same group and share the same beliefs and use the same arguments. That lumps literally every other religion in together along with atheists and agnostics. It is a gross oversimplification.

Postulation of a simple non-belief in God is more than sufficient to make a discussion mutually intelligible and avoid sudden and constant interruptions over unnecessary time-consuming unfruitful, meticulous quibblings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then the term atheist isn't applicable. The term which is more applicable is agnostic.

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostic means "without knowledge". They believe that we aren't able to attain knowledge of the existence of deities, so they don't believe in deities.

Atheist means "without a belief in deities". Since agnostics lack a belief in deities, they are also atheists.

It's not that tough to understand.

 

[TBDude65]

Postulation of a simple non-belief in God is more than sufficient to make a discussion mutually intelligible and avoid sudden and constant interruptions over unnecessary time-consuming unfruitful, meticulous quibblings.

You do realize your opinion of a straw man of atheism doesn't redefine what atheism means, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you claim that God doesn't exist, then you are an atheist. Very simple so why complicate it?

If you don't believe in God, but are still open to the possibility that God could exist, then you are still an atheist. If you think such knowledge is beyond humankind, then you are both an agnostic and an atheist.

 

[Radrook]

Agnostics are atheists. Agnostic means "without knowledge". They believe that we aren't able to attain knowledge of the existence of deities, so they don't believe in deities.

Atheist means "without a belief in deities". Since agnostics lack a belief in deities, they are also atheists.

It's not that tough to understand.

That isn't accurate. Agnostics claim not to know one way or the other. So they cannot be classified as atheist because they don't claim that God or gods don't exist. They simply claim not to know. I suggest you Google it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First, I disagree with not making a clear distinction between atheist and agnostic.

As I'm sure has been explained to you countless times, there is no distinction as the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are different answers to different questions.

One pertains to belief, the other to knowledge. The only relation between both, if any, is that one is a qualifier of the other.

For example, I am an agnostic atheist.

If indeed you don't know one way or the other whether God exists then you are an agnostic in my book.

Do you know if a god exists? No.
Do you believe one exists? Yes.
=> agnostic theist

Do you know if a god exists? No.
Do you believe on exists? No.
=> agnostic atheist.


It's not hard.

If you claim that God doesn't exist, then you are an atheist.

That would be a knowledge claim, wich would result in a gnostic atheist.

I, for example, don't make such a claim.

Very simple so why complicate it?

Because your "simple" version is inaccurate.

 

[Radrook]

You do realize your opinion of a straw man of atheism doesn't redefine what atheism means, right?

So despite my explanation concerning why your choice of definition makes discussion almost impossible now you are accusing me of striving to formally redefine a word? I redefine it for the sake of getting past your constant objections which interfere with the flow of discussion. When I say atheists, I mean those who don't believe in God or gods. That's when you go into a host of explanations concerning refined nuances and the whole discussion comes to a stand stop still.

 

[Loudmouth]

Postulation of a simple non-belief in God is more than sufficient to make a discussion mutually intelligible and avoid sudden and constant interruptions over unnecessary time-consuming unfruitful, meticulous quibblings.

Just to help your understanding . . .

A husband comes home and asks his wife, "Hey Honey, do we have any ham in the refrigerator?". The wife answers, "I don't believe so".

From that exchange, what can you say about the wife's beliefs about ham being in the refrigerator? Is she saying there is definitely no ham in the refrigerator? Doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she doesn't think there is any ham in the refrigerator, but she is also keeping open the possibility that there could be ham in the refrigerator. However, she lacks a positive belief that there is ham in the refrigerator.

The wife would be an ahamist. If the husband opens the fridge and, lo and behold, there is ham in the fridge, the wife would probably shrug her shoulders and say, "Guess I was wrong". She would then become a hamist when faced with the evidence that there is ham in the fridge.

Does this make sense?

 

[Loudmouth]

That isn't accurate. Agnostics claim not to know one way or the other. So they cannot be classified as atheist because they don't claim that God or gods don't exist. They simply claim not to know. I suggest you Google it.

A = without
theist = belief in deities

Atheist = without a belief in deities

Agnostics don't have a positive belief in any deities. That means they are atheists.

Not that hard to figure out.

 

[TBDude65]

So despite my explanation concerning why your choice of definition makes discussion almost impossible now you are accusing me of striving to formally redefine a word? I redefine it for the sake of getting past your constant objections which interfere with the flow of discussion. When I say atheists, I mean those who don't believe in God or gods. That's when you go into a host of explanations concerning refined nuances and the whole discussion comes to a stand stop still.

The only thing atheists share in common is an absence of belief in a god. So when you incorrectly asserted the "atheist position" you over-generalized a group and applied a belief/argument to atheists that atheists don't share be default. Get it yet?

Like I said, this would be equivalent with me saying that all Christians believe that taking sacrament means literally eating Christ's body and drinking his blood. It completely misses the point that there is heterogeneity in beliefs and arguments within a group.

 

[Radrook]

Just to help your understanding . . .

A husband comes home and asks his wife, "Hey Honey, do we have any ham in the refrigerator?". The wife answers, "I don't believe so".

From that exchange, what can you say about the wife's beliefs about ham being in the refrigerator? Is she saying there is definitely no ham in the refrigerator? Doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like she doesn't think there is any ham in the refrigerator, but she is also keeping open the possibility that there could be ham in the refrigerator. However, she lacks a positive belief that there is ham in the refrigerator.

The wife would be an ahamist. If the husband opens the fridge and, lo and behold, there is ham in the fridge, the wife would probably shrug her shoulders and say, "Guess I was wrong". She would then become a hamist when faced with the evidence that there is ham in the fridge.

Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense in the context of this scenario.