How to prove God exists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Actually, that is exactly what YOU do.

You are trying to pin a lot more baggage on "atheism" then there is to it.

Atheism is simply not answering "yes" to the question "do you believe a god exists".
Strictly speaking, it's not even just answering "no".

You need to believe something to a theist. You need to answer "yes" to that question.
Any other answer makes you "not a theist". Or an "atheist".

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

If I constantly defined Christianity as the belief in Leprechauns, wouldn't you constantly correct me?

We are telling you that you are misrepresenting our position. We will continue to correct you each time you misrepresent our position.

 

[Radrook]

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.

gnostic = to know
agnostic = not to know

They don't know one way or the other.

 

[Loudmouth]

It makes perfect sense in the context of this scenario.

Replace "ham" with "God" and you will understand our position.

 

[Loudmouth]

gnostic = to know
agnostic = not to know

They don't know one way or the other.

If they don't know that God exists, that would mean they don't have a positive belief that God exists, correct?

 

[HitchSlap]

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

You've yet to demonstrate how unbelief of non-existent entities is "irrational."

 

[Radrook]

If I constantly defined Christianity as the belief in Leprechauns, wouldn't you constantly correct me?

We are telling you that you are misrepresenting our position. We will continue to correct you each time you misrepresent our position.

And I am saying that to me an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God or gods.
I don't see how that infringes in any way on your claim to be an atheist.
If indeed you have doubts then in my book you are an agnostic. As simple as that.
That is my personal preference because it is simple, to the point and avoids unnecessary quibbling over irrelevancies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

For crying out loud.....

(A)theism is not about what you know or don't know, it's about what you believe or don't believe.

You understand the difference between knowledge and belief, right? Because it sounds like you don't....

 

[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.

Also, with respect to accusing you of redefining words, that is literally what you did when you decided that the word "agnostic" should apply to me and not atheist. That's YOU redefining a word and redefining me and my views.

 

[TBDude65]

And I am saying that to me an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God or gods.
I don't see how that infringes in any way on your claim to be an atheist.
If indeed you have doubts then in my book you are an agnostic. As simple as that.
That is my personal preference because it is simple, to the point and avoids unnecessary quibbling over irrelevancies.

See? Here you are redefining terms!

 

[Radrook]

If they don't know that God exists, that would mean they don't have a positive belief that God exists, correct?

No, it simply means that in there view there might be a God or there might not be a God. They just don't know one way or the other. They are not denying any of the two nor affirming either of the two. They are neutral. Atheism demands a denial that there is a God or gods. Agnostics do not deny. That is my personal distinction and I prefer to keep it that way instead of unnecessarily complicating things so that discussion becomes impossible due to quibbling over nuances.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It makes perfect sense in the context of this scenario.

Cool. Now, take that logic and find/replace:
- "refrigerator" with "reality"
- "ham" with "god"
- "(a)hamist" with "(a)theist".

 

[HitchSlap]

For crying out loud.....

(A)theism is not about what you know or don't know, it's about what you believe or don't believe.

You understand the difference between knowledge and belief, right? Because it sounds like you don't....

He either doesn't, or won't admit the difference. Unfortunately, these guys get taken with the usual creo strawman babble, and should really take a moment to calm down and really try to understand what it is we're trying to convey. I blame the stupidity of the Hovinds'es, $ye ten bruggencate's and their unctuous ilk when guys like Rad take this tack.

 

[Radrook]

Also, with respect to accusing you of redefining words, that is literally what you did when you decided that the word "agnostic" should apply to me and not atheist. That's YOU redefining a word and redefining me and my views.

I respect your right to refer to yourself as you choose. I am just informing you how I view the terminology in order to avoid any further confusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

And I am saying that to me an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God or gods.

And that would be correct. The problem is when you also require all atheists to also believe that deities do not exist. Those are not the same thing.

If indeed you have doubts then in my book you are an agnostic. As simple as that.

Then that would be wrong. Agnostics don't have doubts. They lack knowledge.

That is my personal preference because it is simple, to the point and avoids unnecessary quibbling over irrelevancies.

You don't get to define our position. We will continue to correct you each time you misrepresent our position. If you want to avoid quibbles, then accurately portray our position as we have defined it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it simply means that in there view there might be a God or there might not be a God. They just don't know one way or the other. They are not denying any of the two nor affirming either of the two. They are neutral. Atheism demands a denial that there is a God or gods. Agnostics do not deny. That is my personal distinction and I prefer to keep it that way instead of unnecessarily complicating things so that discussion becomes impossible due to quibbling over nuances.

Knowing and believing are two seperate issues and not at all mutually exclusive.

 

[Loudmouth]

I respect your right to refer to yourself as you choose. I am just informing you how I view the terminology in order to avoid any further confusion.

Then I view you as a believer in Leprechauns. I will keep asking you why you believe in Leprechauns. I also want you to not quibble over this description of your beliefs. Deal?

 

[TBDude65]

I respect your right to refer to yourself as you choose. I am just informing you how I view the terminology in order to avoid any further confusion.

It doesn't matter how YOU view it. It matters what the words actually mean. So when you decide to relable someone based on YOUR definitions of words, you're in the wrong. You don't decide what the words mean, otherwise definitions become meaningless and that is what would cause conversation to become impossible.

 

[HitchSlap]

gnostic = to know
agnostic = not to know

They don't know one way or the other.

Agnostic: Statement of knowledge. As in I don't (you don't) know if god/s exist.

Atheist: Statement of belief. As in, I don't know that god/s exist, and no one yet has fulfilled their burden of proof, therefore, I don't believe god/s exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I respect your right to refer to yourself as you choose. I am just informing you how I view the terminology in order to avoid any further confusion.

Okay. Allow me the same right then.

From henceforth, I shall refer to "table" with the word "toilet" and refer to "meeting" with the words "taking a dump".

And then I'll get all upset when someone starts "quibling" when I tell my teammembers to all gather around the toilet to take a collective dump.