Let's suppose God did....

[Elioenai26]

"atheists" aren't having a discussion about this you and I are.

Frankly though I've seen you get into this discussion often and are always pushing your stilted definition.

I meet the odd person who calls them-self an agnostic and holds no positive God beliefs and I disagree with their terms, but I rarely find myself disagreeing with other atheists on the subject.

But you are an agnostic.

So what is your point?

You don't know whether God exists or not. This is agnosticism. In other words, you are ignorant of whether He exists or not. There is nothing wrong in saying you don't know.

Because you don't know, you feel you are justified in saying He does not exist. This is where atheism comes in.

Your reason for taking this side is because no bread has spontaneously appeared in your fridge.

Great reason....

 

[Dave Ellis]

But you are an agnostic.

So what is your point?

You don't know whether God exists or not. This is agnosticism. In other words, you are ignorant of whether He exists or not. There is nothing wrong in saying you don't know.

Because you don't know, you feel you are justified in saying He does not exist. This is where atheism comes in.

Your reason for taking this side is because no bread has spontaneously appeared in your fridge.

Great reason....

If he doesn't know, that means he doesn't have a belief that God exists, that indeed means he is an Atheist.

If he is provided evidence, I'm sure he would alter his views accordingly and become a Theist. Until that time however, he remains an Atheist.

 

[variant]

But you are an agnostic.

So what is your point?

You don't know whether God exists or not. This is agnosticism. In other words, you are ignorant of whether He exists or not. There is nothing wrong in saying you don't know.

I don't actually believe the question is answerable under current conditions.

Because you don't know, you feel you are justified in saying He does not exist. This is where atheism comes in.

Lacking proper evidence I also lack a belief.

I also lack a positive belief position on say, multiple universes, since they aren't in evidence. We don't get hung up on terms about that because we don't have people like you insisting everyone believe in them.

Your reason for taking this side is because no bread has spontaneously appeared in your fridge.

Great reason....

My reason is that no positive direct or otherwise verifiable evidence for God has ever been provided.

The bread is just an example. One small existential demonstration from God and I would be satisfied.

I expect God to speak for himself though if he thinks it's important.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I am glad you agree.

Specious claims always are.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

But you are an agnostic.

So what is your point?

So are you. So what's your point?

 

[JGG]

So now you want to tell me that Jesus was wrong about who He was. You seem to know the man better than He knew Himself!

And what of the miracles, signs and wonders?

Let me guess, we disregard them??

Take everything else, just disregard the miracle stuff.

Why?

This is my point. You are proving it even now. Any explanation other than the one we are given. Miracles cannot happen, therefore, they did not happen. That is circular reasoning by the way.

Firstly, the circular reasoning is based on your misunderstanding of the objection. Second, a miracle is not in any way an explanation for anything. As a general rule of thumbAn actual miracle is a big assertion and requires evidence. You continue to demand that we believe the unbelievable on nothing but your assertion that it is true. That's just not going to work.

You, like him, could also be more precisely labeled as a soft agnostic non-theist.

It does'nt have the hardness and arrogance that is usually associated with the term "atheism" however. In fact, describing oneself as a soft agnostic non-theist is far more charitable and self-deprecating and therefore should be preferable, if one desires to be self-deprecating that is....

You're suggesting that Christians do not react to the position or point of view, but to the label associated with the person?

I tell you what, that's precisely why I use that label.

 

[pjnlsn]

You say bread appearing spontaneously in your fridge all by itself is dumb.

I say it is dumb to think that the universe could just spontaneously appear one day all by itself. I say it is dumb to think we humans could be the result of some change over time which began when natural processes just spontaneously made life appear one day all by itself.

Yes. But that's not the science, and if you're trying to imply that, that would be the strawman, and a lie, I suppose.

 

[Freodin]

"That's not science", pjnlsn said.

I'd say this thread shows the difference between the authoritative system of theology and the investigative system of science very well.

"Let's suppose God did..." the thread is titled. But throughout the thread we consistently find that "God does not..."

The scientific approach would be to test your supposition: let's suppose, let's try, let's see what happens.

I tried. I gave a very specific piece of evidence, that would be within the scope of the original supposition, would even be more precise than the scope of the original supposition.

But it seems God doesn't do that either... at least Eli has been silent toward me since then. To debate an old argument from authority is so much more interesting, it seems.

For that is the theological approach: Let's suppose, and accept that the supposition is true, because my authority says so. I don't have to test it, I already know what it will say.

I still would like to see a response, Elioenai26.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So now you want to tell me that Jesus was wrong about who He was.

No. I'm presenting a plausible scenario that is excluded by the trilemma.

And what of the miracles, signs and wonders?

We judge them on their own merits, or lack thereof. My point is that the trilemma is a false trichotomy, excluding the possibility of a mundane Rabbi who got some things right and some things (such as his divinity) wrong.

Let me guess, we disregard them??

Take everything else, just disregard the miracle stuff.

Why?

This is my point. You are proving it even now. Any explanation other than the one we are given. Miracles cannot happen, therefore, they did not happen. That is circular reasoning by the way.

Actually, it would be a tautology, which is completely valid (if, in this case, unsound).

Do you have a source(s) for that assertion?

The onus falls on those who claim evidence for the miracles exist, not on those who don't.

Strawman.

I used the phrase "rightfully say" because I knew you would say what you just said. Please read what I wrote.

I did, and your qualifier just obfuscated the issue. Since the divinity of Christ has not been established, you can't use it to establish his divinity (now that would be circular reasoning). Jesus uttered the words, but whether only God could 'rightfully' say them is irrelevant: anyone can say them, whether 'rightfully' or not, so it's illogical to present his utterance of the words as evidence of his divinity.

This portion right here is what I have been waiting for all along.

Thank you.

You're quite welcome. Now will you give up the charade of Lewis' trilemma, and answer my question?

"The possibility exists that Jesus was simply a sane Rabbi who mistakenly concluded that he was the Messiah (look at Harold Camping or the Millerites for how completely rational people can use specious logic to come to very wrong conclusions). He was sane (so he wasn't a lunatic), he was genuine in his beliefs (so he wasn't a liar), but he was ultimately incorrect (so he wasn't lord). What, then, was he?"

If he was neither lunatic, liar, nor lord, then what was he? Lewis' trilemma fails because it cannot account for viable

And I don't see why you were waiting for this "all along"; it's an obvious statement that goes without saying, and harkens back to pretty much everyone's reply to the OP - namely, that evidence for anything can be dismissed with ad hoc explanations, but that not all explanations are of equal weight.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Scientists who believe that rubbish

Don't exist.

Thank you for playing.

 

[quatona]

The implication is that any act of God to demonstrate His existence is a priori impossible.

Glad to see that you admit that.

 

[quatona]

But you are an agnostic.

So what is your point?

You don't know whether God exists or not.

...and neither do you, according to your statement that there can´t be any evidence for a God´s existence that cannot be ascribed to something else.

 

[KCfromNC]

He could do that.

But you currently are a soft agnostic non theist. That is all I am saying. I would encourage you to keep searching for the truth. I wish you well.

What additional evidence should he consider in his search? Please be specific.

 

[KCfromNC]

It does'nt have the hardness and arrogance that is usually associated with the term "atheism" however.

I'm sure Jesus would be proud of you insulting the people he wants to you love in his name.

In fact, describing oneself as a soft agnostic non-theist is far more charitable and self-deprecating and therefore should be preferable, if one desires to be self-deprecating that is....

There's little point in catering to bigots who prejudge people for labeling themselves accurately.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm sure Jesus would be proud of you insulting the people he wants to you love in his name.



There's little point in catering to bigots who prejudge people for labeling themselves accurately.

As if claiming a supernatural deity exists and one has a personal relationship with it, and communicates daily with it, and asserts that they actually know his will, is somehow less arrogant than saying "I don't believe."

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm sure Jesus would be proud of you insulting the people he wants to you love in his name.



There's little point in catering to bigots who prejudge people for labeling themselves accurately.

As if claiming a supernatural deity exists and one has a personal relationship with it, and communicates daily with it, and asserts that they actually know his will, is somehow less arrogant than saying "I don't believe."

What I have said regarding atheism, specifically, the statement you replied to is not that controversial at all.

Nor did I say it was my personal view.

I simply said that the term "atheist" is usually associated with a hardness and arrogance in those who are known atheists. The outspoken Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens were arguably most influential in this stereotype gaining the acceptance that it has. Is this correct? It is not my place to say.

This is not controversial. In fact several atheists admit that when being introduced before debates or academic lectures, they prefer to distance themselves from this common stereotype and desire to be referred to as either agnostic or simply non-theists.

So the accusation that I am insulting someone like the vast majority of your statements here, has just been demonstrated to be false.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What I have said regarding atheism, specifically, the statement you replied to is not that controversial at all.

Nor did I say it was my personal view.

I simply said that the term "atheist" is usually associated with a hardness and arrogance in those who are known atheists. The outspoken Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens were arguably most influential in this stereotype gaining the acceptance that it has. Is this correct? It is not my place to say.

This is not controversial. In fact several atheists admit that when being introduced before debates or academic lectures, they prefer to distance themselves from this common stereotype and desire to be referred to as either agnostic or simply non-theists.

So the accusation that I am insulting someone like the vast majority of your statements here, has just been demonstrated to be false.

So why did you bring it up?

 

[variant]

I simply said that the term "atheist" is usually associated with a hardness and arrogance in those who are known atheists. The outspoken Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens were arguably most influential in this stereotype gaining the acceptance that it has. Is this correct? It is not my place to say.

I have no problem with your association of me with those people. You don't call yourself something other than a Christian because some Christians are outspoken do you?

Stereotyping works to your detriment not mine.

Atheism is a defined term and it means what it means, anyone who qualifies should use the term appropriately.

 

[variant]

So why did you bring it up?

I think he feels we should be ashamed for being associated in his mind with outspoken Atheists...

It's an odd idea.

 

[Freodin]

Associated with people like Richard Dawkins...

Well, he is outspoken. Harsh at times. Sometimes wrong.

But arrogant? If you hear him talk, this is a assertion that is untrue.

And he is brilliant!

I am quite honoured to be associated with Richard Dawkins. Or PZ Myers. Or Ophelia Benson. Or Aron Ra... sadly missed on these forums. Or... Or...

There might be atheists that I don't like to be associated with... but this has nothing to do with their atheism. Even atheists can be jerks.

Just like Christians.

A common and uncontroversial stereotype about Christians is that they are all right-bummed holier-than-you autocrats who would like nothing better than stone those evil sinners. Or blathering idiots trying for political power.

But I am sure no one would like to be associated with Christians, would they?