"Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical" | Talks At Google

[bhsmte]

Here’s why “atheism is just a lack of belief” is largely nonsense:

This page explains it rather well:
“There is no God!” – A Common Atheist Belief

After reading that article, look through the comments, and you find even more evidence - the fact that atheists themselves tell us that the “atheism is just a lack of belief” is bunk.

There’s a reference there to Luke Muehlhauser, a well-known, popular, outspoken atheist who stated:


An atheist essentially admitting that the “atheism is just a lack of belief” position is just a shell game to avoid a burden of proof.

On top of that, we have atheist sites that flat out lie about what atheism is:
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

They claim,”Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god,” and, “To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods.” Nowhere do they even admit that there are, in fact, many who are atheists who DO hold the position and openly say that no gods exist. They don’t even acknowledge the existence of hard atheism, a VERY commonly-held position. They come right out and claim atheism is NOT a denial or disbelief.

So, according to them, apparently, if one DOES claim there are no gods, then you’re not an atheist.

What?? How an atheist organization can actually expect people to accept such brazenly deceitful statements is beyond me.

It is amazing you are so infatuated about this topic. I dont believe in a personal god, so i call myself an atheist towards personal gods. Why? Simple, because we have descriptions of what the christian god is all about and i can look at well evidenced reality to determine if this god exists. Regarding non personal gods, there are few descriptions, so i call myself agnostic towards the same.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is amazing you are so infatuated about this topic. I dont believe in a personal god, so i call myself an atheist towards personal gods. Why? Simple, because we have descriptions of what the christian god is all about and i can look at well evidenced reality to determine if this god exists. Regarding non personal gods, there are few descriptions, so i call myself agnostic towards the same.

I think the conversation would be more fruitful if we were talking to a wall.

 

[-V-]

It is amazing you are so infatuated about this topic.

I don't think I'm any more/less "infatuated" than anyone else involved in the conversation here. You're responding just as much as I am. Why does that make you less "infatuated"?

I dont believe in a personal god, so i call myself an atheist towards personal gods. ... Regarding non personal gods, there are few descriptions, so i call myself agnostic towards the same.

Nonsense. Such "selective atheism" doesn't exist. "Atheism" is about ALL gods. So, if you think there may be impersonal gods but you don't/can't know, then you are agnostic, period.

 

[-V-]

I think the conversation would be more fruitful if we were talking to a wall.

Yeah, cuz cheap shot insults always make the best argument for how right you are.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think I'm any more/less "infatuated" than anyone else involved in the conversation here. You're responding just as much as I am. Why does that make you less "infatuated"?


Nonsense. Such "selective atheism" doesn't exist. "Atheism" is about ALL gods. So, if you think there may be impersonal gods but you don't/can't know, then you are agnostic, period.

I am responding as much as you? LOL. And yes, one can be atheist towards the christian god and agnostic towards a non personal god. Agnostic means unknowable and since limited descriptions of non personal gods exist, it is unknowable at this point to me whether they exist. We have descriptions of what the christian god is, so that question is knowable to me, by trying to reconcile the description, with well evidenced reality. I simply cant reconcile the christian god as existing, without playing psychological gymnastics with myself, which i dont do well.

 

[-V-]

I am responding as much as you? LOL. And yes, one can be atheist towards the christian god and agnostic towards a non personal god like the christian god. Agnostic means unknowable and since limited descriptions of non personal gods exist, it is unknowable at this point to me whether they exist. We have descriotions of what the christian god is, so that question is knowable to me, by trying to reconcile the description, with well evidenced reality. I simply can reconcile the christian goad as existing, without playing psychological gymnastics with myself, which i dont do well.

No, denying one type of god doesn't make you an atheist. Denying ALL gods makes you an atheist. Do you deny all gods? No. You accept an impersonal god could exist. You are agnostic, end of story.

 

[bhsmte]

No, denying one type of god doesn't make you an atheist. Denying ALL gods makes you an atheist. Do you deny all gods? No. You accept an impersonal god could exist. You are agnostic, end of story.

couldnt be more wrong. If someone asked me if a 40 legged purple and pink animal that was 80 feet tall existed, i would say this animal does not exist based on the available evidence. If they asked me a vague question about another animal without giving any description, i would say it is not knowable, without a description to analyze and compare to available evidence. You keep telling yourself what you need to though.

 

[-V-]

couldnt be more wrong. If someone asked me if a 40 legged purple and pink animal that was 80 feet tall existed, i would say this animal does not exist based on the available evidence. If they asked me a vague question about another animal without giving any description, i would say it is not knowable, without a description to analyze and compare to available evidence. You keep telling yourself what you need to though.

Apples & oranges.

Do you think animals exist? I'll bet you believe "animals exist" is a true statement. So, your analogy of being an animal-atheist or animal-agnostic fails quite hard.

 

[-V-]

Now you're backing off.

ARE

AGNOSTIC

ATHEISTS

ACTUALLY

ATHEISTS

OR

ARE

THEY

NOT?

I

SAID

THERE'S

A

DISTINCTION

AND

THEY

SHOULDN'T

BE

LUMPED

TOGETHER

 

[-V-]

IA blog. What an amazing source.

The University of Georgia says the same thing:
Spherical Geometry
"In spherical geometry, there are no parallel lines."

Folks at the Illinois Institute of Technology seem to think the same thing:
http://math.iit.edu/~mccomic/420/notes/Bolin_spherical.pdf
"a particular geometry where there are no parallel lines: spherical geometry."

I went to college and got my BS in mathematics. So I know for a fact that I'm right.

Oh, well that settles it. We know you're qualified because you say so. And we know you're right because you say so. The simple fact that you keep getting the definition of parallel lines wrong kinda shoots down your whole "I know better" tactic.

 

[bhsmte]

Apples & oranges.

Do you think animals exist? I'll bet you believe "animals exist" is a true statement. So, your analogy of being an animal-atheist or animal-agnostic fails quite hard.

Valid point. Let me change that analogy to alien life. If someone asks me if i believe there is an all powerful alien, that has certain specific traits and gets involved with human life on earth in a certain way, i would say i dont believe this alien exists. If they simply asked if alien life exists, that has capabilities humans dont, i would say that is unknowable at this point.

 

[-V-]

Valid point. Let me change that analogy to alien life. If someone asks me if i believe there is an all powerful alien, that has certain specific traits and gets involved with human life on earth in a certain way, i would say i dont believe this alien exists. If they simply asked if alien life exists, that has capabilities humans dont, i would say that is unknowable at this point.

Yeah, that's AGNOSTIC.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, that's AGNOSTIC.

Nope, it isn't.

 

[-V-]

Nope, it isn't.

You said:

If they simply asked if alien life exists, that has capabilities humans dont, i would say that is unknowable at this point.

Agnostic - "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
from: Definition of AGNOSTIC

You basically described your alien belief with the word-for-word definition of "agnostic".

 

[bhsmte]

You said:


Agnostic - "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"
from: Definition of AGNOSTIC

You basically described your alien belief with the word-for-word definition of "agnostic".

Yes, if something is unknowable, it would be agnostic.

If you read the rest of my post though, having something to work from in regards to the characteristics of a God, allows one to determine if they can reconcile whether this God exists, with well evidenced reality and it becomes knowable.

 

[-V-]

Yes, if something is unknowable, it would be agnostic.

If you read the rest of my post though, having something to work from in regards to the characteristics of a God, allows one to determine if they can reconcile whether this God exists, with well evidenced reality and it becomes knowable.

It's not strictly "unknowable"; simply "unknown" fits as well (but *I'M* the one who needs to read better??). Every time you describe your view, you keep fitting the agnostic view.

 

[bhsmte]

It's not strictly "unknowable"; simply "unknown" fits as well (but *I'M* the one who needs to read better??). Every time you describe your view, you keep fitting the agnostic view.

I strongly disagree, but you go ahead and interpret as you like. I have given detail as to how I reach my conclusions. After that, the folks on this thread can interpret as they see fit.

 

[-V-]

I strongly disagree, but you go ahead and interpret as you like. I have given detail as to how I reach my conclusions. After that, the folks on this thread can interpret as they see fit.

I don't doubt you disagree. But I keep citing references backing up what I post. You & NV keep giving nothing but your personal views & opinions and apparently expect us to think you guys have more authority on definitions than dictionaries and other reputable sources. Yes, everyone can certainly interpret that as they see fit.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't doubt you disagree. But I keep citing references backing up what I post. You & NV keep giving nothing but your personal views & opinions and apparently expect us to think you guys have more authority on definitions than dictionaries and other reputable sources. Yes, everyone can certainly interpret that as they see fit.

Less to do with definitions and much more to do with how Christianity defines their God and trying to reconcile the same with well evidenced reality. When I do that, I can can make a conclusion on whether I believe this God exists.

I can't add anymore on this topic, as I have said everything to address the same.

 

[-V-]

Less to do with definitions and much more to do with how Christianity defines their God and trying to reconcile the same with well evidenced reality. When I do that, I can can make a conclusion on whether I believe this God exists.

Sure, but rejecting one specific god doesn't make one an atheist. There are lots of specific gods that I reject, yet I'm still a theist. You might reject some specific gods, but you still claim to believe that *a* god might exist, you just don't know. Hence, you are agnostic.