Is God real post your thoughts!

[Sly_Wizard]

And by the way, "weak atheism" is a total bastardization of the term agnosticism and the original reason for by which it was coined. To say "Most atheists are agnostics" is well... No. That requires a complete redefining of both words. Whoever came up with that whole "strong" and "weak" thing should be severely bludgeoned (If they're still alive). Thomas Huxley would be ashamed. The denial of a thing does not equal the denial of the existence of that thing just as it's faulty to assume what cannot be thought of cannot exist. Henceforth, agnosticism =/= atheism on any fundamental level.

 

 

 

Following some of that logic, I might as well coin atheism as "weak theism".

[Rebdragon]

Henceforth, agnosticism =/= atheism on any fundamental level.

 

Who said they are equivalent? As ven pointed out, they're in completely different realms. "Weak atheism" is just a way of saying that someone is both an atheist and an agnostic, in much the same way that someone can be both a parent and a female- that is, a "mother". The term merely joins the two characteristucs of a person into one simple term.

 

 

 

Honestly, if they were the same thing, what would be the point of the term joining them together?

[Sly_Wizard]

Henceforth, agnosticism =/= atheism on any fundamental level.

 

Who said they are equivalent? As ven pointed out, they're in completely different realms. "Weak atheism" is just a way of saying that someone is both an atheist and an agnostic, not that they are the same thing. I mean, if they were, what would be the point of the term?

 

 

 

If two somethings inhabit different realms within the same, for lack of a better word because I can't think of one atm, spectrum, then it's impossible to be both of them as that would form a contradiction. Just like someone can't be a Christian and a Muslim or someone can't be a theist and an atheist or even a theist and an agnostic.

 

 

 

*Points to his post*

[Rebdragon]

The edit^: it is because they are of different realms that someone being both an agnostic and and an atheist is possible. The terms Christian in Muslim are of the same realm, as well as atheist and theist. But a/theist and agnostic are not of the same realm. They are not even of the same spectrum- that is a misinterpretation of what being agnostic is. The realms are completely different.

 

 

 

Like my analogy above, a person can't be both a female and a male (eh... besides that), but they can be a parent and a female/male. The joining of these two characteristics, which are of different realms, allows for the possibility of the creation of a simpler term that joins them together ("father" and "mother"). That is what "weak atheism" is- two terms put into one.

[Sly_Wizard]

The edit^: it is because they are of different realms that someone being both an agnostic and and an atheist is possible. The terms Christian in Muslim are of the same realm, as well as atheist and theist. But a/theist and agnostic are not of the same realm. They are not even of the same spectrum- that is a misinterpretation of what being agnostic is. The realms are completely different.

 

 

 

Like my analogy above, a person can't be both a female and a male (eh... besides that), but they can be a parent and a female/male. The joining of these two characteristics, which are of different realms, allows for the possibility of the creation of a simpler term that joins them together ("father" and "mother"). That is what "weak atheism" is- two terms put into one.

 

 

 

Gender determines whether or not you'll be classified as a father or mother, hence the latter is dependent on the former. There's no such correlation between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is not a pre-requisite for atheism and vice versa.The problem is you're trying to join to terms which are contradictory or, more specifically, non-compatible.

[Rebdragon]

No one ever said they are compatible. Being a parent and being of a certain gender really don't have anything to do with each other, considering they are of different realms. It's just easier to say "mother" than to say "parent who is a woman". That's what "weak atheism" is- an easier way of saying "atheist who also follows agnosticism". Basically, you're arguing that they're non-compatible, and I'm saying that that non-compatability is the reason why the term even exists.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oi, noticed a twist you made in my analogy just now. You said gender classifies whether you'll be a mother or father, and then went on to place agnosticism in the place of gender and atheism in the place of mother/father. That is an error- the proper term to put in place of the mother of father is the parallel joining term, "weak atheism", making the prior term, agnosticism (or atheism), a pre-requisite (for weak atheism), like you said.

[warri0r45]

The edit^: it is because they are of different realms that someone being both an agnostic and and an atheist is possible. The terms Christian in Muslim are of the same realm, as well as atheist and theist. But a/theist and agnostic are not of the same realm. They are not even of the same spectrum- that is a misinterpretation of what being agnostic is. The realms are completely different.

 

 

 

Like my analogy above, a person can't be both a female and a male (eh... besides that), but they can be a parent and a female/male. The joining of these two characteristics, which are of different realms, allows for the possibility of the creation of a simpler term that joins them together ("father" and "mother"). That is what "weak atheism" is- two terms put into one.

 

 

 

Gender determines whether or not you'll be classified as a father or mother, hence the latter is dependent on the former. There's no such correlation between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is not a pre-requisite for atheism and vice versa.The problem is you're trying to join to terms which are contradictory or, more specifically, non-compatible.

 

 

 

Atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory. I can lack belief in something yet concede I don't know whether or not that something is true. E.g. I don't believe that the Broncos will win next year's premiership (I hope they do, though :lol: ) but still, I can concede that I don't know whether they will or not.

 

 

 

To give another analogy, I might not believe that a friend will win the lottery, but still I don't know whether he will or not, so in a way I'll also remain agnostic towards the prospect.

[venomai]

If two somethings inhabit different realms within the same, for lack of a better word because I can't think of one atm, spectrum, then it's impossible to be both of them as that would form a contradiction.

 

You're assuming that these two somethings must lie on the same spectrum.

 

 

 

Theist and atheist are contradictory in that they lie on opposite ends of the same spectrum (that of belief). Theist and agnostic, on the other hand, are terms which lie on separate "spectrums" or "realms," neither of which contradicts the other.

 

 

 

I'm also not a fan of the strong/weak prefixes. When I can, I prefer to define atheism as the specific belief that gods do not exist. In my opinion, those that hold no belief (such as a newborn baby) should not require a label of theism/atheism.

[meol]

The topic has been purged of some serious trolling and name-calling. Please keep the tone down in the future, or I'll have to cause some serious injuries take action.

 

 

 

And you really wouldn't want that.

[Sly_Wizard]

No one ever said they are compatible. Being a parent and being of a certain gender really don't have anything to do with each other, considering they are of different realms. It's just easier to say "mother" than to say "parent who is a woman". That's what "weak atheism" is- an easier way of saying "atheist who also follows agnosticism". Basically, you're arguing that they're non-compatible, and I'm saying that that non-compatability is the reason why the term even exists.

 

 

 

EDIT: Oi, noticed a twist you made in my analogy just now. You said gender classifies whether you'll be a mother or father, and then went on to place agnosticism in the place of gender and atheism in the place of mother/father. That is an error- the proper term to put in place of the mother of father is the parallel joining term, "weak atheism", making the prior term, agnosticism (or atheism), a pre-requisite (for weak atheism), like you said.

 

 

 

Ugh no. That's not what I did/said, so let's try this again.

 

 

 

Atheism = Parent

 

Agnosticism = Mother

 

Strong Atheism = Father

 

 

 

The problem here is that your mother (weak atheism/agnosticism) is not derived from parent (atheism) as there is no correlation between the two. Being an atheist does not require you to be an agnostic nor does being an agnostic require you to be an atheist as being an agnostic has nothing upon nothing to do with atheism. To try to make it as such is to completely bastardize the meaning of agnosticism, which would make Thomas Huxley cringe. It's like me assuming parent = theism, mother = agnosticism and father = strong theism, deducing that agnosticism must be a subcategory of theism and arguing that to be an agnostic you must first be a theist. Or, expounding upon that, to be an atheist would require you to first be a theist-- An absurd proposition.

 

 

 

It's really that simple.

 

 

 

Gender determines whether or not you'll be classified as a father or mother, hence the latter is dependent on the former. There's no such correlation between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is not a pre-requisite for atheism and vice versa.The problem is you're trying to join to terms which are contradictory or, more specifically, non-compatible.

 

 

 

Atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory. I can lack belief in something yet concede I don't know whether or not that something is true. E.g. I don't believe that the Broncos will win next year's premiership (I hope they do, though :lol: ) but still, I can concede that I don't know whether they will or not.

 

 

 

I think I totally went over this already.

 

 

 

The disbelief in something is not the same thing as the disbelief in the existence of that something, much as the rejection of that which cannot be thought of does not mean the rejection of the thing that isn't.

 

 

 

If I were to say something like, "Tom isn't bald" this would mean that Tom has hair on his head, not that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald. To argue that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald would be to make a confusion in the difference between the existential and the predicative. Same thing here. To assert a disbelief in God or something about him is not to assert his non-existence. To assert the non-existence of God is to assert nothing about Him is real.

[Rebdragon]

I don't get it. Are you creating a different analogy or actually using mine? I thought I just explained that you did it wrong. By the analogy, it should go as such:

 

 

 

Atheism: Parent (realm)

 

Agnosticism: Gender (realm)

 

Weak/Strong Atheism: Mother/Father (both realms)

 

 

 

Now, for the second time, if you're going to counter my analogy actually use it, instead of looking like you're straw man'n me (ugh, I hate debate terminology...). That^ is it. Simple.

 

 

 

Heck, actually, you don't even need to look at any of that. I agree with you- agnosticism and atheism are not the same, period. Can you stop arguing with me about something I've already told you I agree on, and get to the point of why you think the idea of "weak atheism" is unnecessary and trivial? I just don't get why you agree with me but somehow come to a completely different conclusion (to essentially everyone here) about this. You better as hell not be playing devil's advocate; I'm far past my glory days of debate to care enough to drag something like that out, especially over a debate like this that has been beaten to death like no other.

[Sly_Wizard]

I don't get it. Are you creating a different analogy or actually using mine? I thought I just explained that you did it wrong. By the analogy, it should go as such:

 

 

 

Atheism: Parent (realm)

 

Agnosticism: Gender (realm)

 

Weak/Strong Atheism: Mother/Father (both realms)

 

 

 

Now, for the second time, if you're going to counter my analogy actually use it, instead of looking like you're straw man'n me (ugh, I hate debate terminology...). That^ is it. Simple.

 

 

 

Except it's not really that simple because it innately assumes that there is something intercorrelated to connect each group to the other, when there isn't (More specifically, concerning gender).

 

 

 

Heck, actually, you don't even need to look at any of that. I agree with you- agnosticism and atheism are not the same, period. Can you stop arguing with me about something I've already told you I agree on, and get to the point of why you think the idea of "weak atheism" is unnecessary and trivial? I just don't get why you agree with me but somehow come to a completely different conclusion (to essentially everyone here) about this. You better as hell not be playing devil's advocate; I'm far past my glory days of debate to care enough to drag something like that out, especially over a debate like this that has been beaten to death like no other.

 

 

 

*Points to last page*

[Saru Inc]

1. How do you know YOUR god is the real god, and YOUR religion is the true pathway to heaven

 

 

 

Can you give directions to Central Park? I doubt that any two people woud give the same answer, but they'd all be right (with the aid of a map) There are many pathways to god. Christianity is just one of them.

 

Comparing heaven to Central Park? :thumbup:

 

 

 

No, they wouldn't. Just like, in the Bible, Jesus did miracles, and people still didn't believe in him. If you don't want to be a Christian, God won't make you be one.

 

I personally haven't seen any miracles happen. You might say 'That's because you don't truly want to be a Christian'.

 

So, in order to convince me to turn to Christianity, I'd like to see a miracle. But it seems like I can only see them if I already believe God can make miracles happen. And I don't. Because I haven't seen any miracles, so I don't believe in God. :?

 

 

 

 

 

Of coruse not, Atheists see Miracles too, they just don't want to br proved wrong, so they label it 'science.'

 

 

 

And as too someone posting about my 'errors,' do you even know what logic is? For real, it's how you form an argument so in that case:

 

 

 

 

 

Humans eat food,

 

Humans can go into space.

 

 

 

Llamas eat food,

 

Llamas can go into space.

 

 

 

Now while that's extremely simplistic, it's lodically correct.

 

 

 

Example2:

 

 

 

Ray Charles is blind

 

Love is Blind

 

God is love

 

Ray Charles is God.

 

 

 

Logically it's correct, but it makes no sense if you think about it.

 

 

 

Now I know most of you use logic instead of 'critical thinking,' but please just say "so, critical thinkign would say the earth is round." Instead of "so logic dictates the earth is round."

 

 

 

And lastly, as I stated earlier, 90% of people in here can't debate, yet, no one is actually pointing out my mistakes, except for spelling ones. I only think about 3 total people can actually debate (atheists and Christians combined.)

[Obtaurian]

 

Ray Charles is blind

 

Love is Bling

 

God is love

 

Ray Charles is God.

 

 

 

Logically it's correct, but it makes no sense if you think about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am facepalming so hard right now.

[Saru Inc]

Why? The example is quite old, it was in a video tape series my mom made us watch about Logic.

[Obtaurian]

Why? The example is quite old, it was in a video tape series my mom made us watch about Logic.

 

 

 

Your example is an example of a logical fallacy. It doesn't make sense because it's illogical. :|

[Rebdragon]

Sly, I just read your argument on the last page four times and, apart from where you somehow read the analogy differently, I still don't see where you disagree with me. It feels like we're both arguing with air rather than each other :| .

 

 

 

I don't think there's anything "intercorrelated to connect each group to the other", I just think "weak atheist" rolls off the tongue better than "man who is atheist and also follows agnosticism". It's just a word to make talking easier mate.

[venomai]

Sly, what reasons do you have to doubt the idea that one can be agnostic and also follow theism? (Aptly named "agnostic theism")

[ElkNight]

 

Ray Charles is blind

 

Love is Bling

 

God is love

 

Ray Charles is God.

 

 

Love is Bling 8-)

[warri0r45]

 

Gender determines whether or not you'll be classified as a father or mother, hence the latter is dependent on the former. There's no such correlation between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is not a pre-requisite for atheism and vice versa.The problem is you're trying to join to terms which are contradictory or, more specifically, non-compatible.

 

 

 

Atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory. I can lack belief in something yet concede I don't know whether or not that something is true. E.g. I don't believe that the Broncos will win next year's premiership (I hope they do, though :lol: ) but still, I can concede that I don't know whether they will or not.

 

 

 

I think I totally went over this already.

 

 

 

The disbelief in something is not the same thing as the disbelief in the existence of that something, much as the rejection of that which cannot be thought of does not mean the rejection of the thing that isn't.

 

 

 

If I were to say something like, "Tom isn't bald" this would mean that Tom has hair on his head, not that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald. To argue that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald would be to make a confusion in the difference between the existential and the predicative. Same thing here. To assert a disbelief in God or something about him is not to assert his non-existence. To assert the non-existence of God is to assert nothing about Him is real.

 

 

 

What does that have to do with how agnosticism and atheism are contradictory? I'm not saying that disbelief in god is the same as asserting non-existence at all.

[D Jay99]

1. How do you know YOUR god is the real god, and YOUR religion is the true pathway to heaven

 

 

 

Can you give directions to Central Park? I doubt that any two people woud give the same answer, but they'd all be right (with the aid of a map) There are many pathways to god. Christianity is just one of them.

 

Comparing heaven to Central Park? :thumbup:

 

 

 

No, they wouldn't. Just like, in the Bible, Jesus did miracles, and people still didn't believe in him. If you don't want to be a Christian, God won't make you be one.

 

I personally haven't seen any miracles happen. You might say 'That's because you don't truly want to be a Christian'.

 

So, in order to convince me to turn to Christianity, I'd like to see a miracle. But it seems like I can only see them if I already believe God can make miracles happen. And I don't. Because I haven't seen any miracles, so I don't believe in God. :?

 

 

 

 

 

Of course not, Atheists see Miracles too, they just don't want to be proved wrong, so they label it 'science.'

 

That's because those 'miracles' can usually be explained using a scientifical approach. Example, thunder. A few thousand years ago people thought it was some sign that the gods were angry. Nowadays we can explain it using science.

 

Wouldn't it be the same for the things we don't know for sure now?

[Saru Inc]

Thunder never was, and never will be. And yes, some signs of God can be explained by science, such as rainbows.

[Satenza]

 

Of coruse not, Atheists see Miracles too, they just don't want to br proved wrong, so they label it 'science.'

 

 

 

 

So if they label it science, then that means whatever "miracle" they are witnessing can be shown to have happened within the laws of nature. Really, come on now. That was perhaps the worst amalgamation of words thrown together in the hope that they will fall into and form some sort of argument.

[Furah]

why do you think axe murderers go to heaven? because God says "hey, you screwed up, really bad, but you're really sorry, and I love you, so I'll forigve you." And he never brings it up again.

 

 

 

That's a new one.. Who goes to "hell" (or gehenna, which is the original biblical hebrew word used for a 'burning pit') then according to christian theology? Not a lot of christians would agree with you that every person, Hitler and 'casual mass-murderer' alike, can just utter a few words of repentance to make up for countless destroyed lives, years of torture... Your pastor is misintepreting his faith if he genuinely believes so & teaches it openly.

 

 

 

Christian universalists believe God will save any soul regardless of their actions through faith and repentance, it represents an extremely small portion of the total theological believer base of christianity though.

 

 

 

It's not just about the words, it's about meaning it. Just like an apology, what is the point of it if you don't mean it?

 

 

 

 

 

Also, for those talking about not seeing miracles there is a verse in the bible (one or more of the gospels) where Jesus goes to a town and there was such a lack of faith in that town that Jesus performs no miracles. This is probably still the case today.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Of coruse not, Atheists see Miracles too, they just don't want to br proved wrong, so they label it 'science.'

 

What miracles would these be?

 

 

 

A rainbow? Is the refraction of light from the Sun as it hits a liquid (rain) and enters a medium with a different density to air, and again as it leaves. A fairly simple phenomenon that can be repeated manually by man using a glass triangular prism and a single beam of light, or if you're on a shoe-string budget, by sticking a straw into a glass full of water.

 

 

 

I can't see any evidence of a "miracle" there, and hence, the existence of a higher being.