Atheist or Agnostic

[SavedByTheLord]

Atheist or really Agnostic

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation. Even if you could look throughout the entire universe, which you cannot, and found no God, that still would not prove that God does not exist. It would at best prove that God could not be seen.

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God. A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it. In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position. They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

 

[Whatsisface]

Atheist or really Agnostic

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation. Even if you could look throughout the entire universe, which you cannot, and found no God, that still would not prove that God does not exist. It would at best prove that God could not be seen.

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God. A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it. In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position. They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

How seriously should I take an idea that I can't disprove? I can't disprove leprechauns, but should I take the idea of them seriously? Logically we should believe things when they can be shown to exist, not when they can't be shown not to.

I consider myself a strong atheist even though I know I can't disprove God, but because I can see no good reason to think He exists in the first place.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How seriously should I take an idea that I can't disprove? I can't disprove leprechauns, but should I take the idea of them seriously? Logically we should believe things when they can be shown to exist, not when they can't be shown not to.

I consider myself a strong atheist even though I know I can't disprove God, but because I can see no good reason to think He exists in the first place.

Well if the Bible is true, then it would not go well for an atheist when they die.
I believe the scale is up to 7 with 7 being absolutely sure that there is no God.
I

 

[Whatsisface]

Well if the Bible is true, then it would not go well for an atheist when they die.
I believe the scale is up to 7 with 7 being absolutely sure that there is no God.
I

This doesn't really address my reply, and for me the idea of hell is so ridiculous that it only adds to me being a strong atheist.

I'm with Dawkins, where he thinks it's a 6.9 or some such.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This doesn't really address my reply, and for me the idea of hell is so ridiculous that it only adds to me being a strong atheist.

I'm with Dawkins, where he thinks it's a 6.9 or some such.

Well you certainly have hit on what I believe is the strongest argument against the Bible.
I at one time did some discussions with an atheist forum. And a few were also a 6.9.
I got banned forever after a short time. I took up the gospel of Christ.

 

[Whatsisface]

Well you certainly have hit on what I believe is the strongest argument against the Bible.

Interesting. Some Christians here believe hell exists because of the Bible.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Interesting. Some Christians here believe hell exists because of the Bible.

And I believe that too.
There is no denying that the Bible is quite clear that there is everlasting punishment for unbelief in the lake of fire.

 

[positive atheist]

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation.

1. Christians claim god is morally perfect, all good.
2. Never existing cannot ever be harmful as there is no existent person who can experience the harm.
3. Existing at minimum brings the possibility of harm, the high probability of harm, and the possibility of eternal hell.
4. It would be morally better for a person to never exist than to exist, as this would prevent all harm.
5. God caused humans to exist.
6. 1 contradicts 5.
C. The Christian god does not exist.


“Perhaps God could not, for some perfectly plausible reason, create a world without evil, but then it would seem that He ought not to have created at all.” —Richard R. La Croix, 1974.

If Christians argue that there exists some greater good that is unknown to us that makes it morally better for God to cause people to exist this seems
1) Unlikely as it is impossible to think of what worldly benefit makes the possibility of eternal hell worth it but furthermore
2) In premise 2 there is literally nobody who has an interest in experiencing these unknown benefits, and therefore nobody is being deprived of them; literally nobody is missing out. There can be no greater good for someone that never existed.

“If God is the greatest possible good then if God had not created there would be nothing but the greatest possible good. And since God didn’t need to create at all, then the fact that he did create produced less than the greatest possible good…….Prior to creation God knew that if he created there would be evil, so being wholly good he ought not to have created.” —Richard R. La Croix

There you go. An argument that god does not exist. It was easy to prove.

 

[positive atheist]

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God. A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it.

Not true at all. Simply showing an internal inconsistency in what god is purported to be would absolutely prove god does not exist.

Proving that god existing is inconsistent with known facts about the universe would absolutely prove god does not exist.

 

[mikeT]

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God.

You don't have the authority to tell atheists whether they are or are not atheists.

This is typical fundagelical behavior, claiming to know what people think or believe, redefining words to suit an apologetic agenda, and misunderstanding basic civility.

 

[positive atheist]

You don't have the authority to tell atheists whether they are or are not atheists.

This is typical fundagelical behavior, claiming to know what people think or believe, redefining words to suit an apologetic agenda, and misunderstanding basic civility.

Allowing your opponent to define the terms of your argument is a good way to lose a debate.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Atheist or really Agnostic

Both.

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God.

Yes, that's me. I will claim that there is no God.

In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Yes, that's also me. When I claim that there is no God I am expressing what I believe, to the best of my knowledge, to be true.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position. They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Also still me. I will claim that there is no God while acknowledging the possibility that I might be wrong.

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

If I were to restrict my claims to only those things that I can be absolutely certain of, I'd never get to speak of anything outside of pure logic, mathematics, and Descartes' cogito ergo sum.

 

[Tyrion]

Atheist or really Agnostic

Agnostic atheist.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Agnostic atheist.

Thanks. That is an honest answer.

See if this matches hat you believe. You believe that there is no God and are quite sure. But you are honest in that you could not prove beyond all doubt that God does not have exist.

 

[Temujin]

Atheist or really Agnostic

To truly be an atheist is to claim that there in no God. But that very claim is to pose an absolute negation about a supreme being. It would be extremely hard to prove such an absolute negation. Even if you could look throughout the entire universe, which you cannot, and found no God, that still would not prove that God does not exist. It would at best prove that God could not be seen.

Because of this, it is impossible to absolutely claim that there is no God. A person could be fairly convinced of their position, but they could not prove it. In essence they would logically have to be an agnostic, with a personal belief that to the best of their knowledge, there is no God. But then logically they are agnostic. They really do not know.

Since logically they are agnostic, they must allow for the possibility that God may exist, if they are to be true to a logical position. They certainly can keep their personal belief of no God, unless they could be shown that God does exist. But an honest agnostic must allow for the possibility that God exists.

Those that claim that they will always be an atheist, may be showing that it is not logical to absolutely claim that there is no God, but a bias to not even consider the evidence.

Your understanding of what it is to be agnostic is false. Agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. (Please not the lower case god. This applies to all gods, not just yours). An atheist either believes that there is no God or lacks belief that there is a god. These are not the same thing.

It is therefore possible to be an agnostic Christian or an agnostic atheist. Atheists can be strong "There is no such thing as a god" or weak "I don't believe in any gods".

Personally, I lack belief in gods in general, though I accept that there is a remote possibility for some being defined as a god existing somewhere. However, I have no hesitation in being sure that the Christian God does not exist. The claims made for Him are inconsistent with reality, His character is ill-defined and contradictory and the holy books associated with Him are riddled with errors, vague "predictions" and is self-contradictory to the point that anyone can justify anything by finding a suitable Bible quote. So in terms of the OP, I am an agnostic atheist in general, but drop the agnosticism when it comes to the Abrahamic God/Allah.

 

[Komodo]

Thanks. That is an honest answer.

See if this matches hat you believe. You believe that there is no God and are quite sure. But you are honest in that you could not prove beyond all doubt that God does not have exist.

Is there anything that anybody can prove "beyond all doubt"? I doubt it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Is there anything that anybody can prove "beyond all doubt"? I doubt it.

Well actually you may have a point.
There are some people who given absolute proof would still deny it. So for them you cannot prove "beyond all doubt"
I do have absolute proof. It is absolutely for certain that God Almighty the Creator exists and it is absolutely for certain that the Bible is the true word of God.

But suppose that the there is a 1 in (10 to the trillion trillion trillion) power that maybe it all came into being by chance, who would risk everlasting torment in hell.

Satan is the king of all the children of pride.

He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride. - Job 41:34

24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. - 2 Tim 2:24-26

 

[Tetsugaku]

I do have absolute proof.

It would be nice if you could share it with the rest of us then.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

It would be nice if you could share it with the rest of us then.

If it's experiential proof, like the kind of proof I have, that's probably not possible. Do you have proof that all proofs can be shared? It would be nice if you could share it with the rest of us then.

 

[Tyrion]

Thanks. That is an honest answer.

See if this matches hat you believe. You believe that there is no God and are quite sure. But you are honest in that you could not prove beyond all doubt that God does not have exist.

That's pretty close. My position is that I tentatively believe there is no God, and I've put enough effort looking into the question that I'm pretty sure that isn't going to change (unless of course there is a God and He makes it change), and that I don't see any point in putting a lot more effort into it.

I'm still willing to look at what other people have to say about it, if they seem reasonable, but I don't expect that to change anything.