The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_Some Schmo]

shtem, if your personal vendetta against this individual atheist poster is so strong that your only posts in response to me is to whimper and whine about me personally, then I say just simply choose not to respond. You don't need to whine about me. I've seen the personal hostility now for quite some time.

Hey there, Schmoe. I have nothing against you, personally. I find your take often humorous and sometimes delightful. But that does nothing to the lack of support for your position. You see you lack any support for your position, but seem adamantly opposed to others who also lack support--because they lack support. Its a weird spot you are in, I'd say. I hope you reconsider the personal vendetta route.

Hey there, shtem (I've decided to habitually misspell your name too, because it's fun, right?) I have nothing against you, personally.

Let's see if you can read the following and actually understand it. Concentrate now, because this is your chance to prove you can read above a 4th grade level:

If I say, "I don't know if there's a god, but I don't think there is based on a lack of evidence," I am not obligated to prove anything (unless you want me to somehow prove I don't know).

Now, what is it about that last statement you fail to understand?

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Buffalo (Merry Christmas!)

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

That has a fairly strong ring of agnostic to my ears. No?

by the way: GREAT Thread!
Must read!
5 Stars



Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

Hey Buffalo (Merry Christmas!)

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

That has a fairly strong ring of agnostic to my ears. No?

by the way: GREAT Thread!
Must read!
5 Stars



Peace,
Ceeboo

Atheism and agnosticism have a lot of overlap. Most atheists are probably also agnostics.

[_Some Schmo]

Hey Buffalo (Merry Christmas!)

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

That has a fairly strong ring of agnostic to my ears. No?

This has been pointed out many times before, but just for reinforcement, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

It's actually quite remarkable that religious types think they are. Hmmm... I wonder why...

[_just me]

Michael Shermer on atheism:

"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling. If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it. The funny thing in all of this, or mixed up thing if you prefer, is that atheists typically don't believe because they find the notion of belief untenable. Belief in God is untenable therefore I see no reason to believe but the mistake is to make a claim of one's own--that there is no God. As Shermer suggests one cannot disprove the existence of God just as one can't prove such existence. The position of atheism is untenable, but the atheist typically surrenders to that position because he/she finds belief untenable. What a weird position to find oneself in, I'd say. The out for believers is the reason for belief is in faith (meaning the experiences they consider spiritual provide reason to believe), but for atheists they are stuck having to rely on verifyable scientific methods and reasoning to prove his/her position, which is impossible to do. So what we're left with is two untenable positions, one, ultimately with an out, the other filled with hypocrisy, it seems.

This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here regarding LDS folks and LDS defenders. The complaint here is that the LDS defender is merely critiquing a critique of an LDS position, and therefore the LDS defender isn’t supporting his/her position—the positive claims of the Church. And yet, the original critique offered of LDS belief is untenable, as reasoned by the LDS defender. The critics position is untenable, while claiming LDS belief can’t be right because its untenable.

There ya are folks—the very problem you guys have created and have been unwilling and/or unwilling to see or accept.

Since I rarely understand what you are saying I would like to paraphrase what I am getting from your message and you can tell me if I am correct or not. I will not be surprised if I am incorrect.

What you are saying is that atheists who claim to "know" there is no god have to prove it and since that is not possible they cannot have a legit critique of the LDS church.

Members of the LDS church claim to "know" there is a god which they cannot prove, but that is okay because they really are taking it on faith alone. Because of this they do not have to prove anything.

It is up to the critic to prove their position because they are the one who does not use faith.

Is this what you are saying?

[_Ceeboo]

Hi SS (Merry Christmas to you and yours, friend)

(Buffalo, thanks for your above comment as well. Understood!)

This has been pointed out many times before, but just for reinforcement, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive.

Yea, I think that is fair (I wonder if we all don't share at least some degree or shades of agnostic on our self portraits?)

It's actually quite remarkable that religious types think they are. Hmmm... I wonder why...

Hmmmmm?
If you would have stopped typing before this! What could have been?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Molok]

Everyone hates everyone, everyone is a retard, and stemelbow is our lizard king. damned /thread.

[_Molok]

Hey Buffalo (Merry Christmas!)

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

That has a fairly strong ring of agnostic to my ears. No?

by the way: GREAT Thread!
Must read!
5 Stars



Peace,
Ceeboo

XD

[_DarkHelmet]

The LDS church, unlike an unspecific notion of god, has been proven false without a shadow of a doubt.

I'd like to see proof of this, atheist. I laugh because here you admit that your one position is untenable but then another is tenable. Anyway, perhaps you should start by defining exactly what you mean by "proven false without a shadow of a doubt". Whose doubt, or non-doubt? And what do you mean by "proven"?

Rather than having us provide you with proof, after which you will provide a link to a FARMS article, beginning a debate on one issue that has been hashed out forever, why don't you tell us what evidence would disprove the church for you. Obviously you believe other religions have been proven false. What evidence led you to the conclusion that others are false and the LDS church is true, and what evidence would convince you the LDS church is false?

[_Chap]

Michael Shermer on atheism:

"But this is not the common usage, as we saw in the Oxford English Dictionary. (And we would do well to remember that dictionaries do not give definitions, they give usages.) Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God" (not to mention its pejorative permutations). But "denial of a God" is an untenable position. it is no more possible to prove God's nonexistence than it is to prove His existence. "there is no God" is no more defensible than "there is a God." How We Believe : Science, Skepticism, and the search for God, Michael Shermer, 2nd Ed, pg 9.

He puts it in a way that I find most compelling. If you assume the atheist position you assume the burden to prove it. ....

Stemelbow (or rather the guy he quotes) says that 'atheism' is commonly used to mean one of these two (different) positions:

(a) disbelief in ... the existence of a God.
or
(b) denial of ... the existence of a God.

For a start I'd like to know why the entity is in the singular and in capital letters, signifying a proper noun as if we were agreed on only one possibility as to what does or does not exist. Of course, Shermer writes like that because he is thinking only in the context of a tradition of Abrahamic monotheism. Why do we have to do that? It's a big and complex world.

A more general way to put it would be:

(a) disbelief in ... the existence of any deities.
or
(b) denial of ... the existence of any deities.

(I leave to one side the trivial point that Stemelbow is certainly a firm atheist as regards Thor, Astarte, Thoth, Zeus, and all other deities except Yahweh.)

Now someone who holds position (a) does not have to prove anything. He or she just sees no reason to believe in any deities - the believers in these entities have just failed to persuade him. That's the kind of atheist I am, and the kind of atheist that people increasingly are when brought up in an environment that does not privilege any religion. The fact that I am an atheist is not my problem: it is the problem of people who want to persuade me to the contrary.

What about position (b)? Stemelbow apparently thinks that if I say "there are no deities" I am being unreasonable unless I can prove that each and and every deity does not exist. But that is unreasonable in turn, since the proposition has exactly the same form as certain others that Stemelbow almost certainly would hold to without feeling he has to prove anything, for example:

(1) There are no fairies.
(2) There are no little green men in flying saucers overflying the US.
(3) There is no Santa Claus.

If Stemelbow feels that I cannot say 'There is no Santa' without having to prove the proposition, most people would say that his thinking was, shall we say, a little bizarre. So why cannot someone say "There are no deities" on the same basis?