There is no such thing as an Athiest

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
You're the one that's using the wrong term. An agnostic is somebody who is unsure if there is a God or not (no matter what religion), i'm firmly against the belief that there is a God. I believe the universe had a beginning, but it certainly wasn't created by an intelligent being.

An atheist, like you quote, disbelief in the existence of deities... and deities are intelligent beings that govern the universe.

Incorrect. A weak agnostic is unsure. A strong agnostic says that while a god is possible, there is a preponderance of evidence against a god and believes therefore that no god exists but is intelligent enough not to make positive claims.

ZV

LOL again, all you're doing is semantics, and arguing whether i'm an atheist or agnostic at that!

I said earlier that I was only arguing semantics! Bloody hell you people have no reading comprehension! Nowehere have I said that I was arguing anything other than semantics on this particular point!

The point I had been making was that if someone did make a positive claim that there were no gods then there would be as much a burden of proof on them as there is on a theist.

ZV

Then what's the point in arguing if all you're going to do is stick to semantics? Is proper labelling me going to ease your conscience, if you believe that i'm an agnostic rather than an atheist? Do you believe that if you properly believe i'm an agnostic, that that somehow gives you hope that there might be a creator god, because i'm uncertain?

I don't base my beliefs (or lack thereof) on what anyone thinks. Least of all you. You're just not that important. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I am a stickler for proper use of terminology because when people just use terms all willy-nilly and without regard to their proper meaning then it not only degrades the language, but it also generates confusion.

ZV

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm
props to wrxfanatic for keeping the theist vs. agnostic/atheist arguement alive because the atheist vs. agnostic argument sucks. Okay just about everything in the bible could be proven wrong but the mature person accepts that and believes that they are just stories that teach a moral lesson. Not all theist are (that one religon that believes every thing the bible says)

1. the Bible was written in over 40 countries by many many different authors, yet somehow it all fits together into a perfect book that is connected from Genesis to Revelation

2. prophecies from the old testament were fufilled in the New testament

If everything in the bible is literal fact how is methusalas 900 years old? Explain that and I will then proceed to take apart your 2 arguments

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
You're the one that's using the wrong term. An agnostic is somebody who is unsure if there is a God or not (no matter what religion), i'm firmly against the belief that there is a God. I believe the universe had a beginning, but it certainly wasn't created by an intelligent being.

An atheist, like you quote, disbelief in the existence of deities... and deities are intelligent beings that govern the universe.

Incorrect. A weak agnostic is unsure. A strong agnostic says that while a god is possible, there is a preponderance of evidence against a god and believes therefore that no god exists but is intelligent enough not to make positive claims.

ZV

LOL again, all you're doing is semantics, and arguing whether i'm an atheist or agnostic at that!

I said earlier that I was only arguing semantics! Bloody hell you people have no reading comprehension! Nowehere have I said that I was arguing anything other than semantics on this particular point!

The point I had been making was that if someone did make a positive claim that there were no gods then there would be as much a burden of proof on them as there is on a theist.

ZV

Then what's the point in arguing if all you're going to do is stick to semantics? Is proper labelling me going to ease your conscience, if you believe that i'm an agnostic rather than an atheist? Do you believe that if you properly believe i'm an agnostic, that that somehow gives you hope that there might be a creator god, because i'm uncertain?

I don't base my beliefs (or lack thereof) on what anyone thinks. Least of all you. You're just not that important. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I am a stickler for proper use of terminology because when people just use terms all willy-nilly and without regard to their proper meaning then it not only degrades the language, but it also generates confusion.

ZV

I guess i understand if that's all you have to stand on, is semantics. Like the link i gave you a few posts earlier, one persons definition may be different than another, and to spend time arguing on what somebody should be labelled seems ridiculous to me.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
You're the one that's using the wrong term. An agnostic is somebody who is unsure if there is a God or not (no matter what religion), i'm firmly against the belief that there is a God. I believe the universe had a beginning, but it certainly wasn't created by an intelligent being.

An atheist, like you quote, disbelief in the existence of deities... and deities are intelligent beings that govern the universe.

Incorrect. A weak agnostic is unsure. A strong agnostic says that while a god is possible, there is a preponderance of evidence against a god and believes therefore that no god exists but is intelligent enough not to make positive claims.

ZV

LOL again, all you're doing is semantics, and arguing whether i'm an atheist or agnostic at that!

I said earlier that I was only arguing semantics! Bloody hell you people have no reading comprehension! Nowehere have I said that I was arguing anything other than semantics on this particular point!

The point I had been making was that if someone did make a positive claim that there were no gods then there would be as much a burden of proof on them as there is on a theist.

ZV

Then what's the point in arguing if all you're going to do is stick to semantics? Is proper labelling me going to ease your conscience, if you believe that i'm an agnostic rather than an atheist? Do you believe that if you properly believe i'm an agnostic, that that somehow gives you hope that there might be a creator god, because i'm uncertain?

I don't base my beliefs (or lack thereof) on what anyone thinks. Least of all you. You're just not that important. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I am a stickler for proper use of terminology because when people just use terms all willy-nilly and without regard to their proper meaning then it not only degrades the language, but it also generates confusion.

ZV

You are right but serioulsly who knows what an agnostic is 5% of all people a strong/weak agnostic 0.4%.

 

[WRXFanatic]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm
props to wrxfanatic for keeping the theist vs. agnostic/atheist arguement alive because the atheist vs. agnostic argument sucks. Okay just about everything in the bible could be proven wrong but the mature person accepts that and believes that they are just stories that teach a moral lesson. Not all theist are (that one religon that believes every thing the bible says)

1. the Bible was written in over 40 countries by many many different authors, yet somehow it all fits together into a perfect book that is connected from Genesis to Revelation

2. prophecies from the old testament were fufilled in the New testament

If everything in the bible is literal fact how is methusalas 900 years old? Explain that and I will then proceed to take apart your 2 arguments

He was the oldest man of whom we have any record. This very ancient man lived before the Flood, and died at the age of 969 years, in the year of the Flood (Gen. 5:21-27; 1 Chr. 1:3). This fact, plus the former possible meaning of his name, suggests that Methuselah's very godly father, Enoch, received a prophecy from God when his son was born, thus the name. Methuselah's great age may be further evidence of God's "long-suffering...in the days of Noah" (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).

thats info from www.christiananswers.net....

the only answer i have to that is God is all powerful and he can do anything, he gave abraham a child...he can do what he wants

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm
props to wrxfanatic for keeping the theist vs. agnostic/atheist arguement alive because the atheist vs. agnostic argument sucks. Okay just about everything in the bible could be proven wrong but the mature person accepts that and believes that they are just stories that teach a moral lesson. Not all theist are (that one religon that believes every thing the bible says)

1. the Bible was written in over 40 countries by many many different authors, yet somehow it all fits together into a perfect book that is connected from Genesis to Revelation

2. prophecies from the old testament were fufilled in the New testament

If everything in the bible is literal fact how is methusalas 900 years old? Explain that and I will then proceed to take apart your 2 arguments

He was the oldest man of whom we have any record. This very ancient man lived before the Flood, and died at the age of 969 years, in the year of the Flood (Gen. 5:21-27; 1 Chr. 1:3). This fact, plus the former possible meaning of his name, suggests that Methuselah's very godly father, Enoch, received a prophecy from God when his son was born, thus the name. Methuselah's great age may be further evidence of God's "long-suffering...in the days of Noah" (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).

thats info from www.christiananswers.net....

the only answer i have to that is God is all powerful and he can do anything, he gave abraham a child...he can do what he wants

Way to not answer the question.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm
props to wrxfanatic for keeping the theist vs. agnostic/atheist arguement alive because the atheist vs. agnostic argument sucks. Okay just about everything in the bible could be proven wrong but the mature person accepts that and believes that they are just stories that teach a moral lesson. Not all theist are (that one religon that believes every thing the bible says)

1. the Bible was written in over 40 countries by many many different authors, yet somehow it all fits together into a perfect book that is connected from Genesis to Revelation

2. prophecies from the old testament were fufilled in the New testament

If everything in the bible is literal fact how is methusalas 900 years old? Explain that and I will then proceed to take apart your 2 arguments

He was the oldest man of whom we have any record. This very ancient man lived before the Flood, and died at the age of 969 years, in the year of the Flood (Gen. 5:21-27; 1 Chr. 1:3). This fact, plus the former possible meaning of his name, suggests that Methuselah's very godly father, Enoch, received a prophecy from God when his son was born, thus the name. Methuselah's great age may be further evidence of God's "long-suffering...in the days of Noah" (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).

thats info from www.christiananswers.net....

the only answer i have to that is God is all powerful and he can do anything, he gave abraham a child...he can do what he wants

Now if that is your awnser to everything what is the point of arguing with you? Provide a link to where you got that 40 country info.

 

[WRXFanatic]

another question for all you who don't believe in God....

What do you do with your guilt?

 

[matt426malm]

God is all powerful and he can do anything. No that awnsers everything quite well.

 

[meehawl]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatichow do actual athiests exist?

Atheists can spell.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm
props to wrxfanatic for keeping the theist vs. agnostic/atheist arguement alive because the atheist vs. agnostic argument sucks. Okay just about everything in the bible could be proven wrong but the mature person accepts that and believes that they are just stories that teach a moral lesson. Not all theist are (that one religon that believes every thing the bible says)

1. the Bible was written in over 40 countries by many many different authors, yet somehow it all fits together into a perfect book that is connected from Genesis to Revelation

2. prophecies from the old testament were fufilled in the New testament

If everything in the bible is literal fact how is methusalas 900 years old? Explain that and I will then proceed to take apart your 2 arguments

He was the oldest man of whom we have any record. This very ancient man lived before the Flood, and died at the age of 969 years, in the year of the Flood (Gen. 5:21-27; 1 Chr. 1:3). This fact, plus the former possible meaning of his name, suggests that Methuselah's very godly father, Enoch, received a prophecy from God when his son was born, thus the name. Methuselah's great age may be further evidence of God's "long-suffering...in the days of Noah" (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).

thats info from www.christiananswers.net....

the only answer i have to that is God is all powerful and he can do anything, he gave abraham a child...he can do what he wants

That's the argument of what a child would make.

 

[WRXFanatic]

that's not my answer to everything....i got the 40 country info from my Bible actually...i just had to check b/c i didn't know who Methusala was exactly

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic

Originally posted by: matt426malm
props to wrxfanatic for keeping the theist vs. agnostic/atheist arguement alive because the atheist vs. agnostic argument sucks. Okay just about everything in the bible could be proven wrong but the mature person accepts that and believes that they are just stories that teach a moral lesson. Not all theist are (that one religon that believes every thing the bible says)

1. the Bible was written in over 40 countries by many many different authors, yet somehow it all fits together into a perfect book that is connected from Genesis to Revelation

2. prophecies from the old testament were fufilled in the New testament

If everything in the bible is literal fact how is methusalas 900 years old? Explain that and I will then proceed to take apart your 2 arguments

He was the oldest man of whom we have any record. This very ancient man lived before the Flood, and died at the age of 969 years, in the year of the Flood (Gen. 5:21-27; 1 Chr. 1:3). This fact, plus the former possible meaning of his name, suggests that Methuselah's very godly father, Enoch, received a prophecy from God when his son was born, thus the name. Methuselah's great age may be further evidence of God's "long-suffering...in the days of Noah" (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:9).

thats info from www.christiananswers.net....

the only answer i have to that is God is all powerful and he can do anything, he gave abraham a child...he can do what he wants

That's the argument of what a child would make.

I think that's pretty much what we're dealing with.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
another question for all you who don't believe in God....

What do you do with your guilt?

WHAT, I go to confessional DuH!!!! A. I let it fester inside until I deveop an ulcer B. do something to amend what I feel guilty of C. Forget about it

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
I guess i understand if that's all you have to stand on, is semantics. Like the link i gave you a few posts earlier, one persons definition may be different than another, and to spend time arguing on what somebody should be labelled seems ridiculous to me.

No part of my argument rests on semantics. I have been trying to get people to speak correctly and not sound like idiots who have never picked up a proper, prescriptive, dictionary. I should have known better than to attempt to point out what's correct though since you obviously know everything.

The only agrument I have made is that if someone makes a positive statement that no god(s) exist(s), then that person is bound by the same burden of proof as someone who makes a positive statement that god(s) exist(s).

ZV

 

[Murphy Durphy]

I'm not really sure where to jump in. I'll just throw out some random tidbits, and then go from there.

One of the most common questions we've all heard are "So if there is no God, then who created the universe?". Now if you were to reply "Nobody did, the Universe has always been here." 99% of people will immediatley reject that idea and call it foolish. Why is it foolish to believe that the Universe has always been here, but totally sensible that God has? :frown:

I've had many debates with people who believed in God, and they usually dwindle down to them running out of ideas and just going with the classic 'You just have to believe' argument. Many people have told me that they can 'feel' god and that there are times when they know he's looking over him. This is going to get a little touchy, but just try to think nonjudgementally for a moment.

Remember when we all believed in Santa Clause? I mean, there was no doubt in our mind that he existed. The idea that he could fit down every chimney and deliver presents to every house in the world didn't seem illogical for even a second (for most of us). On Christmas Eve we would sneak down, knowing that he was probably just outside waiting to come in. And when we'd find the cookies and milk half eaten and half ate the next morning, we'd take that as definite proof that Santa existed, and that he was there. But once we found out he wasn't real, suddenly everything seemed totally obvious. When we see kids wrapped up in the magic, we sometimes wonder how in the world they don't catch on, or see it before hand.

In my mind, that is exactly how Athiests and Agnostics are alike. We are on the outside looking in. We can see how easily people are led to believe what they are told about religion, and why they want to believe it. I don't blame people for believing in God, or think that they are stupid. I wish that I myself could allow myself to believe in it, as I'm sure its comforting to believe that you will get to see your passed loved ones and that death will only be followed with good things to come. Unfortunatley, I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago :disgust:

 

[Murphy Durphy]

Edit: Besides, it's probably just turtles all the way down.

 

[matt426malm]

WRXFanatic: "cries and runs into the corner" You mean there is no santa claus!?

 

[matt426malm]

WRXFanatic: "cries and runs into the corner" You mean there is no santa claus!?

double post my bad

 

[Vortex22]

Originally posted by: HajikuFlip
I'm not really sure where to jump in. I'll just throw out some random tidbits, and then go from there.

One of the most common questions we've all heard are "So if there is no God, then who created the universe?". Now if you were to reply "Nobody did, the Universe has always been here." 99% of people will immediatley reject that idea and call it foolish. Why is it foolish to believe that the Universe has always been here, but totally sensible that God has? :frown:

I've had many debates with people who believed in God, and they usually dwindle down to them running out of ideas and just going with the classic 'You just have to believe' argument. Many people have told me that they can 'feel' god and that there are times when they know he's looking over him. This is going to get a little touchy, but just try to think nonjudgementally for a moment.

Remember when we all believed in Santa Clause? I mean, there was no doubt in our mind that he existed. The idea that he could fit down every chimney and deliver presents to every house in the world didn't seem illogical for even a second (for most of us). On Christmas Eve we would sneak down, knowing that he was probably just outside waiting to come in. And when we'd find the cookies and milk half eaten and half ate the next morning, we'd take that as definite proof that Santa existed, and that he was there. But once we found out he wasn't real, suddenly everything seemed totally obvious. When we see kids wrapped up in the magic, we sometimes wonder how in the world they don't catch on, or see it before hand.

In my mind, that is exactly how Athiests and Agnostics are alike. We are on the outside looking in. We can see how easily people are led to believe what they are told about religion, and why they want to believe it. I don't blame people for believing in God, or think that they are stupid. I wish that I myself could allow myself to believe in it, as I'm sure its comforting to believe that you will get to see your passed loved ones and that death will only be followed with good things to come. Unfortunatley, I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago :disgust:

That was beautiful.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
another question for all you who don't believe in God....

What do you do with your guilt?

Hedonistic pagans such as myself don't have guilt.

 

[matt426malm]

<----- pats HajikuFlip on the back

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
another question for all you who don't believe in God....

What do you do with your guilt?

Hedonistic pagans such as myself don't have guilt.

Not even when the goats look pissed at you for sacrificing all their buddies?

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
another question for all you who don't believe in God....

What do you do with your guilt?

Hedonistic pagans such as myself don't have guilt.

Not even when the goats look pissed at you for sacrificing all their buddies?

No, because I pleasure the goats that I don't kill. :Q

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
another question for all you who don't believe in God....

What do you do with your guilt?

Hedonistic pagans such as myself don't have guilt.

Not even when the goats look pissed at you for sacrificing all their buddies?

No, because I pleasure the goats that I don't kill. :Q

I hear the chickens "like to watch".