Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

hazek said:
If you're a theist I have a sneaky suspicion your experience was altered by those atheist trying to remain cordial with you playing down their beliefs. Of course this is just a wild assumption and could be completely off especially if you aren't a theist. :D

Also I think philosophically speaking I bet a lot of atheist haven't really thought how to exactly approach this issue through. They just know they don't believe what religion teaches them but often don't research further than that. I mean I hope it's not too far fetched to believe someone would just go "that's bs" when confronted with religion and not dwell on what really is the answer is it?
Click to expand...

I'm an atheist, former christian. I've definitely done more than my fair share of research and my conclusion is that I'm ok with not knowing the answers to life's big questions. I guess by definition I'm an agnostic atheist.

I would argue that the majority of atheists are agnostic atheists but I have no data to back that up and I'm far too lazy to look for it. :D
 
Isn't an agnostic atheist an oxymoron??

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).


a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.




Therefor I think it's either or. Atheist by definition believe there is no god. Agnostics by definition don't know and even think it's impossible to know.
 
hazek said:
Isn't an agnostic atheist an oxymoron??

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).


a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.




Therefor I think it's either or. Atheist by definition believe there is no god. Agnostics by definition don't know and even think it's impossible to know.
Click to expand...

They aren't mutually exclusive. Gnosticism/Agnosticism refer to knowledge. Theism/Atheism refer to belief.

Thus, since no one can "know" about the nature of god, all human beings are agnostic whether or not they are willing to admit it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
 
billjones said:
I'm an atheist, former christian. I've definitely done more than my fair share of research and my conclusion is that I'm ok with not knowing the answers to life's big questions.
Click to expand...

I'm exactly the same. In fact people who believe in the theory of a possibility of god's existence don't bother me as much as religious people. I don't know if that theory is correct or not but those people who believe in it at least know it's only a theory. And all I know is we haven't been able to find any empirical evidence so far to prove it is true.

But because of how a belief in this theory is so often abused by religions I choose to believe god doesn't exist because I believe this belief will improve my quality of life. And that's my logical reason to believe god doesn't exist.
 
Yeah most all of us atheists are agnostic/atheists.

Both are answers to different philosophical questions. Im glad billjones pointed this out because this is something a very small % of atheists understand.
 
squarepusher said:
atheists-united-picture67112319-2843905157-3abe047f44.jpg
Click to expand...

And they both are dependent on belief. Some believe God does not exist. Atheist.
 
i can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste a god. i see no evidence. i don't not believe. its not there, however. none of it

its not like i am trying NOT to believe
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
You cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste oxygen. Is it thus non-existent?
Click to expand...
it exists but it does not have the power or capabilities of a god. it is not intelligent as folks claim god(s) to be. we breathe it because its what we need to do to live, the same fish have gills to exist underwater. as you know with or without god these things are in motion and do in fact change over the course of years. so oxygen might be important now, but not later. god on the other hand claims to be important for all time and is eternal. i mean that's what it says, and i believe that is a stretch without evidence. i am talking of the Christian God, here. which i believe a few religions claim as their own

my "see, hear, touch, etc thing is just in its simplest form. a "belief" in a god requires much more then acknowledging its existence. in fact THAT is supposed to be a given. however what many tell me god requires is to turn my life and way of thinking over to it, and others

without evidence why would anyone do this? i mean it may suit some and many, but you must understand it does not make it the truth. it has an impact, yes. but so do many secular things

i should also point out i was a believer for 35 of my 46 years. nothing "happened" to change that. i just woke up one day and accepted life for what it was. something great with a beginning, middle, and end. i enjoy life to the fullest, but if everlasting life is our reward, well, who really wants to live forever? what would we do?

think about it. life goes on, but we do not. what is wrong with that picture? i don't see anything, so much

but yes, evidence beyond things that sound like old wives tales would be nice. at least before i say "ok its ALL true and i turn my mind, thoughts, and life over to it
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to read everything. I'm just going to say that if you're a believer, which you're entitled to and I kinda fail to care what other people believe, using 'logic' to explain God seems completely contradictory to entire notion of 'God' to me. I mean, he's 'God', why would something as flawed as a human construct (logic) be capable of explaining or refuting a (perfect) God? Doesn't this 'God' exist beyond our comprehension and is our comprehension therefore not incapable of explaining that entity?

What's supposed to make faith powerful is that you have no proof, that you understand that you can't understand God in his perfection and infinity. Therefore, trying to use logic to explain God, if anything, seems rather blasphemous and arrogant to me.

I'm not a believer myself though, so meh.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
You cannot see, hear, touch, smell, or taste oxygen. Is it thus non-existent?
Click to expand...

Yes you can. Oxygen as we commonly know it exists in a gas form, but it also exists in a solid and liquid form. So there's, for example, liquid oxygen. It's blue.
 
Blue isnt a color, it is a wavelength. However, that is measurable, and interactions and expected outcomes can be predicted.

Since this is an old thread started with the intention of starting a flame war on both sides, and the OP is already banned, people should just let this thread lay dead.
 
DamianTV said:
Blue isnt a color, it is a wavelength. However, that is measurable, and interactions and expected outcomes can be predicted.
Click to expand...

That's like saying that the bass in UK dance records isn't a sound, but a sinewave at a frequency below 100 hz.
 
EWM said:
Where's the logic in believing in a biblical god?
Click to expand...

*puts on parrot beak*

because without believing in a Biblical god, you cannot have logic, So you cannot use logic to disprove or deny a biblical god. You can only have logic after you believe in a biblical god.

[/sarcasm] *goes to rofl*
 
DamianTV said:
Blue isnt a color, it is a wavelength. However, that is measurable, and interactions and expected outcomes can be predicted.

Since this is an old thread started with the intention of starting a flame war on both sides, and the OP is already banned, people should just let this thread lay dead.
Click to expand...

it's not a wavelength, wavelength is an artificial construction. (wanna see who can make a more absurd denial claim?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Debate: Jacob Hornberger vs. Walter Block re: libertarianism and Israel
Replies
3
Views
536
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
J
How Does REAL ID Make an Airplane or Federal Building More Safe if You Are Already Searched and Unarmed?
Replies
9
Views
70
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The Axiom of Action and the Inescapability of Liberty
Replies
3
Views
59
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Occam's Banana
DOJ says money is not property
Replies
13
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of Political Divide
Replies
0
Views
96
PAF
PAF
Back
Top