Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

You're making the assumption that all religions share that ideology which is simply not true. A person could personally believe in a Judeo-Christian style God and have no desire to push this belief on others, have others change their behavior, or even talk about his beliefs.

If such a thing causes someone to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and ease human suffering, then I don't really see the problem.

That's exactly my position.

I never done anything to force anybody my beliefs, my position is that you can reach God by many paths, not necessarily the Catholic way, and if you don't believe in God, you are also entitled to it, and I respect your position (unlike many others who have said we deserve no respect in our beliefs) even when I don't share it.

Iván

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

I don't disagree with your position; I disagree with the means you use to defend it.

What means?

I haven't offended anybody, showed nothing but respect to every position and gave my arguments.

What more do you want?

To deny God exists?

Iván

The T wrote:

The thing is, if the person believing in the unicorn in the box is happy doing so and it actually makes him/her a better person, so be it. I won't believe in the unicorn in the box, but who am I to try to steal the box just to tear it open?

I'm not doing that. I started a threat where I basically pointed out that as far as I can see, the box is empty. I didn't need to steal it to do that - Theists make no secret about what they think is in there - and that it is a good thing to believe that it's not empty, although you can clearly see it is. The problems begin when Theists aren't able to accept that in this debate they hold the unreasonable, logically indefensible position. I'm happy to let them continue their crazy beliefs - but they should be "man" enough to let me call it "crazy", because that's what it is *until* they can provide evidence for their claim.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 14 2010 at 01:24

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You are making the claim "God exists". Science has demonstrated that no "God" is necessary to explain us and the world around us. The starting position for our little argument is "all the things we can demonstrate". To that position you add the claim that "God exists", and we (call us "naturalists" if you want) ask you to demonstrate to us that there are good (as in : demonstrable) reasons for believing that claim.

Again, I'm not making any claim, I kept my beliefs for me until somebody MADE CLAIMS that my beliefs are false.

I'm only defending my right to believe in what I want

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You may think "this isn't fair - I have to prove the existence of God, but the Atheist doesn't have to prove the non-existence?". Here's why it *is* fair:

Theist: I believe in God

Atheist: I don't believe in any Gods

Mike, I have to prove nothing, since I'm not trying to convince you or turn you into a Catholic, on the other hand you are trying to convince everybody that religion is wrong and that we are less than idiots, to my understanding, in order to make those claims and turn people towards your position, you need more than saying..."Hey, I don't need to prove anything, let them do the work"

In the moment I start a thread saying "God exists, convert yourself or you'll perish (something I would NEVER do), or start a thread saying Atheism is a stupidity and atheists are morons, then you can ask me "Why you make such claims? Which are your bases? Which is your evidence.

Until that happens (and I assure you, will never happen), you don't have any reason to ask me for any evidence

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

The Atheist position is consistent with both eventualities ... it's defensible whether there is a God or whether there isn't. The Theist position however makes an implicit claim that God exists - it would not make sense to say "I believe in God, but I'm not sure He exists". In order to join a religion, you have to believe (or at least "profess to believe") that the God which this religion has defined does in fact exist. If you're not sure whether God exists, you should call yourself an Agnostic - and a "weak Atheist".

I don't buy that Mike, an atheist is a person who claims God doesn't exist, in opposition with the Agnostic who is the one that says that the existence of a deity is unknown or unknowable.

and you provre it with your words:

Mike wrote:

If you're not sure whether God exists, you should call yourself an Agnostic - and a "weak Atheist".

So Mike, define yourself, if you believe that "The Atheist position is consistent with both eventualities ... it's defensible whether there is a God or whether there isn't" then you are an Agnostic, but you claim you're an atheist.

Now if you are an atheist and claim God doesn't exist, then you are making an affirmative claim that must be supported with evidence.

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Now if you are an atheist and claim God doesn't exist, then you are making an affirmative claim that must be supported with evidence.

Iván

I am an atheist and I claim that Zeus does not exist.

The evidence for that is a swan I saw on King's Pond on my way home this evening - I'm pretty confident it wasn't him as he wasn't seducing any maidens.

I am willing to give similar anecdotal evidence for the non-existence of other fictional deities as the need arises.

Edited by Dean - December 14 2010 at 15:41

What?