It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by adjensen
An atheist's non-faith is between him and God.
No, because an atheist does not believe in the existence of God so it is not between him and God. All you can say is that you believe that his non-belief is between him and the God you happen to believe in. You cannot state it as a fact.
Many atheists won't object. They welcome wannabes. They can use all the warm bodies they can get.
If the reality is God = Nothing (atheism)
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by eight bits
Many atheists won't object. They welcome wannabes. They can use all the warm bodies they can get.
All the warm bodies they can get????? This is not an organised religion. Atheists do not gather in congregations and have collections to support the Pastor. Why on earth would they be interested in warm bodies.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Maybe we can agree to these definitions:
Convinced Atheist: Claiming to know that god(s) don't exist.
Believing Agnostic Atheist: Believing god(s) do not exist but not claiming it to be the truth.
Agnostic Atheist: Not believing god(s) exist but not claiming they don't exist.
Agnostic Theist: Believing god(s) exists but not claiming it to be the truth.
Convinced Theist: Claiming to know that god(s) exist.
The first and last one lack believe, but IMO are delusional positions. The second and forth both include believe. The third does not include believe. To make it clear, only the bold ones encompass believe.
If anyone disagrees, please state why.
Originally posted by adjensen
I take umbrage with the statement that a Convicted Theist is delusional.
Both the "Convicted" positions require absolute statements, but the Theist doesn't need to rely on non-absolute observations to make their absolute statement. A single instance of proof for is all the believer needs to claim that they know God exists. They can't claim that they know everything about God, of course, and depending on their personal evidence, they may know precious little (not even which religion their experience relates to, for example,) but that's a wholly different claim.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by adjensen
Well, more on the semantics!
If the reality is God = Nothing (atheism)
Um, not really as there is no such thing as God (atheism) and therefore God=Nothing is an assignment that cannot exist since by assigning God to one side you are accepting that there may be a situation where God=[a value or something] (Agnostic)
Some atheists even see atheism as a belief and although this seems a glaring logical error to me, if they choose to label it as such, well... so what.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by ChickenPie
But believing and not believing both deal with believing. I can say I don't believe in the existence of unicorns, but that's still a belief in itself. The belief being unicorns don't exist.
Then following the same logic, not existing deals with existing, therefore non-existence is existence. This is patently absurd.
Originally posted by PuterMan
You say it is 4 (decimal) and he says it is 11 (ternary? haven't worked that one out yet). It is of course just a label.
Originally posted by adjensen
Nope, the statement isn't an assignment, it's an evaluation.
int* god = null;
< interject reality, wherein God's existence is potentially assigned >
if (god == null)
atheismIsCorrect();
else
theismIsCorrect();
Maybe that clarifies it, lol.
[edit on 30-7-2010 by adjensen]
Originally posted by PuterMan
Did you happen to just drop in at the end of this thread? This point has been well covered and I think it true to say that it is NOT a logical error.
May I respectfully suggest that you start at the beginning and take in all of the arguments?
I am more concerned when theists insist it is since often much of their arguments rest on that concept.
Not believing in the existence of something is the same as denying something exists
Originally posted by ChickenPie
When you say you lack belief in the existence of God--you're actually saying you do not believe in the existence of God. To say you do not believe in the existence of God carries one of two of the following assertions: one, God does not exist, or two, God probably doesn't exist. If your belief that God doesn't exist didn't carry one of these assertions with it, then why would you hold it? There were reasons and evidence that lead up to one of those conclusions, but the conclusion itself is not the end. It wasn't until after the conclusion was reached that the person decided to shape their belief. Because you can come to the conclusion that God probably doesn't exist or even that He doesn't exist and still believe He does exist. but that doesn't necessarily mean you will believe he probably doesn't exist or that he doesn't exist. In the case of atheism, the belief is either God probably doesn't exist or he doesn't exist.
This is not an organised religion.
Why on earth would they be interested in warm bodies.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
I am more concerned when theists insist it is since often much of their arguments rest on that concept.
OK, fair enough, but why should an Atheist care if a Theist considers atheism a belief?
I don’t believe that aliens exist but I do not believe that they don’t