Is Atheism a logical belief?

this is really an ignorant post.
the only people 'required' to provide evidence are theist who claim God is real, and atheists who claim God is not real.
In a word agnostics think both of them are full of
Frankly I have never seen such a convoluted mess as what you posted in all the time I have been on the boards.
I mean like every statement in that post is wacked out nutterville.

 

RE: Is Atheism a logical belief?
SUBTOPIC: Logical Asysment
※→ Kokomojojo, Buri, injeun, et al,

BLUF: The construct of the premise is incorrect.

(REFERENCE)

AGNOSTICISM. "From the Greek a + ginoskein, meaning “to not know.” An agnostic about God is someone who claims not to know whether or not God exists. A more radical form of agnosticism claims that no one knows whether or not God exists. The latter claim is more ambitious because it entails that, if there is a God, not even God knows that God exists. In the twentieth century some argued that agnosticism amounts to a practiced form of atheism, but while some agnostics might be deemed atheists or non-theists insofar as their lives are not informed by theistic convictions, an agnostic (unlike some atheists) may live as though the existence of God is a bona fide possibility. An agnostic may even engage in theistic practices (such as prayer and worship) on the grounds that if God exists such practices have great value."
SOURCE: DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION edited by Charles Taliaferro and Elsa J. Marty Copyright 2010 The Continuum International Publishing Group 80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038 pg 8-9

(COMMENT)

The difference between an "Agnostic" and an "Atheist" may be arguable, but the one thing the both of them have as unambiguous similarity is that neither has a requirement to provide "empirical evidence" of any kind on any aspect of the Moral Arguments for Theism (the existence of the supernatural). An "Agnostic" and an "Atheist" are completely unconcerned about proofs in regards to their approach to the question of a Supreme Being. It is incumbent on the "theist" to provide clear and convincing arguments that change the attitude of the "Agnostic" and "Atheist" on the existence of any deity (supernatural beings). Once the clear and convincing arguments for the generalized belief of the supernatural have been successfully presented → then the more refined arguments on the nature of the supernatural may begin.

This argument borders on the Noetic Sciences under the greater umbrella of Metaphysics.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

I am glad you liked it!

 

SUBTOPIC: Logical Asysment
※→ The Lizard King, your mother et al,



BLUF: Your opinion is noted


(Statement)

The premises are sound and so are the resulting conclusions.

Sincerely,

Dirty Rotten Imbecile

 

FALSE, that is a political agnostic, not the same, sorry.

What Does Agnosticism Mean?

In the religious sense of the word,
agnosticism means neither believing in nor disbelieving the existence of God.

-------------------------------------

In the non-religious sense,
agnosticism means being undecided or uncommitted to a particular side of a debate or disagreement.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/what-is-agnosticism/

“Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Quote by Thomas Huxley: “Agnosticism is of the essence of ...

There is no such thinkg as radical agnosticism with regard to religion.

Thats patently ridiculous.

There is no religious connection between atheist and agnostic.

Deemed? Exactly who does this 'deeming'?

Since when do you think atheists dont live like theists with the exception of performing rituals?

Prayer? Sounds like theist to me.

Its not arguable at all if you discard the illiterates out here.

FALSE, if theists could produce 'proofs' agnostics and atheists would not exist.

Im glad you agree.

Never happen.

Yeh I did, it shows how ridiculous and irrational neoatheists are.

 

I am not a neoatheist.

 

your comments betray you.

 

I would think that that matter would be up to God to reveal to the sincere and honest in heart. One does not give the priceless to the thankless, or that which is sacred to the dogs. Which, come to think of it, is near to the reasoning of Atheists and Agnostics, as in, in whom to place their trust. Friendship is a two way street. So what it boils down to is desire. Without it, all the talk in the world is vain to convincing. God is not a circus freak, where a quarter is paid to look.

 

No true Scotsman…

 

More please.

 

How dare you reject a label put upon you in an attempt to slam you and declare what you must believe, despite you saying otherwise???? The nerve!

 

RE: Is Atheism a logical belief?
SUBTOPIC: Logical Asysment
※→ Jolly Penguin, et al,

BLUF: Oh! Jolly. There is no doubt about it, but that you are quick with the wit.

The Danger of Labeling Others (or Yourself)
A new study shows the surprising power of our core attitudes.

(COMMENT)

Good comeback. I wish I was that fast on my feet.

I think we are at a point where we are beginning to see the pitfalls in using labels. We should probably start reverting back to describing someone, something, or some situation in short phrases rather than trying to pin a label on it. I've been a contributor to the Discussion forum for more than a decade, and yet only wrote slightly more than a thousand "replies." And of those thousand or so replies, more than 80% of them have been based a commentary on the fallacious definitions and logic syntax.

Once again, that was a great word joust.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

That’s all you get, sorry.

 

I already know that Koko will cry and stomp his feet when I lump atheists and agnostics together like that. It’s wrong to point out similarities.

 

Wash out.

 

The word "God" is just a title and does not indicate which one of the thousands of such creatures you are talking about. So, if you have favorite "God" character you should use his/her/its name. Don't be bashful.

http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm

Remember John 7:3-5 (CEB) = “3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee. Go to Judea so that your disciples can see the amazing works that you do. 4 Those who want to be known publicly don’t do things secretly. Since you can do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 His brothers said this because even they didn’t believe in him.“

If the Jesus character was still wiggling on the cross after 2,000 years it would be impressive but no "God" of any kind had never done anything godly since a con man created him.

 

I would tell you that God is real, that he lives, and that he restored his Church and authority thru Joseph Smith in about 1830. But it sounds like you already have everything all figured out.

 

RE: Is Atheism a logical belief?
SUBTOPIC: Logic
※→ Jolly Penguin, et al,

(COMMENT)

✦ I would tell you that God is real:
• What does it mean: "God is real?"

How can we say this if we do not even understand what it means to be a God? What is a "God?" → and → What is the nature of "Reality?"​

How would the nature of "Reality" appear to humanity with the existence "God?"
How would the nature of "Reality" appear to humanity without the existence "God?"
How would it be possible to discern a "real" God from an "unreal" God?​

✦ That he lives:

• What does it mean: "God Lives?"

Assuming there is a "God" → is there more than one deity?​

Assuming there is a "God" → what does life mean to a "God?"​

✦ That he restored his Church:

• What does it mean: "God restores a Church?"

This implies that there was an "Original Church →​

................................................................................that Church was change or altered →
............................................................................................................................................then God had to restore it to a previous condition.
​

✦ He restored his authority:

• What does it mean: "God restored his Authority?"

How does God lose authority and then restore the lost authority.​

What do these questions represent? Humanity cannot understand "God?" God is a complete unknown. The belief in God stems from the ancient stories of God pasted down from generation to generation. The belief is totally based on faith in these ancient stories and not objective reality.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

The question is, why does one have to believe in God? Is God that weak he has to be believed in? Vain?

 

The scriptures may be ancient. But the God behind them is the same today as then. He can speak, and do that which is wise as he sees fitting to do, to fulfill his will and keep his promises of old.

 

RE: Is Atheism a logical belief?
SUBTOPIC: Logic
※→ Aristotle66, et al,

Great Question!!!

BLUF: This is a question that is beyond the ability of man to answer without delving into the supernatural → an inquiry beyond the capability of the scientific method to verify (Metaphysic). Philosophically, this type of question might be in the class of "ontological naturalism."

QUOTE="Aristotle66, post: 1073117538, member: 111493"]The question is, why does one have to believe in God? Is God that weak he has to be believed in? Vain?[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

Of course, the fallacy here is that you are assigning to God a human characteristic → one of the seven deadly sins: (pride - vanity being the variant). All the major Greek and Roman Deities had this in common. Many temples were built and rituals created to appease the Vanity of the Gods (some remnants still exist today). The God of Abraham (in common with the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths) believes this to be included in the Ten Commandments: I am the LORD your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. Of course, this involves another human characteristic most associated with criminal enterprises: The criminal will clear your indebtedness --- and in return, you owe the criminal favor. (Supernatural entity clears your indentured servitude in exchange for homage. And again you are back to the omnipotent deity that must demand homage.)

Assigning knowledge of a characteristic associated with a supernatural entity or deity is the Great Trap. Man canNOT assign characteristics to a deity. (You do not know that which you do not know.)


Most Respectfully,
R

 

Do you know how you can easily tell that a God is a fake? Only one con man ever sees him.

 

I'll play devil's - well, god's - advocate, because it really bothers me that many atheists who have little or no knowledge of the religious phenomenon in different historical and cultural contexts across the globe are so quick to judge and condemn.

Have you ever asked yourself why do believers celebrate the same religious holidays, year after year, decade after decade, century after century? The answer is not obvious to us today, but even a cursory glance through the history of religious customs reveals that humans thought they must imitate and/or appease gods in order to prevent the destruction of the material world. The world is renewed at each holiday, and if humans didn't believe in gods anymore, and didn't keep the rituals going, the world would perish. Judaism kept this tradition alive, and even Christianity couldn't wipe it out completely (imitatio dei).

That's one reason faith has always been so important, so central to people's lives. The tradition endured despite the loss of meaning.

 

Ones relationship with God is always personal. To know and be known by God is more than the worlds wealth of money, gems or precious metals, and more than even life itself. Consequently, the greatest fraud and con is the life in which we live without God. Call me crazy or deceived, I don't care. To know that God lives is my satisfaction. He is kind, generous, and long suffering. And suspending his divinity and omnipotence, is a perfectly good person. What other kind of person or God would do what he does. He creates all that is. Gives us our lives. And then offers his own life in sacrifice to show us the way so that we don't have to suffer all things. Allowing for our repentance and baptism and working out our salvation with his help. God is perfect and doesn't need to do any of this. It is all for our benefit and to share in an inheritance in all that he possesses. But all that people care about is themselves. And they can't see Gods heart in anything. He's a rock, a place, a source, a servant, a foundation, an autocratic tyrant, an unfeeling statue, indebted to us. What about him. Why can't we love him and bless him and thank him for the cause of praise. Why can't we just love our dear papa, our everlasting God for all he does, has done, and will do. Yes our sincerity, blessings, and thankfulness to God is meager in retrospect. But it is greater than mountains of nothing because it is pure. And purity, like a childs drawing, is to his keeping. It is one thing to bow to Gods omnipotence. But the greater bowance is to pour out to his discretion ones heart and soul to his pleasing.

 

It sounds like you are trying to justify the worship of god by saying that traditions have no real meaning anymore.