Need some Christian prayers for tonight

[Ponderosa]

My aim couldn't be to prove that God doesn't exist because I have never made that claim and never would. Depending on which definition we're talking about I might let myself go (like, say, Zeus), but in this discussion it was never my intention and so far as I can tell I never made that case.

 

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god or gods. It can be a subset of it depending on the person––a strong atheist––but atheism itself is only defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not even in itself opposed to religion; many religions are atheistic. My current and tentative stance on the issue of belief is that no argument or evidence has been presented to me that would make me believe in a god or gods. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't. My position is not a claim but a response to a claim. I have no idea if there's a supreme force behind the universe. Some people say they do. I'd like them to back it up, and that's about the extent of it.

 

That is a very slippery definition of atheist.

 

Most dictionaries http://www.onelook.c...?w=atheism&ls=a

define atheism http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God".

 

For the sake of clarity why not just use the word: agnostic? If that is indeed what you believe.

[Husker_x]

My aim couldn't be to prove that God doesn't exist because I have never made that claim and never would. Depending on which definition we're talking about I might let myself go (like, say, Zeus), but in this discussion it was never my intention and so far as I can tell I never made that case.

 

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god or gods. It can be a subset of it depending on the person––a strong atheist––but atheism itself is only defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not even in itself opposed to religion; many religions are atheistic. My current and tentative stance on the issue of belief is that no argument or evidence has been presented to me that would make me believe in a god or gods. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't. My position is not a claim but a response to a claim. I have no idea if there's a supreme force behind the universe. Some people say they do. I'd like them to back it up, and that's about the extent of it.

 

That is a very slippery definition of atheist.

 

Most dictionaries http://www.onelook.c...?w=atheism&ls=a

define atheism http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God".

 

For the sake of clarity why not just use the word: agnostic? If that is indeed what you believe.

 

That's a very good question. Here's my best answer.

 

The reason is that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I, for example, am both an atheist AND an agnostic. A person can also be a theist, one who believes in God or gods, and be an agnostic, not claim to know that they exist. The difference is subtle but important. Theism or atheism is a position regarding belief. Gnosticism or agnosticism is a position with regard to what you know or claim to know. In the philosophical world agnosticism is not some kind of middle ground between the two; it's a separate issue entirely.

 

The reason I use the definitions is precisely to avoid being slippery. I want to be definite. I am an atheist-agnostic, meaning I do not have a belief in a god, but I do not claim to know one way or another whether one exists. This is the most common kind of atheist, also known as a 'weak atheist' or 'soft atheist.' 'Strong atheism' would fall under the definition you provided, and it is more than a reactionary position. It is an actual claim, that God does not exist, which then has to be supported by reasoned argument or evidence. Many strong atheists are happy to provide them, but I don't find their case sufficient to make their claim, in part because what you define as 'god' is such an ambiguous project, but mostly because they just don't demonstrate it to the kind of certainty the claim requires.

 

Hope that's clear enough.

[Ponderosa]

My aim couldn't be to prove that God doesn't exist because I have never made that claim and never would. Depending on which definition we're talking about I might let myself go (like, say, Zeus), but in this discussion it was never my intention and so far as I can tell I never made that case.

 

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god or gods. It can be a subset of it depending on the person––a strong atheist––but atheism itself is only defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not even in itself opposed to religion; many religions are atheistic. My current and tentative stance on the issue of belief is that no argument or evidence has been presented to me that would make me believe in a god or gods. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it isn't. My position is not a claim but a response to a claim. I have no idea if there's a supreme force behind the universe. Some people say they do. I'd like them to back it up, and that's about the extent of it.

 

That is a very slippery definition of atheist.

 

Most dictionaries http://www.onelook.c...?w=atheism&ls=a

define atheism http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist as "a person who believes that there is no God".

 

For the sake of clarity why not just use the word: agnostic? If that is indeed what you believe.

 

That's a very good question. Here's my best answer.

 

The reason is that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I, for example, am both an atheist AND an agnostic. A person can also be a theist, one who believes in God or gods, and be an agnostic, not claim to know that they exist. The difference is subtle but important. Theism or atheism is a position regarding belief. Gnosticism or agnosticism is a position with regard to what you know or claim to know. In the philosophical world agnosticism is not some kind of middle ground between the two; it's a separate issue entirely.

 

The reason I use the definitions is precisely to avoid being slippery. I want to be definite. I am an atheist-agnostic, meaning I do not have a belief in a god, but I do not claim to know one way or another whether one exists. This is the most common kind of atheist, also known as a 'weak atheist' or 'soft atheist.' 'Strong atheism' would fall under the definition you provided, and it is more than a reactionary position. It is an actual claim, that God does not exist, which then has to be supported by reasoned argument or evidence. Many strong atheists are happy to provide them, but I don't find their case sufficient to make their claim, in part because what you define as 'god' is such an ambiguous project, but mostly because they just don't demonstrate it to the kind of certainty the claim requires.

 

Hope that's clear enough.

 

You must be a philosophy major.

 

It seems as if the words (a & a) are so over defined as to have virtually no meaning or at least no utility.

Perhaps that is the intent (not a personal dig) of the authors.

 

Anyway, for a simple message board I'm still thinkin' agnostic covers it. Also thinkin' that your definition of atheist – is missing a critical element. God may well exist but you do not like any of the current ummm…versions? But no matter.

 

I do not know you and have only read some of your postings. So please forgive me if I am overly broad.

But you seem to be a former Christian and now are neutral(ish) regarding god(s)?

 

Also, I've noticed you tend to initiate and lead the threads. Managing to avoid stating your positions and dodging questions.

If I'm wrong about the dodging bit - all the better.

 

So my questions to you…what would you need to see, feel, hear, touch…experience to believe in God?

 

Also, what standard of proof do you need?

 

1. Air of reality - only having the traces of truth

2. Preponderance of the evidence - it is more likely than not

3. Clear and convincing evidence - it is substantially more likely than not

4. Beyond a reasonable doubt - no reasonable doubt could be raised

5. Beyond the shadow of a doubt - no doubt whatsoever could be raised

 

How much thought have you given the above subject?

 

Perhaps God's existence is simply unprovable?

Or is it just not really your responsibility (as a human) to figure out? That would be God's job.

 

I won't quote the Bible to you, as you seem to know that quite well.

 

I'm just curious - not looking for a particular answer.

You seem to have very strong opinions and are willing to share them.

[zoogs]

It seems as if the words (a & a) are so over defined as to have virtually no meaning or at least no utility.

Perhaps that is the intent (not a personal dig) of the authors.

 

Anyway, for a simple message board I'm still thinkin' agnostic covers it. Also thinkin' that your definition of atheist – is missing a critical element. God may well exist but you do not like any of the current ummm…versions? But no matter.

 

I've always thought this about philosophy. Agnostic atheist, atheist agnostic, who cares what the labels are and all the nuances that each category is supposed to entail. I think a guy can say "I am an atheist; I do not believe in any gods" and not catch too much flak for it. To me it seems like the "Atheism is actively believing that there are no gods" rather than "absence of any belief" argument is really just the old 'atheism is a religion too' argument. But being atheist is fundamentally distinct from being religion. Who knows. Maybe I'm just unsure of terms. But I feel that popularly, 'atheism' is most often associated with not believing in Gods, and 'agnostic' is most often associated with not being sure. I can agree that it's not known for sure, but I don't like being associated with the term agnostic. Since I also believe that that magic spells or ghosts aren't real, but it's also one of things that you could push me to say 'Yea, I guess nobody can really know.'

 

Maybe it's just my poor understanding of philosophy, but I've always felt the 'atheism is a religion'/'you're agnostic, not atheist' arguments were sort of a dig. Basically - 'you're against religion, but you have a belief system too.' Everyone has their own beliefs, or thoughts, or whatever you want to call them. It does not mean they are a part of an organized religion, though. On a personal level, I think that the only real distinction is believing in and worshipping Gods, or not. Whether you are a 'meh' disbeliever or you really don't believe in the existence of them, you live your life without worship, without prayer, without a book offering spiritual guidelines and guidance. So this particular distinction has always seemed to be sort of a pointless one to me.

 

I realize I'm not being at all coherent, too.

[Husker_x]

I'm going to answer Ponderosa's post in a new thread, since I think we've diverged far enough away from the ideas this one was started on. Plus it would give atheism its own airing for a change, instead of only being a minor part of a religion thread.

 

I will post this for zoogies or whoever is interested. Keep in mind I didn't invent the definitions. I didn't write the rules, I only play by them. Any semi-aware atheist in the world would tell you the exact same thing, and there are important reasons in the context of debate to clarify your position, but I think I'll get to that in the new thread. For now here is a simple graphic that basically says the same thing I said above. Hope it helps.

 

[Ponderosa]

I'm going to answer Ponderosa's post in a new thread, since I think we've diverged far enough away from the ideas this one was started on. Plus it would give atheism its own airing for a change, instead of only being a minor part of a religion thread.

 

I will post this for zoogies or whoever is interested. Keep in mind I didn't invent the definitions. I didn't write the rules, I only play by them. Any semi-aware atheist in the world would tell you the exact same thing, and there are important reasons in the context of debate to clarify your position, but I think I'll get to that in the new thread. For now here is a simple graphic that basically says the same thing I said above. Hope it helps.

 

 

I like the chart. See you in the new thread.

[CornHOLIO]

At first, I thought he was just trying to lay a heavy dose of morals on her (while also trying to get his rocks off). The further it went, the more it sounded like he was trying to recruit her into a cult.

 

It's probably best if I'm outta this thread NOW!!!!!

 

 

This is why I can't imagine God ever being able to pick a favorite religion.

Too many are willing to use his Son as a Wingman or the Bible to manipulate others.

[jimk]

Did you get in her pants yet?