Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

You are taking an agnostic approach. I have already said that I have no problem with that approach. It's the true definition of atheism. I think that's why you and others debating me aren't seeing the forest through the trees. Because if you don't believe in god because you just don't isn't logical thinking. There has to be a reason. Reason equals evidence in your life or by sciince that supports that belief.

Saying your agnostic is fine. Saying your atheist isn't.

 

lol, it's not logical to say I don't believe because I don't believe? I have no feelings inside me that there is a god. Do you understand that? I have no belief in my body that there is a god. That's not agnostic. What it is is a complete lack of belief. I don't have to have proof to feel the way I do. And I have had many religious people tell me the same thing. They have a belief inside them, they believe. They do not need proof of it, they can "feel" god. Don't tell me what I can and can not believe, and then tell me I can not say I do not believe, I have to fall into some other shit you want to label it is. It's completely arrogant at best.

Not seeing the forest through the trees? You've seen the forest we've described, but are calling it a river. And it's can't see the forest for the trees. Not through. Maybe that's your problem, you're looking THROUGH the forest to try to see the forest.

 

It could mean that, but historical mis-interpretation might say you have a bust of Oden, or a religious symbol of him, which will leave you burned with those hairy tics.

 

Okay agnostic.

 

SlyPokerDog is just fucking dense. And arrogant to boot. Good for him. I'm sure you make jesus proud.

 

When I say "It's not logical", that was the same arguments that "so-called" atheists would argue in other threads. So when the tables are turned they take offense? Find that a bit hypocritical.

At least with "Theists"; they have their personal testimonies; and interpretations of their doctrine. And tossing that "unicorn" picture, tells me that even "witches and warlocks" have doctrine. What does the atheist have?

Are you saying that believing in unicorns is more sound than believe there is no God? Sure looks that way.

 

LMAO! Now you are calling me arrogant? LOL you don't even believe in Jesus. Why would you bring that up?

 

LMAO! Now you are calling me arrogant? LOL you don't even believe in Jesus. Why would you bring that up?

 

You started a thread telling others why they are wrong, and then tell them they can't even define what they are. Yes, absolutely calling SlyPokerDog arrogant. I had dense in there also, but I know sometimes you miss things, so thought I would point it out again. Anyways, good luck to you in your quest to show others you are right.

 

It amazes me that you take such an offense on this thread... I see your posting style on other topics; with many people telling why others are wrong; yet you don't call them arrogant. Once again, you are being hypocritical again.

Look at the political threads, even threads on certain players sucking. There are disagreements there. Maybe you need to bash on them as well?

 

That's actually not hypocritical, but I you can re-define words however you want, clearly.

 

You are getting stuck on arguing word definitions again. Have you read any of my posts regarding the original, intended definition of agnosticism? (Look up Thomas Huxley, in particular where he defines agnosticism not as a "creed". but as a "method".) Can you at least recognize that many folks call themselves both agnostics AND atheists, since the two are not mutually exclusive under their most general definitions? Can you acknowledge that everyone who calls themselves "atheist" on this board (except for one) agrees that the existence of God is a possibility, however remote? Can you consider revising your strict definition of "atheism" to fit the beliefs of those who actually call themselves atheists?

If your goal is simply to say "those who think they can disprove God are wrong", you could save a great deal of time by simply repeating what we have said over and over: "you cannot prove a negative". One can never prove the nonexistence of ANYTHING. And you ESPECIALLY cannot prove a negative when we are discussing a massless, unmeasurable, spiritual being that obeys no known natural laws. Your God is safe from disproof! We all (well, almost all...) agree!

 

I don't have a problem with the agnostic belief. I think that's a sound belief. I just think Atheism isn't sound unless they have proof that God doesn't exist. I think it's funny that so many take offense to this thread; when in reality this is only on atheism. It would be like arguing to me that my God isn't sound because of what the Buddhists think.

The reason why Atheism morphed into Atheist-Agnositc is because Atheism is not sound. Pure and simple.

 

OR... because you are using limited and overly narrow definition of atheism that very, very few would even attempt to defend, let alone subscribe to.

 

Don't be too sure Trip. Look around in other forums. Hell even go to http://www.atheists.org and see how they feel without a shadow of a doubt, God does not exist.

Maybe there are few in this forum that are debating me like you, crow, and denny that are true agnostics. I think many others are like Maris, but they don't want to publicly state it. Basically the ones calling me an idiot; and acting ignorant are the ones that are 100% sure there is no God. Because if they truly do believe that; then they will think I'm an idiot.

It's probably frustrating to most because these first 7, and a few others added mid stream can't be argued scientifically. Something Atheists boast they have on their side. When you actually have questions that have been proven by science (biology and physics), philosophy, or math questioning there could be a possibility that there is a designer; it should have a decent debate.

You know damn well Trip that science hasn't given evidence that life has been created by non-life; even when there could have all the primordial soup of the universe.

Also, many think of DNA not as code; because that would need a programer. Now how logical is that? DNA itself; not even a living organism is incredibly improbable to design from nothing.

There are many other questions just having the right primordial soup to happen by chance.

So I will stick to my points and know they are sound questions. If people think I'm arrogant, then so be it.

 

Don't be too sure Trip. Look around in other forums. Hell even go to http://www.atheists.org and see how they feel without a shadow of a doubt, God does not exist.

Maybe there are few in this forum that are debating me like you, crow, and denny that are true agnostics. I think many others are like Maris, but they don't want to publicly state it. Basically the ones calling me an idiot; and acting ignorant are the ones that are 100% sure there is no God. Because if they truly do believe that; then they will think I'm an idiot.

It's probably frustrating to most because these first 7, and a few others added mid stream can't be argued scientifically. Something Atheists boast they have on their side. When you actually have questions that have been proven by science (biology and physics), philosophy, or math questioning there could be a possibility that there is a designer; it should have a decent debate.

You know damn well Trip that science hasn't given evidence that life has been created by non-life; even when there could have all the primordial soup of the universe.

Also, many think of DNA not as code; because that would need a programer. Now how logical is that? DNA itself; not even a living organism is incredibly improbable to design from nothing.

There are many other questions just having the right primordial soup to happen by chance.

So I will stick to my points and know they are sound questions. If people think I'm arrogant, then so be it.

 

If you truly believe that your points -- every single one of them -- haven't been soundly refuted, then there really is nothing more I can say in this thread. Every single one of your points is interesting philosophically, but not a single one of them holds any water scientifically, despite a valiant effort on your part.

I'll say it again: theists are the only ones claiming to have all the answers. The rest of us have no problem with mysteries, and aren't afraid to say "I don't know" in the face of insufficient information.