This should help, Gnostic vs. Agnostic Atheism

Who exactly is we? Who are you to speak for atheists?

 

*Narrows eyes slightly*

The people who did it? Was that difficult?

 

HA HA!!! This is correct... Kinda why I am agnostic... I am not too into fairytales if you haven't noticed...

 

I think you missed the whole point in that post your replied to. He stated what you posted in examples:

For an even more thorough explanation:

The Ad Ignorantiam Fallacy (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

This fallacy can take two forms:
Form A: Proposition P has not been proven to be true, therefore P is false
Form B: Proposition P has not been proven to be false, therefore P is true
Context and subject matter make all the difference.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-con...of-Atheism.pdf

"All other factors being equal, reasonable expectations can determine when an absence of apparent evidence constitutes a proposition as false. Here we ask how much evidence should we expect in relation to what we have. For example, if someone claims there is a gorilla in the room - the fact that we cannot see the gorilla, hear the gorilla, etc., is an absence of evidence that disproves this proposition. However, if someone says there is a mosquito in the room, then an absence of evidence (not seeing or hearing it) does not disprove the proposition because our reasonable expectations of evidence have changed. In more borderline cases, we should avoid dogmatic conclusions on both sides, for example:

“No one has ever proved that Bigfoot exists, so it must not exist.”
“No one has ever proved that the Bigfoot does not exist, so it must exist.”

Both sides here commit the fallacy of appealing to ignorance in that they derive unwarranted certitude when a more reserved stance seems called for. The certitude on both sides is unwarranted for there seems to be no clear way of establishing how much evidence to expect relative to what we have, nor can this determination even be made until all of the appropriate areas where such evidence would be found have been adequately surveyed. A lesser degree of certitude, or even agnosticism, is warranted here."

 

No it means that atheists refuse to acknowledge the facts that got some things moved into the mythology pile and why others are not. The fact that you lump all religions together is a failure of logic on your part - not anyone else's.

Does God claim to live on the top of Mount Olympus? Some God's did, and they are now in the mythology category. Yet you are either so ignorant of religion in general that you cannot find the premises that got logical people to classify these things correctly - or are simply out to badger people.

In either case, the inability to discern the difference between mythology and religion is not a good thing in terms of intellectual prowess.

 

Over half of humanity believes in one God. Your premise is simply false.

And, again, there is plenty of evidence for it, and being a serial denier at all costs is again not an intellectual process. Its emotional, and that is really what atheism is - otherwise, when you quote something, you'd take the time to check it's premise.

 

Nonsensical circularity seems your speciality. Please deconstruct your logic where according to you, his premise is falsified by the existence of a mass delusion? Evidence negates faith, which demands belief without evidence as a minimum.

 

Oh, its a mass delusion because you say so? Evidence would indeed negate faith, but you guys never present any.

So go ahead a prove it - prove there is no God.

Now, please avoid the excuse factory of not having a burden of proof, because you just called the vast majority of humanity delusional - in sharp contrast to your evidence driven position.

Lets see it? Otherwise, atheism is just a bunch of cads who enjoy being arrogant and derisive. Given the lack of evidence, I would guess that is self evident.

 

Careful there. This post had a lot of credibility until you got to those two last sentences. Now you're starting to sound like Dawkins.

Dawkins has openly called his book the God Delusion his "long awaited, full frontal attack on religion." Those are not the words of a scientist. They are the words of a social activist. A true scientist can never be anything other than an agonostic. Charles Darwin even believed this:

"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." - Charles Darwin

 

Actually, most atheists that I have discussed this with seem to make the claim that there is no known evidence providing substantial support for the god proposition. Which is true. That just requires analysis of the available data, not a claim of knowledge about the entire universe or something along those lines. It's not a dodge, it's their actual position.

As a practical matter, the actions you take if you see no evidence for god are the same as the actions you would take if you consider god nonexistent. The distinction here is academic, but necessary.

So what? Atheism isn't a religion, it's a position on a single question; does god exist. That there is disagreement about the specifics, or about other unrelated matters, is not surprising.

 

Well, the problem is once again logic.

If we are saying there is no evidence, then there are places where we would expect to find evidence for God ... and when we check, viola, no evidence for God.

The problem is that there is plenty of evidence that is strongly suggestive of God. Example, there really was a man named Jesus, and I have yet to see an atheist really attempt to come up with an alternate explanation for the ideology he founded. Additionally, God claims miracles, and there are clearly miracles occuring out there.

All that evidence is, however, inconclusive in that it's source cannot be proveably identified. Under such evidential circumstances, caution is warranted, and, scientifically speaking, the only conclusion that one should arrive at is agnosticism (assuming that only scientific reasoning is valid - which is not the case, ask any philosopher).

Ergo, with an indeterminate evidential record, to conclude that the evidence is negative (or that there is simply no evidence for God - even worse) is to make a leap of faith. Its the same thing when you look at indeterminate records and believe there is something more to it than ... nothing.

As I said, atheism as a faith choice? No issues with it at all. Atheism as an in your face claim of logical superiority and derisive snorting and cat calling? Nothing but problems with that brand of atheism.

Now, would you care to guess which brand of atheists frequent the hallowed halls of religion forums?

 

First of all I am not trying to badger anyone, so maybe I am that ignorant of religion. In that case, show me the difference, because I'm having a hard time distinguishing the two. Really, I would like the know what you consider is the difference between a religion and a mythology. Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology and Celtic mythology were all considered religions by those who believed. What changed? Is it the number of people who worship the god/gods? Was it that one religion overtook another? Is it a case of the winner writing the history books?

As for Vishnu, he is the main god in the Vaishnavite tradition of Hinduism, which is still practiced today. So is Hinduism a religion or a mythology?

What does living on the top of Mount Olympus have to do with whether something is a religion or a mythology? Of course God doesn't claim to live on the top of Mount Olympus, he doesn't make any claims (that he's told me anyway). All the claims about God come from the Bible. Which comes from God and which know because it says so in the Bible.

I looked up mythology and religion at dictionary.com and here are the best definitions I could find:

Mythology: a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

This doesn't help since I can apply either one of these to any of the mythologies above or to any current religion. So please help and tell me what the difference really is, but don't cop out and say that if I don't know then I never will or some other BS like that. Show everyone how much smarter you are than me.

 

Well, you can start with a accurate definition:

my·thol·o·gy (m-thl-j)
n. pl. my·thol·o·gies
1.
a. A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.
b. A body of myths associated with an event, individual, or institution: "A new mythology, essential to the . . . American funeral rite, has grown up" (Jessica Mitford).
2. The field of scholarship dealing with the systematic collection and study of myths.


re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


It also helps when you actually read the examples posters give you. For example, did Jesus Christ ever claim that he lived on Mt. Olympus? Hmmm ... Zues did. We know what is on top of Mount Olympus, and it is not Zues.

There is that thing that atheists like to talk about called falsifiablity.

For example, people used to think that the earth was flat. Well, now we know it is not - so the flat earth is a myth, indeed a myth that lives on in the flat earth society.

So th point stands, if you cannot tell the difference between Greek Mythology and Christianity ... I would say that is rather deliberate on your end, an appeal to ignorance when we all know that the difference is discernable.

Its just a dodge to the old question: why do you think there is no God?

Because I cannot tell the difference between Zues and Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha? That does not indicate that atheism is a particularly insightful or intellectual position does it?

BTW - based on your definitin of mythology - guess what atheism is? A mythology.

 

If you want to know where someone stands, just ask.

Not that it matters, since you don't listen when they tell you.

 

Which god? And why did they give up on all the others?

 

Prove there is no Zeus ot Thor. I mean, you don't believe in them, right? So prove their none existance.

 

There were hundreds of recorded cases of other jesus-types around in that age. They all claimed pretty much the same things.

Please list scientifically proven modern miracles.

Are you an atheist or agnostic regarding Jeus?

Atheism, requires no faith.

 

So Norse mythology is not a "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe". In Norse mythology The world was created in fire and ice and man created by the cow Audhumla. Later, Odin would rise in power and become the head of the gods where he was worshiped. Hmm... that sounds like a religion to me.

On the other hand, isn't the Bible a body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes?

Of course the key word in the above question is "myths" so without the circular thinking of the dictionary, what makes the stories of Odin and Thor myths and what makes the stories of Moses and Abraham not myths?

Now about poor Zeus and Mt. Olympus. Just because you cannot see him doesn't mean he's not there. Zeus has all kinds of magic at his disposal. After all he is able to turn himself into animals or even beams of light. Why couldn't he and the rest of the Greek pantheon use there powers to hide themselves?

 

you should show the record of or perhaps open a thread to share how many 'jesus''''s there are walking around, now

a. empathy by conscious choice
b. the evolution of knowledge
c. the ability for a conscious life to live forever and know it

Problem is, many do not observe these facts, scientifically. And the reason is, few of any discipline know what the 'life' is, of a living structure. Idiots call it a soul, and the other idiots call it a chemical reduction.

The process call 'life' is the missing link to enable any and all to make the 'good' choices, in understanding.

me personally, i believe the guy lived and his contributions to existence, still live (hence why people still use his 'teachings' after 2k+ years) ie... what jesus did, still lives; he lives. But not as some dude on a thrown.

He is in the dirt and in the buildings (created with HIM in mind). Nothing magical and miraculous about it. Just common sense.

ie... Darwin, WON! How much knowledge has evolved since his boat trip?

atheist are most often just people labeled by a theist

Funny part is, most so called atheist, are evolved theist.


let me know, if anything in that post needs to be corrected!

 

Meh.

I see the tried and tired fallacies are back at work. Russel's Teapot anyone?

It is not that difficult to understand, most atheists, whether it be Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or your neighbor are not gnostic atheists. They are agnostic atheists. They don't believe in the tooth fairy because there is zero evidence, they don't believe in the god because there is zero evidence.

 

I already did.

Zues claimed he lived on Mount Olympus, clearly when we look, he's not there.

Now, prove there is no God. You can't.

Prove there was no Jesus or ancient Israel. Not only can you NOT do that, there is plenty of evidence that these things did indeed exist. And that means maybe we should read the book and examine it with a critical eye rather than come up with emotional excuses to avoid it as evidence .... and all the other bits and pieces of evidence.

Indeed, as many an atheist is proving, if you bury your head in the sand and avoid all evidence, then it is certainly true that there is indeed no evidence.

What matters is whether such a tactic will fly in a debate forum, and outside of atheist circles that is a definitive no.

 

Its not difficult to understand, its just the atheist version of creationism.

Its the avoidance of science and rationality and the full embrace of excuse and hypocrisy.

Atheists, whatever they call themselves, like Russel and Dawkins, and not a few atheists on this forum, continuously say that their opinion is driven by science and logic, reason and evidence. But when confronted to display that?

Well, you have no burden of proof? Well, logic, reason, and science indicate otherwise.

You can't prove a negative? Except you can, and several atheists have been emarassed defending that assumption.

There is no evidence? As we can see there is indeed plenty of evidence, albeit inconclusive in terms of science (but atheists dont use faith, so ... evidence anyone?)

You are agnostic atheists? That pre-disposes all of those excuses, and apparently, its just self evident that agnostic atheists are right - no need to debate at all.

To claim agnostic atheism as beyond comprehension, thus all criticism of the poistion invalid, is a simple emotional excuse. Its the latest empty husk that militant atheists cling to in a desperate attempt to maintain their belief system. It is the emodiment of everything that atheists say they hate in religion.

 

In its time it was a religion. Its sense been falsified and moved into the mythology category.

Was Jesus real or not?

Again, see above.

If you do not know enough about ANY religion to prove its false, then the very premise of your arguement is false - you've just lumped them altogether and declared them ALL false - having proved none of them false.

And then there is something called the arguement of the absurd. Zues made claims, and those claims can be checked. If YOU artificially introduce additional checks into those claims .... well, that indicates that honest problem solving is not your goal, but logical absurdity.

So, God claims miracles, are there none?

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

So what happens if we look at a claim and find that there does indeed appear to be the thing claimed?

That stands in sharp contrast to checking on a claim and finding nothing - and then having to introduce absurd uncheckables - into the equation.

There is a reason that most of the world accurately categorizes mythology and religion. There is a reason that atheists fail to do this, and I dare say that the reason atheists do this has nothing to do with science, logic, or reasoning, and everything to do with their faith.

 

No, there was not.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

It's been done for you, several times. Its not in my own words remember?

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

Once again, we have yet another inidication that you have not bothered to check basic facts before forming an opinion.

That question makes absolutely no sense.

Then is should be backed by evidence shouldn't it? So where is your testable proof that there is no God?

Right. Same place as all the other atheists.

Belief in the abscence of evidence, or as we see above, counter to available evidence, is indeed faith.

 

What makes it false and Christianity true? I would like to see your arguments on why the Norse religion is false but Christianity is true.

I really don't know. I only know of one source documenting the life of Jesus, that is of course is the Bible. Why should I put my trust into that one document?

So does that mean they are all true? If they are not, then what makes one true and another false.

So an invisible being is absurd? I think there are many on this forum that would agree with you on that one.

As for Zeus making claims, he can't unless he was real. Like Christianity, the claims of Zeus' powers, deeds, etc. were made by his followers.

As I see it, you are being a hypocrite and that has been the whole point of my posts. You make the assertion that Zeus is not real based on the same arguments that atheists have been using to show that God is not real.

Yes, seemingly miraculous events happen, but where is the correlation between the existence of God and miraculous events? Couldn't these events be explained by something other than God? With all the people dying of disease, isn't it in the realm of possibility that some diseases are going to just disappear. Heck the laws of probability state that it is possible for a boiling cub of water to suddenly turn into ice no matter how extremely improbable it is. How do you know that your God did it? Maybe it was Vishnu or the Buddha.

In all actuality, I am agnostic when it comes to the belief in a supreme being and creator. I do not reject the idea that something bigger than us may exist, I just don't know. However if you insist that this supreme being is the God from the Bible and not some other god, then you will have to show me proof as you would if you tried to convince me that Ford makes better cars than Honda, or that canola oil is better for me than lard or any other claims.