Iceweasel
Diamond Member
I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.Your problem is that you need to greater simplify the question in order to hold your view. The fact is we are here. The universe exists. You have no answers and can only quote various theories. All are potential possibilities to the atheist, except god. Atheists are among the most fundamentalist believers out there.Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.
And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.