Atheists want multiple universes and extra-terrestrial civilizations to exist because they think it will hurt Christianity

[GLASNOST]

I love that verse. "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10

I love this verse. "Nah, no it didn't."
Fort Fun Indiana page 25:492

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Google definition is incorrect.

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The above is correct. You failed the lie detector test.

But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.

Very good! But let me add one detail. "One can ..." lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."

Agreed. And these people are not just agnostic, but also atheist. The old definitions just don't suffice. All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.

So really, the terms theist and atheist will suffice. Unless we are talking about the special case of gnostic atheists, which will then mandate use of the term "gnostic atheists". It is the special case of atheism. We don't have to use the term "agnostic atheist", just as we don't have to use the term, "non-square rectangle" (squares being the special case of rectangles). We can just say, "rectangle", unless the situation calls for the distinction. In fact, we rarely need to use the word "agnostic" at all!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Sounds like you're discriminating against my beliefs about the universe.

Well yes, you think that because you internalize these beliefs. You must do so, because you have nothing but "because I say so" to support the truth of them. So they become you. Their credibility is now inseparable from your own, by your own design. So you see disagreement that they are true as some sort of personal attack. These are your problems to deal with, not mine.

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

The Google definition is incorrect.

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The above is correct. You failed the lie detector test.

But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.

Very good! But let me add one detail. "One can ..." lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."

Agreed. And these people are not just agnostic, but also atheist. The old definitions just don't suffice. All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.

So really, the terms theist and atheist will suffice. Unless we are talking about the special case of gnostic atheists, which will then mandate use of the term "gnostic atheists". It is the special case of atheism. We don't have to use the term "agnostic atheist", just as we don't have to use the term, "non-square rectangle" (squares being the special case of rectangles). We can just say, "rectangle", unless the situation calls for the distinction. In fact, we rarely need to use the word "agnostic" at all!

You missed one.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

No.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[GLASNOST]

The Google definition is incorrect.

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The above is correct. You failed the lie detector test.

But that defintion is not sufficient. One can have disbelief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic.

Very good! But let me add one detail. "One can ..." lack "... belief in gods and any other magical hooha, but atill not claim to know with certainty that they do not exist. That person is still an agnostic."

Agreed. And these people are not just agnostic, but also atheist. The old definitions just don't suffice. All are agnostic, who cannot claim to be absolutely certain that gods do not exist but do not accept belief in gods. These people are also all atheists, as they lack belief in gods. So there are agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists, who claim to KNOW there are no gods. All agnostics are atheists. There are only theists and atheists. There are no agnostic theists, because agnostics, by definition, do not accept belief in gods.

So really, the terms theist and atheist will suffice. Unless we are talking about the special case of gnostic atheists, which will then mandate use of the term "gnostic atheists". It is the special case of atheism. We don't have to use the term "agnostic atheist", just as we don't have to use the term, "non-square rectangle" (squares being the special case of rectangles). We can just say, "rectangle", unless the situation calls for the distinction. In fact, we rarely need to use the word "agnostic" at all!

No. An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction. I am an agnostic myself. I am not convinced that there is no god but I am equally undecided about there being one. The definition that is being played with is incorrect by way of it being incomplete. It ought to be a simple task of putting it right but for some reason, it hasn't surfaced. Well, if you agree that someone with my beliefs/disbeliefs are valid then you can see for yourself that a proper definition hasn't been presented.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

View attachment 428452

No.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.

I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

View attachment 428452

No.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?

If there was nothing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

View attachment 428452

No.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?

View attachment 428453

If there was nothing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.

 

[GLASNOST]

An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.

I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.

I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.

I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.

I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"

Which would result in very few actual atheists, and you wouldnt be able to tell them from agnostics without interrogations. Both agnostics and atheists would be secular. Both would reject belief in gods. Easier and just as clear would be to call them all atheists, with a subset of gnostic atheists as the special case that is invoked, when necessary.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.....There are only theists and atheists.....

I repeat... You missed one.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[GLASNOST]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

No.

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?

If there was nothing.

Yeah, good idea, let's take Billy Preston's advice ... he died in a drug rehabilitation clinic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.....There are only theists and atheists.....

View attachment 428454

I repeat... You missed one.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You are a viking, whem it comes to repeating yourself.

 

[GLASNOST]

An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.

I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.

I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"

Which would result in very few actual atheists, and you wouldnt be able to tell them from agnostics without interrogations. Both agnostics and atheists would be secular. Both would reject belief in gods. Easier and just as clear would be to call them all atheists, with a subset of gnostic atheists as the special case that is invoked, when necessary.

Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Slice it and package it as you like but I am not an atheist.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

View attachment 428452

No.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?

View attachment 428453

If there was nothing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.

The only dog and pony show here is yours and your lack of seeing what is self evident.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An atheist disbelieves while an agnostic has no such conviction.

I expand atheist to be anyone who does not accept a belief in gods.

I say that an atheist has a conviction: "There is no god."
A theist has a conviction: "There is a God."
Agnostic says: "How the hell should I know one way or the other?"

Which would result in very few actual atheists, and you wouldnt be able to tell them from agnostics without interrogations. Both agnostics and atheists would be secular. Both would reject belief in gods. Easier and just as clear would be to call them all atheists, with a subset of gnostic atheists as the special case that is invoked, when necessary.

Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Slice it and package it as you like but I am not an atheist.

Neither am i, by the definitions you like. Very few are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have no need for internalization. The truth of the matter is you deny the proof of Gods existence that lies plainly before you to observe and understand. You need look no further than to allow your very senses experience Gods very existence yet you deny the epiphany of that simple revelation.

So EVERYTHING is evidence. And nothing can be "evidence against". Ever. By definition. You are partially right, in that I don't allow myself to accept such a childish, anti-intellectual, circular regression of tautology.

View attachment 428452

No.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Oh really? Then give me an example of something that would be evidence against the truth of the existence of your favorite god, or against the idea that he made everything. We don't have time for all the gods. let's focus on yours.


So... your example?

View attachment 428453

If there was nothing.

*****CHUCKLE*****

So you jusy agreed with me. There is mothing that could ever be evidence. Eberything is always evidence. Fine by me. Believe what you like. Just spare us the dog and pony show of pretending these beliefs are evidence based, when everything is always be evidence and nothing can be evidence against. You arent basing anything on evidence and dont get to make that claim with any honesty. Especially not in the science section. That faith-based preening goes in the religion section.

View attachment 428456

The only dog and pony show here is yours and your lack of seeing what is self evident.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Of course it is "self evident", when it is everything, and everything can only be evidence for, and nothing can be evidence against. It's a rigged game. I feel like you are about to try to sell me a vacuum. Or a special tincture for gonhorrea, from the back of a wooden horsecart.