Two Questions for Atheists

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists andsomeone who is certain God doesn't exist"

Both are atheists. The latter is a special case of atheism called "Gnostic atheism".

Nope. One is Atheist and one is Agnostic. What you're doing is called Word Salad. That's a popular tactic of those who are avoiding the obvious implications. Or... someone who is mentally challenged. I'll let you decide on that one.

• theist: believes a literal God exists
• atheist: believes that a literal God does not exist
• agnostic: doesn’t know whether or not a literal God exists

• hard agnostic: we can’t know (now) whether or not God exists. Perhaps because God is so complex and if “he” exists would be in everything, and everywhere, so how could we possibly know what is and what is not God? or perhaps for some other reason
• soft agnostic: “ I don’t know whether or not God exists.” Maybe some people do know, but the soft agnostic either doesn’t care, or isn’t in possession of enough facts, or isn’t smart enough, or whatever

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-gnostic-and-atheist

For believers, agnostics are the same as atheists. Neither are believers

That's not the correct definition of "atheist". I

 

[cnm]

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

No, we like to point out some atheists are selective.

 

[cnm]

Morality is clearly subjective, particularly if there is nothing holding you accountable.

Morals are community norms. Valid morals assist community survival.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Morality is clearly subjective, particularly if there is nothing holding you accountable.

Maybe you need to behave well out of fear (which is not actually morality, completely undermining that nonsense), but most people behave well because they honor reason-based morality and ethics.

 

[K9Buck]

My question is not about what I believe. It's about what YOU believe and whether you hope you're wrong or right. It doesn't demand anything, it asks a question, as denoted by the question mark at the end.

While your question may be about what others believe, he makes a valid point. Which God? If you plan to constrain the discussion to monotheism, then you should say so.

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

No, it just forces you to explain why the context must be monotheism.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While your question may be about what others believe, he makes a valid point. Which God? If you plan to constrain the discussion to monotheism, then you should say so.

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

No, it just forces you to explain why the context must be monotheism.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

No, not my point. I am not saying you would have to "prove monotheism", but rather it is you who would have to introduce it as a constraint.

 

[rightwinger]

While your question may be about what others believe, he makes a valid point. Which God? If you plan to constrain the discussion to monotheism, then you should say so.

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

No, it just forces you to explain why the context must be monotheism.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

As much proof of his lawnmower being God as your God
Both are ludicrous

 

[cnm]

But one may have a better presented lawn.

 

[K9Buck]

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

No, it just forces you to explain why the context must be monotheism.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

As much proof of his lawnmower being God as your God
Both are ludicrous

You've been shown all sorts of evidence countless times. You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it. It must suck to be you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, it just forces you to explain why the context must be monotheism.

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

As much proof of his lawnmower being God as your God
Both are ludicrous

You've been shown all sorts of evidence countless times. You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it. It must suck to be you.

No, see, that's just the thing: you have not one shred of evidence.

 

[K9Buck]

No, not my point. I am not saying you would have to "prove monotheism", but rather it is you who would have to introduce it as a constraint.

By the same token, if he thinks his lawnmower is God, it's YOUR responsibility to PROVE it's not before you can claim any other belief. How about that? LOL.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, not my point. I am not saying you would have to "prove monotheism", but rather it is you who would have to introduce it as a constraint.

By the same token, if he thinks his lawnmower is God, it's YOUR responsibility to PROVE it's not before you can claim any other belief. How about that? LOL.

That's silly. I have no interest in anyone trying to prove god does not exist. The same goes for dragons, unicorns, leprechauns, etc.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you hope that you are wrong or do you hope that you are right?



Do you ever have doubts about your Atheism?

1) Wrong
2) No

 

[Dr Grump]

Correct. Many of them claim to be logical, rational, objective thinkers and then bash the belief in a creator and then run to the cover of agnosticism when presented with credible evidence of a creator. In other words, they're dishonest.

Actually, NOT believing in a creator is logical, rational and objective.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of this so-called creator.

 

[K9Buck]

No it doesn't.

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

As much proof of his lawnmower being God as your God
Both are ludicrous

You've been shown all sorts of evidence countless times. You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it. It must suck to be you.

No, see, that's just the thing: you have not one shred of evidence.

I've shared a plethora of evidence here on this forum. I'm obviously talking to the wall. Carry on.

 

[K9Buck]

Correct. Many of them claim to be logical, rational, objective thinkers and then bash the belief in a creator and then run to the cover of agnosticism when presented with credible evidence of a creator. In other words, they're dishonest.

Actually, NOT believing in a creator is logical, rational and objective.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of this so-called creator.

Yea, everything made itself just like the fucking Empire State Building made itself. LOL.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course it does. If a person is asked if they believe in God, they are correct to ask, "which god?" At that point, if you desire a discussion in the context of monotheism, you must then add this constraint.

So if a guy believes his lawnmower is "God", I have to prove it isn't before I can believe in our creator???

As much proof of his lawnmower being God as your God
Both are ludicrous

You've been shown all sorts of evidence countless times. You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it. It must suck to be you.

No, see, that's just the thing: you have not one shred of evidence.

I've shared a plethora of evidence here on this forum. I'm obviously talking to the wall. Carry on.

No, you haven't. None of that was actually "evidence", and you are incorrect to call it evidence.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yea, everything made itself just like the fucking Empire State Building made itself. LOL.

No, no, no, no. Some omnipresent being that has always existed went 'abracadabra' and everything came into being. That is soooooo much more believable.....

 

[MarkDuffy]

Yea, everything made itself just like the fucking Empire State Building made itself. LOL.

No, no, no, no. Some omnipresent being that has always existed went 'abracadabra' and everything came into being. That is soooooo much more believable.....

We couldda had this, but instead we got a fisherman

 

[MarkDuffy]

Correct. Many of them claim to be logical, rational, objective thinkers and then bash the belief in a creator and then run to the cover of agnosticism when presented with credible evidence of a creator. In other words, they're dishonest.

Actually, NOT believing in a creator is logical, rational and objective.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of this so-called creator.

Yea, everything made itself just like the fucking Empire State Building made itself. LOL.

God created the Empire State Building? What Gospel is that in?