Ask an Atheist

Diagoras wrote: Israfil, You cannot be a positivist on one hand, and have negative (not negative in the sense of being angry or bad) view on the other. These two concepts are polar opposites. This is along the lines of me calling myself an atheistic-Muslim. I understand it is quite possible to posit claims about something but not necessarily had any soilid foundation on those beliefs. I need some examples of my fallacy before I can respond. I disagree. Many atheists in many circles whom I've met would blow you out of the water with such a comment. I know many atheist that are dead set in their ways much like believing theist. There are "professional atheist" who write books on the proof in the non-existence of God. I do not necessarily believe all atheist are "weak atheist." I believe a lot of atheists simply have varying beliefs in the non-existence of higher power(s). If by books you mean the new round of atheist books, I know for a fact that Richard Dawkins is a weak atheist and I think Sam Harris and Hitchens are, but don't quote me on that. Yeah, there are some strong atheists but they're in the same position as believers. Me personally its either two things. You are confused in what you are saying or you don't know what you claim. I mean, look at the title of this thread. You claim that you are a weak atheist-agnostic (two seemingly contradictory terms) yet you have posited claims on God. I think you have very weak arguments and I honestly think you need to rethink what exactly you believe. Okay, we've been experiencing a massive disconnect for this entire thread. I'm going to post out the entire thought process of a weak atheist and you can point out the spot where you don't get it. Someone proposes the existence of God. First: Is this a minor claim that I can accept without evidence (ie. "That is a tree.") or is this a major claim that I'm going to require evidence before I believe it (ie. "That man over there is actually a tree.")? The existence of a God is an extraordinary claim, I require evidence. I fail to observe evidence. I actively search for evidence (clergy, apologetics, etc.) and am not convinced. No one successfully presents convincing evidence. Thus, I do not believe in God. Now, compare the above with Russel's Teapot. Note: I am not calling God a teapot! Don't get offended guys. Someone proposes the existence of a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Pluto. First: Is this a minor claim that I can accept without evidence (ie. "That is a tree.") or is this a major claim that I'm going to require evidence before I believe it (ie. "That man over there is actually a tree.")? The existence of a teapot in inter-planetary space is an extraordinary claim, I require evidence. I fail to observe evidence. I actively search for evidence (telescopes, scientist, etc.) and am not convinced. No one successfully presents convincing evidence. Thus, I do not believe that a teapot exists there. With any extraordinary claim one goes through the same process of review. The teapot example just exists to show how you would ordinarily treat the God claim.

As usual, your posts are nothing but tautological rubbish.

Please argue that atheism is necessarily true. I asked you this before and your only reply was one that attempted to hide behind a techincal point. If you continue to run this thread in circles with your tired sophistry, then I will be forced to close it. Please argue your claims. Your tired attempt to assert that your position (which you alter here and there as a way to back out of actually having to present a case for your beliefs) is true because thiesm is false is erroneous.

 

Saladin bad question,

Evolution does not negate God. It negates the religious view that humans were "created" 2,000 years ago and that, humans didn't have to go through a process which, is of course the early Christian view.

I am more interested in the word "evidence". I would request diagoras to define evidence again. What type of evidence will satisfy him?? Will it be a feeling?? or a definite visual phenomena? Something felt by the five senses?? Will there be room for the sixth sense too?? Please describe in detail about the evidence required to prove the existence of God. Thanks.

I have this little diatribe stored on my computer, however, I did not write it (that's for you, Israfil ). I've long since lost the link and forgotten the author so I apologize to whoever he/she is:

"Explain what you mean by a logical view of your xgod.

As noted before, provide a theoretical basis for such which is consistent with observations of reality. In other words, describe a self-consistent model of the reality which includes your xgod as its creator and prime regulator, a model that is consistent with verifiable observations of reality. This should also include probable scenarios which rationally result from your model, which given specified real circumstances, would produce repeatable results which would falsify your model.

Then provide examples of said results."

Translated into English, the person above is pretty much saying that you should provide examples of something that could only be done by God.

Andalus,

As usual, your posts are nothing but tautological rubbish.

Love you too.

Please argue that atheism is necessarily true.

If you looked up the definition of atheist, you would see that it's a negative philosophy. Burden of proof rests on you (if we are operating within the scientific framework).

I asked you this before and your only reply was one that attempted to hide behind a techincal point.

You mean scientific methodology? Yeah, that's a technical point.

If you continue to run this thread in circles with your tired sophistry, then I will be forced to close it.

It'd be nice if you provided specific examples of my sophistry. Otherwise it appears that your major issue is that I disagree with you.

Please argue your claims.

See, if you had been paying attention to this thread you would have noticed that you are the one making the claim and I am the one expressing skepticism.

Your tired attempt to assert that your position (which you alter here and there as a way to back out of actually having to present a case for your beliefs) is true because thiesm is false is erroneous.

Reread my posts, understand the difference between positive and negative ideas, understand burden of proof, then get back to me.

I apologize to everyone about the tone I used in this post but when an individual blatantly ignores my earlier points to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty I get angry.