Atheism & Theism...A Common Denominator

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by PsychoticEpisode, Aug 10, 2009.

  1. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    The common denominator for theism and atheism is not knowing if God exists. Neither one has any hard evidence to support their claim. Atheists because of the lack of evidence state their opinion and it is no different for the theist. If there was all kinds of evidence then there would be no theists or atheists.

    Therefore any atheist cannot totally refute a god nor can a theist ignore the possibility a god doesn't exist.

    For those who claim to know, they simply do not believe. If you don't know then you either believe or don't. I think the only reason theism is the norm is because there are more who believe. Other than that I see little reason for so much animosity between the two. When both sides argue they argue with no evidence or assuredness. Kind of pointless.

    The most devoted believer or atheist on this forum doesn't know for sure if they are correct. Yes my religious friends, even you cannot support God with evidence just as I cannot support His absence. It's a draw. I'd pay to hear an evangelist say that.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    -=-

    I do know I'm correct.

    If there are gods, they're playing hide&seek.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    to counter, i have an assload of evidence.

    i'm also quite sure that there are plenty of believers out there without it. they believe because they want to...it serves some purpose for them, whatever that might be. but i also am quite sure that there are many who know because they have the same kind of evidence that i do.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    I can totally agree with what you are asserting.
     
  8. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    for either claims, I expect to hear their idea of God in detail. Its only silly to imagine that one can believe or reject something what they cant even explain.
     
  9. earth Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    A little over 530 million years ago everything lived in the sea. The fossil record is proof enough. Man evolved and was not created. Fish is the word.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2009
  10. noodler Banned Banned

    Messages:
    751
    This is why I prescribe to neither view. Theism has been redacted to a debate about the existence of an Abrahamic figure, here on this forum and on most other "religious" ones.

    But, how can anyone know "the most devoted believer" can't be sure? What if they'e as sure about God's existence as they are about being able to see or hear (assuming they have functional vision and hearing)? Or something even more basic, like being able to satisfy hunger for food, or thirst for water?

    The biggest problem the theist/atheist debate has, is that the evidence is anecdotal, but certainly confirmational for the individual. Unless you see this "God" in another person, and can confirm it's the same one you can see (inside "you"), where's the argument?

    How do you argue a case like "I can see God, and I can see that you can too"?
    The swamis have a saying (and premies, or lovers of God say it) which is: "jhai satchit anand". This has various translations, one of which is "I see myself in you".
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2009
  11. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396

    You have an assload of assumption.
     
  12. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    i'm afraid what you said is right, considering you atheist pigeonhole.

    you guys seem not to understand the meaning of believe.

    a kid believing he can fly takes the fact that humans can't fly and slams it against a wall. his belief, his subjective belief, automatically disregards the grownup fact.

    now, you think it's a fact that god doesn't exist.

    not only that, but you actually believe theists know it too, so their belief not only is wrong, but they have doubts about it out of lack of evidence.

    so you have jumped from labeling god's nonexistence as an objective matter, but are now saying even us theists cannot or should not be able to have it as a subjective belief.

    please, all of you, broaden your scope and work your imagination hard to imagine us actually believing with every cell in our body that god exists, totally acknowledging the evidence we have as proof of our beliefs.

    wording it to make it easier for you:
    we are truly deluded.
    we don't know we are wrong but are fighting nonetheless.

    no, i KNOW god exists,mm, look, as much as you know he doesn't exist.
    that common denominator is between atheists and agnostics IMO.

    "hard evidence" CAN be subjective.

    again, why do smokers smoe despite all the evidence?

    you can't deny humans their power of choice.

    that is why lots and lots of logic is useless, because it isn't practical, many times illogic which is followed by most humans is more important than logic which isn't followed by many humans.

    Therefore any atheist cannot totally refute a god nor can a theist ignore the possibility a god doesn't exist.

    WHAT? how can you actually say that?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    :wtf: how can you believe if you don't know, why can't we know what we believe, but you can know what you believe? is it because you can't know what we believe that you say we can't know too?


    don't extend beliefs of your side to the other, atheists are not supposed to know, i mean, being sure of a negative? but hey, look here:
    i believe stranger believes what he says he believes.

    belief is not always connected to evidence, not only can you believe without evidence (as you think we do), but you can disbelieve albeit evidence (which many think is the case with you)..


    and so since gods can't play hide and seek then they don't exist.

    that's some bet you're taking..

    circular reasoning.
    what if man was brought down to earth after some ground was revealed.

    it can't be because there is no evidence? well you're looking in the wrong place, evidence that man was created as whole after the suggested evolution started in the other animals, is what makes the majority of humans theists and creationalists, and a hint: you won't "unearth" that evidence with a shovel.

    besides, if absence of evidence is the proof of absence, then absence of neanderthals is evidence IMO of human evolution.

    scientifically speaking... i like it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Now that sounds uncomfortable, and yet some how approriate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. noodler Banned Banned

    Messages:
    751
    Why does the theory of evolution, vs the theory of humans created by a God present such a problem?

    There is no problem if you assume these are equivalent explanations - that's what they are after all, explanations. I can deal with the Biblical account by assuming it was a conclusion made at the time, given the available evidence and understanding of the world. The Biblical account is not unique, it reflects many other themes of the place & time. There is a problem with believing it's a factual, verbatim account. This bumps into the problem "who told the dude who wrote it down, or did they witness the creation of humans firsthand, so can't be human since none existed when they observed God beginning to create them."

    Obviously the more prosaic answer is, men invented this theory of humans and animals being created. Darwin substitutes "evolution" as a creative process; where's the rub?
     
  15. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    A man is like a fraction whose numerator is what he is and
    whose denominator is what he thinks of himself.

    The larger the denominator, the smaller the fraction.


    Leo Tolstoy
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well.. what you think is evidence anyway. There is no way to verify it.
    Personal experiences are not evidence.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Very good analogy of belief in God.
     
  18. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,396
    -=-

    scifes

    How the heck do you get this : i believe stranger believes what he says he believes.
    belief is not always connected to evidence, not only can you believe without evidence (as you think we do), but you can disbelieve albeit evidence (which many think is the case with you)..


    from this : “ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa

    I do know I'm correct. ”

    ???

    And how can you know gods can't play hide and seek?
     
  19. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Personal experience is the only kind of evidence there is. What other kind is there?
     
  20. noodler Banned Banned

    Messages:
    751
    "Personal experiences are not evidence" except to the person who experiences them.
    Communicating personal experiences is evidence for people who aren't that person. So anecdotal evidence (reads Bible again, and picks up the Q'ran) is the field in play here.

    Unless someone can communicate in a direct "wordless" way, this experience; unless someone does actually see themselves, in another person; literally this means seeing the same 'light(s)' inside another, that the person can see in themselves.
     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (the act or process of deriving a conclusion), that make information relevant to the support or disproof of a hypothesis. Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
     
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    And how does one get this evidence?
     
  23. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    you're full of crap and you don't care.
     

Share This Page