Might atheists make the best theists?

No. sigh All I have to do is deny your claims for a god or gods. Then I am atheist.

1 Like

If my argument is “we can not know if god exists, as all evidence for, or against, god has a human bias.”

Then in denying this claim you argue “we can know if god exists, with evidence for, or against, god tha hasn’t got a human bias.”

(Which both a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist would believe, so denial isn’t atheism)

I suspect that is a false dichotomy, as the second statement and the first statement don’t seem to cover all the options.

It would be better if you let us pick our own positions on the debate topics; instead of trying to assign us one.

For example let’s take your sentence: we can not know if god exists, as all evidence for, or against, god has a human bias. If we give you the benifit of the doubt, and assume these attributes are binary (you either can know if god exists, or you can’t know if god exists; etc). That still lead to at LEAST 4 outcomes:

A = we can not know if god exists
B = all evidence for, or against, god has a human bias

Leading to at least 4 possible outcomes:

And my denial of your god claim does have a human basis in " I do not believe you" . I am human, you are human. .

If you are trying to say the god claim does NOT have a human bias then you had better find a non human to claim it.

I won’t hold my breath.

1 Like

I have never said such a thing, nor have many atheist.

My position is simple; I don’t believe due to a lack of empirical evidence. However, I make no claims. UnIike every believer I can remember coming here, I admit the possibility of error.

Well yes. Hard for a believer to grasp I guess because every believer I’ve ever met has cherrypicked his/her beliefs.

What you’re suggesting is called Pascal’s Wager.(look it up) It was an idiotic idea when it was invented and remains an idiotic idea

It’s not the least bit complicated. All religions use the notion of gods as if that’s a given. It is not. Before I would be able to believe whatever personal superstitions were being pushed by a specific group, I would first need to see empirical evidence fort existence of god(s). Without that, all other beliefs are smoke in the wind.

Ok, so what’s your criteria for belief / disbelief?

Mine is that I withhold belief in any claim until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for it. If nothing is, or can be, known about a claim then I withhold belief.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, belief is a separate statement. I’d also point out that many god claims are not unfalsifiable.

Agreed, I can disbelieve their claims though, including god claims.

Wrong, since atheism is not a belief, nor does it require any belief.

Again this is erroneous, I need not know something is false in order to disbelieve it. As again your claim would mean I’d have to lend credence to all unfalsifiable claims.

Do you believe in invisible pixies? You see, unfalsifiable claims are easy to create. They are also meaningless.

That’s not a theological fact, it’s an epistemological one.

You are claiming that nothing is or can be known about the nature or existence of any god, agnosticism. Now you’re make an assertion about the nature of a god.

Which is it?

If I have zero comprehension of something, then I axiomatically can’t hold any beliefs about it.

If I lack belief in any concept of a deity, them I am by definition an atheist.

Atheism can be a choice, but it doesn’t have to be.

Wrong again, we cannot be born knowing about the concept of a deity, therefore it is axiomatic we are born holding no beliefs about that concept, including the agnostic belief that nothing is or can be known about any deity.

Woo woo superstition exists outside of religion, and the value one attaches to it does not validate or evidence it.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim?

I don’t think you’ve grasped that Schrödinger’s cat is a philosophical dilemma. You can make neither argument without opening the box, that’s the whole point. However, it differs from atheism fundamentally, because atheism is not a claim, nor does it make any, as you are implying here.

So if someone makes a claim that the cat is alive, or dead, then rationally I must disbelieve that claim. Theism is a claim, whereas atheism is the lack or absence of belief in that claim, it’s not a contrary claim.

I make neither argument, as an atheists I simply disbelieve the theistic claim a deity exists. I’m also struggling more and more to believe you’re an agnostic, based on your posts.

You’re contradicting yourself, by claiming nothing can be known about god, then make assertions about a god, albeit vague incoherent woo woo assertions.

Atheism is not a claim there is no god, why do you keep misrepresenting it?

A textbook god of the gaps polemic, oh dear, and no I do not, it’s perfectly rational to disbelieve any claim presented without any objective evidence.

No it isn’t, you’re just endlessly repeating the same dishonest mantra.

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.

And nothing more…

1 Like

I believe I can do a better job arguing a theistic position than any theist that has ever visited the site. “I choose to believe because it feels right to me.” Go ahead and try to change my mind.
LOL. I don’t care what you have to say. I could care less that some feelings may be wrong. I could give a shit if you believe or not. I know what feels right for me and if you don’t like it you can “fuck off.” Best argument for theism ever. I believe and we are not going to discuss it. Ha ha ha ha …

2 Likes

Lol … I don’t think he’s grasped this idea :bulb: presented in quantum physics - which BTW is a basis for quantum computers. IE being both “on and off” OR being both “clockwise and counterclockwise”

1 Like

Since theism is the belief in a deity, and atheism the lack or absence of belief in that deity, no obviously. The question is absurd.

@bloopynoopy

I’ve asked you this more than once, and to evidence other claims you’ve made, the most obviously absurd claim being that you somehow know what “most atheists think”. A claim you have repeated nonetheless despite offering nothing in support of it beyond your own opinion.

Does anyone else still believe this poster is an agnostic? I must say I find the claim increasingly dubious.

1 Like

yes it does atheism claims the cat is dead

Nope

No matter how many time you straw man what atheism “claims” it does not make it true nor reality.

Dipshit…

Simple question @bloopynoopy. Do you worship or believe in ALL gods presented to you?

Nope, atheism disbelieves both claims, as they’re unevidenced, try again.

As I said, you either don’t understand the dilemma, or you’re trolling.

Maybe both, as you don’t seem very bright.

1 Like

I’m not using a straw man I’m making a genuine point. In order to not believe in god or religion it assumes god and religion are false arguments. If religion and god live in the unknown, you can’t say religion is wrong or right. you can only say the question itself is not answerable. However our natural affinity as a civilisation toward religion, or a personification of the unknown, with hundreds of cultures independently finding religions and religion lasting over thousands of years, it seems arrogant to assume that it has no use to us or that anyone who does not choose atheism is stupid. I don’t disregard religion nor do I disregard science (which I would describe as the study of the unknown and collation of what can be known). I see the value in each and draw my line down the middle. I realise to say that ‘we know everything’ is untrue as is to say ‘we cant know anything’ is equally untrue. We only know some things. To know the unknown is a contradiction. If God is the unknown and Science is the known the two can never cross. However some of what was once God (unknown) is now Science (known) we call this Nature, so God is nature we haven’t discovered yet. So although a lot of set religions have posed as knowledge, and I would agree this is an area of Religion can be disputed, the advantage of religion is its ability to help people deal with and navigate ideas like hope, trust and faith in relation to the unknown in moments when we, the individual have no control or access to the known. So if disassociated from an institution that preaches a fear of god (unknown). The open minded could then choose from a wide range of these tools and use them to best navigate the true nature of the unknown (God).

Do I even have to read further? You are not being genuine or honest or demonstrating integrity.

Once again a straw man- you’ve tie “god and religion” together. These are separate. Religions can be demonstrably evidenced. They exist. God has not been demonstrably evidenced. I accept the claim religions exist (evidenced). I do not accept the claim god exists (UNLESS YOU HAVE some demonstrable evidence to back this claim).

I’ll read further to see if you even bothered to answer my question to you

Lol - you need to start looking up common definitions. I reject your description in part of science as the study of “unknown” (unless you define this to mean NOT yet known)… it is simply observation and description or explanation of observations (as a simple accurate description of the various sciences).

No - you didn’t bother to answer this.

That’s because I don’t believe in a God, I think that all Gods are a personification of the unknown, based on the fact that I have never found a religion or other where god isn’t just a personification of what is unknown. If you can think of one then please let me know.

Rubbish, this will remain a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.

Again repeating this assertion, whilst ignoring requests you evidence it speaks for itself.

You can however disbelieve its claims when they offered without any objective evidence, as you keep doing.

Please demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity? You can’t simply assume a deity exists but is unknown, that’s asinine.

If I say “it is in gods power to always live outside the observable universe” you cant disprove this, so is it true? You cant go to the unobservable universe without it then becoming observed so god could exist and can be religion right. Since this statement can literally describe our reality. To have “the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods” (oxford dictionary) based on there being no evidence is not a default because the former doesn’t need any evidence to be true.