㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[Old Things]

You are not creating common ground, you are actively running from it.

what "common ground" are you proposing ?

There have been plenty of chances to agree on things, you just are so evasive, that there has been no mutual agreement on things that people can build off of.

It's a skill to communicate, and it is entirely different from being able to make an argument.

You might have the best argument in the world, but if you can't communicate it, then it's all for not.

At some point where you are looking at records that are thousands of years old, you have to accept that the people of that age were very different from today.

That in no way changes the facts.

The resurrection of Christ might hold a coded message that only people of that day, in a very specific geography, would understand for example.

Anything is POSSIBLE. It's possible you are talking to an elephant talking through an interpreter. It's never about what is possible but what is probable.

You are saying that we should interpret it literally, but even if we did, we can speculate many things before we get to supernatural assumptions.

I'm saying that atheists agree with these facts and have for the most part given up on providing naturalistic explanations anymore.

Everyone knows that this kind of wrestling is fiction. So IDK what your point is.

I agree it's pretty ubiquitous. However most people I know don't take everything in the Bible literally. So I wouldn't even know where to start there.

To me it's just (ancient) literature. Like, it's very impactful that Harry Potter went from living under his uncle's staircase to being the chosen one, but in like 10,000 years I wouldn't want people to confuse it for reality, despite whatever reality it may contain from JK Rowlings personal experience?

Jesus is a historical figure. He is not a myth. That is one of the points. That Jesus died by crucifixion (fact that he lived and died). Also, the message that Jesus rose from the dead was proclaimed very early (so could not have been developed as a myth). Atheist NT scholars will just give you all these facts. Now, you might ask, "Why don't they believe then?" and the answer is a mixture of apathy and saying what you are basically saying, "I wasn't there so I can't say," which pretty much just dismisses the facts of the historical events. In the study of history, Dr. Habermas goes through somewhat of a history of the philosophy of history. And the view that was popular for some time is, "There are no historical facts." But that perspective did not last that long and now even philosophically liberal scholars will admit these facts. The question is not about whether Jesus was a historical figure or interpreting everything figuratively (which would just be weird given the way they were written was not in a figurative way), but what you do with the facts.

 

[Black Rose]

most of my day I do not think the bible affects my life

rather, I think about it sometimes but I just try to get by because I am poor and have nothing to do all-day

sure the bible is important but life goes on

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Jesus is a historical figure. He is not a myth. That is one of the points. That Jesus died by crucifixion (fact that he lived and died). Also, the message that Jesus rose from the dead was proclaimed very early (so could not have been developed as a myth). Atheist NT scholars will just give you all these facts. Now, you might ask, "Why don't they believe then?" and the answer is a mixture of apathy and saying what you are basically saying, "I wasn't there so I can't say," which pretty much just dismisses the facts of the historical events. In the study of history, Dr. Habermas goes through somewhat of a history of the philosophy of history. And the view that was popular for some time is, "There are no historical facts." But that perspective did not last that long and now even philosophically liberal scholars will admit these facts. The question is not about whether Jesus was a historical figure or interpreting everything figuratively (which would just be weird given the way they were written was not in a figurative way), but what you do with the facts.

Well, I mean, even the idea of reincarnation has been around for way longer than the bible. So the idea that a myth needs time to develop is moot, because they can just borrow from another culture that isn't that far from the Geographically anyways.

Hindus would say that we are all part of God. An eternal self.

Hindu's most popular sacred text the Bhagavad gita is centered around a large battle that will determine the next generations rulers. A prince is hesitant to participate in war, and wants to abandon his duty.

Krishna (God) comes to him and says "it's fucked if you do, but it's really fucked if you don't, so it's for the best that you do fight in this war."

So when you take a step back and look at other religions, and how others challenge them with naturalistic perspectives, how does that factor into a coherent narrative even with supernatural interference?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

archeologists agree that most pre-agrarian tribal groups subscribed to some form of local ANIMISM

so it would seem that some argument could be made that humans automatically subscribe to some form of ANIMISM

and yet

ANIMISM is not THEISM

Can you articulate to me the difference between animism and theism?

 

[Old Things]

Jesus is a historical figure. He is not a myth. That is one of the points. That Jesus died by crucifixion (fact that he lived and died). Also, the message that Jesus rose from the dead was proclaimed very early (so could not have been developed as a myth). Atheist NT scholars will just give you all these facts. Now, you might ask, "Why don't they believe then?" and the answer is a mixture of apathy and saying what you are basically saying, "I wasn't there so I can't say," which pretty much just dismisses the facts of the historical events. In the study of history, Dr. Habermas goes through somewhat of a history of the philosophy of history. And the view that was popular for some time is, "There are no historical facts." But that perspective did not last that long and now even philosophically liberal scholars will admit these facts. The question is not about whether Jesus was a historical figure or interpreting everything figuratively (which would just be weird given the way they were written was not in a figurative way), but what you do with the facts.

Well, I mean, even the idea of reincarnation has been around for way longer than the bible. So the idea that a myth needs time to develop is moot, because they can just borrow from another culture that isn't that far from the Geographically anyways.

Hindus would say that we are all part of God. An eternal self.

Hindu's most popular sacred text the Bhagavad gita is centered around a large battle that will determine the next generations rulers. A prince is hesitant to participate in war, and wants to abandon his duty.

Krishna (God) comes to him and says "it's fucked if you do, but it's really fucked if you don't, so it's for the best that you do fight in this war."

So when you take a step back and look at other religions, and how others challenge them with naturalistic perspectives, how does that factor into a coherent narrative even with supernatural interference?

The idea that the Apostles who were all willing to die for the resurrection of Christ (meaning they believed it) borrowed it from other ancient myths has been debunked a million times. It's a scant association if any. Besides, most (if not all) of these myths came AFTER Christ rose from the dead, which is just a wee bit of an inconvenience for your view, don't you think?

Don't talk about Horus or whatever other example you want to give. The similarities are slim compared to the differences. I share links if you want, but it does seem at this point that you don't want to believe it is true that Christ rose from the dead. Obviously, I can't control you and I'm not about forcing you to convert or anything, but the evidence is pretty clear.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The idea that the Apostles who were all willing to die for the resurrection of Christ (meaning they believed it) borrowed it from other ancient myths has been debunked a million times. It's a scant association if any. Besides, most (if not all) of these myths came AFTER Christ rose from the dead, which is just a wee bit of an inconvenience for your view, don't you think?

Don't talk about Horus or whatever other example you want to give. The similarities are slim compared to the differences. I share links if you want, but it does seem at this point that you don't want to believe it is true that Christ rose from the dead. Obviously, I can't control you and I'm not about forcing you to convert or anything, but the evidence is pretty clear.

Yeah, I'm not on the fence about resurrection, I don't expect to be convinced otherwise. Though I can totally see a scenario where someone walks out of their own tomb, after a NDE.

I'll check that video out eventually.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The man who claimed to be God and said he died for our sins rose from the dead.

you seem to be a big fan of NDE testimony

do you believe their version of "god" simply because they died and came back alive ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There have been plenty of chances to agree on things, you just are so evasive, that there has been no mutual agreement on things that people can build off of.

what "common ground" are you proposing specifically ?

it's easy to randomly speculate about the "motives" of your interlocutor

my guess is that you believe all ATHEISTS must believe "ALL GODS ARE IMPOSSIBLE"

do you think this is a fair statement ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Can you articulate to me the difference between animism and theism?

Animism (from Latin: anima meaning 'breath, spirit, life')[1][2] is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as being animated, having agency and free will.[7]


Classical theism is the form of theism in which God is characterized as the singular Absolute Being, Absolute Self, and Ultimate Person who is the source and origin of all the other beings.

The central insight of classical theism is divine simplicity, according to which God does not consist of a combination of different elements, but is absolute and singular. There is no difference between God's essence and existence. Unlike entities, God does not contain potentiality, It is pure existential actuality; and all existence except God is a limited state of the unlimited existence of God's absolute singularity. All existence emanates from and rests on God independently of time, for God is the timeless absolute source and ultimate condition of all existence.[1]

 

[Old Things]

The man who claimed to be God and said he died for our sins rose from the dead.

you seem to be a big fan of NDE testimony

do you believe their version of "god" simply because they died and came back alive ?

I have a policy that if a person says they are God and then dies (like really dead, not just appeared to be dead) and then comes back to life that I believe that they are God in some capacity.

I've said this multiple times that NDEs do not mean any particular religion is true, but it does show there is an afterlife.

 

[Old Things]

NDE.

IDK what NDEs have to do with Christ's resurrection.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I have a policy that if a person says they are God and then dies (like really dead, not just appeared to be dead) and then comes back to life that I believe that they are God in some capacity.

and that's great

as a personal policy

but it's not exactly a slam-dunk

logically speaking

the conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow the premise

 

[Old Things]

I have a policy that if a person says they are God and then dies (like really dead, not just appeared to be dead) and then comes back to life that I believe that they are God in some capacity.

and that's great

as a personal policy

but it's not exactly a slam-dunk

logically speaking

the conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow the premise

It proves at the very least that there is a supernatural world that has the power to raise someone from the dead. Why someone would take the minimum that can be concluded and throw out everything else that the man claimed who rose from the dead is something you could do, but personally, I'm just going to believe He is telling the truth.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

it's easy to randomly speculate about the "motives" of your interlocutor

I am not speculating your motives. I can only assume that you are trying to be correct. I have more than anything been interpreting your behavior. It is evasive. I have had to restate things several times because I don't get an answer from you.

Then again, this is the internet, I have no clue what is going on in your personal life. So it may as well just be something that I don't know, or whatever.

Can you articulate to me the difference between animism and theism?

Animism (from Latin: anima meaning 'breath, spirit, life')[1][2] is the belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence.[3][4][5][6] Animism perceives all things—animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, and in some cases words—as being animated, having agency and free will.[7]


Classical theism is the form of theism in which God is characterized as the singular Absolute Being, Absolute Self, and Ultimate Person who is the source and origin of all the other beings.

The central insight of classical theism is divine simplicity, according to which God does not consist of a combination of different elements, but is absolute and singular. There is no difference between God's essence and existence. Unlike entities, God does not contain potentiality, It is pure existential actuality; and all existence except God is a limited state of the unlimited existence of God's absolute singularity. All existence emanates from and rests on God independently of time, for God is the timeless absolute source and ultimate condition of all existence.[1]

I think, yes, the study of theology does typically focus on a monotheistic God, but I would say that the way you are describing theism is a super specific context that uncultured Westerners would take right? There are plenty of polytheistic deities that fall under the purview of theism.

Once you accept polytheism being apart of theism, then you can see how the gap from animism to theism isn't really all that big.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I think, yes, the study of theology does typically focus on a monotheistic God

@LOGICZOMBIE
i've spoken to quite a few individuals who call themselves "atheists" and they say it is NOT a claim that "theism is false" - - but it is simply a label denoting something "they are not" - - in the same way "not-a-stamp-collector" describes anyone or anything that is not currently collecting stamps - - in the same way a dog is not-an-elephant - - sure, they might be considered by an outsider "agnostic" - - but they choose to call themselves "atheist" - - - which seems to make sense if they understand "atheist" to mean simply, not-a-theist

سنتيانت حساسة

— Today at 10:01 AM​

it is not in the same way "not-a-stamp-collector" as there is no opposing party that there position says something is true with stamp collector the relationship of the two beliefs are fundamentally different as they are propositional. agnostic is never an atheist, same way apolitical is not anti-political. as i said before, not-a-theist is theist are in opposition, and if theism holds propositional content, then not-a-theist must also hold, since "not-a" not equating to actions not being done or done as that has no propositional belief saying something is wrong or right.

@LOGICZOMBIE
ok, i understand your viewpoint, this is a viewpoint that is typical among theists - - they claim that an "atheist" can't self-identify as "atheist" if they simply "lack belief" and they should call themselves "agnostic" - - but many atheists disagree - - - and in the same way not all christians and not all muslims believe exactly the same things - - it seems a bit presumptuous to "gate-keep" what the term "atheism" means to each individual - - i mean, there isn't really any "atheist" central authority that tells them all what they should or should not believe, it's more of an informal label that people adopt in order to signal that they are not affiliated with any religion

 

[scorpiomover]

㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

there is no argument required to be unconvinced

are you perhaps unconvinced of the claim that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real ? [presumably you are unconvinced]

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your (presumed) non-belief in bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster ? [presumably you are not compelled]

are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ? [presumably you are not]

are you perhaps "not-a-dinosaur" ? [presumably you are not]

are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ? [presumably you are not]

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ? [presumably you are not]



THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ARE EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT

in other words

if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"

then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)

CRITIQUE = RESPECT

I am unconvinced of your claims.

Since you have claimed that there is no argument required to be unconvinced, you cannot argue against my viewpoint.

So your argument is defeated by itself.

 

[ZenRaiden]

A man stands with umbrella in rain.
There are man standing with no umbrella in the rain.
All men without umbrella in rain are dry.

Therefore it is a) raining b) not raining.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I am of course convinced its raining.
I am however the man with umbrella therefore I am convinced all men should have an umbrella.
If they claim they are dry, I am unconvinced, therefore they require a convincing argument to be without umbrella.

 

[ZenRaiden]

 

[scorpiomover]

I think, yes, the study of theology does typically focus on a monotheistic God

Only in countries whose most popular religion has been a monotheistic deity. In places like India, the majority of theologists are probably Brahmins studying Hinduism, which, IIRC, is polytheistic.

@LOGICZOMBIE
i've spoken to quite a few individuals who call themselves "atheists" and they say it is NOT a claim that "theism is false" - - but it is simply a label denoting something "they are not" - - in the same way "not-a-stamp-collector" describes anyone or anything that is not currently collecting stamps - - in the same way a dog is not-an-elephant - - sure, they might be considered by an outsider "agnostic" - - but they choose to call themselves "atheist" - - - which seems to make sense if they understand "atheist" to mean simply, not-a-theist

The word theist means "one who believes in the existence of one or more deities."

So logically "atheist" = "not a theist" = "one who does not believe in the existence of one or more deities." That was considered true until about 20 years ago.

From about 20 years ago, I started seeing people online say that "atheist" = "not convinced of theism", and it caught on.

But it doesn't make sense in terms of what "theist" means, because theist doesn't mean "one who is convinced of theism".

So if someone believes in the existence of at least one deity, but was not convinced to be a theist, then they are both a theist and an atheist, which would mean the person was "a theist " and also "not a theist", when you're describing them as the logical complement of each other.

It's very difficult to have a rational conversation with someone about theology when they use terms like that.

@LOGICZOMBIE
ok, i understand your viewpoint, this is a viewpoint that is typical among theists - - they claim that an "atheist" can't self-identify as "atheist" if they simply "lack belief" and they should call themselves "agnostic" - - but many atheists disagree - - - and in the same way not all christians and not all muslims believe exactly the same things - - it seems a bit presumptuous to "gate-keep" what the term "atheism" means to each individual - - i mean, there isn't really any "atheist" central authority that tells them all what they should or should not believe,

I understand that people don't see why they should be told what to do. But collective agreement on the meaning of sounds and symbols that are used for communication, such as words, has the same imperative as collective agreement on the meaning of colours used for communication, such as the meaning of the colours at traffic lights.

It doesn't really matter whether red means stop and green means go, or the other way around, as long as everyone sticks to the same meanings consistently.

Consider if we have complete freedom on this. You are driving, or in a bus, or in a car with a friend. You see green, and go forward. The other guy sees red. But he has a 50/50 chance of being a guy who thinks red means go, goes forward into you. If the road has a 30mph limit, you're going at 30mph, and he's going at 30 mph, which means the impact is as if you drove at 60mph into his car while it was standing still. There would be millions of serious car accidents every day.

It doesn't really matter what words we use, as long as we can agree on terms. So this should not really be a problem.

it's more of an informal label that people adopt in order to signal that they are not affiliated with any religion

That would be "not affiliated with any religion", which would be "areligious".

One can believe in gods without having a religion, such as spiritualists, which would be an areligious theist.

One can not believe in any gods and still have a religion, such as many Buddhist monks, which would be a religious atheist.

But calling the areligious atheists, means that religious atheists are theists, while nonreligious theists would be atheists, which is hellishly confusing.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So logically "atheist" = "not a theist" = "one who does not believe in the existence of one or more deities." That was considered true until about 20 years ago.

the point of contention here is the implication of "not believe"

the theist will insist "not believe" means "all conceivable gods are 100% for certain false"

the atheist will say

in the same way you can "not believe" (lack-belief) in bigfoot or santa clause without PROVING they are "100% for certain false"

the atheist can use the same standard to basically say they have simply

not joined a fan club that worships any sort of "god"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I am unconvinced of your claims.

Since you have claimed that there is no argument required to be unconvinced, you cannot argue against my viewpoint.

So your argument is defeated by itself.

i have apparently convinced you that being unconvinced is a valid position

which is actually my primary point

and nobody can argue against your counter-argument because you have not presented one

 

[ZenRaiden]

Occam's umbrella. Man who don't have an umbrella don't need convincing argument for it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

But calling the areligious atheists, means that religious atheists are theists, while nonreligious theists would be atheists, which is hellishly confusing.

in the same way there are thousands of subcategories of THEISM

and even thousands of subcategories of CHRISTIAN

there can be thousands of subcategories of ATHEISM

World Christianity, Christianity Studies - Wesleyan University

www.wesleyan.edu

A recent compilation lists 33,089 Christian denominations world-wide,

 

[ZenRaiden]

i have apparently convinced you that being unconvinced is a valid position

Everyone is born a communist, children have innate idea of fairness, they share candy, and everyone who is not a communist needs an argument.

I think you proved a point, but its true of pretty much all statements of belief.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Occam's umbrella. Man who don't have an umbrella don't need convincing argument for it.

right, in other words

if i'm standing in the rain

and someone offers me an umbrella

i don't normally ask them why

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"there is no god" doesn't seem to contain any implicit ethical code - - in the same way deism, agnosticism, and "soft atheism" don't seem to contain any implicit ethical code

unless you can support a specific ethical framework, the existence of "intelligent designer" is moot

 

[Old Things]

the theist will insist "not believe" means "all conceivable gods are 100% for certain false"

No. That is not what I said. I even told you how it should work. Because with your idea the word "agnostic" means practically nothing.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Because with your idea the word "agnostic" means practically nothing.

holding to the same framework as a-political and a-moral, a-sexual, a-theist, a-typical, a-political, a-symptomatic

it seems logical that agnostic

simply means, NOT-A-GNOSTIC

or alternatively, "without knowledge"

 

[Old Things]

Because with your idea the word "agnostic" means practically nothing.

holding to the same framework as a-political and a-moral, a-sexual, a-theist, a-typical, a-political, a-symptomatic

it seems logical that agnostic

simply means, NOT-A-GNOSTIC

or alternatively, "without knowledge"

You can invent your own meaning of words if you want, but that is not typically how things work. I just can't take you seriously when you are inventing meaning to things left and right. How about reading up on the philosophy of this stuff a bit?

 

[Old Things]

@LOGICZOMBIE, According to you, I am an agnostic theist. I should not have to tell you that makes no sense.

 

[Old Things]

Definition of AGNOSTIC

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of ATHEIST

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

@LOGICZOMBIE, According to you, I am an agnostic theist. I should not have to tell you that makes no sense.

i'm pretty sure you identify as "christian"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Definition of AGNOSTIC

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of ATHEIST

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

dictionaries are not authoritative

dictionaries are created by lexicographers

the function of a lexicographer is to SURVEY the EDITORS of popular publications

and then compile those responses

that's why dictionary definitions evolve over time

and most words have more than one definition

 

[Old Things]

Definition of AGNOSTIC

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of ATHEIST

a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

dictionaries are not authoritative

dictionaries are created by lexicographers

the function of a lexicographer is to SURVEY the EDITORS of popular publications

and then compile those responses

that's why dictionary definitions evolve over time

and most words have more than one definition

I'm going with the dictionary over you every time, bro.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I'm going with the dictionary over you every time, bro.

do you think that "does not believe" requires justification ?

 

[scorpiomover]

But calling the areligious atheists, means that religious atheists are theists, while nonreligious theists would be atheists, which is hellishly confusing.

in the same way there are thousands of subcategories of THEISM

and even thousands of subcategories of CHRISTIAN

there can be thousands of subcategories of ATHEISM

World Christianity, Christianity Studies - Wesleyan University

www.wesleyan.edu

A recent compilation lists 33,089 Christian denominations world-wide,

Theists usually self-identify as Sikhs, or Muslims, or Jains, or Hindus, or Jews, or all sorts of other things, and agree that they also fall under the general umbrella of theists. They have their own languages, their own dress style, their own dishes, their own lifestyle, and even which technologies they embrace. They each have their own culture, philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence.

Xians usually self-identify as Litherans, or Baptists, or JWs, or Mormons, or Amish, or Quaker, or all sorts of other things, and agree that they also fall under the general umbrella of Xians. They also have their own unique cultures and philosophies.

Atheists usually self-identify as atheist.
Agnostics usually self-identify as agnostic.
Anyway, because they don't identify with any sort of group co-ordination, they have no natural basis with which to decide what to do. Most choose whatever is popular in popular culture, and most of the rest choose whatver is popular in the counter culture. So there's really not much of a difference.

 

[scorpiomover]

I am unconvinced of your claims.

Since you have claimed that there is no argument required to be unconvinced, you cannot argue against my viewpoint.

So your argument is defeated by itself.

i have apparently convinced you that being unconvinced is a valid position

which is actually my primary point

and nobody can argue against your counter-argument because you have not presented one

 

[Old Things]

Xians usually self-identify as Lutherans, or Baptists, or JWs, or Mormons, or Amish, or Quaker, or all sorts of other things, and agree that they also fall under the general umbrella of Xians. They also have their own unique cultures and philosophies.

Yes. This is true. While it may seem contradictory that we say we believe in One God with Three Persons, it is not a logical contradiction. It is just impossible to fully understand. The Trinity is not like any other thing that we have knowledge of. That safely keeps God God because it shows that God is not fully understandable to humans. I think it is fitting that the Trinity is co-equal co-eternal because this shows that God always had someone to love in eternity past and has never felt "alone" to the effect that He had to create the universe to thwart that he was lonely. There is also this thing I say in my book that the communication shared between the Godhead shows that it was a collective act in creating the universe. That is why it says the "Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters." What is the Spirit at that point? Who was walking in the garden with Adam? Who did Abraham talk to before Sodom was destroyed? What did Daniel see exactly when he saw, "One like the Son of Man"? Who was in the fire with Daniel's friends? These questions are easily answered when we consider that there was a pre-existing Son of God that existed before the incarnation of Yeshua.

 

[scorpiomover]

So logically "atheist" = "not a theist" = "one who does not believe in the existence of one or more deities." That was considered true until about 20 years ago.

the point of contention here is the implication of "not believe"

the theist will insist "not believe" means "all conceivable gods are 100% for certain false"

No. "Know" or "Be sure" would mean 100% true. It's a type of modal logic.

"Believe" means "thinks is probable, likely", e.g. when someone says he believes his son is at school. He isn't sure. But be reckons he is, because he usually isn't sick and usually isn't playing truant. It's a type of modal logic. He's at least sure enough that if the police ask where his son is, "I believe he's at school" would be an accurate and concise answer.

To "not believe" means that you lack that level of confidence. You think it's either:
1) more likely that your son is not at school, in which case you'd say "I believe that my son is not at school." (which used to be called "atheist"),
2) or you're 50/50 and you'd say "He might be at school. He might not. You really never know with him. It could go either way just as easily" (which used to be called "agnostic").

None of those would fit into the type of confidence that you'd claim.

 

[Old Things]

However, Mormons and JW fall outside of being Christians because they cannot affirm basic Christian beliefs. They are culturally Christian, but they believe heretical things.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

To "not believe" means that you lack that level of confidence.

we seem to be in agreement

ATHEIST is merely "unconvinced"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

because they don't identify with any sort of group co-ordination

each of them gets to decide for themselves what they believe and why

 

[Old Things]

To "not believe" means that you lack that level of confidence.

we seem to be in agreement

ATHEIST is merely "unconvinced"

Does that mean someone who is "unconvinced" that the earth is a sphere is an A-Earthian?

because they don't identify with any sort of group co-ordination

each of them gets to decide for themselves what they believe and why

Of course, people must decide for themselves what they believe. But beliefs only matter if they are true. Untrue beliefs are harmful. For every belief there is, it is either true or false.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

However, Mormons and JW fall outside of being Christians because they cannot affirm basic Christian beliefs. They are culturally Christian, but they believe heretical things.

list of 10 exclusivist christian denominations

1. Jehovah's Witnesses
2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons)
3. Seventh-day Adventist Church
4. Exclusive Brethren
5. Iglesia ni Cristo
6. Christadelphians
7. The Way International
8. United Pentecostal Church International
9. Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science)
10. Church of God (now Grace Communion International)

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Of course, people must decide for themselves what they believe. But beliefs only matter if they are true. Untrue beliefs are harmful. For every belief there is, it is either true or false.

not every claim is provably true

not every claim is provably false


it is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Does that mean someone who is "unconvinced" that the earth is a sphere is an A-Earthian?

think of it this way

ask a random person the question, "are you UNmarried ?"

then try, "if you are UNmarried, why are you UNmarried ?"

you will receive a variety of responses and non-responses



now imagine choosing a god is like choosing a husband or a wife

is there someone out there just for you ?

does such a person even exist ?

will you know the right one when you meet them ?



the ATHEIST is like someone who is UNmarried

 

[Old Things]

Of course, people must decide for themselves what they believe. But beliefs only matter if they are true. Untrue beliefs are harmful. For every belief there is, it is either true or false.

not every claim is provably true

not every claim is provably false


it is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits

You are using this to say that our beliefs cannot be proven so it does not matter that much what we believe. I reject that very much. We might not have proof for lots of things but it is still rational to believe them. For example, you can't prove that the universe did not come to be 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, but we are rational in believing that the universe is not 5 minutes old.

Does that mean someone who is "unconvinced" that the earth is a sphere is an A-Earthian?

think of it this way

ask a random person the question, "are you UNmarried ?"

then try, "if you are UNmarried, why are you UNmarried ?"

you will receive a variety of responses and non-responses



now imagine choosing a god is like choosing a husband or a wife

is there someone out there just for you ?

does such a person even exist ?

will you know the right one when you meet them ?



the ATHEIST is like someone who is UNmarried

Your silly hypotheticals are silly. I already gave you the dictionary definition of agnostic and atheist but of course, you know better than a stupid dictionary.

 

[Old Things]

However, Mormons and JW fall outside of being Christians because they cannot affirm basic Christian beliefs. They are culturally Christian, but they believe heretical things.

list of 10 exclusivist christian denominations

1. Jehovah's Witnesses
2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons)
3. Seventh-day Adventist Church
4. Exclusive Brethren
5. Iglesia ni Cristo
6. Christadelphians
7. The Way International
8. United Pentecostal Church International
9. Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science)
10. Church of God (now Grace Communion International)

I have not studied all these and don't know all of what each of them believes. But I fail to see your point in any case.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think beliefs in and of themselves are very much not equal.
For instance I can see how believing in God may not be equal in deed and thought.
I can for instance see that my relationship with God will be different from others.