A Gutsy Preacher

[Rens]

This thread has changed my mind about everyone being agnostic though. I now would posit that one need only claim knowledge to be gnostic, rather than having to back a claim with evidence before being gnostic. Your only need for evidence is when trying to convince others that what you claim as knowledge is compelling to them. If you truly have knowledge, you will be able to meet your burden of proof, but you need not meet this burden simply to claim knowledge.

Yes, that preacher says he's a theist, well, the way he speaks he does not even have faith. I used to say I was an atheist and when I checked out if God existed I said all the time: if this or that doesn't happen I don't believe in God anymore. Anymore?? I thought I was so sure He didn't exist. Then what was I? Just call everyone a nothingist or somethingist or dunnoist.

 

[Lamb]

This thread has caused me to search out the origin of the word "agnostic" and I am surprised to find it's not as ancient as I once thought.

Thomas Henry Huxley is the inventor of the word and here are some snips from his article "Agnosticism and Christianity http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html

The people who call themselves "Agnostics" have been charged with doing so because they have not the courage to declare themselves "Infidels."

I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."

Now I, and many other Agnostics, believe that faith, in this sense, is an abomination;

on the other hand, opens up the whole question of the claim of the biblical and other sources, from which hypotheses concerning the spiritual world are derived, to be regarded as unimpeachable historical evidence as to matters of fact.


After reading on what Huxley intended for the term agnostic, I still hold to disagreeing with the OP's author in the article making the claim that everyone is Agnostic, even Christians. This is a false statement in light of Huxley and given the quotes above from his article.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, I too now disagree with the assertion that everyone is agnostic regarding theism. Theism refers to the claim that god/gods exist. If you include this claim in your world view, you are a theist, if not, you are an atheist. If you are gnostic then you make a claim of knowledge, if not then you are agnostic. Gnosis refers only to the claim of knowledge, not whether you can demonstrate the validity of the claim about which you claim knowledge.

It is up to each individual to decide whether they believe they know something. If they wish to truly convince others that their knowledge is in fact true, only then must they provide evidence backing their claim.

I am glad to be more clear, at least internally, regarding this notion.

 

[tango]

Well, the news that has just been shared is that some folks have "STRIPPED" the words Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism of their meaning..... there's an implication that these 3 terms HAD meaning, referring to actual positions but some have felt a need (and now an ability) to STRIP them of that meaning. What's left seems pretty meaningless. Thus: the problem. And thus: the question of why, what is the purpose of this stripping, this purposeful using of terms that have been stripped of meaning, reinvented, secretry redifined - it seems to the opposite? What is the PURPOSE in doing that? And what RESULT is there (other than confusion, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty)? I think Tigger has the best response to that. See post 110.

Whatever original meanings a word might have, meanings evolve over time. We don't use the word "gay" to refer to something bright and colorful, or to a person who is merely happy and joyful, to give just one example.

In any event, the statement "I do not believe God exists" is not the same as the statement "I believe God does not exist". One is a passive lack of belief, the other is an active belief. Both can reasonably be defined as atheism, even using your own definitions from earlier. The a-prefix meaning "not" and the "theism" meaning "belief in God". A lack of belief in God could equate to the statement "I do not believe God exists" just as well as it could equate to "I believe God does not exist".

But friend, I disagree on one point: Fundamentally, Atheism and Theism (and Agnosticism) are not beliefs although such USUALLY -(although not always) flows from such. There's no such thing as just belief - Belief MUST have an object, there's no such thing as isolated "belief" that has no object. Propositions are not beliefs, they are propositions. Theism is a position, a proposition, a declaration: God IS. When the Greek "A" is placed in front, it negates it, it makes it the opposite, thus as everyone but Mark has indicated, A-Theism means God is NOT or NO God. Mark seems to admit this is what the word USED to mean before a few recently chose to "strip" it (as he termed it). See post 143

With respect, I think you're playing semantic gymnastics here. A belief must have an object or it's meaningless. I can't just "believe", I have to believe in something. As far as that's concerned I agree with you, but on that basis "I believe God exists" is a belief just as much as "I believe my wife is on her way home" or "I believe you will repay me so I'll lend you $20 until you get paid". In that regard atheism can refer to an active belief (in the non-existence of God) or the lack of an active belief. The latter isn't really a belief at all.

In many ways this "passive atheism" might better be referred to as agnosticism but even then it does start to turn into semantic gymnastics when arguing over precise definitions of terms takes precedence over discussing actual beliefs, especially when some terms can have multiple meanings. If I were to say "I am a libertarian" and then list all the things I believe should be outlawed by the government you would be entirely reasonable in doubting just how much I believed in liberty. If I were to say "I am an atheist" and then expound on that with exactly what I believe there is little to be gained by insisting that actually my stance is one of agnosticism.

IMO, philosophical discussions are hard enough without purposely, persistently using misleading, nonsensical language, purposely and persistently using terms which the user has admittedly "STRIPPED" of meaning..... And again, it begs the question: WHY? What is the purpose if insisting equally on two positions that are incompatible - Atheism AND also concurrently Agnosticism - why? What is the purpose of that very odd, very weird, nonsensical position? (Even if all the words have to be 'STRIPPED" to do so)? Why would anyone INSIST on labeling self as an Atheist/Agnostic (but eventually admit both terms have been "stripped" of their meaning)? Again, I refer you to our freind Tigger (a former Atheist), I suspect he has a great insight on this.

I'm not seeing words stripped of meaning or any purposeful or persistent attempts to mislead. From what I can see of Mark's posts in particular he sees no evidence for the existence of God and therefore takes no active stance on the existence of otherwise of God. In many ways the default position is a lack of belief in deities, whether that derives from a stance of "I never really thought about it" to "I don't see evidence to support the claim". I think of my stances on a few things:

1. I believe God exists
2. I believe unicorns do not exist (an active belief, as opposed to "I do not believe unicorns exist")
3. I do not believe wolves live in my local woods (I don't think any wolves live there but there's a lot of woods so there may be wolves in some part of it)
4. I don't know whether alien life exists.

 

[Josiah]

.


TANGO, MARK -


Consider....

Theism refers to the claim that god/gods exist.

.

Then A-Theism refers to the proposition that god/gods do NOT exist. It's a dogmatic declaration, a position.
To which there are 3 possible reactions: True, False, Neutral - taking no stance (perhaps because of insufficiet evidence.)
They are mutually exclusive positions.
It's nonsensical, illogical to say, "God does NOT exist I have no position on whether God exists."
It's this label we're discussing: this nonsensical, new position (you now claim for yourself): "Atheist/Agnostic"

the statement "I do not believe God exists" is not the same as the statement "I believe God does not exist". One is a passive lack of belief, the other is an active belief.

I agree, it's just propositions are not beliefs. Again.... a belief MAY or MAY NOT extend from or to a proposition (a proposition may be disassociated from belief) but a belief cannot be disassociated from a proposition, as you again suggest.

Theism is a proposition, a position, a declaration: God is. You may or may not choose to "believe" anything related to that - doesn't matter - it's still a proposition. A-Theism is the antithesis of that (it's what the A means), the opposite, the negation of such, the "A" means NOT or NO. Thus, God is not.

There's nothing "passive" about declarations. "Columbus sailed the ocean blue" is a declaration, a position. What's "passive" about that, or any proposition? You may affirm it or deny it or take on stand on it, but it's a declaration.

The a-prefix meaning "not" and the "theism" meaning "belief in God". A lack of belief in God could equate to the statement "I do not believe God exists" just as well as it could equate to "I believe God does not exist".

Except the point is not some disassociated "believe" that has no object. The object is God. The proposition is God. Whether God IS or is NOT. Note, Tango, what Mark himself says the issue of Theism and Athism is - NOT some dangling out there in nothingness with no object "belief" but whether God is or is not.


But I return ta point I made many times before (but always ignored, lol)..... See post 143. EVERYTHING I understand our friend Mark to be conveying is totally, completely, wholly within Agnosticism - in fact, it is classical Agnosticism ( the meaning before being stripped of meaning recently by a few). Agnosticism is the proposition that there is not sufficient cause to embrace OR reject either position, the position that neither position is affirmed or denied. Our friend defines his position as ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC - equally, intertwined, combined. As such, as I noted before, even if we CHANGE the subject of the proposition from GOD to BELIEF (and again that's impossible - belief MUST have an object, which then is the proposition), it STILL doesn't work: "I hold to NO believe but that I have no position on belief." Perhaps the need is to CHANGE the proposition mid-stream, right at the "/" point - to say "I have no belief...... I hold no position on God" but then these two views CANNOT be intertwined because they address two DIFFERENT things: God and belief (the last not being a proposition at all). It's nonsensical to say "I have no position on faith but I have NO faith in God." Just as it is, "I have no position on whether God is or is not but I hold that God is not." Only by either STRIPPING all these words of meaning (which is what Mark says these few people have recently done) OR changing the issue midstream by FALSELY combining them into one position can this stand.


And again.... I can't for the life of me figure out WHY these few people have recently chosen to form this nonsensical, odd, weird, contradictory label of "ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC"? Especially when Mark (at least) at not said one thing that indicates he agrees with Atheism. I've been asking that question for pages now.... never with any response except from Tigger (a former Atheist) who I think probably has the best theory on that, as a former Atheist.

With respect, I think you're playing semantic gymnastics here. A belief must have an object or it's meaningless. I can't just "believe", I have to believe in something. As far as that's concerned I agree with you

Good. Then I don't think I'm playing semantic gymnastics. I think rather we should consider the point that those using this new label of "Agnostic/Atheist" are admitting such gymnastics by indicating they've "STRIPPED" all these words of meaning.

And also by stressing that one aspect (Agnosticism) has to do with God but the Atheist part of the EQUAL , INTERTWINED label deals with a different issue, some disassociated dangling out there into nonethingism of "belief."

THAT'S the semantic gymnatics.

In many ways this "passive atheism" might better be referred to as agnosticism

As far as I can tell, NOTHING Mark has said is Atheism...... everything he has said (since I "met" him) all fits perfect, wholly, completely into Agnosticism - the classic, according-to-the-word Agnosticism (before the very recent STRIPPING OF MEANING by a few - for reasons I cannot fathom but MUST have some enormous purpose)

I'm not seeing words stripped of meaning

Mark stated that's what has recently been done by a few (with whom he associates). It's not my claim, it's his point. HE indicated that the words have recently been "STRIPPED" of meaning recently by these few who now give their position this new label of "Atheist/Agnostic." If you disagree that there has been this recent "stripping" take that up with Mark.

From what I can see of Mark's posts in particular he sees no evidence for the existence of God and therefore takes no active stance on the existence of otherwise of God.

I COMPLETELY agree with you! I've noted the IDENTICAL thing over and over and over and over again. And asked, "How is that Atheism?" How can that be completely intertwined into Agnostism as one position? The claim is he is an Agnostic/Atheist - both, equally, concurrently..... So far, no progress.

unicorns do not exist

A proposition. Three possiblities: It's true, it's false, I take no stand. It's nonsensical, illogical to INSIST, "Unicorns don't exist and I take no stance in whether they exist"

What would be the purpose of STRIPPING all 3 positions of meaning (and is THAT semantic gymnatics)?
What would be the purpose of INSISTING on a 4th possibility: "Unicorns do not exist and I have no stance on whether they exist?" See Tigger's post above, I increasingly suspect Tigger (a former Atheist) hits the nail on the head (maybe not for Mark personally but for those who invented this, who did the stripping of the terms, inventing this new position to which Mark is following and now also uses).






- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Reading Josiah's posts one might come away thinking that how one defines "atheism" is more important than discussing one-to-one what your interlocutor thinks.

 

[MarkFL]

My only motivation in using the definition that has come to be used just about everywhere else I have been online is so that theists (who are using the outdated/loaded definition of atheism) understand that when someone says they are an atheist, this doesn't necessarily mean the atheist is in the same boat regarding burden of proof. Most atheists that I have encountered make no claim, and as such have no burden. We reject the claim of theism based on lack of evidence, and so it would be illogical for us to make any opposing claim.

 

[MoreCoffee]

One cannot prove the created existence of God any more than one can prove the created non-existence of God.

 

[MarkFL]

My own personal position is:

• I reject the claim of theism, because I personally have found or seen no compelling reason to accept it.
• I think (my opinion here) that the existence of a personal God who cares for our well-being is extremely unlikely.
• I believe that only natural forces and laws are in operation in the universe.
• My position is subject to change in light of any new and compelling evidence that comes to be demonstrated.

 

[tango]

.


TANGO, MARK -


Consider....






Then A-Theism refers to the proposition that god/gods do NOT exist. It's a dogmatic declaration, a position.

Not necessarily, which is the whole point we're trying to make. The a- prefix is a negation. The opposite of "I believe X exists" isn't necessarily "I believe X does not exist", it's merely "I do not believe X exists". Whether this latter statement comes from an active position ("I believe X does not exist") or a passive position ("I don't believe X exists but can't be sure") isn't automatically specified merely by virtue of lacking the active belief in the existence of X.

If you ask the question "Does X exist?" the logical answers fall into three groups, much as you listed. One might believe that X exists, one might believe that X does not exist, one might conclude that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not X exists. The latter two groups collectively fall into the group of people who do not believe X exists. Once again note that not believing something exists is not the same as believing it does not exist. If you wanted to split the third group it is arguable that some would say they weren't sure but would say X probably exists while others would say X probably does not exist, in which case the "not sure, probably" types could potentially be included in the two groups who take a more active stance on their beliefs.

I agree, it's just propositions are not beliefs. Again.... a belief MAY or MAY NOT extend from or to a proposition (a proposition may be disassociated from belief) but a belief cannot be disassociated from a proposition, as you again suggest.

Theism is a proposition, a position, a declaration: God is. You may or may not choose to "believe" anything related to that - doesn't matter - it's still a proposition. A-Theism is the antithesis of that (it's what the A means), the opposite, the negation of such, the "A" means NOT or NO. Thus, God is not.

There's nothing "passive" about declarations. "Columbus sailed the ocean blue" is a declaration, a position. What's "passive" about that, or any proposition? You may affirm it or deny it or take on stand on it, but it's a declaration.

You keep insisting that a declaration must say something active, which simply isn't the case. "I don't know" is a declaration but doesn't commit the speaker to anything. If I say "I am not a trombone player" all you can determine from the statement is that I do not currently play the trombone. The statement doesn't contain enough information to determine whether I don't play because I'm tone deaf and can't get it to make any sound at all, whether I tried for a while and gave up, whether I'm a natural and would pick it up very fast, whether I was once a world-class player but stopped playing for some reason, or anything else. Likewise if I say "I do not believe in God" the statement isn't enough to determine whether I take an active position that God does not exist or a passive position that says I lack an active belief in God but haven't determined for sure whether God exists or not.

Except the point is not some disassociated "believe" that has no object. The object is God. The proposition is God. Whether God IS or is NOT. Note, Tango, what Mark himself says the issue of Theism and Athism is - NOT some dangling out there in nothingness with no object "belief" but whether God is or is not.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here. I don't see anyone trying to dangle anything out there in nothingness. A negative doesn't necessarily imply another positive. I won't vote for Joe Blow in this election but from that information alone you can't tell who I am voting for, right? It's an active statement, "I don't support Joe Blow", but there isn't enough there to say what I do support. If I were to say "I'm a staunch Republican so could never vote for Hillary" it wouldn't be a hugely far fetched assumption that I'd probably be voting for Trump but even then it couldn't be guaranteed - maybe I'd figured I didn't like Trump either and was going to vote Gary Johnson or Darrell Castle.

But I return ta point I made many times before (but always ignored, lol)..... See post 143. EVERYTHING I understand our friend Mark to be conveying is totally, completely, wholly within Agnosticism - in fact, it is classical Agnosticism ( the meaning before being stripped of meaning recently by a few). Agnosticism is the proposition that there is not sufficient cause to embrace OR reject either position, the position that neither position is affirmed or denied. Our friend defines his position as ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC - equally, intertwined, combined. As such, as I noted before, even if we CHANGE the subject of the proposition from GOD to BELIEF (and again that's impossible - belief MUST have an object, which then is the proposition), it STILL doesn't work: "I hold to NO believe but that I have no position on belief." Perhaps the need is to CHANGE the proposition mid-stream, right at the "/" point - to say "I have no belief...... I hold no position on God" but then these two views CANNOT be intertwined because they address two DIFFERENT things: God and belief (the last not being a proposition at all). It's nonsensical to say "I have no position on faith but I have NO faith in God." Just as it is, "I have no position on whether God is or is not but I hold that God is not." Only by either STRIPPING all these words of meaning (which is what Mark says these few people have recently done) OR changing the issue midstream by FALSELY combining them into one position can this stand.

... which is all well and good, and probably explains why some people refer to the stance as "agnostic atheism", to differentiate it from "gnostic atheism". In other words, the statement "I don't know for sure whether or not there is a God but am inclined to think probably not", or even "the default position is not to believe, I'm open to being convinced but until I see some evidence I don't believe".

And again.... I can't for the life of me figure out WHY these few people have recently chosen to form this nonsensical, odd, weird, contradictory label of "ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC"? Especially when Mark (at least) at not said one thing that indicates he agrees with Atheism. I've been asking that question for pages now.... never with any response except from Tigger (a former Atheist) who I think probably has the best theory on that, as a former Atheist.

It seems to me that what Mark says disagrees with your interpretation of what atheism is.



I must admit from here on it seems like just going round and round in circles. Mark has stated his stance and his beliefs (or lack thereof). The main thrust of all of this is that someone who says they are an atheist may be someone who takes an active belief in the non-existence of God but may equally be someone, like Mark, who is open to being convinced but so far sees insufficient evidence to convince them that God exists and therefore revert to a default position that God does not exist. To be honest, if you're out and about (or here, it makes little difference) and someone uses the term "atheist" to define themselves while you believe that "agnostic" would be a more accurate term, is there anything to be gained by arguing with them over what label is applied to them? By the time endless labels have been tried and they are classified as a "weak agnostic atheist" or whatever other term, chances are they've decided they don't really want to be pigeonholed. If it's recognised that some people with views similar to Mark's describe themselves as atheists (regardless of whether so describing themselves makes any sense at all) doesn't it make more sense to merely look to meet people where they are without assuming where they are based on a label, than to argue with them over precisely how they should be described?

 

[MoreCoffee]

My own personal position is:

• I reject the claim of theism, because I personally have found or seen no compelling reason to accept it.
• I think (my opinion here) that the existence of a personal God who cares for our well-being is extremely unlikely.
• I believe that only natural forces and laws are in operation in the universe.
• My position is subject to change in light of any new and compelling evidence that comes to be demonstrated.

When you write I understand your position and why you hold to it. Others seem unwilling to listen to you. I suspect that an impasse was reached with the others a while back.

 

[Josiah]

My only motivation in using the definition that has come to be used just about everywhere else I have been online is so that theists understand that when someone says they are an atheist, this doesn't necessarily mean the atheist is in the same boat regarding burden of proof.


.

Finally.......


Finally my question is answered and my suspicion confirmed..... finally..... Tigger's ( a former Atheist) theory about this nonsensical and illogical label of "AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST" is fully confirmed. It' just a nonsensical way to say one is an Atheist while dodging any accountability/defense for the position - the very issue Atheists typically are OBSESSED by, their constant, perpetual, insistence that Theists MUST prove that God exist using only criteria that the Atheist believes is relevant and means it is impossible for the Theist to present anything. This is exactly what I kept asking about and what was so persistently dodged for pages and pages. Proof, it seems, is entirely one-sided: Theists must prove their position (albeit with their hands tied behind their backs), while Atheists except their own proposition from any accountability, any apologetic.


Here's what Tigger posted many pages ago, obviously avoided until now....

Love ya Mark but there was a time I considered myself atheist also. Since becoming a Christian I've debated atheists a time or two and one thing I do know is they make me cross every (t) and dot every "i" . It seems to me that some atheists have recently redefined the terms agnostic and atheist to avoid being on the defensive about their own position putting them perpetually on the offensive forcing their opponents to always be in a defensive posture. In boxing it would be hard for me to rule as a judge that we ever even had a boxing match in the first place, therefore ruling it a no contest, being that only one fighter was allowed to throw strikes. I think redefining terms, virtually creating a word shell game isn't a tactic I'm willing to allow my opponent to exercise and must be addressed before the discussion ever begins so all parties start on even ground.


.

Evidently, Tigger was right all along.....


IMO, the admission that these few people have recently "STRIPPED" (the exact word used for what they do).... STRIPPED the word "Atheist" of its meaning (and evidently Agnostic, too) - an admission of word games, semantic gymnastics - for a reason. I've been asking over and over and over what the reason is for this stripping, these semantic gymnastics, this obvious nonsensical stuff..... always avoided, always ignored. But now here it is: They want to create a situation where they can continue to mock, attack, ridicule Theists and continue their persistent DEMAND for absolute PROOF of a nature that excludes any possibility of anything supernatural..... while insuring that they have no need to document, defend, support their own position. How to have a boxing match where the other guy has both hands tied behind his back, to demand a complete double-standard.


I'm not saying that is YOUR personal intent, Mark, because I've not witnessed you doing that here. But I think we have firm confirmation that that's the reason for this recent "stripping" of the meaning of Atheist (as you put it), the very recent re-definition of Atheist but not Theist, the insistance that the Atheist can dodge like a boxer, back and forth from Atheism to Agnosticism, the reason and basis and purpose of this absurd, nonsensical, contradictive label of "Atheist-Agnostic." So the Atheist can dodge back and forth between DIFFERENT positions..... so the Atheist can continue what we've all experienced from some Atheists: the mockery, the ridicule, the proclaimations of our dishonesty, our lack of intelligence, our childish way, our lack of ANYTHING (they'll accept) to support our stupid, absurd, childish view. But do they need to present the same documentation for their position? No. Because at that point, they become Agnostics. Mark..... you seem not of that heart..... can you consider that these Atheists with this felt need to "STRIP" words..... to play semantic gymnastics..... to tie their opponents hands behind their back..... to bounce back and forth between being an Atheist AND concurrently an AGNOSTIC to evade accountability, responsibility and support for their position..... friend.... can/will you consider the intellectual honesty of that, the justice and fairness of that?




- Josiah




.

 

[Rens]

Finally....... my question is answered and my suspicion confirmed..... finally..... Tigger's ( a former Atheist) theory about this nonsensical and illogical label of "AGNOSTIC/ATHEIST" is fully confirmed. It' just a nonsensical way to say one is an Atheist while dodging any accountability/defense for the position - the very issue Atheists typically are OBSESSED by, their constant, perpetual, insistence that Theists MUST prove that God exist using only criteria that the Atheist believes is relevant and means it is impossible for the Theist to present anything. This is exactly what I kept asking about and what was so persistently dodged for pages and pages. Proof, it seems, is entirely one-sided: Theists must prove their position (albeit with their hands tied behind their backs), while Atheists except their own proposition from any accountability, any apologetic.

God tells us to prove it to them.
Freely you have received, freely give.
Jesus had no problems proving it.
So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 48 Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”

49 The nobleman said to Him, “Sir, come down before my child dies!”

50 Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your son lives.” So the man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. 51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him and told him, saying, “Your son lives!”

52 Then he inquired of them the hour when he got better. And they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” 53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives.” And he himself believed, and his whole household.

 

[Josiah]

God tells us to prove it to them.
Freely you have received, freely give.
Jesus had no problems proving it.
So Jesus came again to Cana of Galilee where He had made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to Him and implored Him to come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 48 Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”

49 The nobleman said to Him, “Sir, come down before my child dies!”

50 Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your son lives.” So the man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. 51 And as he was now going down, his servants met him and told him, saying, “Your son lives!”

52 Then he inquired of them the hour when he got better. And they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” 53 So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, “Your son lives.” And he himself believed, and his whole household.

1. "Proof" is meaningless if the one demanding such exempts self from the same. That's EXACTLY what has now been admitted. See post 171.

2. "Proof" is meaningless if the one demanding it also demands that what is to be presented cannot be related to the claim. NO atheist I've been attacked by has ever allowed anything to be presented that HE did not consider to be outside the supernatural.

But the point is: We now have confirmed: This nonsensical, illogical "position" of Atheist/Agnostic is a sham, a game, a way to insure the Theist is accountable and must present "proof" (that the Atheist will acknowledge as valid/real) while the Atheist insists his position is exempt from the burden of proof.... in other words, the Theist has both hands tied behind his back with a "burden of proof" (rendered impossible to even address by the Atheist) while the Atheist insists he has no burden of proof for the antithesis position.



Here's the "reason" Mark has finally given for these "stripping" of word definitions, these semantic gymnatistics, these nonsensical contradictions: "so that theists understand that when someone says they are an atheist, this doesn't necessarily mean the atheist is in the same boat regarding burden of proof."




- Josiah

 

[Rens]

1. "Proof" is meaningless if the one demanding such exempts self from the same. That's EXACTLY what has now been admitted. See post 171.

2. "Proof" is meaningless if the one demanding it also demands that what is to be presented cannot be related to the claim. NO atheist I've been attacked by has ever allowed anything to be presented that HE did not consider to be outside the supernatural.

But the point is: We now have confirmed: This nonsensical, illogical "position" of Atheist/Agnostic is a sham, a game, a way to insure the Theist is accountable and must present "proof" (that the Atheist will acknowledge as valid/real) while the Atheist insists his position is exempt from the burden of proof.... in other words, the Theist has both hands tied behind his back with a "burden of proof" (rendered impossible to even address by the Atheist) while the Atheist insists he has no burden of proof for the antithesis position.



Here's the "reason" Mark has finally given for these "stripping" of word definitions, these semantic gymnatistics, these nonsensical contradictions: "so that theists understand that when someone says they are an atheist, this doesn't necessarily mean the atheist is in the same boat regarding burden of proof."




- Josiah

Hm, if they want proof I just pray that He gives them proof. I wanted proof too. Nothing wrong with it. It was only wrong when the pharisees asked for proof, their heart wasn't good. They only got the sign of Jonah. To the rest He said: if you don't believe My Words believe because of the miracles. I'm afraid the ball is with the christians to show the world He lives. Btw the world would believe if we were one.

 

[Rens]

But if they get really annoying and name call and say I'm nuts (only seen that in Holland btw) I simply say: sorry, I'm working on it, building my faith. If I popped an arm out I'll let you know.

 

[MarkFL]

Josiah, you didn't watch the video I posted explaining why those who make a claim have a burden of proof and why those who simply reject the claim do not, now did you? :scratchchin:

I have posted no contradictions, nor have I stripped any meaning from the word "atheist." Is it any wonder that someone would reject as proof of the supernatural, something from the realm of the supernatural? That would be circular, and therefore useless.

You are apparently completely uneducable when it comes to what atheism really is. You tenaciously cling to a false definition restricting atheism to a position of claiming knowledge. Until you can accept that you are wrong, and understand where the burden of proof lies and why, you will struggle in any conversation with anyone that correctly understands these things.

 

[Rens]

Maybe make it easier to grasp:
If I say God wants us all to pop out arms and legs in his Name and as a christian you're sceptical of that or don't believe that at all, who has the burden of proof?
I can't say: You go prove that it is not so, because I can't prove that it is.

 

[MarkFL]

Maybe make it easier to grasp:
If I say God wants us all to pop out arms and legs in his Name and as a christian you're sceptical of that or don't believe that at all, who has the burden of proof?
I can't say: You go prove that it is not so, because I can't prove that it is.

Yes, when someone makes a claim, the burden cannot legitimately be shifted onto others who simply reject that claim to prove the negation of that claim.

Let's return to the Sahara...you and I are standing on the edge looking out over the vast expanse of sand. I turn to you and claim that the number of grains of sand contained within the desert is even. The burden of proof is on me to prove this claim, if you simply reject it, and I wish to convince you of the truth of my claim. Now, if you claim that the number is odd, only then do you also have a burden of proof. But if you merely reject the claim you have no burden of proof, since you are not claiming knowledge. Your only position, in the absence of evidence of the number of grains, is that we don't know whether the number is odd or even, and that you have no reason to accept my claim.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Maybe make it easier to grasp:
If I say God wants us all to pop out arms and legs in his Name and as a christian you're sceptical of that or don't believe that at all, who has the burden of proof?
I can't say: You go prove that it is not so, because I can't prove that it is.

Is that the "spirit hokey poky" thing?