Defining terms is frequently half the battle in any discussion - and discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of god(s) is no exception. Often meaningful conversation is made impossible by conflicting sets of definitions. I see two main different sets of definitions in use. Unfortunately, dictionaries are often mixed on the issue. For the record, I’m an ex-Christian who is now a weak agnostic.
Popular Definitions
Perhaps the most common set of definitions are what I here term the popular definitions. It appears that most people who haven’t been involved in much debate on this issue will hold to definitions like these.
Atheist - someone who claims to know that god(s) and the supernatural don’t or can’t exist.
Agnostic - someone who isn’t sure if god(s) or the supernatural exists.
Theists - someone who is sure god(s) and/or the supernatural exists.
These definitions are flawed for a few reasons, but many people do seem to hold these or similar definitions. When they talk to someone who is using the more technical definitions, communication can be difficult.
Technical Definitions
Here are the more technical (and in my view, correct) definitions.
Atheist - is simply someone who is not a theist (hence a - theist). This means that they lack a belief in any god(s), but it doesn’t mean that they deny the possibility of god(s) or supernatural forces. This is the position of the “new atheists” (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc) that have achieved much media discussion in recent years. They would say that while they can’t prove or state absolutely that a god doesn’t exist, they nevertheless don’t believe in one, and find the existence of one unlikely.
Recently the terms strong atheist and weak atheist have come into being. A weak atheist would be one as described in the above paragraph, whereas a strong atheist is as described in the popular definitions section. Those atheists who hold to the weak position appear to greatly outnumber those who hold to the strong position.
Agnosticism - literally means without knowledge. The agnostic position is that there is no evidence, or at least no good evidence, to suggest that god(s) exists or that god(s) doesn’t exist. Agnosticism also has a strong and weak division. Strong agnosticism states that the existence or non-existence of god(s) is unknowable. Weak agnosticism states that existence or nonexistence of god(s) is currently unknown (in the “weakest” view, perhaps merely unknown to the specific agnostic in question), but is not necessarily unknowable.
Theist - simply someone who has a belief in god(s).
It’s important to note that in this set of definitions, that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with either atheism or theism. Someone can be an agnostic atheist - don’t know if god(s) existence and do not believe in any, or be an agnostic theist - don’t know if god(s) exist but believe in one (or more). Agnostic theists in theological terms are often called fideists, a term that emphasizes their position that religious questions are better (or only) answered by faith rather than by reason.
You can see how these two sets of definitions can lead to misunderstanding. A theist might challenge an atheist to prove that god(s) doesn’t exist. To which an atheist could very well reply that they can’t and that isn’t the position of atheism anyways.
Debate and the Burden of Proof
A key question, either overtly or covertly, in debates over the existence of god(s) is which side has the burden of proof. The atheist and the theist will likely insist that the other has to prove their position, and the agnostic is likely to agree with both of those statements. Atheists will say that they aren’t making a claim, and that the theist is, and therefore has the burden of proof. Theists will contest this.
In a debate, whichever side can force the other side to carry the burden of proof by making them defend their position more than they themselves have to, will often appear to have “won” the debate. Thus, the burden of proof issue is critical.
My personal view is that as long as the debate is about the existence of god(s) in general, theists and atheists should have an equal burden of proof. (With the atheist arguing that the position that the existence of god(s) is very unlikely). This changes though if the theist’s claim becomes more specific. If the theist is arguing for the existence of an omnipotent, loving god then they are making a greater claim and must suffer the greater burden of proof. And if the theist is arguing for a specific god or gods and that all other ones are false, then that is a very great claim and the theist must meet an extremely high burden of proof.
From a Christian perspective, I basically reject the idea of debate over the existence of God. How can you debate such a thing really? I know that some people make a living at it, and perhaps they (with the assistance of the Holy Spirit) have been successful in reaching people with the truth. So I don’t want to be critical of those apologists, but this is why I don’t debate it:
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
(1 Corinthians 1:18-31)
Notice Paul calls those who disputed the validity of the Gospel fools. Obviously the Gospel is predicated on belief in the existence of the one true God. I think that this passage is fully compatible with Psalm 53:1.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
I really don’t see the issue as being debatable. That doesn’t mean that a Christian cannot share his faith with an agnostic; it just means that there is no possibility of a meaningful debate.
I support the right of any person to express their own beliefs or lack thereof, and since I possess the same right, allow me to express what I believe. Anyone truly seeking for truth will find it. Those who truly hunger for righteousness will receive it. However, there are those who when truth is plainly revealed to them, they reject it in favor of their own personal preferences. Their ignorance is not based on a lack of knowledge, but rather it is a willingness to be ignorant; therefore no one in this category is on a quest for truth. First Peter 3 explains it well.
1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
How about this for a definition of atheist:
A person who is faith-free.
Jesus Christ! Don’t say “lack of belief”.
lacking:
1. Lacking an essential element: defective, deficient, incomplete, wanting.
2. Deficient in a usual or needed amount: absent, wanting. See excess/insufficiency/enough.
Not having a desirable element
We’re not “lacking” belief!
PhillyChief - I hadn’t realized “lacking” had such a negative connotation.
Exterminator - That leaves the problem of defining “faith” - a problem as difficult, if not more so, as defining atheist.
Chris A - I can’t say you are wrong from a Biblical viewpoint. But can you consider that you could be wrong, and it is Christians that you might have described “Their ignorance is not based on a lack of knowledge, but rather it is a willingness to be ignorant;”
PhillyChief said, “Jesus Christ!”
Interesting, from a linguistic point of view, that an atheist has to use the name of a deity to get his point across. (If the name were powerless, it would have no value as a curse.)
Interesting, from a linguistic point of view …
Are we to assume that you’re a trained linguist?
Or did you just pull your conclusion out of thin air?
Chris,
Why are you using Biblical quotations to prove your point? Don’t you realize that to do this, you would have to furnish evidence that the Bible is authoritative?
“I support the right of any person to express their own beliefs or lack thereof, and since I possess the same right, allow me to express what I believe.” No one would deny your right to express your beliefs. However, once you express them, be prepared to defend them. I like what H.L. Mencken had to say about this:
“True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.”
“Anyone truly seeking for truth will find it.” But without evidence, how do you know what the truth is? You strike be as one who gives great store to faith. But faith is belief in the absence of evidence. So, in the absence of evidence, all faith-based belief is equal, and that includes the 72 virgins (Twin Towers terrorists) and the space ship on the other side of the comet (Heavens Gate cult). These people were truth seekers, just like you. Don’t you wish they had demanded evidence before they acted?
I do.
Yes, Exterminator, I am a trained linguist. But my point is that we’re trying to have a civil discussion here. The author Casey Huxley is not a Christian, but he was being polite, and I appreciate that. You, on the other hand, are trying to be offensive, quite possibly since you know many of us here believe on the name of Jesus Christ.
My point stands: if the name of Jesus Christ were just any old name, you wouldn’t be able to use it as a curse word.
Back to the main topic. I find the discussions of proving whether there is a god or not interesting to some degree, but in the end, I have to agree with Chris A. Scripture tells us
If there were enough proof of God (or more to the point, the Christian message of salvation), then faith would not be necessary–the only thing necessary would be common sense because it is common sense to accept something that is proven. But God somehow requires faith–the one thing logicians who demand proof can’t or don’t have.
Great Ceaser’s ghost, it’s just a figure of speech, an excited utterance Thainamu! Relax. If I knew everyone was that uptight I would have included the “H” before, but I thought we could be less formal.
Casey, when was the last time you said you lacked something bad that you’d never want? I’m guessing never. You can say you lack patience, lack a sense of humor, lack funds, lack common sense, but how about lack cancer, lack a head injury, lack a good beating?
No atheist lacks belief.
I think burden of proof is the essential point that needs to be resolved in this debate. I think it is similar to the question of where life begins in the abortion debate. I have heard it said (especially so by atheists) that theists have proof. I’m not sure I buy this.
I do agree that Christians have the burden of proof, because they propose a systematic belief structure built additionally on top of theism.
Again let me reiterate that I am not interested in debating the existence of God (whom I know personally) with agnostics or atheists, but I will address one comment and make a couple more.
“Chris A - I can’t say you are wrong from a Biblical viewpoint. But can you consider that you could be wrong, and it is Christians that you might have described ‘Their ignorance is not based on a lack of knowledge, but rather it is a willingness to be ignorant;’”
I can consider that I could be wrong about some things, but this is not a question of my credibility. The credibility rests with scripture that I believe is given by inspiration of God. So from my perspective we’re really talking about God’s credibility, and He cannot lie. If I accept by faith that the above referenced scripture is given by inspiration, then I cannot believe that it is incorrect with respect to its analysis. Clearly the context of this passage has to do with those who have rejected God’s truth, not theists.
That being the case, I have to make one of the following assumptions about a self-described former Christian. The person in question was either never really a Christian to begin with - in which case there is a posibility that Christ was never fully revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, or he has rejected the truth in favor of a lie - again, not my words but his. At any rate, I would not dismiss such a man as one being beyond the reach of the hand of God.
As you have said, the defining of terms is crucial. So if by “Christian” you mean that you were raised in a church-going home, went to Sunday school, were taught the Bible, etc., I would argue that you may not have been a Christian at all. But if you mean that you were enlightened after having been made aware of your personal need for forgiveness of sins, forsook them and followed Him who paid the price for your redemption, confessing faith in Jesus Christ whom God raised from the dead, then I would say you were indeed a Christian. More specifically the word “Christian” implies discipleship. In other words, without leaving the impression that people must earn favor with God, a Christian is one who follows Christ and models his life after His.
Let me restate the problem with this debate. Essentially we are speaking two separate languages - one is the language of faith and the other is a language of reason based on empirical evidence. This is not to say that there is no empirical evidence to support the authenticity of the Bible in a number of respects, but ultimately, as Thainamu has pointed out by quoting the book of Hebrews, the approach to God is a step of faith. So it is plain that we are talking apples and oranges here.
Chris:
Again let me reiterate that I am not interested in debating the existence of God (whom I know personally) …
And how is it you happen to know god personally? Are you guys drinking buddies, or did you just happen to run over his foot with your shopping cart at the supermarket.
Thainamu:
Yes, Exterminator, I am a trained linguist.
I’d have to see evidence of that, since I don’t take anything on faith. If you were a trained linguist, you’d know that expletives have nothing to do with their literal meanings. When someone says, “Oh, fuck,” (Note: expletive used here to make a point, not to be offensive) I’m not actually talking about having sex. So the name of the particular imaginary creature “Jesus Christ” is an effective expletive in our society because so many people believe in him. (You said … many of us here believe on the name of Jesus Christ, which makes me dubious about your linguistic credentials.)
“Fuck” is a great example of why using the name “Jesus Christ” as a cuss word is just silly.
In conversations, I normally hear something to the effect of “The peace of Christ be with you.” The speaker means good things towards the person to which they are speaking.
If someone says, “Fuck you,” the meaning isn’t normally a friendly or good thing. If they’re speaking about “fuck” meaning “sex”, and you’re thinking “Yes, but sex is a lovely thing,” perhaps it would help to keep our definitions straight. You don’t fuck someone you love. It’s the selfish kind of sex, and it’s gross to even think about.
If Jesus was an imaginary creature (can we at least call Him an imaginary PERSON instead of creature…), then why would you even bother speaking His name? Just say “fuck”, and you’ll make a lot more sense.
“Again let me reiterate that I am not interested in debating the existence of God (whom I know personally) …”
Hey, we had a woman in Texas who knew God personally. God told her to drown all her children. He’s quite a scamp isn’t he?
Tank said: You don’t fuck someone you love.
Maybe you don’t. I’m guessing that the rest of us do.
It’s the selfish kind of sex, and it’s gross to even think about.
That’s the most asinine thing I’ve ever heard. You’re working backwards from the idea that “fuck” is an expletive to debase its other meaning. Since “Jesus Christ” is also an expletive, you might just as well have said: Jesus Christ is the selfish kind of god, and he’s gross to even think about.
It does not offend me to be ridiculed by those who are estranged from their Creator. Jesus himself was ridiculed by his murderers. Rather than answer his mockers, Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” He did not wish to revile his mockers, but instead he opted to appeal to God’s mercy on their behalf.
If I, as a follower of Jesus Christ, allowed myself to be drawn into a contentious debate with unbelievers over my relationship with God what would that prove? I will tell you with no equivocation that God is my Father and I know him and am known by him. I wouldn’t expect an atheist or agnostic to understand that; for it would be impossible given his spiritual condition. However, the opportunity to receive Christ is provided for all people. And although many of you have lived a life in opposition to God, he will still receive you and forgive you if you come to him in faith. Upon your confession of faith in Christ, you will be uprooted from the kingdom of darkness and be brought into the kingdom of God’s dear son. Only then will you be able to perceive Truth.
Jesus Christ came to bridge the gap between mankind, who have been corrupted by sin. By willingly laying down his life and spilling his sinless blood, Jesus made a covenant with his Father on behalf of all humanity who believe in Jesus. He has commissioned Christians with the responsibility of communicating this truth to all men so that all have the opportunity to believe in him. So while you may want to mock me or debate me, I am not authorized to respond in like manner. I am, however, authorized and obligated to tell you that God so loved the world that he sent his Son into the world so that all who believe him would receive eternal life. It is freely available to all, and there is no one who has committed a sin so terrible that it cannot be forgiven.
I leave you with this scripture:
19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22″He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
1 Peter 2:19-25
Chris,
To be absolutely honest, everything you write should be prefaced by “I believe” instead of stating it as absolute fact.
The whole question of who has the burden of proof is kind of silly, I think. I just ignore it. I’m not interested in debating about whether God exists. Intellectual debates aren’t going to convince anybody, and even if they do, they aren’t sufficient to bring conviction of sins and repentance.
As a Christian who has never experienced any significant doubt about the existence of God, I can say that the classic arguments for God’s existence are unconvincing. The cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral law arguments all struck me as weak. I wouldn’t try to engage an unbeliever by using those arguments.
It is up to the believer to define exactly what he means when he proclaims “God exists.” Otherwise, there is nothing for the skeptic to dissect. Otherwise the whole debate becomes meaningless:
Believer: I believe zarkoflodnnf exists.
Non-believer: What the fuck is that? Prove it!
Believer: Well… prove I’m wrong.
At this point, the burden is actually on the believer. The Believer and Non-Believer must agree on a basic definition of God before they can continue. Only then is the burden of proof actually shared. But actually, this is where the debate just ends for most people. Since this “God” cannot be limited by definition, the discussion on it is as absurd as discussing invisible, zero-mass gnomes of an unknown dimension. When reduced to such vague generalities, none of these things are provable one way or the other, hence they are not believed (making atheism a default view). The addition of other characteristics to God through mainstream religions make a case for the incredulity of deities.
“Chris,
To be absolutely honest, everything you write should be prefaced by “I believe” instead of stating it as absolute fact.”
I don’t speak with respect to “facts”. I speak the Truth, not as only I see it, but as it proceeds from the mouth of God. The word “fact” implies evidence based on observation. Truth supersedes facts and is not subject to the laws that govern human reason because it is eternal. Human reason is incapable of producing absolute truth. This truth is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and for whom are all things. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. All things are upheld by the word of his power, or we could say all things are upheld by his truth. His word is truth.
Whether one believes the Truth is important, but in the greater picture it is secondary, since the Creator is not dependent on the opinions of his creation. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, demonstrated the love of God by forgiving sin and healing the sick, willingly laid down his life to be crucified for the payment of mankind’s sins, was raised from the dead after three days, and ascended back into heaven where he will remain until the restitution of all things. Those of us who believe in him are awaiting his imminent return to the earth where he will he will establish his kingdom, and of his government there will be no end. That is the truth. Believing it or choosing not to believe it does not change the truth.
Geez Louise! I can’t believe there is so much discussion over the use of a figure of speech! I never thought the use of phrases like “Holy cow!” “By George!” or “Well, I’ll be damned,” would require so much explanation. They’re just expressions! We’ve all heard them on regular basis our entire lives, and now we use them ourselves without giving much thought to their meaning. Come to think of it, “ouch” would fit in that category, too. One thing is certain, though - the words themselves have no special voodoo-like power behind them. “Jesus Christ” is on the exact same level as “Oh, shit.”
More on topic - I think Casey is dead-on about the burden of proof. Neither theists nor atheists have the burden of proof by default. It all depends on the exact stance you are taking.
The atheist only has the burden of proof if belief in the Abrahamic god is considered the “norm.” No one would dream of saying that the atheist might have the burden of proof to show that there’s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, or that there’s no Zeus or Thor.
So, no, atheists really never have the burden of proof. They make no supernatural claims that need to be supported.
Actually, in light of the original post, strike my phrase “the Abrahamic god” and substitute “some higher power.”
The question of burden of proof really only matters if you’re trying to win a debate. If you’re more interested in searching for truth, it isn’t important to split hairs about who has the burden of proof.
Exterminator,
I agree with you that the systematic supernatural claims of a religion or belief structure have the burden of proof in a debate. However, atheists do not simply get such a free pass as to never have the burden of proof. I think this is especially true with regard to atheism versus theism. Atheism is not synonymous with objectivism (not in the Randian sense, but in the sense that atheism represents the “natural state” of the universe). Atheism is not a priori.
I don’t see why atheism is not a priori. It’s the natural default position, We’re all born as atheists. To move away from atheism, one must adopt some set of religious beliefs. Atheists don’t have to do that.
Whether one believes the truth is important, but in the greater picture it is secondary, since the universe is not dependent on the opinions of its inhabitants. The universe is a massive system governed by natural, unthinking laws. Those of us who believe in reality are always studying, exploring and trying to expand our knowledge of the reality of our universe. That is the truth. Believing it or choosing not to believe it does not change the truth.
The thing about Christians and religious or mystically-minded people in general is that they somehow think they can simply know and intuit truth, or are somehow granted it from on high. But having no criteria for determining whose “Truth” is the best combined with the fact that most of these “Truths” are incompatible with each other and reflect no more than a persons cultural upbringing, I have concluded that they are probably all wrong. The skeptic or scientifically minded individual generates knowledge from the ground up. Go back to first principles, question everything, and determine what I know from there. This is where the distinction between “I know God exists because I have a personal relationship with him” and “I think I know God” becomes important. Critical thinking skills are important.
One final note about Jesus Christ as a curse (If the name were powerless, it would have no value as a curse.) Of course the name has power. It has a lot of cultural and social power (frankly, a few orders of magnitude too much). Nothing more.
I have to disagree, Exterminator. It really does depend on the nature of the position the atheist has taken. If you are saying “I don’t believe in god,” you’re off the hook - you don’t have to prove anything. If, however, you say “It is impossible for dieties to exist,” that is a much more specific statement, and you need to be able to back that up. The same goes for the theist who believes in God vs. the theist who insists that God exists. It all comes down to the assertion being made.
Granted, the vast majority of the time - particularly in formal debates - the burden of proof lands on the theist because they are trying to show that a god exists, but an atheist can most certainly make claims that they must be able to support.
Jason:
No rational atheist could make the absolute, 100% iron-clad, blanket statement “It is impossible for deities to exist.” I doubt that you’ve ever heard any serious atheist make that statement. I also can’t say with absolute, 100% iron-clad conviction that it’s impossible for any nonexistent being to exist.
But the likelihood of that nonexistent being actually existing is so mathematically minuscule that I choose to live my life as if the possibility were not there.
The accumulated lack of evidence for the existence of some god is itself a massive amount of evidence tending toward the opposite conclusion. However, I’ll grant you that there’s a submicroscopic iota of possibility that a god exists. But the burden of proof is entirely on the believer. I shouldn’t have to prove a position that I don’t assert.
I couldn’t agree more with your last post, Exterminator. And given your stance, you personally don’t have any burden of proof.
But keeping in mind that I’m an atheist myself, I’ve heard plenty of atheists assert that “there is no god” rather than “I don’t find any of the so-called evidence for god at all compelling,” and that just irritates the hell out of me (no pun intended). It’s very annoying to hear other atheists admit that they can’t prove the non-existence of anything but in the same breath assert that something doesn’t exist. In casual conversation that kind of slip isn’t a big deal, but when we’re getting down to the nitty gritty it’s an illogical stance to take. When an atheist does take that stance they need to put up or shut up - if someone says “God doesn’t exist,” it’s a declaration of fact & there is no reason they shouldn’t be expected to prove it. But, as in your last post:
“But the likelihood of that nonexistent being actually existing is so mathematically minuscule that I choose to live my life as if the possibility were not there. ”
- you’re anouncing your personal analysis of the evidence that has already been presented, so you have nothing to prove. That’s what I like to hear.
“My personal view is that as long as the debate is about the existence of god(s) in general, theists and atheists should have an equal burden of proof.” Okey dokey. So long as you are willing to admit that you are agnostic about invisible pink unicorns, the tooth fairy and orbiting teapots.
And I’m sure that Jason would agree that “I don’t find any of the so-called evidence for invisible pink unicorns at all compelling.” Because to state outright that “there are no invisible pink unicorns” would irritate the heck out of him.
Because I know that you folks value intellectual consistency.
Everything in the universe is consistent with the existence of a Creator. There isn’t much that’s consistent with orbiting teapots and invisible pink unicorns. The mere fact that we exist prompts questions about whether there is a Creator. There isn’t anything the prompts questions about invisible pink unicorns. However, the idea of invisible pink unicorns is useful for illustrating that it’s hard to definitively prove a negative.
Jew:
Everything in the universe is consistent with the existence of a Creator.
That’s an unsubstantiated claim that has no truth value whatsoever. I’d say, rather, that everything in the universe is consistent with the existence of naked mole rats. That is true, since I can demonstrate that naked mole rats do, indeed, exist. Since they do, and I can provide ample evidence for their existence, it’s obvious that everything in the universe must be consistent with that existence. Or else they might not exist.
You’re still left in the position of providing evidence that your creator exists. Otherwise, your statement is empty.
You can start by defining this creator. After all, we can’t begin to ascertain its existence until we know what to look for. If you’re going to offer the 3-omni variety (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent), you can just stop now because that’s completely illogical.
I can also confess that the Mrs. has, on several occasions, ordered me to fuck her, and I’ve happily obeyed, cause you know, I love her, and this thing she does with her, well nevermind.
The Exterminator said “You’re still left in the position of providing evidence that your creator exists” and PhillyChief said “You can start by defining this creator.”
That’s not really my point. I’m not interested in debating about the existence of God. Sorry, maybe another day. All I wanted to point out is that it’s natural to wonder about a creator but it’s not natural to wonder about invisible pink unicorns or orbiting teapots.
“Thainamu: Yes, Exterminator, I am a trained linguist.’
The Exterminator: I’d have to see evidence of that, since I don’t take anything on faith.”
You take all kinds of things on faith. A silly example: you have faith that the chair you’re sitting in was strong enough to hold you before you sat down–you didn’t go to the factory to see it built, follow it all the way to your home to make sure no one pulled a switch on you, etc. You just sat down. Another example–when a total stranger introduces himself and says, “Hello, I’m Joe Smith,” you don’t ask to see three forms of government-issued ID–you just take it on faith that his name is Joe Smith. Why would he lie to you?
Likewise, do I have any possible reason to lie to you about my training? There is no logical reason I would do that.
Sometimes we do actually believe things just because someone said them. And that takes us back to knowing vs. believing. Sometimes we do actually know things just because someone said so.
Shane said:
“One final note about Jesus Christ as a curse (If the name were powerless, it would have no value as a curse.) Of course the name has power. It has a lot of cultural and social power (frankly, a few orders of magnitude too much). Nothing more.”
And nothing less.
PhillyChief said, “I can also confess that the Mrs. has, on several occasions, ordered me to fuck her, and I’ve happily obeyed,…”
We are all very happy to know this. Or rather, to believe this, since all we have is your word for it. Of course, the real way to show you love her is to sweep the kitchen floor, but, I digress.
To add to the evidence of Thainamu’s linguistic training, I would comment that many members of this site know Thainamu personally, and that she is very definitely a trained linguist who has done translation work in previously undocumented languages. Whether that adds anything to her credibility is of course left to the reader, but she is most definitely a trained and experienced professional linguist. Of course, like MOST things in life this must be taken on faith. Anyone who claims to be without faith is lying, and can have their deception clearly proven by anyone who has met them. It is impossible to live with the partial perception we are trapped in without taking most things on faith. (For example, prove that you don’t live in the matrix or even that the rest of the world isn’t just a dream. One must take that on faith due to lack of sufficient supporting evidence.)
Regarding debate about God’s existence, I agree that the existence of God CANNOT be proven. In that light, I would therefore be termed a strongly agnostic theist according to the article’s definitions. I think that the inability of proving God’s existence CAN be demonstrated logically, since any set of logic leading to the conclusion that God exists requires initial assumptions that an atheist would reject.
That said, I don’t think it is impossible for a Christian to KNOW that there is a God. This is because a Christian really does personally experience God. If I were given undeniable proof tomorrow that the Bible is false, I would live in terror since I KNOW that I have been interacting with a powerful spiritual being, and knowing that it was lying to me would terrifying. This isn’t evidence I can ever demonstrate in debate, making it impossible for me to prove God’s existence. (Though I also believe that I can demonstrate that God’s existence is more likely than his non-existence.)
I agree fully with Atanamis. Ultimately this comes down to subjective revelation. By definition, this can be known, but it cannot be proven. While the atheist might say that’s pretty convenient - it still remains, nevertheless.
I too have found the arguments for God’s existence and especially Christianity hardly water-tight. I came to a point where I had to decide if I was going to trust my own personal revelation and take the rest that I could not explain on faith, or if I was going to deny my personal knowledge in favour of agnosticism. I think it would be less logical for me to abandon experiential, self-verifiable knowledge in favour of arguments that I cannot reconcile with the former witness - which is stronger relative to my own senses, reasoning and intellect. To throw this away for something I find less convincing (or I could also be too ignorant to understand) would be intellectual suicide.
Are the theists on this forum aware that everything thing you think you know about your god is strictly hearsay. You really have been hoodwinked into believing there is this man looking down on you. Is it a man? Are you really made in the image of this entity? Think about it.
No need to be a smartass, Reggie. Feel free to announce that there is no god as a fact all you want - just acknowledge that you can’t prove it. And yes, that goes for pink unicorns, celestial teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters. Does not being able to disprove them make them any more likely to be real? Of course not. I just want other atheists to stop making irrational statements just to make a point. It plays right into the hands of theists.
If you claim to be 100% certain that anything doesn’t exist you’re a lying fool.
You know, I think there might be a clearer way of getting my point across.
In a debate between a theist and and an atheist, the atheist would hold the burden of proof IF THEY TRULY WANT TO PROVE SOMETHING - ie. prove that there is no god (which we have established can’t logically be done). If, however, the goal is to show that the case for god hasn’t been adequately made or poke some holes in the arguments for god, then the burden would rest on the theist. In these terms, while theists GENERALLY have the burden of proof, I still maintain that the atheist can bring it on him/herself.
No, while all you know of Him is hearsay, we know Him from personal interaction and experience. It is because our knowledge is based on personal revelation that we cannot “prove” Him to you. While most of us still believe the “hearsay” is more internally consistent than other worldviews, we understand that one cannot prove a worldview. Your own worldview is taken on faith, and cannot be proven. All that “logic” can do is demonstrate internal consistency in a worldview that values logic (which most theists do).
Jason, excellent comment. It is surprisingly rare to talk with a thinking atheist, but you definitely qualify.
It’s surprisingly rare to talk to a thinking person of any sort.
Naturally, I just talk to myself most of the time.
*catches self in mirror*
Hey there you! What a smart chap you look today!