DHA's Wager

I think you’re redefining Atheist so it begs the question.One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.From what I know, there isn’t sufficient reason for me to believe or admit the existence of God or gods. Therefore, I disbelieve and or deny. Further, I fail to see where my disbelief must be carved in stone. That I might change my belief in the future is not does not automatically invalidate by present. That I might be proven wrong in the future doesn’t make my Atheistic beliefs less valid, incorrect, or even illogical.

Well, I can break it down for you, if you think that will help.1). I am not skeptical about the existence of God. I am quite sure that the God of the Bible simply does not exist.2). I do profess true atheism (see my previous post).3). I am not full of doubt about God.4). I have committed to my position.Oh and the big one, 5). I don’t believe it is impossible to know if the Christian God exists.So given that, will you retract your statement about atheists, at least in my case?

I never said it was the only one, but for clarity and brevity and considering the forum, I thought it best to be more specific than less specific. As agnosticism is very much at the center of this conversation, my beliefs are actually relevant. In some aspects of the definition you presented they are the only issue of relevance.As I said, I don’t believe it is impossible to know if the Christian God of the Bible exists. This is based on God being defined as one who effects the natural world. Logically, doing so leaves trace evidence. It is precisely the lack of such evidence which logically supports my argument. I do disbelieve and I do deny, and those at this point are the only two criteria. Actually, as you can read, I really only need to meet one of them. I don’t *believe* that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.I am not skeptical about the existence of God and I profess true atheism.I am not doubtful or noncommittal about God’s existence.Obviously, I do not meet the definition you presented of one who is agnostic.Therefore, in my case, the agnostic position is not more logically valid.

Why you would discard what I wrote to apply your own motivation is beyond me. It certainly isn’t unusual to limit the discussion on God or gods to a Christian viewpoint on this forum. You mistook my statement as a logic evaluation statement, when it was instead a summary of the post.Here’s a different summary.Most arguments about atheism being illogical are based on the existence of God being unverifiable. The argument usually takes the form of: Absence evidence of God’s existence is not evidence of non-existence. It is then argued that without such evidence one cannot reach a logical conclusion.I propose we need not test the existence of God, but only test the Bible’s claims of his effects. This is of course a test of the God of the Bible and not a test of some unknowable deity. Were it not for the Bible’s extraordinary claims this would not be possible. Yet, the Bible claims he creates not so subtle ones. Where are those?

As I said this approach was to simplify and focus the discussion. Now that we’ve dispensed with God, you can see it isn’t a strawman as I apply it to other gods. Are there any specific ones you believe my approach won’t work with?

Sorry, I haven’t responded before now, life got busy.I have a problem with the construction of your logical argument. It seems to rest on a person having to consider the supernatural. While this at first might seem to be an obvious need, I think it is, in error.Atheism isn’t based on uncovering some unknown and from there forming some belief structure. Atheism is based on evaluating Theism and finding it lacking.

quote:

---

It has always eluded me how a unicorn can be invisible AND pink.

---

Of course, it eludes us, we are but mere mortals who cannot perceive the IPU in all of (insert correct pronoun) glory.

quote:

---

I'm not sure if I'm interested so much in the correct pronoun. I think contemplating some appropriate adjectives would be more enlightening. One that springs to mind is 'illogical'.

---

Ah, but the IPU makes the wisdom of the wise -- foolish. The IPU’s colorness is a matter of dogma and faith and as such is something beyond the comprehension of those who have not given their lives over to the IPU.Edited to remove extra word.This message has been edited by Trae, 03-22-2005 11:07 AM