Reasons 11 - 20
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Actually, tomatoes aren't fruit at all. They're berries.

The tomato is a berry, but berries are a subset of fruit. So tomatos are indeed fruit.

Author:  Jeremy [ Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

I know I'm a little late to this party, but on the debate of agnostic atheist, I have to agree with Chris.

An agnostic is one who acknowledges the fact that proof of the existence (or non-existence) of a diety cannot be absolute. Therefore, and agnostic atheist is one who acknowledges this, but is inclined to believe that said diety does not exist.

With that being said, I also think that you can be an agnostic theist. This would be one who is inclined to believe in a higher being, but also acknowledges that proof of its existence cannot be known.

I don't remember in which thread Chris said John sounded like an atheist, but I tend to think he sounds more like an agnostic theist.

Author:  Penelope [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:12 am ]
Post subject: 

If Chris is an agnostic atheist - just inclined to think that there is no God, how come he is so adamant in calling the ones who have carried on the search for spirituality delusional.

Author:  Jeremy [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:10 am ]
Post subject: 

Well, I didn't say that Chris was an agnostic atheist; he did. I was merely agreeing that one can be agnostic and atheist at the same time.

Author:  Penelope [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Well, Jeremy

I say, if you MUST label yourself - be careful what the label says, and what you come to believe about yourself because of that label.

Other people might misake the 'label' for the 'person'!!!

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:16 am ]
Post subject: 

I am agnostic about the possibility of existence of ALL gods. This means that I am not claiming to know that no god of any kind exists. There could be some sort of god somewhere hidden out there in the universe. So I am an agnostic (without knowledge) about the existence of any and all gods. An agnostic atheist is also called a weak atheist.

I am also an atheist because I lack the belief in a god or gods. So I don't KNOW with any certainty that there isn't some sort of a god somewhere out in the cosmos, I sure don't have an actual belief that one exists. Until there is evidence I will not become a believer. This goes for any and all claims. Until a claim is shown to be supported by sufficient evidence I will not believe it. The more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence should be for me to believe the claim.

On the other hand I will not actively say, "That claim is nonsense." And I don't do this for the concept that there is some sort of deity somewhere in the cosmos. The only thing I reject outright and call nonsense is specific god-claims that are well-defined or logically impossible or completely unsupported by any evidence at all.

So I am a weak atheist with regards to ANY and ALL gods, but I am a strong atheist with regards to certain god claims. This is why I always try to encourage theists to define their gods.


Example 1

Bob comes along and tells me that he believes there is some sort of higher power that created the start of the universe, but does not and cannot interact with the universe anymore at this point. Praying is useless because this god cannot and does not respond to or even hear prayers.

I would be an agnostic atheist with regards to Bob's god. While I still don't believe his story, I also don't have the opportunity to reject it as impossible. There could be this sort of god. Bob is not assigning any powers or characteristics to his god that conflict with what I know about the universe. So maybe Bob is right, but I won't believe Bob's story until there is ample reason to do so.

Therefore, I am a nonbeliever, which makes me an atheist, but I don't claim to know Bob is wrong, which makes me an agnostic. This is where you get the agnostic atheist combo.


Example 2

Sally comes along, right after Bob leaves, and she shares with me her god belief. She believes in the Christian god as stated in the Bible. Now, in this case, I become a strong atheist.

While I do not know that there is not some sort of god somewhere in the universe, I do reject her god as impossible, irrational and logically inconsistent. God cannot logically be all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful concurrently. Just like a square cannot concurrently be a circle and a triangle. They are logically inconsistent.

God clearly does not or cannot answer prayers. God sure didn't create Adam and Eve as is told in Genesis. There sure wasn't a global flood as told in Noah's Ark. In fact all of the supernatural tales in the Bible appear to be nonsense.

I am a strong atheist with regards to the Christian God and Bible.


But by claiming that the Christian God and Bible are nonsense I am not saying that some sort of God does not or cannot exist. I am saying that a deity cannot and does not exist as defined by Christianity. It is impossible. I am saying that I find Christianity to be irrational and Christians to be deluded. But I leave open the possibility that some sort of creator is lurking out there in the cosmos, but Christians aren't worshipping it.

Author:  Penelope [ Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:41 am ]
Post subject: 

I am a strong atheist with regards to the Christian God and Bible.

I don't believe in the Christian/Jewish representation of God either, nor do I believe the Bible is Literal truth.

But a representation is all it is Chris - (mistaking the label?)

but there are billions of other religions out there - none of which can give a correct representation -

Buddhist's come the closest for me personally. However, I don't blame people who don't want to bother studying Buddhism, because it doesn't make God not there, just because some people are not interested.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Chapter 16: My God Heals Sick People

I've long been fascinated by faith healers and televangelists, but more so for their power to manipulate and control the minds and emotions of the naive audience, than for any true healing powers. Benny Hinn is a real scum bag, to put it mildly. I've studied him for years and years and cannot believe people actually give this fruitloop their hard earned money. It doesn't speak well for the followers.

Page 127 Harrison says something that got my attention:

If stories of faith healings prove that a particular god is real, then it means many other gods must be real too because numerous gods have been credited with miraculous healings since the beginnings of civilization.

To me just this simple statement above should be enough to make the average Christian have a Eureka moment. Such sound reasoning Harrison uses to dissect just about ever conceivable argument for faith....yet a believer will persist in their belief as if these silly facts and refutations of arguments aren't going to be allowed to get in the way of their pure an honest faith. I want to bang my head against the wall. And then do it again.

How can a believer reconcile the fact that religious leaders have been successfully healing "certain" people for thousands and thousands of years? I put "certain" in quote marks because only believers are healed by these Charlatans. Clear thinkers would walk in and out of the healers tent in the same unhealed/unchanged condition (and with the same amount of money in their pockets too).

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group