Here's the problem with Theism, and Atheism. You're both wrong

Here's the problem with Theism, and Atheism. You're both wrong.

Both of you are narrow minded. Your concept of possibilities are limited. Your imaginations are restricted by your dogmatic worldview.

Neither one of you can possibly have the data you claim. A human can't conceive of the scale of the universe or of the possibilities of existence. Neither of you know what preceded our universe or what exists in dimensions we can't comprehend.

You're both just waving your limited mammal idea's around like a bunch of monkeys fighting over a banana.

"You're both wrong"
You're wrong.
"Both of you are narrow minded. Your concept of possibilities are limited. Your imaginations are restricted by your dogmatic worldview."

"Neither one of you can possibly have the data you claim. A human can't conceive of the scale of the universe or of the possibilities of existence. Neither of you know what preceded our universe or what exists in dimensions we can't comprehend."

"You're both just waving your limited mammal idea's around like a bunch of monkeys fighting over a banana."
you provide no evidence to support your claims.

>yall motherfuckers are narrow
>we can't conceive of the scale
>don't try guise, we can't
>guise srsly guise we can't
>guise you're narrow-minded
>guise?

notice me senpai
I'm talking about religion tho
....I'll be edgier next time senpai...

>guise we're narrow
>guise, don't even try guise!
>guise! it doesn't matter if it's the scale of the universe or god
>guise, we're too stupid
>guise? can i has friends now?

It's unprovable. That's my point. If you come up with any other answer than "I don't know" you're making claims you can't possibly prove or seriously claim to know.

Also, 99% of common religious thought in our culture is judeo christian. That's monotheism and linear. But there are so many more possibilities than that.

Everyone is taking their limited knowledge, framing it in their limited worldview, and proclaiming it the undisputed truth of the universe(s).

It's absurd.

>guise, you can't prove it to the full expectations of my university teachers!
>guise, don't give me that "yet" shit!
>guise it's either now or never ok? we're too narrow
>guise... i'm serious.. stop trying... guiiiisseee....

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

>guise, if i can't understand a simple sarcastic comment, you can't prove anything regarding theism!
>guise, my college teachers are smarter than anyone and they know everything ok?
>guise, we'll never reach the level of intelligence my teachers say we need
>guise? i'm not retarded... stop saying that... guise?

That doesn't bother me. But why not discuss it with me rather than, well, I still don't know what point, if any, you're trying to make other than to mock me.

>guise? it doesn't bother me, therefore i will disregard it to prove my point
>guise... i think i made a mistake
>guise i've attended hours and hours of agnosticism and you can't change my mind, guise
>guise you do not bother me
>but seriously guise, back to the topic which is the only thing worth my attention
>we can't know guise!
>guise don't even try to think, guise
>it's impossible guise, accept my teachers and their wisdom guise

tl;dr for you you're behaving like a theist in the way that you believe we can't understand god, and that we should simply be content with the way things are now.
tl;dr #2 you're a retard. stop sucking your teach's cock. accept the fact that you'll never make a difference in the world and stop trying to sabotage those that may.

>idea's
I'll be damned if I take theological advice form someone who can't even understand that the humble apostrophe doesn't mean "look out, here come's an 's".

You really think you have me all figured out, don't you?

I don't what point you think I'm disregarding because I don't know what point you're trying to make.

It's too bad. You sound like maybe you have something interesting to say. It's too bad you don't know how to say it.

I never said anything about contentment. And I noticed you said god, singular.

I'm not a student and I've already made a difference in this world. But who do you think I'll sabotage with my idea?

I wasn't offering theological advice.

i see what you did there

Here's the problem with your argument. One is a positive claim, the other is simply a non-acceptance of the others positive claim.

I disagree. When an atheist says there is not god, he's making just a definite of a statement as someone that says Allah is god, or whatever.

Neither the atheist or the theist can prove their claim.

If the atheist says "I'll believe it when I see it" or something like that, he's made no claim.

Do you see the difference?

i mean... this is the third time you've missed it. just give up (irony?) and move on. you're too stupid to get it. maybe if i said the same thing over and over for a few years you might pick it up and then go talk about it in an imageboard.

the point isn't a singular god or all of the gods we've ever had, you little twat (:

no, you will never make a difference in the world, not because you can't, but because you're too stupid,

you'll sabotage any mentally fragile but intelligent young people that read your bullshit and believe it.

I guess I was wrong. You don't have anything interesting to say.

it's always nice to see i'm right about people.

I think no matter what happened here you were always going to believe that.

Seems like I've touched a nerve though.

yeah i'm the one who's telling people that they're wrong.
(: should've given it another 4 minutes to think about something better

> he's making just a definite of a statement as someone that says Allah is god, or whatever.

I disagree, the "There is no god" "claim" cannot exist without you first making the "there is a god" claim, atheism does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in a response to someone making the other claim first.

If nobody ever claimed god was real there would be no such thing as atheism.

Apply your logic to literally any other situation.

"This man murdered a guy"

"No I didn't"

"PROVE YOU DIDN'T"

The "I'm innocent" claim does not exist without someone first claiming you are not.

"There is a dog fucking an elephant but invisibly in space"

"I doubt that"

"PROVE THERE ISN'T"

Again, the negative claim cannot exist without the positive claim first. The negative claim can hardly be called a "claim" at all then, it is more a rejection of your claim.

The literal only difference between the "Dog in space" and "God" claim is that a lot of people believe in god and so rejection of this belief has people saying you are making a "knowledge claim". You are in no way doing that, you are simply rejecting their knowledge claim due to a lack of evidence.

Your mode of logic is silly and does not apply anywhere else, you only think it can apply here because the god belief is so big. You cannot prove a negative and that is why they do not require proof, that is why positive claims require proof and if they cannot be proven rejection is the default stance. That is why you are wrong.

Can I buy pot from you?

Nobody makes the claim and the default is no belief in a claim that was never made... default is atheism.

i'm pretty sure the default was not atheism. it may be now because we've reached the point where we can explain natural phenomenon (i hope that's the word. english is my second language)

I've always been inclined to feel that agnosticism (the noncommittal mindset) is intellectually flawed. The cultural conviction of a falsehood doesn't give it credibility.

Just because the notion of a God is really old and believed by lots of people doesn't make it true.

Flatly rejecting a claim that there was never any proof for isn't an assertion of anything else in itself.

You're timing replies?

I get your point, but your analogies don't do the question justice.

dogs fucking elephants in space is specific. We can all agree there are probably not any invisible mammals fucking in the vacuum of space.

But can we say there's not creatures of any kind anywhere in the entire universe and beyond fucking in the vacuum of space?

When someone says "There is NO god" they're excluding the possibility that something somewhere beyond their knowledge and imagination exists.

I'm saying that's a claim.

no

Ya sure, as a thought experiment. But irl, the claim is made. And both sides are making definitive statements about things beyond their knowledge.

I must not be reading you right because that sounded a little circular. Can you dumb it down for me?

> I'm saying that's a claim.

And I'm saying it's not and the analogies are precisely accurate.

> When someone says "There is NO god" they're excluding the possibility that something somewhere beyond their knowledge and imagination exists.

Simply refer to my last post, you actually ignored the logic. A NEGATIVE CLAIM DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF.

A rejection of a positive claim is not even a claim, it is merely a rejection of the actual claim. Atheism is not a claim, it is a rejection of your one. You simply ignored that.

You're right. There were never any primitive atheist cultures. Every culture in antiquity had their mystical practices and beliefs.

>You're timing replies?
it's not very hard to look at a post... you're even dumber than i thought, huh?

you're right, those cultures didn't expand their knowledge before coming to that conclusion.
i'm definitely not talking about people and what they would have individually assumed without the influence of an intelligent community. you got me.

It only becomes a claim if you're willing to play with the concept of an undefined god... otherwise it is the default either in the absence of a god claim or in rejecting the evidence, or lack thereof, for a god claim.

I only mean default in the sense that, where a claim of god doesn't exist then people default to atheism... it's self-evident because there's no other option for them

>Atheism is not a claim

Saying "I don't believe in god" is telling me something about yourself. Saying "no divinity exists" is a statement about the entirety or existence.

Not only do I think that's unnecessary to shunning all religious belief, I believe it's a step further.

Logic ladders aside, it sounds like an unprovable proclamation about the universe.

I'm surprised that you're doing it. It's kinda weird.

I'm not trying to "get" anybody. I just want to talk.

Exactly! "There is NO god" is exactly that: the undefined god. It's a proclamation about all of existence and beyond.

i wasn't talking about the claim, just mentioning that the default in the human mind regarding a higher power might have not been atheism.

You're an arrogant piece of shit who doesn't understand the words he is using, OP. It's not a false dilemma, everyone is either a theist(believes in god) or an atheist(does not believe in god). "But u can't know!" just means that you do NOT believe in god, and are therefore an atheist.

Agnosticism can be laziness... possibilities don't equate to probabilities and acknowledging that you don't have all the information doesn't stop you from weighing the probability based on the information you do have.

You sound upset.

The only people that say things like that to me are theists. Are you a theist?

I'm surprised that you're doing it. It's kinda weird.
it's weird to be able to notice details? damn... it just keeps getting better.
I'm not trying to "get" anybody. I just want to talk.
of course :) why am i not surprised to see you focused on the one thing that had no relevance to our conversation now that i see who's behind that post.

That's a straw man you've got there. He just told you atheism makes no claim about whether or not any god exists, and you go on to say that it does.

What you are describing is not atheism. No one can prove it one way or the other, and would not dare claim such. We tend not to invest our belief in things which lack any evidence, however.

Thus, it is reasonable to reject the claim that any god exists without sufficient evidence. That is what atheism is. We are not convinced.

It's a statement that none of the proposed deities exist (these are all defined) and there's no reason to have belief in any that aren't claimed to (these have never been claimed, which is not to say they exist but are undefined).

Most definitely not. There's no evidence for that claim and I'm not willing to imagine that there is or expand the claim to vague unclaimed/undefined deities. Simply commenting based on conversations I've had with "agnostics" who like the term because they're only 99% sure

>That is what atheism is. We are not convinced.
hold on there. atheism is simply not believing in god, be it for whatever reason,going from not being convinced to simply not being exposed to religious theories.

>None of the proposed deities exist.
That is quite an audacious statement. Proof?

>There's no reason to have belief in any that aren't claimed to [exist].
No. There's no reason to believe in any of them at all because there is no evidence to suggest their existence.

This is a pretty useless distinction, seeing as how people who are not exposed are also, by definition, not convinced.

ok

I have no intention to make a strawman argument, and I take your point.

I guess there are two kinds of atheists. Those, like yourself that say "I don't believe that shit". And the other kind that say "that shit doesn't exist".

Both types exist. And the "doesn't exist" crowd is pretty vocal. And they call themselves atheists too.

>none of the proposed

I guess clarity is needed because some atheists, some famous atheists, go beyond disbelieving proposed dieties. They make sweeping statements that far exceed your reasonable definition.

Sounds like you're critical of agnostics.

Are you asking for proof of non-existence? That burden is on those who claim the existence. In the absence of evidence, the claim is rejected.

Fuck you nigger

yeah is it? if you can't see how that last statement of yours could be used against you, you're pretty narrow.
>people who are not exposed are also, by definition, not convinced.
there you go again.

>ok
just can't refute if you don't have your teacher's monologues for reference huh? i'll leave you alone now.

ok

Correct me if you would, but I think you've misunderstood your position in the argument.

It is one thing to reject a claim without proof, and it is entirely another to claim the opposite.

Granted, we have no evidence of a god existing, but we also have no evidence of the contrary. I'm not sure what would qualify as such in either case, but for you to assert that you somehow know the answer to the question is ridiculous in itself. You do not know.

thank me at least you low iq drone ):

I'm not him, but I have no idea what you even fucking said. I'd be impressed if he could figure it out.

I think him saying "ok" is his way of politely disengaging with someone who is at a conversational level of a jar of mayonnaise.

Certainly, he owes you no thanks.

You are, by far, the angriest guy in this thread.

>Here's the problem with Theism, and Atheism. You're both wrong.
that's quite the accusation there, care to prove it?

Yep. I hate people with beliefs. Belief and faith are a disease of the monkey species.

do you usually walk up to people in the middle of a conversation matey? go watch a youtube vid, or something (:.

The point is neither side can prove it. How stupid are you? Was grade school not easy for you?

I think that problem has been addressed already. He seems to be taking more of an issue with the anti-theist position rather than a genuine atheist position

you got me all figured out don't you? (:

you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is

>Look at this high horse I found, it's got a fence on the saddle, look how high up I am when I sit on it and it's really good at staying in the middle.

My position is:

No belief in proposed deities due to lack of evidence supporting the claims.

No belief in unproposed deities. I'm happy to wait for these to be proposed, and therefore defined, and then reject them for what I anticipate will be a lack of evidence (based on all deities proposed to date).

Having no proof of either existence or non-existence leaves us with a default belief of non-existence. This is both because there's no evidence for the claim of existence and in the absence of that evidence the balance of probabilities rests with non-existence.

no? how do you know they won't be able to prove it though? oh... your claim that our concept of possibilities are limited. alright... good proof.

Since this is an anonymous message board on the internet, I don't think your parallel really applies.

As a general practice, I want to try and help people clear up misconceptions and reach common ground.

I think the world needs more common ground, and that it's for lack of trying.

It would be helpful to explain to us what the "actual" definition is, then. Let's have it.

You're the one with the high horse claiming to have answers to questions far greater than yourself. You know nothing, no one knows anything, we're all going to die. Deal with it.

It's not who has the answers, it's which one gets us the farthest.

you don't think it applies, do you aspie? i'm serious. go watch pewdiepie. i hear he doesn't do let's plays anymore.

Op here.

Thanks.

I don't know if I can prove it to your satisfaction but I've laid out my opinion in triplicate in this thread. I'm running out of new ways to say it.

why hate, as opposed to indifference or pity?

We weren't having a conversation.

This is true. I should have addressed this clearly in my original post.

It's not just me.

Possibly.

confusing metaphor

look at all those answers he claimed to have. dear lord... how dare he?!

If your not sitting on the fence about this then hit us with some knowledge op

The concept of proof of a sentient god or whatever it is you desire is ridiculous. We're not even close to being able to prove sentience in any meaningful way, believing something that requires such evidence is autism. You fail at logic, but then again, faith and belief are inherently illogical.

How stupid are you? I'll spell it out for you in this thread, despite it being all over the fucking internet, because I believe you might just be this dumb.

Atheism is not an active entity, it is not an active position. It is passive.

Atheism is not: "I don't believe in god.". That's antitheism (and it really isn't even antitheism, because that claim like you say, is unsubstantiated.)

Atheism is: a lack of theism. A lack of belief.

lack of belief =/= disbelief

It's also good to point out, one single atheist, someone you meet, someone you see on youtube, does not represent all atheists. Because atheism is not an active, structured, or dogmatic community (as a whole, yes I realize there are dogmatic atheist communities), because it has no doctrine, no code, no rhetoric.

I am I apologize for the slurs, this shit just gets under my skin.

A lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheism claims to know there is no god as a certainty.

You're the one assuming that I as an atheist claim to know that a God doesn't exist.
I'd never claim to know that, but any assertion that can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
As an atheist, if someone came up with definitive empirical proof of some sort of god, I'd believe in that god.

(You)
>We weren't having a conversation.
dictionaries have tons of answers. fuck... i hope you don't go off on that as well.
>It's not just me.
yeah... everyone cares about what i say. (i hope you can catch the irony in this one. it's especially delicious)

A defined god would have some aspects that could be tested for, no? If those were to fail, you would reject that definition

No, theism and atheism have to do with the belief in a deity(s). Agnosticism/Gnosticism have to do with knowledge. You can be agnostic about the teapot circling Saturn, and you can be Agnostic about a deity.

Agnosticism and Gnosticism are a spectrum, which every atheist and theist fall into. I happen to be an agnostic atheism, because I lack the knowledge of a god and do not believe in one. I don't claim that there is not one.

The part where we disagree is your idea that having no proof either way should lead to a definite conclusion.

I think in practical terms, there is no reason why we should live our lives with the supposition that a god may exist, because, thus far, it has not been shown to affect us in any way.

There exists even no evidence that metaphysical entities could or should exist. There's absolutely no logical basis for any god.

However, I don't find it logically sound to then rule that existence out. It is, however, practically ruled out.

Do we agree, perhaps?

Lemme help with the confusion then.
The high horse part is you acting superior to both atheists and theists. And the fence part is the proverbial agnostic position you seem to pride yourself on.
Combine the two and you have a high horse with a fence on its back.

I think you're saying that undefined=0 and I disagree. I'm saying undefined can't equal 0 because 0 is a value. I'm saying undefined=null.

Is that a proverb of some kind?

I don't feel like I'm sitting on a fence about "god" just like I don't feel like I'm sitting on a fence about some math I don't know. I have no knowledge about it and I've moved past the point of being uncomfortable with that.

Apparently not all atheists, just the loud ones on tv.

I'm going to ignore you now.

>We're not even close to being able to prove sentience in any meaningful way.
oh dear... here we go again. i hope you can understand it this time.
>guise, we will never reach that point! we simply can't. how do i know? i just know we're too limited, guise.
>You fail at logic, but then again, faith and belief are inherently illogical.
>assuming i'm religious
you gotta calm down a little. making assumptions is... illogical (:

You need to simplify that man. It's the only way to convert the borderline believers. We must amass numbers.

Not going off it just seemed like you had something to say
So go ahead

I understand your frustration. I guess it was kind of vague what my position was, but I actually agree with you. I just think it's kind of a bad model to not explain what sort of fundamental problems exist with someone's viewpoints, and so I just wanted you to explain yourself.

>I'm going to ignore you now.
but... i've been with you for almost 2 hours now :( you can't do this to me. i'm the one who kept the thread from dying. you should be even more thankful now (:.

That makes a little more sense.

I do think my opinion is more reasonable than a theist or militant atheist. You've got me there.

But I don't understand your implied criticism of agnosticism. Why do you consider that bad?

i said "go off on"
take a little time to read.
in the likely case that you don't know what that means because you lack real human interaction go to urban dictionary.

I think we come very close to agreement. I go so far as to say the probability of a deity being proposed and defined and then having evidence to support that claim is so infinitesimally small that I'll rule it out (i.e. practically based rather than logically). I think you're saying essentially the same?

That is literally, and I use that word lightly and regretfully, impossible.

You can't convert anecdotal evidence. You can't convert the "lovey dovey God knows my purpose, God has my back" type of thinking. Egotism and intellectual disparity are just too prevalent.

Follow your works, do your research and engage in debate when warranted, but, personally, I tread lightly and take care not to be evangelical.
No I understand, I stood in the limbo and still do. I think the different terminology confuses people very easily. Atheism today HAS taken a different meaning, the one that you describe. The fedora tipping, god-hating, self-loathing cretins. But it's in the word, for Christ's sake.

latin prefix a- lacking, without
theism - a belief in a deity or deities

a-theism, without a belief in a deity or deities

lol

Easy tiger
I just want to know what you believe I don't want to pick holes in it

No. No it would not necessarily be testable.

Why would a god, if one existed, exist within the confines of human testing? Is that just based on hubris?

And even if this were so, why would we not have been able to detect it thus far?

I'd say you need to think about this some more.

I don't consider agnosticism bad. I consider it a point in a coordinate system of belief.
Gnostic being knowing and agnostic being unknowing.
A gnostic theist claims to know that there is no god, an agnostic one claims to have no such knowledge, but finds a God existing very unlikely.
Same thing goes for gnostic and agnostic theists, one claims to know, the other doesn't, but they both believe.

You don't understand anything that challenges you. This isn't the first time, either.

We're not saying the same thing, but I understand where you're coming from. I'm also far more willing to be tolerant of our differences since you're not believing in fairy tales. Cheers.