[True] atheists are, in fact, making a claim: that God doesn’t exist. That claim comes with a burden of proof.
People who are not making a claim – who admit that they neither know that God exists not that He doesn’t exist – are properly called agnostics; they have no burden of proof.
Have I gotten through the concrete yet?
No, atheists are just saying that the other guys haven’t proved Gods existence, therefore there is no reason to believe he exists, any more than Bigfoot.
St. Augustine was a pimp. He was smart, attractive and had crazy parties. He had all of the hottest chicks in town at his luxury pad and hooked up with a lot of them. This was later published in a book called “Confessions”. He was a rhetorician and one of the best. He was invited up to Milan in the Imperial court to be a rhetorician. He established himself there and at the time there were some disagreements between church and state. His opponent in these debates were against Bishop Ambrose of Milan. St. Augustine was among the best, but Bishop Ambrose was better. They would have public debates, but St. Augustine often went to the church to delve deeper in their debates, late at night with the literal midnight oil burning with Bishop Ambrose. St. Augustine’s mom (St. Monica) had been praying her whole life that St. Augustine would convert before his deathbead. St. Monica’s husband was a notorious alcoholic and disbeliever which gave her much turmoil in her life. St. Augustine eventually converted with the great help of Bishop Ambrose of Milan and later rose to become bishop, saint, and Doctor of the Church. St. Augustine’s father converted on his deathbed.
------ There is a Liturgy in the Catholic Church called the Liturgy of the Hours that all people of the cloth are required to read everyday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_the_Hours Every day, a person of significance in the church has an “Office of Readings”. #1 Author of “Office of Readings” in this four volume set - St. Augustine He has more contributions combined than other saints, martyrs, and Popes.
dude is gangster
Once again – for what seems the hundredth time – true atheists claim that God doesn’t exist; agnostics do not believe one way or the other.
I don’t care if you believe that or not, but at least understand that the statements I’m making about atheists are based on this definition. Unless you want to argue from the same definition, you’re simply wasting everyone’s time.
Maybe we should further delineate “atheism” into strong form, semi-strong form, and weak form atheists.
Weak form - I do not know if there is a God, and I have decided not to worship.
Semi-strong - I do not believe there is a God, so I have decided not to worship.
Strong - There is no such thing as God, and there is nothing to worship.
Somebody’s been studying the efficient market hypotheses to much.
You are getting badly confused between the views people hold and their rationale for said views. An atheist believes God does not exist, because there is no evidence to prove Gods existence.
I understand you don’t seem to grasp this, but given how much time you spend arguing here, clearly your time isn’t particularly valuable.
name one other thing you believe based on a LACK of evidence. it doesn’t make sense. you could believe in the tooth fairy based on a lack of evidence.
“god doesn’t exist. there’s no evidence to prove that he doesn’t exist, but i’m going to believe it anyway”. that’s identical to saying “god does exist. there’s no evidence to prove that he does exist, but i’m going to believe anyway”. the logic between being an atheist and a theist is identical. you’re submitting to faith because there is a lack of evidence to prove your position right. the fact we’re even talking about this and that fact that the atheists on this forum feel they need to justify their position tells you that there is faith involved. if there was a clear answer supported by evidence, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
not sure that symmetry is quite correct. You can’t really have evidence that something doesn’t exist, only evidence that it does exist or lack of evidence that it does exist.
Correct: An athiest believes God does not exist. Incorrect: because there is no evidence to prove God’s existence. -------
The rationale depends on the athiest, but all athiests believe that God does not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism “Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in deities include arguments that there is a lack of empirical evidence; the problem of evil; the argument from inconsistent revelations; the rejection of concepts that cannot be falsified; and the argument from nonbelief.”
I’m not confused at all.
I don’t grasp what you’re saying because what you’re saying is wrong.
My time is as valuable as I want it to be.
What makes you think that?
(Yes: we’ve been here before.)
Well, this thread has gone nowhere since I left…
Circles of irrationality.
Palantir, it’s time for you to agree that S2000 is right.
If not, maybe it’s time to invest in a dictionary.
He’s right about?
Did you put your ‘oh’ face in your picture? I’m not even mad, thats amazing!
so thats how you do it in the antipodes I should know, I’m half auzzie
Your statement is internally contradictory, brah. If it were true, it means that it is impossible to find evidence that supports it - because that would be evidence that something doesn’t exist, where “something” here means “evidence that something doesn’t exist.” If you have found evidence that ‘evidence that something doesn’t exist’ doesn’t exist, you have essentially disproved your own claim.
Thank you Mr. Russell.
