it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Nicolaou: Imagined.
Please think twice before you acuse me of lying. From page 15 of this thread:
Galaxie,
the point is that I don't want to make any assumptions regarding the existence or non-existence of God. [...] If you have a better word to describe the lack of presence than 'absence', I'm all ears.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
From Mirriam-Webster:
"Atheism"
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
There's a huge difference between something that is absent and something that does not exist.
I agree. But that wasn't my point. The use of "absent", as I've demonstrated by using a respected dictionary (and yet Cofty and others dare to claim they know better that Marriam-Webster) can adequately describe a state of non-presence. It doesn't make any claims about existence or non-existence and can accommodate BOTH.
However, I said that if someone had a better term to positively describe a state of not being present, without presuming existence or non-existence, I was listening. Yet, so far, no one came up with a better term than "absent".
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Nicolaou:
British Dictionary definitions for A-Expanda-1
prefix 1.not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocial
Word Origin
from Greek a-, an- not, without
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Cofty, since you take such delight in quoting Carl Sagan’s axiom:
“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”
here are two of Carl Sagan’s quotes that I fully agree with, and you should take to wit:
“[an atheist]…is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.”
and
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”
Sagan was a true open-end skeptic, and the quotes above demonstrate it. What you do isn't being skeptical - you come across as a dogmatic atheist bigot. Embrace it with honesty, or change.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
You refuse to define how you are using the word god.
Either you can't read, or you won't read, or you're lying, because I gave you a definition on page 14 of this thread, listing the traits of a deity that can be described as akin to the Christian god.
Define any specific god and then we can show why that god does not exist.
Compare with an earlier one:
Go ahead and define any "god" you like and it's non-existence can be proven
These two statements aren't the same. In the earlier one you challenge me to define "any god I like" - so I went ahead and gave you two - one that I liked, listing its desirable traits, which, as I'm sure wouldn't escape you, are akin to the Christian god; and another, the roman emperor-god Augustus. Oh, and also the sun-god Aten.
And you still kept crying for me to define a god for you to debunk. Well, that's the point: I gave you two examples of deities whose existence is attested. You don't get to pick what deity is meaningful and what deity isn't, just so you can make it fit in your model. It was meaningful to millions of people, who worshipped, erected temples and sustained a priesthood for these deities.
But on your recent statement you introduce a subtle, but important change: You want me to provide a specific god. I can understand why. Because you know you can't prove beyond any reasonable doubt that deities, of any kind, don't exist. You may feel confident that deities that have been worshiped up until now don't exist, but you realize you made a serious logical mistake and yes indeed you made a blanket statement regarding the non-existence of deities. The mere possibility that there may exist deity or deities that don't fit specifically any previous model destroys your proposition, and demonstrated that you're not a skeptic, you're a dogmatic atheist.
Stop lying
Stop being intellectually dishonest.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Sunny23,
If you had read past page 6 you would see that I have addressed that question and made a distiction between 'strong atheism' and 'skepticism' and provided references. There's no shortage of atheists who emphatically deny the existence of deities, but usually they hide behind a softer skeptical mask - until they are pushed a little bit to the edge. At that point, their arrogance surfaces and they blatantly disrespect and insult other people's ideas as if they're entitled to it. There are some notable examples right here in this forum. I call a spade a spade. The only true atheist is the one who emphatically denies the existence of deities. A skeptical who awaits evidence is neither a true atheist nor an agnostic in the classical sense of the term ("god, if exists, is unknowable"). All this discussion around the term absentheism is just a thought provoking discussion to see if open ended skepticism can stop being hijacked by strong atheism. I never intended that it became an overly serious academic debate. There are other venues for that. But some can't help it and take themselves too seriously ...
Any atheist who goes so far as to try and prove a negative has made a serious logical mistake
No kidding? Someone better tell that to Mr. Cofty.
Cofty: Go ahead and define any "god" you like and it's non-existence can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Defender of truth,
amen to that picture...
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
Viviane, you find one on page 14 of this thread. Apparently Cofty missed it too, because he is still asking for it. I should have bolded it...
In any case, it was merely an example of what a deity could ideally be for me. It's pointless to deconstruct it because it was merely a prop for the sake of argument. Don't sweat it...
Eden
it just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
*shakes head*
