Atheism vs Theism confusion

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Noooooo...

"I believe a god exists." or "I do not believe a god exists." are not truth claims about a god's existence. They are only true or false in the sense that the person speaking could be lying about their beliefs.

"A god exists." or "A god does not exist." are truth claims about a god's existence.

Someone who says, "I don't think God exists, but I don't know if it is true" is called an agnostic atheist.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[devolved]

Explain how I'm wrong.

Do atheist claim that atheism is true or not? If not, then how is there any truth in atheism?

If there's no truth in atheism and you actually value truth, then shouldn't you look elsewhere?

You seem to be ignorant of semantics of the word "true" and "truth", and you are inconsistently applying it to various concepts. That's why. You are switching the context, and then squeezing the meaning out of concepts that are not warranted.


Just because a concept is not a claim about truth, doesn't mean that the concept itself isn't true .

Consider this: "I don't know and I can't believe that Leprechauns exist, I'll believe it when I see it."... This statement is not a claim about some true reality about leprechauns. It doesn't however mean that it's automatically incorrect statement and there's no truth in it.

You are switching semantic context and proclaiming victory

Again:

Atheism is essentially a form of "decision pending" on a condition that better evidence arrives.

If better evidence doesn't arrive, then it will keep being a "decision pending".

 

[Chriliman]

Can you please define truth for me in your own words. I don't want you cutting and pasting dictionary definitions. I think you misunderstand what truth is as a concept.

In the context of theism vs atheism, the truth about God is unavoidable, eventually we'll all know the truth, it's only a matter of time.

What if there's no way of finding out right there and then? How would you know and accept anything? On which bases would you claim such belief other than a random guess? The whole point of illustration was to show you that:

1) Without conclusive evidence the truth claims are useless
2) The opposite of believe is not non-belief.

Atheism is essentially a form of "decision pending" on a condition that better evidence arrives.

I'll accept that.

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it. In your case, your claim is based on a 100 year old leaflet that was written down as a story about gumball machines .

Okay, in that case the gumballs represent the written word of God and the written word of God leads us to the truth of God, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Chriliman]

You seem to be ignorant of semantics of the word "true" and "truth", and you are inconsistently applying it to various concepts. That's why. You are switching the context, and then squeezing the meaning out of concepts that are not warranted.


Just because a concept is not a claim about truth, doesn't mean that the concept itself isn't true .

Consider this: "I don't know and I can't believe that Leprechauns exist, I'll believe it when I see it."... This statement is not a claim about some true reality about leprechauns. It doesn't however mean that it's automatically incorrect statement and there's no truth in it.

You are switching semantic context and proclaiming victory

Again:

Atheism is essentially a form of "decision pending" on a condition that better evidence arrives.

If better evidence doesn't arrive, then it will keep being a "decision pending".

So your definition of your own atheism is that you don't actually know if God exists or not because you haven't come accross evidence of God?

If that's the case, then that's fine

 

[devolved]

Okay, in that case the gumballs represent the written word of God and the written word of God leads us to the truth of God, which is Jesus Christ.

No.. Gumballs represent God ... and would would be some book you found about gumball machines... but you seem to completely miss the point fir the analogy.

 

[devolved]

So your definition of your own atheism is that you don't actually know if God exists or not because you haven't come accross evidence of God?

If that's the case, then that's fine

It's not my definition. That's what atheism is. Both lack of knowledge and lack of belief due to insufficient evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

In the context of theism vs atheism, the truth about God is unavoidable, eventually we'll all know the truth, it's only a matter of time.



I'll accept that.



Okay, in that case the gumballs represent the written word of God and the written word of God leads us to the truth of God, which is Jesus Christ.

Only you're opinion.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Right, and atheists do not make either claim.

Nooooooooo...

As an atheist, I say "I do not believe in any gods".

Why. Is. This. So. Hard. To. Understand?

 

[bhsmte]

Someone who says, "I don't think God exists, but I don't know if it is true" is called an agnostic atheist.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

More like, i dont believe a certain god exists, but i could be wrong.

 

[devolved]

In the context of theism vs atheism, the truth about God is unavoidable, eventually we'll all know the truth, it's only a matter of time.

I'd really advice you to think through statements that you post, because being continually and demonstrably wrong can damage your credibility and encourage other people not take you seriously... because you don't take your own thought process seriously.

How would you tell a difference or know the truth about God if you believe in God and then die and God doesn't exist?

 

[Chriliman]

I'd really advice you to think through statements that you post, because being continually and demonstrably wrong can damage your credibility and encourage other people not take you seriously... because you don't take your own thought process seriously.

How would you tell a difference or know the truth about God if you believe in God and then die and God doesn't exist?

That goes without saying. Obviously if God does not exist, you won't know it even after your body dies. The point is that if God does exist, you'll eventually find out in this life or after your mortal body passes away.

 

[devolved]

That goes without saying. Obviously if God does not exist, you won't know it even after your body dies. The point is that if God does exist, you'll eventually find out in this life or after your mortal body passes away.

If God is God of deism... you would again have no idea. There more than one God concept, you know that right? So, you are wring again

 

[Chriliman]

If God is God of deism... you would again have no idea. There more than one God concept, you know that right? So, you are wring again

Right, how could anyone know God unless he reveal himself to us first?

There may be multiple God concepts, but only One true God who gives knowledge of himself through His word.

 

[bhsmte]

That goes without saying. Obviously if God does not exist, you won't know it even after your body dies. The point is that if God does exist, you'll eventually find out in this life or after your mortal body passes away.

Opinion.

 

[Davian]

That goes without saying. Obviously if God does not exist, you won't know it even after your body dies. The point is that if God does exist, you'll eventually find out in this life or after your mortal body passes away.

If you do not have any way of knowing that this "god" exists before you die, how do you know about it?

 

[devolved]

Right, how could anyone know God unless he reveal himself to us first?

There may be multiple God concepts, but only One true God who gives knowledge of himself through His word.

Well, there are multiple gods like that through history. Virtually every culture has some claim to Holy Books or prophets who relay "God's word" to people.

How many times are you planning to be wrong on this thread ?

 

[Chriliman]

Well, there are multiple gods like that through history. Virtually every culture has some claim to Holy Books or prophets who relay "God's word" to people.

How many times are you planning to be wrong on this thread ?

Sure, but that doesn't negate the logic behind God revealing himself through His spoken word in order for us to understand his purposes and why he made us. Christianity is the only faith that claims God's word became a man in order to teach us the way to God through Jesus Christ.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's pointless debating this issue with Chrili... he refuses to understand.

 

[Chriliman]

It's pointless debating this issue with Chrili... he refuses to understand.

I understand that you do not believe in God. That's the extent of your position. There is nothing else for me to understand about your position until you offer reasons why I should stop believing in God.

If you have no reasons why your position is more correct than mine then there is nothing for me to understand other than the fact that you don't believe in God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I understand that you do not believe in God. That's the extent of your position. There is nothing else for me to understand about your position until you offer reasons why I should stop believing in God.

If you have no reasons why your position is more correct than mine then there is nothing for me to understand other than the fact that you don't believe in God.

I'm fairly sure I've told you why I don't believe: there is no good reason to believe.