RE: When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?
December 29, 2015 at 12:11 am
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2015 at 12:28 am by paulpablo.)
(December 24, 2015 at 2:05 am)Delicate Wrote:(December 24, 2015 at 1:41 am)Goosebump Wrote: Again forgive my obtuseness. But is not atheist one who rejects belief in the existence of deities? Also is not an agnostic one who thinks something such as "god" can't be known. How then are these Mutually exclusive?
Properly speaking, an atheist is one who affirms that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is one who neither affirms God's existence or non-existence. A theist is one who affirms God's existence.
On the internet, however, as a rhetorical move designed to avoid the burden of proof, atheists often redefine atheism to mean lack of belief, or something to that effect. This definition is inconsistent.
But whichever definition you choose, and even if you believe atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, it logically follows that atheism is false or unjustified. See my argument for why.
You gave this as a link as to the reasoning behind why atheism and being agnostic are mutually exclusive. There's no reasoning in these paragraphs it's just you making the same statements. Starting a sentence with the words "Properly speaking," isn't reasoning, it's still just a statement. And you saying the definition of atheism is inconsistent doesn't make it inconsistent.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
Impersonation is treason.
