I am new

[Anonymous]

Do you think that logic is the center of the discussion? e.g. Evidence Vs Faith.
Let me explain briefly.
Atheists could be considered logical thinkers of this matter from a theists point of view.
And so the opposite is for theists, they seem illogical to atheists.
These logical people base their opinions around facts and evidence where as the illogical ones in this case are based around faith.
I think i believe that it is impossible for anyone to know about an afterlife, and so it goes the same for the existence of deities.
I guess by saying this, I am denying every religion and belief.
But i am also saying that atheists that deny the possibility of the existence of a god are in fact being illogical, however logical they think their claims may be, because they should understand that knowing that is impossible.

[Edwardo Piet]

I actually wish people posted faster sometimes there are some hours of the day where I am waiting and waiting for people to post new things, so that i can read and respond to them.

:S....it could just as easily be me saying that (since I've already said it several times in the past, and think it quite often).

But the point is that I don't blame anyone else of course, it's just because I post so much lol. it's no fault of theirs. And I don't blame anyone anyway so *shrugs*.

So as I said to anon, there's no reason to apologize whatsoever for taking your time. It's good to take your time and it's good to be productive...the former I persoanlly find hard to do...I try to do both :S

But i am also saying that atheists that deny the possibility of the existence of a god are in fact being illogical, however logical they think their claims may be, because they should understand that knowing that is impossible.

I agree if they deny it absolutely, in the sense that they are gnostic about it. If they claim to absolutely know that God doesn't exist. That's certainly irrational and/because of the fact that it's logically fallacious. You can't prove a negative, it's a logical fallacy - so you can't prove that God absolutely does not exist.

If however you simply do not believe God does exist, there's nothing irrational about that since there's no evidence to believe that he does. That's a rational stance.

In summary: 1. Positively believing that God definitely doesn't exist is irrational and logically fallacious. 2. Simply believing that God doesn't exist on the other hand because of the lack of evidence that he does, is a sound and rational stance.

EvF

[Anonymous]

But by God in this case you don't mean the God of the bible, but of a definition of God being a supernatural deity, right?
I try not to use the term God because more than often people immediately think the God of the bible.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes I mean any supernatural deity whatsoever. Deist gods included.

That's a good point actually, so as to not mislead some people, perhaps I should not capitalize 'god' unless it's the biblical 'God'

EvF

[Violet]

You can however, prove that a being cannot exist in some forms. It is impossible for us (at this current time at least) to disprove powerful beings in our universe... and i would say it is more than likely that they exist.

---

Oh, and you don't have to hit the 'enter' or 'return' key after every sentence, anonymous... all of the data will go through perfectly fine.

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you speaking of powerful aliens Saerules? Because yeah, powerful aliens are a different matter, because there's a difference between 'powerful' and 'supernatural', and a difference between 'creator' and an evolved being.

EvF

[Retorth]

Speaking for myself, I, like many other atheists - don't see God is impossible, I will believe if there is evidence. Until then there's in other words, no valid reason to believe.

Word for word, thats my thinking exactly. Gimmi a high five, my brother!

[Edwardo Piet]

*gives Retorth a virtual 'high give'*



EvF

[Violet]

Are you speaking of powerful aliens Saerules? Because yeah, powerful aliens are a different matter, because there's a difference between 'powerful' and 'supernatural', and a difference between 'creator' and an evolved being.

EvF

Indeed, and the supernatural cannot, so far as i see things, exist. If something appears to be supernatural, it is because we do not understand what nature means

[Edwardo Piet]

But how do you know that we could never understand things through non-natural means? Can you necessarily absolutely prove that negative for sure?

Who knows? Proving a negative is a fallacy. I do agree that if the supernatural had natural evidence then it would by definition by natural and not supernatural. But that doesn't prove the negative of the supernatural, because we haven't disproved that the supernatural could exist without us being able to detect it naturally...or at all! It could exist entirely independent of us, without us ever being able to detect it in any way, shape, or form. It could still exist. You can't prove a negative.

EvF