Devilnaut

How about "Gee, I don't know."?

Hopefully this is the same answer that I would have given two thousand years ago to questions such as "what causes lightning?".

And some questions for you. Why, instead of addressing the issue of whether or not faith is a good thing, do you focus on whether or not The Realist practices it? What has this got to do with anything?

And, why don't you state whether or not you agree with his definition of faith before entering the discussion in such a way?

Edit to add:

Atheist's position is the lack of belief in any deity. It doesn't require faith (as defined in this thread) to dismiss a proposition based on lack of evidence. I'm sure there are a multitude of propositions that you do not accept for which there is no evidence against their being true (in fact, we could imagine as many as we like). This doesn't mean that you have faith in regards to the nonexistence of invisible tree sprites, for instance.

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

The Apologist

This is quite correct, but how does it pertain to what I posted? Atheists deny God, by faith. If you do not believe that God does not exist, you are not an atheist.

h

Atheists do not necessarily deny God. Please use more specific terms.

The Apologist

"Atheists" who do not deny God are agnostics.

seebs

Many atheists have an active and specific belief that there is no God; this belief is just as grounded in faith as its opposite.

People believe all sorts of stuff on faith; it doesn't seem to me like it should be a big deal.

Devilnaut

Can you explain what it means to deny God?

devilnaut

Edit to add:

I disagree. In this sense, belief is binary, and if you do not believe a given proposition to be true, it follows that you believe it to be false. The strength of belief in either direction should be influenced by evidence (NOT faith)

To use my earlier example, how much faith do you require to disbelieve in my proposition that there exist magical invisible tree sprites in each and every forest?
The big deal is that faith is utterly useless for determining the veracity of any claim. The practical definition of faith is belief without reason. This translates into simply believing what you are told to believe. Is it clear why this is a negative thing, or should I elaborate?

[ May 28, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

h

Apologist,
You are again wrong. An agnostic is someone that isn't Gnostic, hence [not]Gnostic. The term was created as kind of a joke by a dude that wanted to argue against both groups.

seebs

Etymology is not definition. The word "atheist" was used for centuries to denote people who explicitly denied the existance of God. It's been expanded since then, but etymology does not lead to meaning. Similarly, "agnostic" has a meaning which is not defined in terms of Gnosticism.

The Apologist

Denial of God is believing that He does not exist, thereby embracing atheism.

Pardon my ignorance. It seems I erroneously assumed that the dictionary provided accurate definitions. It says:

1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I suppose I should not have been so foolish as to actually trust the dictionary. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

h

Fine, i'll skip the formalities.

Assuming that the atheist in question is an atheist that has actively denied the existence of the Christian God, he would merely need to cite an instance of clear contradiction. To clarify, there could never be such a thing a square circle because of the nature of a circle, just as a triangle cannot have four corners because, by definition, a triangle has three corners.

If your God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent AND he desires that all should be "saved" AND you believe that in some cases people are not saved, then your God has been proven to not exist.