Theists are just wrong about what their propositions mean.
No language is context dependent.
Just butting in briefly to correct something John said. An “atheist” is merely someone who is without theism. Anyone who does not have a positive belief in theism is an atheist. If you’re not sure whether or not god exists, then you don’t have a positive belief in theism. If you don’t believe in theism, then you’re not a theist. If you lack theism, then you are an atheist. An atheist does not necessarily have to believe that a god couldn’t possibly exist. Personally, I too would say that the Judeo-Christian god is logically impossible, but there are some gods that are at least logically possible (even if there is no empirical evidence for their existence).
>“Chris, you’re right there’s no proof God doesn’t exist, but don’t you agree you don’t have to proof a negative?”
No because your not really making a negative statement. You are claiming that the universe was created through a series of random events without the help of supernatural power. That is a positive statement that needs to be proven as much as God would need to be proven. Without proof, it requires faith to believe in either position. I can understand having faith in God. What I can’t understand is having “faith” in no God.
Freiheit:
which one of the Gods is logically possible?
Theists are just wrong about what their propositions mean.
No language is context dependent.
If they are wrong, then you know what they mean. And thus can definitely say it’s bunk and so false. Welcome to atheism.
Language is context-driven to some extent (or else there would be no word ‘context’ of course), but I don’t understand how that relates to what I said.
I mean they are wrong about their propositions making sense. They think that “god exists” is capable of being true/false. They’re wrong.
So, “flowers exist” versus “god exists”. In the first case, “exist” basically means “to show up”. In the second, “exist” means “doesn’t have to show up”. Its actually almost like the exact opposite meaning of exist 
while your claim that “there is no God” has never been proven, nor has the position that the universe was created through a series of random events
First, I thought my position was that talking about God is about as usefull as digging a hole with a spatula.
Second, random is the wrong word. It is too general, and could mean almost anything other than purposeful action. But it has been proven that the universe exists as it does now (at the very least) through non-purposeful actions; galaxy formation, solar system formation, planetary formation, the processees of evolution. All of these things are non-purposeful (and far from random. There is a method to it, even if it is not directed).
he only “logical” position it seems to me would be for you to be an agnostic like someone say Einstein or, hey, Rothbard
Fair enough, if we’re talking about logic. But I would say the same to theists. But…Logic shmogic. The only factual position is to say “these topics are pointless, get off it.”
whole lightening striking a puddle of mud thing
And anybody is? That is age old Louis Pasteur stuff. Deap sea vents is where its at now, and even that hasnt been proven.
Also check this out; TED created life, TED IS GOD!
circumstantial evidence for intelligent design
Once again, would love to see this. I am an anthropologist by training, this has a huge impact on my work.
What I can’t understand is having “faith” in no God.
And why not? What seperates faith in God, Random, or Spaghetti Monster any different?
To me the problem is faith, not God or Random.
In Norse mythology, the realms of Niflheim (ice) and Muspelheim (fire) collided in Ginnungagap (the void). The forces of these two realms led to the creation of what we know as the universe.
If only people would learn to say, “I don’t know.”
Even according to the Bible, God is supposed to be incomprehensible to humans…so even on its own terms the notion of this god seems impossible to believe (or disbelieve) in in any meaningful sense.
>If only people would learn to say, “I don’t know.”
This is my entire point. People claim to be atheist and have this smarter than thou attitude when their position is just as illogical as someone who believes in God. The universe was either created by God (theist position) or it was created by natural forces (atheist position) neither position has ever been proven. To believe the universe was created by natural forces without any proof of such assertion is just as illogical as someone who believes in the other. Thus the only logical position would be to say, I don’t know. In my opinion atheist hold their position that there is no God out of nothing more than personal preference for a world without God, not in any logic. And all the while demonizing everyone else as stupid and crazy and touting themselves as having superior intellect.
I believe the universe was created by God out of faith. What leads atheists to believe the universe was created by natural forces? Faith? No, personal preference that they try to pass off as “logic” or “science” or “reason” or what have you. I can respect someone who says “I don’t know”, not someone who says I’m crazy for not having proof of what I believe, when they have no proof for what they believe either.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
@Chris: The universe did not have to be created. You’re creating a false dilemma in order to strengthen your side as one of the two choices, when really there are closer to infinite options.
How can you have evidence for or against a noun that doesn’t make sense.
Well, I guess your brain in incapable of conceiving anything but nouns, so let me rephrase it. Where is your proof that the universe was formed by a series of random events in nature?
How’s understand now? Or do Ignosts not understand it phrased that way either?
>“@Chris: The universe did not have to be created. You’re creating a false dilemma in order to strengthen your side as one of the two choices, when really there are closer to infinite options.”
This is where you get into the whole multiverse or infinate universe theories which is just to the concept that the universe was formed as a result of unintelligent forces of nature that have existed in infinity, as opposed to intelligent forces/designer that has existed in infinity. There is no false dilemma, it is either or. To refuse to entertain the possibility that it could be the latter, when there is no evidence suggesting either is absolutely absurd.
Or we simply claim that, given the information we have at this moment in time, we have no idea how what we perceive (the universe) came into existence. When you’re talking about the creation of the universe it is not an either-or scenario as much as you would like it to be.
If religion and atheism are the same, how can you have a preference for either?
I’d certainly have no problem with there being a God. Since I can just use God make all kinds of stuff happen or pass blame off. I’d also like to be a millionaire, but I don’t believe I am just because I have a preference for it.
and I thought we went over this. Positing ‘God’ as the creator doesn’t solve a problem, but creates a question. And then snowballs into all kinds of make believe. If existence requires creation, then God can’t exist. Since it oould require him to be created in order to exist. Existence being necessary to doing action. If existence doesn’t require creation, then God doesn’t need to exist at all.
I mean that the noun “god” does not make sense. It has no meaningful content. It is not capable of being used meaningfully in propositions.
Well, Sieben. I think ‘ignostic’ is mixing Greek and Latin morphemes inappropriately
Thank you. I think the carelessness of the word may show it wasn’t really intended as a serious term.
Maybe “askeptheism/ askoptheism”? Unable to examine a god? Or perhaps alogotheist, or abathotheist? Does that work? Can those words be made? Is that better?