Thank you I appreciate that.

have no idea what this means? — JerseyFlight

It has something to do with the past. Usually, it relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. It includes using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, ecological markers, and material objects including art and artifacts.

Debating which narrative best explains an event, as well as the significance of different causes and effects, more or less has an element of subjective truth to it. You know, kinda like climate change.

But with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?

It includes using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, ecological markers, and material objects including art and artifacts. — 3017amen

You have not made your position clear. You claim that Jesus is God. You know this how specifically?

I was just curious about whether or not your adamancy about defining “god” before discussing has ever actually resulted in a definition that you were not atheistic about. — DingoJones

I personally don't have a problem with deism or pantheism. These live in the same world as atheism.

Should we call it "resentment" or should we feel pity for them? I'm an atheist and I can't help feeling sorry for us. If a God exists, humanity still has a purpose; if not, we need to construct a purpose - and humanity has great difficulty in creating purposes for itself -. — Gus Lamarch

Yes there's a lot of emotional baggage for sure.

As a Christian Existentialist myself, I get the whole nihilist deal. But it's just yet another paradox to resolve. For example, there is something and not nothing. What that something is, and what that nothing is, is a matter of intrigue viz. self-aware conscious beings.

In my opinion the most persuasive or consistent thing an atheist can say is no-thing. However, that in itself presents yet another irony/paradox to resolve...

You claim that Jesus is God. You know this how specifically? — JerseyFlight

Through the study of history as I mentioned.

Through the study of history as I mentioned. — 3017amen

What was it specifically about this study that gave you the knowledge that Jesus is God?

What was it specifically about this study that gave you the knowledge that Jesus is God? — JerseyFlight

Inductive reasoning.

But with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?

Alright, thanks. Now im curious why you responded with such hostility lol
Did you think I was being disingenuous?

Inductive reasoning. — 3017amen

The only thing I can deduce from your evasion is that you know very well you cannot sustain your fantastic claims. I have attempted to engage you on more than one occasion. The burden of proof is not something that can be shifted by the desperate need to get out from underneath it.

I have attempted to engage you on more than one occasion. — JerseyFlight

@3017amen is trying to engage your argument right now and you're articulating your lines to avoid going back to your starting point, which you know to be founded on no basis.

Where I bear the burden of proof there it is my responsibility to sustain and clarify my position. I do not bear the burden of proof for the fantastic claim that Jesus is God. Those who reject this standard can themselves be rejected without standards. End of story.

can themselves be rejected without standards — JerseyFlight

"Revolutionary Humanism" ladies and gentlemen.

Premise (1): If idea X is the negation of idea Y, then idea X exists only if idea Y is a credible idea.

Case study A:
Y – God exists (credible idea???)
X – God does not exist

Case study B:
Y – God does not exist (credible idea???)
X – God exists


In both cases, the problem is the word “credible”. Maybe is too fancy

The only thing I can deduce fr — JerseyFlight

No. That's formalism/ logico deductive reasoning not inductive reasoning.

With respect to the former, and with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?

which you know to be founded on no basis. — Gus Lamarch

On what "basis" are you referring?

It is impossible to make such a statement without first defining the term God. — JerseyFlight

On what "basis" are you referring? — 3017amen

He lost his point when he evaded your questioning. This evasion has no basis in this discussion.

He lost his point when he evaded your questioning. — Gus Lamarch

Imagine that!

LOL

LOL — 3017amen

:lol:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Atheism is simply the rejection of a proposition.
It isn't itself a proposition.
If someone asked you if you thought Big Bird was the most likely explanation of the beginning of the universe, your answer would (hopefully) be no. You aren't proposing anything by rejecting that claim. So I don't think your X,Y example works.

:grimace:

Atheism only addresses the claims of theism. Atheism is a hypothetical 'reaction' of varying degrees to theism's existing claims of (X, Y, Z).

But theism shares claims with others, hence, the and then some. I find it inconsistent to be an "atheist" about theism, but not about deism and pantheism, for instance - as both of them assert the same claims of creationism.

(1) Theistic claims (X, Y, Z).
(2) Atheism is a response - reaction to - theistic claims, theism itself is falsified by it's claims.
(3) (X, Y, Z) claims are not unique to theism.
(4) One can have an A-theist 'reaction' about unique claims of similar fashion, all which are (X, Y, Z).

"Atheists" can exist in practice with or without 'theism' so long as X, Y, Z claims exist. The label is not really relevant.