I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).
They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief.
You don't have to believe anything to be an atheist.
This is a most ridiculous and incredulous statement and it does not ring true.
You would have to believe at least one thing to be an atheist (depending on how you are using the term), there is no evidence or poor evidence for God or gods. Otherwise you would hold to some other belief such as belief in a deity. Not only this, that central belief in no God or gods affects how you look at, think about, and explain the world, the universe, life, morality, and so much more.
"An atheist, a humanist and an agnostic walk into a restaurant.
The hostess says, “Table for one?”"
Atheism has no doctrines or popes and is not meant to be a replacement for theism or a worldview. Atheism is nothing more than 'a (not) - theism'...
Do you believe that? "Nothing more"? So you at least believe that. That is SOMETHING.
Beliefs are not voids. Atheism is not a void. Principles are build upon other principles to negate or disbelieve in God. To disbelieve in God you have to have a counter-belief. It is as simple as that.
Here is your starting principle, you does not believe in God or gods.
there is no belief involved, at least not an "atheism" that applies to all atheists. You are confused.
No, it is you who are confused. Atheists write books and debate on things they have no belief in? How can that be? How can they speak about nothing?
"To say you simply lack a belief about something is to say that you have no beliefs about it."
That is a belief. As soon as you SAY you have to believe something.
You continually show me (as do all atheists I come across) that you have numerous beliefs about this God you say does not exist or that you say there is no evidence He exists.
If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.
What kind of atheist are you?
Is this you asking about my beliefs or trying to argue about labels? Let me help you - I am a skeptic. Skepticism is the part of my worldview which led to my atheism.
Arguing about specific labels or things you would have to believe.
Do you believe that underlined part?
You are skeptical of God. Why classify yourself as an atheist then? I could be skeptical but still believe. Why atheist? Because you believe it fits the bill. You first have to believe there is little or no or supporting evidence for God's existence. That is a belief that leads you to your greater worldview. That greater worldview has to believe many things for you to hold it all built upon a core belief or beliefs. You look at life through naturalism, materialism, and secularism.
Do you believe the biblical God exists?
You told me to ask you about your belief. I did. Here is what you said and my response:
YOU: "If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions."
ME: "What kind of atheist are you?"
Now you accuse me of labelling you but a label provides information on what a person believes. You are skeptical of God. That is a belief. You call yourself an atheist. That is a belief. It is a specific belief about something, in this case God or gods. It is a belief that no God or gods exist or at least that there is no evidence for such a Being or beings existing.
Ok. Not that this makes any difference - A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.
Dogmatic of you.
So what, to that statement?
"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone."
"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."
What's your point here? You've admitted the Bible is your authority...
You said that the biblical flood did not cause all the different rock layers. I reminded you that the majority of fossils occur by sedimentary rock. Although fossilization can occur through volcanic activity (the same principle is applied - quick cataclismic encasing of the living thing) the vast majority occur by sedimentary rock formations. That is the point.
I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it.
Convince you that your interpretation of scripture is wrong? It seems to me that by admitting "the Word of God" needs to be interpreted by you, you've already conceded the basis of pretty much everything you argue for...
What I admit to is that a correct interpretation of Scripture is available that is evident from logic and reason. If you think you can make a case that I misinterpret Scripture I invite you to demonstrate I have done so. I remind you that your previous attempt was pathetic. I provide justification for the way I think but if you want to challenge it then go ahead. IMO, the reason you won our debate on the subject of prophecy is because of the mindset of the judges. You have many like-minded people who cannot divorce reason from herd-mentality and group-think, in spite of the arguments put forth. In the Olivet Discourse, the audience of the address is very clearly the disciples. The time frame is very clearly the 1st-century. These things are confirmed by the text and other gospels/Scripture on the subject matter. There is no way you can embellish the clear meaning from the text itself except by eisegesis (what you read into the text), not from what is present in the text, or from gleaning the author's meaning.
What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe.
No. At most it would be a debate over Christianity or not-Christianity, but that doesn't describe this discussion - I'm not arguing against Christianity, but rather a particular belief of some Christians which puts priority on a subjective interpretation of the Bible over objective evidence of the world.
The underlying issue is which worldview competes for the hearts and minds of others for worldviews are in conflict. The reason you are on DebateArt is that you think you have something valuable to share from your worldview, or are interested in exploring and testing your skepticism and its validity or lack of. You may think you need to inform others of how gullible they are. Well, what about your gullibility? You constantly argue against Christianity because of your belief system. Do you think science has nailed down origins? That is what we are speaking about and ties into faith as the basis for what we believe.
Subjective interpretation! Says you. Do you believe there is no objective interpretation of the Bible? You charge subjective interpretation. Prove it from the texts itself, not from your compiled list of naysayers or by mere assertion. The assertion is not proof.
Objective evidence? What scientist was there at the beginning? They interpret the data just like Christians do. They work from a presupposition. The only avenue they have available is the resent past or the present. That is their key to unlocking the mysteries of the distant past that no human being was there to witness. And they call that science. They approach the whole of science from naturalism when it does not have the ingredients necessary for science in the first place. Science needs to observe repeatability and uniformity of nature. How does chance happenstance provide such a platform? When are you guys going to answer that question?
