Quote:
Originally posted by WOLFGIR:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God.
Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing.
An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience.
|
Er, just one question here Yorick;
But wouldn´t a believer do the same in reverse as the Atheist ion your example? Doesn´t your belief and faith in God makes you see the world from that belief and the Atheist in it? Sorry, I might be grasping a straw here, but I didn´t like the phrasings really, and might also suit me right for reading the complete thread but oboy... This one grows...
I have always called myself an atheist, maybe I should be an agnostic. But I actually prefer to call my self a human without beliefs plain and simple, and thus, I have never placed much value to any descriptions. And as Cerek said above. I don´t think I would have changed. I still do what I think is right, and try to do my best.
And just for the argument of changing to a lighter side of the discussion: Congrats to the gig Yorick! When will be able to see you live in Göteborg?? 
[/QUOTE]Thanks Wolf
There is a big diff between the statement "There is no God" and "I do not know God" or even "I have no experience of a God, and do not have any knowledge of one existing".
The latter two allow for anothers reality. The first - an atheistic statement - devalidates the experience of others.
In any case, atheists are wrong.
(I hear you Barry)
God exists. The very fact that we are talking about God proves that he exists - even as an abstract concept alone. You cannot talk about something which does not exist. WHERE God exists (Inside the human mind? Throughout all creation?) is a matter for discussion. WHAT God is (A mental creation? A creator awareness? A physical entity?) Is also open for discussion.
We do not know every vast reach of the universe. Just say for example, that there exists a part of the universe where the dreams, hopes and fears of humans are actually tangible. God would exist there because he exists in the minds of humans.
The argument then wuld not be whether he exists or not, but whether he exists IN THE WAY WE SAY HE DOES. Which is altogether different.
The point I am making is that you cannot know for certain anything does NOT exist. But you can that something does - relative to what existence is.
I am stating I know for certain God does exist in my life. I'm as certain as I am that love exists in my life.
When I make my statement, I do not devalidate your experience, but in stating unequivically that he does not exist anywhere - including my life - you devalidate mine. [img]smile.gif[/img]