An absolute negation needs the proof of the positive to be certain?
Absolute negation: "You will never be anything but a drunk."
To be certain, requiring no faith, the positive, observing the rest of the life, have had to been witnessed. Yet, how could it have? It has yet to exist in the circumstance.
The same can be said about Atheism?
Are Atheist Certain?
Perhaps it only bothers those of us who cannot control the "sound" of the reading voice in our heads. Mine definitely yells when it reads all caps. In fact, I just tried to force the head voice to read both sentences of your previous comment in the same tone. It was difficult, if not impossible.
Also, I read fast but paragraphs of all caps slow me down and trip me up while reading for some reason.
Odds: the chances or likelihood of something happeningor being the case.
Does being indoctrinated into Christianity guarantee the odds of a person will be a christian?
If that is the case, then everyone who grew up in the church, should still be in the church then, right? No? Then how did they make it out? Are they the exception?
If they are....
It appears the argument that growing up religious makes you religious has some exceptions. Then if that is the case, then the proposition, ..., is no longer true unless you qualify it; which is like it not be true because you have to explain the exceptions.
Exceptions do not make rules. That's why they're called exceptions.
Lets substitute this definition given here for "odds."
"Does being indoctrinated into Christianity guarantee the chances or likelihood of a person to be a christian?" What does guaranteeing odds mean?
Let's say though for argument's sake that what is guaranteed is certainty is meant here. Indoctrination into Christianity makes you with absolute certainty a Christian.
Then what follows is still a non sequitur: Because everyone "who grew up in a church" would be indoctrinated and be a Christian this would not preclude them from shedding their belief in some future date and adopt another religion, or do the wise thing and forswear the whole thing.
Permanence is not a necessary condition of indoctrination. Logically your reasoning is invalid. And semantically it is hogwash really.
Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.
My favorite line:
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see? --- Alice In Wonderland
I would have to ask the same about you, are you certain? Assuming you are a "believer in a god", how in the world can you be so sure you have the right one? Hundreds of gods worshiped by many different cultures over the centuries, and you seriously think you got it right? Or, are you just playing the odds because you can't sleep at night otherwise, is life just too difficult without some invisible god looking out for you on your journey?
I'm as certain there are NO GODS as I am certain there's not a pink elephant in my living room, and of that I'm pretty freaking certain. Now there's just you and your problem, good luck with that.
"I am absolutely certain I do not KNOW IF there is a god (or gods) or Not! Thus, I AM an AGNOSTIC!"
Why is it you do not know? How do you know something? Is it through reasoning? If the logic works out, do you know then? Is it through experience? Do you have to see it or go through it to believe it? Can you assume and know based on that assumption? Is it true that your knowing is based on you believing it to be true? Your belief is your qualifier, right?
A man walks into a shop. as he enters through the door he bumps a lady. The lady smacks the man and walks off. The man walks up to the counter and tells the salesman what happened. The salesman says, I see you met my wife. The man tells the salesman he did not know that was his wife. The salesman says to know his wife is to love her.
In that scenario, the man didn't know that was the salesman's wife till the idea was communicated to him and he was able to believe in the fact. From that moment on, he knew the man's wife. Or at least, he knew of her. Absent the notification, the belief wouldn't exist and the knowing wouldn't exist.
So then, what do you mean when you say, I am certain I do not know...? I think you mean that you are unable to believe. Which leads us to evidence.
"I am also absolutely POSITIVE there is NOT sufficent factual evidence (ZERO!) any god, or gods are real! Therefore, I AM ALSO an ATHEIST!"
Sufficent: enough; adequate
Factual: concerned with what is actually the case rather than interpretations ofor reactions to it.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Indicate: be a sign or symptom of; strongly imply: admit to or state briefly:
First, am I to deduce from your proposition that you depend on evidence to foster a belief? Then is it the case that evidence is argued to mean many different cases. Meaning, do lawyers use the same evidence to argue for a defendants guilt and innocence?
As we all are aware of, I assume, courts don't require proof because proof of the crime dissipates when the crime does. Proof is observable. Evidence is used to point to the supposed reality.
And if that is the case, your beliefs are based on your desire to want to believe.
The bible is full of empirical statements. Therefore, it has facts. Those facts only point to the actual reality that exist too. That reality is evident as the bible says, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
Yet, if your belief is based on evidence, then how can you claim atheism? Don't atheist claim to know. Knowing leaves no doubt, right?
"And I am an ATHEIST ACTIVIST!"
So what are you really an activist of?
SO YEA, I AM VERY CERTAIN!
do lawyers use the same evidence to argue for a defendants guilt and innocence?
Lawyers selectively choose from the same pile of available evidence, and some evidence holds more weight than others. Hearsay and eyewitness testimony, (particularly copies of translations of copies of translations of 2000 year old hearsay of eyewitness testimony) for example, is not as reliable as DNA evidence or clear video footage identifying the defendant. And if no evidence can be provided, (like for the proposed existence of any of the thousands of deities including Yahweh) the case is simply dismissed.
Are you certain 2+2 doesn't equal 5? Are you certain a circle doesn't have four 90 corners?