Moderator: Community Team
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Evidence. Evidence that you choose not to see as evidence. And note, there is a distinction between empirical evidence and evidence. However, I am not going to belabor the point further.Metsfanmax wrote:Perhaps by someone who has never properly used the word "evidence" before. No one would take it as "evidence" that alien life forms do not exist simply because we have never seen them, yet for some reason people take it as "evidence" that God does not exist for exactly the same reason.PLAYER57832 wrote: Lack of evidence is not proof, no, but it can be seen as evidence.
You have failed to show in what my arguments are not sensible. My view is the only rational view presented here; to make an assertion as to the existence of God without actual evidence one way or the other is the nonsensical view. I challenge you to provide me with even one logical justification for believing either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.Irritates? No. Its just that you completely and utterly fail to make sensible arguments.
I disagree with snorri and Neoteny, and many people who post here. You, I cannot even truly disagree with, because, well, there is just nothing there. Its like disagreeing with a vacume..
john9blue wrote:I was going to write a long post, but metsfan knows what he is talking about, so I'd be wasting my time.
Lack of belief is agnosticism.
My assertion is that for either position, there is evidence, but not absolute proof that can convince someone else. I don't believe this is snorri's position, however. That he acknowledges there might be a God, if other than strictly in the esoteric, "I cannot convince you of this, so OK, I accept its possible no matter how wrong I feel you are" sense, would indicate he is more agnostic than atheist.john9blue wrote: Atheism is a positive assertion, not a negative one. You say "something other than God created the universe" and claim you don't need proof?
You can keep on saying that you have evidence, but that doesn't make it true. The only thing you have managed to produce as "evidence" is that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God. That's hardly a logically rigorous argument.PLAYER57832 wrote:Evidence. Evidence that you choose not to see as evidence. And note, there is a distinction between empirical evidence and evidence. However, I am not going to belabor the point further.Metsfanmax wrote:Perhaps by someone who has never properly used the word "evidence" before. No one would take it as "evidence" that alien life forms do not exist simply because we have never seen them, yet for some reason people take it as "evidence" that God does not exist for exactly the same reason.PLAYER57832 wrote: Lack of evidence is not proof, no, but it can be seen as evidence.
You have failed to show in what my arguments are not sensible. My view is the only rational view presented here; to make an assertion as to the existence of God without actual evidence one way or the other is the nonsensical view. I challenge you to provide me with even one logical justification for believing either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.Irritates? No. Its just that you completely and utterly fail to make sensible arguments.
I disagree with snorri and Neoteny, and many people who post here. You, I cannot even truly disagree with, because, well, there is just nothing there. Its like disagreeing with a vacume..
My point was that we don't outright reject the possibility of God. I can't be bothered with giving the justifications right now but maybe you can look around the web a little bit.Metsfanmax wrote:You just did exactly what I said. You said that you claim to know a justification for not believing God exists, but you failed to say what it is.Snorri1234 wrote: Except that none of us do this. We say that there is justification for not believing God exists, much as we say there is a justification for believing that evolution is real or a number of other things we say it's perfectly reasonable to take a stance on.
Those are the same thing.That is not evidence for the position that God does not exist. It is merely a pragmatic reason why one might choose not to believe in a god.
It must be the case by definition. Did you even understand my explanation (which you ignored)?My position is that I have no position, so yes, your description of it is correct. I think that having a religious belief (even if that belief is that no gods exist) is silly. If this position irritates you, it is only because it is so firmly instilled in everyone's consciousness that they are either religious or atheist, when I do not see why this must be the case.
If you get upset that I am supposedly classifying you in a group you don't belong in, then perhaps you shouldn't do it to me. I reject your assertion that I must be either an atheist or theist. It is not the case that I believe God does not exist. It is also not the case that I believe God exists. You can call it a "double negative" all you want, but using illegitimate semantics isn't going to convince me that I do not understand my stance on this issue. This isn't a complicated issue. Put "aliens" in place of "God." Then my sentence makes sense, does it not? I have no reason to believe that aliens exist, since they have not been observed, and yet I have no reason to believe that aliens do not exist, because there is no proof (empirical or otherwise) that they do not. Your statement is analogous to saying that because I have no evidence for the existence of aliens, I must therefore believe that aliens do not exist, which is patently absurd.Snorri1234 wrote: You already don't believe. You are not in quantum-superposition, it is by definition impossible to be neither atheist or theist. It is not a scale with atheism on the one end and theism on the other with agnosticism very rationally in between, it's a coin with two side and agnosticism is on an entirely different coin.
Just try to substitute "belief" with other terms: "I neither love nor don't love KFC" Does that statement make sense? No, because "neither...nor" is just a different way of saying "I don't....and also don't" leading to a double negative so your statement reads:
"I don't believe in God and I believe in God."
STOP ACTING LIKE AGNOSTICISM IS SOME MIDDLEGROUND! IT IS BULLSHIT.PLAYER57832 wrote:john9blue wrote:I was going to write a long post, but metsfan knows what he is talking about, so I'd be wasting my time.
Lack of belief is agnosticism.
Lack or doubt. Most usually, it is defined as doubt.My assertion is that for either position, there is evidence, but not absolute proof that can convince someone else. I don't believe this is snorri's position, however. That he acknowledges there might be a God, if other than strictly in the esoteric, "I cannot convince you of this, so OK, I accept its possible no matter how wrong I feel you are" sense, would indicate he is more agnostic than atheist.john9blue wrote: Atheism is a positive assertion, not a negative one. You say "something other than God created the universe" and claim you don't need proof?
At any rate, it is fair to say that an agnostic is more of a particular kind of critical thinker than the other 2 groups, but to assert one is more rational or intelligent, etc is wrong.
I am not acting like agnosticism is a "middle ground." I am arguing that atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, and agnosticism is the choice not to flip the coin.Snorri1234 wrote: STOP ACTING LIKE AGNOSTICISM IS SOME MIDDLEGROUND! IT IS BULLSHIT.
I can not be more agnostic than atheist. I am both because the two terms are really not describing the same thing. Of course I don't think there is absolute proof that there's no God, I don't think there's absolute proof that evolution is true or that the world wasn't made last thursday. The problem with absolute knowledge however doesn't mean I can't make a choice as to what is the most reasonable stance to take on those issues. I don't believe in jones' family of burpleburples so I'm atheist about them. I am also agnostic about them, but I don't act like being atheist about it is just as rational as being theistic about them.
lol?Metsfanmax wrote:Any philosophically meaningful God is by definition not observable by humanity, and so to claim that something we could not discover does not exist, with any amount of certainty, is just a ridiculous assertion.
This bears repeating.Snorri1234 wrote:I can not be more agnostic than atheist. I am both because the two terms are really not describing the same thing. Of course I don't think there is absolute proof that there's no God, I don't think there's absolute proof that evolution is true or that the world wasn't made last thursday. The problem with absolute knowledge however doesn't mean I can't make a choice as to what is the most reasonable stance to take on those issues. I don't believe in jones' family of burpleburples so I'm atheist about them. I am also agnostic about them, but I don't act like being atheist about it is just as rational as being theistic about them.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
An actual response is better than a nonsensical statement.Neoteny wrote:lol?Metsfanmax wrote:Any philosophically meaningful God is by definition not observable by humanity, and so to claim that something we could not discover does not exist, with any amount of certainty, is just a ridiculous assertion.
Do you read what you type? Because it is hilarious.
This bears repeating.Snorri1234 wrote:I can not be more agnostic than atheist. I am both because the two terms are really not describing the same thing. Of course I don't think there is absolute proof that there's no God, I don't think there's absolute proof that evolution is true or that the world wasn't made last thursday. The problem with absolute knowledge however doesn't mean I can't make a choice as to what is the most reasonable stance to take on those issues. I don't believe in jones' family of burpleburples so I'm atheist about them. I am also agnostic about them, but I don't act like being atheist about it is just as rational as being theistic about them.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Why would you have such a discussion if you cannot even be civil about it?Neoteny wrote:I'm working on it. Shut the f*ck up.
damn, how hard is it to grasp simple concepts?Metsfanmax wrote:If you get upset that I am supposedly classifying you in a group you don't belong in, then perhaps you shouldn't do it to me. I reject your assertion that I must be either an atheist or theist. It is not the case that I believe God does not exist. It is also not the case that I believe God exists. You can call it a "double negative" all you want, but using illegitimate semantics isn't going to convince me that I do not understand my stance on this issue. This isn't a complicated issue. Put "aliens" in place of "God." Then my sentence makes sense, does it not? I have no reason to believe that aliens exist, since they have not been observed, and yet I have no reason to believe that aliens do not exist, because there is no proof (empirical or otherwise) that they do not. Your statement is analogous to saying that because I have no evidence for the existence of aliens, I must therefore believe that aliens do not exist, which is patently absurd.Snorri1234 wrote: You already don't believe. You are not in quantum-superposition, it is by definition impossible to be neither atheist or theist. It is not a scale with atheism on the one end and theism on the other with agnosticism very rationally in between, it's a coin with two side and agnosticism is on an entirely different coin.
Just try to substitute "belief" with other terms: "I neither love nor don't love KFC" Does that statement make sense? No, because "neither...nor" is just a different way of saying "I don't....and also don't" leading to a double negative so your statement reads:
"I don't believe in God and I believe in God."
Except that it isn't. It's a different coin you can flip. One dealing with the idea of absolute knowledge and whether it's possible.Metsfanmax wrote:I am not acting like agnosticism is a "middle ground." I am arguing that atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, and agnosticism is the choice not to flip the coin.Snorri1234 wrote: STOP ACTING LIKE AGNOSTICISM IS SOME MIDDLEGROUND! IT IS BULLSHIT.
I can not be more agnostic than atheist. I am both because the two terms are really not describing the same thing. Of course I don't think there is absolute proof that there's no God, I don't think there's absolute proof that evolution is true or that the world wasn't made last thursday. The problem with absolute knowledge however doesn't mean I can't make a choice as to what is the most reasonable stance to take on those issues. I don't believe in jones' family of burpleburples so I'm atheist about them. I am also agnostic about them, but I don't act like being atheist about it is just as rational as being theistic about them.
......Anyway, you guys all keep dancing around the issue; you keep on asserting that it is more reasonable to be atheist than theist, but without any actual justification for this assertion. Any philosophically meaningful God is by definition not observable by humanity, and so to claim that something we could not discover does not exist, with any amount of certainty, is just a ridiculous assertion.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
yeah that's because gnostic in the sense john is using is more towards the greek root of the word than what it has meant over the years.PLAYER57832 wrote:That is sure not the definition I learned for Gnostics.
link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
This is a rather silly chart. Not only because including agnosticism twice invalidates the point of the term, but mostly because I don't think the relations between the things make sense. Maybe I'm reading it wrong though.john9blue wrote:Here's a graph that I think organizes my thoughts on the spectrum of religious beliefs... in Paint because I don't feel like using PS...
If there is no evidence, the only logical position is pure agnosticism. Agnosticism is on there twice because it's possible to be an agnostic (a)theist.
I stopped working on it. I'm having a beer and a cigar now. I'll come back to it, but I just want to note that the civility got thrown out the window when I realized I was discussing this with a broken record.Metsfanmax wrote:I am a little bit disappointed that both you and Neoteny are refusing to keep this discussion civil. Additionally, I've basically said what I have to say, so I'll leave you with a summary.
Religious people have the faith-based belief that an invisible man lives in the sky and controls everything about the Universe. They have no real evidence which backs this view, they simply choose to believe it.
Atheists have the faith-based belief (Snorri said in the post above this that it is a belief) that because they cannot see said invisible man, he must not exist. They have no real evidence which backs this view, they simply choose to believe it.
Thus I maintain that atheism and religion are philosophically the same stance.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
You mean "No".PLAYER57832 wrote:I think the "is atheism religion" has been resolved (yes),
You yourself said that most atheists are willing to admit they are wrong, that it is not based on irrefutable evidence. Yet, it is a view that shapes your world incredibly.Snorri1234 wrote:You mean "No".PLAYER57832 wrote:I think the "is atheism religion" has been resolved (yes),
Your definition of religion is useless. It encorporates everything. Socialism, Communism and and any other political school are religions according to you.PLAYER57832 wrote:You yourself said that most atheists are willing to admit they are wrong, that it is not based on irrefutable evidence. Yet, it is a view that shapes your world incredibly.Snorri1234 wrote:You mean "No".PLAYER57832 wrote:I think the "is atheism religion" has been resolved (yes),
That defines religious belief.
As for religion, it is as much "a" religion as Christianity is "a" religion. It is a definition that encorporates a huge variety of beliefs, with one central focus. In the Case of Christiany, "Christ". In the case of atheism, belief in no god or gods.
