The one thing that baptists, catholics, episcopalians, etc. all have in common is that they are christian. We have the atheists, agnostics, humanists, godless, brights, and (large number of) skeptics, etc, but we have no umbrella term that we can rally behind. We have a need for a term, any term that we can all agree on to find some commonality. There are vastly different philosophies between the various groups, (although maybe not as much as say catholics and YEC evangelicals). I agree with the "leaders" that atheist is a poor way to categorize something. ThunderF00t (of youtube fame) either came up with or is promoting PEARL
Physical
Evidance
And
Logical

What does everyone think?


Reason

Views: 74

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ah, well to the contrary through my experiences.

Proof to a theist is the personal experience that they "have with a deity", thus whether or not I believe due to lack of evidence is a moot point to a theist.

I submit that god is neither provable nor disprovable, so the argument of whether or not it exists is futile, but to argue the rationality of believing it exists is not. To the contrary it is winnable.

Therefore the title tooth fairy agnostic invokes the curiosity of definition or wards off the closed minded.
You can then point out to the Christian the difference between objective evidence and private experience. Their experience of god is like the amputee's experience of a "phantom limb." The experience is real, but the limb (or god) is not.

I don't see how a god can be not provable. What is to stop him from revealing himself? They are supposed to have supernatural powers, afrer all. Even a virus can prove that it exists.
A god can't be proven because there is no god. LOL. But since you can't disprove a negative than I don't usually go there.

Rather I try to invoke the thought 'don't explain what you don't understand with supernatural superstitions'.
Can I assume that you also "don't go there" when people talk about cold fusion or phlogiston?
no i "don't go there" when people make assumptions and wild accusations.

Like how just assumed that i avoid talking about things i cant explain and made the wild accusation that was in any way what i was talking about.
Calm down, Brian. I was responding to your statement that "(S)ince you can't disprove a negative than I don't usually go there." I'm merely pointing out that the existence of god is the same sort of thing as the existence of phlogiston and cold fusion. We can never assert with 100% certainty that these things don't exist; it cannot be proved mathematically. Yet our experience of the world justifies the conclusion that these things in fact do not exist.

I was certainly making no "wild accusations."
ah i c. well that's kind of like comparing apples and oranges then. I wasn't talking about something you can't prove 100%. i was talking about something a)you can't even begin to show any evidence whatsoever and b)is in opposition with the very laws of nature.

I know very little about cold fusion and whatever the other was that you said but i suspect that those ideas are based on scientific probabilities?
I think it is sad that we would have to even categorize our selves as one thing or another, but my vote goes for "non-delusional" or Mentally Healthy. Or if the question come up "What is your religion?" One could say "I'm sorry I don't do drugs"
"One could say "I'm sorry I don't do drugs""

Now that's funny!
LOL. I might go as far as to say, "Sorry, I don't smoke crack."
I'm happy to let each nonbeliever choose his or her own term. I don't want an umbrella.
you don't want to stand under my umbrella-ella-ella?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service