Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 1:49am

Yeah, because I'm still seeing it as a position, not an identity.

Even if he doesn't want to be identified with people like P.Z. doesn't change his position on the question of the existence in a creator deity. He doesn't believe in god(s) = atheist, He cannot prove the non-existence of god(s) = agnostic.

Seriously dude, I don't self-identify as an atheist, agnostic or agnostic atheist, …they aren't identities, jobs, vocations, nationalities, ethnicities, hobbies, sports, etc, …they are positions.

They are merely answers to two different questions, one a non belief and another a non absolute certainty, on the existence of creator deities.

I would have a long label, perhaps infinite, if I self-identified by everything I didn't believe in, but could not by logic or evidence prove the absolute non-existence of.

I do believe in dangling prepositions, obviously.

I also don't go around calling myself a non-dentist for that matter

Some will probably understand this.

Permalink Reply by myatheistlife on April 8, 2012 at 2:03am

Richard,

Seriously, how do you prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? How do you justify your non-belief in them? How do you justify your non-belief in Thor? You did no answer my points previously but you keep on saying that abstinence is a valid position. It is not. Either you believe the claims or you do not. If you think those claims have some possible validity you are on the side of belief. There is no maybe. Go ahead and say that I can't know that but you can't know that I'm wrong. Saying that you are better because  you don't want to play does not make you a sports hero. You keep telling me that I'm not responding with the right format but you don't address my questions. So maybe your world view is not supportable?

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 2:30am

The straw man cometh...

"Seriously, how do you prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? How do you justify your non-belief in them? How do you justify your non-belief in Thor?"

Why? They aren't believable, it's that simple, if you want proof they don't exist, I can't give it to you.

I can make many and myriad arguments as to the almost certain non-existence, but no proof of their non-existence. Belief, or non-belief doesn't require proof. (for the 11th time)

"you keep on saying that abstinence is a valid position."

Where, link to any post where I said this, seriously. I'm tired of this straw man bullshit, here's some more...

"Either you believe the claims or you do not. If you think those claims have some possible validity you are on the side of belief."

Do you even know what "believe in" means? Aside from this, I have never stated this: "those claims have some possible validity".

If you claim I have, again, post the link.

On to the next intellectually dishonest man of straw...

"Go ahead and say that I can't know that but you can't know that I'm wrong."

Actually, this is what I said:

(copied from my actual post)

"I'm not arguing that you can't know, but more to the point; that you don't know something you're claiming as an absolute certainty."

Show us your proof!

On to the next misrepresentation:

"Saying that you are better because  you don't want to play does not make you a sports hero."

Another outright lie, …I never said any of this.

"You keep telling me that I'm not responding with the right format but you don't address my questions."

Go back and look! And, with paragraphs, block quotes and line breaks …it's called netiquette.

That you refuse to return the courtesy and expect me to wade through blocks of word salad to answer to misrepresentations, …is a bit much to expect. 

"So maybe your world view is not supportable?"

And what "world view" would that be?

Permalink Reply by Nontheist Central on April 11, 2012 at 8:23am

agnostic suggests a certain fear of letting go

Please don't let yourself get sucked into the linear view of positions on the existence of a god.  I take the position of agnostic atheist.  I do not believe in god, however I am human and completely capable of making mistakes.  I'm willing to accept that I could be wrong, which is why I am agnostic.  Theism has to do with beliefs, while gnosticism has to do with proof.  A theist believes there is a god and an atheist doesn't.  A gnostic person says "I have proof of the existence/non-existence of god" where and agnostic person would say "There is no evidence either way".

The liberation you felt, if I may suggest this to you, was probably because, like I did, you went from mostly believing to mostly not believing and finally saying to yourself "There is no god" or something of that nature.  That is an INCREDIBLY fearful leap that effects me still.  When I think about it, I still get a little queasy sometimes.  I completely understand your position.  You can read my conversion blog if you're interested to find out how much I understand your position.  Religious thinking tends to be very linear, that is to say, black and white, making people misunderstand things like this.  Their definitions for words like "fact", "theory", "hypothesis", and "truth" are skewed and they apply that skewed logic to everything.  They are of the mindset that there is only one way to do things.  That, alone, begs linear thinking.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on April 8, 2012 at 3:42am

I know richard, you did read your posts as well as other news pieces. I should not have put them here on this string and I shall move it off. As to the god reference, I wasn't meaning to direct that to you, just those foolish and uninformed people to voted such a law in. Sorry. I got carried away. 

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 3:49am

I'd be happy to have that post in both threads, and the blog, but as the last thread redirects to the blog, you may want to put it there if you want to just post it once. I'll be linking updates to the blog. This is picking up steam on all the major atheist pages on FB as well. That's where I picked up the news of the bill's passing.

I do agree with all your anger, this is absolutely unconscionable.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on April 8, 2012 at 3:58am

Thank you Richard. I appreciate your kind words and thoughtful suggestions. 

Permalink Reply by Greg LeGore on April 8, 2012 at 6:49am

Given that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we cannot say that either claim, 'there is / is not a god,' has been confirmed or disconfirmed.  Certainly there is no evidence that there is a god, and we should act in our daily lives as if a god, esp. any of the posited by humans gods, exists.  Many if not all of these have been disconfirmed because the claims made in religious dogma have not come to pass.  But that's as far as the evidence allows us to go.  Are there any extraterrestrial beings?  I don't think there is any credible evidence so far, but the number of stars and planets suggests that we might not be alone.  However, each side of the topic remains unconfirmed and not disconfirmed.

As Richard points out, there is no evidence for or against the specific claim that there are no gods.  This probably cannot be disconfirmed or falsified, so I'd say the question is not even wrong.  Again, the human constructs about zeus, god, yahweh, etc. clearly have been disconfirmed by all of the wrong statements and failed predictions in the religious artifacts associated with each.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 2:40pm

"Given that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we cannot say that either claim, 'there is / is not a god,' has been confirmed or disconfirmed."

Lacking 100% certain evidence, to claim either is just one or the other side of the argument ad ignoratiam fallacy. 

"Again, the human constructs about zeus, god, yahweh, etc. clearly have been disconfirmed by all of the wrong statements and failed predictions in the religious artifacts associated with each."

Yes, given enough of a description, a contra-positive claim of existence is possible, if any part of the description deemed a necessity is disproved.

Permalink Reply by chris tidman on April 9, 2012 at 10:04pm

Sooner or later someone might come along and prove that he can walk on water , then we will have to reevaluate our position.

I had considered doing the feed 5,000 with a loaf of stale bread and can of tuna trick, but I couldn't find an audience of 5,000 believers.

Permalink Reply by Tony Agudo on April 9, 2012 at 11:53pm

I had considered doing the feed 5,000 with a loaf of stale bread and can of tuna trick, but I couldn't find an audience of 5,000 believers.

That's going to be one really tiny piece of bread and fish per person.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on April 10, 2012 at 12:56am

 

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

 

Its a long time since 1953 now. Human ability to think as well ashuman  knowledge has progressed much. Atheism can no longer be called 'an extra-ordinary claim', theism was always so.

Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnosticsin Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice", (FROM A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE)

 (Italics mine)

Bertrand Russel and Richard Dawkins are both agnosticism's greats. If we accept what they say, no one can justify a long term agnosticism in today's time.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page