Quote: |
But, I believe the more beautiful definition is the ability to believe in something when there is no evidence. |
Quote: |
When one "denies the existence of god", that's technically a belief |
Quote: |
because one has decided to shut themselves to the other possibilities |
Chinaren wrote: |
How is that a belief? It's the lack of belief, as I thought I'd made clear all along. Much like black is a lack of color. I can't see how this is a logical 'argument at all'. |
Quote: |
Again, your logic fails you. The first part of the sentence doesn't mean I haven't considered other possibilities at all. Quite the contrary. As a, I like to think, logical and intelligent* person I've considered the fairy tales people call religions, and discounted them. I've not discounted, for example, the possibility that the Earth was seeded by aliens for life (which I find far more believable than just about any religion), or that, in fact, I am dreaming all this. |
sagittaeri wrote: | ||
To illustrate my point: say we have theory X, but we currently have no ability to prove X either way. When you have a lack of belief, you say "X could go either way". When you start choosing sides, however, by saying "X is false" despite the fact we have no scientific measurement to test this theory, that's a belief. So, X in our case is "does a higher power aka god exist". Note that I'm not referring to a specific god. |
Quote: |
Well, perhaps I should've been clear. By "other possibilities", I am referring to a higher power aka god. I'm not restricting the definition of god to a christian god, say, or even a religious one. It's really more of an abstract concept at this point. I love discussing/debating/arguing religion. That, and politics, and anything else that could be controversial. |
Chinaren wrote: |
A cunning argument, but I'd put it like this: People say there is a deity, but when asked for proof/evidence, they fail to provide any, usually pointing to their god book and using that, which is far from proof. Whereas for science there's lots of stuff that's at least circumstantial evidence, or there are theories about how things work and so on, and as we advance, more of this is proved true/false. Basically if I say there's an invisible imp standing next to you, the onus is on me to convince you that's the case. Anyone can say anything otherwise. |
MissedtheMarx wrote: |
Ergo, most atheists are agnostic, but their stance is, "I do not believe there is a god because there is no reason to. I do not assert that there is a god, but I proceed in all things like there is none, in the same way I proceed in all things as though there is no Santa, Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, etc." |
Quote: |
I'm sorry, but atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. Atheism deals with belief, Agnosticism deals with knowledge. So when I call myself an Agnostic Atheist, what I'm saying is that I don't know for certain whether god exists or not, but I do not believe in god. |
Quote: |
Also, the highest standard of proof is not the ability to use it to predict anything. It is just evidence that can conclusively, undeniably, prove a point. |
Quote: |
Anyhow, welcome to IF! I hope you have a great time here, and I'm looking forward to seeing you on the SG side of the city! |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT - 8 Hours