Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Why not?

Because your scenario is a different context. You are comparing two positive claims, and then applying it to a positive claim versus a negative claim.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Atheism is simply the belief that there is more evidence against the existence of deities than for.

Does a scientist have faith in the Big Bang? No. A scientist simply believes there is more evidence for the BB than against.

If the evidence changes, the belief changes. That's not faith.

Now if the evidence changes, and the belief remains the same. That is faith.. or stupidity.

Beliefs are not faiths. Faith is 100% certain unfailing belief in something despite any evidence or lack thereof.

[Kamehameha34]

And there is no evidence for or against god, so believing that there is no god based on no proof is as much of a faith is believing that there is one.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A god is, simply, the "creator and ruler of the universe". No omnipotence required.

How convenient? Did you know that Superman lives in Gotham city, was born there, is descended from human beings, cannot fly, isn't particularly strong and in fact has no powers what-so-ever beyond martial arts / detective skills / cool gadgets? Yup. I've just described Superman and I can incapacitate him with a normal bullet. No kryptonite needed.

Your argument isn't that different from Captain Chaos' who watched Fonceai & I go at it about the existence of god and then thought he could overcome my argument by re-defining god. I see now this argument is common to agnostics, not just CC. Understand that you have three big problems that you've yet to address:

1) The more you alter your definition of god, the more improbable he becomes & the more problems you create for yourself. How did a god create the universe without being all-powerful? Why is a being that's not all-powerful describable as god (see above regarding "Superman")?

2) There's no evidence for any of these.

3) Each and every one of your infinite gods has the same problem: where did they come from? Instead of solving a problem, they simply add another one and are thus less likely than natural explanations.

You have no proof against such a being, while we do have proof against fairies, if they contradict physics.

A god necessarily violates some laws of physics and a being which violates no laws of physics cannot be described as a god.

Correct. There are an infinite amount of possibilities either way to explain what we don't know, and none of them are falsifiable as of yet. That constitutes a 50-50 chance, logically.

Except that we need to employ common sense to understand that, like key gnomes, not all explanations are created equal. Explanations which swap one infinite regress for another are of no use to us.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric How convenient? Did you know that Superman lives in Gotham city, was born there, is descended from human beings, cannot fly, isn't particularly strong and in fact has no powers what-so-ever beyond martial arts / detective skills / cool gadgets? Yup. I've just described Superman and I can incapacitate him with a normal bullet. No kryptonite needed. Your argument isn't that different from Captain Chaos' who watched Fonceai & I go at it about the existence of god and then thought he could overcome my argument by re-defining god. I see now this argument is common to agnostics, not just CC. Understand that you have three big problems that you've yet to address: 1) The more you alter your definition of god, the more improbable he becomes & the more problems you create for yourself. How did a god create the universe without being all-powerful? Why is a being that's not all-powerful describable as god (see above regarding "Superman")? 2) There's no evidence for any of these. 3) Each and every one of your infinite gods has the same problem: where did they come from? Instead of solving a problem, they simply add another one and are thus less likely than natural explanations.

I really don't care if you have a problem with how I conceived the assertion. You can either address it with proof, or you can't. You can not disprove a possible being that created and rules the universe, so your point is moot.

1) Look up "god" on dictionary.com. Actually, I'll save you the trouble:

–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

The fact that I don't define god into impossibility doesn't weaken anything, nor does it make the concept less probable. That assertion is groundless.

2) That's sort of the point of this thread. Neither side has evidence.

3) One can only speculate. Maybe the same place the membranes came from in M theory

A god necessarily violates some laws of physics and a being which violates no laws of physics cannot be described as a god.

Hmm, that's not what it says in the dictionary. You're committing the texas sharpshooter fallacy. It is proven that some things are impossible, and you are trying to define god so it must commit such impossible acts.

Except that we need to employ common sense to understand that, like key gnomes, not all explanations are created equal. Explanations which swap one infinite regress for another are of no use to us.

The concept of divinity doesn't swap infinite regressions in any fashion. It is simply a possibility that our specific universe was created, and is controlled by a central being.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Because your scenario is a different context. You are comparing two positive claims, and then applying it to a positive claim versus a negative claim.

Good try. I like to see people paying very close attention to context. In the analogy, the key gnome represents god and the key in the door represents not-god (or rather the anternative natural explanation to god such as natural selection). The analogy holds, my friend.

Are you familiar with the term NOMA?

[Kamehameha34]

Then you misemphasized the wording.

If key gnomes had no evidence to contradict their existence, and there was no evidence for any other possibility, your analogy would hold.

[Jack]

so believing that there is no god based on no proof is as much of a faith is believing that there is one.

This is the "playing with words" part of this argument that indicates an inability or unwillingness to understand.
Atheists do not believe that there is no god based on no proof. This would presuppose the possibility of gods, which is unsupported.

We do refuse to accept the proposition that gods exist as theists contend. It's not faith or a belief. It's a philosophical position arrived at by failing to be convinced by theists that their gods exist.

It may be a subtle difference, but it's a significant one.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Isherwood A theist's definition; it's inaccurate. Atheism is the refusal to accept the theist's notion of gods. No belief or faith required.

Theists (most) present the notion of a particular God, not JUST the notion of a God or higher power. So for clarification, are you saying atheists reject the existance of ANY God? Or are you saying atheists only reject that which is displayed here on Earth?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood This is the "playing with words" part of this argument that indicates an inability or unwillingness to understand. Atheists do not believe that there is no god based on no proof. This would presuppose the possibility of gods, which is unsupported. We do refuse to accept the proposition that gods exist as theists contend. It's not faith or a belief. It's a philosophical position arrived at by failing to be convinced by theists that their gods exist. It may be a subtle difference, but it's a significant one.

Just because of the fact that your belief is a result failing to be convinced the other way does not invalidate it as a belief.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that no gods exist, or do you know that no gods exist?

[Cadre]

Quote by: rez what is the problem?

QFE

It just feels like so much repetitive banter takes place here, instead of open-dialogue regarding pertinent and UNRESOLVED issues.

I know this is supposed to be a debate forum, but I guess some portion of me was hoping that as we all ask the more intellectually profound questions, in essence we are looking for the same answer. Why can't this be open-dialogue instead of egocentric righteousness. I've said it before and I'll say it again. These questions were asked, answered, concluded, double-checked, investigated for authenticity, broken down, defined, redefined, requestioned exemplified, and vehemently held as opinion for the oh I dunno, majority of human existence.

Maybe we should try and move on, use that creative portion of the brain a little bit and, maybe ask some newer questions and start discussing some modern ideas with more than just a glance at a whim?

Not saying that the fundamental principles aren't worthy of discussion, only that we're arguing opinion, that which can be proved and disproved over and over and over no matter what side of the fence you sit on. It's like making public one's jungian ego development (ie. pretty irrelevant accept to one's own mind).

If there is no readily discernable answer, perhaps we're looking in the wrong place. I believe an intellectual paradigm shift is definately in order


Don't flame, just trying to halt the repetitive nature of this board and channel it in new directions (along with some upcoming threads I'm planning).

[Jack]

Do you believe that no gods exist, or do you know that no gods exist?

I know for a fact that theists have failed to provide credible evidence of the existence of gods. No one else has, either. Theists can't even agree on a single definition of gods. Neither can they explain why gods are necessary. Your question addresses an entity that cannot be shown to exist. Do I know or just believe that fairies don't exist? Does it matter?

Or are you saying atheists only reject that which is displayed here on Earth?

Oh come on. What type of gods do the Martians suggest exists?

[Jack]

Cadre, I agree with you in a general sense. Theologians and skeptics have rehashed these same ideas since man first posited gods.
I think the reason we still debate this topic here, though, is that we're dealing with understanding the topic on a more personal level. It's one thing to agree intellectually with a wise scholar. It's another thing to understand your own feelings and opinions on topics like this.

[Kamehameha34]

You dodged the question. Do you know or believe that anything that could be deemed godly doesn't exist?

I don't accept appeal to ridicule as support.

[Jack]

I'm not ridiculing you or dodging the question. You asked the question incorrectly in an attempt to trap me into saying something I don't mean. I refuse to answer a poorly worded question. I answered honestly the question you should have asked, had you understood my earlier statements about belief.

[Kamehameha34]

You propose that gods are impossible. There are only two choices, if you don't change your proposition. You either believe it to be true, or you know it to be true.

It isn't poorly worded just because you don't like the options.

Do I know or just believe that fairies don't exist..

And yes, infact you were employing appeal to ridicule. Read the link I provided; I'm not saying that you're just insulting my argument. You are committing a specific kind of the appeal to emotion fallacy.

[Cadre]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You propose that gods are impossible. There are only two choices, if you don't change your proposition. You either believe it to be true, or you know it to be true. It isn't poorly worded just because you don't like the options. And yes, infact you were employing appeal to ridicule. Read the link I provided; I'm not saying that you're just insulting my argument. You are committing a specific kind of the appeal to emotion fallacy.

Go outside son, you're missing the marvels of the world pass you by!

To learn to emote and appreciate the world can give a new understanding and meaning to whatever beliefs/faiths/philosophies one might hold. To see, understand and respect the foreshadowing that precedes every moment in nature, yet observe it's overall chaos, this, is experience, and cannot be so easily argued without first-hand knowledge. It seems as though you spend a little to much time arguing these topics based on and surrounding logic and nature, when it appears as if you know so little as to the adherence of these principles in practicality.

The world is hardly logical, and sometimes a fallacy is truth. You know why? Because I just said that

[Cadre]

Quote by: Isherwood Cadre, I agree with you in a general sense. Theologians and skeptics have rehashed these same ideas since man first posited gods. I think the reason we still debate this topic here, though, is that we're dealing with understanding the topic on a more personal level. It's one thing to agree intellectually with a wise scholar. It's another thing to understand your own feelings and opinions on topics like this.

Ahah, and I agree with you as well. However, my perception is that in dealing with the concepts on a personal level intellectually (ie. digestion/comprehension and implementation of the fundamental concepts) one should not proport their claims to be of significance and truth. Merely a breach in understanding which must be sealed before moving on.

And in turn, one should be asking for help, and continuing onto more advanced literature (or perhaps review of previous material ).

Not debating semantics.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm actually typing this on a flying, purple elephant.

So there.

[Cadre]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm actually typing this on a flying, purple elephant. So there.

Where can I get one? Are you sure he's not riding you?

Edit: Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy should be every amateurs first read .