Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's where your argument falls apart. You have no proof of god's inexistence. Nor do I have prove of god's existence. The claim is therefore unknown.

Tell me Kam, who's prediction is more sound. The person who says "god exists", or the person who says "god does not exist"?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez Tell me Kam, who's prediction is more sound. The person who says "god exists", or the person who says "god does not exist"?

Right now, neither is a sound prediction. There is no evidence for either side. The claim is unknown, or "God may or may not exist.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: rez haha I do not want to play because I do not define faith as belief without proof. I think belief reflects hope. "without proof" and "hope" are two different things for me.

<giggles>

But I asked what you think about the if...

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Right now, neither is a sound prediction. There is no evidence for either side. The claim is unknown, or "God may or may not exist.

It is a real shame that Zharvic puts all his time and energy to explain this stuff and it just goes in one ear and out the other.

I guess you do not agree with this: "The universe is governed by a set of rational laws that we can discover and understand."

as of right now this is either true, false, or unknown. Why do I have a feeling you think it is unknown?

Quote by: Fonceai <giggles>But I asked what you think about the if...

belief without proof eh.

I have facts and knowledge of certain things that exist in reality, therefore, it seems as though I must make a prediction according to your assertion that a god exists. I lack belief in god(s).

[Kamehameha34]

Yes, because your personal belief that gods can't exist constitutes evidence, right?

Zhavric's, and your argument is irrational. Neither of you has named any law that the concept of deities violates, and you can't.

Your position is untenable.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes, because your personal belief that gods can't exist constitutes evidence, right?

I am sorry Kam, but I would feel more comfortable if you would address my question directly. Are you saying unknown? If you are, then you need to create a new topic in which you address the root of the disagreement because talking about god(s) will get us no where.

Maybe you should address the evidence you have for taking the agnostic position?

[Kamehameha34]

The whole point of taking the agnostic position is that there is no evidence, either way.

Prove that a being that created the universe is impossible. Do that, before you go on some derailing tangent about natural order.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The whole point of taking the agnostic position is that there is no evidence, either way.

Yes there is.

I know for a fact that gods have been invented and later discredited. Zues, for some reason, no longer exists anymore. So, if god(s) can be easily invented into existence as they are later discredited, then why should I accept that the new god(s) actually exist?

I know for a fact people associate unexplained events with god and later found out that their explanation can be explained by simple natural events. To a theist, this does not disprove god. Why? If I say the NFL is rigged because after September 11th the Patriots won the Super bowl 3 times and then Pittsburgh ends up wining one, does that not discredit my way of thinking?

Prove that a being that created the universe is impossible. Do that, before you go on some derailing tangent about natural order.

First off, nobody said that a being can not create a universe. if god exists it wants me to think it does not exist!

Again, you skipped over my point. Faith requires hope in something that can never be explained by natural laws. I want you to tell me right now how I have hope that god does not exist...

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez Yes there is. I know for a fact that gods have been invented and later discredited. Zues, for some reason, no longer exists anymore. So, if god(s) can be easily invented into existence as they are later discredited, then why should I accept that the new god(s) actually exist? I know for a fact people associate unexplained events with god and later found out that their explanation can be explained by simple natural events. To a theist, this does not disprove god. Why? If I say the NFL is rigged because after September 11th the Patriots won the Super bowl 3 times and then Pittsburgh ends up wining one, does that not discredit my way of thinking?

There are an infinite amount of possible gods. Because you can disprove a couple of them does not invalidate them all.

Does the fact that no flying, purple elephants exist disprove the existence of all elephants?

First off, nobody said that a being can not create a universe..

Yes, you did. You said that gods were proven false. The dictionary definition for god is "creator and ruler of the universe."

Again, you skipped over my point. Faith requires hope in something that can never be explained by natural laws. I want you to tell me right now how I have hope that god does not exist...

Incorrect. Faith is belief that isn't based in proof. If you believe that gods don't exist, but you can't prove it, you have faith.

[Jack]

Agnosticism is a means to evaluate evidence. Atheism is the result of agnosticism and skepticism.

[Fonceai]

Heh heh...

I thought of something amusing.

There really needs to be some kind of defined context here. Is this based on opinion, or on science?

Because some truly believe that, in their opinion, the lack of evidence for God is proof enough that God doesn't exist, that validates their opinion.

And since the opposite is true for theists, then no opinion is based on faith.

On the other hand, when someone says, "It's not opinion, it's fact!" that's another story...

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, an explanation that circles are not squares is not needed or relevant. Explain to me the "evidence" against the existence of a being that created, and presides over our universe.

The Christian god is self-contradictory. That's why I asked if you would like me to provide evidence against the existance of square circles.

Also, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Please remember that evidence is not the same as proof.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Isherwood I would submit that someone who is antagonistic toward religion is not an atheist, as they believe in gods. I think anti-theist is a better tag for them.

Really? I just call them theists because they believe in a god(s). I could care less whether they like him/her/it or not.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Lullaby Also, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

BAD Lullaby!!

Ad ignorantiam.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The Christian god is self-contradictory. That's why I asked if you would like me to provide evidence against the existance of square circles.

The Christian god is irrelevant, just as flying purple elephants are irrelevant in a discussion about the existents of elephants in general.

Also, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Please remember that evidence is not the same as proof.

Hate to quote Fonce, here.

Ad ignorantium.

Hey, Fonce, would you say that Lull's statement doesn't constitute logic?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Agnosticism is a means to evaluate evidence. Atheism is the result of agnosticism and skepticism.

You have a positive belief that nothing divine exists. It's a subtle difference from skepticism, but a difference.

And I want you to answer this.

Quote by: Kame I'll conceptualize the three stances: There is a lead box that can't be opened. Atheists claim that there is nothing in the box because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. Theists claim that there is something in the box. Some theists say it is a muffin, some say it is an elephant. Disproving the possibility that there is an elephant inside the box does not disprove the possibility of something being in the box. Agnostics claim that they don't know what's in the box. Where do you fall?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I've actually explained very accurately as to why atheism is a faith. Your ignorant denial of it, and lack of evidence against any divinity won't accomplish much in the way of disproving that.

Kam, I like you. You've beaten on Fonceai almost as much as I have. But you've no more proved atheism is a faith than you've proven "healthy" is a type of disease.

Theists have argued for months on here and years elsewhere that atheism is just another brand of irrational propaganda indistinguishable from their irrational propaganda. It's simple not the case. Your argument's proof is the most tenuous of semantics wherein you've attempted to group disinterest with irrational belief. We cannot forget about our common sense. You can argue fairies not being real has as much support as god being real, but we both know the zealotry of the faithful is absolutely absent from the apathetic logic of atheism.

In closing, given a one foot square box do you hold to the claim "an adult elephant is living inside the box" is false based on faith or logic & reason?

[Kamehameha34]

The validity of a claim doesn't come down to zealotry.

I will admit that atheism is probably more valid than believing in a specific god. This is because there are an infinite amount of possible gods, and only one possibility on the atheism side.

To not specify a god, however, is just as valid of a claim.

Both of these claims:

"There is/are (a) god(s)"
"There is no god"

.. have an equal amount of proof - none. While you argue that a being not so fantastic as to be disproven isn't deserving of the "god" label, the definition comes down to "creator and ruler of the universe". We will probably never have proof against the claim that such a being exists.

Such is the nature of unfalsifiable claims. Some may find such claims ridiculous, but most unfalsifiable claims are very unprobable. We have nothing to suggest anything in the way of probability for either side of the faith spectrum, so agnosticism, which is simply an admission of no proof, is the only logically valid stance.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Kame just as flying purple elephants are irrelevant in a discussion about the existents of elephants in general.

You're the one who brought them up in the first place in Post #88.

Quote by: Kame Hey, Fonce, would you say that Lull's statement doesn't constitute logic?

Don't do that. People don't like it.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There are an infinite amount of possible gods. Because you can disprove a couple of them does not invalidate them all.

I did not disprove a couple of gods. I disproved the method in which humans invent god(s).

Does the fact that no flying, purple elephants exist disprove the existence of all elephants?

haha. I am sorry, but lets be honest. This makes no sense.

Yes, you did. You said that gods were proven false. The dictionary definition for god is "creator and ruler of the universe."

+1 for you then.

Incorrect. Faith is belief that isn't based in proof.

I agree. I think god does not exist.

Instead of placing trust,confidence, and hope in a gods nonexistence (that is what belief is), I think god does not exist (I am taking a educated guess).

"To make a prediction based on past events alone does not require believing in the future event, but rather, a good guess as to what may or may not happen."

I think the Philadelphia Eagles will win. That is what we call a prediction.
I believe the Philadelphia Eagles will win. That is what we call faith.

If you believe that gods don't exist, but you can't prove it, you have faith.

Fine, if you want to play semantics then I will too - this time you can't argue back.
I don't believe in a gods nonexistence, I just think gods don't exist.