Agnosticism is the only non-faith.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If the medicine contained arsenic, that would be evidence that the medicine would not be beneficial.

Yes yes yes!!! You're catching on. :]

Now tell me the difference between

"disprove a medicine that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science"
and
"disprove a medicine that contains arsenic that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science"

One of those requests is ambiguous and meaningless. Can you guess which one?

Now.. apply what you've learned to your ambiguous request, "disprove that a god created the universe."

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And no, that really isn't what I'm asking. There is no practicable way to "test" the concept of god. Use a different example.

Depends, what god?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric This is a very loaded question. Theists often argue that god is for some reason "immune" to science... which is ridiculous. WHY is god immune to science? As I've explained, this stance is highly dishonest. Your question is also a gross oversimplification.

I'm proposed no such thing. If you can, by any means, prove that a "creator of the universe" contradicts the laws of science, I'm willing to listen.

Oh, and don't pull the 'creating matter' trick. You and I both know that I will respond with the equally unfalsifiable proposition that the supposed god could have gotten the matter from elsewhere.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Yes yes yes!!! You're catching on. :] Now tell me the difference between "disprove a medicine that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science" and "disprove a medicine that contains arsenic that heals people but is not accepted by mainstream science" One of those requests are ambiguous and meaningless. Can you guess which one? Now.. apply what you've learned to your ambiguous request, "disprove that a god created the universe."

Yes, the proposition of gods is unfalsifiable. I've not been denything that. Your assumption that I have is what's led to this.

Regardless of how difficult it is to acquire proof against "god", there is still no proof against, or for it.

Depends, what god?

You're misinterpretting my position.

I fullheartedly agree that some gods are untenable. However, there are an infinite amount of possibilities for a "god".

[Kamehameha34]

Before the next round of combat, let me clarify my position:

Agnosticism is the acceptence of the possibility of both theism and atheism to be true, but does not commit to either because of a lack of evidence.

Let's see if that clears things up, because everyone seems to be thinking that I'm arguing for theism.

[Jack]

atheists can be compared to people who reject any possible benefits of the medicine before it is tested

Incorrect. An atheist in this context would say, "You say this medicine is beneficial yet you offer no evidence of that. Therefore I don't accept your contention."

Maybe it will help (or add fuel to the fire) to see what our favorite online source of questionable information has to say about the man who invented the term agnostic:

Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively: I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter. . . . It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions. . . . That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth. And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863: I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them. Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave the following account:[3] So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took. Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or other science positive forms of theism. By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kamehameha34]

Incorrect. An atheist in this context would say, "You say this medicine is beneficial yet you offer no evidence of that. Therefore I don't accept your contention."

No. That's an agnostic. If they, then, assert that the evidence is not beneficial, then they are the equivalent to an atheist.


And upon skimming over the document you supplied, I could not find anything I object to.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Yes, the proposition of gods is unfalsifiable. I've not been denything that. Your assumption that I have is what's led to this. Regardless of how difficult it is to acquire proof against "god", there is still no proof against, or for it.

There is evidence. And then there is proof for SOME defined gods. You still haven't reworded your question..

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I fullheartedly agree that some gods are untenable. However, there are an infinite amount of possibilities for a "god".

Exactly. That's why your question is ambiguous and meaningless.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer There is evidence. And then there is proof for SOME defined gods. You still haven't reworded your question..

Is there evidence for or against a "creator of the universe"?

And no, I will not reword my question. It is a relevant question. The fact that it is unfalsifiable, and unprovable just feuls my point.

Exactly. That's why your question is ambiguous and meaningless.

Correct, barring the "meaningless"*. The logical answer to such a question, like "does a creator of the universe exist?" is agnosticism.



*If the answer to a question answers something, it is very much not meaningless. If we answered this question, we would know if the universe was created by a "god".


Would it satisfy you that the term "god" implies consciousness(sp)?

[Jack]

I say the Christian god is a total farce, a killer and a evil worse than Satan. If he is real, if he is just, if he is a "man" of his word, let him strike me dead where I am right now....

Still waiting...

Anytime now...

Hey, come on god, you've done this before. It isn't hard. Just strike me down...

Well, if prayer is evidence of god to some, than I've just developed some evidence that the Christian god doesn't exist.

Shall we test another one?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood I say the Christian god is a total farce, a killer and a evil worse than Satan. If he is real, if he is just, if he is a "man" of his word, let him strike me dead where I am right now.... Still waiting... Anytime now... Hey, come on god, you've done this before. It isn't hard. Just strike me down... Well, if prayer is evidence of god to some, than I've just developed some evidence that the Christian god doesn't exist. Shall we test another one?

Yay, I get to use my favorite example :)

I can accurately disprove the claim that "a species of elephant is predominantly purple, and has wings."

Does that count as evidence against the existence of elephants?

Well, if prayer is evidence of god to some, than I've just developed some evidence that the Christian god doesn't exist.

Oh ish.. I expected better from you, at least. "They do it! Why can't I?" doesn't fly. I don't accept prayer as proof, nor your inductive evidence.

I'm not saying that the Christian god isn't invalid in other ways, just saying you chose a really.. bad one.

[Jack]

I'm simply expressing my contempt for the silliness of this discussion with a minor attempt at humor. Don't read too much into it.
Besides, only a real theist would be able to defend prayer against my accusation.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm simply expressing my contempt for the silliness of this discussion with a minor attempt at humor. Don't read too much into it.

In theism's defence, it didn't start to get "silly" until the cavalier atheists showed up

Quote by: Isherwood Besides, only a real theist would be able to defend prayer against my accusation.

Either it was a thinly veiled attempt to get me worked up about ad hominem, or you really believe that :confused:

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 A simple lack of belief would constitute agnosticism. Belief that no god exists constitutes atheism.

An unwillingness to make a conclusion is agnosticism. That is the only difference. I do not believe in that for which I have no evidence. Very simple. No faith required. No faith involved.

[Kamehameha34]

An unwillingness to make a conclusion is agnosticism. That is the only difference. I do not believe in that for which I have no evidence. Very simple. No faith required. No faith involved.

Then you're an agnostic. You also don't reject, while you may not entertain, the possibility of a creator of the universe.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And no, I will not reword my question. It is a relevant question. The fact that it is unfalsifiable, and unprovable just feuls my point.

No, kame, it has nothing to do with it being unfalsifiable. I'm saying the question is meaningless because of its ambiguity.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Would it satisfy you that the term "god" implies consciousness(sp)?

I have no reason to believe something that you haven't presented an argument for. Nor have I a reason to argue against something you haven't presented an argument for.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, kame, it has nothing to do with it being unfalsifiable. I'm saying the question is meaningless because of its ambiguity.

How is the question "Is there a creator of the universe with a consciousness?" ambiguous? It may not be specific, but it is not ambiguous.

I have no reason to believe something that you haven't presented an argument for. Nor have I a reason to argue against something you haven't presented an argument for.

Correct. I have not provided an accurate argument to validate theism, because there is still an equal chance that there is no god.

The position I've been defending as the only nonfaith is agnosticism.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How is the question "Is there a creator of the universe with a consciousness?" ambiguous? It may not be specific, but it is not ambiguous.

That would be the basic definition of ambiguous, yes.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct. I have not provided an accurate argument to validate theism, because there is still an equal chance that there is no god. The position I've been defending as the only nonfaith is agnosticism.

Then why do you keep asking us to argue against every infinite idea of god? Be specific. I'm the alternative medicine skeptic.. now stop asking me to disprove A alternative medicine.. tell me what I'm disproving. >A< could be an infinite number of possible ideas and it's nonsensical to use that as leverage.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That would be the basic definition of ambiguous, yes.

No, ambiguous means "open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations". Well, that's the first definition given to the word in dictionary.com. There's only one answer, one interpretation. There either is, or isn't a god. The only thing that would validate ambiguity would be if any of the terms remain unclear in definition.

I defined "god". The definition is not specific. Just because it is not specific does not mean it can validate more than one answer.

Then why do you keep asking us to argue against every infinite idea of god? Be specific. I'm the alternative medicine skeptic.. now stop asking me to disprove A alternative medicine.. tell me what I'm disproving. >A< could be an infinite number of possible ideas and it's nonsensical to use that as leverage.

Because atheism rejects "every infinite idea of god". You aren't an atheist if you only reject a few specific definitions of god. Are hindus atheists for rejecting the Christian god? If you reject the concept of a creator of the universe, you should have evidence. If you don't have evidence as to why "every infinite idea of god" can not be correct, then you can not be atheistic without faith.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then you're an agnostic. You also don't reject, while you may not entertain, the possibility of a creator of the universe.

Oh please. This is very simple. I am an atheist. There is no evidence for the existence of god, whatever that vague concept may mean. Therefore I do not believe. I certainly reject all the specific deities representing the major religions I have encountered.

I do not necessarily reject the possibility of almost anything. I have a finite range of knowledge. If see evidence in any form, shape or fashion, I will consider it. But without some sort of evidence I will not believe. I will not take it on faith. Bottom line, I don't believe in god.

Frankly, I consider agnosticism to be a form of intellectual cowardice. You acknowledge the obvious while refusing to voice the rational conclusion which follows. Never made any sense to me.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, ambiguous means "open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations". Well, that's the first definition given to the word in dictionary.com. There's only one answer, one interpretation. There either is, or isn't a god.

"God" is ambiguous. HOW is not even mentioned.. and is also ambiguous. Kame, buddy, there's a lot more to it.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Because atheism rejects "every infinite idea of god". You aren't an atheist if you only reject a few specific definitions of god. Are hindus atheists for rejecting the Christian god? If you reject the concept of a creator of the universe, you should have evidence. If you don't have evidence as to why "every infinite idea of god" can not be correct, then you can not be atheistic without faith.

Sure, now if you can present to me a valid argument for the existence of god.. I will be responsible for defending the nonexistence of your god. You're more than welcome to do that, kame.

What I'm not going to do is sit here with you and disprove every possible way in which a god can be fathomed.

Until those "gods" are fathomed, and until they are presented in a valid argument, they are not even ADDRESSED in atheism.