"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[Kamehameha34]

I can't tell you that, only you can :confused:

Tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you what you are, how's that?

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I can't tell you that, only you can :confused: Tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you what you are, how's that?

I don't believe,however, I do think. You are the one who asserted that I believe because I am an atheist.

[Kamehameha34]

No, I've never asserted that. You're only an atheist if you believe.

Let's clarify something: Are you a weak or strong atheist?

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It is applicable against Thor, but not against "god", because any non-god theory would propose just as many variables.

Yes, but i don't see how it applies against non-unobservable magical ponies that don't explain any phenomena.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I've never asserted that. You're only an atheist if you believe. Let's clarify something: Are you a weak or strong atheist?

"you are only an atheist if you believe"...show me...

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Jagged Yes, but i don't see how it applies against non-unobservable magical ponies that don't explain any phenomena.

Here is what we know to exist in extreme temperatures: No life.
Here is what your proposition entails: Magical ponies.

That means that extreme temperares facilitating no life and magical ponies would need to be accounted for in the probability of your assertion, making it less likely than Pluto containing simply no life.

Quote by: rez "you are only an atheist if you believe"...show me...

That means if you believe in the non-existence of any god, then you're only an atheist, and if you simply deny that any god has been proven, then you're an atheist/agnostic

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That means if you believe in the non-existence of any god, then you're only an atheist, and if you simply deny that any god has been proven, then you're an atheist/agnostic

sorry, I hold no beliefs in god(s). You could say I lack belief in god(s). Please try again.


if you want you can say I think god does not exist..

[Kamehameha34]

Belief = Think, in that sense. If you're implying you have evidence against god, then please share it with us.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Belief = Think, in that sense. If you're implying you have evidence against god, then please share it with us.

Do I need evidence when I think the Bears will win the Superbowl?

[Kamehameha34]

"I think the Bears will win the super bowl" = "I believe the Bears will win the super bowl".

No, you don't need evidence. That's what makes your belief a faith.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Here is what we know to exist in extreme temperatures: No life. Here is what your proposition entails: Magical ponies. That means that extreme temperares facilitating no life and magical ponies would need to be accounted for in the probability of your assertion, making it less likely than Pluto containing simply no life.

I still don't agree because scientists only know extreme temperatures facilitating no life is true for non-magical life, which they have access to. Scientists know nothing and can state nothing about magical ponies. These magical ponies are immortal, for all you know, and you don't. I sure as hell don't know if they are immortal, and the fact that scientists have never seen immortal life in any form doesn't matter, either.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 "I think the Bears will win the super bowl" = "I believe the Bears will win the super bowl". No, you don't need evidence. That's what makes your belief a faith.

The word "think" describes the mental process of predicting instead of relying on the abstraction of belief which reflects a hope which may not happen. As you can see I have thought absent of belief. You are fighting a losing battle my friend.

[Kamehameha34]

I still don't agree because scientists only know that extreme temperatures facilitate no life is true for non-magical life, which they have access to to ponies. Scientists know nothing about magical ponies.

If, by "magical", you mean somehow immune to the properties of other brands of life, then you'd need to give evidence against the claim that "all life is susceptible to extreme temperatures" - a claim with evidence.

Face it - there's evidence against your claim. Stop being analogous, it's skewing the issue. Pursue your point logically or not at all, because I'm not going to go through your ambiguously defined pony scenario.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez The word "think" describes the mental process of predicting instead of relying on the abstraction of belief which reflects a hope which may not happen. As you can see I have thought absent of belief. You are fighting a losing battle my friend.

Belief does not imply hope. Belief is confidence for something to be true.

If, by the way you define "think", you think that no god exists, then supply the evidence you have against such a god. Otherwise, you hold a belief, and a faith.

I'm losing no battle. This isn't even a battle - Its more "how can I explain this to rez?"

It's simple - If think implies evidence, provide your evidence. If think means to have confidence in something, regardless of any absence of evidence, then it's belief.

Also, "think", in your context is synonomous with "believe". You're getting tied up in irrelevant semantics.

Look at definition 9, the only relevant one:

think - Definitions from Dictionary.com

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If, by "magical", you mean somehow immune to the properties of other brands of life, then you'd need to give evidence against the claim that "all life is susceptible to extreme temperatures" - a claim with evidence. Face it - there's evidence against your claim. Stop being analogous, it's skewing the issue. Pursue your point logically or not at all, because I'm not going to go through your ambiguously defined pony scenario.

No, because the only evidence behind "all life is susceptible to extreme temperatures" is that every single animal that scientists stick in a freezer dies. They have nothing beyond that, and "all" there is a generalization for every animal they have ever tried. Basically, this claim relies on the fact that scientists have never seen an animal that can withstand extreme temperatures- or ad ignorantium. The magical pony is a new phenomenon.

Consider this case. A greek scientist who lived in 1000 BC suddenly understands lightning, hydrolics, and fermentation. He then goes through every single god that he knows about and says "wow! there is a scientific and logical explanation for every god in our books! all gods are false by Occam's Razor!" (even though Occam's razor hasnt been invented yet, but that does not matter) But he hasn't been introduced to the single God which doesn't really explain anything and does things in "mysterious ways." Saying this new god exists would have to challenge the claim, --made with evidence-- that all gods are false.

[Jack]

When you say relevant, Kam, what I hear is really, "the only one that supports my opinion and opposes yours".
For example, from that same link,

—Verb phrases 21. think of, a. to conceive of; imagine. b. to have an opinion or judgment of. c. to consider; anticipate: When one thinks of what the future may bring, one is both worried and hopeful.

You are not the arbiter of relevance.

[Jagged]

Hey kam, i was just reading wikipedia, and it looks as if most of these pages are defining you as some sort of weak atheist as well as an agnostic

Weak atheism includes, among others: * those who have never been introduced to the concept of God (implicit atheists) * those who don't care enough about God to believe or disbelieve (apatheists) * those who consider the question of God to be meaningless (ignostics) * those who don't believe it is possible to be certain of the existence of God (skeptics). * those who state that they personally have no knowledge of God (agnostics) * those who haven't made up their minds * those who have made up their minds, deciding that the evidence doesn't warrant belief

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weak atheists think the existence and non-existence of God are equally likely

[/quote]Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

theism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs"

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or are you just strictly a strong Agnostic? It seems to me that strong agnostics dont allow the possibility of God speaking to individuals...

[Kamehameha34]

No, because the only evidence behind "all life is susceptible to extreme temperatures" is that every single animal that scientists stick in a freezer dies.

You're not understanding that magical, pink unicorns would introduce another element, or variable, while a simple "god" concept would just propose a solution to a problem that would otherwise be acausual. According to Occam's razor, this would mean that magical unicorns on pluto would be less likely than a god.

Basically, anything that proposes something where there would otherwise be nothing would be made less likely by Occam's razor. Anything that puts a solution in a place that is without a solution, where that solution can't be nothing, is completely unknown in its validity, unless evidence supports otherwise.

Hey kam, i was just reading wikipedia, and it looks as if most of these pages are defining you as some sort of weak atheist as well as an agnostic

Weak atheism and non-practicing/apathetic agnosticism are almost synonomous, and I can be accurately be classified by either term.

But he hasn't been introduced to the single God which doesn't really explain anything and does things in "mysterious ways." Saying this new god exists would have to challenge the claim, --made with evidence-- that all gods are false.

That's false - according to the four terms fallacy.

You're trying to show that Greek gods are unlikely according to Occam's razor, and then applying it to completely different brands of gods.

[Jack]

brands of gods

I've heard of proposed gods with varying attributes, differing personalities and unique superpowers, but I've never heard anyone refer to brands of gods before. I suppose that reduces them to the marketing commodity they really are. Yet ultimately there's a commonality to the concept of gods that makes them all equally impossible, a violation of the natural laws that govern the universe. I feel comfortable dismissing anything that behaves in ways absolutely nothing else we have evidence for behaves. It has never been shown that gods could possibly exist, let alone that they do.

[Kamehameha34]

The gods being proposed didn't create the universe, by definition.

I'm not going to discuss this with you if you're going to continue with the false assumption that a "creator of the universe" violates any natural laws.