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

[nilan3000]

which means you have not lost track of why you are an atheist in the first place. i just wish more atheists are willing to be as broad minded as you, some of the atheists i come across are just as narrow minded as priests, sometimes even worse.

[Jack]

Eh, atheists are humans, too. The act of freethinking says nothing about the quality of thinking being done. Personality has a lot to do with it as well. Some people are obnoxious and overbearing with any knowledge they possess, to the point where we find ourselves wishing they weren't in our camp on a subject. For example, theists aren't alone in their dislike of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, though not for the same reason I disliked her. Her abrasive personality made me want to punch her in the nose...and I agreed with most of what she stood for.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Isherwood Her abrasive personality made me want to punch her in the nose...

hahaha no arguments there!

[pubmanager]

Quote by: Praxius Well then fine..... if you don't have an opinion on a conversation, then don't post. If you just want to go into a thread and complain that there is no provable side, is lame...... don't you think we know? Well most of us?? It's a debate ffs. If you want to call it ignorance, then go right ahead and point your finger.... you're in the wrong place.

I don't understand why you feel that there can only be two sides to a debate i.e. the sharing of ideas through discussion.

A position on a subject is no less valid beacuse it does not fit neatly into the debate as you have chosen to frame it. Moreover the position of "I don't know" aside from demonstrating self-awareness and honesty, is a position on a topic none the less. The world is not a neat duality.

When discussing religion or the existence of god where precisely would you place a budhist?

There is no belief of God so they must be athiest. Yet the ideology of Buddism is every bit as unsupportable as that of the christianity and in that way would be more similar to a theist. The fact that there is no firm scientific evidence for rebirth or nirvana would not disuade a convinced Buddhist yet the buddhist will argue that there is no God.

Does the fact that buddhist, believing neither in God nor the power of logic to fully make sense of the world, mean that buddhism would have nothing to contribute to a discussion on science vs existence of God?

I don't believe so.

If you don't want to pick a side on something because you can't prove the outcome, then you won't get anything done in your life. That's how us illogical humans solve problems and expand knowledge.... weither it's pointless or not.

No, that's how you and many other people chose to frame your understanding and development. Whatever works for you my friend is fine by me.

I however have got plenty done in my life without needing to pick a side in every problem I have encountered. I am happy to say in any situation, "I don't know" if upon consideration of all the evidence available this is really how i feel. This does not mean I can't add to a discussion and influence an outcome.

I don't know IS, in and of itself, a position on any given subject, no less valid or less- thought out than any other.

The fact that the western culture is built largely upon an adversarial model and understanding is therefore found through creating a duality where none need exist means that some people find they are ill equiped mentally to give credence to the possibility that "I don't know" is the best answer.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Everyone has slightly different ideas of what even the christian God is, so to claim to be able to disprove them in a blanket statement is unreasonable, of course, so is it to make your own personal feeling the "absolute truth", so anyone who claims to be able to prove that their God is absolutely true shouldn't even be in this conversation.

Are you telling me that there is scriptural evidence to support a christian/judeo god that ISN"T Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omniscient? Even if we allow for Omnipotent = Power to do what is logically possible, and Omniscience = Knowing all that is knowable (these are "Open Theist" definitions) This god can not exist when argued against the problem of evil (or suffering, to be more accurate) Is there something other than these definitions that "some christian" has come up with? If so, then why call him god?

Please explain.

[Praxius]

Don't get me wrong. I face a topic without a bias at the start. I listen to both sides of the story and the information given, and based on what is supplied, I come to my closest logical theory. In the same process, the questions that are not answered, I ask them.... you may notice I'll ask questions to both sides of the topic.

Is the glass half empty or half full? If it is filled halfway, it is half full. If it is drunk to halfway, it is half empty. If you arrive and it's at the middle and you can't tell either way, then it's just halfway. You can't go wrong with that very easily.

All I'm saying from how it was explained, is that if you just want to go into a thread and start an argument with "I don't know, because there isn't enough information" I'm not saying it is invalid, but you're just stating the obvious, because nobody truly knows, and therefore to me, it doesn't make sense to get into a topic with that kind of reasoning.

If I don't have a side in a topic, I stay out of the topic until I can derive an opinion one way or another. If I don't have a side, then I don't see a reason to waste my time in the topic.

There isn't always just two sides of a debate. Sometimes there are three or four other solutions.... if you have one, by all means explain it and help the brainstorming. To stay in the middle of the road so you don't later come off as being wrong, just doesn't seem "fun" to me...... I got no problem with being wrong at times, so I'll express what I understand at the time and let it evolve with further information.

[Zhavric]

I've never understood the objection that atheists are "close-minded". Accepting claims without evidence is not a virtue. Accepting claims only after evidence has been presented is.

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Zhavric I've never understood the objection that atheists are "close-minded". Accepting claims without evidence is not a virtue. Accepting claims only after evidence has been presented is.

Agreed. But one should also be broad minded enough to view new evidence impartially. The evidence that we have today may be proven as unreliable in the future.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: nilan3000 Agreed. But one should also be broad minded enough to view new evidence impartially. The evidence that we have today may be proven as unreliable in the future.

So we should be agnostic about everything? Is that what you're trying to say? We have mounds of evidence for evolution, and zero evidence of a young earth, should I take the middle ground for both?:eek:

[Praxius]

Quote by: ItsDarts So we should be agnostic about everything? Is that what you're trying to say? We have mounds of evidence for evolution, and zero evidence of a young earth, should I take the middle ground for both?:eek:

That's where I'm coming from with this understanding.

[nilan3000]

No we dont need to be agnostic or take middle ground in everything. Like i said earlier its just that different people require different amounts of proof to be really convinced of something.

Beleiving in a theory like evolution is one thing (I beleive in evolution because I feel the evidence supporting it is enough to satisfy me), but convincing yourself to the point of blindly rejecting any contrary notion is another matter. I repeat, I do not imply that anyone participating in this debate does that, but we are all humans and humans in general tend to get prejudiced towards certain things according to what they beleive in, even if we ourselves seldom realise this.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric I've never understood the objection that atheists are "close-minded". Accepting claims without evidence is not a virtue. Accepting claims only after evidence has been presented is.

Then I guess your claim is lacking in virtue.

You hold the no god exists. You have no proof. You've only redefined it into impossibility, and yelled (incorrectly) "god of the gaps!" at anyone who contradicts your definition.

[Kamehameha34]

All I'm saying from how it was explained, is that if you just want to go into a thread and start an argument with "I don't know, because there isn't enough information" I'm not saying it is invalid, but you're just stating the obvious, because nobody truly knows, and therefore to me, it doesn't make sense to get into a topic with that kind of reasoning.

Then you should laugh at Zhav, for his apparent lack of common sense

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then you should laugh at Zhav, for his apparent lack of common sense

Ad hominem attack, you can do better than this. And you might NOT want to use Wikipedia for your definitions of Atheism. Any freaking Christian, Arab, Jew, Hindu, etc... can go in there and change that post if they feel so inclined. I reject it whole heartedly. Atheism by pure etymology, is Lack of or Non-belief in personal creator and ruler of the universe. It than can be broken down further into Strong and Weak, where weak atheism = the etymological definition. Strong Atheism can be characterized as a belief. The same applies to agnosticism. Strong agnosticism says we CAN"T know (a belief) and weak or just plain agnosticism says "I don't know". Use the etymology of the words and you're safe.

[Kamehameha34]

All I'm saying from how it was explained, is that if you just want to go into a thread and start an argument with "I don't know, because there isn't enough information" I'm not saying it is invalid, but you're just stating the obvious, because nobody truly knows, and therefore to me, it doesn't make sense to get into a topic with that kind of reasoning.

It wasn't ad hominem. I stated that I don't know if a god exists, and you said that that is the obvious answer. Since Zhav denies that a god is possible, he is denying the obvious answer. That's what I'd call a lack of common sense.

And you might NOT want to use Wikipedia for your definitions of Atheism. Any freaking Christian, Arab, Jew, Hindu, etc... can go in there and change that post if they feel so inclined.

I cited the encyclopedia britannica.

Sheesh, I make a few wiki references, and suddenly I'm 'the guy that just makes wiki references'.

Atheism by pure etymology, is Lack of or Non-belief in personal creator and ruler of the universe. It than can be broken down further into Strong and Weak, where weak atheism = the etymological definition. Strong Atheism can be characterized as a belief. The same applies to agnosticism. Strong agnosticism says we CAN"T know (a belief) and weak or just plain agnosticism says "I don't know". Use the etymology of the words and you're safe.

I've broken down the terms into their more common, and cited usages to simplify the position. I don't want people's communication with me to be bogged down with semantics.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It wasn't ad hominem. I stated that I don't know if a god exists, and you said that that is the obvious answer. Since Zhav denies that a god is possible, he is denying the obvious answer. That's what I'd call a lack of common sense.

I do not believe Zhav ever said that a god is not possible. I believe he says that god is false until there is evidence to support one. The difference is subtle, but there is a difference. No one has been able to show evidence of any possible god.

I cited the encyclopedia britannica.

You did? Here is the 1 quote from your Signature link, which I was referring too....

Quote by: Kames Sig 1. Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote: Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities. It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist This citation supports the assertion that atheism is a positive claim, that atheists believe that no deity exists.

what part was Britanica and why wasn't that tid bit mentioned?

Sheesh, I make a few wiki references, and suddenly I'm 'the guy that just makes wiki references'.

I made the same mistake on another forum and got pwnd because my opponent went into Wiki and added something on purpose to make a point. Do not use Wiki for theological debates. Their contents are constantly being changed. Most atheists reject Merriam Websters definition as well, they are Christian. Which is why I use etymology, where bias is not present for the "general definition" of atheist.

I've broken down the terms into their more common, and cited usages to simplify the position. I don't want people's communication with me to be bogged down with semantics.

Unfortunately it's the "common" usage because the majority of people in America are Christian. I know that sounds like a cop out, but if you look at the etymology of this particular word, break it down, it is NOT the "common misunderstanding"

[RickSp]

I contend that God exists as an emotional response to man's mortality set against the vastness of the universe. People create gods because they want to believe in something larger than themselves. Because it feels good. Of course there is no physical proof for the existence of god. God is merely an emotion, a desire to transcend. This is why religion is both so varied and so universal. The emotional need that feeds it ubiquitous, even if the shapes we see in the dark vary widely.

Likewise the claim that to not believe one must first prove that god doesn't exist is simple foolishness, a sucker's game. I will only believe that for which there is reason to believe. No more, no less. I am prepared to be proven wrong at any point, but at least I will have the integrity to make a choice in my beliefs. This integrity is what appears so lacking in agnosticism. "I can't make up my mind what I believe" is a poor excuse for rational thought.

[Kamehameha34]

I do not believe Zhav ever said that a god is not possible. I believe he says that god is false until there is evidence to support one. The difference is subtle, but there is a difference. No one has been able to show evidence of any possible god.

Then he's committing argumentum ad ignorantium.

You did? Here is the 1 quote from your Signature link, which I was referring too....

I guess the proof in my signature applies to any and all references that I've cited in my debates about the existence of a god, then...

I made the same mistake on another forum and got pwnd because my opponent went into Wiki and added something on purpose to make a point. Do not use Wiki for theological debates. Their contents are constantly being changed. Most atheists reject Merriam Websters definition as well, they are Christian. Which is why I use etymology, where bias is not present for the "general definition" of atheist.

Encyclopedia - Britannica. I'll provide a reference, if need be.

Unfortunately it's the "common" usage because the majority of people in America are Christian. I know that sounds like a cop out, but if you look at the etymology of this particular word, break it down, it is NOT the "common misunderstanding"

Then he's incorrectly defined himself. Stop defending words. What matters is the concepts they represent.

[Kamehameha34]

Likewise the claim that to not believe one must first prove that god doesn't exist is simple foolishness, a sucker's game. I will only believe that for which there is reason to believe. No more, no less.

There's believing, there's disbelieving, and theirs a lack of belief. If you simply lack belief, because you think the idea of a god is miscellaneous and meaningless as opposed to proof, then you are a non-practicing agnostic.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ItsDarts Are you telling me that there is scriptural evidence to support a christian/judeo god that ISN"T Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent and Omniscient? Even if we allow for Omnipotent = Power to do what is logically possible, and Omniscience = Knowing all that is knowable (these are "Open Theist" definitions) This god can not exist when argued against the problem of evil (or suffering, to be more accurate) Is there something other than these definitions that "some christian" has come up with? If so, then why call him god? Please explain.

Scripture, first of all, is so open to interpretation it's ridiculous, it means different things for practically everybody. Why else do you think you have Evangelicals, Catholics, and Universalists all in the same religion? As to the suffering point, God is good, good is impossible without evil.

I know that has huge holes, but I don't claim that it is the uncontested truth. If you're too "sure" of what God is, you close your mind to his possibilities (or impossibilities.