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

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 By the way, according to your definition, you're a non-practicing agnostic.

Quote by: Kamehameha My stance is that I don't know if there's a god. Don't presume to tell me that I do.

LOL. Your double standard, or perhaps lack of awareness, or whatever it may be, is amusing. You presume to tell me that I am not an athiest yet you take offense when others make similar presumptions regarding your views.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. Your double standard, or perhaps lack of awareness, or whatever it may be, is amusing. You presume to tell me that I am not an athiest yet you take offense when others make similar presumptions regarding your views.

What I call myself is consistent with the definition of my thoughts. What you fail to call yourself is not consistent with thoughts antithetical to yours.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What I call myself is consistent with the definition of my thoughts. What you fail to call yourself is not consistent with thoughts antithetical to yours.

LOL. Now you are a legend in your own mind. Very droll, though not unusual in the very young. If you cannot understand why I am an atheist and not an agnostic, well that is your problem.

[Kamehameha34]

I think that you're a very poor debator. I've never seen you post anything of substance. A prime example is this, where you resort to ad hominem, and excessive use of it - at that. Don't post if you don't have anything constructive to share.

[xyzer]

You guys toss around comments about beliefs and belief systems as if there was some certainty that such human belief systems are valid?..rather than conceptions of the human mind? I think Rick, early in this discussion stumbled into something..

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.

I agree..the thought also applies to all belief systems. That is why there is little consensus between believers!.. this applies to scientific theories too. There is rarely consensus in the scientific community. If we could only admit..we just don't know. However histiory is replete with stories about what happens when humans don't agree on others beliefs..

I guess thats what stirs humanity into conflict and I guess thats why Joan of Arc was burned! And thats why Islamic terrorists haunt our existence!

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: RickSp If there is no evidence that god or gods exists, then there is no reason to believe in this vaguely and variously defined concept. If you have evidence or some rationale to offer, then I am happy to consider it. Otherwise, playing word games about there being no evidence to disprove the existence of a concept for which there is no evidence, is really a waste of time. If you still want to believe in god, because that is the way you were brought up or because it makes you feel good, or any other reason, that is entirely up to you. And for those who lack the ability to make up their minds, that is their choice a well.

I suppose I should stop classifying myself as a theist, I cede that there very well may be no god(s). Perhaps an agnostic who likes to muse about his uncertainties?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I think that you're a very poor debator. I've never seen you post anything of substance. A prime example is this, where you resort to ad hominem, and excessive use of it - at that. Don't post if you don't have anything constructive to share.

You first. I note that you completely ignored every one of the points I raised in my previous post. If you see nothing of substance perhaps it is your own lack of depth.

[Kamehameha34]

You raised no points other than logically fallacious attacks. You have no reason to be here if you can't debate this logically and rationally.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You raised no points other than logically fallacious attacks. You have no reason to be here if you can't debate this logically and rationally.

I notice that others seems to find substance in what I post. Says volumes about how little you manage to grasp. Pity.

[Kamehameha34]

LOL. Now you are a legend in your own mind. Very droll, though not unusual in the very young. If you cannot understand why I am an atheist and not an agnostic, well that is your problem.

Anyone who can extrapolate a point after reading this this is an idiot.

[Trent]

Quote by: nilan3000 If someone chooses neither side of an unprovable argument and then claims everybody else is wrong, he is not an agnostic, he is a fool. A true agnostic is in search of the answer because he hasnt found it yet, and there is no point in calling someone an agnostic if he claims that everybody else is wrong. After all, being agnostic means that you do not know the answer, if you denounce everybody else's claims, that would mean you DO know the answer.

I agree with this

I call myself agnostic because I don't know. And that is the truth.
I'm willing to discover - but as yet, I've no proof either way.
(what's wrong with that? Set me right)

Jagged - take it easy - I write at night to chill - I'm no 'high-brow intellectual' - I was just trying to clarify things for myself.
Your words snap off the page like they're being shot from as SA80
Impressive (your words, not the gun) but aggressive

[ItsDarts]

I think the problem with SOME agnostics is they are looking for "Proof" instead of the available evidence that can lead to a decision on their part. When I started the debate forums a couple years back, I entered as an agnostic. I didn't know all the arguments for or against god(s). I soon realized that I would never ever (in my lifetime) find "Proof" for or against. So I started reading all the arguments for and against, and based on factual evidence and the lack of it (evolution, cosmology, geology, biochemistry) plus arguments like the argument from evil, the watchmaker, etc... I came to my own conclusion that gods of scripture can not exist. It makes sense that you can't prove a negative, and it also makes sense that the lack of evidence for gods of scripture, even though many will claim that the argument from ignorance isn't valid, I find it compelling to say the least. If I don't have a pink elephant in my bathtub, this tells me, "I don"t have a pink elephant in my bath tub". So when I pray to some god, and I don't get any kind of answer or results, that certainly tells me he isn't there or doesn't care. I've seen no evidence of a god that can't be explained by natural means. M-theory, Super String Theory, The Big Bang, Evolution, all have at least SOME evidence and some is better than none. So until there is SOME evidence for god(s), I'm sticking with science. If science is wrong, we'll hear about it and my stance will change with science.

[Kamehameha34]

The problem with a lot of atheists is that they feel that since they can disprove one god, they can extrapolate that to relate to all possible gods. A being with the ability to create a universe has no need for prayer, or to evidence itself.

[rez]

Quote by: ItsDarts I think the problem with SOME agnostics is they are looking for "Proof" instead of the available evidence that can lead to a decision on their part. When I started the debate forums a couple years back, I entered as an agnostic. I didn't know all the arguments for or against god(s). I soon realized that I would never ever (in my lifetime) find "Proof" for or against. So I started reading all the arguments for and against, and based on factual evidence and the lack of it (evolution, cosmology, geology, biochemistry) plus arguments like the argument from evil, the watchmaker, etc... I came to my own conclusion that gods of scripture can not exist. It makes sense that you can't prove a negative, and it also makes sense that the lack of evidence for gods of scripture, even though many will claim that the argument from ignorance isn't valid, I find it compelling to say the least. If I don't have a pink elephant in my bathtub, this tells me, "I don"t have a pink elephant in my bath tub". So when I pray to some god, and I don't get any kind of answer or results, that certainly tells me he isn't there or doesn't care. I've seen no evidence of a god that can't be explained by natural means. M-theory, Super String Theory, The Big Bang, Evolution, all have at least SOME evidence and some is better than none. So until there is SOME evidence for god(s), I'm sticking with science. If science is wrong, we'll hear about it and my stance will change with science.

Well said. The god hypothesis is speculation lacking any type of critical thought. I prefer a more realistic method to answer unknown questions rather then hypothetical "what ifs". I need some credible evidence that is consistent with the laws of nature to be able to formulate some type of thought. This does not mean I am against god, it just means that I have absolutely no reason to speculate about god - and as of right now the god hypothesis is completely false.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The problem with a lot of atheists is that they feel that since they can disprove one god, they can extrapolate that to relate to all possible gods. A being with the ability to create a universe has no need for prayer, or to evidence itself.

Right Kame, anything and everything is possible. The point is to be consistent and acknowledge history and the way things work in the universe. Your hypothetical "what ifs" are boring, shallow and lead to no constructive thought.

[Kamehameha34]

Hypotheses with no evidence for or against them default to unknown, not false. No evidence for something doesn't constitute evidence against it. You're fallacious line of thinking is what's led to strong atheism.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hypotheses with no evidence for or against them default to unknown, not false. No evidence for something doesn't constitute evidence against it. You're fallacious line of thinking is what's led to strong atheism.

thats great, then god(s) should not even be considered a hypothesis. I don't know even know if god(s) constitutes as a serious thought experiment.

[Fonceai]

@rez

I've always found that when someone is unknown, I instead think of certain probabilities based on what is already known.

I find that a lot of the what-ifs rely on things beyond our knowledge anyway.

[Jack]

You're fallacious line of thinking is what's led to strong atheism.

No, the failure of those who suggest gods exist to provide any evidence to support their claim is what leads to atheism.

[Kamehameha34]

...No?

All meaningfull hypotheses start out as unknowns. ALL CLAIMS are hypotheses.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood No, the failure of those who suggest gods exist to provide any evidence to support their claim is what leads to atheism.

Are you claiming to be a strong atheist?