Atheists vs. Agnostics: Ready... FIGHT!

[Angry Citizen]

Meaning what? Atheists literally don't believe in anything???

Excuse me, I misspoke. Anything was intended to signify that it transcended any one issue, and that a need for proof was necessary for everything. All the things mentioned in your quote are easily proven to exist (not the stuff about books and christmas presents of course), minus whatever silly epistemological argument someone may wish to make. Thus, they start out not existing, then they are proven through observation or explanation (with the latter's evidence being thoroughly made available).

[Angry Citizen]

A number of the current speculations being debated in field of physics are not scientifically verifiable at this time. Belief certainly comes into play.

If you're referring to string theory, then you'd be right -- if we scientifically minded individuals took string theory as incontrovertible fact. We do not. Indeed, it is the very lack of testability that prevents string theory from being a real theory. Personally, I think string theory is a misnomer at this point; it should be string hypothesis.

[Angry Citizen]

A person who values pure logic would not declare they were an atheist, anymore than they would declare Bigfoot was not real or the Big Bang Theory for that matter.

A person who values pure logic would realize that Bigfoot and the Big Bang Theory both offer vastly more evidence than God or any other god ever invented. A 'position of disinterest' is a position of negativity. Noone asserts that it might exist, save as an epistemological aside which could be made about anything. And that is its downfall. God is no more likely than fuzzy pink bunnies frolicking about, invisible to all spectrums and intangible to all matter. The only logical position is to dismiss such obvious fantasies and return to a world of logic and reason.

[Ender]

Nevertheless, if your view was accurate it would have to be regarded as not true, or not existing at this time. The fact is however, that true skepticism maintains that string theory is neither true nor untrue. It is has no status, because no status has been attributed to it. The scientific method is agnostic. Something either exists or it is in unproven. If pure reason is employed, there is no such thing as something that does not exist.

Agnosticism is the only position justified by those who believe only empirical evidence is to be valued. The fact is though no one really holds that position. Or at least no member of this site does. It's really almost impossible to hold any strong opinions if you value evidence alone.

[Angry Citizen]

The fact is however, that true skepticism maintains that string theory is neither true nor untrue. It is has no status, because no status has been attributed to it. The scientific method is agnostic. Something either exists or it is in unproven. If pure reason is employed, there is no such thing as something that does not exist.

Not true. String theory warrants investigation because it is mathematically supposed to work, on some level. Curiously, this was how general relativity started out. It was only proved through direct observation of celestial phenomenon.

That said, science says it either exists, or it has no evidence and is thus false. That metric changes when evidence is offered, wherein science morphs into an agnostic for further study. Proof is the key. God offers neither proof nor evidence, and is thus as valid as aether theory.

[Sonart]

.

I accept that Evolution is a Fact because of the evidence showing us just that.

No, you believe that evolution is a fact. However, you cannot prove beyond ALL doubt that -- for example -- we are not all living bio-energy sources, stored in bio-fluid filled tubs, stacked on huge towers to provide power for a vast, computer Matrix, while artificial, virtual lives are being fed to us in order to keep us functioning and energized.

Can you prove beyond all doubt that's not true? Because such is the task believers would set before us... prove that God does not exist.

No belief necessary.

And likewise I believe - to my bones - that the evidence suggests that gods do not exist. But I cannot prove it beyond all doubt.

Therefore, I believe, I have faith, that it's true.

A number of the current speculations being debated in field of physics are not scientifically verifiable at this time. Belief certainly comes into play.

There you are. Gravity is just another theory... we have little idea how it actually works. We only know that it does in every instance that we've observed.

Excuse me, I misspoke. Anything was intended to signify that it transcended any one issue, and that a need for proof was necessary for everything.

I figured. I just wanted to use that quote. You are forgiven, my son.

.

[ensayne]

That said, science says it either exists, or it has no evidence and is thus false. That metric changes when evidence is offered, wherein science morphs into an agnostic for further study. Proof is the key. God offers neither proof nor evidence, and is thus as valid as aether theory.

It can be currently false, but that is not to say that it IS false. If I create some theory in relation to the biochemical pathways of cancer, and I show that this hypothesis is false, that doesn't mean that this pathway doesn't exist, it just means my time is better spent else where, because it is doubtful that it exist.

To say that something exists or not is an absolute statement. At best one can state that it is highly improbable that God doesn't exist as opposed to the statement: god doesn't exist. When you think about it though, theist will hang on to that shred of probability.

[ensayne]

.

No, you believe that evolution is a fact. However, you cannot prove beyond ALL doubt that -- for example -- we are not all living bio-energy sources, stored in bio-fluid filled tubs, stacked on huge towers to provide power for a vast, computer Matrix, while artificial, virtual lives are being fed to us in order to keep us functioning and energized.

Can you prove beyond all doubt that's not true? Because such is the task believers would set before us... prove that God does not exist.

And likewise I believe - to my bones - that the evidence suggests that gods do not exist. But I cannot prove it beyond all doubt.

Therefore, I believe, I have faith, that it's true.

There you are. Gravity is just another theory... we have little idea how it actually works. We only know that it does in every instance that we've observed.

I figured. I just wanted to use that quote. You are forgiven, my son.

.

No, the evidence does not suggest that "God does not exist." The evidence doesn't suggest anything. WE create meaning from the evidence....even in scientific research quantitative data must have some meaning attached to it by a subjective being (human), otherwise it just literally is numbers. The very reason why these words have meaning is because you are there sitting at your computer to interpret them, they don't have meaning intrinsically. The same goes for any bit of scientific data, its meaning is associated with our interpretation. However, the same goes for those who believe in a God. If they believe in a God, this belief is not something inherent, it is something that must be taught and interpreted. Unlike science, religion leads to a manner of practice and this practice has certain consequences for others, and this is my issue with religion. So in both cases, I don't think a theist could say with certainty that their God exists and I don't think that with absolute certainty science can state that a God doesn't exist. Because in science we do not go by absolute statements but rather by p-value which is a measure of how probable a certain outcome is rather than a measure of absoluteness.

[Philip Lu]

It doesn't matter if God exists or not.

[ensayne]

It doesn't matter if God exists or not.

Yup, and now I will not respond to any more of such threads.

[Angry Citizen]

When you think about it though, theist will hang on to that shred of probability.

That is what I would seek to eliminate. Everyone argues from a position of negativity, because not all concepts have been envisioned.

For instance... you argue from a position of negativity in regards to.. hmm. Talking, sentient lamps. You may not even realize the argument is ongoing, but as the thought never occurs to you (have you seen a vocal, sentient lamp before?), it never comes into play. Thus it is with God. You've never seen God. You've never heard God. There is no mythical force which can even be construed as God. Everything in nature has been found to obey very simple laws which govern everything's actions. Thus, based on the evidence at hand, God not only cannot exist, but he cannot even be considered. In short, we are arguing about nothing, which is itself nothing. Highly illogical indeed.

To say that something exists or not is an absolute statement.

To say that something exists or not based on the available evidence, however, is perfectly valid and not an 'absolute statement' -- and such is atheism. Why, I might be inclined to consider your statement a classic strawman: arbitrarily define something as impossible, then whack it to death.

[Diogenes]

Because in science we do not go by absolute statements but rather by p-value which is a measure of how probable a certain outcome is rather than a measure of absoluteness.

I think that is the same point Sonat's been making. That there are no ' absolute ' certainties, just likely probabilities.

... there is a chance that some form of entity that we might consider like a god could exist
... the likelihood that this entity is a personal interactive deity is extremely remote
... the evidence that we have on hand , at this moment in time, would suggest that religious deities do not exist

we can only base our understanding upon the limits of our present existence...it is possible that what we understand as probable or improbable today may change in future generations.

All the evidence we have at present suggests that personal interactive god/s do not exist. However, we cannot assert that as an ' absolute ' truth.

Science ( and reason ) does not deal in absolutes.