^^^ Well, I'm afraid there's no such thing as a founded belief then. Is there? You can't even say Einsteinian physics because, after what he did to Newton, it's quite clear that, sooner or later, someone may prove Einstein wrong and come up with an even better theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Also as an atheist you are neglecting the multiplicity of hypotheses without running them through a scientific screen.
the conclusion is numeric certanty without fact. Why is "i'm not sure" not sufficient for an atheist. IF you were sure you would have evidence analogous to everything else you presume about life and its origins. The fact that you don't simply shows that you cannot come to a conclusion and thus its a stalemate until evidence can be shown.
Wait, I don't believe science provides a true picture of the world: It's supposed to provide a useful picture of experience, and it'd be dishonest to pretend science could do any more than that!
By the way, why are we talking about science? Is it supposed to be a new religion or something?
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Theism inversely equates to atheism with regards to semantics.
the conclusion to both is affirmation without evidence.
Not at all... but it's almost 3AM and I've got stuff to do tomorrow. I know this is not the first time I tell you this but I'll take about this later - I really need to go to bed :p
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
In other words, the inability to prove there is a God is considered proof in itself toward the belief that there isn't a God.
Ex. (way overly simplified and dumbed down)
A group of people believe if you wait long enough, an apple can become an orange.
These people cannot prove that this is even possible.
Therefore, a different group of people accept the inability to prove that it can happen as viable evidence proving that an apple cannot ever become an orange.
The fundamental difference between the two is that the Atheists are not basing their belief on "faith" as a Theist does, but rather on what they "know" can't be proven.
The issue that Agnostics often have with this is that you can never really "know" something, especially when it comes to divinity and things beyond our ability to comprehend. No one "knows" how the earth began (we have very good postulates, but nothing is for certain.) Therefore, what Atheists claim as "knowledge" seems to be comparable to the Theists "knowledge", both of which assume that their "knowledge" is true and infallible.
It is logical to say that the absence of proof *for* something suggests that it otherwise does not exist, but only if your "knowledge" is 100% infallible.
So it only makes sense to take an indifferent view - Agnosticism. You are accepting that there is no way to "truly know" something and therefore accept that there could be any number of possibilities.
Not necessarily an advocation for his theories... I just liked how it made me think outside of the box.
The problem I have with agnosticism (asides from it being homo and pansy fence sitting bollocks) is that it gives equal regard to both sides, and I don’t consider the invention of a magical being, without a shred of evidence, to be on an equal footing with disbelief of such notions. If I proposed an idea that a unicorn was orbiting Jupiter, would a belief in such a notion be weighted the same as disbelief? I wouldn’t think so. as quoted earlier:
quote:
Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions, and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.
That’s pretty much where I stand.
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Why is "i'm not sure" not sufficient for an atheist?
where's the fun in that? ;) but seriously, as a rabid atheist i am more than happy to admit that i could be wrong, and i am more than open to have my concepts of no-god changed with the correct amount of evidence. i dont know of any atheist (including dawkins) that says they KNOW god doesn't exist. such comments are ludicrous, obviously.
but i contend that there is no god for the same reasons i contend there is no unicorn orbiting jupiter. i dont believe you should entertain incredibly outlandish ideas without a corresponding level of evidence, thus the "natural" position in any like question is one of scepticism rather than "i don't know".
couch-potato
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
If I proposed an idea that a unicorn was orbiting Jupiter, would a belief in such a notion be weighted the same as disbelief? I wouldn’t think so.
lol, Russell's teapot. But it's a unicorn because it's TRANCEaddict!
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by couch-potato
lol, Russell's teapot. But it's a unicorn because it's TRANCEaddict!
haha, yes! well caught :)
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
^^^ Well, I'm afraid there's no such thing as a founded belief then.
I thought you might say something like that. Going down that road only leads to 'the colour red isn't really red but your body simulating the closest experience it can to the wavelengths of light reflected back to it from that particular object. Also, red is just a human linguistic and conceptual construct used to describe reality and doesn't really exist. ' When you go that far the discussion just becomes silly and pointless.
I can observe that an apple is red, I could fly into space and see with all certainty that the earth is round, or if I pricked myself with a pin I can see that it bleeds.
I cannot see a god and I cannot speak or otherwise communicate with one. I have no way or checking if there is a god. To me, this means that the existence or non-existence of a god cannot be currently proven.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
The problem I have with agnosticism (asides from it being homo and pansy fence sitting bollocks) is that it gives equal regard to both sides, and I don’t consider the invention of a magical being, without a shred of evidence, to be on an equal footing with disbelief of such notions.
This isn't necessarily true of agnosticism.
An agnostic may very well assign varying levels of validity to either position, though may ultimately contend that despite their misgivings or credence regarding these positions, 'evidential sufficiency' (as it were) has not been met in order to accept or reject either.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
This isn't necessarily true of agnosticism.
An agnostic may very well assign varying levels of validity to either position, though may ultimately contend that despite their misgivings or credence regarding these positions, 'evidential sufficiency' (as it were) has not been met in order to accept or reject either.
that's a fair point. it doesn't prevent them from being homo fence-sitters though ;)
Theresa
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
The problem I have with agnosticism (asides from it being homo and pansy fence sitting bollocks) is that it gives equal regard to both sides, and I don’t consider the invention of a magical being, without a shred of evidence, to be on an equal footing with disbelief of such notions. If I proposed an idea that a unicorn was orbiting Jupiter, would a belief in such a notion be weighted the same as disbelief? I wouldn’t think so. as quoted earlier:
That’s pretty much where I stand.
where's the fun in that? ;) but seriously, as a rabid atheist i am more than happy to admit that i could be wrong, and i am more than open to have my concepts of no-god changed with the correct amount of evidence. i dont know of any atheist (including dawkins) that says they KNOW god doesn't exist. such comments are ludicrous, obviously.
but i contend that there is no god for the same reasons i contend there is no unicorn orbiting jupiter. i dont believe you should entertain incredibly outlandish ideas without a corresponding level of evidence, thus the "natural" position in any like question is one of scepticism rather than "i don't know".
LOL!! I think this is one of the only posts from you that I have truly enjoyed :) Favourite part? Unicorn orbiting Jupiter.
Anyway...
On paper, it may look like an Agnostic lends the same regard to both Theists and Atheists but in reality, I think most people are biased toward one way or the other. I think there are Agnostic-Theists (those who accept that they do not know but are more readily to accept that there is some type of deity), Agnostic-Atheists (those who accept they do not know but lean toward the idea that religion is a bunch of hobunky), and a Neutral Agnostic (one who accepts that they simply do not know and have no tendency to believe one way or the other).
Personally, I agree with you 100% - it does seem ludicrous to even entertain the idea of a "magical being" as you called it. However, I contend with the fact that I don't know... as pansy ass, fence sitting a position that is. It seems almost arrogant to say that one is right over the other (as ludicrous as it may sound) when no one can prove without a reasonable doubt either position.
Your acceptance that you could be proven wrong with sufficient evidence suggests that you are, according to the way I see it, an Agnostic-Atheist. You believe there is no deity but are willing to admit that you could be proven wrong.
Perhaps I have an incorrect idea of what Agnosticism is, but I perceive it as the simple admission of not being able to "truly know" something.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
A)you're jumping the gun here. There is sufficient evidence to show that we are not, so we presume so unless stronger evidence shows otherwise.
B)Do you know the grand scheme of things? For certain? obviously not so you cannot discount what may or may not be without sufficient evidence. (SEE A)
That's the point- the grand scheme of things, i.e. the universe, is so vast and beyond the ability of our brains to comprehend. You don't think it's arrogant to presume that we hold real significance? Believing this makes us feel like we actually have a purpose in the grand scheme of things. I read that if the history of time was put into a calender year, our species' existance would be comprised of the last second of the last minute of December 31st. Let Carl put it in perspective:
JasonThomas
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
An atheist completely denies that there could possibly be a divine or higher being. As with the religious person, they have no proof to prove this belief. They are making an assumption.
Your wrong
quote:
Originally posted by wikipedia
In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]
Atheism, strictly speaking, means "not a theist". An atheist holds no belief in a god. Agnosticism is really just a type of atheism.
Think that your agnostic and not atheist? Think again.
Anyway, it's already been explained that the burden of proof is on the theist.
netroM
This deserves another post:
pkcRAISTLIN
atheism also serves no purpose without religion. without religion, there would be no need to speak out about atheism, not necessarily because everyone would be classified an atheist, but because people wouldn't feel the need to regularly state "there is no god!" any more than they would feel the need to declare "i dont have 5 heads right now!"
crazy fundamentalists like moral hazard have gone a long way to make me feel a little ashamed of some of the things dawkins says, but it at least provokes debate on the acceptable roles of religion in our societies.
