|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2007 : 10:40:10 [Permalink]
|
Everyone who said that god is not disprovable:
I agree, and that is irrelevent. Atheism means a lack of believe, and can include a position asserting that god (general) can't exist or doesn't. However, none of that matters. No one shoud be allowed to believe something without evidence, without recieving the same raised eyebrow. Even if that something is god.
To everyone who said they are agnostics and not atheists:
This is impossible. Agnostics must be atheist. Unless you make a claim that you believe in a deity (a theist), you are not a theist (an atheist).
To everyone who used common definitions of the word agnostic atheist:
The common definitions are not binding. When I use the word water to describe tap, it does not exclude the other minerals and contaminents, but it must include the molecules H2O. It also does not include those contaminents in the definition. The lack of exclusion does not mean inclusion. In a chemistry lab, when I say water, I must mean only water, H2O. The point is that water in any use can only mean H2O but when I refer to a glass of water I am not necessarily limiting the glass' contents to only H2O (depending on usage). Same thing with agnostic. Agnostic means a lack of knowledge about something. It cannot mean anything less but does not necessarily exclude other states. It also can't include other states.
For everyone who said People need faith to make the world go round:
I am not interested in what makes people feel better. To me, if someone needs the word water to mean H2O2, I don't care. It still doesn't. I am not interested in changing people minds about anything, the more I study about how the mind/brain works, the more I realize how illogical it is in its workings. This is not the issue, however. The issue is whether or not atheist have any burden of proof or if we should be the ones who require proof, and whether or not insisting that faith is a position of ignorance is important to furthering critical thought.
To everyone:
Either atheism or theism is an acceptable default position, philosophically and scientifically. There is no other term available or needed because every position fits into one or the other as they are inclusive. Atheism obviously is the starting position about the god question, and one must take it on faith in order to believe in god (since no evidence is provided upon which to base that position). Faith is a position of ignorance and should be looked down upon by critical thinkers.
|
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/02/2007 10:44:12 |
 |
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 12:50:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
O.I. said:
quote:
It is totally unacteptable as well to say he dosen't unless we can prove it.
I disagree. Because you have to make an exception for god. With regard to all other assertions that you can make, of imaginary things, even you would not allow this exception for. The invisible pink unicorn(IPU), the cosmic hypnotoad, faries, UFOs, green men from mars, and so on and so on.
When you start making arbitrary exceptions to logical rules, you may as well just throw logic and reason right out.
Unevidenced premises render your proposition meaningless.
I would agree that a person making the statement "god does not exist" is also breaking some logical rules. In order to demonstrate that assertion to be true, one would have to provide evidenced premises that support a mutually exclusive assertion. But this is a red-herring in the debate obout the assertion "god exists".
There is no stronger rejection of an assertion, in the realm of logic and reason, than to dismiss it as unevidenced. Unevidenced assertions have no value.
This we are gong to have to disagree on.
quote:
quote:
10000 years ago (or so) did atoms exist? Did those new creatures they found n Borneo(?) recently exist before we found them? I know those may seem like silly questions, but I hope you see my point.
Atoms exist now, we have evidence that they did, indeed, exist 10,000 years ago. The new species recently documented in borneo, obviously, existed before we documented them. If you had listed the characters of a species we have not discovered yet, and then predicted we would discover that species and went searching for it, people would laugh at you. Do you see the difference?
I withdraw that comparrisson in shame for being weak.
quote:
quote:
However, it is a default position by many based on faith, and calling it unacceptable is unacceptable to them, and will not do anything to further anybody.
There is no philosophically intermediate position between science and religion. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence. This cannot be accepted by science. It would render science pointless. Equally, science renders faith pointless by insisting on evidence. The choice, as I see it, is one between fantasy and reality. I choose reality.
By all means, choose for yourself. The point I was trying to make here is that my belief, based on life experiences, is that when one side calls another stupid, or their thoughts unacceptable, at best it merely slows or closes a conduit to understanding and at worse it radicalizes/evangelizes against your point, and is counter-productive.
quote:
quote:
As skeptiks, shoudn't we try to learn what we can and teach what we can? People have to be open to receive something to ponder, and insult only closes that conduit off.
I agree. An open mind is required to examine new evidence. As Sagan said though, not so open that it falls out.
As for insults, ridicule is a valuable tool. Pointing out the absurdity of other people's erronious logic is an excellent way to illistrate their mistakes. I'd agree that insults just for the sake of insults are pretty pointless in any situation though.
quote:
All of this should be part of schooling. Evolution in science class, religion in philosiphy, and critical thinking and respect in all subjsects.
And point for pointt
quote:
Religion only if you are talking about the entire concept of religion. Not the teaching of one specific religion or set of beliefs.
I said religion, not christianity...... But then I should have probably explained more
quote:
Critical thinking, absolutely, as long as it is taught as a universal skill, not like the DI would want to teach it.
Amen. Logical Fallacies (which we didn't learn about in High School. Debating skills should be encouraged, as well as Devil Advocacy.
quote:
As for evolution, the introductory material does belong in HS biology classes.
Amen
quote:
As for respect, we should teach respect for persons. Not respect for the gibberish that many people believe. In no way should people respect the unevidenced assertions of other people. All unevidenced assertions should be ridiculed, torn to shreds, and the shreds used to flog the person who put it forth. [/quote]
If you want to make a point, and try to further your point, instead of just dropping the arguement as a waste of time taking it and flogging the person with it may lead to that person working against your point. Instead of furthering knowledge, you have limited it.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2007 : 17:37:32 [Permalink]
|
O.I said:
quote:
If you want to make a point, and try to further your point, instead of just dropping the arguement as a waste of time taking it and flogging the person with it may lead to that person working against your point. Instead of furthering knowledge, you have limited it.
I cannot prevent people from embracing intellectual dishonesty. If ridicule of their flawed arguments is enough to make them take up lies and dishonest tactics, then they were going to be a liar anyway. An honest person can respond to a ridiculed argument in two ways and remain honest. They could admit error, or if they were not in error they could come back later with a stronger argument.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dude
O.I. said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is totally unacteptable as well to say he dosen't unless we can prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Because you have to make an exception for god. With regard to all other assertions that you can make, of imaginary things, even you would not allow this exception for. The invisible pink unicorn(IPU), the cosmic hypnotoad, faries, UFOs, green men from mars, and so on and so on.
When you start making arbitrary exceptions to logical rules, you may as well just throw logic and reason right out.
Unevidenced premises render your proposition meaningless.
I would agree that a person making the statement "god does not exist" is also breaking some logical rules. In order to demonstrate that assertion to be true, one would have to provide evidenced premises that support a mutually exclusive assertion. But this is a red-herring in the debate obout the assertion "god exists".
There is no stronger rejection of an assertion, in the realm of logic and reason, than to dismiss it as unevidenced. Unevidenced assertions have no value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This we are gong to have to disagree on.
So, if I claim little green men are real unless you can disprove them, you are going to agree with me? How about Zeus, Appolo, Athena, Hera, Odin, Thor, Loki, Baldur, Danu, Dagda, Cernnunos, Bhrama, Agni, Horus, Isis, Osirus, Set, and so on and so on? Do you grant that it is unnacceptable to say these gods are not real unless you can disprove their existance?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 05:23:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
O.I said:
quote:
If you want to make a point, and try to further your point, instead of just dropping the arguement as a waste of time taking it and flogging the person with it may lead to that person working against your point. Instead of furthering knowledge, you have limited it.
I cannot prevent people from embracing intellectual dishonesty. If ridicule of their flawed arguments is enough to make them take up lies and dishonest tactics, then they were going to be a liar anyway. An honest person can respond to a ridiculed argument in two ways and remain honest. They could admit error, or if they were not in error they could come back later with a stronger argument.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dude
O.I. said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is totally unacteptable as well to say he dosen't unless we can prove it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Because you have to make an exception for god. With regard to all other assertions that you can make, of imaginary things, even you would not allow this exception for. The invisible pink unicorn(IPU), the cosmic hypnotoad, faries, UFOs, green men from mars, and so on and so on.
When you start making arbitrary exceptions to logical rules, you may as well just throw logic and reason right out.
Unevidenced premises render your proposition meaningless.
I would agree that a person making the statement "god does not exist" is also breaking some logical rules. In order to demonstrate that assertion to be true, one would have to provide evidenced premises that support a mutually exclusive assertion. But this is a red-herring in the debate obout the assertion "god exists".
There is no stronger rejection of an assertion, in the realm of logic and reason, than to dismiss it as unevidenced. Unevidenced assertions have no value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This we are gong to have to disagree on.
So, if I claim little green men are real unless you can disprove them, you are going to agree with me? How about Zeus, Appolo, Athena, Hera, Odin, Thor, Loki, Baldur, Danu, Dagda, Cernnunos, Bhrama, Agni, Horus, Isis, Osirus, Set, and so on and so on? Do you grant that it is unnacceptable to say these gods are not real unless you can disprove their existance?
No you cannot prevent people from embracing faith, it's hardwired into the brain, and provides comfort to many who are content with it. You can give most of them a differing viewpoint without shoving it on them. What can be prevented is the attacks that serve only to evangilicalize them. Let them be happy, content, and quiet.
Gods and ferries, little green men and unicorns are completely difirent concepts.
Faith and beleif are difirent for everyone. I cannot prove the existence of a Creator, just as I believe no scientist will ever prove that after the events of the Big Bang came randomly into existence, caused the big bang, gave this planet the materials, atmosphere, and conditions for life to come into being from non-life.
As far as the semi-decent representation of mythological doetoes you presented, Thor would probably have kicked all of their asses......
However, those are constructs of the peoples of the areas just like Yawah/Jehova/Allah, Bale, etc..... They were created to explain something or for use in controlling society. Any definable creation of man has to be proven.
The diety I am talking about is far older. It is not definable. Maybe it was Thor, Yawah, Odin, etc.... but I would require proof for that or any other defintion other then Creator.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 12:43:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
However, those are constructs of the peoples of the areas just like Yawah/Jehova/Allah, Bale, etc..... They were created to explain something or for use in controlling society. Any definable creation of man has to be proven.
The diety I am talking about is far older. It is not definable. Maybe it was Thor, Yawah, Odin, etc.... but I would require proof for that or any other defintion other then Creator.
So in the end, even if you refrain from naming your Creator, you're still stuck with God-of-the-gaps...
As science progress, Great Mysteries get explained, and there will be one less thing that the Creator is personally responsible for. In the end, will you have anything more than the initiation of the Big Bang as the final unsolved/unsolvable mystery? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 13:19:29 [Permalink]
|
| This thread is not about whether religion makes people happy (blissfully ignorant). This thread is about whether or not Faith is solely a position of ignorance and whether or not atheism is a default position needing absolutely no justification, just as in all other arguments over something existence. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 14:30:40 [Permalink]
|
O.I. said:
quote:
Faith and beleif are difirent for everyone.
People may experience these things differently, but they are essentially the same for everyone.
If they aren't, then the words we are using are rendered meaningless and any conversation about these topics becomes impossible.
If we can't agree on an objective definition of those terms, then we are wasting our time discussing them.
quote:
The diety I am talking about is far older. It is not definable. Maybe it was Thor, Yawah, Odin, etc.... but I would require proof for that or any other defintion other then Creator.
As Mab said, this boils down to inserting god into gaps in our knowledge.
I always fail to understand how anyone can be satisfied with that type of answer. I want answers to those questions that involve repeatable, verifiable evidence.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 16:14:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
This thread is not about whether religion makes people happy (blissfully ignorant). This thread is about whether or not Faith is solely a position of ignorance and whether or not atheism is a default position needing absolutely no justification, just as in all other arguments over something existence.
I think that aginstisism should be the defualt, as to be honest we are all without knowledge on the matter. I do not beleive you should have to justify your position on faith, or lack thereof.
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 19:00:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
This thread is not about whether religion makes people happy (blissfully ignorant). This thread is about whether or not Faith is solely a position of ignorance and whether or not atheism is a default position needing absolutely no justification, just as in all other arguments over something existence.
I think that aginstisism should be the defualt, as to be honest we are all without knowledge on the matter. I do not beleive you should have to justify your position on faith, or lack thereof.
Peace
Joe
First, do you proof read?  I mean I thought my spelling was bad.
Seriously though. Agnostics are atheist. You cannot be an agnostic and not an atheist.
The two terms tackle two different issues, knowledge and belief. If you don't know one way or the other whether god exists, you are agnostic toward god. If you do not believe in god you are an atheist.
So is belief the default position? No, I don't think so. Therefore, a lack of belief must be right? Yes, or there is no default position. The default would be atheism then. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/03/2007 19:01:46 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2007 : 19:47:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Seriously though. Agnostics are atheist. You cannot be an agnostic and not an atheist.
The two terms tackle two different issues, knowledge and belief. If you don't know one way or the other whether god exists, you are agnostic toward god. If you do not believe in god you are an atheist.
Many people disagree with your definition of an atheist. Definitions are arbitrary. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Personally, I don't care what definition you use as long as you are clear about it.
What name do you suggest we use for someone who doesn't believe in any god(s), but doesn't think it is impossible for a god to exist?
An atheist. That desribes most atheist I know, including me.
Definitions are not that arbitrary. Sure people define words their own way all the time but that doesn't make them correct. If we allow people to just arbitrarily use words however they feel like, then words have no meaning and conversations are not only impossible to hold, but are worthless when held.
In any case, the words used is not the point. The point is whether one should start out not believing in gods and should require proof before believing in them, less that person recieve the same ridicule as someone who believes in leprechauns. If we want to use the term, non-theist in place of atheist (which is a-theist, and should have the same exact meaning) that is fine with me. It still means that non-theism is the only intellectually sound position to hold, and theism is still a postion of ignorance that deserves ridicule not harboring and PC.
Also, Agnosticism is still not synonomous with non-theist either. It simply means that one does not know if god(s) exists. I think that asserting that god(s) can't exist is also impossible to do without evidence. The problem is that people claim god (a specific idea with specific traits) exists and cannot be rationally examined because god(general concept) can't be disproven or rationally examined. This word mucking is why I adhere to definitions according to the dictionary and sourced usage. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 11:46:01 [Permalink]
|
The problems with definitions is that the english language is so frekin bastardized, it can apply equally to both:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
So I again assert that agnostiiscm should be the honest default position, and that atheism is an oxymoron as one cannot be without theology as that is a theology itself....
ANd no, I don't proof read near enough.....
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
However, those are constructs of the peoples of the areas just like Yawah/Jehova/Allah, Bale, etc..... They were created to explain something or for use in controlling society. Any definable creation of man has to be proven.
The diety I am talking about is far older. It is not definable. Maybe it was Thor, Yawah, Odin, etc.... but I would require proof for that or any other defintion other then Creator.
So in the end, even if you refrain from naming your Creator, you're still stuck with God-of-the-gaps...
As science progress, Great Mysteries get explained, and there will be one less thing that the Creator is personally responsible for. In the end, will you have anything more than the initiation of the Big Bang as the final unsolved/unsolvable mystery?
I am not trying to "refrain" from naming my diety. I could call him "Bob" if I wanted, though I like "Teddie" better. Hell, his name could be CRTSDWESD, and he was a scientist for the Qwerty empire. The Qwerty empire was the ruling power of the multiverse. The scientists in the multiverse were experimenting with something we would call "Twinkies", dropped one in their Quantum reactor and Kablooie..... destroyed themselves while making the biggest damn bang.......
My point is, it is not known, and is at this time, unknowable. You can theorize the hell out of it all you want. Theories have been wrong, science is not perfect.
Joe
|
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 12:18:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
The problems with definitions is that the english language is so frekin bastardized, it can apply equally to both:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
So I again assert that agnostiiscm should be the honest default position, and that atheism is an oxymoron as one cannot be without theology as that is a theology itself....
ANd no, I don't proof read near enough.....
It not only can refer to both O.I, it does refer to both. Atheism is but is not limited to one who does not belief in a god.
Agnosticism is not a position that covers belief, it covers knowledge and one cannot believe in something one has no knowledge about. To do so is to have faith.
Do you believe in god? No? well then your an atheist. Do you have knowledge of god's existence? Well, then your agnostic toward the existence of god.
Personally, I am all for clarity when one expresses a belief or non-belief. If people want to go around saying that they are "agnostic toward god and are non-theist with respect to any general god's existence, but have contemplated the rationale that would allow for all previously postulated god's in their experience and have found such rationale lacking" instead of "I'm an atheist" or weak atheist or strong atheist. It doesn't matter to me. However to use you term OI it is bastardizing the word agnostic to make it cover a belief rather than just knowledge. After all even theist can have no knowledge of god's existence (being agnostic)and yet have faith about her existence
*As a side note, I sort of dislike using the term agnostic because it, to me, seems a weaker position. If a friend told me he saw a unicorn and asked if I believed in them, I would not say "I am agnostic to unicorns, they could exists." Instead, I would say no because there is a wealth of background knowledge about the mythology that created the unicorn and tons of rational explanations that could be postulated for his sighting. To truly be agnostic and allow the delusion to fester could be dangerous to my friend. Just as the UFO stories get more and more seeded in ones imagination until they are irreplacable nor removable. I do have a position on most of the postulated god(s) and there is no reason to play fiddle to any claims may by such believers without hard evidence. I suppose any skeptic, which by definition should press forward for the answers, and certainly a scientist should be a little offset from the neutral position and require evidence rather than simply desire evidence. But that is just my thoughts.
quote:
I am not trying to "refrain" from naming my diety. I could call him "Bob" if I wanted, though I like "Teddie" better. Hell, his name could be CRTSDWESD, and he was a scientist for the Qwerty empire. The Qwerty empire was the ruling power of the multiverse. The scientists in the multiverse were experimenting with something we would call "Twinkies", dropped one in their Quantum reactor and Kablooie..... destroyed themselves while making the biggest damn bang.......
My point is, it is not known, and is at this time, unknowable. You can theorize the hell out of it all you want. Theories have been wrong, science is not perfect.
Joe
So... Anyone can theorize anything. If they have no evidence, we should assume that theory is wrong not right. Sure it could be right, but probably not and it certainly doesn't matter until the evidence is in. Just because anything could be right doesn't mean everything should be considered plausible.
Do you think that fairies holding us fast to the ground is a plausible explaination for gravity? Are you agnostic toward it. Before you say you are agnostic toward it answer this, would you spend any government money on finding out if it is true? After all if it is possible and you don't know for sure you should at least investigate shouldn't you? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/04/2007 12:20:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 13:43:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Do you think that fairies holding us fast to the ground is a plausible explaination for gravity?
"Fleebledorps are able to grumfig" is an assertion. And while it is possible that fleebledorps can really grumfig, in the most technical sense of the term 'possible' and based upon no more knowledge than I've provided so far, an attempt to guage the plausibility of the claim will depend upon the evaluation of actual evidence both in favor of the claim and against it.
Obviously, in this example, the evaluation of evidence must begin with the question, "what the hell is a 'fleebledorp'?" And then, of course, "what is 'grumfigging'?" Once we get that sort of data, we can begin to assess the plausibility of "fleebledorps are able to grumfig." Until such a time, not only should we not waste resources trying to investigate the claim, we shouldn't even waste resources entertaining the notion that the claim is true. Without knowing what the words mean, the claim isn't necessarily false, it's just meaningless.
Original_Intent has, unfortunately, shown that in his opinion, there is no definition for the word 'God' from which we can begin to assess the plausibility of the claim, "God exists." He has asserted the "unknowability" of God. And so, while "God exists" isn't necessarily false, it is meaning-free, and thus completely unworthy of contemplation.
Technically, this isn't the same thing as defaulting to false, but for all practical purposes, the end result is the same: "God exists" is tentatively assigned a "truth value" of zero along with all the other known nonsense (like "balls are square" or "purple smells like oatmeal") until more evidence (or even just a definition) is put forth by those who might claim that "God exists" should have a truth value closer to one (even those "fence sitters" who think it should be precisely 0.5 and call themselves agnostics). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2007 : 13:49:42 [Permalink]
|
O.I. said:
quote:
So I again assert that agnostiiscm should be the honest default position, and that atheism is an oxymoron as one cannot be without theology as that is a theology itself....
I'll be kind and just call this for the straw-man it is.
You wrongly conflate the concept of theology with the concept of atheism. Theology, in it's basic meaning, is the study of religion. You can be an atheist and also be a theologist. Religion is unquestionably real and present in the world today. It is possible to study religion without believing in any god/s.
Atheism does not mean to be without theology. It means to be without belief in god/s.
All atheism means is that an atheist does not believe in the existance of any god/s.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
