Agnosticism is the logical from Atheism?

Dave!

I'm an agnostic atheist

cursai

Look i have to sleep. ill try to summarise. I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

cursai

Yis know im right so dont fight it anymore. Oiche Mhaith!

Improbable

cursai wrote: »

Look i have to sleep. ill try to summarise. I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

Atheism is as much of a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

If an Atheist isnt certain then he is Agnostic!

You do realise it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist right?

Now, I'm going to wander off to find something to strike you with if you don't start taking some of this information in.

Galvasean

cursai wrote: »

Yis know im right so dont fight it anymore. Oiche Mhaith!

Ickle Magoo

cursai wrote: »

Look i have to sleep. ill try to summarise. I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

But I don't believe - I lack belief. I was born without a belief in a god and I have never had any belief in a god. Until some reasonable evidence presents itself I have no reason to have a positive belief and will remain in the default lacking belief one way or the other. :cool:

strobe

cursai wrote: »

Look i have to sleep. ill try to summarise. I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

If I told someone that 12 dragons were having an orgy on my kitchen table last night with the daughter of Rasputin and an alien from the future that came to this planet to share his favourite cheese cake recipe with me while the original Guns 'n' Roses line up played mood music in the background.....and that person said he didn't believe me.....is that person now in a religion of one because he can't prove it didn't happen but doesn't believe it happened all the same?

Improbable

strobe wrote: »

If I told someone that 12 dragons were having an orgy on my kitchen table last night with the daughter of Rasputin and an alien from the future that came to this planet to share his favourite cheese cake recipe with me while the original Guns 'n' Roses line up played mood music in the background.....and that person said he didn't believe me.....is that person now in a religion of one because he can't prove it didn't happen but doesn't believe it happened all the same?

Still more believable than the existence of a god. That's sayin' somethin'...

Rockn

I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

I think it's more: not believing in a certain way of existence because of a lack of scientific or other proof.


You don't have to be able to prove everything you believe and disprove everything you don't believe. It would be impossible. I think that everyone has to draw a line somewhere. This is stuff I believe. This is stuff I don't believe. This is stuff I'm uncertain of, it could be true. How you make the decision depends on the person. Me, I use logic, reason, science. Science has built up a picture of the universe and how it works. If something fits in with that then I'll to accept it. If it goes against that I won't. If it's in between I'll be open to the idea.

Extraterrestrial life for example. Of course I've no idea if it exists but is it possible? When you consider the number of planets in the universe and the fact that life started on Earth then it's not illogical. So I'll say "I don't know if there is extraterrestrial life".

God, on the other hand, doesn't fit in with the scientific view of the universe at all. If god exists then anything's possible and we might as well not have scientific laws, seeing as god could change them at any time. God goes in my "improbable therefore don't believe" category.

Other people draw the lines in different places. Lots of people couldn't give a crap about science or proof. I don't understand that at all. Some people just believe anything that's told to them by people close to them. Some people just believe what they would like to be true.

Point is: people say you can't prove god doesn't exist therefore you can't really be an atheist. I say you don't need to prove everything you believe or disbelieve. If you did then the word believe would be pretty meaningless and we might as well all say "we don't know anything".
More important question is why do you believe or disbelieve the things you do? Is it based on rationality or something else?

TL;DR

ME:
scientifically probable = believe
scientifically possible = don't know
scientifically improbable = don't believe

SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN GOD:
want it to be true = believe
don't care = don't know
don't want it to be true = don't believe
?

Morbert

bnt wrote: »

Do you know what Agnostic means? Here's a picture, courtesy of irreligion.org:

I'm not sure I like that representation.



What stances do the red dots represent? And what's the difference between them? And what's the difference between the two green dots?

bnt

liamw wrote: »

There isn't really a theism scale though is there? Isn't it a dichotomy; you're either theist or atheist? (I guess some would say deism lies in between)

I'm of the opinion that there is - compare a fundamentalist nutball with your common Irish "Christmas & Easter" churchgoer. Dawkins talks about a spectrum of theistic probability, calling himself a 6 on a scale of 7. (1 = 100% irrational theism, 7 = 100% irrational atheism.)

So, if you go back to the diagram I posted: what are the degrees of gnosticism?

The Mad Hatter

cursai wrote: »

Until there is full proof of a Non godly habited world(whatever) how can a person be sure!

What?

Look, atheists aren't "sure". I don't know any atheist who is certain there isn't a god. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't state that there is no god. But until someone offers us actual, tangible evidence, why should we act as though there were?

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

As stated before (you have been reading the thread?), the burden of proof is on those claiming something exists, not the other way around.

"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

I think it's incredible to claim nothing other than us existed to start this universe off as none of us were there and no science has verifiably confirmed what started this.
Where does that leave the position of saying one side of the God debate has more onus to prove something than the other?

The unknown is a hugely fascinating thing which is why out of respect for it or for the potential of it,I'm not comfortable from my own personal point of view, with ruling out a higher power than us.
I am comfortable with skepticism on man made religions though and their man made rules.

pH

cursai wrote: »

If an Atheist isnt certain then he is Agnostic!

That's just your BLIND FAITH talking, unless you have any proof ... :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not sure I like that representation.



What stances do the red dots represent? And what's the difference between them? And what's the difference between the two green dots?

The red dots are on the axis so of atheist theist so represent someone who is completely undecided between theism and atheism.

the difference between them is how a person views knowledge of the supernatural and what you can and can't know.

For example one of the dots might be someone who is completely undecided between atheism and theism but who is utterly convinced of ghosts, and thus is quite gnostic in his outlook.

Dades

After 4+ pages we get this:

cursai wrote:

Look i have to sleep. ill try to summarise. I think Atheism is the same as any religion. Believing in a certain way of existence without Scientific or other practical proof!

Apologies to those who responded, but this thread is another farce where the OP has shown no interest in taking on board any replies.

Closed to avoid wasting people's time.

Dades

Right, after some PMs with the OP (and consultation with this week's Good Cop, Robin ) I'm reopening this thread to see if it leads to anything except a raft of facepalms.

As you were.

Zillah

THIS gets the axe but Admiral JC Sails Again continues it's lumbering path of destruction through the forum?

liamw

Zillah wrote: »

THIS gets the axe but Admiral JC Sails Again continues it's lumbering path of destruction through the forum?

Teach the controversy

The Mad Hatter

…

…

Echo!

Echo!

Echo!

Echo!

Tim Robbins

Are you agnostic about Santa?
Because you can't proove he doesn't exist. Either can science.

I'm atheist about Santa, I rather not have you question my dogma about this as it's very sacred to me.

A Primal Nut

cursai wrote: »

Discuss class!
How can a person be an Atheist? If if a religious person is acting on blind faith in their belief of a God, how can an Atheist not be acting on blind faith to conclude that there IS NO GOD! There is no scientific fact or proof that GOD DOES NOT EXIST!
Before anyone asks i am Agnostic!




Heading is wrong i know!!!!

I believe there is no God in the same way I believe that babies are not delivered by storks, in spite of the fact that I've never actually seen a baby been born. However I think it would be silly to way I'm agnostic with regard to whether or not babies are delivered by storks and the same thing applies to my belief in God. Saying you are atheist is a conveniant way of saying you fall on the side where you believe there is no God; whereas Agnostic you generally aren't sure, or perhaps you think there is a God but aren't sure which one (there are plenty to choose from).

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you agnostic about Santa?
Because you can't proove he doesn't exist. Either can science.

I'm atheist about Santa, I rather not have you question my dogma about this as it's very sacred to me.

Pah, you're only saying that because you where bold last year and didn't get any presents...

A Primal Nut

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I believe there is no God in the same way I believe that babies are not delivered by storks, in spite of the fact that I've never actually seen a baby been born.

Yeah but eminent scientists aswell as parents have proven beyond reasonable doubt that babies do indeed come out of a womans vagina having spent time in the womb etc
Theres also pretty conclusive evidence of how they get there ...a lot of practice went into checking the theory on that

Isn't your belief that theres no God unprovable anyway ? Making disagreements boil down to the simple matter of how fervent one believes one thing or another in the absence of an ultimate proof.

I find these positions interesting from the simple standpoint of as alluded to earlier by me,comfort zones.
If one is perfectly comfortable with believing theres no god,then wheres the harm in that,similar to wheres the harm in being the opposite.
What I do not understand is attacking personal beliefs for what looks like attacking sake or from the motivation of a dislike of their position due to taking a fervency with the opposing position.

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view and if as has been put to me a few times here most atheists do not believe there is a God,then they are practicing a belief and not a science as we know neither the end or the start game to how we evolved to where we are.
Obviously being human,I hope if God exists,that he or she likes me.
Who wouldn't

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view

Yes but here's the kicker. Most atheists are agnostics. As far as I am aware all atheists posting on this forum are agnostics. Also as far as I am aware all the agnostics posting on this forum are atheists. Most theists I know (in real life, not on here) are also agnostics. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They usually go hand in hand.

My position would be that you are born atheist just like you are born apolitical. You only stop being an atheist if you become a theist just like you only stop being apolitical if you become politicised.

A Primal Nut

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah but eminent scientists aswell as parents have proven beyond reasonable doubt that babies do indeed come out of a womans vagina having spent time in the womb etc

Theres also pretty conclusive evidence of how they get there ...a lot of practice went into checking the theory on that

Yes, and a lot of practice went into verifying the laws of physics, everyone of which God breaks, just as Santa Claus being able to fit down people's chimneys breaks laws, and the idea that a stork delivers babies breaks a few laws as well. But anyway, you won't take that point because you'll just say God might have created the laws, and so he is allowed to live outside them bla, bla, bla.

Isn't your belief that theres no God unprovable anyway ? Making disagreements boil down to the simple matter of how fervent one believes one thing or another in the absence of an ultimate proof.

Its certainly provable that the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam don't exist; just read the bible, quran or torah; there are too many contradictions with modern science for it to be true. And you already made the point that I'm allowed to trust other people (eminent scientists for example) for the purposes of this discussion without having to see these things with my own eyes. There are some things that are either true or false. Its probably not possible to prove that there is no God at all, but I put the likelihood on a par with the likelihood of Santa Claus existing, which I'm pretty sure makes me an Atheist by anyone's defintion. Also; for me, atheism is as much about the rejection of organised religion as it is about not believing in God.

I find these positions interesting from the simple standpoint of as alluded to earlier by me,comfort zones.
If one is perfectly comfortable with believing theres no god,then wheres the harm in that,similar to wheres the harm in being the opposite.
What I do not understand is attacking personal beliefs for what looks like attacking sake or from the motivation of a dislike of their position due to taking a fervency with the opposing position.

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view and if as has been put to me a few times here most atheists do not believe there is a God,then they are practicing a belief and not a science as we know neither the end or the start game to how we evolved to where we are.
Obviously being human,I hope if God exists,that he or she likes me.
Who wouldn't

Yeah you better hope so, coz if he takes a disliking to you won't be long killing you, judging by the contents of holy books.

I respect your point of view as agnostic and respect it, however I disagree with the idea that atheists are really agnostic because it can't be scientifically proven there is no God.

A Primal Nut

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I respect your point of view as agnostic and respect it, however I disagree with the idea that atheists are really agnostic because it can't be scientifically proven there is no God.

I know you do but you had to bring religon and religious books into it to do so.
Religions are only ways of worshiping a God and are man made so therefore not ultimate proof of anything.
So I'm left hanging in my uncomfortableness ruling out the existence of a god.

Dades

Deleted User wrote: »

So I'm left hanging in my uncomfortableness ruling out the existence of a god.

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess what I'm saying here in a nutshell is agnosticism is the only credible position to take in my view and if as has been put to me a few times here most atheists do not believe there is a God,then they are practicing a belief and not a science as we know neither the end or the start game to how we evolved to where we are.

The only credible position to take is that humans imagine beings like God or another supernatural agents in nature due to mental process that is a by product of how our brains evolved.

That is the only position supported by any sort of science and credible evidence.

And that is the position the majority of atheists on this forum take.

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

What's it like moderating a forum that everybody posts in but none actually read?

Dades

Galvasean wrote: »

What's it like moderating a forum that everybody posts in but none actually read?

Penitential.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

Of course I read the posts in this thread,I am here to discuss this not have people swear profanities at me.The issue I have is how can you not rule out the existence of a God and disbelieve that there is one at the same time?
that seems to be a conceived position of convenience to me.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

What's it like moderating a forum that everybody posts in but none actually read?

Sorry, could you repeat that?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course I read the posts in this thread,I am here to discuss this not have people swear profanities at me.The issue I have is how can you not rule out the existence of a God and disbelieve that there is one at the same time?
that seems to be a conceived position of convenience to me.

It is impossible to rule out the exists of anything. you cannot prove there are no baby carrying storks

What we do have is a perfectly testable and established alternative, ie natural child birth.

Along with that we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why humans would invent the notion that storks bring babies.

Based on that you can say that there is no basis for the assertion "Storks bring babies" is actually real.

You can do EXACTLY the same thing with notions like God.

So if you think it is reasonable to assert Storks don't bring people babies it is reasonable to assert human Gods are imaginary.

amacachi

Dades wrote: »

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

I was going to say that but I had already said it to the OP in this thread, no sense in repeating oneself. :pac:

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

The only credible position to take is that humans imagine beings like God or another supernatural agents in nature due to mental process that is a by product of how our brains evolved.

That is the only position supported by any sort of science and credible evidence.

And that is the position the majority of atheists on this forum take.

I'd agree with that analysis to an extent.
Theres oceans of analysis of how the mind works.
However,thats a position on what makes some people comfortable and how other people don't need that comfort or in some cases have learned they don't need it.
But it doesn't deal with beliefs or convictions people have without evidence.
When I first responded to a primal nut in this thread it was to a post where he/she said they didn't believe a God existed.
You don't either I presume? In which case correct me if I'm wrong,I'm engaging here with at least 2 posters who are declaring a belief and not a fact that there is no God.
If atheists do not rule out a God and you two do,what label/description or category does that come under?

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

It is impossible to rule out the exists of anything. you cannot prove there are no baby carrying storks

What we do have is a perfectly testable and established alternative, ie natural child birth.
Along with that we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why humans would invent the notion that storks bring babies.

Based on that you can say that there is no basis for the assertion "Storks bring babies" is actually real.

You can do EXACTLY the same thing with notions like God.

So if you think it is reasonable to assert Storks don't bring people babies it is reasonable to assert human Gods are imaginary.

You mean Gods,that humans imagine? As opposed to the unknown
What you've outlined above reads to me as a justification for a belief as opposed to an understanding of the unknown.
Thats an understandable position as obviously the unknown isn't understandable.
Now whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect as isn't that what people who believe in the opposite of what you believe also do.
Where each individual falls is their own comfort zone on the issue.
I get your's,I'm just not there with you.

Mark Hamill

Deleted User wrote: »

What you've outlined above reads to me as a justification for a belief as opposed to an understanding of the unknown.

Dades wrote:

Oh ffs, ATHEISTS DO NOT RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Atheism concerns BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Did you even read the posts in this thread??

Its almost as if he is reading the posts, but subconsciously, like.

Dades

Black Briar, I'm confused as to the point you're making in your last two posts, so let me try and clarify.

Your use of the phrase "ruling out" is not compatible with atheism, as it implies knowledge on the question of gods.

Atheism only deals with belief, and not absolutes. Atheism is compatible therefore with agnosticism, as one can acknowledge the fact that we do not know, and yet hold a belief, at the same time. Most people on this forum would be 'agnostic atheists', but given that's a bit of a mouthful we're cool with just being atheists.

A lot of people don't like this notion, because it messes with their preconceptions that atheists claim to know 100%, which would make them an easy target were it true.

A quote that was linked to earlier that I liked is relevant here:

Isaac Asimov wrote:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Cavehill Red

cursai wrote: »

Hey look linguistics aside....Gnostics is rubbish! The same as Agnostic only open for experimentation like a college student!

Er, no. Gnosticism is the study of wisdom. In its narrow meaning it is meditative, contemplative and explores philosophically debates that are deemed off-limits by most disciplines, such as the purpose origin and nature of existence.
A-gnosticism is a simple position admitting ignorance. In the theism debate, it implies an admission of not knowing one way or another whether a deity or deities exist.
Therefore it is perfectly possible to be a gnostic atheist. I am, and many Buddhists are too.
It is also possible, and indeed quite common, to be an agnostic atheist. IE someone who does not KNOW one way or another if any deity exists, but who BELIEVES that none does.

cursai wrote: »

Another linguistics nightmare! DOES NOT EXIST and THERE IS NO GOD!.
Same £$%$ different shade!

I can see you're struggling with concepts that you don't understand here.

cursai wrote: »

Anyway now that ye know what i mean!.... How is atheism different to being religious? Theres the same arrogant blind faith with no evidence!

No, there isn't. This has already been explained to you. One is a faith-based belief lacking evidence. The other is a logical philosophical position given that same lack of evidence. That position may or may not be faith based depending on the level of adherence to belief in the matter.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd agree with that analysis to an extent.
Theres oceans of analysis of how the mind works.
However,thats a position on what makes some people comfortable and how other people don't need that comfort or in some cases have learned they don't need it.
But it doesn't deal with beliefs or convictions people have without evidence.

It does actually. People have an evolved instinct to view agents in nature. There are various reasons for this, mostly that it allows them to process the chaotic world around them based on rules and logical for human interaction that they already possess for human interaction.

Various experiments have shown that in times of stress or when a person is feeling a sense of confusion or feeling the world is out of control their brain resorts back to viewing nature in this way.

This explains religious belief and why believers often reach faith during bad periods in their lives. It also explains why believers can find it very difficult to let go of these notions, as it is not simply a rational choice, their brain is set up to view these notions of agency in nature as sensible common sense.

Deleted User wrote: »

When I first responded to a primal nut in this thread it was to a post where he/she said they didn't believe a God existed.
You don't either I presume?

I believe that the concept we call "God" was invented by humans as part of the above process. If that happens to correlate to an actual creator deity that is purely coincidental.

A good analogy often used on this forum is a theist and an atheist standing at a closed door that neither of them have ever gone through.

The thiest says "There is a lion behind that door"

The atheist says "Don't be silly you couldn't possible know that, you are just making it up"

Now there may actually be a lion behind that door, but the theist doesn't know there is. If by some cosmic fluke the theist guessed right that still wouldn't mean he knew what was being the door. And given all the possible things that could be behind the door it is much more likely not to be what the theist guesses than what he does guess.

So it is not at all unreasonable to say that was a made up guess and in all likelihood it probably isn't what you guessed.

Replace "lion" with "God" and "door" with "universe" and you have my view on religion.

It is not at all unreasonable to say that religion is made up and in all likelihood it is probably not what theists have guessed. Which is basically saying God as they define it, doesn't exist.

Deleted User wrote: »

If atheists do not rule out a God and you two do,what label/description or category does that come under?

It would be foolish for anyone to rule anything out 100%. I don't rule out storks carrying babies. It is highly improbable yet still possible that every doctor and scientist studying human reproduction has made a massive mistake.

But this is so unlikely that in lay mans term I have no problem saying storks do not deliver babies. If someone said prove that in the sense of absolute proof I would have to say I can't. But in practical terms that means little.

Equally I've no problem saying God as Christians define it is imaginary and doesn't exist. I can't prove that in absolute terms but in practical terms that means little. All the evidence points to that conclusion.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats an understandable position as obviously the unknown isn't understandable.
Now whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect as isn't that what people who believe in the opposite of what you believe also do.

I'm not following.

Theists make claims about the existence of supernatural deities. I reject these claims because I believe, based on good evidence and science, that they are most likely made up.

So I'm not sure how we share beliefs. I don't believe that human like supernatural agents exist in nature, instead I believe (again based on strong evidence and science) that the human mind imagines these concepts to help us process the chaotic interactions in nature.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

Black Briar, I'm confused as to the point you're making in your last two posts, so let me try and clarify.

Your use of the phrase "ruling out" is not compatible with atheism, as it implies knowledge on the question of gods.

Atheism only deals with belief, and not absolutes. Atheism is compatible therefore with agnosticism, as one can acknowledge the fact that we do not know, and yet hold a belief, at the same time. Most people on this forum would be 'agnostic atheists', but given that's a bit of a mouthful we're cool with just being atheists.

I guess where I'm coming from in my last few posts is my lack of comfort with what I've heard from most atheists that I know [and I know loads] and that is their willingness to confront other peoples belief in an unproven concept yet they are starting out from a similar position with their own belief.
I'm speaking about the existence of a God or whatever you want to describe a starter entity and not religion.

Your quote from Isaac is simply a statement of his gut feeling on the subject and nothing more.Why should we believe his gut feelings on something as unknown as what started off this or mine for that matter.

onlyrocknroll

OP

There's an analogy I came across in a Philosophy class (in a very different context) that might help you understand this better.

You go to somebody's house, and they give you a cup of tea.

You have no way of proving that they didn't poison the tea. You can't prove that your host didn't slip some rat poison in the cup when you weren't looking, you can't be 100% positive of that at all.

But you still don't believe that they did poison the tea. If you did reserve judgement on whether the tea was poisoned, (i.e. if you were agnostic) you wouldn't drink it. But obviously this wouldn't be the case, and you would most likely drink the tea.

In order to believe something is the case (i.e. God exists, the tea has been poisoned etc), a rational person needs evidence.

In order to believe that something is not the case, you don't need evidence. You can rarely ever have 100% certainty that something isn't true. This applies to God, angels, poisoned tea, Santa Claus, international conspiracies, leadership in Irish politics, good acting in Fair City etc. This doesn't mean that its rational to suspend judgement on these things.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess where I'm coming from in my last few posts is my lack of comfort with what I've heard from most atheists that I know [and I know loads] and that is their willingness to confront other peoples belief in an unproven concept yet they are starting out from a similar position with their own belief.
I'm speaking about the existence of a God or whatever you want to describe a starter entity and not religion.

Your quote from Isaac is simply a statement of his gut feeling on the subject and nothing more.Why should we believe his gut feelings on something as unknown as what started off this or mine for that matter.

I think all that military conditioning screwed with your head. Still getting those memory black outs I see. They're getting worse man, it used to be just stuff prior to the Wombosi incident, now it's posts you read an hour ago.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following.

Theists make claims about the existence of supernatural deities. I reject these claims because I believe, based on good evidence and science, that they are most likely made up.

Again you are on a belief there and so are the people you are talking about with any claim unless it is proven.

So I'm not sure how we share beliefs. I don't believe that human like supernatural agents exist in nature, instead I believe (again based on strong evidence and science) that the human mind imagines these concepts to help us process the chaotic interactions in nature.

Are you saying that by not ruling out a God,we humans use that concept for to explain the unknown then?
Thats a similar direction of query I'd have to your post before this but in addition to that I've a comment on the following line from your second last post.

their brain is set up to view these notions of agency in nature as sensible common sense.

That line brings me back to see'ing you justifying a belief,your belief in this case which is what theists also do.
The only difference is when you examine man made religions,it's easy to pick holes as a lot of it is down right ridiculous.

Replace "lion" with "God" and "door" with "universe" and you have my view on religion.

With respect,I wasn't asking you about religion.Thats another problem I have with these discussions,people arguing from various shades of your side of the fence on it,always feel the need to eventually mention religion.
I was asking you about individual beliefs or more specifically the ultimate one whether something kick started this all off or not.
You don't know,I don't know.
No one knows,they just believe this that or the other.
Nothing could be simpler.

stimpson

I'm an Apatheist. I don't care whether god exists or not.

strobe

strobe wrote: »

I think all that military conditioning screwed with your head. Still getting those memory black outs I see. They're getting worse man, it used to be just stuff prior to the Wombosi incident, now it's posts you read an hour ago.

You know,I dig the sarcasm,I really do but just not to confuse things I'd rather with respect stick to the topic at hand

Anyway,you're right about one thing and that is,I might forget this conversation as I have to go out now.I don't op round here too often,I just got involved in this discussion because it interests me.
Theres a few other threads here,that I've also enjoyed reading today but haven't posted in.
Time mightn't permit me to continue this for a day or two.

Improbable

I'm an antitheist.