RE: Blind faith and evolution
July 20, 2013 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2013 at 3:00 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 20, 2013 at 1:18 pm)christcahinkilla Wrote: theist - "i believe gods exist, but can't prove it"
atheist - "i do not believe gods exist, but can't prove it"
There is no need to have proof that a god does not exist as long as the person making the claim that a god does exist has not met their burden of proof.
You really should investigate the difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. You seem confused.
Quote:both of these ideas say the same thing: i KNOW but can't prove it to be true
No they are not.
Atheism is the response to a claim, not a claim itself.
Quote:agnostic - "i do not have a belief on the subject because I have no way to test the idea"
Nope.
The formal definition of agnostic is one that takes the position that the existence of a god is unknown, and possibly unknowable.
The vast majority of atheists hold this position.
I hate to break it to you, but if your position is that you do not have a belief (because the existence of a god is unknown) you ARE an atheist. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god. It is not the assertion that a god does not exist.
Quote:belief = disbelief = hypothesis to conclusion without experimentation; dogma
Still wrong.
Belief is the psychological state n which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. It is not a conclusion, it is a provisional position. As long as there continues to be insufficient demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I will continue to disbelieve the claim.
Quote:agnostic atheist is therefore oxymoronic
Nope.
Agnostic concerns the (lack of) KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism concerns the (lack of) BELIEF.
I do not claim to know that a god does not exist. Therefore I am agnostic by definition.
I disbelieve a god exists because the case has not met its burden of proof. Therefore I am an atheist by definition.
The 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.
Quote:nobody has been able to challenge the fact that no person on this planet has the knowledge of whether or not gods exist
True.
Quote:but people choose to believe true or false on the subject (conclusion)
Disbelieve is not a conclusion.
Let's try this.
Theist - "a god exists"
Atheist - "I don't believe your claim. Please provide me with demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid & sound logic to support your claim".
The atheist in the above example is not making a conclusion, he/she is only responding to a claim that has not met its burden of proof.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.