|
Interesting Story
|
I think what he means is HE considered that he could be wrong back when he did believe, which has now made him an atheist. But this cori character wont consider the fact that there might now be a god.
maybe?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful with out having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it to?" -Douglas Adams.
  
 (January 28, 2009 at 8:02 pm)WWLD Wrote: I think what he means is HE considered that he could be wrong back when he did believe, which has now made him an atheist. But this cori character wont consider the fact that there might now be a god.But then how does he justify his position now? If he doesn't consider his position now might be wrong (as I do about 5 times before breakfast) then how is he any different from the theist who "knows" they are correct? 
Despite the burden of proof not being on atheists for the obvious reasons I tend to expect higher of atheists in that I expect us to be able to say exactly why we beleive as we do. It's a bit of a side effect of me having a higher respect for atheists, I expect any atheists I meet to be more intelligent than the average. Normally I would say it's unreasonable but, so far it's held true.
I also found it surprising when I saw gnostic atheist but, I interpreted as being said to show the conviction. In a 'I am so certain that there is no god I call myself this to reflect it' kinda way. 
I said on a much earlier (one of my first) thread of mine that I think strong gnostic atheism ("I KNOW there is no God") - requires at least a small amount of faith.
Because faith is belief in the absence of evidence. And there is no evidence (and certainly no known absolute proof, - at least I believe) AGAINST God. Its just there's no evidence OF God. And God's very unparsimonious and he creates a bigger problem than the one he is 'SUPPOSED' to solve. God is extremely improbable. ALMOST certainly does not exist (as Dawkins says). I do not see how you can KNOW there is no God because he's not disproved. But I mean, just as the FSM, the IPU and Russell's Teapot is not disproved! You cannot prove a negative. So I agree with Adrian when he said it would take at least SOME faith, he thinks, to be a strong GNOSTIC atheist who claims to somehow 'KNOW' there is no God. So I think that's either the case with Silence; or he is unfamiliar with the definition of Gnostic atheist perhaps? I can't think of any other alternatives. There may be. But I can't think of any (at least at the moment). I am of course; open to any other suggestions or possibilities, etc. Silence, to comment on the opener to this thread - I find the story interesting. And I've kind of been an apathetic atheist in the past - I didn't believe in God, but I didn't give a shit really. I find it interesting that you say you realized there was no God when you thought: "If there's a God, would he want "his people" saying such things? As if I'm some bad habit that can be picked up? Soon after that thought hit me, logic hit me. There is no God. Atheism became more and more appealing, and once I said to myself the aforementioned phrase, "There is no God," it hit me, I'm Atheist." The thing is - this is no argument AGAINST God's existence. Its not part of the God hypothesis really. Because its only against a good and caring God (if that, he could be really mysterious as 'many' claim. I'm not sure if its really even evidence against a good God. But it MAY be. Its hard to judge I think). If God is neutral or bad, or 'EVIL' - its no argument against God then. And because the bible and no holy book (or anything) is evidence towards God. There is no more evidence for a good God than a neutral, bad or very bad God. Because (as far as we know at least) there is no evidence for any God at all. None; zilch. There is no evidence of an intervening God so perhaps it could be argued that although its almost certain that NO God exists at all - and there is no evidence of ANY God - if there IS a God perhaps its slightly more likely that he, she, or it - is a non-intervening God. Since there's no evidence of miracles or interventions - if there is a God its perhaps a deist God of some kind. Although there's no evidence for that either that almost certainly doesn't exist - perhaps it could be argued to be SLIGHTLY more likely though? (although extremely improbable still). If God exists therefore - perhaps he, she or it is more likely to be neutral, callous and indifferent, non-intervening than Good, bad or evil. Although if there is a God its much more likely for it to have evolved - like an alien God - which wouldn't be supernatural at all. And life forms have emotions, and if there is a God and its alien instead of supernatural; I would say that that God, (an alien, EVOLVED God) perhaps would be much more plausible for feelings (perhaps because its an evolved life form for instance, since a supernatural deist God could be some kind of supernatural robot). And perhaps the hypothetical alien, EVOLVED God - could perhaps care and be good but actually not be CAPABLE of intervening - or if it did it would only mess things up. Since it wouldn't REALLY be a God - in the sense it wouldn't be supernatural - so it would be imperfect and not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. So perhaps it wouldn't intervene because it wouldn't be capable or it would just mess things up, etc. So perhaps it could still have feelings or be a caring 'creator' but it wouldn't be able to intervene or it would know that if it did, perhaps things would be worse because it would be incompetent to do so. Since this evolved God would only have to start things up - from the very basics. Like creating life in a test-tube kind of thing. I dunno - I'm not an evolved, alien creator and so-called 'God'. Evf 
hey Guys, I understand the 'education' of SilencetheOppressor regarding his terminology but he's only 15...ease up. He is here on the forum so thats a great start and like myself (mid forties)have years of learning to do. Correct him yes but lets not get all 'fundy' on him. Lets leave that for the God Squad.
"'God is as real as I am', the old man said. I was relieved since I knew Santa wouldn't lie to me."
Agree with you True Unbeliever
- Science is not trying to create an answer like religion, it tries to find an answer.
I didn't know of his age and despite the fact it takes SOME faith I believe to claim that you KNOW (absolutely) that there is no God. I wouldn't say it's as bad as a Gnostic THEIST because God is extremely improbable and they are claiming he absolutely exists without any evidence whatsoever....
Since with Gnostic atheism...yes it's a logical fallacy and takes a bit of faith to believe that you 'KNOW' God doesn't exist - but I think the fact that the burden of proof is on the believer from outset because they have no evidence...and the fact that despite God isn't disproved as the Gnostic atheist believes he is......he's still EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE - so at least the Gnostic Atheist is much much MUCH more likely to be CLOSER to the truth than the Theist. It's a logical fallacy to believe God is disproved. And so is it with the FSM though... I think Dawkins put it well in an interview (to paraphrase) when the interviewer said that it takes just as much faith to believe there DEFINITELY IS no God than to believe there definitely ISN'T. And Dawkins basically said how would it take just as much faith to believe that Zeus, the IPU, fairies and the FSM definitely don't exist? And how there are "A million things you can't DISprove" So I'd say despite the fact it's an illogical fallacy to claim you KNOW there is no God....somehow I don't think claiming that is QUITE as absurd... Just as I don't think saying you KNOW that there is no FSM or the IPU is quite as irrational as saying that you KNOW that there IS an FSM or IPU!! No evidence that there is DEFINITELY no IPU/FSM (or God) sure....but since the burden of proof is on the believer and they are EXTREMELY improbable and COMPLETELY lacking evidence - I don't somehow; think it's QUITE as irrational or takes QUITE as much faith (at least) to claim that you 'KNOW' they definitely DON'T exist than it is to claim that you 'KNOW' that they definitely DO! But yes, it's an illogical fallacy. I don't think it takes AS MUCH faith though or is AS irrational. You need evidence OF God/FSM/IPU first...and God, etc, is extremely improbable so he needs A LOT of evidence (or very hard evidence; or both). EvF  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe (January 31, 2009 at 8:21 pm)True Unbeliever Wrote: hey Guys, I understand the 'education' of SilencetheOppressor regarding his terminology but he's only 15...ease up. He is here on the forum so thats a great start and like myself (mid forties)have years of learning to do. Correct him yes but lets not get all 'fundy' on him. Lets leave that for the God Squad. No one grows in their understanding if no one challenges it. Challenging your beliefs is important, and helps you to understand your position better. IE it's always a good thing IMO.
Well yeah....you need to doubt your beliefs...
And I know that God isn't DISproved - that's a logical fallacy.... I expect evidence of God... I'm not gonna go around SEARCHING for evidence for him and 'challenging my beliefs' cos I've got shit to do... That's not a cop-out...it's entirely up to me because when it comes down to it I haven't actually got any time...it's just for my own choice... IOW; to highlight a section of my sig...I'm gonna actually quote it lol: Quote:"I can't be challenging my absence of belief in "God" when I've got the FSM, Zeus, Santa Claus (etc, etc, etc, etc, etc!) to deal with too!! There's just no fucking time!" - me |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
