When will you learn, diffidus, that simply waltzing in, posting a screed is not standard operating procedure for someone interested in discussion?

Also, there is a great debate over the terms and combinations of gnosticism and agnosticism, which relate to "knowledge" and atheism and theism, which are positions taken over there not being a god (like there isn't a giant shellfish-banana hybrid lording over all existence) and for their being at least one (1) god or gods.

Ergo, seeing an agnostic atheist is akin to seeing the ground state of a system - it is the bare minimum of a position: "I don't know if there is a god, so I don't even bother to believe." The preceding would be considered "safe" as one who holds both labels withholds judgement and doesn't even go so far as to believe in something without evidence or rationale pertaining to thereof.

If you are interested in further discussion over the labels, their philosophical implications et al, I suggest that you introduce yourself.

If you are not, I suggest you clumsily antagonize our community base as you have done so.

Quote:I see you are an exclusive group who are not prepared for rational argument

Probably a good time to remind you that you haven't put forth any rational argument, Doofus.

(May 10, 2011 at 5:10 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: When will you learn, diffidus, that simply waltzing in, posting a screed is not standard operating procedure for someone interested in discussion?

Also, there is a great debate over the terms and combinations of gnosticism and agnosticism, which relate to "knowledge" and atheism and theism, which are positions taken over there not being a god (like there isn't a giant shellfish-banana hybrid lording over all existence) and for their being at least one (1) god or gods.

Ergo, seeing an agnostic atheist is akin to seeing the ground state of a system - it is the bare minimum of a position: "I don't know if there is a god, so I don't even bother to believe." The preceeding would be considered "safe" as one who holds both labels withholds judgement and doesn't even go so far as to believe in something without evidence or rationale pertaining to thereof.

If you are interested in further discussion over the labels, their philosophical implications et al, I suggest that you introduce yourself.

If you are not, I suggest you clumsily antagonize our community base as you have done so.

I have never joined a forum before and so I appologise if I have accidently bypassed some standard protocol. However, my post is not really antagonistic. I have used only civil language and posted a relatively sound argument.

With regard to me arguing over labels, that was not my intention. I merely wished to point out that if you follow the logic of the argument it leads to the unsavoury conclusion that, in reality we cannot ascert, from, standpoint of knowledge, that God does not exist. It is not a safe choice it is the only choice that actually fits the facts.

(May 10, 2011 at 4:29 pm)diffidus Wrote: From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability

As an atheist I do not claim that there is no god. I just lack belief in such a thing.
Atheism in it's most basic sense, is the lack of belief in god. Gnostic Atheists, assert that god does not exist. Agnostic atheists only lack belief in god's existence.

As usual, another silly nikabuka attacking what he does not know or understand.

Quote:in reality we cannot ascert, from, standpoint of knowledge, that God does not exist.

You have it completely ass-backwards.

Let your god present himself for examination... until such time it is easy for me to point out that there is no evidence for him....or any of the other thousands of gods ever invented by humans...at all.

(May 10, 2011 at 5:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:in reality we cannot ascert, from, standpoint of knowledge, that God does not exist.

You have it completely ass-backwards.

Let your god present himself for examination... until such time it is easy for me to point out that there is no evidence for him....or any of the other thousands of gods ever invented by humans...at all.

I don not believe in God. But I like you do not have all the evidence required to deny the existence of God. I would agree that, based upon our current undertsanding, the odds are in favour of God's non existence but since our knowledege base may be only a drop in the ocean it cannot be ascerted that God does not exist, it is at best a belief based upon current understanding.

I am an atheist because I think it is 99.9999% probable that divine beings do not exist.I am also atheist because I don't want to believe that divine beings exist nor do I want eternal life, salvation and all the other baggage that goes with that belief.
Agnostics are cowards. Agnostics know atheists are probably correct but they WANT to believe in gods' existence.

The problem with this argument in particular is that there is very little if anything that we know with a certainty does not exist. I cannot say with absolute confidence that werewolves do not exist, however my understanding of biology leads me to believe that there is no natural way that a werewolf could exist. On the same token, a god may very well exist, I cannot say with absolute certainty that one does not exist. However everything we know about the universe tells me that such beings are impossible, everything in existence follows one set of natural laws, anything that does not cannot exist. Agnosticism is safe, but one cannot be agnostic about every piece of mythology, why would this one be different? Werewolves or some variety of were-creature exist in every culture, but we must hold some degree of skepticism. I am comfortable say no god exists to the same degree that I say elves do not exist.

(May 10, 2011 at 5:54 pm)bozo Wrote: I am an atheist because I think it is 99.9999% probable that divine beings do not exist.I am also atheist because I don't want to believe that divine beings exist nor do I want eternal life, salvation and all the other baggage that goes with that belief.
Agnostics are cowards. Agnostics know atheists are probably correct but they WANT to believe in gods' existence.

You clearly have a strong belief in Atheism and you are confident enough to give a numerical value to the probability that a God does not exist. I myself think it is unlikely that a God exists but I could not put a figure on the probability.

We are not so far apart really. Where I think my position is intellectually brave, however, is that I am prepared to accept the state of knowledge that I have without invoking any belief. This is actually an uncomfortable position to be in, not so much safe, but a dogged desire to stick with the truth. It would be much easier for me to jump into Atheism based upon belief but is this would betray the courage of my conviction - namely to consider only the facts.