Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
November 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm (This post was last modified: November 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm by Norfolk And Chance.)
Sorry but if anybody is saying - even if just to make a point - that no evidence = no santa (or unicorns and fairies) is incorrect, then they are saying that there could possibly be a santa (or unicorns or fairies). This is completely laughable.
I'm disappointed.
(November 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Do you know that unicorns and fairies don't exist? If so, how do you know?
Because they are fictional.
To argue this point further would be stupid - yes I know debating theists makes people like this - but come on!
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Anymouse
Worshipper of Caffeinea, Goddess of Coffee.
Religious Views: Atheist (formerly Wiccan, with a Discordian bent). Erotic Romance novel editor. Handfasted to BethK, the smartest, coolest, sexiest, brightest atheist here.
Posts: 544
Threads: 62
Joined: May 25, 2011
Reputation:
15
(November 21, 2011 at 10:00 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Agnostic atheism is superfluous to me. How could anyone be 100% sure?
One might wonder then if one can be 100% sure that unicorns do not exist, or perhaps aether (since the experiment which supposedly debunked its existence could have been miscontrived). Does that make one an "agnostic unicornist" or and "agnostic aetherist?"
Knowledge of God (gnosis) is not the same as belief in God (faith).
James.
"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
As said before, you are an agnostic atheist if you do not believe in the existence of God (atheism), but also do not claim to know that He doesn't exist (agnosticism).
However, I do find the term "agnostic atheist" to be superfluous. Just "atheist" is good enough.
All atheists are already agnostics by default because no one actually knows whether or not God exists. Maybe they THINK they know, or maybe they CLAIM to know, but they don't. And if God doesn't exist, then likewise, you can't ever know that for sure and thus you are still an agnostic. The only way to know that God doesn't exist would be to have an evidence for his non-existence. But, how can there be an evidence for the non-existence of something? That's not possible, is it?
I think that terms such as "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are more accurate because they specify the probability that an atheist holds about the existence of God. The term "agnostic" seems unnecessary to me because it's obvious that they they don't know. If someone does claim to know that God doesn't exist, then his claim is still not true, so the term is useless, in my opinion.
The point is that, claiming to know or not know that God doesn't exist just indicates the strength of an atheist's non-belief, but he doesn't actually know what he claims to know.
(November 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Rayaan Wrote: As said before, you are an agnostic atheist if you do not believe in the existence of God (atheism), but also do not claim to know that He doesn't exist (agnosticism).
However, I do find the term "agnostic atheist" to be superfluous. Just "atheist" is good enough.
All atheists are already agnostics by default because no one actually knows whether or not God exists. Maybe they THINK they know, or maybe they CLAIM to know, but they don't. And if God doesn't exist, then likewise, you can't ever know that for sure and thus you are still an agnostic. The only way to know that God doesn't exist would be to have an evidence for his non-existence. But, how can there be an evidence for the non-existence of something? That's not possible, is it?
I think that terms such as "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are more accurate because they specify the probability that an atheist holds about the existence of God. The term "agnostic" seems unnecessary to me because it's obvious that they they don't know. If someone does claim to know that God doesn't exist, then his claim is still not true, so the term is useless, in my opinion.
The point is that, claiming to know or not know that God doesn't exist just indicates the strength of an atheist's non-belief, but he doesn't actually know what he claims to know.
Do you understand Rayaan that a theist can only believe, or claim to know or think he knows god/allah is real? You probably do.
I'd go along with that, and state I know that god is not real with the same certainty that I know that fairies are not real.
Is this an acceptable stance?
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Anymouse
Worshipper of Caffeinea, Goddess of Coffee.
Religious Views: Atheist (formerly Wiccan, with a Discordian bent). Erotic Romance novel editor. Handfasted to BethK, the smartest, coolest, sexiest, brightest atheist here.
Posts: 544
Threads: 62
Joined: May 25, 2011
Reputation:
15
November 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm (This post was last modified: November 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm by Anymouse.)
(November 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm)Rayaan Wrote:
As said before, you are an agnostic atheist if you do not believe in the existence of God (atheism), but also do not claim to know that He doesn't exist (agnosticism).
However, I do find the term "agnostic atheist" to be superfluous. Just "atheist" is good enough.
All atheists are already agnostics by default because no one actually knows whether or not God exists. Maybe they THINK they know, or maybe they CLAIM to know, but they don't. And if God doesn't exist, then likewise, you can't ever know that for sure and thus you are still an agnostic. The only way to know that God doesn't exist would be to have an evidence for his non-existence. But, how can there be an evidence for the non-existence of something? That's not possible, is it?
I think that terms such as "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are more accurate because they specify the probability that an atheist holds about the existence of God. The term "agnostic" seems unnecessary to me because it's obvious that they they don't know. If someone does claim to know that God doesn't exist, then his claim is still not true, so the term is useless, in my opinion.
The point is that, claiming to know or not know that God doesn't exist just indicates the strength of an atheist's non-belief, but he doesn't actually know what he claims to know.
Certainly one can devise an experiment to show the non-existence of something or some property.
The only requirements are that it be repeatable and falsifiable. If it cannot be falsified, the evidence is generally held to be true. Thought experiments count here as well.
Take a bowling ball. The ball is solid, and occupies a certain amount of space. Now force a cube into it, anyway you can imagine (God should be able to do this), without displacing either any matter of the bowling ball or the cube, such that both occupy the same space.
If God is omnipotent, this violation of physical laws should be trivial. We cannot do this however, and we do not need to be agnostic about it. We know it is impossible, not because we have proved it is impossible (we tried to force all cubes into all bowling balls and failed), but because given physical conditions show the theory of "two objects can occupy the same space" is easily falsifiable.
We have no evidence of any two physical objects occupying the same space at the same instant. This lack of evidence is sufficient proof to show it cannot happen, at least sufficiently that I do not need to be "agnostic" about the theory of two objects occupying the same space.
Now, if someone wants to make the extraordinary claim that two objects can, they are free to do so, but the onus of proof is on them. I am under no requirement to remain agnostic about it until all cubes and all bowling balls have been tested.
-James.
"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
(November 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Do you understand Rayaan that a theist can only believe, or claim to know or think he knows god/allah is real? You probably do.
No, a theist can only believe at the extent of his own intuition and inductive reasoning, but he cannot know that God is real.
Of course, this might make sense to himself while others may think that he is delusional.
(November 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you apply the same standard to gnostic theists?
Yeah, because I don't think that any theist actually know that God exists (unless maybe if they saw Him or something, which I can't prove either).
(November 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm)Anymouse Wrote: We have no evidence of any two physical objects occupying the same space at the same instant. This lack of evidence is sufficient proof to show it cannot happen, at least sufficiently that I do not need to be "agnostic" about the theory of two objects occupying the same space.
I disagree, Anymouse, because lack of evidence for such a thing does not mean that it cannot ever happen, but just that it is highly improbable. So, even if there is no evidence of two objects occupying the same space, one still cannot know for sure whether or not this can ever happen.
In physics, there is something called "quantum tunneling," which proves that the probability of any individual particle in your body suddenly being on the other side of a wall is not exactly zero. The same thing can happen to an individual particle from any other object. So, mathematically speaking, it's also possible that an entire object such as tennis ball, for example, can pass through a solid wall even though the probability of such a thing happening is very, very small. Likewise, maybe it's also possible that two bowling balls can occupy the same region of space at the same time (as strange as it may sound).
(November 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Yeah, because I don't think that any theist actually know that God exists (unless maybe if they saw Him or something, which I can't prove either).
(November 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Do you understand Rayaan that a theist can only believe, or claim to know or think he knows god/allah is real? You probably do.
No, a theist can only believe at the extent of his own intuition and inductive reasoning, but he cannot know that God is real.
Of course, this might make sense to himself while others may think that he is delusional.
(November 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you apply the same standard to gnostic theists?
Yeah, because I don't think that any theist actually know that God exists (unless maybe if they saw Him or something, which I can't prove either).
It must be quite unnerving to believe in god all the time yet not know for certain he's real. I'd be constantly worried I was wasting my life away believing something that turned out not to be true.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
