I can feel your anger

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I dunno, tara, between you and the trash-can-bot, I'm seriously about to break out the Bronner's Soap Rant....

[Napoléon]

Obviously you still don't get it, or are choosing not to. I'll give up.

Oh fuck off then. Acting like you've said anything constructive.

[Selliedjoup]

[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='308268' dateline='1341904996']

Anyone can call anyone else anything. Just state your case. I've re-read your posts  and still think the same thing. I'm assuming the "moron" is Clive? If so, I agree with him. Which means we were disagreeing. So, do you think Clive was proposing that Evidence is a belief system, based on the post I've re-read and your other posts, it seems so.

He has stated that exactly. try to keep up, kid.

a special kind of ignorance, or inability to comprehend? Time to decide.

[Whateverist]

I despair that you don't really want to communicate, sulliedpoop. Leastwise you don't wish to think very hard, put much out about your own positions or have them challenged. It seems you are here like a little boy with a stick to shove into the hornets nest. As so many have told you already, you aren't really challenging anyone on their actual positions. You just want someone to answer for your complaints about the atheist's position. No one here owes you an explanation.

Your social skills are lacking. Until you are ready to come with some respect I'm done with you too. Too bad, I find some common ground with your positions but not with your attitude. You managed to get the reaction you were looking for and can now go off reinforced in what it is you are determined to believe anyway. Fine.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

He has stated that exactly. try to keep up, kid.

a special kind of ignorance, or inability to comprehend? Time to decide.

Take your pick but you will only be speaking for yourself. He said it is as many words.

[Selliedjoup]

I despair that you don't really want to communicate, sulliedpoop. Leastwise you don't wish to think very hard, put much out about your own positions or have them challenged. It seems you are here like a little boy with a stick to shove into the hornets nest. As so many have told you already, you aren't really challenging anyone on their actual positions. You just want someone to answer for your complaints about the atheist's position. No one here owes you an explanation.

Your social skills are lacking. Until you are ready to come with some respect I'm done with you too. Too bad, I find some common ground with your positions but not with your attitude. You managed to get the reaction you were looking for and can now go off reinforced in what it is you are determined to believe anyway. Fine.

Why so angry? I don't think there's anywhere to go, nor do I believe I'm owed an explanation. Never the twain shall meet. We can push the point and repeat what we've said before, but I think it's an exercise in futility.

I think you as much as me, have your own beliefs and won't change them. Fair enough, I don't have an issue with this, you seemingly do with that I won't change.

[Gambit]

There is only one direction this thread can possibly go from here.

This:



Or this:



You decide.

[Whateverist]

I think you as much as me, have your own beliefs and won't change them. Fair enough, I don't have an issue with this, you seemingly do with that I won't change.

It isn't about changing beliefs. It is about really hearing other people's beliefs and what's behind them. It's about putting out what it is you believe and getting clear on why you believe it. I don't feel threatened that by really hearing what others have to say that my cherished beliefs will be put in danger.

But I'm not really so much about defending any particular beliefs as I am about being open to the best ones. What I should like to believe is what is in fact true about the world and myself. It isn't their being my beliefs which make them special to me. They are special to me because they are the ones I have the most reason to think true so far. I won't miss the ones that have to go to make room for better ones.

By withholding your own beliefs and not hearing those of anyone else, you are basically offering nothing. I don't understand this.

[Mister Agenda]

The active non-belief would involve calling yourself an atheist, espousing the ideology/views, coming to an atheist forum etc.

Those are activities, not active non-belief. Active non-belief would be claiming the absolute non-existence of any God. Some atheists claim that, most don't.

I consider existence (both the universe and sentience) to be something which requires an explanation.

Yet you don't seem to consider the existence of God to be something that requires an explanation. And just because you think something requires an explanation doesn't mean you get one.

What evidence would you require to prove a god exsits?

The right words from the right person would do it for me. It's a bit of a tall order for random chance since I have already specified the words and the person. Trivial for a God to accomplish, not really separable from coincidence, but I've deliberately set the bar very, very low to maximize the Christian God's opportunity to gain my belief. I'm basically begging here. It's not something other skeptics would find plausible, but it would be enough for me.

I've asked this several tiems now, and no one addresses the question. The "infalliability of science" was a parodied response to whateverist.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I doubt this.

I know atheists have this issue, but it's not really my problem how you view me. Much like it's not your problem how I view you. It's just interesting to hear other people's persepctives and then question them, particuarly on this issue as it's all really belief based. (this is, of course, my belief). I get the fence sitting thing (although I have no idea why I must commit without the required facts), but why I would I be ignorant? Have I not applied logic correctly, otherwise I would have the same conclusion you have?

For many years, I called myself an agnostic. I realize now that for much of that time it would have been more accurate to say I was an agnostic theist, and for a year or two was an agnostic atheist before I realized the atheist part. I don't know and I don't believe. However, there is no better word for someone who wavers one way or the other alot, so I don't have a problem with you thinking of yourself as just an agnostic: the situation you present is a case when I think it's probably the best description.

I find it interesting that many atheists view agnosticism as a weakness as agnostics lack the courage to leap from off the fence. From a Christian perspective I would be as damned as you are.

I don't view it as a weakness, sometimes it's a way for an atheist to avoid calling themselves an atheist, which is hard to respect online when there isn't much in the way of consequences for being honest. In your case, I think it's the right word for now, since you shift between belief and non-belief. Good point about the Christian perspective.

If it doesn't mean anything, why do only atheists claim it?

To be frank, atheists have a tendency to be grammar nazis and theists have a tendency to be what we would consider to be fast and loose with things like grammar, spelling, and meaning.

As science is the best tool we have to evaluate the universe mean that it can or will answer the god question?

The most science can possibly do is show an omnipotent conscious being isn't required as an explanation for the universe. Proving an omnipotent being that doesn't want to be detected doesn't exist is impossible.

I don't assume this to be true, therefore I don't assign science the value as many atheists do. That said, if science disproved a god (not sure how it would) I would accept it.

Not sure how much more science can do. It offers reasonable possible natural explanations for the origin of the universe; but we don't yet have the technology to perform the experiments we would need to run to know which of them is best supported by evidence. There are an infinite number of things that we can or could imagine that science can never conclusively prove do not exist. If that's enough for you to keep believing (or wavering), I suppose you can continue to do so for life.

We will continue to go round in circles as I see your position as belief based (this is what causes you to view me as self-righteous), yet you see yours as objective.

Any beliefs that may cause some people to view you as self-righteous are not directly related to any views on the probability of God's existence.

Case and point, this is where my perceived self-righteousness kicks in. You're climaing your position of being "without belief" is a fact.
I admit you hold no belief of a god - do you think that you need to subscribe to a set of beliefs (assumptions you hold to be true)to reach an atheistic conclusion?

This is an interesting point. It depends on the atheist. Someone who was not raised to believe in God and never did would not require a particular set of beliefs in order to continue not believing in God. An atheist might not believe in God merely because they are too apathetic to the idea to acquire an active belief in God. A theist might stop believing in God for emotional reasons, like believing God would protect them and concluding God doesn't exist when that turns out not to be the case. You are probably thinking of people like me, who were raised to be theists, came to value logic and evidence as standards for believing things, and at some point applied those standards to our belief in God.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm telling you how I view your position.

And just how many times are you going to tell us this?

I don't think you will agree with how I view you, for if you did, you wouldn't be an atheist. If you want to state your views, go right ahead. As long as we don't hold our breath to convince the other that we're 'right', it's an interesting topic.

It's only interesting to me if there's a chance someone could change their mind. If you have something new to say on the topic, I'm all ears.

So what do you believe to be the cause of existence?

Other people not knowing the cause doesn't mean you're right about the cause.

Or is there no cause as it's not been proven?

Whatever the cause or non-cause is, it's dishonest to claim to know what it is before we know what it is.

If so, how do you rationalise existence (yours) or do you just not think about it?

Existence is observed, not rationalized. I think, therefore I am...I think.

How do you know or assess the likelyhood of a god(s)? You seem to have assumed it possesses the same odds as winning the lottery. Why?

It's just an example. However, since many thousands of gods have been proposed, and infinitely many conceivable gods could be proposed, the odds that if a god or God exists, it's the one you're thinking of, seem pretty slim. In general, I would think the odds that something exists that is supposed to intervene in our world yet whose actions are undedectable are very small. We can even detect dark matter indirectly, even though it may be impossible to ever observe it. Consider this: if it is impossible to set odds for something, and the odds could be anywhere from 1/1 to 1/infinity, how likely is it that the odds will fall close to 1/1?

What you've just said illustrates that some atheists are looking for some control in an uncertain universe and this is why you have an overdependence on science.

It hasn't been established that we have an 'overdependence on science'. Maybe we have just the right dependence on science, or not enough.

"Why should we believe it unless it's not proven or tested" assumes that everything is testable/knowable, for in it's absense you assume it doesn't exist. Why do you assume this?

Because there isn't time enough in the universe to assume that every possible thing that is untestable/unknowable actually exists.

Interesting. I focus more on humanities capabilities and choose not to assume that we can assess all that is (in an absolute sense).

So do I.

It makes sense to attempt to understand the universe/world/existenec as best we can, but why do you think we are in a position to assess what exists , whether it's in material, supernatural etc sense?

I don't.

This is the irony of the atheist position, it's commonly asserted that the burden of proof is on the believer, yet most atheists believe that all that exists is in the natural world.

That's because the burden of proof is on the person that is claiming that something exists. If I claim that I have a football signed by Joe Namath and you doubt me, it's up to me to produce convincing evidence, not just say 'Hey, you can't prove I DON'T have a football signed by Joe Namath!'. An atheist may be asserting a positive belief if they say that all that exists is the natural world. That's not a tenet of atheism (there are no tenets of atheism) and there are atheists who believe in an afterlife, astrology, ESP, reincarnation, and the like. I would say I don't believe that anything beyond the natural world exists. I'm open to contrary evidence.

I realise this is only because that which can be proven to exists, does exist. This is circular.

It's also not the position of most skeptics. Not the position of ANY skeptics as far as I know. Many things may exist that can't be proven to exist. However, that is not a reason to believe that any particular thing that can't be proven to exist does exist.

This is not the same as denying the way we see the natural world.

Agree. It is just adding something to the way you see the natural world that there isn't a good reason to add.

Some will see this a a god of the gaps, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

If you go by the definition of God of the Gaps as positing God where we are ignorant, I'll go with maybe it is.

[Autumnlicious]

Holy crap. This thread is a honey pot for stupid!

I thought SulliedDouche was going to be the only one.

Seems shit does attract flies after all.