I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

How does one "actively nonbelieve" something? The atheists here actually are privy to a truth of sorts- that there isn't a lick of evidence to support the claim that a God exists.
Who here has said that science is infallible? I'll tell them they are just as wrong as you are. I doubt anyone has said that and I even suspect you made that up, but whatever.

The active non-belief would involve calling yourself an atheist, espousing the ideology/views, coming to an atheist forum etc. I consider existence (both the universe and sentience) to be something which requires an explanation. What evidence would you require to prove a god exsits? I've asked this several tiems now, and no one addresses the question. The "infalliability of science" was a parodied response to whateverist.

Most days I don't know, some days I lean either way. My bias is not believing humanity must possesses the qualities to assess the problem, or obtain the 'evidence'. I think that is where we'll always differ. I think in an age where religion is seen as superstitious we require some philosophical 'certainity', science fills in this void for some.

What do you mean whe you say, "most days I don't know, some days I lean either way"? Some days you know, some days you don't?

No I mean, most days I don't believe/disbeleive, others I lean either way. I never claim to know, for if I did, agnosticism would be an odd position to revert back to.

This is the problem I have with people who label themselves "agnostic": they are either dedicated fence-sitters, or they are ignorant.

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?

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.

You either believe, or you don't. You either know, or you don't. But these categories are separate. It doesn't mean anything for one to exclaim their lack of knowledge that God exist, because a theist could say that just as honestly as an atheist.

If it doesn't mean anything, why do only atheists claim it? Conversly it doesn't mean anything for one to exclaim their lack of knowledge that God doesn't exist, but yet here we are.

I don't believe and I don't disbellieve. I don't know.

It's simple. Science is the best grasp we have on reality, the best tool mankind has to evaluate the universe. To muddle this with philosophical certainty or "truth" is to salt the well of skeptical thinking.

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

---

This is why I'm focused on your self-righteousness, because you seem to assume that others are taking a position you consider irrational simply out of the need to look down upon them. I have never, ever claimed to have the intellectual high ground, but then again, you are definitely not concerened with what people acutally believe. You are intent on believing they hold whatever postion you want them to.

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.

If you consider that you're without 'belief' most non-atheists will call bullshit.

They can call whatever they like. It doesn't make them right.

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?

How do you claim to not know and then quote "Those afraid of the universe as it really is..."? I hope you can see where you're contradicting yourself.

Now you are seriouisly grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to show that I hold a position I have never claimed to hold. The essence of the quote is not about knowing. It is about trying to understand how the cosmos works, regardless of whether it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Besides, it's a quote by Carl Sagan, a self-professed agnostic.

I know who he is, and I perosnally wouldn't desribe him as an agnostic. It's a leading statement, which is atheist in nature to me and is based around using science to construct absolute truth.

Now, you could do a lot for yourself and this conversation if you actually asked people what their position is instead of desperately trying to prove they hold whatever position you want them to.

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

---

How hard can it fucking be?

I don't believe in unicorns because of a lack of evidence.

I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster because of a lack of evidence.

I don't believe in a whole range of things because of a lack of fucking evidence.

God/s are just another thing I don't believe in because of the lack of evidence.

And until evidence is produced I have no rational reason to do otherwise.

BTW if evidence is ever produced I still won't believe.

I'll KNOW, belief won't be necessary.

So what do you believe to be the cause of existence? Or is there no cause as it's not been proven? If so, how do you rationalise existence (yours) or do you just not think about it?

---

Yes, but what justifies that belief? Why should you hold to evidentialism?

I'll say this slowly "I. do. not. believe. there. is. a. god. because. there. is. no. evidence"

I do not have a belief in god. It is non belief, disbelief, unbelief. It is NOT belief.

Therefore I cannot answer your question "what justifies that belief"

Why should I hold to evidentialism? Because it is the best way of understanding reality and finding out truth.

Evidence is something you can test, compare, back up a theory with, it can also be used to rule things out that were previously thought true.

you don't believe. But you have a belief--you hold to evidentialism. What justifies this belief in evidentialism? What's wrong with denying evidentialism?

And what is wrong with laughing like fuck at those that deny evidentialism?

You're continually missing the point. I can't work out whether it's wilful or not.

---

I don't believe I'm ever going to win the lottery, but I could. Now if you tell me I am going to definitely win the lottery, me not believing it doesn't mean it won't happen, it just makes it unlikely because things like that generally don't happen. I tend not to believe in unlikely things, however, it doesn't stop me wondering. I can still hold the position of not believing, while pondering on whether something may or may not be possible. For instance, I can build a range of scenarios in my mind that will explain how I came to win the lottery - Everything from pure coincidence to increased odds from playing more, just in case. It's a fantastical story, but it could actually happen.

In my hypothetical (wishful thinking) scenario, if I were to win the lottery exactly how you foretold, do you know what I would say? "Would you believe it?" Funny turn of phrase that, isn't it? It's especially reserved for events/things that have very little chance of coming to pass or existing. This is the only rational position one can hold when it comes to Gods. If I were to win the lottery I could easily present the evidence of it. I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem with the part where you told me that I would win it, either - some would assign it to superstition, while others would accept it as a remarkable coincidence etc. I guest what I'm trying to say is, you can't pigeon hole non/belief into neat little packages. Like, for instance, I don't believe that my kids will tidy their rooms when I tell them to. When they surprise me and actually listen to a damn word I say, I don't start proclaiming miracles - sarcasm aside, of course.

I actually don't know who I'm typing this to, I just wanted to waffle a bit.

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?

---

Do you actually think that it's being proposed that "Evidence is a belief system" or are you just being disingenuous so you don't have to answer the question?

Fuck you. Do not dare call me disingenuous, I was arguing against exactly what that moron was arguing for. Go back and learn to read.

Why do you think that evidence must be available? If there is some sort of creator, it is inconceivable that it would not insert itself inself into one its creations?

This relates exactly to what I was fucking saying, but obviously you wasn't paying attention. This is all hypothetical bullshit, and cannot be proven or tested either way. So why the fuck should we believe in it.

Calm down, why would you care what I think? 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.

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. "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?

---

Why do you think that evidence must be available? If there is some sort of creator, it is inconceivable that it would not insert itself inself into one its creations?

I say the same thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster(PBUHNA) and you know what?

Christians refuse to believe me.

I can't imagine why.

You didn't answer my questions.

---

Most days I don't know, some days I lean either way. My bias is not believing humanity must possesses the qualities to assess the problem, or obtain the 'evidence'. I think that is where we'll always differ. I think in an age where religion is seen as superstitious we require some philosophical 'certainity', science fills in this void for some.

Well we don't differ on the question of whether humanity has or will ever have the capacity to assess the problem. There may very well not be evidence available to settle every question.

I think where we may differ is in our concept of natural explanation. I have no room for a category of things which by their nature must remain supernatural, gods for example. Even if I do lack the qualities to access every aspect of it, I still believe there is a way that things are, a natural world. I believe the very concept of "explaining" really means showing where a thing fits in the natural world. If any gods exist, I believe, it will be shown they must have a place in the natural world .. even if our concept of the natural world is expanded in the process.

Interesting. I focus more on humanities capabilities and choose not to assume that we can assess all that is (in an absolute sense). 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? 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. I realise this is only because that which can be proven to exists, does exist. This is circular. This is not the same as denying the way we see the natural world. Some will see this a a god of the gaps, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

---

Taqiyya Mockingbird
You realise that you're hard to take seriously? You just seem like an angry teenager as your posts have the same impact as " I know you are I said you are but what I am".
It's all good if you're here to troll, i just hope you're not aiming for anything else.