RE: I can feel your anger
July 30, 2012 at 8:59 pm
(This post was last modified: July 30, 2012 at 9:06 pm by Simon Moon.)
(July 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: The justification would be the recognition of the ability to decipher it either way. Belief, dogma, dominant paradigms etc prove nothing. I find the distinct 'brand' of new atheism to assign itself knowledge beyond its sphere.
If there is insufficient evidence and reasoned argument to support the existence of a god, the default position is to not have a belief that it exists.
Quote:I understand you claiming agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. To me they are, as what I believe to be true is based on my knowledge.
Then you are not using the standard, formal definitions of either word.
agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods
As long as you understand the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge', it should be pretty easy to see why I can be agnostic and an atheist. Agnosticism is not some sort of fence sitting position between belief and disbelief. If you are using it that way, then you are using the colloquial, not the formal definition.
I too base my beliefs on knowledge. That is why, since I hold the position that the existence of gods is unknown and possibly unknowable, I am without beliefs in their existence.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
