RE: I can feel your anger
July 31, 2012 at 12:16 am
(This post was last modified: July 31, 2012 at 12:19 am by Selliedjoup.)
(July 30, 2012 at 8:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They are claims to knowledge of what we can observe, I thought you didn't have a problem with this...now you do? What makes you think you hadn't already fleshed out contemporary materialism in a manner that left no room for me to elaborate when you made that statement? I went the extra mile for you though, so tell me what parts of my response gave you the most trouble?
I have no problem with using evidence to determine that which is proven to exist, to think otherwise is conflating the issue.I have a problem that the materialist/naturalist view is used to portray that all which is proven, is all that does, or can exist. The position assumes its own premise by soely focusing on that which is proven to exist, the possibility of being unable to obtain all evidence is not considered or a viable evidenced alternative is not offered for existence. This is the primary reason atheism is untenable for me.
Link to where you went the extra mile?
(July 30, 2012 at 8:59 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(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.
Do you believe in a randomly created universe? If not, do you lack belief in it the same way as a god? if so, why?
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.
Only the defintions commonly applied by atheists, you can claim to know or believe, I don't care which. I don't know of many theists who claim to be agnostic theists, or agnostics who claim as they hold a lack of belief they're an atheist. These defintions tend to be applied by atheists. However, what I'm interested in which side you promote as 'correct'.
Your application of 'lacking of belief' is the same as negating a god, and comes across as an attempt to shift the burden of proof. As materialism/naturalism is commonly used as a foundation, which don't correlate with lacking belief, but negating. Which in itself, is fine, I just dislike the pretense of holding some sort of truth, which I believe atheists do.
For those atheists escaping a higly religious upbringing I can understand their reaction, howver their reaction doesn't provides their new ideology any value either. These types of responses are commonly too emotive for the reaction to be of any rational value.
Quote: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.
