RE: Atheist or Agnostic?
April 4, 2015 at 2:54 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2015 at 3:02 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 4, 2015 at 2:39 pm)datc Wrote:(April 4, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Because the belief in the existence of a god requires a lot more unsupported factual and illogical assumptions.
Not if there is no evidence whatsoever against God.
By your standards, there's no evidence whatsoever against the existence of Shiva, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, or any of the other 1000's of gods you don't believe exist.
But again, as explained to you over and over (and over), you are passing the burden of proof. I am not making a claim that gods don't exist. I am only responding to the claim made by theists that a god does exist.
Quote:Alright, suppose you are a definite agnostic. Why then wouldn't you lean toward agnostic theism simply out of overabundance of caution, as per the Pascal's wager?
Seriously?!
Pascals Wager fails on all levels.
Just how would I go about applying Pascal's Wager? Do I believe in ALL gods (even the ones with mutually exclusive doctrines), so I don't offend any of them? Is that what you do, simply out of overabundance of caution? Wouldn't want to piss of Allah and end up in Jahanamm being punished for eternity, would you?
And lets say I decide to believe in your god, simply out of overabundance of caution. Wouldn't your god be able to see through my little "I'll believe just to cover my ass" ploy?
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.
