(July 4, 2015 at 2:49 pm)Cato Wrote:(July 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.
In all of human history, nobody making any god claim has been able to demonstrate the object of their affection. We certainly don't know everything yet; however, our success rate at stripping back god's employment responsibilities suggests that what remains will be more of the same. Right now the most one could hope for would be Spinoza's god, but this isn't the type of god everyone is yammering about.
Keep in mind that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where there's a reasonable expectation that you find some based on the claims being made.
yep right, but even then is it correct to reject any future possibility of existence of a god when the word "god" itself is not properly defined? What I mean is, some tribes in Africa worship the crocodile, and we can see those "gods" in our local zoo and hence they exist, at several places in Asia, people worship deities who when stripped of the supernatural aspects were real people once. Heck even prince Siddharta might have been a real person, and a spiritual leader, and people do worship him as the god Buddha.

So I believe agnostic-atheist is a more valid position at least till we can settle on a proper definition of "god".
Quote:To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.
- Lau Tzu
Join me on atheistforums Slack

