I can feel your anger

[Ace Otana]

Yes and by stating only that which is scientifically proven to be 'natural' reflects your view on natural and science. I don't solely depend on science.

Fine, so I take it you have a better method of determining what's real and what's not then? A method better than the scientific method? Something that can provide more information, details into how and when with support?
You use science every day. The computer, your food, preventing churches from being destroyed (thanks to the lightning rod), medicine.

If you have a better method than the scientific method, please share.

My existence requests that I ask why I exist, and I see no reason to view what we can replicate and measure as a sole means to address this question.

Then make up whatever you want. Believe what you want. Believing in something won't make you right, however you're free to believe that if you want though. Whatever floats your boat.

Why are you convinced that this is the only way to assess whether a god exists?

Quote me where I said that.
It's not down to me to prove or disprove god or gods. That's the theist's job. I just reject it as total nonsense. When it comes to god, it's down to you entirely.
I have rejected the claim based on the fact that I've seen no reason or evidence to suggest that a god exists and that he/it is at all required. Simple.

Your move.

[Zen Badger]

Science is not a religion, proxy or otherwise.

Do you actually think that's what I'm saying? It's either a failure to understand, a disengenious tactic (by attempting to make materialism interchangeable with science) or even worse, this is what you believe to be true.

No science is not a religion, materialists application of science is.

I'm intrigued, how else would you apply science except in a material fashion?

Religion is a tool used by the powerful few to manipulate the ignorant many.

Science is a tool used to understand the universe.

Yay science wins so easily.

It certainly shits all over religion when it comes to understanding the universe.

And if you con't see the difference then there is no helping you.

I don't require help from people who accept what they say to be true, as they've said it.

Prove me wrong then.

[Whateverist]

Strong agnostic. So you know we are not now and never will be in a position to know if gods exist? For someone who sets the bar for knowing high, you don't seem to have any trouble ruling out the possibility of knowing.

No it's something I believe. Based on existing evidence it's the most logical assumption, as opposed to believing science will disprove a god, or that god is proven.

Not by any form of logic with which I'm familiar.

That it is possible that gods exist is not in dispute between us. I accept that it is possible that our 'net' of perceptual and cognitive abilities may not be fine enough to detect everything that exists.

I also do not dispute that such imperceptible gods, if they exist, would of course be natural. That's just a function of what we mean by the word natural.

But I don't see how any logic will lead from these observations to requiring strong agnosticism.

I would assume weak atheism is due to the dependence on science, rather than the belief that a god will be proved. I believe a god is a possibility and not an unlikely one as I have no means to determine this probability.

You assume incorrectly. My atheism is weak because while I concede the possibility of undetectable gods, I'm far from convinced that there must be a class of undetectable beings. Even if undetectable gods did exist, perhaps we are just as undetectable to them. What sort of beings do we suppose these gods to be?

If gods are to be understood as playing a critical role in creation, then I can't get past the question of what created them, and the creators of the creator's creators, and and so on. If you want to talk about logic, tell me how this fails.

Finding no indication of any belief in gods in my actions and having no consciously held beliefs, I am ready to come out as atheist. How about you?

It depends, I don't use the term as a response to theists. Theists would probably view me as an atheist, although I view myself as an agnostic. Based on saying "I don't know" but the philosophy I apply is very different to those who view themselves as atheists.

I'm only asking whether you include the consideration of gods in your life. If you don't, then I say you are by definition an atheist too. As an exercise in abstract reasoning, I find I can't even get started thinking about gods because they are so poorly defined. What is their most important defining characteristic? Creation? Keeper of the after-life? Judge over what is moral? Special omni-powers?

I can't imagine you waste any time wondering if the god of the bible taken in a literal way exists, do you? I have no problem caring about the kind of gods Joseph Campbell describes running around in my own psyche. I totally exist to serve those suckers (no blasphemy intended). Mostly I'm just apathetic about whether cosmological gods exist. Does it really matter?

[Napoléon]

This steaming pile of turd is still going?

I thought it would of died out along with the dinosaurs, stone age thinking and religion.

Oh wait.

[WhatIfGodWasJustAMyth]

What the fuck did I just read?

[Autumnlicious]

This guy is the You-can't-know-anything version of Statler Waldorf.

[Napoléon]

This guy is the You-can't-know-anything version of Statler Waldorf.

Haha, is that referring to Clive Staples or sulliedpoop?

Because I've been having my suspicions that Clive is in fact Statler for quite a while

[Selliedjoup]

This guy is the You-can't-know-anything version of Statler Waldorf.

It's Statler and Waldorf. There are two of them.


ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

[Cyberman]

https://atheistforums.org/user-1355.html

ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho

[Napoléon]

Hahaha.