Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrWiggles]

Short Version:

I'm secular humanist. On the whole, humans are fucking awesome and given time have overcame every issued face with.

[Kebooo]

The point is that you aren't addressing the essential question, and instead making assumptions about what other people believe, and speculating as to why.

No, I am stating what I believe to be a fact - that there are people that fit this description, and I believe there are more than you're willing to admit.  My argument was attempting to show that most "agnostics" (or whatever term you want to call them, this type of person I am describing) happen to have beliefs and disbelief in their regular life but don't pick a side when it comes to a divine creator despite it not requiring they believe it has been proven.

The essential question I am asking is, why do you (the audience I am directing this at) believe in not believing either way?  When it comes to those that believe in god, and those that disbelieve in him, the answers are usually going to always be the same.  But there are a lot of posters on many forums identifying as "agnostic", self-identifying as that, that claim the high ground of being the most correct or reasonable, natural position.  Just look at the above description, the "moronic atheist" and my point is proven.  My purpose is to argue against that position, that these people should be complete and equal opportunity deniers of reality to keep their logic consistent.  I'm not so much interested in why a disbeliever disbelieves, or a believer believes, but rather why someone does not believe either way.

[TheDarkJay]

Well I have "You can't know with any certainty whether or not any gods exist, so we should just operate under the assumption there is none. Likewise I don't operate under the assumption invisible pink unicorns live in the woods waiting for us to sleep so they can rise up and maul us all to death. We can't at all separate that situation from the idea of gods."

That is the difference between not believing either way, and believing in the absence. The out-come should be pretty much the same, but the foundations are vastly different.

Only reason I used Moronic is because Fundamentalist Atheist didn't quite seem to fit right to me, and I my vocabulary is too limited to think of another term. Hell, only reason I used Fundamentalist Theist instead of Moron Theist is because I know the word Fundamentalist XD

Belief without proof as a whole I consider stupid. We have to do it, but it should be avoided as much as possible. My take on enlightenment is essentially a state of being where emotions or opinions play no part in decisions, there is only the facts. Impossible for a person to achieve? Maybe.

[Kebooo]

Well I have "You can't know with any certainty whether or not any gods exist, so we should just operate under the assumption there is none. Likewise I don't operate under the assumption invisible pink unicorns live in the woods waiting for us to sleep so they can rise up and maul us all to death. We can't at all separate that situation from the idea of gods."

That is the difference between not believing either way, and believing in the absence. The out-come should be pretty much the same, but the foundations are vastly different.

Only reason I used Moronic is because Fundamentalist Atheist didn't quite seem to fit right to me, and I my vocabulary is too limited to think of another term. Hell, only reason I used Fundamentalist Theist instead of Moron Theist is because I know the word Fundamentalist XD

Belief without proof as a whole I consider stupid. We have to do it, but it should be avoided as much as possible. My take on enlightenment is essentially a state of being where emotions or opinions play no part in decisions, there is only the facts. Impossible for a person to achieve? Maybe.

And my argument boils down to this: prove any proof is absolute truth.  If you cannot, and you maintain belief without proof to be stupid, then any belief would be stupid.  Believing I'm not a billionaire would be stupid because you do not have proof that I am not, just belief in probability (which is, of course, another belief in itself, so it would be stupid to believe the probability is accurate or that your memory wasn't created this morning or that all the studies and scientists and evidence you have seen is accurate).  I'm just trying to make a huge, mega-distinction between disbelieving in god (I believe he is not there, so I disbelieve in him) and belief there is proof against him.  I do not believe there is any proof he is or is not there, but I also do not believe there is proof you are or are not the second coming of Jesus.  Of course, when asked about the truth, what do I believe, I would say I believe you are not Jesus.  There are many things virtually all people believe to be true without absolute proof, even for those that do not believe absolute truth can be proven.

[chaoticag]

Eh? I don't think the world is about believing in absolute proof, but more about support. I your idea is supported by facts, then that is a good enough reason to believe in it.

Frankly, I don't think this argument is going anywhere.

[Kebooo]

Eh? I don't think the world is about believing in absolute proof, but more about support. I your idea is supported by facts, then that is a good enough reason to believe in it.

Frankly, I don't think this argument is going anywhere.

That's part of my point.  There's no reason to believe I'm a billionaire because I have provided no facts for you to believe it.  Is it possible?  Yes, it is, but that does not somehow mean you must take an agnostic position on whether I am or not.  Many people, "agnostic" or otherwise, would dispute the fact of me being a billionaire, due to the lack of evidence and fact in support of it.  And if I went out of my way to conclusively prove it, then a lot more people would believe it.  I look at god the same way.  I see no facts to believe in one, if the facts conclusively proved he did exist, then I would believe it.  But a lot of the same people that would believe I am not a billionaire would take the position to not believe or disbelieve in god, simply because it is possible he exists and evidence does not show either way.  Yet they're willing to disbelieve my claim I am a billionaire despite evidence not showing either way.  That's really all I'm arguing here.

[Siquo]

Kebooo, you are mixing up two things: Belief and everyday practical behaviour.

There are numerous examples of people who actually believe in a God that sends you to hell for certain things, and yet they still commit sins. Why would they do that? Because everyday behaviour is something else than what you actually believe. We are still more animal than rational creatures. As ...(I believe it was Kierkegaard, not sure) once said (not an exact quote): "Philosophy about the nature and purpose of the universe is nice, but I've still got to eat".

Very few people act like how they should according to their core belief.

[Kebooo]

Kebooo, you are mixing up two things: Belief and everyday practical behaviour.

There are numerous examples of people who actually believe in a God that sends you to hell for certain things, and yet they still commit sins. Why would they do that? Because everyday behaviour is something else than what you actually believe. We are still more animal than rational creatures. As ...(I believe it was Kierkegaard, not sure) once said (not an exact quote): "Philosophy about the nature and purpose of the universe is nice, but I've still got to eat".

Very few people act like how they should according to their core belief.

I don't see exactly what I am mixing up in any way.  I am only talking about their beliefs, not their behavior or choices or everyday life.  Whether they believe I'm a billionaire or not doesn't require any particular behavior toward it, neither does whether they believe the bible is true or not.  I am merely pointing out what I consider a contradiction in the following logic: "because god is possible, I do not believe or disbelieve in him".  Because it's possible I'm a billionaire, they should not believe or disbelieve that I am, until proof has been shown either way.  So far in bay12games, no one has had proof or evidence that I am or am not a billionaire, only belief in probability, which I've already gone over.  All I'm trying to outline here is the contradiction in logic and philosophy many people have, so when a self-identifying "agnostic" condemns an "atheist" for disbelieving in a god, they had better be willing to have all of their beliefs and disbeliefs challenged.

[Ampersand]

The problem is with people who seem to think that there is really anyone who's arguing that a God does not exist, at least in this thread.

I, and no atheist I know will ever claim that God does not exist. The lack of evidence is all I need to say that I do not believe that one does exist. Under MY definition of the word Atheist, it merely means the negative of belief in a god, rather than the positive belief that there is no god. The two are entirely separate ideas and do not share anything between them philosophically. I agree with Jay in that one cannot defend a position of actively believing in the non-existence of something without proof that it doesn't exist, BUT that has never been what Atheists in general have tried to support. There are definitely morons out there on the internets who will spout off without thinking, but this just demonstrates one thing:

There is no central dogma that defines what an Atheist is. It is a label of exclusion, not inclusion. You can only tell what a person does NOT think if they call themselves an Atheist, not what they DO think. The idea that you can twist a person saying that they don't believe in a god into they believe that there is no god is asinine.

[Bauglir]

Kebooo, you are mixing up two things: Belief and everyday practical behaviour.

There are numerous examples of people who actually believe in a God that sends you to hell for certain things, and yet they still commit sins. Why would they do that? Because everyday behaviour is something else than what you actually believe. We are still more animal than rational creatures. As ...(I believe it was Kierkegaard, not sure) once said (not an exact quote): "Philosophy about the nature and purpose of the universe is nice, but I've still got to eat".

Very few people act like how they should according to their core belief.

I don't see exactly what I am mixing up in any way.  I am only talking about their beliefs, not their behavior or choices or everyday life.  Whether they believe I'm a billionaire or not doesn't require any particular behavior toward it, neither does whether they believe the bible is true or not.  I am merely pointing out what I consider a contradiction in the following logic: "because god is possible, I do not believe or disbelieve in him".  Because it's possible I'm a billionaire, they should not believe or disbelieve that I am, until proof has been shown either way.  So far in bay12games, no one has had proof or evidence that I am or am not a billionaire, only belief in probability, which I've already gone over.  All I'm trying to outline here is the contradiction in logic and philosophy many people have, so when a self-identifying "agnostic" condemns an "atheist" for disbelieving in a god, they had better be willing to have all of their beliefs and disbeliefs challenged.

The difference is mostly one of how I act. I'm not prepared to worship a God, but as I'm not prepared to condemn the possibility of his existence, I'm not going to try and convince people that he doesn't exist. Generally, I don't think agnostics condemn atheists for disbelieving in God, they condemn them for trying to convince other people to disbelieve in God. At least, that's they way I look at it. So I don't have any quarrel with an atheist who just says, "Believe what you want, this is what I believe", which is what the majority of them seem to do. It's the vocal minority that irritates me, just as the vocal minority of religious people irritate me, and for the same reasons.

[CJ1145]

The problem is with people who seem to think that there is really anyone who's arguing that a God does not exist, at least in this thread.

I, and no atheist I know will ever claim that God does not exist. The lack of evidence is all I need to say that I do not believe that one does exist. Under MY definition of the word Atheist, it merely means the negative of belief in a god, rather than the positive belief that there is no god. The two are entirely separate ideas and do not share anything between them philosophically. I agree with Jay in that one cannot defend a position of actively believing in the non-existence of something without proof that it doesn't exist, BUT that has never been what Atheists in general have tried to support. There are definitely morons out there on the internets who will spout off without thinking, but this just demonstrates one thing:

There is no central dogma that defines what an Atheist is. It is a label of exclusion, not inclusion. You can only tell what a person does NOT think if they call themselves an Atheist, not what they DO think. The idea that you can twist a person saying that they don't believe in a god into they believe that there is no god is asinine.

Richard Dawkins.

[Bauglir]

The problem is with people who seem to think that there is really anyone who's arguing that a God does not exist, at least in this thread.

I, and no atheist I know will ever claim that God does not exist. The lack of evidence is all I need to say that I do not believe that one does exist. Under MY definition of the word Atheist, it merely means the negative of belief in a god, rather than the positive belief that there is no god. The two are entirely separate ideas and do not share anything between them philosophically. I agree with Jay in that one cannot defend a position of actively believing in the non-existence of something without proof that it doesn't exist, BUT that has never been what Atheists in general have tried to support. There are definitely morons out there on the internets who will spout off without thinking, but this just demonstrates one thing:

There is no central dogma that defines what an Atheist is. It is a label of exclusion, not inclusion. You can only tell what a person does NOT think if they call themselves an Atheist, not what they DO think. The idea that you can twist a person saying that they don't believe in a god into they believe that there is no god is asinine.

Richard Dawkins.

Is fucking irritating.

[CJ1145]

Is fucking irritating.

Just saying, the guy (albeit irritating, as you said, and an asshole) is a self-proclaimed atheist. If you can get me a petition with at least 1,000 signatures that officially disowns him I shall stop pointing to him.

Until then, Richard Dawkins.

[Bauglir]

Is fucking irritating.

Just saying, the guy (albeit irritating, as you said, and an asshole) is a self-proclaimed atheist. If you can get me a petition with at least 1,000 signatures that officially disowns him I shall stop pointing to him.

Until then, Richard Dawkins.

Oh, no, I completely agree. He's the poster boy of the vocal 1% I've got problems with.

[chaoticag]

...

That's like saying the pope is the model of all christians, everywhere, and whatever he does, they do.