Print

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

[LegoLord]

When you observe that We Exist, someone may have made us is not a natural assumption to make.

Looking at all the creation myths that have come up, I'd say otherwise.  And please don't take that to mean a god would have just molded people out of some random junk.  That, at least, can be proven to be wrong.

[Ampersand]

Looking at the mountains of evidence that exists, I'd have to again disagree with you.

[LegoLord]

Evidence of what?  That pre-existing matter eventually developed into people and planets?  No one is denying that.  But does that deny the possibility of an omnipotent being?

[Ampersand]

Deny? I never said it denies anything. I cannot say that there is absolutely no possibility of such a thing, I'm saying that there is as of yet no reason to think that such a thing exists. Saying that I don't have any way viable to claim that it doesn't exist doesn't mean that it does.  The only thing I'm saying is that wild assumption making doesn't give facts.

The only thing we can logically conclude is that there is as of yet insufficient data to draw a conclusion either way from. The default position. The position that the assumption cannot be made. It doesn't rule anything out. It doesn't declare that something is false. It declares that something cannot be claimed to be true, which is a very important distinction.

[LegoLord]

Exactly.  So you can pick what you like, and believe that it might be true, but you can't say that it is.

[Ampersand]

If you want to believe something might be true, I'd want to ask why.

[Sordid]

Haven't we gone through this exact line of argument in the other thread? Why repeat it here?

[LegoLord]

If you want to believe something might be true, I'd want to ask why.

Well, why do you believe what you think might be true?

The thing is, I have some very personal reasons for believing what I believe.  Okay?  You have your own beliefs, and they might be true, but mine might be as well.  Leave people to believe what they will.

Haven't we gone through this exact line of argument in the other thread? Why repeat it here?

Because someone attacked a neutral position on this thread as well as the other.  I'd like to know why he did that.

[Sordid]

Haven't we gone through this exact line of argument in the other thread? Why repeat it here?

Because someone attacked a neutral position on this thread as well as the other.

Yes, and that someone was you. The default position is not "it's okay to believe in God because there's no evidence that he doesn't exist".

[LegoLord]

When did I say that?  All I've been saying is to stop trying to tell people they can't believe something.

My position this entire time is one of not denying anyone's beliefs for lack of sufficient knowledge to say for a fact that they are wrong.  That is what I mean by "neutral position".  Stating that another belief should be dismissed is a hostile position.

[Ampersand]

I'm not saying that you can't believe something. I'm saying that if the only reason you believe something is because you prefer to believe it, it may be wise to reconsider your reasoning.

[LegoLord]

I'm not saying that you can't believe something. I'm saying that if the only reason you believe something is because you prefer to believe it, it may be wise to reconsider your reasoning.

And you only know that reasoning which I feel comfortable sharing.  I like to think that the reasoning I have that you don't know of is fairly good.

[MrWiggles]

Exactly.  So you can pick what you like, and believe that it might be true, but you can't say that it is.

Should one hold false beliefs?

[LegoLord]

Exactly.  So you can pick what you like, and believe that it might be true, but you can't say that it is.

Should one hold false beliefs?

For the last freakin' time, you don't know which one is false.  Stop being a repetitive troll.
Sheesh.  What if you're wrong about atheism, eh?  What then?  Wouldn't you be holding a false belief?  Just by what logic do you know, without any minute speck of doubt, that believing in a god automatically means you are holding false beliefs?

This repetitiveness is annoying, and on your part particularly, lazy.

[MrWiggles]

Exactly.  So you can pick what you like, and believe that it might be true, but you can't say that it is.

Should one hold false beliefs?

For the last freakin' time, you don't know which one is false.  Stop being a repetitive troll.
Sheesh.  What if you're wrong about atheism, eh?  What then?  Wouldn't you be holding a false belief?  Just by what logic do you know, without any minute speck of doubt, that believing in a god automatically means you are holding false beliefs?

You haven't answered. Einstein went with Quantum Physics as that what the evidence and math said there should be.

Either may be wrong, this is true. This doesn't do anything for the default opinion of lack of belief. When the claim has no evidence then not believing in it, is less wrong then believing in it. It the most correct position as of this time.

I'm little surprise no one has brought this up. Even though, no claim may ever be brought to zero, it can be brought to being for intensive purposes of zero.

And just because its a possibility, doesn't automatically bump it up to 50/50 chance of being right or wrong. The chances get skewed with the weight of evidence at hand and evidence needed. God has none, and requires a lot. Makes his chances very slim. However constant, it still very slim. For myself, it equal to zero, even though it cannot be at zero.