Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can you KNOW for sure as in 100% certainty, if you havent covered 100% of the universe to be sure ? You cant fully know unless you are capable of at least doing this much, so....perhaps you arent WILLING to consider the possibility of a personal theistic Creator for our scentifically proven and measurable personal universe (?) . Why wouldnt someone be willing ? I had my motives as a once proclaimed atheist, and im wondering if your true motives are the same as mine was.
It isn't about knowing 100 percent. It's about knowing enough.
I know enough to believe that Australia is actually there, and not a fabrication to play tricks on me. Similarly, I know enough, or enough for my own personal thought processes, to know there isn't a god.
But I haven't been to Australia, so I guess I could be wrong.
I do hope we can correct these common misconceptions and misrepresentation about atheism.
While we cannot say that we know for certain that there is no Santa Claus, no fairies and no leprechauns because of course they could be invisible, too small to see or on the other side of the universe, the lack of any feasible evidence means that we can say that we 'know' there are no such things, and nobody would pull the 'absolute knowledge' stuff. That's what we feel about gods. We have looked at all the arguments and they don't actually add up to anything but trying to explain why there is no good evidence for any of them.
We are all agnostic since none of know whether there is a god or not. That is the state of our knowledge. There are those who say they do know. They don't. They just have a firm belief in whatever god they have in mind.
On the agnostic knowledge position, atheism bases a logical belief - position: we do not believe in what we do not know is true. That would be logical even if the evidence was not persuasive. In the case of gods and religions, the evidence falls far short of persuasive.
The talk of a god somewhere out in the universe is a red herring. We are concerned about a god here, with us. There is no good evidence for it. Human history only really makes sense if there is no god getting involved.
As regards a vague sortagod idea like intelligent nature, first cause or the universal computer of Einstein. We do not believe in it as the evidence is arguable and is getting less persuasive as we learn more. However we are not much bothered about the debate as to whether nature is conscious.
We are concerned with the man - made personal gods and the man - made religions that go with them. We are pretty convinced that they make no sense and we are fed up to the back teeth with Believers giving us a hard time because we don't believe in something without good evidence.
We resent being told that we are lacking, inferior, stupid, wicked, in denial, wanting to lead sinful lives, without morals, suicidal, nihilistic and likely to be punished after death for our refusal to believe without any good evidence.
We are cheesed with the interference of Theist belief in all aspects of society, law, education, morality and politics.
We are pissed off beyond measure with science being rubbished when it has the temerity to find things out which contradicts Holy writ.
I think that about covers it. Any further questions, 007, feel free to ask.
You can observe the effects of electricity running across a wire by its end result...but you 'cant' (or dont want to) observe all thats around you which pales in comparison to the meager complexity of electricity ? Well, that does sound rather motive-driven if i may say so.
What? Your propensity for dishing out red-herring arguments is intensely annoying. Do you know any other way to argue?
Quote:
In any case, lets get back to the discussion on atheism leading to agnosticism which is the original post . You are free to start a new thread on trying to defame theism if you like .
I'm not defaming anything. I'm stating facts, and correcting your wildly inaccurate assumptions about atheism/agnosticism. If you don't want the thread going astray, then try and keep your mistakes to a minimum, so more intelligent people don't have to go off-topic to correct you.
How can you KNOW for sure as in 100% certainty, if you havent covered 100% of the universe to be sure ? You cant fully know unless you are capable of at least doing this much, so....perhaps you arent WILLING to consider the possibility of a personal theistic Creator for our scentifically proven and measurable personal universe (?) . Why wouldnt someone be willing ? I had my motives as a once proclaimed atheist, and im wondering if your true motives are the same as mine was.
Lack of proof of a negative is not proof of a positive.
If you don't understand that sentence, you have no business even in participating in forensic arguments about deities.
By the way: You have admitted to being an agnostic (if not outright believer) with regard to the Hindu God Vishnu. I hope your family isn't upset that this admission is preserved on the Internet forever.
How can you KNOW for sure as in 100% certainty, if you havent covered 100% of the universe to be sure ? You cant fully know unless you are capable of at least doing this much, so....perhaps you arent WILLING to consider the possibility of a personal theistic Creator for our scentifically proven and measurable personal universe (?) . Why wouldnt someone be willing ? I had my motives as a once proclaimed atheist, and im wondering if your true motives are the same as mine was.
Then to quote an old commercial "where's the beef"............ Billions of people searching to the point of becoming delusional for centuries...................
wait.............
for .................
it.............
not the first shred of evidence that even any evidence exists, much less any real evidence. It's a myth, that has simply deluded billions of people for the simple reason they were brain washed as children.......... plain and simple.
Are you thus saying you 'know' in an absolute sense ?
If you state that 'there is a possibility that God DOES exist' ... doesnt this nullify a true atheist position....and are you willing to possibly give up your desire to be an atheist , and, diligently seek all and any avenues including scientific, that might lead you to reasonable faith based on evidence...that a personal theistic Creator exists ?
Would there be any implications of a personal theistic Creator existing, to you personally ? If so, can u list what some of them might be ?
I think what Boxcar is trying to say is that he believes in YHWH and Jesus as much as he believes in Zeus and Hercules. he "knows" none of those four things exist.
What is interesting to me is that theist will not put the same test to themselves.
If absolute, metaphysical proof of God's NON-existance is required to be an atheist, then absolute, metaphysical proof that God DOES exist should be required to be a theist.
If there is even one logical, metaphysical argument that God doesn't exist, they should have to admit to being agnostic, under their standards.
How can you KNOW for sure as in 100% certainty, if you havent covered 100% of the universe to be sure ? You cant fully know unless you are capable of at least doing this much, so....perhaps you arent WILLING to consider the possibility of a personal theistic Creator for our scentifically proven and measurable personal universe (?) . Why wouldnt someone be willing ? I had my motives as a once proclaimed atheist, and im wondering if your true motives are the same as mine was.
As others have stated absolute Agnosticism is absolute truth, While all other things are just believes. Even the whole "I think, therefore I am" depends on your definition of existance and thinking. does thinking actually mean that you exist? It will all be explained later, maybe. but if you think enough, you will understand.
How can you KNOW for sure as in 100% certainty, if you havent covered 100% of the universe to be sure ?
You know, when you keep claiming people believe one thing even after they correct you and tell you they don't, it's bordering on lying about them. That's against the rules here and will get you banned if you keep it up. Plus it makes you (and by association your religion) look like they have nothing but lies to support them. That's not a position I'd like to be in if I were you.
As others have stated absolute Agnosticism is absolute truth, While all other things are just believes.
I've gotta disagree. Agnosticism is a belief like anything else. Specifically, it's the belief that knowledge about gods is impossible, or at least not currently available. Sure, this belief may be a reasonable belief but it's no more absolute truth than any other reasonable justified belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
