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.
I claim no absolute knowledge - I just don't create a special exemption for 'God'.
I treat God with the same logic I treat Zeus and Loki and leprechauns and dragons. And I never hear people take the "Gee, I don't know, how can I ever know?" tack regarding those possibilities.
The fact that it is true that I can't know that there is no leprechaun in my breadbox right now doesn't mean I'm going to stake out the position that there might be a leprechaun in my breadbox right now.
Until I'm given some substantial affirmative evidence of God, that idea gets the same treatment as leprechauns and the like.
At least I'm consistent.
I'm consistent too. I can't say that none of those things ever existed so I say "I don't know" because I don't. New knowledge is found every minute. Who am I to say others are wrong or right in their beliefs?
Totally reasonable and consistent with the agnostic view . . . since we have no idea WHAT our reality IS or what its Source IS. How we label it is dependent on how we deal with the "We don't know" position. Labeling with neutral or otherwise unspecified euphemisms is a reasonable accommodation to our ignorance. It is atheism (which is not neutral) . . . that is questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST
I'm not sure there is a neutral position between atheism and theism. Some people believe agnosticism is that position, which I would strongly argue against. There is no fencing sitting. You either believe in a god or you do not. Or you like to call things gods most people would not. Even so, that still leaves you sitting in the theist camp.
I would however say that atheism is the default position until you acquire a god belief.
Atheism is NOT a default when "We don't know" what the hell our reality actually IS or why it is. It is the Source of life, consciousness, evolution, and everything else. That is pretty damn Godly. "We don't know" . . . has to be the default. Pretending we are not ignorant about it is neither neutral nor honest.
But mostly I just posted it because some posters had speculated that I had a misunderstanding of evolution (even though I explicitly explained I was not limiting evolution to the biological evolution but was including evolution of technology.)
A dilution which does not mitigate your error. Again evolution simply does not work how you imagine it.... that all you have to do is add enough time and progress will always be upwards.... or at least some arbitrarily held concept of "upwards" given there is no "up" or "down" in evolution either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
They attempted to ridicule the idea as if it were fantasy, and no possible.
Only half true. It is fantasy. But that is not the same as saying it is not possible. The latter I feel you are appending yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
What do you mean by natural?
I have noticed that usually in the context of religious discourse, what people mean by "natural" is events or attributes occurring without the requirement for an intentional designing agent behind the explanation for it. In religious context if I use the word natural, this is all I mean. And I think this is the meaning I glean from most posts around here too.
Atheism is NOT a default when "We don't know" what the hell our reality actually IS or why it is. It is the Source of life, consciousness, evolution, and everything else. That is pretty damn Godly. "We don't know" . . . has to be the default. Pretending we are not ignorant about it is neither neutral nor honest.
Suspending belief in something when we don't know is mandatory. Belief in something when we don't know is illogical. Of course there are degrees of probablility based on how one sees the evidence and what one means by God, but basically the atheist default is logically correct and if you and Plantinga were not doing all your reasoning from 'God exists' as a Given, you would see that.
However, if you don't that is your problem, old chum as we do and so you can tell us black is white until your beard turns white.
A dilution which does not mitigate your error. Again evolution simply does not work how you imagine it.... that all you have to do is add enough time and progress will always be upwards.... or at least some arbitrarily held concept of "upwards" given there is no "up" or "down" in evolution either.
No one said evolution must always move up, only that it tends to move up and that it will likely have been moving up in at least one of the many other species on the many other habitable planets.
Again, I'll defer to Dawkins quote, which holds a nearly identical position to my own.
Quote:
Only half true. It is fantasy. But that is not the same as saying it is not possible. The latter I feel you are appending yourself.
As my previous Richard Dawkin's quote shows, I think my understanding of what is "very likely" is more in line with currant scientific thought than your interpretation. I understand that it is somewhat an appeal to authority, but if my position on the power of evolution on cosmic scales is fantasy, then the same can be said about the opinion of one of the world's top experts on evolution.
Quote:
I have noticed that usually in the context of religious discourse, what people mean by "natural" is events or attributes occurring without the requirement for an intentional designing agent behind the explanation for it. In religious context if I use the word natural, this is all I mean. And I think this is the meaning I glean from most posts around here too.
That's an interesting definition of "natural", but it's not helpful in discussing gods.
Gods are often thought to have always existed and thus didn't require an intentional designing agent, or any designing agent at all. This is even true of the judeo-christian concept of god.
And of course, one can find plenty of examples of gods that didn't require a designing agent, but granted that since we were discussing how the word "natural" is used in normal discourse, that shouldn't really matter.
Atheism is NOT a default when "We don't know" what the hell our reality actually IS or why it is. It is the Source of life, consciousness, evolution, and everything else. That is pretty damn Godly. "We don't know" . . . has to be the default. Pretending we are not ignorant about it is neither neutral nor honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Suspending belief in something when we don't know is mandatory. Belief in something when we don't know is illogical. Of course there are degrees of probablility based on how one sees the evidence and what one means by God, but basically the atheist default is logically correct and if you and Plantinga were not doing all your reasoning from 'God exists' as a Given, you would see that.
If YOU were not doing all your reasoning from 'No God exists' as a Given, you would see that suspension of belief MEANS suspension of belief. That means "We don't know" is the default . . . NOT there is no God responsible for the Godly degree of ubiquity, scope and power obvious in reality. You don't like the Bible God or any anthropomorhic God, no problem. You do like FSM, no problem. But agnosticism means "We don't know."
Quote:
However, if you don't that is your problem, old chum as we do and so you can tell us black is white until your beard turns white.
I am not proselytizing and saying the default IS God . . . I am saying the default IS "We don't know." Try to be honest instead of unwarrantedly adopting YOUR position as the default when "We don't know." IF you claim to KNOW . . . that would be a different animal.
But of course, I explicitly acknowledge that I am talking about more than biological evolution. Think evolution of technology, merging with technology, trans-humanism etc.
Yes, this is precisely what I'm saying. Without technology, the biologically evolved brain alone could almost certainly never attain super-being status. I don't believe non-social animals could either.
Quote:
In what respect?
For instance, I don't believe omniscience is obtainable. We do not appear to live in a completely deterministic reality.
Quote:
What do you mean by natural? (Which is the entire tautology I'm trying to avoid. I don't believe there is a valid distinction between natural and supernatural.)
By that I mean anything that is composed of matter/energy, or as Mystic likes to call it "fields". I know you're trying to avoid the distinction, which is laudable, but most god believers consider their god supernatural, or not-natural in the above sense. Like I said before, if the supernatural could be shown not to exist, there could be nothing I'd call a god. Material beings/things do not deserve such status, in my opinion.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 04-16-2014 at 06:38 PM..
Atheism is NOT a default when "We don't know" what the hell our reality actually IS or why it is. It is the Source of life, consciousness, evolution, and everything else. That is pretty damn Godly. "We don't know" . . . has to be the default. Pretending we are not ignorant about it is neither neutral nor honest.
Non-belief (atheism) should be the default position when we don't know. Belief (theism) certainly should not be.
And... non-belief coupled with agnosticism is the obvious correct and logically default position. And like I already said, there is no neutral position between theism and atheism, but I'm being completely honest (just as anyone who holds this position can be) when I say, "I have no active god belief". There is nothing dishonest in not believing in something that hasn't been shown to exist.
Edit: In fact, I don't think belief is something we can choose. If this correct, any true expression of belief (or lack thereof) must be honest. One of course could lie about their beliefs, which I personally think is quite common when it comes to theists.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 04-16-2014 at 06:53 PM..
If YOU were not doing all your reasoning from 'No God exists' as a Given, you would see that suspension of belief MEANS suspension of belief. That means "We don't know" is the default . . . NOT there is no God responsible for the Godly degree of ubiquity, scope and power obvious in reality. You don't like the Bible God or any anthropomorhic God, no problem. You do like FSM, no problem. But agnosticism means "We don't know."I am not proselytizing and saying the default IS God . . . I am saying the default IS "We don't know." Try to be honest instead of unwarrantedly adopting YOUR position as the default when "We don't know." IF you claim to KNOW . . . that would be a different animal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST
Non-belief (atheism) should be the default position when we don't know. Belief (theism) certainly should not be.
Neither should be. Atheism is NOT a generic "Non-belief" as you would pretend it is. It is very specific to theism. It is the opposite of "God exists" . . . "God does not exist." Pretending the positions are belief and non-belief is a sham. You are proselytizing by picking a definite position on the existence of God in complete ignorance. "We don't know" is the only default position that is neutral. EITHER choice is not neutral.
Quote:
And... non-belief coupled with agnosticism is the obvious correct and logically default position. And like I already said, there is no neutral position between theism and atheism, but I'm being completely honest (just as anyone who holds this position can be) when I say, "I have no active god belief". There is nothing dishonest in not believing in something that hasn't been shown to exist.
Belief schmelief . . . that is a red herring. Beliefs only exist within minds. They do not constitute reality. There is immense dishonesty in pretending you have NOT chosen a position about reality by framing it as a question of belief . . . but then want to call it the default position as regards reality. "We don't know" is the ONLY neutral default with regard to the issue of whether or not "God exists" as the Source of reality.
If YOU were not doing all your reasoning from 'No God exists' as a Given, you would see that suspension of belief MEANS suspension of belief. That means "We don't know" is the default . . . NOT there is no God responsible for the Godly degree of ubiquity, scope and power obvious in reality. You don't like the Bible God or any anthropomorhic God, no problem. You do like FSM, no problem. But agnosticism means "We don't know."I am not proselytizing and saying the default IS God . . . I am saying the default IS "We don't know." Try to be honest instead of unwarrantedly adopting YOUR position as the default when "We don't know." IF you claim to KNOW . . . that would be a different animal.
Not knowing logically means not believing until we do know. This is quite simple. I accept that you have reasons for thinking that you do know. I had hoped that you would understand our reasons for not buying into them.
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.
as we do and so you can tell us black is white until your beard turns white.
