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.
"science data" does not encompass or address that which is sacred, that which is holy.
common sense, reason, logic and even the most basic understanding, recognize that paths of religion focus on the sacred and the holy. "science data" does not.
branches of it do. It deals with why people see the the things they do. Its call psychology and neuroscience.
The problem with the Religious is no one really knows!
The problem with Atheists is no one really knows!
This is why Agnostics don't have any problems....
But both theists and atheists are 'agnostics' as no -one - as you said - really knows. That is unimportant, and irrelevant to the God -claim.
Agnostic atheism (that is, pretty much all atheism (1) has no logical problems at least. The logic of 'not really knowing' is to not beleive (a claim) until you do know. Or in practicality the evidence is convincing, and it should be good evidence and not a piling up of bad. And (of course) the 'good evidence' is where science has the best record by far. One might even say the only decent track -record in vaiid evidence.
Believing a claim where one does not really know and there is no good evidence for or even in spite of the valid evidence against (ID was shown NOT to be valid evidence, both in science and the Law) is Theism and is not following the logical mandate.
Accepting that this is Faith and has no good logical or evidential basis is fine, and atheism will accept the right to do that. But just let the Faith -claim believer try to find fault with atheists for Not believing the unvalidated faith- claim and they are going to get called on it. And correctly so as it is a infringement of our right (apart from our logical validation) to Not believe.
The answer is - as you say - easy, but the efforts of Theism to try to upset it by semantic squirrelling, requiring some corrections of the false reasoning, makes it Look complicated.
(1) the 'No god' saying is taken out of context. Those atheists who claim to be 'Strong' or 'gnostic' atheists will soon see that they are making a technically untenable claim and will soon revert to 'so far as we know and on the best evidence, there is no god' and that really applied to God (Biblegod) too, though there the tiny percentage of doubt is so small that I think we can ignore it.
I no longer believe in god. But if convincing evidence came along, I would change my mind.
there will never be evidence for the limited definition of god you seem to focus on. Even saying you are willing to wait see if evidence comes along tells me something.
I no longer believe in god. But if convincing evidence came along, I would change my mind.
As I say We are all agnostic as nobody really knows for sure. Though we may be sure that we really know.
"Agnostic" is really a meaningless term. But I (We ) have to try to understand what is meant.
As I recall (before I was sharply corrected - "Knowledge position" on branded on my Other Ass- cheek) I thought 'Agnostic was a ...
"Sweet Reasonable position between denialist atheists and unreasonable Theists." And while I don't know where I got this idea from It seems to be universal and I guess that, rather try to correct this holistically persistent misunderstanding, it us better to say: 'Yes, we agree with you, and atheists are agnostics too".
Which would hopefully leave the anti -atheists out on a limb trying to say "No they are not!! They say they know for certain that God does not exist!!" Though perhaps not all of them would start a crazy series of mental kangaroo - hops through "Atheist Faith -claim...atheist Dogma...atheist fundies ....militant-activists... terrorists... Hitler (no, make that Stalin)...concentration- camps...this is you I'm looking at, Tranny!!
As I say We are all agnostic as nobody really knows for sure. Though we may be sure that we really know.
"Agnostic" oir really a meaningless term. But I (We ) have to try to understnad what is meant.
As I recall (before I was sharply corrected - "Knowledge position" on branded on my Other Ass- cheek) I though 'Agnostic was a ...
"Sweet Reasonable position between denialist atheists and unreasonable Theists." And while I don't know where I got this idea from It seems to be universal and I guess that, rather try to correct this holistically persistent misunderstanding, it us better to say 'Yes, we agree with you, atheists are agnostics too".
Which would hopefully leave the anti -atheists out on a limb trying to say "No they are not!! They say they know for certain that God does not exist!! Though perhaps not all of them would start a crazy series of mental kangaroo - hops through "Atheist Faith -claim...theist Dogma...atheist fundies ....militants... terrorists... Hitler (no, make that Stalin)...concentration- camps...this is you I'm looking at, Tranny!!
exactly, your words again trans. Its important to point out that you change my meaning and I use your words and meaning when debating. But its not a debate when one runs away is it?
When you are advocating for atheism you have to back us into a black and white line in the sand. You have to limit the discussion to your world view (stop religion in the states), and you have shun, ban, and kill anything that does not have those limits.
You have to do that because if we deploy science in an open and honest manor than our beliefs using science data start to be the same thing the science data is pointing to.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand the binary system and those who don't...
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.
Those atheists who claim to be 'Strong' or 'gnostic' atheists will soon see that they are making a technically untenable claim and will soon revert to 'so far as we know and on the best evidence, there is no god' and that really applied to God (Biblegod) too, though there the tiny percentage of doubt is so small that I think we can ignore it.
