Is this the Atheist Fanatics Forums Off-Topic?

[Winner]

Russell's teapot goes both ways: you can't disprove definitively that the teapot isn't out there orbiting the Sun, you can only extrapolate to a reasonable doubt that its not there. That's a respectable, logical conclusion, and it is the equivalent of agnosticism. Since agnosticism is the admittance that we don't know and can't know, it is not a position that really requires any evidence to hold. Atheism, on the other hand, the definitive claim that God does not exist, is as lacking in empirical evidence as the claim that God does exist. So you, by claiming to know that which can only be assumed, are committing the same fallacy as theists.

No. The original state is 0 (something does not exist). If someone wants to change it to 1 (something does exist), the burden of proof is his. Until then, the state remains 0.

Agnostic hypocrites believe that the simple fact that somebody makes a claim changes the state to 0.5 and then believe that they cannot possibly change it. That's clearly irrational and opposed to scientific method of proving/disproving a theory.

Or you can just shut up and ignore them. No one's forcing you to embark on the anti-religious crusade you have gone on.

This is a common argument by closet believers (and agnostics): "shut up, hide under a rock and be quiet about religion." Isn't that nice - such a submissive crap

I am not on a crusade, if I was I'd start doing the same thing religious people do - blow up some churches (that's their favourite), have men standing on corners shouting at passers-by, print some atheist leaflets and distribute them, things like that.

Am I doing this? No. I merely argue with what I see as irrational, stupid and dangerous beliefs when I meet them - and it doesn't really matter if it's religion, communism or other nonsense. It's called "having an opinion".

An a prudent person knows that unless he has definitive evidence of something, then it cannot be proven. There is no definitive evidence of God NOT existing, so you can't say "he doesn't exist" as if it were an objective fact.

There was nothing to suggest that there was God in the first place - the state is still 0, because nobody brought up any evidence. And since the state is 0, I don't have to prove anything, I merely state the obvious - god doesn't exist.

It goes both ways. Be agnostic all you want, or hell, even be athiest, but if you choose to believe that God does not exist, know that the grounding for your belief is as unstable as a theist's, and that you are doing so on faith, not on fact.

No, it's based on a lack of faith - you have no damn idea what you're talking about and it's funny, really.

Theism and Atheism are not two equal positions. One requires evidence for support, one doesn't. Believers need the proof to change the state from 0 to 1, agnostics are stupid enough to believe that making a claim without offering an evidence changes the state from 0 to 0.5, but atheists don't have to do anything. Their position is the most rational since it requires exactly no leap of faith.

See my above comments to [potentially] understand why this statement is false.

You can go and try to educate 5-year-olds because to them, you logic might appear impressive, but please, don't try it with adults, okay?

 

[Fr8monkey]

@Winner: All of what you said is true. The basics of the Scientific Method is to have a theory and go about proving that theory. Having an idea and having others prove it is false is not how it works. You can't "prove" a negitive.

 

[illram]

For many, myself included, the part of life that any kind of spiritual belief or non-belief is intended to fulfill is very different from the part of life governed by logic, scientific method, etc. etc.

The scientific method and whatever other belief system I utilize as far as my spiritual side (or lack thereof) are different things. Of course one can decide to apply scientific method and scientific certainty to that side of things, but one doesn't necessarily have to. I can live a perfectly rational and intelligent life keeping those two things very separate.

 

[Bill3000]

It is not "bad" that he repeated what I said. It is

Are you saying that your beliefs are as good as a dead horse?

 

[Imcalfin]

For many, myself included, the part of life that any kind of spiritual belief or non-belief is intended to fulfill is very different from the part of life governed by logic, scientific method, etc. etc.

The scientific method and whatever other belief system I utilize as far as my spiritual side (or lack thereof) are different things. Of course one can decide to apply scientific method and scientific certainty to that side of things, but one doesn't necessarily have to. I can live a perfectly rational and intelligent life keeping those two things very separate.

emphasis mine

I know I'm interpreting what you wrote in somewhat bad faith but what you just wrote is a perfect example of not being perfectly rational. Not that any of us are.

I must confess that I find people whose core beliefs are clearly not coherent pretty strange. (this isn't about illram's beliefs - I don't know enough about them to judge)

 

[MagisterCultuum]

For many, myself included, the part of life that any kind of spiritual belief or non-belief is intended to fulfill is very different from the part of life governed by logic, scientific method, etc. etc.

The scientific method and whatever other belief system I utilize as far as my spiritual side (or lack thereof) are different things. Of course one can decide to apply scientific method and scientific certainty to that side of things, but one doesn't necessarily have to. I can live a perfectly rational and intelligent life keeping those two things very separate.

Yes, but the very popular idea in Liberal Christianity of keeping these different parts of ones life seperate means sacrificing your integrity (at least for older definitions of the word).

 

[illram]

emphasis mine

I know I'm interpreting what you wrote in somewhat bad faith but what you just wrote is a perfect example of not being perfectly rational. Not that any of us are.

I must confess that I find people whose core beliefs are clearly not coherent pretty strange. (this isn't about illram's beliefs - I don't know enough about them to judge)

Maybe I am not explaining myself very well. I am not perfectly rational, far from it. I don't think living a life guided by perfect rational thought would be very interesting. If I have said otherwise before then I misspoke. These things are kind of hard to explain.

I think there are certain things in life that a scientific explanation just does not adequately cover. Maybe this is just part of the human experience. For some people, religion, or any kind of spiritual practice, even just meditating every other day, fulfills this "gap." Maybe that is a limitation or a bad thing, I don't know. The best analogy I can think of is when you were watching Star Trek, and Spock sometimes just didn't "get it."

I am not claiming to be a spiritual person or enlightened or any of that. I'm not trying to sound "deep" or anything. I don't meditate. I also don't pretend to think I have a totally coherent, "I've got it all figured out" method of going through life and answering all those tough questions. Do you think you truly have a totally coherent "core belief" system or something? Does anyone? What does that even mean?

 

[illram]

Yes, but the very popular idea in Liberal Christianity of keeping these different parts of ones life seperate means sacrificing your integrity (at least for older definitions of the word).

How so?