Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

No they don't, some theists have all the proof they need, and some do in fact believe without proof.

 

Some atheists have all the proof they need, and some don't deny the possibility of a God but don't currently believe that it exists because they have no proof of its existence.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 12:41 ----------

 

 

I know God doesn't exist for the same reasons that I know that elephants aren't going to stampede out of my ass. I don't believe that elephants aren't going to stampede out of my ass, I know it as an indisputable fact. But I couldn't prove it to someone that is willing to believe that it's possible.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 12:44 ----------

 

 

 

They may very well have all the proof THEY need, what they don't have is proof that they can use to convince the less gullible amongst us.

 

Therefore, rather than it being proof which they possess, it's actually self delusion, and that goes for theists or atheists who think they KNOW that they are right.

 

As for atheists not denying the possibility of a God that is totally incorrect. You cannot be an atheist and think in any way that a God may exist.

 

Again from the Greek, 'a' without + theos God.

 

The second group of atheists which you describe as wanting proof of Gods existence are in fact agnostics.

 

You are confusing things you know can't be possible because you have experience of them, and things you 'believe' to be impossible because you happen to think it most unlikely, but you know absolutely nothing about them in reality and therefore have no actual proof whatsoever.

[Ryedo40]

You say that you don't believe theists speculation, I have no problem accepting that. But your following statement takes some believing, are you saying that you have never given a thought to what the alternative is?

 

No mate. Read carefully(let's use the wall thing again):

 

1) Theists speculate there is a god behind the wall - and BELIEVE it to be true.

2) I find no good reason to believe their guesswork; so I have an absence or lack of belief in the existence of god: making me an atheist.

3) I could speculate and, in this case, guess what is behind the wall, but because I don't know, I don't assert or believe my guesswork to be true.

 

You have come to the conclusion that as the theists are wrong, there must be nothing, yes?

 

No. I've come to the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe what theists believe: that a god exists. So I have an absence, or lack of, belief in the existence of god. God doesn't exist to me.

 

There could be nothing, or there could be something behind that wall. If there is something, I don't know what that is.

[mjw47]

I'm quite happy with that definition of the word gnostic, the problem you have though is if you call your self agnostic, you are in fact claiming to have no knowledge, which is clearly ridiculous, because it is clear that you do have some knowledge. So when we use the word in relation to God we are in fact being quite specific about the knowledge you lack.

 

Yes I do have a limited amount of knowledge about certain things. But like all other people, whether they are prepared to accept it or not, I do not possess knowledge about everything.

 

One of the things which I know nothing of, is the existence or non existence of God(s).

 

I do however know what that makes me in terms of this discussion.

 

It makes me agnostic ,not knowing which point of view is correct, and waiting for proof either way, whilst being virtually certain it will never arrive.

[Cyclone]

So you're equally agnostic about father christmas, the spaggetti monster and goblins?

 

Or do you consider the lack of evidence in those cases to actually indicate that they don't exist? That's the normal rational position to take, you can never have evidence of something not existing, so in the absence of evidence, you work on the assumption of absence.

Obviously I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since you can't prove negatives, having not a single piece of evidence or conjecture to support something, should result in you not believing in it.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 14:55 ----------

 

Agnosticism is not a rational position to take, it's a failure of logic and reason.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 14:56 ----------

 

They may very well have all the proof THEY need, what they don't have is proof that they can use to convince the less gullible amongst us.

 

Therefore, rather than it being proof which they possess, it's actually self delusion, and that goes for theists or atheists who think they KNOW that they are right.

 

Atheists are still open to new evidence, they only 'know' so much as they have taken the most rational evidence driven position on the subject.

[ivanava]

 

As for atheists not denying the possibility of a God that is totally incorrect. You cannot be an atheist and think in any way that a God may exist.

 

Again from the Greek, 'a' without + theos God.

Of cause you can, you can believe that something is possible without actually believing it exist.

 

The second group of atheists which you describe as wanting proof of Gods existence are in fact agnostics.

 

No they are not, agnostics are just people with out knowledge, a new born baby is agnostic because they have no knowledge, once they have some knowledge they are no long agnostic.

 

You are confusing things you know can't be possible because you have experience of them, and things you 'believe' to be impossible because you happen to think it most unlikely, but you know absolutely nothing about them in reality and therefore have no actual proof whatsoever.

 

You are incorrect, I know that omnipotence isn't possible and I know that Gods must be omnipotent to be defined as God.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 15:12 ----------

 

Yes I do have a limited amount of knowledge about certain things. But like all other people, whether they are prepared to accept it or not, I do not possess knowledge about everything.

 

One of the things which I know nothing of, is the existence or non existence of God(s).

 

I do however know what that makes me in terms of this discussion.

 

It makes me agnostic ,not knowing which point of view is correct, and waiting for proof either way, whilst being virtually certain it will never arrive.

 

That would make you an agnostic atheist. (agnostic, zero knowledge,) (atheist no believe in God.)

Edited March 4, 2014 by ivanava

[salsafan]

That's because the church stifled education outside its own parameters. Science didn't come from religion it came from educated individuals within the church who benefited. If the population at the time had access to the luxury of education rather than the limitations imposed then science may have took an even greater leap forward. Church and state would have non of that as ignorance is a useful tool when subjugating a populous...still goes on today sadly...even in this country, albeit subtle.

 

But what is "religion" to begin with ? It is just an idea that a group came together to be together under the same set of law. "Science" as you know it today is actually a group of people who thinks beyond your daily operational things. That is all. Nothing more to it than this alone. Some science is applicable to how people live and work. Other sciences are more metaphysical, and it explains the unexplainable.

 

In modern day, you may use the term "supernatural", but in the past historically, it was indeed "metaphysical" to begin with. The non-graspable and non-seeable things are actually discussed, quantified within the civilisation of a religious empire. People may forget that the "religion" of today was no more merely than the "government" of the past. Empires existed and groups existed, but no land boundaries were drawn then.

 

But if you think about it, when an empire or any large civilisation begins to form, how do you actually control its people to begin with without them killing each other ? You need to introduce a form of ettiquettes, or a form of ideology, right ? With some of these religious beliefs, they are actually just no more than mere etiquettes and social behaviours that are defined over time and time again. Even within the church, when the realisation that the population is growing, and that people are developing at different rates, or is exposed to different things, what do you do ? Why do you think that science came from a branch of "free thinkers", and actually uses "rationality" (which is actually a fear-based response in actual fact), to separate from the main group of people to begin with ? Anyway, it does not matter if it is the Church, or it is the Confucianism, it is all about the people at the end of the day, and the idea of civilisation and its governance.

 

Have a look at how religion and society branched out over the years.

http://www.floatingpath.com/2013/01/29/timeline-world-religions/

 

How religion also inter-mingled.

http://www.preceden.com/timelines/48775-history-of-major-religions

 

To some, you may think that "science" was not a part of religion, but if you look, there are many actual proof of this to be so.

How can these monuments actually be built over the time period that they belonged to ?

 

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-jesus-statue-brazil-4.jpg?w=588

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Temple_of_the_Great_Jaguar.jpg

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/607/cache/meteora-monastery-greece_60700_990x742.jpg

Edited March 4, 2014 by salsafan

[Cyclone]

Religion isn't just about a common set of laws. It's about a common belief, mindset and morality. (That's ignoring any more cynical and probably accurate assessment of what religion is about).

Science is a systematic approach to the understanding of the natural world through hypothesis and experimentation.

[danot]

Why do you think that something needs a cause? and why are you assuming that nothing was more likely than something?

 

When you are presented with only two possibilities, one or the other will be the default position, so why are you finding it so difficult to consider that something is the default position.

 

Because it's a ridiculous notion. Look at the history of our scientific understanding of the universe, how many of our previous ridiculous notions have turned out to be accurate?

 

ZERO!!!!

 

I'd say that the probability of our logical reasoning being at fault once again, is significantly higher than there having been no initial formation and/or cause of the universe's existence.

 

But that's just something that I firmly believe. If only we could live long enough to see my belief proved right..... I'd say- 'I told ya so!!", smugly.

[mjw47]

So you're equally agnostic about father christmas, the spaggetti monster and goblins?

 

Or do you consider the lack of evidence in those cases to actually indicate that they don't exist? That's the normal rational position to take, you can never have evidence of something not existing, so in the absence of evidence, you work on the assumption of absence.

Obviously I know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but since you can't prove negatives, having not a single piece of evidence or conjecture to support something, should result in you not believing in it.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 14:55 ----------

 

Agnosticism is not a rational position to take, it's a failure of logic and reason.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2014 at 14:56 ----------

 

 

Atheists are still open to new evidence, they only 'know' so much as they have taken the most rational evidence driven position on the subject.

 

Agnostic is the ONLY rational position to take. In reality, leaving everybody's beliefs, theories ( in the none scientific sense ) hopes and wishes aside, nobody KNOWS what the truth is.

 

Therefore, for someone to state that they believe either there is a God ,or alternatively there isn't A God is the irrational position.

 

The fact that you couldn't work that out logically tells it's own tale.

 

As for these atheists who are open to new evidence they must have been avoiding me for the last half century.

[ivanava]

Because it's a ridiculous notion.

 

These are the options.

 

1. The universe exists and as always existed.

 

2. The universe popped into existence from nothing without a cause.

 

3. The universe popped into existence from nothing and was caused by something that is unknown to us, possibly a God. This God or something that is unknown as always existed or was created by something else that as always existed.

 

1. looks to me like the sensible option, whilst 2. and 3. look ridiculous.