It’s just absurd to me to say that the only piece of evidence against the existence of gods is the “single fact” that there’s no evidence for them, when that “single fact” encompasses thousands of unfulfilled prophesies, falsified claims, failed theories and contradictions. It’s kind of like saying “I have no money, except for a single bank account with 50 million dollars in it”.
For my part, I have been satisfied with our conversation as well. And I apologize if I seemed confrontational or used incendiary language. Rest assured, I am in no way frustrated or annoyed.
What I meant when I said “set against people like me” was that many people in this thread think (rightly, IMO) that you are as much of an atheist as we are. However, you would always resort to denying the similarities and were at times borderline condescending about it. I was suggesting you were being unnecessarily hostile to the idea that we actually hold more or less the exact same position.
The proper quote would be “grounded in the reality we can observe”. I am willing to take stands on belief statements that directly relate to observable reality. Additionally, I also admit I could be wrong / don’t know all the answers. And I’m willing to hypothesize or discuss reality outside the observable with the pretense that it is essentially just letting my imagination run free. In other words, I support both those quoted statements simultaneously and think they are completely consistent.
Just wanted to make sure you were aware you got my position right then confused it.
Frank, if you aren’t going to bother to debate people who want to debate with you, maybe you shouldn’t be in Great Debates.
Then why call it theism? We could be in a computer simulation, that’s not thesism unless you broaden the term til it has no meaning.
Show some respect, the invisible cars created the universe. I don’t know that, but it can’t be ruled out. I’m keeping an open mind.
Because for all practical purposes whoever is running the simulation would be “god” to us. But I don’t think a computer simulation falls into the camp of theism—definitely not necessarily so. I would think that since it could be explained by our understanding of the workings of the universe, it would be further evidence for an atheistic creation. That is, until we ask who the programmer was or where he came from.
Would atheist | Search Online Etymology Dictionary help?
Frank, I’ve been following this thread and a couple others in which you participated, though I’ve only made one post so far and that one wasn’t directed to you. Now I’m going to attempt one.
First, I will say that I take you at your word that you don’t believe in God (or gods). It has occasionally been suggested that you’re trying to sneak the camel’s nose under the tent, but it’s pretty clear to me you are not. Rather, I take you at your word, that you’re just as agnostic with theists as you are with atheists.
Second, I take your point that some atheists seem to be a good deal more certain than others that there is no God (from here on, I’ll leave as implied “or gods”). This often is described as soft vs. hard atheism. I’m a soft atheist. As such, I don’t claim to be able to prove God doesn’t exist. But I believe he does not.
Third, ISTM that the difference between me and you, a self-identified agnostic, is fairly small. I feel little need, though, to insist you’re “really” an atheist. OTOH, I resist your (apparent) insistance that I’m “really” an agnostic. FWIW, in my early posts in religion threads on this board, I used to self-describe as “a strong agnostic or weak atheist depending on how one defines terms.” After reading several threads like this one, I concluded that dominant contemporary usage is that I’m a soft atheist and I decided it was simpler and less confusing just to go with that.
Fourth, wherein lies that small difference, ISTM, is whether “absence of evidence is evidence of absence.” Plainly, you think not. I disagree. If someone claims astrology works, I ask for evidence. Absent any, I conclude it doesn’t . If someone tells me echinacea prevents colds, I ask for evidence. Absent any, I conclude it doesn’t. My skepticism about God’s existence is of the same type.
Fifth, I’m at a loss to understand the substance of your point (as opposed to the semantics). If you’re saying atheists (weak or strong) should be open to the possibility that God exists, you’ll get no disagreement from me. But, then, I know of no atheists (of either stripe) who deny this. Even as strident an atheist as Richard Dawkins acknowledges it
So, please, step back from the melee and explain. What’s this all about?
Nah, he got as far as admitting that the word means “without God or gods”, and then claimed that instead of talking about someone not having any belief in any God or gods, that it was… well, he never did define what the heck he thought that ‘without Gods’ meant other than to disagree with the simple fact that being without theism makes one an atheist and to be very insistent that it only meant “without God or gods”.
Ah well.
And:
The problem is he doesn’t understand the Null Hypothesis or the burden of proof, and how either works. The default assumption is “no”, and it doesn’t require proof, it requires falsification if “yes” is to be accepted.
And often the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, like the invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage. This is just basic epistemology, and someone arguing these issues should take the time to learn the basics before they resolve to argue something they don’t understand.
So how about this:
What is God?
God is the mechanism by which the stuff in the universe was created.
Why do we assume that stuff in the universe was created, rather than existing all along?
Because though our experience we see that everything had to be created from something.
Then who created God?
God is a special case. He has always existed and did not need to have a creator.
Then why can’t the universe be a special case that has always existed and did not need a creator?
You response is…?
How would my personal beliefs be classified? Namely, I believe that there is a higher power of some sort. I don’t believe that a human can understand this (being-presence-deity) if it is a creator/god. I also believe that religions are essentially political organizations.
I don’t pray, or do anything else that could be considered spiritual. So am I an atheist or agnostic? Maybe something else?
You’re an agnostic theist.
Gonna try to get back to everyone who has addressed comments to me…I’ll take 'em in order. Try to bear with me. I’m not that fast anymore.
As I have said before…and as others have recently said, “gods” are one possible explanation for existence. My default position on them is, “I do not know if they exist or not…and I do not have enough ambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.”
Invisible cars (like pink unicorns, CPA’S working on one of the moons of Saturn, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and the like) are, from the evidence available to me, merely gimmicks atheists use in arguments with agnostics so that they (the atheists) do not have to acknowledge the logical value of the agnostic position.
I treat them very differently (have different default positions on them) because they ARE different.
The main evidence, since I am pretty sure you will ask for it, is that the only time I hear about pink unicorns, CPA’S working on one of the moons of Saturn, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, invisible cars, or the like…is during Internet debates with atheists.
The notions that a god or gods may be involved in some way as one possible explanation for existence occurs to me…and is discussed by people in a variety of situations. I think discussing it seriously is an acceptable human endeavor…and I think discussing invisible cars is not.
And the only time I have to discuss God is in discussiond with theists and weak atheists that self descibe as agnostics.
Yet I am willing to discuss this God-thing.
You, however, are just evading having to answer. Why?
No problem at all. I hope we can continue to discuss and debate reasonably. I promise to do my best to hold up my end of that.
I have absolutely no problem with acknowledging similarities, Io…in fact, I mention whenever possible that the open hostility between atheism and agnosticism seems absurd…that we should be natural allies. Unlike others here, I DO see a need for non-theists to battle (for want of a better word) religion, because it is my opinion, rightly or wrongly, that religion presents a net negative for society and that it presents (or can easily present) significant dangers for society.
I AM NOT AN ATHEIST…I AM AN AGNOSTIC…and I resent atheists trying to tell me I am an atheist simply because they want to define atheism as “anyone who does not believe in gods.” I would resent with equal fervor any theistic suggestions that since I do not believe there are no gods, I am a theist, simply by virtue of the fact that they define anyone who does not believe there are no gods is a theist. I am not sure how to get that point across to you…or to the other atheists…but it is my point.
I certainly do not mind being limited to using non-theist to describe both camps…but I am not willing to be termed an atheist, because I am an agnostic. Any condescending tone in my remarks, by the way, surely is no more condescending as insisting I be identified as something I am not.
Not really certain what you are saying here…but I see what appears to be a universe…and I wonder how it came into being. But beyond that, I see what I term “existence”…and that seems infinitely more complex than “the universe.” In fact, to my mind, “existence” is to “the universe” what a pea is to living matter.
When trying to fathom what “existence” actually IS…I simply do not consider thinking about gods as a possible component. I understand some people think gods are a necessary or very likely component…and some think it an impossible or a very unlikely component…BUT I DO NOT. I simply do not know…and I do not have the evidence necessary to make a meaningful guess about what I should include or what I should exclude, like theists and atheists seem to do.
And, Io, I honestly do not see that as illogical or deserving of some of the scorn many atheists send its way.
Where on Earth could you possibly get the idea that I am not willing to debate people who want to debate with me?
How could anyone get that impression?
Pretty much bears out what I have been saying.
Right?
Well, my post was prompted by that impression.
which, to me, says you don’t want to answer the question because it is just an atheist question. Talking about “The Reality of Existence” is so much deeper.
You are willing to discuss the possibility of an entity that is invisible all-knowing, eternal, and all-powerful that created the whole universe but doesn’t perhaps reside in this universe.
You dismiss out of hand the possibility of an invisible car.
You find this acceptable.
'Nuff said.