Only to MB zealots is that the case.
The simple fact that my ability to establish the existence----or non existence---- of both Santa Claus or Yahweh is subjective doesn’t mean that they are equally compelling, nor does it mean that it’s a pointless exercise.
Examining the evidence is what led all of us to our beliefs!
I dont think so. You have to still be agnostic to Santa Claus under your definition.
Because as you have shown, you can not prove infinitely that he does not exist.
As to the definition of an all knowing, miracle creating, loving God such as the Judeo Christian one: We can prove that he does not do any miracles, he did not create our universe (unless you take an obscure position) and that he has not had, to any measurable degree, any impact on our lives.
This evidence is EXACTLY the same in the cases of both Santa and God. The problem is that you claim God is infinitely more unprovable. To say that means God has to work in ways which are unnoticeable, or not at all. Either of these definitions of God means he does not exist as the true “God” defined through religion, and hence you have automatically discounted the possibility of God existing.
Take your pick. Become agnostic to Santa Claus, or hold the objective (or subjective, under your terms) position that neither exist.
Specifically
When there is no evidence, it is meaningless to say such an entity as God could or could not exist, so the only position is to make the assumption that he does, or hold the position based on the evidence we have that he does not.
You are confusing me. Really.
Why do I have to be agnostic about Santa Claus? I am free to believe in him or not. I’ve examined the evidence, and it is compelling enough for me to believe he doesn’t exist.
Proving it would be impossible, right? But I could make a pretty compelling case he doesn’t exist. I would be, in effect, witnessing for my subjective belief.
I’ve reviewed the evidence for the existence for God, and have to to the conclusion that the evidence is compelling enough for me that I’ve chosen to believe he exists.
But just as I can’t prove objectively that Santa doesn’t exist, I can’t prove Yahweh does.
So there we go! You believe in God because you think he has acted to create miracles, or has had some kind of impact on our lives. It is impossible to argue against such a position over the internet, and it is not something that can be done simply. You are saying that God has impacted our lives, hence there is evidence of his existence TO YOU. God is not restrained to metaphysical attributes which are meaningless.
Meanwhile, for the rest of us, there is no evidence for the existence of God. Anything which you consider to be evidence we say “I dont know, a lot of things could have caused that” and we avoid making the assumption that God caused it.
We both have more or less the same evidence, but we make no assumptions about it, while you make the assumption that out of all possibilities certain things had to be caused by god. That is a subjective position because there is no evidence proving it. We are taking the objective position because we refrain from making those assumptions, and simply say “I dont know.” or “This is how…”
There is no subjectivity in saying “I dont know” when no evidence has been presented. “I dont know” doesnt lead us to or from God. By being atheists we are saying there is no evidence at all which implies a God acted to change something. It is the now objective position under your definition.
We are not required to say “God did or did not do this,” just as we arent required to say “magic did or did not do this.” At least, until, there is evidence for one of those cases.
KHAAAACK! flump
What definition is that?
I’m simply saying that your position—on almost any matter-----is based on fact, or opinion.
cmyk’s agnosticism is objective, and because it places a higher burden for belief (proof) it is inherently narrow.
Believers are unencumbered as such. They take the same facts and readily make inferences----subjective assessments----from the facts.
Everyone one of us is likely agnostic about something. That doesn’t prevent us from forming opinions about other things.
I’m not agnostic about Santa Claus.
I’m entirely agnostic as to whether Theo Epstein will make any headway with the Cubbies.
Your definitions of objectivity and Subjectivity. That post does not matter any more because you have created “facts” which “prove” the existence of God.
CMYK’s position does not place a higher value/reliance on proof. It is based on the impossibility of proof being found.
My point was that your position on both God and Santa were logically incoherent with each other given that they both have 0 evidence for them, and have situations which prove they are wrong, yet you chose to accept one and disregard the other. Of course now you say you have evidence of God acting, which is a whole 'nother ball game.
For a little fun, lets look at this scenario:
Suppose a man loses his leg, and then it makes it to the media because of how tragic an accident it was. A week later the man gets his leg back.
Is this evidence for a benevolent God? What is it that gives God the #1 spot out of all possibilities which could have caused the leg to regrow? It is your bias in believing God exists which causes God to automatically become the explanation when there are countless other possibilities. This does not mean an atheist is making any assumptions as to whether or not it WAS God. Your position is subjectively that God regrew the leg. The Atheists is that they objectively dont know.
Do you see the similarity between this comparison of Cmyk and the atheist? They are both in fact the same.
Please dont miss post 84
You contradict yourself repeatedly.
“I don’t know” is an acceptable answer----and consistent with agnosticism.
But that’s not what we get from the bleachers. The cry there is “I do know. And there is no god!”
So…don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth. It’s awfully convenient to say “I know!” and when asked for proof (the very same thing you demand of the theists) to say “I don’t know…”
If you know, tell us how.
If it’s objective, great. Prove it.
If it’s subjective have the intellectual honesty to say so.
God is supposed to act in ways to affect our earth. There is no proof of him doing such. God as defined does not exist.
By saying “I dont know” we are saying “lets not jump to conclusions and say that God did X act, there are many other explanations and many are more likely. Lets examine them, if it remains that the only option left is God, we will believe in God.”
The basis of atheism is “I dont know,” We dont know a lot of things, but we dont make the assumption that God did everything we dont know. In fact outside of religion there is 0 reference to a God, so it is generally not even in our list of explanations.
Thus we are objectively saying en masse about all of your evidence “I dont know” which leads to the objective result that such a God does not exist.
For this reason we bring up the Easter bunny. Because the Easter bunny is a mythical being which has just as much likelihood of causing anything which you attribute to God, as there is no evidence for either position. The objective position is to say “I dont know, I will investigate.” To make this position automatically make us become agnostic to God also automatically makes us become agnostic to the Easter bunny. This is my problem.
“The Atheists is that they objectively dont know.”
This is at least potentially contradicting,and untenable It is too ambiguous.
If the atheist determines that source of the regrown leg is unknown, he is actually agnostic in this limited context.
It is contradictory to say “there is no god”, while opening up the possibility that it could be God via the comment “I don’t know.”
OTOH, if he says, “I don’t know how the leg regrew, but I do know this: It wasn’t god”, then the fact is he does know (or purport to know subjectively) in as much as god is concerned.
That is atheism, and it is subjective.
Again, this is my complaint:
Why do you assume it was God? There is no evidence showing it is so. Why dont you assume that magic is just as likely, or some biological mechanism, or aliens, or the man is simply able to regrow his limbs at will?
You are implying that we MUST be agnostic to all of these things. There is no evidence in the situation pointing to ANYTHING, so how could you infer the existence of something out of that example? The truth is that we dont know why his leg regrew, but to make any assumption specifying a cause without evidence is subjective. To not hold a position at all until an answer has been shown is objective.
Being agnostic in such a context is pointless. We simply say I dont know, and until evidence is available none of them have any likelihood at all and thus are not options. I think our difference is that when no evidence is available you think that no options are possible except for God. This is irrational.
Sorry, I missed this.
I would say that no, I’m not agnostic on this issue, as it’s a matter of evidence that cannot be supported empirically. And it’s not for having not really looked at all these issues long and hard (as I was raised in a fundamental Christian household). The “evidence” put forth on all of these issues, in my 35+ years of being exposed to many of these claims and actions are clearly nothing more than self-delusion, ritual, fakery, or emotional, misguided or even greedy/corrupt theatrics to attract more of the zealous or indoctrinate more “acolytes” of the same persuasions.
I will repeat this and bow out because it is getting awfully circular.
Your position is either ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or the result of the greatest of faiths; the kind of faith that merges objectivity and subjectivity into [perceived] objectivity.
The differences between atheism and agnosticism are stark and unambiguous. To shriek “I know” (and I’m not referring to you specifically) repeatedly and hide behind the “I don’t know” of agnosticism when asked for proof is a rank dishonor to them both.
If i might boil it down just a bit:
The atheist says, “I don’t know”
The agnostic says, “I don’t know if it was God”
By introducing “God” into the formula at all, the agnostic is submitting this deity as a possibility when there is no reason and/or evidence to do so in the first place.
Enough “I dont knows” lead to an “I know (implicitly with some degree of certainty)”
Atheism and agnosticism are quite similar. Both agree there is no evidence for the existence of God. One acknowledges that they arent able to understand the evidence and thus dont want to choose a side, the other says they (to some degree) understand the evidence and it is not compelling enough (does not exist).
There is not a single atheist on this planet who would stay atheist if they believed there was any proof at all for a God.
I dont think you truly realize that both of our positions are based on many smaller events in our lives. One situation subjectively defines the causes of those events, which leads to a faith in God. The other position makes no assumptions (other than anything could have caused it, all options are possible, including God) and thus have no reason to say God exists yet. Just because God is a possibility does not mean we must be agnostic to the idea, or that we must believe he exists.
The only reason he is even posited is because he is created in such a way that makes him impossible to remove from an option which has no evidence pointing to anything, and is thus a be all end all solution until evidence proves otherwise.
You misunderstand me, perhaps.
I would simply like one of you to own up to your faith. I can’t prove God exists. So the bridge between where the objective facts and evidence end, and the moral certainty I have for his existence starts is made of faith. It is subjective.
You may make fun of that with inane references to Superman, as if it is born of caprice. But the fact is, if proof is the only acceptable criteria to answer the question, agnosticism is the only unassailable position.
Your atheism is subjective. It is a set of beliefs about your impression of the universe. It is not “I don’t know.” On the contrary, it is the language of “I know.”
And I’m great with that. But it is either ignorant or disingenuous to say otherwise.
I will repeat and bow out of this thread. (and thank DaveBfd for starting it)
Your characterization in this post of agnosticism and atheism is a rank misrepresentation of both.
It is either born of ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, or a fervent adherence to yoursubjective beliefs.
I would never make fun of somebody for their religious position, I dont know their experiences or evidence. When we bring up the Easter bunny/superman it is purely for analogous reasons and simplicity, in that they are somewhat similar in their myths and proofs.
The “I know,” is specifically in reference to a willful God who affects us. We know this has not happened (based on our evidence. If we saw yours it would translate entirely to “I dont know”). Because we do not know the cause of whatever events you call evidence, we do not try to explain them until it is possible to do so. Without an (rather unfounded) explanation of such events there is no mention of God anywhere. If something has no mention in our lives and has not impacted them in any way we can assume, for all intents and purposes, that it does not exist and that is a logical and objective position.
Your faith is the reason you put God into the equation (either as an option or an answer), while we dont share that faith so God is not suggested as an answer which rises above any other possibility.
This appears to be a very, very, very important point to you, as you make it strenuously not just in this thread but in countless other threads where the [non-]existence of God is being discussed, and where you pop in just to remind the anti’s that they are “witnessing.”
On behalf of all atheists everywhere, I’d like to formally concede this point to you so that we can all move on.
Now if you’ll forgive me, my mentally ill neighbor has a subjective belief that homicidal leprechauns live in his sock drawer, and I’m fighting an uphill battle convincing him that my subjective belief that they don’t is the more obvious conclusion.