Atheists? Have you been feeling a bit "agnostic" lately?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I did tell people not to bite lol.

Skyfloating

AfterInfinity


And what do you think it would take to prove to a theist that their deity does not exist?

Because its currently unknowable and the attempt to "prove a deity doesnt exist" would be based on the conclusion that "a deity doesnt exist", I would never attempt such a thing. But you would, apparently. Because you think you have reached a conclusion?

How does science test stuff?

reply to post by Words

Hi "Words",

I remember reading one of your posts earlier. I forgot what it said, but I know that I wanted reread it, to make sure I understood what it said. That's just the "nature" of an agnostic (obsessive "double checking"). After all... WE'VE ALWAYS GOT TO BE SURE...

Nope. Agnostics don't "lean". In regard to God, only atheists, and theists, do that.

Do you have any comments regarding a comparison between your source material, and my comment, above? If so, I'd certainly like to hear them.

Thank you, very much, for your participation, and for your contribution.

See ya buddy,
Milt

Question for everyone else:
What is your understanding of "Words'" source material?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

How does science test stuff

The same way an "Old Troll" does: You poke "IT" (EVERY DAMN THING) with a stick, so you can see what happens.

Even this old moron knows, that ONE SHOULD ALWAYS TELL THEMSELVES: KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. (KISS)

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


I feel the methods of science have yielded a substantial case for refuting any god you care to name. Or at the very least, it can be demonstrated that any such god is about as helpful as a rock sitting in the Sahara.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I feel the methods of science have yielded a substantial case for refuting any god you care to name.

Unfortunately, I suppose, and at it's best, that would only be a "subjective truth", and that's not good enough for an agnostic. You probably wouldn't have guessed this, but I despise "subjective proofs".

Or at the very least, it can be demonstrated that any such god is about as helpful as a rock buried in the middle of the Sahara.

That's interesting... How do they plan to "poke" Him, if He doesn't exist?

See ya buddy,
Milt

BenReclused
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I feel the methods of science have yielded a substantial case for refuting any god you care to name.

Unfortunately, I suppose, and at it's best, that would only be a "subjective truth", and that's not good enough for an agnostic. You probably wouldn't have guessed this, but I despise "subjective proofs".

Or at the very least, it can be demonstrated that any such god is about as helpful as a rock buried in the middle of the Sahara.

That's interesting... How do they plan to "poke" Him, if He doesn't exist?

See ya buddy,
Milt

edit on 045America/Chicago3RAmerica/Chicago2014-03-03T18:05:32-06:00Monday00000032America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo

Are you saying the scientific method is incapable of assisting us in objectively verifying the existence of a deity?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I feel the methods of science have yielded a substantial case for refuting any god you care to name.

I agree. If we name specific gods who's descriptions include claims about the natural world and we can refute those claims then the god is refuted. Yahweh allegedly creating the world in a certain way, yet we know scientifically Genesis is false. That's a substantial case against that god.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

I feel the methods of science have yielded a substantial case for refuting any god you care to name.

I agree. If we name specific gods who's descriptions include claims about the natural world and we can refute those claims then the god is refuted. Yahweh allegedly creating the world in a certain way, yet we know scientifically Genesis is false. That's a substantial case against that god.

That is one example, yes.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

It's obvious this was never a discussion.

Hell, we've never had a discussion. You're only concern is WINNING ARGUMENTS, and telling people what to think.

You seem like a control freak to me... but, then again... I may be wrong... and, after all... that's just the way we are... Q.E.D.

See ya buddy,
Milt

PS:
Should I continue to concern myself with your other "issues"?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Yahweh allegedly creating the world in a certain way, yet we know scientifically Genesis is false.

What does that have to do with God? Do you believe that He wrote "Genesis", or something?

I don't know for sure, but it seems that your "foundation", is getting, a bit, desperate for "proofs".

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


What was the purpose of the challenge you posted? I presented arguments. You ignored them and continued to insult me and go off on tangents. You presumed yourself the winner from the onset and just wanted to inform us you're the winner.

Rather obvious to me.

Either way I am done. Congratulations on your win

reply to post by BenReclused


So now that we've done some bantering, what is the actual point of this thread? What was the message you had in mind when you were typing it? That atheists cannot be agnostic? I already demonstrated that to be false. That theism vs atheism is pointless because there is no answer? I already provided my argument against that. What else do you have to add?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So what would you guys call it if someone said that they didn't know if it could be proven or not?

An uncertainty.

Does that still qualify as agnostic?

No.

Agnosticism isn't about proving, or disproving, anything. That's only some more of that "academic buffoonery", that a few atheists seem to WANT TO BELIEVE.

Agnosticism IS ONLY about "CERTAIN BELIEFS", and "UNCERTAIN BELIEFS". "Certain beliefs", are only beliefs that can be objectively validated:
A belief that baseballs are real, would be considered a "certain belief", because I've seen them before.

A belief that God is real, would be considered an "uncertain belief", because I haven't "seen" him before.

A belief that God is not real, would also be considered an "uncertain belief", because it would be awfully damn difficult to find something that doesn't exist. If I couldn't find it, I would always wonder if I was, only, looking in the wrong place.

Agnosticism, truly is, as simple as this:
Don't believe what you can't confirm.

what's wrong with feeling as though there's no answer and still trying to find out if there is one?

Not a damn thing... But it's up to one's self, to decide when to quit "pissing in the wind"...

That said, why are atheists so concerned about trying to prove a negative? That seems like the ultimate "piss in the wind" to me.

Being agnostic doesn't mean you plan on staying agnostic.

Agnosticism, and theism, are not choices. Only atheism is...

See ya buddy,
Milt

PS:
I'm proud of you, so I gave you another star.

Deleted

Thread is going nowhere.

reply to post by BenReclused


Okay, lets make this as simple as possible. Pick a deity and establish a set of rules it must absolutely follow. These are the rules which define its inherent nature. Establish these rules - and then try to break them. That's how you determine the practical nonexistence of anything.

reply to post by BenReclused


My first argument is that Agnosticism involves some conviction in regards to God. It makes the assumption that God or No God cannot be confirmed, or known for sure, and this presupposes that some knowledge about the properties of God is to be believed, that is, that the properties of God are unknowable. This is conjecture. The opposite could be the case.

Second, agnostics claim they will await for confirmation before making any decision. Since there is no universal text to confirm whether we are right or wrong in regards to certain beings, I must assume that agnostics might be waiting a long time. Since there is no universal text, confirmation about the existence of God requires God himself, or the universe itself, to be able to confirm or deny it. It's not falsifiable. In order to await this confirmation, one must believe this confirmation to be possible; and since this confirmation would involve God himself, we can say that agnostics are waiting for the off chance that God will prove himself, or that they might somehow become omniscient beings before they reach any conviction. This must, by necessity, presuppose that some belief that absolute knowledge is possible, and therefor some belief in God.

So my question is, before you come to any conclusion, are you awaiting for the off chance that God proves himself? Or will you refuse to pass judgement for the rest of your days?

I think it might be best for agnostics and atheists to discuss the properties we can affirm, what we do have in its regards, rather than debate about what we do not have.

Cheers.

reply to post by Words

Since there is no universal text, confirmation about the existence of God requires God himself, or the universe itself, to be able to confirm or deny it. It's not falsifiable.

I disagree. See my previous post.

reply to post by Skyfloating

It`s strange how we often have nothing to say to people we are in 100% agreement with.

Ain't that the truth... therefore, for me, that WOULD BE A "CERTAIN BELIEF".

Yep, people that one agrees with, are VERY, VERY, difficult to "troll". Hell, that's damn near impossible.

I've always enjoyed your posts. Unfortunately, I haven't, yet, had chance to read your other ones, in this thread. I felt I should answer questions, and take care of problems, first...

Would you mind if I added you to my "Friends List"?

Thanks for participating, and I am, VERY MUCH, looking forward to reading your other posts.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Okay, lets make this as simple as possible. Pick a deity and establish a set of rules it must absolutely follow. These are the rules which define its inherent nature. Establish these rules - and then try to break them. That's how you determine the practical nonexistence of anything.

I like that. I agree.

It might be said that the agnostic simply refuses to define God.