Faith and Reason.

[Kaylia]

Agnostic is lack of belief.

Atheist broken down means without gods.

a⋅the⋅ist
   /ˈeɪθiɪst/
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag⋅nos⋅tic
   /ægˈnɒstɪk/
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.


You can describe a universe with different fundamental constants, and all currently workable theories involve the relationships between the forces and constants as a result of symmetry breaking in the early universe.

There is no evidence that there is a predestined way for that breaking to occur, though it definitely implies that differences in one of the resulting forces would be reflected in the others most likely.

I tried that last year, but they won't listen.

There is two way to define atheism:

First way:
Theist: believe in god
Atheist: everyone else (include true atheist and agnosticist)

Second way:
Theist: believe in god
Agnosticist: Don't take position because they don't have enough belief/axioms to answer correctly
Atheist: believes in the non existance of God


For this particular argument, they will take the agnostic part of the first definition to tell everyone they have no belief, but later, they will come to the conclusion a True Atheist would reach, which require beliefs and/or logical fallacies.

[Max™]

You can only argue the first way from one of the two categories.

I am not a true Theist, and I am not a true Atheist.

I am an Agnostic strictly, though I have an appreciation for Faith, I do not think any religion has it right, and am generally disappointed in most applications of organized religion to the point of disgust.

I do not fall into the Theist/Atheist sides, because both require belief in something I cannot falsify, though atheists RAGE when you inform them of that, as you said Kaylia.

Only agnostics are logical, if I am not mistaken, Neo is an agnostic, though he may claim an atheistic viewpoint, he describes an agnostic one. "I do not know, I cannot know, so I do not concern myself with it, leave that for the philosophers. Show me how to point a microscope at god and I will get back to you with an updated position."

[Eratosthenes]

I posted this earlier: theism vs. atheism IS a true dichotomy. One cannot be both or neither.

Theists are people who have taken the position that a god exists.
Agnostics don't take the position that a god exists.
Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

[Kaylia]

The first one is the best if you want to stay true to the semantic of the word, but if someone called you on the phone for a poll and would list "atheism/agnosticism/theism , she would probably mean the 2nd category.

Only agnostics are logical, if I am not mistaken, Neo is an agnostic, though he may claim an atheistic viewpoint, he describes an agnostic one.

Well, that's why I call him an hypocrite. He uses agnosticism defense, but when it come to critize others, he isn't using agnostic logics.

I posted this earlier: theism vs. atheism IS a true dichotomy. One cannot be both or neither.

Theists are people who have taken the position that a god exists.
Agnostics don't take the position that a god exists.
Therefore, agnostics are atheists.

It always depend how you define those words. If you simply look at the etymology, I agree entirely with you.

However, earlier in this thread, people told me that dictionary definition and etymology wasn't enough. In your every day talk, atheist/agnostic/theist each represent a different set of people, so you have to take that into consideration as well.

[kareface]

Not true. Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

Agnosticism and gnosticism go to that you know.

Atheism and theism go to what you believe.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist, someone who doesn't claim to know but doesn't believe. Or you can be a gnostic theist. Someone who doesn't believe there is a god and claim that they know there is no god.

Saying something has not met the burden of proof and rejecting that notion is not the same as believing that is doesn't exist. Not meeting the burden of proof isn't a faith based position. There is a reason why I don't believe the existence of what you define as god. But to say there is no god, would be a position I would have to support with evidence, and because I would lack any, it is a position that would be best described as belief.

You never have to justify the absents of a position. It would be like saying, "I believe in tinker bell, you have no proof that tinkerbell does not exist, so you believe that tinkerbell does not exist." The burden of proof is not on me to prove tinkerbell does not exist, unless I make the claim that it's impossible that he exists.

Something isn't anymore likely to exist because we can't prove it's non-existence.

[Kaylia]

The burden of proof is never on the axioms, it's on the conclusion. Sciences is the only domain that require observable results. Basically, you're asking for a scientific proof that God exists, which is ridiculous.


Define atheism however you want, but if you include true atheism and agnosticism in the same definition, be considerate enough to tell people in which category you classify yourself, because yes, there is a huge difference.

[kareface]

The burden of proof is never on the axioms, it's on the conclusion. Sciences is the only domain that require observable results. Basically, you're asking for a scientific proof that God exists, which is ridiculous.

Expecting proof to decide if god exist is worthy of ridicule? Would you same the same about aliens and bigfoot?

You would mock someone who asked for proof of bigfoot before believing in his existence?

That must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard...

Edit: Dinner time, bbl

[Kaylia]

Expecting proof to decide if god exist is worthy of ridicule? Would you same the same about aliens and bigfoot?

You would mock someone who asked for proof of bigfoot before believing in his existence?

That must be the dumbest thing I've ever heard...

Edit: Dinner time, bbl

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about your argument.


Do I need to remind you that bigfoot and aliens are defined within your universe, when God is assumed to exist outside this reality? One of the first postulate we are all working under is that this reality can be observed and explained, it doesn't say anything about the rest.

Also, you never answered how sciences can possibly understand how this reality came into existance either. Can you show me that science is not an endless race toward truth?


[edit]
And I wouldn't mock someone who ask for a proof that bigfoot doesn't exist, I would explain him why it's biologically unlikely for such being to exists. If he believes big foot are magical being, I would ask him how he came up with this conclusion and would find out which one of his axiom contradict itself.

[kareface]

Do I need to remind you that bigfoot and aliens are defined within your universe, when God is assumed to exist outside this reality? One of the first postulate we are all working under is that this reality can be observed and explained, it doesn't say anything about the rest.

It makes no difference if the subject that lacks evidence is natural or supernatural. The burden is the same.

Also, you never answered how sciences can possibly understand how this reality came into existance either.

Because we don't know how it happened. I can't answer something that no one knows. However, to assume that it'll never be answered would be a belief. I can say, I don't know if we'll ever know the truth of existence. Something can only be known or unknown. You can never really regard anything as unknowable because we don't know what answers lie in the future. With a better understanding of reality, we might even be able to prove the absolute truth of the axioms we require today. But you can't make any assumptions about what we will or won't learn in the future.

And I wouldn't mock someone who ask for a proof that bigfoot doesn't exist, I would explain him why it's biologically unlikely for such being to exists. If he believes big foot are magical being, I would ask him how he came up with this conclusion and would find out which one of his axiom contradict itself.

It doesn't matter. You are pretty much saying the same thing as someone who claims a bigfoot exists, but you've defined him in a way that there would be absolutely know way to know the truth his existence. I can do the same with bigfoot by saying, he has the power to erase evidence of his existence. There is no diffrence between a made up story, and a made up story that includes the suggestion that it's impossible to disprove it.

Then I'll use the flying spaghetti monster as the example. Who's existence is much more likely then any of the popular deities as it explains the discrepancy between the truth and his existence. You can claim anything exists as long as you suggest his existence is unprovable. This doesn't make the claim anymore true or worthy of belief.

[kareface]

Another good example of this would be:

I can claim I know the cure for cancer. But if I never tell anyone the cure, should I still receive the Nobel Prize? It's no different then, I know something exists, but can never prove it. Should I still give credence to the belief? If I had no way to prove something existed, even if I was personally convinced it did exist, I would still have to question it's existence.

[Demosthenes11]

It makes no difference if the subject that lacks evidence is natural or supernatural. The burden is the same.

except it's impossible

[kareface]

except it's impossible

You can claim anything exists as long as you suggest his existence is unprovable. This doesn't make the claim anymore true or worthy of belief.

[Demosthenes11]

You can claim anything exists as long as you suggest his existence is unprovable. This doesn't make the claim anymore true or worthy of belief.

same can be said for bolded arguments

the idea is, the "idea" of god, which exists in a realm we do not understand/know about, created this realm and the things in it. It provides an explanation for something we don't have. The evidence is considered to be matter, life, time, etc. The image could be of bigfoot, a soda can, or a man in a white robe with a beard - it doesn't matter. It's the idea that matters because we are dealing with a realm outside our knowledge, or so the belief goes

[kareface]

the idea is, the "idea" of god, which exists in a realm we do not understand/know about, created this realm and the things in it.

You can claim anything exists as long as you suggest his existence is unprovable

It provides an explanation for something we don't have.

God previously explained many other things as well. Look how well that turned out. The use of "god created the universe", violates Occam's razor. If god always existed, why would it not be easier to say the universe always existed, if god created himself, why would it not be easier to say the universe has a simpler origin. It's not an explanation.

The evidence is considered to be matter, life, time, etc.

It's only evidence because you define it as such. Evidence has to point to a conclusion. If I look at matter, there is no obvious reason I can assume that god created it.

It's the idea that matters because we are dealing with a realm outside our knowledge, or so the belief goes

Only because if we were dealing with something inside our realm of understanding, it can be disproved. God HAS to exist in that realm, because all of the previous gods that also existed in nature have already been disproven. It doesn't change the likelihood of the statement being true.

[Demosthenes11]

everything you just said isn't an argument, it's an opinion

People want something to live for and to find comfort in, and god fills that for a lot of people. Everything that you just said can be refuted by simply saying "I disagree"

that's the good thing about beliefs and such, nobody is going to prove them either way so there will never be a right answer

God being unprovable, being more complex than simple, and you not finding matter as evidence is simply opinion

[Kaylia]

It doesn't matter. You are pretty much saying the same thing as someone who claims a bigfoot exists, but you've defined him in a way that there would be absolutely know way to know the truth his existence. I can do the same with bigfoot by saying, he has the power to erase evidence of his existence. There is no diffrence between a made up story, and a made up story that includes the suggestion that it's impossible to disprove it.

In the end of the argument, you would end up with a concept that answer nothing and is stripped away from everything.

God however still answer existentialism question.

Sciences allow us to see the whole mountain, and you can tell that bigfoot doesn't exist according to your existance axiom. If science would allow us to see the whole picture of our reality, the only thing you could say is that God isn't inside this reality. Too bad our debate would be at the exact same place, because by definition, God is outside this reality.

Because we don't know how it happened. I can't answer something that no one knows. However, to assume that it'll never be answered would be a belief. I can say, I don't know if we'll ever know the truth of existence. Something can only be known or unknown. You can never really regard anything as unknowable because we don't know what answers lie in the future. With a better understanding of reality, we might even be able to prove the absolute truth of the axioms we require today. But you can't make any assumptions about what we will or won't learn in the future.

Yet, you can tell us that there is no God with the same certitudes that there is no bigfoot.



Science will never be able to explain why there is something rather than nothing. No experiment can verify the answer to such question, and the only thing left are pure guess... It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[Kaylia]

God previously explained many other things as well. Look how well that turned out. The use of "god created the universe", violates Occam's razor. If god always existed, why would it not be easier to say the universe always existed, if god created himself, why would it not be easier to say the universe has a simpler origin. It's not an explanation.

Again, where do you get the beliefs that science can answer everything?

[kareface]

everything you just said isn't an argument, it's an opinion

This statement is truly worthy of ridicule.


It doesn't matter what attributes you attach to an unprovable idea, it does not make the likelihood of it's truth any greater. You can claim that it's more likely to be true because it explains something. How does that many any sense? I can make up a ton of things that explains something that's currently unknown, attach the attribute of inconceivability, and tada, I have something that is then worthy of belief? No, I doesn't change anything, at all. The statement is still just as likely false. It doesn't matter what the claim is, or what it attempts to define.

People want something to live for and to find comfort in, and god fills that for a lot of people. Everything that you just said can be refuted by simply saying "I disagree"

You can say "I disagree", but that doesn't change anything. It simply means that you are satisfied with a probably false definition of origins. There is no evidence, there is no proof, there is no way to discern it from fantasy. You could continue to claim gods existence, but it would be a statement with out logic.

that's the good thing about beliefs and such, nobody is going to prove them either way so there will never be a right answer

How is to believe is something like that considered a good thing? "The good thing about my ideals, is even if I'm wrong, I'll never know."

God being unprovable, being more complex than simple, and you not finding matter as evidence is simply opinion

No, it's not. It's not an opinion that evidence doesn't point to gods creation. Evidence has to point to one conclusion. If evidence can be used to define multiple conclusions, then it's not evident that either of them is the right or wrong answer. Otherwise there WOULD be proof of god. There isn't, meaning that there isn't any evidence that suggests it. Simply claiming there is, and saying anyone that disagrees with you is doing so simply because it's their opinion, doesn't change anything.

In the end of the argument, you would end up with a concept that answer nothing and is stripped away from everything.

God however still answer existentialism question.

I reiterate. It doesn't matter what attributes you attach to an unprovable idea, it does not make the likelihood of it's truth any greater. Claiming that something unprovable is more likely because you suggest it explains something currently unknown doesn't change anything.

If I said that a bigfoot that existed in the realm of nature, had the ability to prevent evidence of his existence from being discovered, and his existence is what explains why matter attracts itself, DOESN'T MAKE THE STORY ANY MORE LIKELY. I can make up anything, claim that it's unprovable through some means, and claim it explains something that we currently don't have an explanation for. It doesn't change anything.

Yet, you can tell us that there is no God with the same certitudes that there is no bigfoot.

We don't have answers for lots of questions, that doesn't mean that there are supernatural beings that represent the answer to each of those questions.

Sciences allow us to see the whole mountain, and you can tell that bigfoot doesn't exist according to your existance axioms.

All I have to do is attach the attribute that he can hide his existence from us. I don't even have to define how. Poof, just as likely as god.

If science would allow us to see the whole picture of our reality, the only thing you could say is that God isn't inside this reality. Too bad our debate would be at the exact same place, because by definition, God is outside this reality.

It doesn't matter how you define it. You can say he exists in any scenario, in a different dimension, in this reality but with the capacity to avoid discovery, outside of nature, outside of our capacity to conceive, it doesn't matter. As long as you give him any attribute that prevents him from being discovered, then anything goes. You can define as little or as much about him as you want. He can look, do, control, create, explain anything. As long as you can't prove that he's the source.

[kareface]

Again, where do you get the beliefs that science can answer everything?

There is no way to assume that it can answer everything. However, there is also no way you can assume that anything is unanswerable. You have no way to know what is and isn't answerable. You are making the assumption that we will never understand our existence outside the realm of god. I'm simply rejecting that position. I can't say we will ever know the truth, but there is no reason to assume that your position is true. Until you can meet the burden of proof, this will remain unchanged.

[Kaylia]

Kareface, if you don't want to argue with logic, I'm out of here. All you say is "it doesnt make sense", but you don't even attempt to attack the logic behind the argument.


You bold thing like they are statement of truth, but those truths only work for you and your specific set of beliefs. Too bad you don't realize this, because it could be an interesting discussion otherwise.