Faith and Reason.

[Daemeon]

[Negative Faith]-------[Zero Faith]-------[Positive Faith]
Atheist -----------------Agnostic-------------Theist

More like

Faith Scale:0 = no faith, 10 = complete faith

0---------------------------------------------------------10
Gnostic Atheist ----- Agnostic Anything ------- Gnostic Theist

There are different faiths, sure, but what would constitute negative faith? Also, regarding the whole atheist and agnostic semantic, while agnosticism is the most honest position, to be Agnostic implies the legitimacy of the theory of God. That is, to be truly agnostic, one must be agnostic to every other myth out there (I.E Russel's teapot argument).

Anyway, I argue that the most naturalistic position is to be without faith, which, I understood to be Gnostic Atheist (gnostic for the same reason that I know unicorns and Santa don't exist even if I can't disprove it. Atheist for the same reason, the theory of god is like the theory of Russel's teapot).

[Max™]

By this argument though, stating "I know there is no unicorn pissing invisible urine on my head at this very moment" is equally illogical.

We need to move beyond this. For the ability of faith or reason to help us make a judgement about the world, absolute certainty is not needed.

For reason to help me make a judgement, plausibility is needed if I cannot have scientific certainty.

I am faithless, ultimately, I often wish I had faith, but it doesn't fit my mind.

[kareface]

Technically, THAT is a falsifiable statement.

MWB exists within nature.

Ok, let's check with observations.

Current observations do not support this statement.

Until better observation methods are found, the MWB hypothesis is not one I will accept. I consider it falsified.

My model of the Universe does not need the MWB, no more than it needs the extra 9 dimensions of string theory.

My model is more satisfying than your illusory buffalo (and I'm 3/8ths native american, I know a thing or two about illusory buffalo!), so my model kicked your models ass. WUTNAO KAREFACE!?!?!

:D

Also: my model could explain how to extract cookie dough FROM SPACETIME, so fuck a single cookie with your silly hallucination. Infinite cookies for all!

For you to believe in any deity requires you to concede axioms that make any deity possible. Your other statement is false again. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just like I can't say there isn't a god, you can't say there isn't a MWB. If you change the axioms to suggest that there is a god, there's no reason under those same premise that MWB can't exist.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's illogical to assume the existence of anything deity, or every deity is equally valid, regardless of how nuckingfucks it might sound. This, I might add, would also give some validity to Scientology. Can we really afford to do that?

[kareface]

I am not a Theist, nor am I an Atheist.

I am agnostic on this subject because I recognize that whatever God may be, it is not present in this Universe according to current findings. So it must be outside of this Universe, which is not a realm I can do any more than philosophize about.


I do not believe in any version of God that I've heard of so far, but I do not believe it is impossible for there to be any one of them out there, as it is illogical to jump blindly to a conclusion without information.

I honestly do not know, I like the idea that there may be some purpose to mind, but I would not force it on any others as it is unprovable.

They aren't degrees of the same thing, they use 2 different reference frames and they are not mutually exclusive. Is it impossible for you to admit you're wrong?

[Negative Faith]-------[Zero Faith]-------[Positive Faith]
Atheist -----------------Agnostic-------------Theist

WRONG.

Anyway, I argue that the most naturalistic position is to be without faith, which, I understood to be Gnostic Atheist (gnostic for the same reason that I know unicorns and Santa don't exist even if I can't disprove it. Atheist for the same reason, the theory of god is like the theory of Russel's teapot).

Have you heard the good word of the MWB?

[Max™]

More like

Faith Scale:0 = no faith, 10 = complete faith

0---------------------------------------------------------10
Gnostic Atheist ----- Agnostic Anything ------- Gnostic Theist

There are different faiths, sure, but what would constitute negative faith? Also, regarding the whole atheist and agnostic semantic, while agnosticism is the most honest position, to be Agnostic implies the legitimacy of the theory of God. That is, to be truly agnostic, one must be agnostic to every other myth out there (I.E Russel's teapot argument).

Anyway, I argue that the most naturalistic position is to be without faith, which, I understood to be Gnostic Atheist (gnostic for the same reason that I know unicorns and Santa don't exist even if I can't disprove it. Atheist for the same reason, the theory of god is like the theory of Russel's teapot).

That's just it.

You cannot disprove it satisfactorily.

Happily, logic is a well defined thing, I can definitely say what is and is not logical.

Claiming that just because you don't think God is reasonable, denying it is logical, I can definitely say is not logical.

"because you don't think"

Can you insert: "because I know for certain" there?

No.

Can you insert: "because I feel" or "because I believe" there?

Yes.


I still know people who insist that Now is the only time that exists, that the past and future are not real aspects of the Universe. I spent far too long arguing with people who insist Einstein pulled off a huge hoax on the world.

Just because you or I claim something, doesn't mean shit.

The ONLY thing that matters is what we can prove or disprove.

I can prove that the future and past exist with experimental results of Special Relativity.
I can prove that we evolved, the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old, I can prove that matter is made of tiny little bits of extremely compressed energy.

I cannot prove or disprove God, it is not a valid hypothesis, I am agnostic when it comes to God.

[Max™]

For you to believe in any deity requires you to concede axioms that make any deity possible. Your other statement is false again. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just like I can't say there isn't a god, you can't say there isn't a MWB. If you change the axioms to suggest that there is a god, there's no reason under those same premise that MWB can't exist.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's illogical to assume the existence of anything deity, or every deity is equally valid, regardless of how nuckingfucks it might sound. This, I might add, would also give some validity to Scientology. Can we really afford to do that?

Um, did you completely fucking miss me stating that any deity is possible, but outside of the realm of science currently?

You're the one making the logical error here, my friend, not I.

[kareface]

Um, did you completely fucking miss me stating that any deity is possible, but outside of the realm of science currently?

You're the one making the logical error here, my friend, not I.

So you concede the latter. In that case, Jesus can't exist because the MWB would of stomped his ass into the ground. Whatever idea you have of a god is false because my god is stronger and killed all of your gods. Under those axioms, this is the highest degree of discussion we can really get to. In other words, what you're suggesting makes talking about ANYTHING an exercise in futility.

Edit: I just realized, max might actually be content like that...

[Max™]

No, it makes talking about any sort of religious belief an exercise in philosophy.

I can experimentally test against your MWB claims, as apparently Jesus was a real person according to multiple accounts, and never once did a MWB stomp him to death.

Though I'll give you bonus points for photoshopping a water buffalo into the spear stabbing as he was crucified scene.

[kareface]

No, it makes talking about any sort of religious belief an exercise in philosophy.

I can experimentally test against your MWB claims, as apparently Jesus was a real person according to multiple accounts, and never once did a MWB stomp him to death.

Though I'll give you bonus points for photoshopping a water buffalo into the spear stabbing as he was crucified scene.

He waited till Jesus was resurrected, then he stomped his ass into the ground. PROVE ME WRONG!

P.S. I was thinking about it. I was thinking more along the lines of having him crucified on his horns tho.

[Eratosthenes]

Just because you or I claim something, doesn't mean shit.

The ONLY thing that matters is what we can prove or disprove.

Bingo. A god who is defined in this way doesn't matter. It makes him irrelevant. This is the kind of irrelevant that is indistinguishable from nonexistent. What's the value in suggesting the existence of something that can't possibly be detected?

[oldoldman]

This thread took longer to become paradoxical babble than I thought it would.

[Max™]

Bingo. A god who is defined in this way doesn't matter. It makes him irrelevant. This is the kind of irrelevant that is indistinguishable from nonexistent. What's the value in suggesting the existence of something that can't possibly be detected?

Cannot currently possibly be detected.

That does not invalidate possible detection methods, and thus it has value philosophically as a potential state of things.

The fact remains (yes, fact), that you or I cannot say for certain either way.

With all the logic and reason and scientific knowledge I have access too, I cannot invalidate the god hypothesis, nor can I validate it, I can barely even conceive of ways to experimentally test it.

Thus, logically, I must remain agnostic, whether I feel it likely or unlikely, I cannot say either way.

I feel it is unlikely that the universe is a grain of sand on a beach being roamed by giant 6 armed faeries with name badges that say Frank or Frankette.

Can I invalidate that possibility?

No, thus I must remain agnostic to it, until the methods become available to test it.

That is logical.

[kareface]

Cannot currently possibly be detected.

That does not invalidate possible detection methods, and thus it has value philosophically as a potential state of things.

The fact remains (yes, fact), that you or I cannot say for certain either way.

With all the logic and reason and scientific knowledge I have access too, I cannot invalidate the god hypothesis, nor can I validate it, I can barely even conceive of ways to experimentally test it.

Thus, logically, I must remain agnostic, whether I feel it likely or unlikely, I cannot say either way.

I feel it is unlikely that the universe is a grain of sand on a beach being roamed by giant 6 armed faeries with name badges that say Frank or Frankette.

Can I invalidate that possibility?

No, thus I must remain agnostic to it, until the methods become available to test it.

That is logical.

Would you also say it's illogical to believe of anything you're agnostic about?

If you can't know one way or the other, why would you ever side on belief instead of non-belief? From a logical standpoint, it makes more sense to disbelieve something that hasn't met the burden of proof. Are you an agnostic atheists?

[oldoldman]

You guys are a fucking Sine function.

[Max™]

Would you also say it's illogical to believe of anything you're agnostic about?

If you can't know one way or the other, why would you ever side on belief instead of non-belief? From a logical standpoint, it makes more sense to disbelieve something that hasn't met the burden of proof. Are you an agnostic atheists?

I like the idea of a God, but I cannot place belief in it.

I am simply agnostic, faithless.

[oldoldman]

I like the idea of a God, but I cannot place belief in it.

I am simply agnostic, faithless.

One of you just needs to stop!

[Max™]

Explain why?

He is mistaken about my standpoint, and he is very mistaken about what it means to be an agnostic apparently.

Agnostic is not a religion, I am without religion, I am without faith.

Theism encompasses all religions with gods, and as I am agnostic, I am not in that category, lets see if I fall into the Atheism category.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods.

I could be argued to be in the lack of belief category, but that is a later addition included, and not the version of the word I learned.

Atheist is without god/s, literally, that is what the word means.

It is NOT without belief, that is what the term agnostic means.

You are confusing the two, kareface, but that does not change the meaning of the words.

You can argue that because it is delving into the realm of philosophy, that we cannot discuss anything, if you wish.

I argue that if we cannot even agree on the language we are using, then we cannot discuss anything.

I am not atheist, I am not theist, I am without belief at all, not simply belief in god/s.

That is what the word agnostic means.

[oldoldman]

Explain why?

He is mistaken about my standpoint, and he is very mistaken about what it means to be an agnostic apparently.

Agnostic is not a religion, I am without religion, I am without faith.

Theism encompasses all religions with gods, and as I am agnostic, I am not in that category, lets see if I fall into the Atheism category.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods.

I could be argued to be in the lack of belief category, but that is a later addition included, and not the version of the word I learned.

Atheist is without god/s, literally, that is what the word means.

It is NOT without belief, that is what the term agnostic means.

You are confusing the two, kareface, but that does not change the meaning of the words.

You can argue that because it is delving into the realm of philosophy, that we cannot discuss anything, if you wish.

I argue that if we cannot even agree on the language we are using, then we cannot discuss anything.

I am not atheist, I am not theist, I am without belief at all, not simply belief in god/s.

That is what the word agnostic means.

Read the back and forth between the two of you and tell me, has anyone gained ANY ground on the other? I actually agree with you on this one max but Kareface never will, it's best to move on.

[Max™]

I'm hardheaded and have an urge to teach, especially about simple definitions, particularly ones which I myself am quite involved with.

Logic is on my side!

[Neosutra]

I'm hardheaded and have an urge to teach, especially about simple definitions, particularly ones which I myself am quite involved with.

Logic is on my side!

Niether logic nor reason are on anyone's side, but rather people chose wether to be on the side of logic or reason.

Also, you stated earlier that you did not beleive their was a definition of god that was legitamate, what then are you considering to be god? If you have no "faith" in the current models of god, what then is this extra being you are calling god outside of all of our current models.

From what I can extrapolate your god:

1. Exists outside our universe and does not react to it.

2. ??? Cant really pull anything out more.

That doesnt really constitute any form of god that I can think of, perhaps you should stop calling it a god and move to some other statement on the possibilities of beings existing beyond our universe, because when you say the word "god", you apply some explicit tangable meanings.

You dont believe in any god or gods, thus you are an atheist max. The fact that you state "anything is possible" doesnt make your less of an atheist, it just means you are open minded to the possibilities of beings existing outside this universe (which doesnt quantify as a god in any way). Your stance on this statement of other beings wouldnt really count you as an agnostic, because you are still stating you dont believe in -any- definition/concept of gods that we have.

Welcome to the club, your MWB T-shirt is in the mail.