Wackyboy

Alright, well it appears that there are several different definitions of atheism. I guess I could have been more clear.
Some people seemed to get what I was saying and some people like Biff the Unclean apparently did not.
The thrust of my argument is that the only truly philosophically or scientifically defensible position on the question of the existence of God is agnosticism.

I've got to go to work, I'll write more later.

Kevin

PS. I didn't not at any point say that theism is rational, it's not. It's not based on any rational criteria, it's based on faith. Furthermore I didn't say in my post that I am a theist or that I was asserting the existence of God.

Jeremy Pallant

According to your profile, you are a Christian.

Theli

Howcome?
The way I see it, agnosticism is simply looking at the evidence/lack of evidence and shaking your head because there is a chance that any answer could be wrong.
This is either based on the assumption that both positions has equal probability, or that to hold a position on any question you must be 100% certain.
The second one ofcourse is ludicrous as 100% certainty (if it's honest) is almost impossible.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Writer@Large

If I may offer a slight correction:

"The only truly philosophically or scientifically defensible position on the question of the existence of gods is agnosticism."

I don't think a single atheist here would disagree with the sentiment that, when all is said and done, we simply cannot know with 100% certainty whether a being that would fit a general definition of "god" exists. I've only once met an atheist so certain of himself, and I'm sure he was overstating his position. If you want to carry such an argument to its logical conclusion, of course, then you can't say, with 100% certainty, that you exist, or that I exist, or that we aren't all part of a robot harvesting program using our physical bodies for batteries. But we wouldn't want to get that silly.

The issue, of course, is that you're not saying "gods," but "God"--by your profile, I am assuming, the Judeo-Christian God, Yahweh, Father/Son/Hol Spirit--and that assertion is far more defensible and concrete, i.e. "The Judeo-Christian God is a myth, not a reality."

--W@L

Writer@Large

And, in <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000737&p=2" target="_blank">this thread, </a>WackyBoy said:

WackyBoy, what's the point in trying to hide your motives or beliefs for this discussion?

--W@L

Synaesthesia

Anosticism, for me, was my rhetorical equivalent of training wheels. Safe from much of the heavy-duty acrimony so common to these debates, it helped open a channel of communication so necessary to communicate half-formed ideas.

The basic rationale behind my agnosticism was much the same as wackyboy's: it's irrational to believe what you can't establish to be so. Since God is purposefully immunized against falsification, this is clearly impossible.

Today, I disagree with wackyboy. Although God remains as impossible to empirically verify as ever, I have not remained fastened to a positivist empiricism.

When I say "I don't believe that there are ghost haunting your plumbing", I am really saying, "The explanation that there are ghosts in your plumbing is not as good of a theory as these other materialistic theories X, Y, Z."

Theories are always judged relative to other theories. So when we ask "Is the theory that God exists better or worse than other theories?", it's possible to conclude that, "God is a very bad theory. The theory that gullible humans invented God is a far superior theory. It is thus more rational to accept the latter."

Thus, as a strong atheist, my position is not that God CANNOT exist but that 'God' is a grossly implausible theory. A theory that is so bad, that virtually any finite alternative would be better. (In other words, I am more willing to believe in little elves stealing car keys than I am willing to believe in an omnipotent guy.)

Scientifically, God is out of the question. Science does not thus support agnosticism - it simply reiterates the point that God is a useless theory. Philosophically, God is infinitely unparsimonious and helpless in all attempts at explanation and eludication.

I am a strong atheist because there's virtually no chance that rationally defensible belief in God could ever be possible. There are, at the same time, very good and abuntantly informative reasons why people should be so deluded.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

Jeremy Pallant

I don't know what his motives might be, but clearly he doesn't think anyone checks profiles or past emails.

Ronin

But, look closely...Wackyboy said ~

(emphasis added)

Theists are routinely little tricky dickies when it comes to this type of 'debate' ~ it is inherent in their dogma and training.

They are some serious parachute packers.

There is no God, Wackyboy ~ back to you to rationally prove that there is.

Hawkingfan

Anytime a claim is made (no matter what it is), the burden of proof is ONLY on the one making the claim. There is nothing for an atheist to prove. If one claims there is a god, the burden of proof is only on them. If I claim I can walk on water, I must prove it. It is not up to those who do not believe me to prove that I cannot. If one claims there really is a Santa Claus, they must prove it for others to believe it. It is not up to those who do not believe there really is a Santa Claus to disprove the assertion. Would you believe in Santa Claus if no one could prove he did not exist?

You are forgetting something very important. As an atheist, I do not base my judgement SOLELY on the lack of proof for a god (even though that is perfectly fine). I base my decision also on the Bible. I believe there is evidence in the Bible itself that PROVES it is a fabricated lie. If the agnostic as you described does not take into account the absurdities in the Bible, then he is not being the most rational. It is the atheist.

Ronin

You have been shown otherwise several times in this thread.

In order to be reasonable about an evidentiary claim one should examine, qualify, quantify and define the object so that we can test it.

Simply saying "God" without further elucidation as to these evidentiary considerations leaves you squarely in the nonsensical abstract realm.

That is a totally vague realm and completely useless/meaningless as a scientifically defensible position in our real world of guns and roses.