tronvillain

Technos:
If you would change your mind upon seeing a fluing fire breathing dragon, then you do not completely disbelieve in flying fire breathing dragons. If you did, there would be no evidence that could convince you of their existence.

Complete disbelief in something is never rationally justified unless it is a logical impossibility.

Jayhawker Soule

I'm not sure that I understand. I view belief as being more or less binary: I'm not at all sure what is suggested by distinguishing between a 100.0% disbelief, a 97.3% disbelief, and a 2.7% disbelief. At the same time, I'm more than willing to "toggle" my stance toward leprechauns from disbelief to belief if warranted. As for logical impossibility, that pretty much summarizes what little I've read about quantum physics.

Synaesthesia

I assure you, there is no sense in which I believe in flying, fire breathing dragons kidnapping maidens. My disblief may be qualified as complete. I'm not sure where you are getting your definition but it should be pointed out that it is somewhat non-standard.

Blu

I find it funny when people say there is no proof or evidence that there is a Creator (pick a name). A lot of people including myself say that life is the proof or evidence that there is something that created life.

Even scientists find the very fact that our planet turned out the way it did (sustains life) as being strange. If we were not unique etc. wouldn't life on other planets in this solar system and on others be obvious. Wouldn't life be common on other planets then?

Just my two cents.

Technos

Too bad that there are natural explanations that don't fall back on the assumption that a magical being outside the laws of physics waved a wand and made us huh?

I think I've covered the "Argument from Ignorance" before such as in this post <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000090" target="_blank">here</a>, but you feel free to keep on using it, after all saying that some uncaused cause used some kind of supernatural force to make us is a LOT easier than getting into the complex facts and theories that require years of research to understand. I think you may find the input on the topic of time <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000098" target="_blank">here</a> slightly helpful if you wish to understand why no uncaused cause is needed.

tronvillain

The problem may be that I view belief as an estimate of the probability of something being true. As a result, if something is logically possible, my estimate of the probability of it being true is non-zero, though it may be extremely close. Evidence may raise or lower my estimate, but it will never reach one or zero unless it is a logical necessity.

tronvillain

Blu:
I've always found it odd that creationists take both the position that "the universe is designed for life" and that "life is extremely improbable."

We don't appear to currently have a way to estimate the probability of life, but given an earth-like planet it may be extremely high. That would need to be established, then the frequency of earth-like planets would need to be determined. After that you'd have to determine what other conditions "life" could occur and determine the frequency of those.

emphryio

Reading this thread has made me think that I should just call myself an atheist instead of agnostic. Because belief or disbelief in any type of god that is of any relevance to reality, is not something you can just not make a decision on.

So although I've said I'm agnostic, its actually meaningless to say so. Because the real question is, "Do you live your life as if you believe in a god that has some effect on the world or do you not?"

Its one thing to say, "I don't know.", and not make a decision about whether or not Kenyans would make good skiers. But at some point you have to make a decision either for or against belief in god.

Even if you tell yourself that ultimately you don't know. I THINK everyone still eventually lives as if they believe or don't believe. And therefore everyone is either atheist or theist.

BTW, why did I ever say I was agnostic?
The idea of the rational man always having some doubt. Never pretending to be one hundred percent certain. Also I guess maybe the negative connotation of the word atheist. (I hate to think that had something to do with it. It's not a very good reason. Oh well.)

ksagnostic

Well, I myself still say I am an agnostic. I pretty much meet the definition of "weak atheist" on the question of whether the observable universe is an intelligent artifact, but I would meet the definition of "strong atheist" for any named gods. However, the reason I meet these definitions is because I am agnostic (in the original Huxley sense). The term "atheist" is not as descriptive of my approach to the subject of theism, or anything else, as is the term agnostic.

Still, with regards to the subject of the thread, there are obviously people who are "really" atheists.

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks for the clarification.

Speaking solely for myself, I would substitute the term "likelihood" for "probability" as a way of admitting that the foundations of my belief system fall short of mathematical precision. If you tell me that it is snowed today in Death Valley, I will not believe it. Furthermore, I will not believe it even though I haven't a clue as to an accurate "estimate of the probability" of snow in that region. My guess is that most folks use the term in a similar fashion.