For my Christians Friends

[smilingsynic]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Read Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. And just because someone conjures up a fairly tale that we can't prove to be untrue, that does not mean it has an equal probability of being true as not. I refer again to the teapot or any other imagining. So it comes down to dealing in reasonable (albit not necessarily numeric) probabilities and drawing conclusions based on the available evidence until additional evidence presents itself.

You're setting up a straw man here.
Regarding belief in God, I have yet to hear an agnostic state an "equal probability of being true".

Why make conclusions that cannot be either proven or disproven? Why not simply admit that no one knows anything for sure about God, and instead focus on what may be truly known?

Regarding Dawkins, I have read several of his books (science and on religion). Unfortunately, his ego has arguably done more harm than good to freethinking. Brights? Pure hubris.

Now his wife--different story. Great actor. Loved her in Doctor Who.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from smilingsynic:

...Why make conclusions that cannot be either proven or disproven? Why not simply admit that no one knows anything for sure about God, and instead focus on what may be truly known?

And, by extension, should we also be agnostic about Bertrand's celestial teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster because their existence has neither been proven nor disproven? Being automatically "agnostic" gives a credibility to flights of fancy that do not deserve such consideration.

I was not setting up a straw man account. I was merely pointing out that if we go by probabilities as we presently understand them, the ideas are laughable. If you want to hang your agnostic hat on something so outlandishly remote, then you are free to do so.

 

[DerekD]

Quote from smilingsynic:

I do not appreciate the arrogant, dismissive tone. There is no need for it.

Although neither atheism nor agnosticism has a creed, agnostics in general believe that it is impossible to know for sure whether or not God exists (uncertain knowledge). Although the evidence AT THIS POINT does not point to a deity, it does not follow that there cannot be a God.

Why not?

Simply put, the only way one could know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe.

This is impossible at this point; all of the collective reason in the world cannot overcome this obstacle. Reason is therefore a limited tool (but the most useful tool in the toolbox!).

I'd apologize except that the post of yours that I responded to, pigeonholed and deliberately misrepresented the atheist viewpoint. Hence, it being labeled preposterous.

And this other notion that "the only way one can know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe" is equally as preposterous and based off some fanciful defense of existence.

Yet theists, without complete knowledge of the universe, assert with near to absolute certainty the existence of God based off of ancient stories and anecdotal "evidence" of local phenomena which as men matured, now know what the cause of them are. What's more, their faith in the existence of God is reinforced by lies, untested correlations, and untried, non-repeatable testimonies.

How stringent do you think atheists tests and standards for proof are? If a theist could simply prove the key assertions of the bible or any other religious text, atheists would be more than willing to investigate further and could no longer conclude with any veracity that there is no God. In fact, that would be a tremendous leap ahead in terms of proof. For many atheists, that would be all that's required. Sure, there'd be questions still but at least we'd all have a common ground to say that this or that book was indeed or most likely inspired by a deity as the book claims.

 

[smilingsynic]

Quote from DerekD:

I'd apologize except that the post of yours that I responded to, pigeonholed and deliberately misrepresented the atheist viewpoint. Hence, it being labeled preposterous.

And this other notion that "the only way one can know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe" is equally as preposterous and based off some fanciful defense of existence.

Yet theists, without complete knowledge of the universe, assert with near to absolute certainty the existence of God based off of ancient stories and anecdotal "evidence" of local phenomena which as men matured, now know what the cause of them are. What's more, their faith in the existence of God is reinforced by lies, untested correlations, and untried, non-repeatable testimonies.

How stringent do you think atheists tests and standards for proof are? If a theist could simply prove the key assertions of the bible or any other religious text, atheists would be more than willing to investigate further and could no longer conclude with any veracity that there is no God. In fact, that would be a tremendous leap ahead in terms of proof. For many atheists, that would be all that's required. Sure, there'd be questions still but at least we'd all have a common ground to say that this or that book was indeed or most likely inspired by a deity as the book claims.

How do you KNOW that I "deliberately misrepresented" anything?

You don't. I await your apology.

Moreover, you merely state that my notion that the only way one can know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe is "preposterous and based off some fanciful defense of existence."

Statements without evidence (reasoning, facts, etc) are barely worth stating in the first place.

How can you know FOR SURE that something is not there unless you have looked everywhere? Answer: you cannot.

Arguably, theists and atheists commit similar fallacies of reasoning; it is no wonder why some of the most ardent theists become the most ardent atheists (Dan Barker) and why some of the most ardent atheists become the most ardent theists (C.S. Lewis). Theists have overconfidence in revelation, and atheists have overconfidence in reason. Both in the end are guilty of hubris.

At least we agnostics realize the limitations of our knowledge. I have no problem admitting that I don't know for sure, and I can live with that.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from smilingsynic:

...At least we agnostics realize the limitations of our knowledge. I have no problem admitting that I don't know for sure, and I can live with that.

And who knows? One day, the Celestial Teapot may reveal Itself to you and you will become Its prophet.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from smilingsynic:

How do you KNOW that I "deliberately misrepresented" anything?

You don't. I await your apology.

Moreover, you merely state that my notion that the only way one can know for sure that there is no God is to have complete knowledge of the universe is "preposterous and based off some fanciful defense of existence."

Statements without evidence (reasoning, facts, etc) are barely worth stating in the first place.

How can you know FOR SURE that something is not there unless you have looked everywhere? Answer: you cannot.

Arguably, theists and atheists commit similar fallacies of reasoning; it is no wonder why some of the most ardent theists become the most ardent atheists (Dan Barker) and why some of the most ardent atheists become the most ardent theists (C.S. Lewis). Theists have overconfidence in revelation, and atheists have overconfidence in reason. Both in the end are guilty of hubris.

At least we agnostics realize the limitations of our knowledge. I have no problem admitting that I don't know for sure, and I can live with that.

sellers of superstition always hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from vhehn:

sellers of superstition always hide in the gaps of our knowledge.

Damn, that's good!

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Damn, that's good!

thanks. keep up the good work. its a tough battle for those of us fighting superstitious beliefs with logic and evidence against those who dont use logic or evidence in their belief in the first place.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from vhehn:

...keep up the good work...

Truth be told, it's getting fairly discouraging. In all my time on this topic in the various related threads, I don't know if we even made a dent. Meanwhile, I already missed a couple of setups just today. I really need to prioritize, but I can get carried away.

 

[DerekD]

Quote from smilingsynic:

How do you KNOW that I "deliberately misrepresented" anything?

You don't. I await your apology.

Yes, you did. And you know you did. This thread has made it known to you the atheist position. Then you go on ahead and misstate it anyway because it supports your argument. And you make no strides towards correcting it in spite of what atheists routinely have said to you in this thread as well as others.

That's true arrogance, friend-o.

You'll get no apology from me whatsoever considering the preposterous nature of your claims and statements concerning atheism. I'm calling it as I see it and as it actually is.

In fact, in the part of your post that I sniped out, you state that some ardent atheists switched sides and became ardent theist. Citing C.W. Lewis as an example. You debunked your own preposterous argument that atheists are not open-minded.

What's more, you fail to answer poignant questions put to you concerning agnosticism and where to draw the line. That's one of the things that makes agnosticism intellectually dishonest and not in the least a logical position to take. It's merely hedging one's bet due to timidity, insecurity, and a false sense of enlightenment. It's not a logical position, it's an emotional one.

Atheism, which is based upon reason and logic, is the only logical position to take. It doesn't mean it's the right position. It just means that it stands up to logical and critical reasoning. Theism and agnosticism do not. That's why I rebuff your claims that agnosticism is the most logical position to take.

And so there's no misunderstanding, I'll reiterate: the atheist only asks the theist to prove their assertion. You have competing assertions among theists. Considering the diverse and incongruent nature of many of the assertions, most probably they all can't be right. But the one thing they have in common is a belief in the supernatural. Atheists only ask that they prove that. Outside of that proof, outside of a testable manifestation of their claims, the only logical conclusion is that their claims are without merit. And what they assert exists, doesn't until such time as they can furnish proof or an atheist stumble upon it.

That, is true openmindedness. Not running around saying, "maybe" to every vain imagination of men.