verilon wrote:Should could would. And although there is plenty of evidence against the existence of deities, what is there to say that you *shouldn't* conclude that something doesn't exist?
None. That's why you SHOULD conclude that something doesn't exist.
Or did you mix yourself up with double-negatives? Let me assume that you did; you should conclude that something doesn't exist if there is not a shred of evidence because if you don't, then it is impossible to dismiss anything. If you have no mechanism for dismissing concepts, then you have few ways of distinguishing good ideas from bad. In effect, you throw away your ability to judge an idea, unless it is so catastrophically flawed that it contradicts itself (which can be easily remedied by simply being vague, as many religionists have discovered).
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
verilon wrote:Should could would. And although there is plenty of evidence against the existence of deities, what is there to say that you *shouldn't* conclude that something doesn't exist?
None. That's why you SHOULD conclude that something doesn't exist.
That is like saying there isn't A, so there must be B.
Or did you mix yourself up with double-negatives? Let me assume that you did; you should conclude that something doesn't exist if there is not a shred of evidence because if you don't, then it is impossible to dismiss anything.
That doesn't mean that there couldn't eventually be something. I think that is what agnosticism is trying to pull off...that there may be evidence, it just hasn't come about yet.
If you have no mechanism for dismissing concepts, then you have few ways of distinguishing good ideas from bad. In effect, you throw away your ability to judge an idea, unless it is so catastrophically flawed that it contradicts itself (which can be easily remedied by simply being vague, as many religionists have discovered).
Huh-what? Got any smaller words I might be able to understand. Went WAY over my head.
"To state that atheism is, at minimum, the simple lack of a god belief is called the weak definition for the word atheism (sometimes called negative atheism). Those who use the weak definition tend to include even infants and imbeciles as atheists, based upon the fact that these people are unable to comprehend a god claim and thus lack a god belief. This definition naturally includes those who strongly assert that no gods exist -- and everyone in between."
"To state that atheism is, at minimum, the simple lack of a god belief is called the weak definition for the word atheism (sometimes called negative atheism). Those who use the weak definition tend to include even infants and imbeciles as atheists, based upon the fact that these people are unable to comprehend a god claim and thus lack a god belief. This definition naturally includes those who strongly assert that no gods exist -- and everyone in between."
So basically everyone is an atheist until they hear about a god and then decide whether or not it exists.
The lack of a positive belief in God is the definition of atheism. It is widely believed that if you do not believe in something, you must believe that it is impossible; this is a black/white fallacy.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Wow. That`s splitting the hair. It just shocked me, sounded like a contradiction.
"For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact" does not necessarily have to be true. If you lack of a positive belief in God, you can still be an atheist.
Antie wrote:
"For the atheists, the idea that God does not exist is conclusion and fact" does not necessarily have to be true. If you lack of a positive belief in God, you can still be an atheist.
Sorry, but is lacking a positive belief in god having a negative belief in god?
Bob McDob wrote:I've noticed that some of the atheists on this board appear to become rather uniform in thought and become devoted to a sort of blind idol worship of exceptional leaders like Wong.
Uniformity of opinion is not necessarily a trait of fundies. Mathematicians all agree that 2+2=4; does this make them fundies? And nobody here worships me; they can all disagree with me, and if they're going to argue a point, they argue it on their own, not by simply saying "Wong says so, therefore it's true".
Some here pretend to worship you, cause it feeds you ego and that's fun.
I really think you are stretching the definition of fundementalism. According to my dictionary:
"Strict adherence to traditional orthodox (Protestant) tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture), held to be fundemental to Christianity; adherence to traditional beliefs of any kind."
XPViking
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might if they screamed all the time for no good reason.
Is it close-minded to think that Santa Claus does not exist?
What form of evidence are we atheists denying? I haven't seen anyone introduce this mythical evidence yet.
We atheists are denying evidence from authority, revelation, nonfalsifiable evidence and subjective evidence.
IMHO, it is totally reasonable that we do that, but christians require that level of evidence and are constantly suprised when I reject it out of hand.
"Creationist bashing is a necessary and noble pursuit" - SJ Gould
Darth Wong wrote:What form of evidence are we atheists denying? I haven't seen anyone introduce this mythical evidence yet.
We atheists are denying evidence from authority, revelation, nonfalsifiable evidence and subjective evidence.
IMHO, it is totally reasonable that we do that, but christians require that level of evidence and are constantly suprised when I reject it out of hand.
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that some people think those things actually qualify as "evidence".
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Bob McDob wrote:I've noticed that some of the atheists on this board appear to become rather uniform in thought and become devoted to a sort of blind idol worship of exceptional leaders like Wong.
Uniformity of opinion is not necessarily a trait of fundies. Mathematicians all agree that 2+2=4; does this make them fundies? And nobody here worships me; they can all disagree with me, and if they're going to argue a point, they argue it on their own, not by simply saying "Wong says so, therefore it's true".
I trhink its a hero worship in that Wongs been on ASVS when it was a trekkie lair, and all he did to expel them has elevated him in peoples eyes. Myth's abound about his past deeds, these al make him our Heracles of the board.
Go, tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
That or nearly every single one of his posts is insightful and useful as well
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
OKE:
