Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Cypress]

, there are a lot more than zero Christians who believe their god, today, is sending tornadoes, storms and other destructive weather as punishment for immoral beliefs and behavior.

I never said there were zero Christians who believe nutty ideas.

There were also Soviet and Khmer Rouge atheists who believed it was in society's best interest to murder Christian bishops and Buddhist monks.


Are we really at the point where we are going to use extreme outliers to define whole groups of people?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not sure I like that definition.
The values of the gravitational constant, pi and e are neither visible nor physical.

Ideas and concepts, for example liberty and equality, are not visible or made of material substance.

They aren't part of physics either. They are part of the X factor: Life.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes, but he also implied that we shouldn't have an opinion which, in theory, would make it reasonable to structure your life around the God of Abraham or Allah.

If you got that implication, Zen, I do not understand where it came from. It certainly is not something I intended...and I have re-read what I wrote and do not see the implication.

I see nothing wrong with opinions...or, for that matter, with blind guesses. I have lots of opinions myself...and occasionally make blind guesses. But I call my opinion...opinions...and I call my guesses...guesses. I try NEVER to use "I believe..." to disguise the fact that I am offering an opinion...or a guess.

That is all I am saying.

 

[ZenMode]

I never said there were zero Christians who believe nutty ideas.

There were also Soviet and Khmer Rouge atheists who believed it was in society's best interest to murder Christian bishops and Buddhist monks.


Are we really at the point where we are going to use extreme outliers to define whole groups of people?

I don't think it's as extreme as you believe. I think there are a LOT of Christians who attribute weather-type events to the hand of God.

 

[Into the Night]

yet they're still out there acting like douch-nozzles.

Mantra 1a. Lame. So a few atheists are out there. Big hairy deal.

 

[Into the Night]

if you don't want to prove your case, you don't need evidence.

I'm not attempting any proof at the moment, NoName.

atheists keep thinking they have proven it.

Atheists don't have to prove a negative. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. What 'proof' have you ever seen any atheist try to be an atheist???

 

[Into the Night]

Correct. That's often how I feel after reading your posts.

You could always stop being so random.

 

[Into the Night]

Atheists can never prove that there are no gods.

Atheists aren't trying to prove any such thing.

Gods, like the God of Abraham, could, as it has in the past, prove its existence if it actually exists and if it wanted to.

Not possible. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

If someone claiming to be any such God walked up to you and shook your hand, would you believe him?
That's not a proof. You are still depending on the argument of faith, or in other words, a circular argument. You cannot prove a circular argument TRUE or FALSE.

 

[Into the Night]

It would be that easy!

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

I don't think it's as extreme as you believe. I think there are a LOT of Christians who attribute weather-type events to the hand of God.

So?

 

[Into the Night]

Post #339

"Try not to be a moron!"

It's like you want to look as dishonest as possible.

Insults are not a request, Void. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Neoclitorus]

I'm not attempting any proof at the moment, NoName.

Atheists don't have to prove a negative. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. What 'proof' have you ever seen any atheist try to be an atheist???

if they say they can prove a negative, they have to do it.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Insults are not a request, Void. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 1a. Lame.

they're an implication.

an implication to do better.

 

[Into the Night]

Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Johanes Kepler thought the natural laws and physical constants of nature were convincing evidence of providential design. What kind of evidence do you want?

This is true, and is also the cause of an attempt to redefine science to prove a God exists, or in other words science as religion.

Atheists have almost as many miracles to prove or explain as Bible thumpers do,

Atheists don't necessarily accept anything as a 'miracle'.

starting with how something can come from nothing,

Not possible.

how organization can spontaneously arise from randomness and chaos,

As easy as building a shed.

how life can come from non-life,

This question was never answered, not even by anyone that believes life was created on Earth by a series of random unspecified events.

how consciousness can come from physical atomic matter.

Consciousness is a state, not matter.

 

[Into the Night]

Religious people tend to look for and "find" evidence for what they want to believe.

Of course they do. ALL religions depend on supporting evidence.

There are many unanswered questions in science.

Science is not religion.

If the past is any predictor of the future, the correct answers won't come from religion.

Science is not 'answers'.

 

[ZenMode]

Atheists aren't trying to prove any such thing.

Not possible. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

If someone claiming to be any such God walked up to you and shook your hand, would you believe him?
That's not a proof. You are still depending on the argument of faith, or in other words, a circular argument. You cannot prove a circular argument TRUE or FALSE.

"If someone claiming to be any such God walked up to you and shook your hand, would you believe him?"

I didn't say "claim". I said "prove".

Doing common Earthly things isn't going to prove that you are a god.

... which you already knew, but still insist on playing dumb.

 

[Into the Night]

They were most certainly pushing an agenda. It was an echo chamber/circle jerk of atheists. Although I'd heard a few of the arguments for atheism before, it was educational be surrounded by a group of them and hearing all of their arguments supporting atheism.

Atheism doesn't need to argue 'support' of atheism. An atheist is simply an atheist.

It was also telling that they became upset when I didn't convert. LOL I was also on a Christian forum for a short time and heard similar arguments, and upsetting people, supporting their religious ideology.

Atheism is not a 'conversion', Sybil. It is not a religion.

 

[ZenMode]

So?

I'm not your conversational Sherpa. If you want to understand the "so" of my post, go read the entire conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

"If someone claiming to be any such God walked up to you and shook your hand, would you believe him?"

I didn't say "claim". I said "prove".

Not possible. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Doing common Earthly things isn't going to prove that you are a god.

Define 'common Earthly things'.

If someone performed a so-called 'miracle' for you, would you believe him?

... which you already knew, but still insist on playing dumb.

It's people like you that fall for magick.

 

[ZenMode]

Insults are not a request, Void. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 1a. Lame.

LOL.....So, how would I go about requesting that you stop with your moronic behavior and make it a request?