Is agnosticism a cop-out?

"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.

“If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.”
Professor Thomas Szasz
 
9pvds9.gif
 
Not possible. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Define 'common Earthly things'.

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

It's people like you that fall for magick.
What are some things that would differentiate a god from you and I? Can you and I shake hands?
 
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.
It's sounds like your only personal experience is with fundamentalist American Protestantism, which is definitely a minority in world Christianity as a whole.

What I stated in post 395 is that modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts. They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life. Irrespective of tornados and pandemics.

You never refuted that statement.
 
It's sounds like your only personal experience is with fundamentalist American Protestantism, which is definitely a minority in world Christianity as a whole.

What I stated in post 395 is that modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts. They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life. Irrespective of tornados and pandemics.

You never refuted that statement.
"You never refuted that statement."

I can't say either way. Only each individual, in their own mind, knows what they believe.
 
They aren't part of physics either. They are part of the X factor: Life.
I suppose in a way that might be true.

I would say the gravitational constant, pi, e, even the laws of logic like the principal of cause-and-effect are independent of humans, and are part of the fabric of reality apart from human lives. This is why I never agree with the physical materialists who insist nothing can be real unless it has material substance and can be observed.
 
I suppose in a way that might be true.

I would say the gravitational constant, pi, e, even the laws of logic like the principal of cause-and-effect are independent of humans, and are part of the fabric of reality apart from human lives. This is why I never agree with the physical materialists who insist nothing can be real unless it has material substance and can be observed.
Human beings have divined laws of gravity, of light and other physical aspects of the Universe. I've yet to see any laws governing life with the same level of exactness.
 
It's sounds like your only personal experience is with fundamentalist American Protestantism, which is definitely a minority in world Christianity as a whole.

What I stated in post 395 is that modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts. They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life. Irrespective of tornados and pandemics.

You never refuted that statement.
It's often true that the most militant anti-smokers are ex-smokers. LOL
 
modern Christianity, modern Judaism, modern Buddhism are not primarily about explaining droughts, famines, earthquakes or droughts.

Do you know why? Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles.

BUT the religion (CHRISTIANITY, JUDIASM) started off doing that exact thing.

That's why religion, developed over time, is still flawed at the outset. Religion, the belief in something outside of nature driving things ALWAYS starts from a position of ignorance and explains why there are so MANY different religions.


They are supposed to be models for a way of ordering and living a meaningful human life.

Now they are. Because religion's original job (explaining reality) has been shown to be a failure.

The only thing left are the intangibles which carry no explanatory value or provide any meaningful requirements for anything. They are just-so stories that comport with whatever your personal imagination is.


You blather on about how "Justice" can't be measured by a meter. Well, fuckwith, "is" can't either. Doesn't mean there isn't a concept of "being".

Your facile and mush-headed attempts to sound erudite really just come across as vapid and meaningless.

You've inherited religion as an explanatory method when it has NEVER been shown to be accurate and has, in fact, been shown to be wrong 100% of the time when it can be tested.


 
Cypress said:
Do you know why? Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles.

BUT the religion (CHRISTIANITY, JUDIASM) started off doing that exact thing.

That's why religion, developed over time, is still flawed at the outset. Religion, the belief in something outside of nature driving things ALWAYS starts from a position of ignorance and explains why there are so MANY different religions.




Now they are. Because religion's original job (explaining reality) has been shown to be a failure.

The only thing left are the intangibles which carry no explanatory value or provide any meaningful requirements for anything. They are just-so stories that comport with whatever your personal imagination is.


You blather on about how "Justice" can't be measured by a meter. Well, fuckwith, "is" can't either. Doesn't mean there isn't a concept of "being".

Your facile and mush-headed attempts to sound erudite really just come across as vapid and meaningless.

You've inherited religion as an explanatory method when it has NEVER been shown to be accurate and has, in fact, been shown to be wrong 100% of the time when it can be tested.
"Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles."

As much as science has chipped, and will continue to chip, away at religious claims, we will probably never fully get religion out of science. That's why we have things like Intelligent Design. Religious people will always try to retro-fit religion into science. We know the science behind tornadoes and earthquakes, but we won't ever be able to prove that the magical hand of the sky wizard didn't set them into motion.
 
The scientific and logical basis claimed by some atheists is total BULLSHIT...and anyone with a functioning brain realizes that.

The "I have a personal relationship with God" is just as much BULLSHIT.

Agnosticism is the only meaningfully reasonable position to take on the issue.
^^ I agree with this.

One minor disagreement is that I think there are different levels of belief. There is blind belief, and there is belief based on evidence. I maintain there are certain things we are justified in believing on the basis of circumstantial, historic, or physical evidence.
 
"Because science showed that there is a better way to understand the universe and provided the tools necessary to understand that the weather is NOT magic but rather follows physical principles."

As much as science has chipped, and will continue to chip, away at religious claims, we will probably never fully get religion out of science. That's why we have things like Intelligent Design. Religious people will always try to retro-fit religion into science. We know the science behind tornadoes and earthquakes, but we won't ever be able to prove that the magical hand of the sky wizard didn't set them into motion.

Oh agreed. In fact it actually even makes @Cypress facile vapid points about <insert random verb here> not being "testable by science" almost worth discussing briefly. There are going to be things which we either can't really test (like the origin of the universe) and there are things which we can test but have not yet understood the results. And then there's always the "science is right, but GOD STARTED IT ALL" approach which is unfalsifiable and therefor of no real explanatory value.

I'm not saying science is showing us perfected knowledge. It's a common human "thing" to demand an explanation to the point of just making one up as a placeholder.

It's when people start thinking their placeholder actually has some imperative reality about it that I push back.
 
The TRUTH is..."I, PERSONALLY, DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE NO GODS OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...AND THERE IS NO WAY I CAN CONCEIVE OF TO DETERMINE WHICH IT IS."

Yes there is. Just ask someone (anyone) who believes in the existence of God to provide you with the evidence. They should be able to if God exists.

Since there are BILLIONS of such believers you should have no problem.

IF no one can provide you with evidence for the proposition that God exists you are perfectly within logic to assume there is no God.

Easy peasy.

And the real kicker is: if you can find one person with evidence that all can agree on objectively God is proven!
 
^^ I agree with this.

One minor disagreement is that I think there are different levels of belief. There is blind belief, and there is belief based on evidence. I maintain there are certain things we are justified in believing on the basis of circumstantial, historic, or physical evidence.
Okay...and I agree, Cypress...completely. There are many things on which I base a meaningful guess.

But on the questions of whether there are no gods...or if there is at least one...there are no meaningful guesses that I can see. That is why I say the assertion "There are no gods" and the assertion "There is at least one god"...are both just blind guesses.
 
Yes there is. Just ask someone (anyone) who believes in the existence of God to provide you with the evidence. They should be able to if God exists.

Since there are BILLIONS of such believers you should have no problem.

IF no one can provide you with evidence for the proposition that God exists you are perfectly within logic to assume there is no God.

Easy peasy.

And the real kicker is: if you can find one person with evidence that all can agree on objectively God is proven!
Bullshit.

It is possible there is at least one god...and not have a single human able to prove it is so. Your assertion that a human should be able to provide evidence of a god's existence IF A GOD EXISTS...is ludicrous.

Think about it.
 
Bullshit.

For someone who insists on proving a negative I'd say you are in no position to call anything "bullshit"

It is possible there is at least one god

Then there is evidence for such a thing. Lacking evidence I am perfectly fine in saying that I don't believe God exists.


Your assertion that a human should be able to provide evidence of a god's existence IF A GOD EXISTS...is ludicrous.

So you are creating an unfalsifiable god. Which is exactly MEANINGLESS.


Think about it.

Clearly I have. You might wish to take your own advice.

Here's a quickie for you: Prove there are no 75' tall aluminum obelisks on Mars that read "Welcome to Mars".

I'll wait.
 
Back
Top