Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Into the Night]

they just assert they have on a daily basis.

Void argument fallacy. What do you think an atheist (simply by being an atheist) is trying to prove, NoName???

 

[Neoclitorus]

Void argument fallacy. What do you think an atheist (simply by being an atheist) is trying to prove, NoName???

they claim to have proven there is no god.

 

[Cypress]

Oh agreed. In fact it actually even makes @Cypress facile vapid points about <insert random verb here> ... 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 omniscient like you are, and I don't have your sense of absolute and superior certainty.

I can't say whether the universe was caused by a purposeful organizing principle, or whether it is not. I see circumstantial evidence supporting both ideas, and I am staying open minded at this point.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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

You dreamed that up. I do not insist on anyone proving a negative. But if a person asserts a "negative" the burden of proof for that assertion falls on him/her.

And there is nothing wrong with my calling your previous post "bullshit"...because it was bullshit.

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

You can "believe" anything you want. That was not what you said earlier. You said, "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"...which is bullshit.

Nice try. No cigar.

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

I am not creating any gods at all. Do you know how to read?

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

Try the shallow end for a bit, Daylight. You are not ready for the deep water.

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

I'll wait.

I cannot. But I would not assert that there are, which is the only reason one would bear a burden to do so.

Like I said, you are out of your depth.

But here is one for you, using your "logic."

There is absolutely no evidence that there are any sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...none at all. Do you think it is logical "to assume" (as you suggested in your earlier post) that there are none? Or would it be more logical to say, "We do not know?"

 

[Daylight63]

You dreamed that up. I do not insist on anyone proving a negative.

 

[Daylight63]

I'm not omniscient like you are, and I don't have your sense of absolute and superior certainty.

You think that's the point? LOL. You aren't just "omniscient", you aren't very smart if you think my point has anything to do with Omniscience.

LOL.

I can't say whether the universe was caused by a purposeful organizing principle, or whether it is not. I see circumstantial evidence supporting both ideas, and I am staying open minded at this point.

But you are quick to insult and spread hate to those who say there may be no such thing. You call them "Stalin" and suggest they are ok with murder and genital mutilation.

 

[Cypress]

You think that's the point? LOL. You aren't just "omniscient", you aren't very smart if you think my point has anything to do with Omniscience.

LOL.



But you are quick to insult and spread hate to those who say there may be no such thing. You call them "Stalin" and suggest they are ok with murder and genital mutilation.

Perry, you've routinely made the claim that any belief in a higher power, an eternal logos, a diety, is exactly equivalent to foolishly believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

That is a level of absolute certainty I do not share, and I think it's fair to say it is a claim of omniscience.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I do not. But obviously you want to be thought of as an asshole...and I refuse to stand in your way.

 

[Daylight63]

I do not. But obviously you want to be thought of as an asshole...and I refuse to stand in your way.

LOL.

 

[Daylight63]

Perry,

There is no Perry on this forum that I can find. Are you hallucinating your friend Doc Dutch who thought he went to space/heaven?

you've routinely made the claim that any belief in a higher power, an eternal logos, a diety, is exactly equivalent to foolishly

Show me where. What I've said is that I do not believe what you believe. I don't think I've said you are "foolish" for thus believing. What I've actually said is you are obviously someone who HATES those who fail to believe as you do.

That's why you have constantly compared me to Stalin every time I've suggested that maybe there is nothing there.

believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

Ahhh, now you are lying again. You seem to have a very loose connection to the truth. WOuld you like to see what I actually said?

You are FREE to worship whatever it is you want to worship. Mammon, Jesus, Yahweh, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. But you are not free to FORCE others to believe as you do.

That is a level of absolute certainty I do not share, and I think it's fair to say it is a claim of omniscience.

You are a dishonest poster who lies about everyone he dislikes.

You need to get your morality straight.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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!

Let's go back to this bullshit.

Essentially you are saying that unless someone can provide evidence for the existence of a particular...then it is wthin logic to assume that particular does not exist.

Even an amateur at logic can see how absurd that is, but let us give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume you do not even reach the level of "amateur"...that you just do not know anything about logic. So...a bit of schooling is in order.

The absurdity of that can easily be seen by dealing with my hypothetical about whether or not any sentient beings exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

There is no way anyone can give any evidence that sentient life does exist on any if those planets. NONE AT ALL. There is sentient life here on Earth...but there is no evidence of sentient life on any of the other planets, moons, planetoids, asteroids, or other physical debris in our solar system.

So life may be very, very, very scarce throughout the universe...and the planets of the 25 stars nearest to Sol is almost unimaginably small.

Do you think it logical to suppose, as you suggest would be the case, that since no evidence of sentient life on any of those planets can be presented...it is "logical" to assume no such sentient life exists there?

Or would it be MUCH more logical to simply acknowledge the existence or non-existence of sentient life there to be UNKNOWN?

Answer honestly if you are capable.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You dreamed that up. I do not insist on anyone proving a negative. But if a person asserts a "negative" the burden of proof for that assertion falls on him/her.

And there is nothing wrong with my calling your previous post "bullshit"...because it was bullshit.




You can "believe" anything you want. That was not what you said earlier. You said, "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"...which is bullshit.

Nice try. No cigar.



I am not creating any gods at all. Do you know how to read?



Try the shallow end for a bit, Daylight. You are not ready for the deep water.


I cannot. But I would not assert that there are, which is the only reason one would bear a burden to do so.

Like I said, you are out of your depth.

But here is one for you, using your "logic."

There is absolutely no evidence that there are any sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...none at all. Do you think it is logical "to assume" (as you suggested in your earlier post) that there are none? Or would it be more logical to say, "We do not know?"

Don't expect a coherent or rational response from Perry. I believe he has a low IQ, a menial job and lives with his parents.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

QED

 

[Into the Night]

they claim to have proven there is no god.

Atheists don't attempt to conduct any such proof. It doesn't matter to an atheist of a god or gods exist or not.

 

[Into the Night]

You dreamed that up. I do not insist on anyone proving a negative. But if a person asserts a "negative" the burden of proof for that assertion falls on him/her.

Attempted justification of a negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Don't expect a coherent or rational response from Perry. I believe he has a low IQ, a menial job and lives with his parents.

Mantra 1c. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

QED

Void proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Let's go back to this bullshit.

Essentially you are saying that unless someone can provide evidence for the existence of a particular...then it is wthin logic to assume that particular does not exist.

Yup. That's what he's saying. A negative proof fallacy.

Even an amateur at logic can see how absurd that is, but let us give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume you do not even reach the level of "amateur"...that you just do not know anything about logic. So...a bit of schooling is in order.

He routinely denies and discards logic.

The absurdity of that can easily be seen by dealing with my hypothetical about whether or not any sentient beings exist on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

A clearly stated agnostic statement.

There is no way anyone can give any evidence that sentient life does exist on any if those planets. NONE AT ALL. There is sentient life here on Earth...but there is no evidence of sentient life on any of the other planets, moons, planetoids, asteroids, or other physical debris in our solar system.

So life may be very, very, very scarce throughout the universe...and the planets of the 25 stars nearest to Sol is almost unimaginably small.

Even the for the stars nearest us, we may simply have not detected anything yet.

Do you think it logical to suppose, as you suggest would be the case, that since no evidence of sentient life on any of those planets can be presented...it is "logical" to assume no such sentient life exists there?

I pointed out his negative proof fallacy to him already. You are correct here.

Or would it be MUCH more logical to simply acknowledge the existence or non-existence of sentient life there to be UNKNOWN?

Quite right.

Answer honestly if you are capable.

That's asking a lot!

 

[Neoclitorus]

Atheists don't attempt to conduct any such proof. It doesn't matter to an atheist of a god or gods exist or not.

they act as if has already been achieved and God has been rationally disproven.

this is a falsehood.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Attempted justification of a negative proof fallacy.

actually negatives can be proven, but that's the argument with god.

a defining trait of god is he's beyond the regular rules of reality, and can be undetectable if he so chooses.

God can falsify his own non-existence, stymieing his opponents for aeons.