Bad faith of the agnostic

Hume said:
Go ahead.
Click to expand...

Sure.

When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.

Hume said:
Please don't call what I say "Horse shit." If you disagree, say why.
Click to expand...
It is crude...BUT it says what I mean to say about your comments in a way that is clearer than any other way I can think of right now.

Let me give it a try, though.

You started your presentation with, "The agnostic has bad faith in same sense by refusing to decide if god is there or not."

Well...most agnotics don't shave things quite that closely.

I no longer use the descriptor "agnostic", but rather give a position in greater detail, a position that most often is regarded as an agnostic position. Essentially I am saying that with regard to the question, "Are there no gods...or is there at least one god?"...my answer is: I DO NOT KNOW. All I can do is make a blind guess one way or the other. I recognize that many people do blindly guess "No, there are no gods" and that many people blindly guess "Yes, there is at least one god."

Nothing wrong with that. One is almost certainly correct. (Just don't know which is.)

Now you are saying that "I mean, we learn about god from our childhood church experience, the christian god. So it is specific."

Where does that come from?

How about people who do not subscribe to the Christian faith? The Islamic God? The Jewish GOD...which most certainly is not the Christian GOD no matter that Christians (and some of my personal arguments) want to insist it is?

What about the GODS of Hinduism?

My question of you is: Are you saying there are no gods involved in the REALITY of existence...or is there at least one?

Anything but a blind guess on that, as far as I can see, is a joke.
 
Hume said:
No, I mean we make sense of that social construct.
Myself, I don't find the Christian god interesting. Nothing forces me to determine whether god exists or not. Only Christians think it is a valid question.
Click to expand...
Horse shit.
 
Hume said:
Does god exist? What are the properties of that god? That has to be stated.
God the creator? No, I do not think god caused the universe.
Click to expand...
So you do not think that A god caused what we humans call "the universe."

Okay, that is a reasonable blind guess. I wonder if it is correct.
 
QP! said:
Being agnostic and taking a position of 'I do not have data either way to decide and remain open to data that could change my view' is the only data based science view one can take.
Click to expand...

But the religious seem to think they have "reason to believe" which means there "is" actually data for the proposition. As an atheist when I look at the "data" it is unconvincing for me so I revert to my failure to reject the null hypothesis of "no God".

THAT is also scientific.

QP! said:
It is the same for whether or not you believe there aliens out there that are as advanced or moreso than humans. Being agnostic is the only science based position. Taking a position either way is a 'guess' or 'faith'.
Click to expand...

Everyone has to decide for themselves whether there is positive reason to actually believe in something. You are not "agnostic" about a claim that there is a tiny invisible demon who actually runs the refrigerator. No, you fail to see any reason to believe the claim.

People in their daily lives go straight to "failure to believe" all the time.

It is up to the religious to provide actual data FOR the propostion.


 
Ross Dolan said:
Now you are saying that "I mean, we learn about god from our childhood church experience, the christian god. So it is specific."

Where does that come from?
Click to expand...
Comes from tradition of teaching children. From Bible, theologians, practices of people.
 
Obtenebrator said:
But the religious seem to think they have "reason to believe" which means there "is" actually data for the proposition. As an atheist when I look at the "data" it is unconvincing for me so I revert to my failure to reject the null hypothesis of "no God".

THAT is also scientific.



Everyone has to decide for themselves whether there is positive reason to actually believe in something. You are not "agnostic" about a claim that there is a tiny invisible demon who actually runs the refrigerator. No, you fail to see any reason to believe the claim.

People in their daily lives go straight to "failure to believe" all the time.

It is up to the religious to provide actual data FOR the propostion.
Click to expand...
The "religious seeming to think they have reason to believe" is not "actual data" any more than a child telling me they believe in Santa Claus is data.

They are free to believe but it is just that 'belief'... not data.

And if fail to "believe" in a claim that an invisible demon runs the fridge that is nothing more than a belief. I am not saying i do not jump to some beliefs in some areas. But i do not confuse 'beliefs' with data. I would never call any belief of mine a certainty, as if it is based in data. It is just a guess.

For me, if a god exists he/she/it, is simply an advanced alien by another name. I can certainly BELIEVE that is possible and if you asked me to bet if i think advanced aliens exist or not, i would bet on the side on the yes.

But i do not hold that belief, even if forced to bet, i would guess in that direction. I am agnostic on gods/aliens until i see further data.
 
Hume said:
What would count as physical evidence of god's existence?
Click to expand...
I know dogs exist. I have engaged with them and accept that evidence.

I accept Honey Badgers exist, due to the evidence i see on a tv and testimonials from people who have engaged with them. And i understand i could travel and see one at a nearby zoo, if i wished.

Point 1 is the highest form of evidence but point 2 is also acceptable.

I cannot give you a complete list but that should give you the jist.
 
QP! said:
I know dogs exist. I have engaged with them and accept that evidence.

I accept Honey Badgers exist, due to the evidence i see on a tv and testimonials from people who have engaged with them. And i understand i could travel and see one at a nearby zoo, if i wished.

Point 1 is the highest form of evidence but point 2 is also acceptable.

I cannot give you a complete list but that should give you the jist.
Click to expand...
So god must have a physical body.
 
Hume said:
So god must have a physical body.
Click to expand...
With yet another dishonest comment from you, i am done with you.

But i will give you my reply AGAIN that DOES NOT restrict it to one outcome.

"...I cannot give you a complete list but that should give you the jist."
 
Hume said:
No, I mean the universe exists. No need to speculate about a god causing it.
Click to expand...
No need?

Who said anything about need? There is no need to speculate that it has always just existed, but you have no problem doing that.

What we humans call "the universe" does indeed seem to exist...whatever that means.

The jury is still out about whether it was "caused" or not.

If you think "just always existed" for this thing we humans call the universe is more likely than that this thing we humans call the universe was caused to exist...that is an interesting blind guess on your part.

I wonder if it is correct.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Comes from tradition of teaching children. From Bible, theologians, practices of people.
Click to expand...
I do not understand what you are talking about here. Are you of the mistaken opinion that ALL children are taught from the Bible, theologians, and practices of people?
 
Hume said:
The agnostic has bad faith in same sense by refusing to decide if god is there or not.
Click to expand...

Obtenebrator said:
As an atheist when I look at the "data" it is unconvincing for me so I revert to my failure to reject the null hypothesis of "no God".
Click to expand...


On the question, "Are there no gods...or is there at least one god?"...my take is:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

If either of you thinks there is something illogical in that take...or who feels he/she has a take that is superior for some reason...put it out here. We can discuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top