Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Cypress]

Agreed. Most are psuedo-intellectuals. I used to be on an atheist forum called "Secular Cafe". Me and a handful of mostly Brit atheists.
They were always pissed at me for questioning their beleifs. LOL

There's an archive page on the internet that describes it as:

Secular Cafe: This place was for mostly secular people to socialize, support, and discuss religion, science, politics, etc.

Places like that tend to be rife with misinformation, because the people are interested in pursuing an agenda rather than searching for the truth. And that's also true for Bible thumper forums.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Atheists can never prove that there are no gods. 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.

that's why they're so silly.

 

[ZenMode]

You aren't making a request.

Post #339

"Try not to be a moron!"

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

 

[ZenMode]

that's why they're so silly.

Atheists should, as we all should, look at available evidence to decide what they believe and to what degree they believe it.

Religious people should do the same.

 

[Cypress]

Atheists can never prove that there are no gods. 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.

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?

Atheists have almost as many miracles to prove or explain as Bible thumpers do, starting with how something can come from nothing, how organization can spontaneously arise from randomness and chaos, how life can come from non-life, how consciousness can come from physical atomic matter.

 

[ZenMode]

Isaac Newton, Galileo, and Johanes Kepler thought the natural laws and physical constants of nature were convincing evidence of providential design.

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

Atheists have almost as many miracles to prove or explain as Bible thumpers do, starting with how something can come from nothing, how organization can spontaneously arise from randomness and chaos, how life can come from non-life, how consciousness can come from physical atomic matter.

There are many unanswered questions in science. If the past is any predictor of the future, the correct answers won't come from religion.

 

[Cypress]

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

What evidence do you want?
I'm not religious, but I marvel at the organization and rational intelligibility of nature.

There are many unanswered questions in science. If the past is any predictor of the future, the correct answers won't be based in religion.

Some questions will probably always remain unanswered because they are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

More importantly, having a scientific answer is not the end of the story, and if doesn't shut down debate. Scientific theories answer questions about process - how things work. If doesn't answer why things are the way they are.

 

[ZenMode]

What evidence do you want?

Not sure what you're asking here.

I'm not religious, but I marvel at the organization and rational intelligibility of nature.

Sure. It's all pretty amazing.

Some questions will probably always remain unanswered because they are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

Generally agree.

More importantly, having a scientific answer is not the end of the story, and if doesn't shut down debate. Scientific theories answer questions about process - how things work. If doesn't answer why things are the way they are.

Right. This is part of the "intelligent design" retro fitting religious people use to keep believing in their God of choice.

 

[Cypress]

Not sure what you're asking here.

Sure. It's all pretty amazing. Generally agree.Right. This is part of the "intelligent design" retro fitting religious people use to keep believing in their God of choice.

Atheists are just as much prisoners of their preconceived beliefs.

Many physicists did not want to believe in the Big Bang because it implied a moment of creation. Some of them actively spent years trying to deny the Big Bang because they did not like it's implications, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle for one.

As soon as we started to become aware of how finely tuned the universe is, some scientists tried to sweep it under the carpet with highly speculative guesses about a multiverse or eternal inflation. Some of them don't like the implications of fine tuning.

I am not omniscient, and never will be. Science is a powerful tool. But science will never lead to omniscience and will never be the answer to everything.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Atheists should, as we all should, look at available evidence to decide what they believe and to what degree they believe it.

Religious people should do the same.

all of this misses the point.

what if the advantage of being religious is not your opinion on God, but how you ACT and how those actions help society.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Atheists are just as much prisoners of their preconceived beliefs.

Many physicists did not want to believe in the Big Bang because it implied a moment of creation. Some of them actively spent years trying to deny the Big Bang because they did not like it's implications, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle for one.

As soon as we started to become aware of how finely tuned the universe is, some scientists tried to sweep it under the carpet with highly speculative guesses about a multiverse or eternal inflation. Some of them don't like the implications of fine tuning.

I am not omniscient, and never will be. Science is a powerful tool. But science will never lead to omniscience and will never be the answer to everything.

so maybe you'll quit pretending particle physicists opinions on god matter more.

 

[Neoclitorus]

What evidence do you want?
I'm not religious, but I marvel at the organization and rational intelligibility of nature.

that's not religion, that's biology, or botany......


why are you always blending subjects like a dumbass?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There's an archive page on the internet that describes it as:

Secular Cafe: This place was for mostly secular people to socialize, support, and discuss religion, science, politics, etc.

Places like that tend to be rife with misinformation, because the people are interested in pursuing an agenda rather than searching for the truth. And that's also true for Bible thumper forums.

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.

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Religious people tend to look for and "find" evidence for what they want to believe.
There are many unanswered questions in science. If the past is any predictor of the future, the correct answers won't come from religion.

If "religious people" includes atheists, I agree. It's confirmation bias on their part.
Agreed on science and the negative impact of religious beliefs upon science.

OTOH, religion has often funded research in the past. Both in Christianity and Islam. Nowadays, not so much. LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Atheists are just as much prisoners of their preconceived beliefs.

Many physicists did not want to believe in the Big Bang because it implied a moment of creation. Some of them actively spent years trying to deny the Big Bang because they did not like it's implications, astrophysicist Fred Hoyle for one.

As soon as we started to become aware of how finely tuned the universe is, some scientists tried to sweep it under the carpet with highly speculative guesses about a multiverse or eternal inflation. Some of them don't like the implications of fine tuning.

I am not omniscient, and never will be. Science is a powerful tool. But science will never lead to omniscience and will never be the answer to everything.

Agreed. Anyone who puts preconceived notions ahead of facts are limiting themselves to the truth.

Researching the Oscillating Universe theory was critical to atheism. When evidence indicated a one-shot Universe that would expand forever into total entropy AKA the Big Chill, it was greatly disappointing to atheists.

 

[Cypress]

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.

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.

I think both militant atheism and religious zealotry blind one to the search for the truth, because the preconceived biases of those belief system become frozen in their minds.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Atheists can never prove that there are no gods. 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.

It would be that easy!

Agreed. IMO, that would be breaking the rules.

IF there is a creator, then the age-old question of "why bother?" comes into play. Entertainment? To create souls? We're just "Sims" in a supernatural game? As @Cypress keeps correctly pointing out, the Universe seems to run in a logical, predictable fashion with laws of physics governing its operation. One variable is life which can alter objects set in motion since the Big Bang even if it can't change the laws of physics.

FWIW, I've never seen verifiable evidence of the supernatural. No ESP, no telekinesis, no magic, nothing outside the laws of physics. While there may be some weird things going on at the quantum level, on our level, no magic, no supernatural activities.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think both militant atheism and religious zealotry blind one to the search for the truth, because the preconceived biases of those belief system become frozen in their minds.

Agreed. Same goes for politics. Zealots, be they religious (including atheists) and/or political, are easily blinded by their extreme beliefs. Confirmation bias is not the best way to find the truth of anything.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Anyone who puts preconceived notions ahead of facts are limiting themselves to the truth.

Researching the Oscillating Universe theory was critical to atheism. When evidence indicated a one-shot Universe that would expand forever into total entropy AKA the Big Chill, it was greatly disappointing to atheists.

The atheist astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was so horrified at the implications of the Big Bang, I think he went to his grave not accepting it, and holding onto his theory of a timeless and infinitely old steady-state universe.

Sadly, his steadfast belief in atheism imprisoned his mind and kept him from a unbiased pursuit of the truth.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The atheist astrophysicist Fred Hoyle was so horrified at the implications of the Big Bang, I think he went to his grave not accepting it, and holding onto his theory of a timeless and infinitely old steady-state universe.

Sadly, his steadfast belief in atheism imprisoned his mind and kept him from a unbiased pursuit of the truth.

Although very intelligent and well educated, you are correct that Hoyle limited himself by sticking to a theory that conflicted with evidence.