Is agnosticism a cop-out?

[Into the Night]

What are some things that would differentiate a god from you and I? Can you and I shake hands?

No. We are in different locations. I don't know what god you are talking about.

 

[Into the Night]

"You never refuted that statement."

I can't say either way. Only each individual, in their own mind, knows what they believe.

Nope. One can describe to another what they believe, and that person knows it too.

 

[Into the Night]

It's often true that the most militant anti-smokers are ex-smokers. LOL

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[ZenMode]

No. We are in different locations. I don't know what god you are talking about.

lol.... you really can't help yourself, can you. Being dumb is in your genes.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. One can describe to another what they believe, and that person knows it too.

See above post.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Who said weather was magic, Dimlight???

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

I don't know any religion that calls weather magic or magick, other than the Church of Global Warming.

That's why religion, developed over time, is still flawed at the outset.

Religion does not 'develop', Dimlight. It simply IS.

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.

Nature is not outside of nature, Dimlight. Do you believe your god to be unnatural?

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

Reality requires no explanation. It simply exists.

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.

Science is about explanation. So is religion. The similarities pretty much end there.

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".

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

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

Inversion fallacy.

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.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). It is not possible to prove a circular argument either True or False, Dimlight.

 

[Into the Night]

"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.

Science has no religion, Void. It is atheistic.
A tornado is not science. An earthquake is not science.

So you believe in a 'Sky Wizard'?? What does he look like? Is he a hazard to air navigation?

 

[Into the Night]

^^ 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.

Every religion uses supporting evidence, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Any constant of nature in any theory of science is only there to convert the relation to our units of measurement.
The 'gravitational constant' is different with every body of matter as well.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the experiments of Cavendish and the theories of science he used to construct them.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

The origin of the universe is not a theory of science. It is religion.
Science is not a test, but every theory of science MUST be testable, by definition. A theory that cannot be tested is not a theory of science.

I'm not saying science is showing us perfected knowledge.

Science is not knowledge.

It's a common human "thing" to demand an explanation to the point of just making one up as a placeholder.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Dimlight. You cannot claim a thing exists and doesn't exist at the same time!

It's when people start thinking their placeholder actually has some imperative reality about it that I push back.

Random words. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes there is. Just ask someone (anyone) who believes in the existence of God to provide you with the evidence.

The existence of the Bible. The existence of prophets and seers. Nature. Life on Earth. The Earth itself. The Sun and solar system. Shall I go on?

They should be able to if God exists.

Circular definition.

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.

There is also evidence there is no god or gods. Nature. Life on Earth. The Earth itself. The Sun and solar system. Shall I go on?

Easy peasy.

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

Evidence is not a proof, Dimlight. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[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???

they should stop pretending they have proven the impossible thing.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Close, but the 'guesses' are not blind by any means. Every religion uses supporting evidence for that religion. The Church of No God is no exception.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

It is easy to provide evidence a god or gods exist. It is also to provide evidence that no god or gods exist.

Evidence is not a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Fallacy fallacy, Dimlight. He is not trying to prove a negative. He is not even attempting to conduct a proof.

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

Religions don't require evidence, but they do all use supporting evidence.

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

He never did, Dimlight.

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.

Pivot fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

they should stop pretending they have proven the impossible thing.

Atheists don't try to prove an impossible thing, NoName.
Go learn English.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Atheists don't try to prove an impossible thing, NoName.
Go learn English.

they just assert they have on a daily basis.

 

[Into the Night]

lol.... you really can't help yourself, can you. Being dumb is in your genes.

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

See above post.

I wrote it, so I don't have to read it, Void.