Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Mercutio said:
By your own analysis, this should mean "not a believer in god" rather than "a believer in 'no god'". And there is a world of difference between the two.

I am an atheist. I do not claim to "know that god does not exist"--the very statement is illogical. I simply do not have any reason to believe in any of the myriad gods that others have believed in over the centuries.
Click to expand...
So then, why don't atheists claim to be agnostics and be done with it?
 
Mercutio said:
Depends on who you ask. Most atheists I know simply say that there is no evidence of a god, and no reason to believe in an entity for which there is no evidence. This is different from a claim of "there is no god". Indeed, it would be a rather silly thing to make a positive claim for the non-existence of one particular thing amongst all the possible things for which there is no evidence. The idea of equal burden of proof for this is rather silly, because there is no reason to prove the non-existence of something for which no evidence exists.

We do not ask christians to prove the non-existence of Zeuss, or Odin, or Thor, or Ra, or any number of others. The default position of "no evidence" is where we begin. From there, if someone makes a claim of the existence of something, they bear the burden of providing evidence.
Click to expand...
Then these atheists are, by definition, agnostics.

In theory, (with which you have helped me BTW) making a positive claim for the non-existence of one particular thing may seem rather silly. But in practice, it is done all the time. People have been proving the non-existence of things for millenia, and IMO it has worked quite well. Randi has done an excellent job in the attempt to prove things don't exist--like the human energy field and the dynamics of dowsing. He has done an excellent job in making positive claims for the non-existence of things. Yet when it comes to the God issue, this proving seems to stop and the "burden of proof is theirs" dynamic takes over.

It seems that no one has the guts in the skeptical community to say that God can't be disproved. And, IMO, guts counts.

And yes, I will say that God can't be proved either. But, as I view the world and the things in it, that doesn't prove God does not exist. However, as I see how others view the world and the things in it, I can fully understand how it does.
 
Mercutio said:
Oh, trust me, I am under no illusion that you know it all. The important thing, though, is that you claim to know, with certainty, something which all of science and logic says is impossible to know. And you wonder why we ask you to support it?
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no ... The claim which, appears to be coming from of "you" (or, the proximity of you, since you have such a hard time acknowledging that "you" exist), is that "I" think that I know it all.
 
ruach1 said:
Atheists do claim God does not exist. That is the meaning of the word a-not or no, the-god, God, ist-practioner of, believer in.
Click to expand...
"A" means "without". And amoral person is without morals, as contrasted to an immoral person. An atheists is without belief in god, which is different from belief that there is no god.

ruach1 said:
Agnostics on the other hand (a-not or no, gnosis-knowledge) believe there is not sufficient knowledge to believe in God so they are inclined toward not believing in any gods or God.
Click to expand...
It is frequently misused this way. But you can have agnostic theists or agnostic atheists, both admitting that they don't have enough knowlege to infallibly answer the question of God's existence. I am the latter.

Theism = belief
Gnosticism = knowledge

They are referring to two different things.

ruach1 said:
And this word play of "I'm an agnostic so I don't have to prove my beliefs whereas the rest of you have to toe the line I draw wherever and whenever I so desire" is the same type of intellectual quibbling and duck and dodge manuevers that woos use to justify their unprovable positions.
Click to expand...
Atheists lack belief in God. Here is how it works. You tell me what your belief in God is, and I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it. How can I possibly tell you what my lack of belief is?

All I can possibly tell you is that I lack belief, and that cannot be challenged by you because I know my own beliefs and you don't. The same is true of you. I cannot challenge that you believe the things you believe, but if you make claims about the nature of God, I can challenge those claims. Most atheists make no claims.

ruach1 said:
You got a belief? God doesn't exist--the true meaning of atheism? Fine. Prove it. Can't? Then don't demand others prove their beliefs when you can't do it yourself. (You not meaning you Tricky but you as in the general sense.)
Click to expand...
Ruach, no matter how many times you repeat your strawman, it still ain't so. I don't have a belief in God. I don't claim He doesn't exist. I state that I believe there is no evidence for God. Why can't you see the difference? ("I" meaning just myself. I can't speak for others, but based on what I've read here, it seems most atheists agree with this statement.)

ruach1 said:
Randi never claims paranormal phenomenon don't exist? Even a cursory reading of the Commentary Archives will show that statement is incorrect.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ.
Randi commentary of November 12 said:
Wrong. I don't "try to disprove" anything. I ask the claimant to prove their case. Why do people have such a hard time seeing the difference between these two stances? I make no claims; I only ask that others prove their claims, and I offer a million dollars prize if they can. They offer nothing.
Click to expand...
 
Mercutio said:
The important thing, though, is that you claim to know, with certainty, something which all of science and logic says is impossible to know. And you wonder why we ask you to support it?
Click to expand...
The only thing that I claim is that science doesn't know everything, especially when it comes to things of a "spiritual nature." Now, it's not my fault that science has no means (as of yet) for assessing the matter. And I really don't care what the hell you think or don't think about it. It's not going to change my views.
 
Iacchus said:
No, no, no, no ... The claim which, appears to be coming from of "you" (or, the proximity of you, since you have such a hard time acknowledging that "you" exist), is that "I" think that I know it all.
Click to expand...
No, Iacchus, not that you know it all, but that you are right about what you claim to know. Please do not put words in my mouth. You never get it right.
 
Oh, I just realized this is ruach1's thread. How lame of me. I don't think he/she intended for me to derail it. Bye!
 
ruach1 said:
Then these atheists are, by definition, agnostics.
Click to expand...
By your definition. By that definition, many (if not most) believers are also agnostics, if they acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. Congratulations. You have just stripped these terms (atheist, agnostic, believer) of their utility.
It seems that no one has the guts in the skeptical community to say that God can't be disproved. And, IMO, guts counts.
Click to expand...
Um...I have heard it said here quite often. God cannot be disproved, because most versions of god are inherently unfalsifiable. "Can't be disproved" is not something to be proud of.
 
Iacchus said:
Sure they do. And so do agnostics.
Click to expand...
Not true. Some agnostics believe in God, even while admitting that they do not have knowledge of Him. They are called "agnostic theists". I would classify wastepanel as one of those. Though he might not agree with the label, posts like this:
wastepanel said:
Actually, any person can be forgiven for their sins according to the bible. If you are truly sorry or given the evidence and still choose not to believe, than you are thrown down there. The test does not take place after you die, it takes place through this life and the next. Of course, that's all speculation. I just wanted to clarify this.
Click to expand...
indicate that he is aware that his belief is based on speculation.
 
Tricky said:
Not true. Some agnostics believe in God, even while admitting that they do not have knowledge of Him. They are called "agnostic theists". I would classify wastepanel as one of those. Though he might not agree with the label, posts like this:
indicate that he is aware that his belief is based on speculation.
Click to expand...

I guess I'll jump in here since I got mentioned. My thought on this whole discussion comes down to the fact that none of us knows the answer. We are arguing a grey area of science (yet proven or unproven). I choose to believe in God because that is my personal choice. I understand some science, and I respect it. My beliefs are based upon my experiences and logic. The same can be said for anybody who has contimplated this subject.

I don't discount scientific theories, and I try to show respect to others beliefs. Both sides of this issue have horror stories regarding the conflicts that arise when in these discussions. I think that is one of the major problems with this argument is that there are people that take it as a personal insult that another does not share the same principles and beliefs.

I don't like to label my beliefs, but Tricky may have come close to a definition of what I believe. We disagree about the subject, but I think that he appreciates that I am honest and don't flaunt a superiority complex that my beliefs are correct (or I think they are). He doesn't attempt to change my beliefs, but only asks questions to help him understand why I may believe in God. I have run into others that assume I'm incorrect in my logic, and argue with the same ignorance that the "creationists" they so dispise do.

Both skeptics and religious need to be more understanding of each other in this process. A temper/closed mind and ignorance are equitable in my mind when discussing this subject. If I don't believe in something you do, and neither of us have evidence as to who is correct, who is right? We don't know.
 
wastepanel said:
Both skeptics and religious need to be more understanding of each other in this process. A temper/closed mind and ignorance are equitable in my mind when discussing this subject. If I don't believe in something you do, and neither of us have evidence as to who is correct, who is right? We don't know.
Click to expand...
So, unless science can come up with the answer, it's not possible to know that God exists? And, if by some chance science does, what does that say about those who have already known it?
 
Iacchus said:
So, unless science can come up with the answer, it's not possible to know that God exists? And, if by some chance science does, what does that say about those who have already known it?
Click to expand...

Nothing, except for those whose concepts of god show a close match with the one "found" by application of the scientific method.

But, come to think of it, given the ammount of concepts of god avaliable, maybe its not unlikely that one of them match by sheer chance.
 
Mercutio said:
By your definition. By that definition, many (if not most) believers are also agnostics, if they acknowledge the possibility that they might be wrong. Congratulations. You have just stripped these terms (atheist, agnostic, believer) of their utility.
Click to expand...

That's a false conclusion. We're just not on the same page on the agnostic/atheist definition. And yes some believers can acknowledge the lack of scientific evidence for God and might call themselves agnostic in this regard. However, believers rely on other things like faith, experience, the Apostolic tradition, biblical revelation as their organizing truth, and in that regard they don't call themselves agnostic because the "knowledge" of the aforementioned things is knowledge enough for them (whereas it certainly is not for those within the scientific paradigm.)

Um...I have heard it said here quite often. God cannot be disproved, because most versions of god are inherently unfalsifiable. "Can't be disproved" is not something to be proud of.
Click to expand...
That is the first time I've read "God cannot be disproved" on this Forum. I think it takes guts to say that. Well done, Merc.

"Can't be disproved is not something to be proud of." This can be read two ways. 1) It is nothing to be proud of that one's belief can't be disproved. 2) Atheists are not proud of the fact that they have not disproved the existence of God.

I imagine that you meant the first. However, the second meaning creates some interesting thought tangents as well. But what is also at issue may be this pride thing. Possibly, as Wastepanel may be alluding, less pride may ellicit more understanding all around.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Tricky;1499675[QUOTE
"A" means "without". And amoral person is without morals, as contrasted to an immoral person. An atheists is without belief in god, which is different from belief that there is no god.


It is frequently misused this way. But you can have agnostic theists or agnostic atheists, both admitting that they don't have enough knowlege to infallibly answer the question of God's existence. I am the latter.

Theism = belief
Gnosticism = knowledge

They are referring to two different things.

Atheists lack belief in God. Here is how it works. You tell me what your belief in God is, and I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it. How can I possibly tell you what my lack of belief is?

All I can possibly tell you is that I lack belief, and that cannot be challenged by you because I know my own beliefs and you don't. The same is true of you. I cannot challenge that you believe the things you believe, but if you make claims about the nature of God, I can challenge those claims. Most atheists make no claims.
Click to expand...
Turns out we were both right and both wrong. Take time to read this; its really good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Ruach, no matter how many times you repeat your strawman, it still ain't so. I don't have a belief in God. I don't claim He doesn't exist. I state that I believe there is no evidence for God. Why can't you see the difference? ("I" meaning just myself. I can't speak for others, but based on what I've read here, it seems most atheists agree with this statement.)
Click to expand...
Whoaa, ease back on the strawman talk there Tricky. I am not playing games here, and your accusation is baseless. We're just operating on two similar yet differing definitions of atheism.

I beg to differ.
Randi has made a career out of negating other people's beliefs. In many ways I'm with him, and in others I'm not. But one quote saying he doesn't do this but only asks for proof is, IMO, misrepresenting the truth.
 
Last edited:
ruach1 said:
That is the first time I've read "God cannot be disproved" this on the Forum.
Click to expand...
Sadly, the word "god" is too short for the search function on this forum. Usually the word used is "falsifiable" or "unfalsifiable". There may even be an Interesting Ian 7-page thread on it, if memory serves.
"Can't be disproved is not something to be proud of." This can be read two ways. 1) It is nothing to be proud of that one's belief can't be disproved. 2) Atheists are not proud of the fact that they have not disproven the existence of God.

I imagine Merc, that you meant the first. However, the second meaning arises some interesting thought tangents as well. But what is also at issue may be this pride thing. Maybe, as Wastepanel may be alluding, is that less pride may ellicit more understanding all around.
Click to expand...
The second makes no sense. Trying to disprove a universal, for something for which there is no evidence in the first place? A fool's errand.
 
Mercutio said:
The second makes no sense. Trying to disprove a universal, for something for which there is no evidence in the first place? A fool's errand.
Click to expand...
Really? The whole of human history is rife with tales of the supernatural.
 
How about this Iacchus? Since you seem to have such a persecution complex; you're a crazy liar. There. Happy now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom