Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

[Enmos]

I am not a theist! I am AGNOSTIC; why would I be calling myself a fool?

Ok, you already said that..

The universe is at it is. Regardless of whether or not it is too complex to be natural, there is still the question of how it came to exist, and that is a question which is extremely difficult to answer. In this question, both the answers of natural occurence and intelligent design are equally plausable. Therefore, there is little reason to automatically assume that there is not, or that there is, a creator, when both concepts have equal weight.

See this is where it goes wrong..
How can you say both theories have equal weight ?
How can you say intelligent design is AS plausible as evolution ?
You could only do so if God is a given fact.

 

[Balerion]

I asked you a question. What is natural?

Everything.

Listen to what you're saying: it's illogical. Firstly, the big bang is the occurence, but what sparked it? That's the point where natural causes or intelligent design are both equally plausable.

Wait, what I'm saying is illogical?? Seriously? Dude, you're trying to say that there's a 50/50 chance some supernatural deity created the universe! Give me a break. OK, no, let's get real about this: The only reason you give them equal weight is because you have heard of man-made creation myths. If not for those entirely man-made creation myths, you wouldn't be spouting this nonsense.

Furthermore, the natural laws of the universe would likely be created along with the universe, therefore there is no guarantee that anything outside of the universe would follow the same rules. Many physicists say that time started at the creation of the universe, thus making it nonexistent outside of our universe.

Another leap of faith. Just because our time didn't exist before our universe did, does not in any way imply that time itself did not exist outside of all of this. We just don't know. But even so, that's not my problem here. My problem is you calling in a creator when we have no evidence whatsoever of anything supernatural anywhere, in any process, regarding anything about this universe. Dude, face it, you're saying it because you think you have to. But you don't. God is totally implausible.

 

[John99]

You are not taking into account the full meaning of supernatural-

According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural. Are there forces beyond the natural forces studied by physics? Are there ways of sensing that go beyond our biological senses and instruments? Certainly there may always be things outside of the realm of human understanding, as of yet unconfirmed and dubious in existence, and some might term these "supernatural".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

 

[Balerion]

According to the strict materialist view, if something "supernatural" exists, it is by definition not supernatural

That's as wrong as it gets.

 

[John99]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Enmos]

That's as wrong as it gets.

No it's correct.
Supernatural is something not in existence, so if it exist it's not supernatural; it's natural.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Agnostics acknowledge that they do not know. Atheists make claims that they do, for a fact, as a fact, know. Theists act as if they know but some acknowledge that it is still belief.

I can't agree with this as I'm Atheist but, when I was a child I believed in god as I did in Santa(etc).

I am Atheist because of lack of consistancy in history regarding deities and lack of logical proof to the contrary. If someone came up with evidence indicating that any deities exist then I'm sure most Atheist's non-belief in deities would change too...

Theist's make the claim of an entities existance which Atheist's don't agree with (im my case anyway)

 

[phlogistician]

How is don't know the same as no?

If I don't know, its not the same as rejecting a concept; you cannot reject what you don't know. Are ants atheist?

Atheist simply means not being in the pro camp. Agnostics are not in pro camp, so they are atheists.

You don't have to 'reject a concept' to be an atheist either. You are still an atheist if you had never heard about god.

It's really that simple, and perhaps you should stop wantonly adding baggage to the term 'atheist' it makes you theists look desperate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheist simply means not being in the pro camp. Agnostics are not in pro camp, so they are atheists.

You don't have to 'reject a concept' to be an atheist either. You are still an atheist if you had never heard about god.

It's really that simple, and perhaps you should stop wantonly adding baggage to the term 'atheist' it makes you theists look desperate.

So you're saying that if you take a vote, ayes and nays and one guy says I dissent, its a nay? Not where I come from. We don't assign new meanings to established ideas.

 

[Randwolf]

So you're saying that if you take a vote, ayes and nays and one guy says I dissent, its a nay? Not where I come from. We don't assign new meanings to established ideas.

No, it's not a nay, but it's also not an aye.

My understanding of atheism is that it represents the set of all "not-theists", akin to the set of "not-ayes", including the dissenter, in your analogy. Perhaps we have a problem with semantics?

 

[S.A.M.]

No, it's not a nay, but it's also not an aye.

My understanding of atheism is that it represents the set of all "not-theists", akin to the set of "not-ayes", including the dissenter, in your analogy. Perhaps we have a problem with semantics?

Based on what?
Please read this and tell me what is your opinion of it:

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

 

[(Q)]

OK, so if you base it on facts........prove to me that no God exists.

You can't!

Sure, you can disprove most religion, because most religion is a product of imagination. But you can NEVER prove that there isn't some sort of intelligent entity. It's a scientific theory, Intelligent Design.

Prove to me that no *enter name or description of any invisible, non-detectable entity or fairyland creature* exists.

That's your argument? Weak, at best.

 

[S.A.M.]

Prove to me that no *enter name or description of any invisible, non-detectable entity or fairyland creature* exists.

That's your argument? Weak, at best.

Not really, before the x-ray was invented you would apply it to radiation.

 

[Randwolf]

American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

It seems that definition #1 is in agreement with my view.
It seems that definition #2 is in agreement with your view.

As I said, it seems to be a matter of semantics.

Is disbelief the same as denial?

 

[S.A.M.]

American Heritage Dictionary
a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

It seems that definition #1 is in agreement with my view.
It seems that definition #2 is in agreement with your view.

As I said, it seems to be a matter of semantics.

Is disbelief the same as denial?

Can you deny something about which you do not know anything?

Or rather, do you?

 

[(Q)]

Not really, before the x-ray was invented you would apply it to radiation.

No, really, it's a weak argument, if an argument at all.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, really, it's a weak argument, if an argument at all.

Not to anyone who does not know but believes there is something there that he should be looking for. Its the basis of all discovery and invention in the world, at any rate.

 

[Randwolf]

Can you deny something about which you do not know anything?

Or rather, do you?

Personally, I consider myself atheist.

For me that breaks down like this:
Religion seems to treat God as unknowable, even the true name of God is unknowable.

If by definition a concept is unknowable, than I can not believe or disbelieve in this concept, for it is unknowable.

If I can not believe or disbelieve, than I certainly do not believe.

If I do not believe, than I am atheist.

But, is the exact label really pertinent to the underlying belief?

 

[S.A.M.]

Personally, I consider myself atheist.

For me that breaks down like this:
Religion seems to treat God as unknowable, even the true name of God is unknowable.

If by definition a concept is unknowable, than I can not believe or disbelieve in this concept, for it is unknowable.

If I can not believe or disbelieve, than I certainly do not believe.

If I do not believe, than I am atheist.

But, is the exact label really pertinent to the underlying belief?

I think so.

I have never met an agnostic [self defined] who considers himself an atheist. Have you?

 

[Randwolf]

I think so.

I have never met an agnostic [self defined] who considers himself an atheist. Have you?

Yes, actually. Me for one. As I described. I do not believe nor disbelieve, both are logically impossible. (For me)

Since "I do not believe nor disbelieve" that makes me an agnostic, but agnosticism is a subset of atheism. It's just a matter of definitions here.

The substantive belief (or lack thereof) doesn't change, no matter what label you assign.