Atheism ( not a bad thing)

[SKULLZ]

sceptic

Skeptic \Skep"tic\, n. [Gr. skeptiko`s thoughtful, reflective, fr. ske`ptesqai to look carefully or about, to view, consider: cf. L. scepticus, F. sceptique. See Scope.] [Written also sceptic.]

1. One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats a dictionary definition of sceptic,and i consider myself under that definition,theres other definitions to which would include being a doubter,a second definition:

One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

2. (Theol.) Doubting or denying the truth of revelation, or the sacred Scriptures.

Theres several definitions,you could be a theologian skeptic,but otherwise open minded.

The reverse can also be true,you might be unsceptical about your religion but be skeptical about certain scientific matters.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That's right. Some who self-identify as skeptics are closed minded cynics.

Yeah... I know some...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jesus christ it's like I have to quote the entire dictionary just to converse with you. Neither of these things have anything to do with forming logical thoughts, so stop comparing your maxim of “guilty until proven innocent” in a situation when guilt and innocence have exactly zero meaning.

It is not my fault if you have zero to none abstract logical thought. :bugeye:
Typical skeptic problem....

*sigh*..... In the metaphor, "guilty" means "wrong" and "innocent" means "right". It couldn't be easier or more straightforward.....

Calling me dumb is really helping your case, especially when you dwell on how something is said and not the content.

I'm not calling you dumb.... it's more like... slow of thought or something....

And that horrible "twisting of words" is called paraphrasing. Watch:
Your statement:
"It wasn't until I was 18 years old that I started reading the Bible and decided that I should become a Christian, given the fact that what I was reading was logically accurate. And I must say it is very tricky to get the idea."
Paraphrase:
"I became a Christian after reading the Bible, although it's tricky to get the fact that it's logically accurate"
If I was incorrect, please tell me what "the idea" could possibility be referring to besides "the fact that what I was reading was logically accurate".

That wasn't your mistake. Your mistake was that you aid that I said that there is a "trick" to get the idea - not "tricky". Those are two different ideas.

"It just means that that is what was written". Thanks for the profound insight lol.

Your welcome. Sounded like you needed it...

You still didn't respond to my passage. First you say the bible is written by men who blame God and try to justify their own actions. Then you say it's true. The first sentence denotes the bible is false, the second that it's true. Get your story straight. "What God says", since when did god write anything down, last time I checked no one was claiming the bible was actually written BY god. So since it was written by men it goes back to your first sentence on how men write to justify there own actions.

...
"I have three eyes". The fact that I have three eyes is false while the fact that it is written that I have three eyes is true. Get this traight. It is not so hard...

And you still believe in such a document?

It is an accurate historical document, not to mention that the ideas work very well....

Yet Jesus clearly states:

Since he's not here to destroy the law, lets go back to the old testament:

*sigh*... Jesus also said that men created thousands of stupid laws, that had abolutely nothing to do with the Law of God. He came to fulfill the Law, which is: "love one another".

I worked on sunday, isn't it your job to kill me?

Jesus did everything in the Sabath because that law was written by men!!!! That's the whole idea I'm trying to explain!

Funny, that’s the same reason why most reject the bible.

And it shouldn't be that way. It should be very easy to undertand it.

No you were making a statement that meant nothing. Like my statement about the internet being cool.

How come it meant nothing?

You still don't get it do you. Did you even read my reasoning for the last one? I make no assertions and accept no facts. I take in information and form the most logical opinion possible.

Well... that was the conclusion I got given you premises...
(the sun is square)

And the whole point of a skeptic is to cut through all the shit that people think has some deeper meaning. A skeptic is the ultimate realist. It's just a cloud. Nothing more, nothing less. The mechanism behind how clouds work is interesting enough on its own, and a skeptic is content in knowing that without all the subjective spiritual bullshit that the theistic mind spews out, like in response 1 and 2. If every time someone thought one of those types of answers instead went and learned the mechanism behind it, the world would be a lot smarter place.

And as a result, you will never be wise...............

 

[TheERK]

It is not my fault if you have zero to none abstract logical thought. :bugeye:
Typical skeptic problem....

Congratulations, you're an idiot. Everyone has abstract logical thought, and failure to agree with horrible metaphor usage doesn't negate that.

*sigh*..... In the metaphor, "guilty" means "wrong" and "innocent" means "right". It couldn't be easier or more straightforward.....

Yes, it could: use the words right and wrong instead of constructing a logically invalid metaphor. Assertions are not right until proven wrong; their logical validity is suspect until evidence is provided.

*sigh*... Jesus also said that men created thousands of stupid laws, that had abolutely nothing to do with the Law of God. He came to fulfill the Law, which is: "love one another".

Prove that this is the Law, with a capital L, and not just something you picked up amongst the surrounding nonsense because it sounded nice to you.

And as a result, you will never be wise...............

So, trying to figure out the mechanism behind things, rather than making up answers, is a guarentee that one will never become wise? Wow. You're really a disservice to people who advocate spirituality.

 

[I Am F_AQ2]

Originally posted by: TruthSeeker
First of all, a claim is not incredulous from the beginning, it is only incredulous when it is proven incredulous. In other words: a claim is innocent until proven guilty. That is not the idea of skepticism. Skepticism says that every claims is false until proven true. It is the opposite.

No it does not. Skepticism is simply

Originally posted by: TruthSeeker
It is an accurate historical document, not to mention that the ideas work very well....

And where do you get the supporting data for that? Where is the support that the bibles story of Genisis is a fact? Where is the collaborating evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah? Where is the evidence of the “giants” that were the offspring of angels and man? I will admit there is some truth in a select few places of the bible but even those are only if you use the bible as an elaborated story rather than take it as a historical account. The story of Noah is a good example. There is evidence that points to a culture that was flooded out in the Black Sea in a catastrophic geological event. It did not flood the planet but it may have flooded a people. The parts with the ark, two of each animal and even Noah himself are likely false but the flood may have happened on a much smaller scale.

Originally posted by: TruthSeeker
Well... that was the conclusion I got given you premises...
(the sun is square)

What he was trying to point out is that the evidence leads him to believe that the sun closely resembles that of a sphere so that is what he will prescribe to until there is more conclusive evidence that the sun is of another shape. If conclusive evidence were to come up that showed the sun to be a square then a skeptic would evaluate it and change what he/she thought before based upon the credibility of that evidence. What you did was a classic example of the opposite of skepticism. You say hey, what if the sun is square and when there is no evidence that it is not, you simply believe that it is true. It does not matter that there is no evidence for your claim because you do not see any evidence against it.

Originally posted by: TruthSeeker
"I have three eyes". The fact that I have three eyes is false while the fact that it is written that I have three eyes is true. Get this traight. It is not so hard...

And what is the point? It is never claimed that the bible is not written, that is a fact. However it is clamed by theologians that what is written in the bible is true and fact. That is the problem that atheists have.

Originally posted by: TheERK
Yes, it could: use the words right and wrong instead of constructing a logically invalid metaphor. Assertions are not right until proven wrong; their logical validity is suspect until evidence is provided.

This is very true and seems to be the major point that you are missing. I will give an exaple that I learned long ago and has been mentiond many times here in the boards before.

Lets say a friend comes to you and exclaims “I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage!” Now you say “Wow, that is amazing, I would like to see it.” Then your friend says “That is impossible because it is an invisible dragon.” Well since this is an amazing discover that does not daunt you so you purpose to throw flower all over the floor so the dragon leaves footprints. To your dismay your friend notifies you that this dragon floats. Then you say lets try and detect the heat that is given off of the fiery breath if the dragon. “But the fire that this dragon breaths is heatless!” your friend exclaims. So you decide to try and fill his garage full of smoke so that you can see his outline. Once again you are thwarted when your friend notifies you that the dragon in incorporeal. On and on this goes until there is no more test to run and no evidence to discover if there really is an incorporeal floating dragon that breaths heatless fire. In the end there are two things that this can lead to. First, a true skeptic would come to the conclusion that there is no dragon in your garage as far as he/she can tell. They do not deny the fact that it is possible and will await the day that a viable test can be made to confirm your statement but until then they cannot believe in it. The general sentiment is that there might be a dragon but who cares and what does it matter since it does not affect anything that we can measure or see and has no consequence in this world. Second, another might see that there is no test that can disprove or prove the existence of the dragon so they will see the claim as true. It is obviously since there is no evidence to the contrary. In your example that the idea is innocent(true) until proven guilty(false) then it must be true. So, by all means, continue to believe that there really is an incorporeal floating dragon that breaths heatless fire in my garage fir there is nothing that says otherwise.

That would about sum it up although I don’t think I am as articulate as some of the others here.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Congratulations, you're an idiot. Everyone has abstract logical thought, and failure to agree with horrible metaphor usage doesn't negate that.

What makes it horrible? The fact that you can't understand it?

Yes, it could: use the words right and wrong instead of constructing a logically invalid metaphor.

Do you wanna see what is logically invalid? :bugeye:
What about this:

Assertions are not right until proven wrong;

What is not right is wrong, correct?
In other words.... "assertions are wrong until proven wrong".

That's a nice argument you got there.......

their logical validity is suspect until evidence is provided.

Your logical validity is suspect...

Prove that this is the Law, with a capital L, and not just something you picked up amongst the surrounding nonsense because it sounded nice to you.

John 13:34
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."

John 13:35
"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

John 15:12
"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. "

John 15:17
"This I command you, that you love one another. "

1 Peter 4:8
"Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins. "

1 John 4:12
" No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. "

2 John 1:5
"Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. "

1 John 4:7
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. "

1 John 3:11
" For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; "

Romans 13:8
"Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...ct=&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&SearchAsLink=

...

So, trying to figure out the mechanism behind things, rather than making up answers, is a guarentee that one will never become wise?

Well... first of all, you are far from logical. Second, being so rigid and extremely grounded to tangible things can make you overlook greater psychological truths... and, certainly, more essential ones :bugeye:

 

[TruthSeeker]

No it does not. Skepticism is simply

I don't think you quite finished that sentence....

And where do you get the supporting data for that? Where is the support that the bibles story of Genisis is a fact?

Who said that? It can very well be an allegory....

Where is the collaborating evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah?

Somewhere in the desert.

Where is the evidence of the “giants” that were the offspring of angels and man?

Huuumm.... where did you read that?

I will admit there is some truth in a select few places of the bible but even those are only if you use the bible as an elaborated story rather than take it as a historical account.

Well... do you deny that it is a historical document?

The story of Noah is a good example. There is evidence that points to a culture that was flooded out in the Black Sea in a catastrophic geological event. It did not flood the planet but it may have flooded a people. The parts with the ark, two of each animal and even Noah himself are likely false but the flood may have happened on a much smaller scale.

Or they can be true. But I understand what you are saying.

What he was trying to point out is that the evidence leads him to believe that the sun closely resembles that of a sphere so that is what he will prescribe to until there is more conclusive evidence that the sun is of another shape. If conclusive evidence were to come up that showed the sun to be a square then a skeptic would evaluate it and change what he/she thought before based upon the credibility of that evidence.

Ok. I understand that. The problem is that many skeptics become close-minded as a result of their extreme skepticism.

What you did was a classic example of the opposite of skepticism. You say hey, what if the sun is square and when there is no evidence that it is not, you simply believe that it is true. It does not matter that there is no evidence for your claim because you do not see any evidence against it.

Huuuuuuhhh.... where do I say that?

And what is the point? It is never claimed that the bible is not written, that is a fact. However it is clamed by theologians that what is written in the bible is true and fact. That is the problem that atheists have.

Ok.

This is very true and seems to be the major point that you are missing. I will give an exaple that I learned long ago and has been mentiond many times here in the boards before.

I'm not quite sure if you directed that to me or not, but here it goes. There are two problems with the little story. First, I would like to present another example (similar) that have been present before in the forums.

There is a tribe of indians. There is gamma rays all around them. But they didn't have anything to capture those rays. Until they can get an antenna or something, they wouldn't be able to hear it. However, just because of the fact that they cannot perceive it, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

That ties to my next point. When you said this:

The general sentiment is that there might be a dragon but who cares and what does it matter since it does not affect anything that we can measure or see and has no consequence in this world.

Just because you cannot detect it doesn't mean that it doesn't have any consequence in this world! In the case of the tribe and the gamma rays, a supernova could burst and the gamma rays could kill everyone. Nobody would understand why they were dying, but they would die from something that they couldn't detect.

 

[TheERK]

What makes it horrible? The fact that you can't understand it?

I explained why it was a bad metaphor.

Do you wanna see what is logically invalid? :bugeye:
What about this:

What is not right is wrong, correct?
In other words.... "assertions are wrong until proven wrong".

That's a nice argument you got there.......

My quote can be parsed two different ways, obviously, and you have chosen to interpret it the way that makes absolutely no sense.

I said: "Assertions are not right until proven wrong."

What I meant by this was quite obviously "Assertions are not 'right until proven wrong'. (Note the inner quotes.) In other words, you claimed that assertions are right until proven wrong, and I said no, that is not the case.

This should have been obvious because of the context of the post; that is, in light of what I was replying to. Also, it was obvious because the other parsing of the statement makes no sense, as you pointed out.

Your logical validity is suspect...

I'm assuming you say this solely because of your above misinterpretation. Therefore, I will ignore it.

(Bible quotes) ...

That is just a small fraction of the things Jesus says in the Bible. And not one of them clearly states that to love is the one law. You're picking and choosing what is important to you.

Well... first of all, you are far from logical. Second, being so rigid and extremely grounded to tangible things can make you overlook greater psychological truths... and, certainly, more essential ones :bugeye:

Once again, you're calling me illogical for no reason. Also, why say I'm rigid and extremely grounded to tangible things? Do you have any evidence for this? No, not really. I happen to be interested in abstract philosophical thought and, one of the most abstract disciplines of all, math. You know, thinking abstractly doesn't mean you have to be illogical like yourself. You like to claim that anyone who points out flaws in your logic can't 'think outside the box', but you're just frustrated because they're right and you can't back up your own 'abstract' ideas.

 

[TruthSeeker]

My quote can be parsed two different ways, obviously, and you have chosen to interpret it the way that makes absolutely no sense.

I said: "Assertions are not right until proven wrong."

What I meant by this was quite obviously "Assertions are not 'right until proven wrong'. (Note the inner quotes.) In other words, you claimed that assertions are right until proven wrong, and I said no, that is not the case.

This should have been obvious because of the context of the post; that is, in light of what I was replying to. Also, it was obvious because the other parsing of the statement makes no sense, as you pointed out.

It wasn't obvious, altough it was obvious that it made no sense...

I'm assuming you say this solely because of your above misinterpretation. Therefore, I will ignore it.

That's an accurate assumption...

That is just a small fraction of the things Jesus says in the Bible. And not one of them clearly states that to love is the one law. You're picking and choosing what is important to you.

I think when Jesus says it is the only Law and that it "fulfills the Law" he is being very clear....

Once again, you're calling me illogical for no reason. Also, why say I'm rigid and extremely grounded to tangible things? Do you have any evidence for this?

It is not just you, it is pratically any skeptical person.

I happen to be interested in abstract philosophical thought and, one of the most abstract disciplines of all, math.

Yeah... just like me. But math is not so abstract. It depends on which math you are doing. I mean.. 2+2 is not really abstract, right?

You know, thinking abstractly doesn't mean you have to be illogical like yourself.

I'm not illogical. It is not my fault if you cannot see the simple logic behind something that I say.

You like to claim that anyone who points out flaws in your logic can't 'think outside the box', but you're just frustrated because they're right and you can't back up your own 'abstract' ideas.

I have backed up many of my ideas, and despite the fact that they are quite simple, it is not my problem wheter you are able to understand them or not. And certainly most people that I talk to can't think outside the box, regardless whether they agree with me or not.

 

[Godless]

TheERK It's illogical to try and explain (LOGIC) to a total zealot theist. They just don't get it. To them logical explanation is god, to them nothing matters only god, to them it's the only logic they understand. God is illogical so are they.

Godless.

 

[locknroll]

^AMEN^


However, we did get SouthStar, so there is a chance not all is lost

 

[camphlps]

LMAO...there is no fault in what Truthseeker has spoken. He clearly has presented himself and there is nothing wrong with what he said. Even if you found your "fallacy" in his text would not matter. As he has said. It is not him that makes someone else not understand what he says. If your too imcompitent to understand what he said then you wont know what he means.

You can base your ideas on what he "appears" to be. However, that does not change what he is. People have called me Christian and begin to try to disprove my beliefs, when they have no clue what they are. I am no Christian. Just as Truthseeker has stated, its not illogical, what he spoke. Dont matter if you think it is or is not. Just saying it is, doesnt make it anything.

 

[TheERK]

LMAO...

This entire post lacks content.

Also, if you're going to call someone incompetent, I'd suggest spelling the word correctly.

 

[TruthSeeker]

First of all, why don't you point out where those "fallacies" are?
Well, maybe it is because there are no fallacies. :bugeye:

Second, I know what the fallacies are. And I've been taking a course on that to strengthen my understanding of them. Because I'm not perfect and all-knowing like you guys are...

 

[TruthSeeker]

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml

This is an interesting one, nonetheless...

In essence, the strawman attack is putting words in your opponent's mouth and then attacking the resulting position, while simultaenously evading the real argument.

An example of this might be just right below....

EXAMPLE​

"Evolution is a ridiculous theory! Macro-evolution says that a fish can just evolve into a bird! Clearly this is preposterous!"

Rather ironic.... If he made up the words...


Well... btw... there's something in the evolutionary theory that is problematic.
They have found bones of two separate stages of evolution, but didn't find bones of the rest of the process, in-between; isn't that correct?

Like... the giraffe example. They have long necks nowdays. Once, they had small necks. The theory says that they develop the long necks throughout a long period of time so that they could reach the fruits on the trees, right? And they even have found bones of giraffes with small necks. But they never found the bones of giraffes with "medium" necks, for example. Why is that? Why we can't find bones that prove the process of evolution? Why do we have evolutionary leaps? And what if the bones of the giraffe with small neck is just the bones of a small giraffe?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Btw... what about this one:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

"Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. "

.....or.....​

"Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. "

...or....​

"Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average). "

So you guys commit a lot of fallacies yourselves...


Can anybody explain me this:
"Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions. "

What is an "axiomatic statement of value"?

 

[wesmorris]

Weak atheism is the logical consequence of agnosticism, which is itself the only rational stance on epistemology. All other perspectives are irrational. End of story.

Why? Okay, because of two things:

1) You can't distinquish a sufficiently advanced technology from a "god".
2) You can't say for certain that you aren't "in the matrix" so to speak, in that it's impossible to prove that your sensory perception hasn't been comprimised (observational distance).

From this it follows directly that agnosticism is factual, because even if you had evidence of "god" you couldn't really know it was "god". You can pretend it isn't true but IMO, that only makes you another deluded asshat. (which I'm sure this very argument makes me from the position of authoritatian varieties of epistemology)

So IMO, if you respect the concept of god at all, you cannot believe in it. To do so would IMO, indicate a complete lack of respect for the power of the ideal and for the nature of knowing.

So god (as typically defined at least) is literally unknowable and weak atheism (a lack of belief in god) is the only rational perspective on the issue.

Of course not everyone has been exposed to rational thinking and many who have still can't perform it. Further, religion and belief in god are very emotional and as such, difficult to penetrate with any argument, regardless of its validity.

 

[TruthSeeker]

1) You can't distinquish a sufficiently advanced technology from a "god".

I don't quite get your first premise. Are you saying that what we call "god" can be some sort of advanced technology? Could technology go as far as being omniscient, ominipotent and omnipresent? Or you are implying other attributes of God? What does the essence of "technology" has in common with the essence of "God"?

2) You can't say for certain that you aren't "in the matrix" so to speak, in that it's impossible to prove that your sensory perception hasn't been comprimised (observational distance).

Sure. But that also applies to basically everything, even atheism. The real issue here is: how much of what we perceive is actually true? The rationale of your premise implies that we are stuck with our perceptions - be it theist or atheist. How can atheism be any more truthful then theism if we can all be "in the matrix"?

From this it follows directly that agnosticism is factual, because even if you had evidence of "god" you couldn't really know it was "god".

If we are "in the matrix", facts can be as deceiving as unfounded beliefs, isn't that right?

Also, you can know if it is "god" if you know what is the essence of "god", just as you know what is the "sun" since you know what is the essence of the "sun", don't you agree?

(which I'm sure this very argument makes me from the position of authoritatian varieties of epistemology)

I'm not going to discuss that... that would be fallacious...

So IMO, if you respect the concept of god at all, you cannot believe in it. To do so would IMO, indicate a complete lack of respect for the power of the ideal and for the nature of knowing.

Well... I can still make space for Him. Besides, if I know the essence of God and I have evidence of Him, I can believe in Him even tough we could live "in the matrix" and everything could be a dream....

So... back to your matrix premise, believing in anything would be futile since we would never be able to know for sure whether anything is true or not. And there dies your epistemology....

So god (as typically defined at least) is literally unknowable and weak atheism (a lack of belief in god) is the only rational perspective on the issue.

Reason is a perspective by itself, just as emotion is. You are not made of just reason. You obviously have an emotional perspective. And the emotional perspective can create different realities for you, whether it is true or not. That's called apperception - the fact that something doesn't need to be true to affect you. If you see the shadow of an extention cord you may think that it is a snake, and you might be frightened even tough it is not a real snake.

Further, religion and belief in god are very emotional and as such, difficult to penetrate with any argument, regardless of its validity.

They often are. But we can always argue them with reason. But failing to acknowledge our emotional perspective can be as deceiving as recognizing it.

 

[wesmorris]

T, you bastardize what people write moreso than I've ever seen. You're the perfect leftist. Debating you is less than pointless.

I do see that you at least attempt to be friendly and appreciate the sentiment, but your inability to understand a simple sentence like "one cannot distinguish a "god" from a being of sufficiently advanced technology" is, at is always is with you, a complete impasse. When/If you can learn to read a simple sentence like that and understand it, we can resume a conversation.

 

[Pete]

Weak atheism is the logical consequence of agnosticism, which is itself the only rational stance on epistemology. All other perspectives are irrational. End of story.

Why? Okay, because of two things:

1) You can't distinquish a sufficiently advanced technology from a "god".
2) You can't say for certain that you aren't "in the matrix" so to speak, in that it's impossible to prove that your sensory perception hasn't been comprimised (observational distance).

From this it follows directly that agnosticism is factual, because even if you had evidence of "god" you couldn't really know it was "god". You can pretend it isn't true but IMO, that only makes you another deluded asshat. (which I'm sure this very argument makes me from the position of authoritatian varieties of epistemology)

So IMO, if you respect the concept of god at all, you cannot believe in it. To do so would IMO, indicate a complete lack of respect for the power of the ideal and for the nature of knowing.

So god (as typically defined at least) is literally unknowable and weak atheism (a lack of belief in god) is the only rational perspective on the issue.

Of course not everyone has been exposed to rational thinking and many who have still can't perform it. Further, religion and belief in god are very emotional and as such, difficult to penetrate with any argument, regardless of its validity.

It's an interesting argument, wes, but it doesn't seem necessary unless you are in the position of experiencing something which appears to be either:
1) God, or
2) some sufficiently advanced technology, or
3) compromised perception causing the illusion of one of the above.


Are you in that position?