Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dawkins' new book
#26

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 06:21 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.

See my quote posted above from Thomas Huxley.  He coined the word agnostic but also admitted he was an infidel, atheist in regards to God.  You can be both.  An agnostic atheist can admit there is no good evidence for God and therefore that agnostic does not believe in God.  Conversely, the fideist admits there is no proof for God but the fideist believes despite lack of evidence.  The strong atheist thinks the problems the defined God of Christianity logically eliminates the possibility of God.
Why does the porridge bird lays his eggs in the air?

Reply
#27

Dawkins' new book
I never read any book on atheism. Why should I? Case closed, far as I am concerned.
The following 6 users Like abaris's post:
  • Alan V, Mark, Tres Leches, SYZ, KevinM1, Cavebear
Reply
#28

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:06 AM)Phaedrus Wrote: [Image: 70457934_2498897953668528_30502617690469...e=5DFEF1E7]

Outgrowing God

Anyone going to read it?    Deadpan Coffee Drinker

Probably not. TGD was unenlightening to me 15 years ago, I doubt his personal tale of dissolving faith is very different from mine, either.
Reply
#29

Dawkins' new book
(09-21-2019, 01:43 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(09-21-2019, 01:39 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: While I agree he's a blowhard, doesn't he have a section in The God Delusion called "the poverty of agnosticism" where he critiques agnosticism?  Consider

Yeah, agnostics annoy me, too.

I mean, it's not as though they're stating, "I don't know that Santa Clause does or doesn't exist" or "I don't know that unicorns do or do not exist".

It doesn't take a genius to logically state the non-existence of something when there is zero evidence for its existence.

That rather depends on how one defines "it", in this case.

I'm not agnostic about the Abrahamic god; the contradictions are too weighty for it to hold up under scrutiny. I think that way about many other gods, as well.

There are other gods where I could say, "I don't know, but I don't believe." That is agnosticism as well.

The point is that without knowing the definition of "god" bring used, no "knowledge" of existence or nonexistence is meaningful.

Sorry to annoy you. Don't worry, you'll live.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Mark
Reply
#30

Dawkins' new book
(09-22-2019, 10:36 AM)SYZ Wrote: I've never once considered myself an agnostic—it's a real cop out.  You're either a theist or an atheist.
You can't have a "partial" belief in the supernatural, or a "possible" belief in the paranormal.

Nonsense. One can literally say "I don't know", and mean it. It's not about "natural" or "supernatural", it's about how the particular believer is defining the god under discussion. Being agnostic does not mean being unwilling to say "I don't believe". It's about saying "until I know WTF you're talking about I have no knowledge."

Get off'n your high-horse and think a little, fer chrissakes.

I'm agnostic about a lot of things besides deities. Does that mean I'm afraid to offer an opinion? 

Some seriously excluded-middle thinking here. One can provisionally consider another's belief in something without either buying into it whole-hog, or rejecting it.

Just so you don't go for the low-hanging fruit, I've seen no evidence of any proclaimed god that I find sufficient to change my mind. But my atheism is tinged with the understanding that there are things outside my experience that I should digest before dismissing.

You mileage seems to vary.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • brunumb, TheGentlemanBastard, skyking
Reply
#31

Dawkins' new book
Have to agree with Thump. This is just a lot of noise.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 2 users Like Mark's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#32

Dawkins' new book
I won't be reading the book in the OP. I noticed some time ago that the atheist "celebrity community" (for lack of a better word) like Dawkins, etc seem to be exclusionary of women. I just did a quick google and Dawkins has made a few dumb remarks about people with ovaries and uteruses.

One reason why I dumped religion is that now I'm free of the strictures of religiously based rigid gender roles and expectations that women stay in their place, quiet and subservient. Freedom. So why would I then turn my attention to or give my hard earned money to anyone who would tell me "don't you worry your pretty little head, dear, we men will handle everything" ? Screw that.

I'm good on my own path with my own thoughts on the world.

-Teresa
There is in the universe only one true divide, one real binary, life and death. Either you are living or you are not. Everything else is molten, malleable.

-Susan Faludi, In the Darkroom
The following 6 users Like Tres Leches's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, mordant, epronovost, Thumpalumpacus, Mark, skyking
Reply
#33

Dawkins' new book
Dawkins' book on evolution was spectacular.  As a biologist that is his element. 

I know religion is horseshit.  I don't need him to tell me.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 3 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, abaris, Chas
Reply
#34

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 02:02 AM)Tres Leches Wrote: I won't be reading the book in the OP. I noticed some time ago that the atheist "celebrity community" (for lack of a better word) like Dawkins, etc seem to be exclusionary of women. I just did a quick google and Dawkins has made a few dumb remarks about people with ovaries and uteruses.

One reason why I dumped religion is that now I'm free of the strictures of religiously based rigid gender roles and expectations that women stay in their place, quiet and subservient. Freedom. So why would I then turn my attention to or give my hard earned money to anyone who would tell me "don't you worry your pretty little head, dear, we men will handle everything" ? Screw that.

I'm good on my own path with my own thoughts on the world.

-Teresa

Aside from Dawkins, the "celebrity atheist" crowd in general has a shitty reputation when it comes to how they (mis)treat women.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • Tres Leches, KevinM1
Reply
#35

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 02:02 AM)Tres Leches Wrote: I'm good on my own path with my own thoughts on the world.

-Teresa


I'll have what Teresa is having.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
The following 2 users Like Mark's post:
  • Tres Leches, skyking
Reply
#36

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 02:12 AM)Minimalist Wrote: Dawkins' book on evolution was spectacular.  As a biologist that is his element. 

I know religion is horseshit.  I don't need him to tell me.


I know solid biological scientists who are Christians who respect Dawkins' science even if they think he is a little unhinged/shallow about religion.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply
#37

Dawkins' new book
If they really believe that jesus shit then they are a little unhinged/shallow on science.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Inkubus, Chas
Reply
#38

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 06:21 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.

Sorry Syz ,you're incorrect on this occasion.

I am an agnostic atheist .  I state only that I do not believe, due to  lack of proof (atheist) I make no claims about knowing that god does not exist.  (agnostic) 

"Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist."   Really. That's a positive claim and attracts  the burden of proof.  Let's

 see it

As far as I'm aware, the existence of god is, so far, an unfalsifiable position . IE it can be neither proved nor disproved    Without proof, on what do you base your knowledge?  Reason?  Theologians have been trying that con for millennia.  

As far as I'm aware ,god cannot be argued into  or out of existence.

I neither believe in, nor know about leprechauns.   I DID meet a fella in a pub in Galway  who swore he'd seen a leprechaun .Seems he was walking home from the pub one night-------  Tongue


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((90)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

From Wikipedia: 

"Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
The following 3 users Like grympy's post:
  • mordant, KevinM1, brunumb
Reply
#39

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 08:37 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Quote:See my quote posted above from Thomas Huxley.  He coined the word agnostic but also admitted he was an infidel, atheist in regards to God.  You can be both.  An agnostic atheist can admit there is no good evidence for God and therefore that agnostic does not believe in God.  Conversely, the fideist admits there is no proof for God but the fideist believes despite lack of evidence.  The strong atheist thinks the problems the defined God of Christianity logically eliminates the possibility of God.

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree again...

Atheism is a singular, personal state of mind that needs no qualification.  There is, literally, no such
person as an "agnostic" atheist.  An atheist, like me, knows absolutely that God or gods do not and
cannot exist, and never have in recorded history.  Ultimately, that's what atheism's all about. At any
rate, nobody would describe someone as an agnostic theist, at the other end of the definitive scale.

Consequently, there is also no such thing as a "strong" atheist—as per my "slightly" pregnant reference.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#40

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 12:34 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ...The point is that without knowing the definition of "god" being used, no "knowledge" of existence or nonexistence is meaningful.

Which is why I define myself as an ignostic.  Nobody here has ever defined what they (or others)
mean by the word "god". So-called gods are simply fanciful, mythological figures of cause or
convenience, fabricated within the fertile imaginations of ancient, unscientific men.  Any rational
person living in an enlightened 21st century should be embarrassed to publicly assert that they
believe in gods.

Quote:I've seen no evidence of any proclaimed god that I find sufficient to change my mind. But my atheism is tinged with the understanding that there are things outside my experience that I should digest before dismissing.

I agree:  agnosticism refers to myriad other things—it's not  confined to religious belief or
the existence of gods.

Quote:I'm not agnostic about the Abrahamic god; the contradictions are too weighty for it to hold up under scrutiny. I think that way about many other gods, as well...

...There are other gods where I could say, "I don't know, but I don't believe."

This is confusing.  Apparently (?) you're happy to dismiss the veracity of the Abrahamic god out
of hand, but you're not sure about "many" other gods—but not ALL other gods.  The Abrahamic
god and all other gods share only the single quality of their non-existence in the real world. Can
you list a few of the other gods you think may  possibly exist?
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#41

Dawkins' new book
At the age of 50, I became an atheist before I finished reading Dawkins' The God Delusion, the first book of atheistic arguments I ever read. That was almost 13 years ago now. Although I have read certain atheistic authors since then who I think do a much better job than Dawkins did -- Victor Stenger especially -- I still understand the use of Dawkins' challenging but rather over-simplified approach.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#42

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 02:02 AM)Tres Leches Wrote: I won't be reading the book in the OP. I noticed some time ago that the atheist "celebrity community" (for lack of a better word) like Dawkins, etc seem to be exclusionary of women. I just did a quick google and Dawkins has made a few dumb remarks about people with ovaries and uteruses.

One reason why I dumped religion is that now I'm free of the strictures of religiously based rigid gender roles and expectations that women stay in their place, quiet and subservient. Freedom. So why would I then turn my attention to or give my hard earned money to anyone who would tell me "don't you worry your pretty little head, dear, we men will handle everything" ? Screw that.

This claim is a little harsh mate.  In 2014, Dawkins said that "feminism is enormously important"
and "a political movement that deserves to be supported". Dawkins also released a joint statement
with US feminist Ophelia Benson that condemned "death threats, rape threats, attacks on people's
appearance, age, race, sex, size, haircut and vulgar epithets." In a passage in The God Delusion,
Dawkins wrote about how he wished to mirror the successes of feminism in the atheist movement,
also identifies as a strong supporter of women's rights, and is a vocal opponent of the mistreatment
of women due to religious bigotry
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Chas
Reply
#43

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 08:22 AM)grympy Wrote: Sorry Syz ,you're incorrect on this occasion.

I am an agnostic atheist.  I state only that I do not believe, due to  lack of proof (atheist) I make no claims about knowing that god does not exist.  (agnostic)

If you apparently have no proof either way as to the existence of gods, how can you say this?
Firstly you say you don't believe in gods, but then you say you don't have evidence to support
that.   BTW, "proof" per se has nothing to do with atheism.
 
Quote:"Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist."   Really. That's a positive claim and attracts  the burden of proof.  Let's  see it.

Nope.  Mine is a statement of fact, not a claim.  Leprechauns don't exist—another statement of
fact.  No proof needed.  Or would your agnosticism extend to leprechauns too?

Quote:As far as I'm aware, the existence of god is, so far, an unfalsifiable position.

If something is unfalsifiable, it follows that any belief in the existence of gods is unscientific. Making
unfalsifiable claims is an easy way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims
are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Quote:From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

My trust in Wikipedia is not as sound as yours.     Hmm

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Atheism and Agnosticism, The Low Priors Argument [2 Aug 2017]

The basic idea behind the "low priors" argument is that, even if the agnostic is right that, when
it comes to God's existence, the evidence is ambiguous or absent altogether, what follows is not
that theism has a middling probability all things considered, but instead that theism is very
probably false
. This is said to follow because theism starts out with a very low probability before
taking into account any evidence. ("Evidence" in this context refers to factors extrinsic to a
hypothesis that raise or lower its probability.) Since ambiguous or absent evidence has no effect
on that prior or intrinsic probability, the posterior or all-things-considered probability of theism
is also very low. If, however, theism is very probably false, then atheism must be very probably
true
and this implies (according to the defender of the argument) that atheistic belief is justified.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#44

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 10:39 AM)SYZ Wrote: This is confusing.  Apparently (?) you're happy to dismiss the veracity of the Abrahamic god out
of hand, but you're not sure about "many" other gods—but not ALL other gods.  The Abrahamic
god and all other gods share only the single quality of their non-existence in the real world. Can
you list a few of the other gods you think may  possibly exist?

It's confusing to you because you're ignoring my mention of the internal contradictions of the Abrahamic gods. I haven't been steeped in the theology of other faiths to nearly the same degree, and so haven't encountered the contradictions in other faiths that would push me to more certainty.

So no, I won't give you a list of gods and my views on them. You either understand my point or you don't. <shrug>
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Cheerful Charlie, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#45

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 08:34 PM)Aegon Wrote:
(09-23-2019, 06:21 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.

This entire debate is nonsensical to me. I also tend to agree that it's rather silly to be agnostic about God - it's the only question that agnosticism or gnosticism is ever warranted, so why make it so different from anything else? Like you say, no reason to be agnostic about leprechauns. 

On the other hand, I don't see the differences between belief and knowledge as black and white, so I'm also hesitant to say I know God isn't real because, frankly, I'm not sure how much I actually know, period.

I ultimately find it to be generally useless debate.

I like Dawkins.  'The Ancestor's Tale' is a book I've read and re-read.  And I've read several others by him.  He generally writes well, he is interesting, he is atheist, he seems to be accurate informationally, and I agree with him.

As to his technical philosophy creds, I don't give a damn.  I've always thought that philosophers (like "management theory") either spoke the obvious or made so little sense that I laughed at it.  Seriously, when I was first exposed to "cogito ergo sum", I cracked up.  DUH!
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
The following 2 users Like Cavebear's post:
  • Alan V, Chas
Reply
#46

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 08:22 AM)grympy Wrote:
(09-23-2019, 06:21 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-22-2019, 02:25 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: One can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time...

I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.



Sorry Syz ,you're incorrect on this occasion.

I am an agnostic atheist .  I state only that I do not believe, due to  lack of proof (atheist) I make no claims about knowing that god does not exist.  (agnostic) 

"Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist."   Really. That's a positive claim and attracts  the burden of proof.  Let's

 see it

As far as I'm aware, the existence of god is, so far, an unfalsifiable position . IE it can be neither proved nor disproved    Without proof, on what do you base your knowledge?  Reason?  Theologians have been trying that con for millennia.  

As far as I'm aware ,god cannot be argued into  or out of existence.

I neither believe in, nor know about leprechauns.   I DID meet a fella in a pub in Galway  who swore he'd seen a leprechaun .Seems he was walking home from the pub one night-------  Tongue


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((90)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

From Wikipedia: 

"Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]"


ADDENDUM:

To claim one KNOWS there are no leprechauns, or god,  without proof is a classic argument  from ignorance .

Russell's teapot talks of unfalsifiable claims: 


Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

"--------------- philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.---------------"


The full Wiki article is worth reading. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Reply
#47

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 11:58 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(09-24-2019, 08:22 AM)grympy Wrote: Sorry Syz ,you're incorrect on this occasion.

I am an agnostic atheist.  I state only that I do not believe, due to  lack of proof (atheist) I make no claims about knowing that god does not exist.  (agnostic)

If you apparently have no proof either way as to the existence of gods, how can you say this?
Firstly you say you don't believe in gods, but then you say you don't have evidence to support
that.   BTW, "proof" per se has nothing to do with atheism.
 
Quote:"Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist."   Really. That's a positive claim and attracts  the burden of proof.  Let's  see it.

Nope.  Mine is a statement of fact, not a claim.  Leprechauns don't exist—another statement of
fact.  No proof needed.  Or would your agnosticism extend to leprechauns too?

Quote:As far as I'm aware, the existence of god is, so far, an unfalsifiable position.

If something is unfalsifiable, it follows that any belief in the existence of gods is unscientific. Making
unfalsifiable claims is an easy way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims
are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Quote:From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

My trust in Wikipedia is not as sound as yours.     Hmm

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Atheism and Agnosticism, The Low Priors Argument [2 Aug 2017]

The basic idea behind the "low priors" argument is that, even if the agnostic is right that, when
it comes to God's existence, the evidence is ambiguous or absent altogether, what follows is not
that theism has a middling probability all things considered, but instead that theism is very
probably false
. This is said to follow because theism starts out with a very low probability before
taking into account any evidence. ("Evidence" in this context refers to factors extrinsic to a
hypothesis that raise or lower its probability.) Since ambiguous or absent evidence has no effect
on that prior or intrinsic probability, the posterior or all-things-considered probability of theism
is also very low. If, however, theism is very probably false, then atheism must be very probably
true
and this implies (according to the defender of the argument) that atheistic belief is justified.

 What can I say?   I've quoted Russell's teapot in another thread.  
Looks as if we may need to differ again.   Consider
Reply
#48

Dawkins' new book
(09-23-2019, 08:53 PM)abaris Wrote: I never read any book on atheism. Why should I? Case closed, far as I am concerned.

Depends on which side you hang your head outside the car window... Big Grin
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply
#49

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 10:02 PM)grympy Wrote:
(09-24-2019, 08:22 AM)grympy Wrote:
(09-23-2019, 06:21 PM)SYZ Wrote: I'd have to disagree with this.

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe in. Agnosticism
is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't
believe in any gods whereas an agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.  Two
totally different stances.

Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist.  (Which is why I'm ignostic.)

Apparently agnostics, by logical extension, would be unsure if leprechauns exist.



Sorry Syz ,you're incorrect on this occasion.

I am an agnostic atheist .  I state only that I do not believe, due to  lack of proof (atheist) I make no claims about knowing that god does not exist.  (agnostic) 

"Personally, I know that God or gods don't exist."   Really. That's a positive claim and attracts  the burden of proof.  Let's

 see it

As far as I'm aware, the existence of god is, so far, an unfalsifiable position . IE it can be neither proved nor disproved    Without proof, on what do you base your knowledge?  Reason?  Theologians have been trying that con for millennia.  

As far as I'm aware ,god cannot be argued into  or out of existence.

I neither believe in, nor know about leprechauns.   I DID meet a fella in a pub in Galway  who swore he'd seen a leprechaun .Seems he was walking home from the pub one night-------  Tongue


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((90)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

From Wikipedia: 

"Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known.[1][2][3]"


ADDENDUM:

To claim one KNOWS there are no leprechauns, or god,  without proof is a classic argument  from ignorance .

Russell's teapot talks of unfalsifiable claims: 


Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

"--------------- philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.---------------"


The full Wiki article is worth reading. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I consider that, in the same way that evidence suggests there are no unicorns, evidence suggests there is no deity.  That doesn't mean I can't be wrong.  But I've stuck my pitchfork in the square that concludes there is not one.
I just believe in one less deity than most people.
Reply
#50

Dawkins' new book
(09-24-2019, 10:20 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I consider that, in the same way that evidence suggests there are no unicorns,  evidence suggests there is no deity.  That doesn't mean I can't be wrong.  But I've stuck my pitchfork in the square that concludes there is not one.

I get this post, whole-heartedly, though I'd suggest that it's the lack of evidence that argues against deities -- or unicorns.

The key is being willing to reconsider one's views upon receiving contravening information ... not that I expect such to arise regarding either unicorns or gods.

This is especially pertinent when we remember that even science is tentative. At one time we possessed zero evidence of relativity. That doesn't mean that relativity didn't work before Einstein started our understanding of it, and subsequent experiments showed his calculations and thought-experiments true. It only means that we were absolutely unaware of relativity's impact on our perceptions. We just couldn't perceive it, until Newton and later Maxwell had come along, spurred mathematical analysis, which spurred experimentation using more advanced instrumentation.

The lack of evidence inclines me to disbelieve in god(s). It is not evidence they don't exist, but it certainly suggests that conclusion. Hence, I don't believe in god(s), but I cannot say for certain that every god ever listed does not exist. I can, however, say that those gods I've looked into all lack evidence, and that makes me think none of them are anything but products of the human mind, and are not worth much examination outside of a sociocultural context.
The following 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • grympy, skyking
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)