From Atheism To Creationism - General

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44128186]no one said that they said that all supernatural claims are equally illogical in that they all rely on the same infinitely regressive excuses based on unfalsifiability wherein you just say they're acting outside our current sphere of knowledge, and that if you're of the opinion that no one should have a particularly strong stance on whether god does or doesn't exist then you should be of the same stance on all other supernatural claims since they all have the exact same justification people were taking your logic and showing the inconsistencies in it's application, that's a foundational part of any philosophical argument and i'm absolutely baffled that you misconstrued it as people saying you believe in unicorns[/QUOTE] What a crock. Someone asks you: “Do you or do you not believe that there is at this moment a red car parked in *insert parking place you currently aren’t observing*.” You can’t give a ‘yes or no’ answer to this question because that wouldn’t accurately represent your state of knowledge. A defensible response to that question would be: “I can’t say that I believe it and I can’t say that I don’t believe it. I simply don’t know. There might very well be a red car parked there, but on the other hand there might very well not be a red car parked there.”

[QUOTE=Manibogi;44132586]Oh cut me a slack, now you're being more dense than me. [B]We have proved none of those ever existed[/B], unless you're trying to play the stupid game in which case, can I go ahead and hit myself in the head with a hammer so I can have a chance at saying something more asinine than that?[/QUOTE] No we haven't. No we fucking haven't. This notion is why you haven't been understanding what we've been saying in this thread. You're treating a creator deity completely separate from other supernatural claims when they're all actually the same. Just go around the world for a while. Millions of people believe in witches. Millions of people believe in fairies. A [B]humongous[/B] amount of people believe in ghosts for some reason, even some atheists I know. We've never "proved none of these existed." Why? Because you can't! You can never prove that fairies don't exist. I already explained this over three times. You can just say "they're hiding from us with magic. Every time you get close they use a spell and disappear without a trace." It's an unfalsifyable claim. In your mind, you seem to be treating god differently than all of this for some reason and this is why you think it's OK to be agnostic about god while you can just completely dismiss the other shit. Atheists just go one supernatural claim further and throw out god as well. [quote]The fact that you're implying that because I have my doubts about the existence of a creator god (and I have my reasons) I also have to believe in all those things too is borderline insulting.[/quote] Unless you can provide a reason why god should be treated differently than other supernatural claims, then yes, you have to be "agnostic" about the other shit in order to be consistent. [QUOTE=OrDnAs;44132616]fuck son, first of all, i'll have to disregard every scientific concept for me to [I]even[/I] start pondering if [I]fucking leprechauns[/I] are real. Do you know any scientist that just goes "hey this shit is fucking magic" everytime he finds something that cannot be explained? Why you keep insisting on using this stupid strawman? I just don't take for granted that there is no god, because that's [I]an assertion based on faith.[/I] You aren't going to get far if you keep thinking that agnosticism is half-assed[/QUOTE] You realize that you can replace the word "leprechaun" in your post with the word "god" and you've just become an atheist. You also have to throw out all scientific concepts if you want to believe in a creator deity. This is what I'm getting at. Let me make myself clear: on a technical, semantic level, of course I am agnostic about the existence of a god. Because it is an unfalsifyable claim, there is always a chance it could be true in theory. HOWEVER, the very same if true about leprechauns, dragons, etc. They're unfalsifyable, magical claims. But you would never say you're agnostic about these things. To do so would make the concept of surety completely useless. You could never be sure of anything around you because it could [I]technically[/I] be some magical shit. Like I said before, there is always the chance that your computer monitor is actually a space demon disguising itself. There's no way you could disprove this because I could just say it's magical or undetectable or something. But you would never say that you weren't sure it wasn't a space demon.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44130728]By that logic, the term atheist is by itself meaningless too, because it doesn't convey more info than "Agnostic Atheist"[/QUOTE] No, because when someone says that he's an Atheist, he reveals his position on his personal belief (he doesn't believe in god), the term Agnostic doesn't say if he believes in God or not. So saying that you're an "Agnostic" makes no sense. Basically if someone says that he's an Atheist, we only know that he doesn't believe in God, we don't know anything about what he thinks about the evidence or God's existence.

ultimately the scientific explanation for any phenomena starts with a mathematical "leap of faith", a set of axioms we accept as true yet are unprovable, for otherwise mathematics as a system would be inconsistent. this is actually studied, it's called Gödel's incompleteness theorem. so when people say that they don't hold any beliefs it's ultimately false. there is a belief, there is always something you just have to believe in for the world to make sense. this is god in it's purest form, just constants, things that have been decided for you, things that you just know are true, boundaries which you must accept. this is not incompatible with scientific thought, in fact it's a core tenet of it. there are laws of which there are no exceptions. to anybody that calls themselves a scientist, this is all the god they need. that's all the belief of the unexplained they need. that's what ultimately agnostics are defending. the belief that god is actually there watching us and making a real impact on what happens on the earth is terribly selfish. why would anybody want to meddle with a system as complex yet constrained as the universe? how could anybody? how could any action from this omnipresent god be indistinguishable from chance? why earth even, if the universe seems so poorly designed for humans to really venture, considering the sheer amount of stuff that may wipe us out?

[QUOTE=Explosions;44132987]No we haven't. No we fucking haven't. This notion is why you haven't been understanding what we've been saying in this thread. You're treating a creator deity completely separate from other supernatural claims when they're all actually the same. Just go around the world for a while. Millions of people believe in witches. Millions of people believe in fairies. A [B]humongous[/B] amount of people believe in ghosts for some reason, even some atheists I know. We've never "proved none of these existed." Why? Because you can't! You can never prove that fairies don't exist. I already explained this over three times. You can just say "they're hiding from us with magic. Every time you get close they use a spell and disappear without a trace." It's an unfalsifyable claim. In your mind, you seem to be treating god differently than all of this for some reason and this is why you think it's OK to be agnostic about god while you can just completely dismiss the other shit. Atheists just go one supernatural claim further and throw out god as well. Unless you can provide a reason why god should be treated differently than other supernatural claims, then yes, you have to be "agnostic" about the other shit in order to be consistent. You realize that you can replace the word "leprechaun" in your post with the word "god" and you've just become an atheist. You also have to throw out all scientific concepts if you want to believe in a creator deity. This is what I'm getting at. Let me make myself clear: on a technical, semantic level, of course I am agnostic about the existence of a god. Because it is an unfalsifyable claim, there is always a chance it could be true in theory. HOWEVER, the very same if true about leprechauns, dragons, etc. They're unfalsifyable, magical claims. But you would never say you're agnostic about these things. To do so would make the concept of surety completely useless. You could never be sure of anything around you because it could [I]technically[/I] be some magical shit. Like I said before, there is always the chance that your computer monitor is actually a space demon disguising itself. There's no way you could disprove this because I could just say it's magical or undetectable or something. But you would never say that you weren't sure it wasn't a space demon.[/QUOTE] thats where you are mistaken, they arent the same. both are unfalsifable ill give you that. i dont know how can you be so naive, agnostics are not willing to give a leap of faith and claim that god does t exist. claiming that agnostics believe in the easter bunny is fallacious. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Shreddinger;44133036]No, because when someone says that he's an Atheist, he reveals his position on his personal belief (he doesn't believe in god), the term Agnostic doesn't say if he believes in God or not. So saying that you're an "Agnostic" makes no sense. Basically if someone says that he's an Atheist, we only know that he doesn't believe in God, we don't know anything about what he thinks about the evidence or God's existence.[/QUOTE] meaningless, then. according to his logic

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44132797]What a crock. Someone asks you: “Do you or do you not believe that there is at this moment a red car parked in *insert parking place you currently aren’t observing*.” You can’t give a ‘yes or no’ answer to this question because that wouldn’t accurately represent your state of knowledge. A defensible response to that question would be: “I can’t say that I believe it and I can’t say that I don’t believe it. I simply don’t know. There might very well be a red car parked there, but on the other hand there might very well not be a red car parked there.”[/QUOTE] yes, that is correct the only difference is that in this instance we are standing in the parking lot and the attendant says the reason we can't see the red car is that it's ethereal and exists on a separate plane of reality. And though he accepts this as a valid possibility and remains open to the idea that the red car may in fact be there despite being immeasurable and undetectable, he wholly dismisses the idea of green ethereal trucks and blue ethereal buses, because everyone knows those aren't real. am i being clear enough?

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44130728]By that logic, the term atheist is by itself meaningless too, because it doesn't convey more info than "Agnostic Atheist" [editline]4th March 2014[/editline] Most atheist here are acting like spergs because they don't like people identifying themselves as agnostics. [editline]4th March 2014[/editline] falklands[/QUOTE] Is this someone with the gall to call people spergs and talk about socially acceptable conversation? oh my. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=OrDnAs;44132797]What a crock. Someone asks you: “Do you or do you not believe that there is at this moment a red car parked in *insert parking place you currently aren’t observing*.” You can’t give a ‘yes or no’ answer to this question because that wouldn’t accurately represent your state of knowledge. A defensible response to that question would be: “I can’t say that I believe it and I can’t say that I don’t believe it. I simply don’t know. There might very well be a red car parked there, but on the other hand there might very well not be a red car parked there.”[/QUOTE] Cars being parked in a spot or not =/= super natural events and beings. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=OrDnAs;44133661]thats where you are mistaken, they arent the same. both are unfalsifable ill give you that. i dont know how can you be so naive, agnostics are not willing to give a leap of faith and claim that god does t exist. claiming that agnostics believe in the easter bunny is fallacious. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] meaningless, then. according to his logic[/QUOTE] And most atheists aren't making the claim god doesn't exist just that there's no reasons to believe in one.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44133987]Is this someone with the gall to call people spergs and talk about socially acceptable conversation? oh my. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] Cars being parked in a spot or not =/= super natural events and beings. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] And most atheists aren't making the claim god doesn't exist just that there's no reasons to believe in one.[/QUOTE] atheism means doesnt believe in god and i think that you guys wouldnt accept something that is false as a fact an excuse me how do i analogy. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] agnostics believe in god god is unfalsifable fairies are unfalsifable agnostics believe in crazy stuff textbook example of a formal fallacy looks like i destroyed atheism, because it is ridiculous

Being "unsure" about unfalsifiable things like god makes no sense because to be consistent you have to be unsure about many magical things. Assuming these things don't exist until proven real is rational. And if you adopt this way of thinking in relation to deities that makes you agnostic atheist, or simply atheist.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;44135843]Being "unsure" about unfalsifiable things like god makes no sense because to be consistent you have to be unsure about many magical things. Assuming these things don't exist until proven real is rational. And if you adopt this way of thinking in relation to deities that makes you agnostic atheist, or simply atheist.[/QUOTE] Silly atheist. A god is not a gnome. Stop being so arrogant

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;44135843]Being "unsure" about unfalsifiable things like god makes no sense because to be consistent you have to be unsure about many magical things. Assuming these things don't exist until proven real is rational. And if you adopt this way of thinking in relation to deities that makes you agnostic atheist, or simply atheist.[/QUOTE] I don't know about OrDnAs but that's what I'm doing. I don't believe but I also don't deny the possibility. Ok, maybe I should've said "Agnostic Atheist" from the start because that's the correct term, sorry about that. But if any of you imply that in order to adopt that way of thinking (which I'm also assuming most of you have) I have to believe in a bunch of crazy shit then fuck off. Yes I'm agnostic when it comes to SOME of those things, but I won't believe any of that crap exists until proven wrong, just like I do with a creator god.

[QUOTE=Manibogi;44136467]I don't know about OrDnAs but that's what I'm doing. I don't believe but I also don't deny the possibility. Ok, maybe I should've said "Agnostic Atheist" from the start because that's the correct term, sorry about that. [b]But if any of you imply that in order to adopt that way of thinking (which I'm also assuming most of you have) I have to believe in a bunch of crazy shit then fuck off.[/b] Yes I'm agnostic when it comes to SOME of those things, but I won't believe any of that crap exists until proven wrong, just like I do with a creator god.[/QUOTE] Nobody said you have to believe anything. I've been saying that if you are agnostic or "uncertain" about god's existence, then you also have to be agnostic about the existence of other supernatural things [b]in order to be consistent[/b].

[QUOTE=Explosions;44136569]Nobody said you have to believe anything. I've been saying that if you are agnostic or "uncertain" about god's existence, then you also have to be agnostic about the existence of other supernatural things [b]in order to be consistent[/b].[/QUOTE] Fine, I misread all of that. I guess I'll have to swallow my ego for once.

[QUOTE]"... they go to a doctor and the doctor busts their ass and does open-heart surgery and then, you know, they wake up and they're like 'Oh thank Jesus!' - no, thank the doctor and thank science! Science, for helping save your life, and not god, if you wanna thank God for intervening then maybe you should take a closer look at Africa and figure out why in the hell he doesn't like the Africans!"[/QUOTE] I cannot even put into words how much I agree with this. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] Oh my god, whatever you do, do NOT read the comment section!

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44133661]thats where you are mistaken, they arent the same. both are unfalsifable ill give you that. i dont know how can you be so naive, agnostics are not willing to give a leap of faith and claim that god does t exist. claiming that agnostics believe in the easter bunny is fallacious.[/QUOTE] You haven't explained this yet. I want to know why god and the easter bunny aren't on the same playing field. Also nobody's said that agnostics believe in anything. They're just inconsistent unless they're also agnostic about the easter bunny.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44136991]You haven't explained this yet. I want to know why god and the easter bunny aren't on the same playing field. Also nobody's said that agnostics believe in anything. They're just inconsistent unless they're also agnostic about the easter bunny.[/QUOTE] Look I understand your point but you're making ridiculous examples. It's the fucking easter bunny, you can't be agnostic about it because we know for sure it doesn't exist. You were doing well with the ghost example or even the fairy one. Why change to the fucking easter bunny.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44136415]Silly atheist. A god is not a gnome. Stop being so arrogant[/QUOTE] Okay explain then why you're unsure about unfalsifiable god but you're sure unfalsifiable gnomes don't exist? What's the difference. Explain yourself. Personal insults don't count. [QUOTE=Manibogi;44136467]I don't know about OrDnAs but that's what I'm doing. I don't believe but I also don't deny the possibility. Ok, maybe I should've said "Agnostic Atheist" from the start because that's the correct term, sorry about that. But if any of you imply that in order to adopt that way of thinking (which I'm also assuming most of you have) I have to believe in a bunch of crazy shit then fuck off. Yes I'm agnostic when it comes to SOME of those things, but I won't believe any of that crap exists until proven wrong, just like I do with a creator god.[/QUOTE] I have explained this. It's one thing to assume and act like X doesn't exist but give yourself room for the possibility that your assumption is wrong, and it's something completely different going there's "there is no way of knowing so it's 50/50". If you're the former then nothing we've said was about you basically. But if you are the latter, then you do have to go "we can't know if gnomes, tooth fairy and unicorns exist or not, so it's 50/50" in order [U]to be consistent.[/U]

[QUOTE=Manibogi;44137011]Look I understand your point but you're making ridiculous examples. It's the fucking easter bunny, you can't be agnostic about it because we know for sure it doesn't exist. You were doing well with the ghost example or even the fairy one. Why change to the fucking easter bunny.[/QUOTE] how exactly do we know that?

[QUOTE=Manibogi;44137011]Look I understand your point but you're making ridiculous examples. It's the fucking easter bunny, you can't be agnostic about it because we know for sure it doesn't exist. You were doing well with the ghost example or even the fairy one. Why change to the fucking easter bunny.[/QUOTE] Stop concentrating on the examples, every example could have been replaced with "unfalsifiable magical entity".

[QUOTE=Explosions;44136991]You haven't explained this yet. I want to know why god and the easter bunny aren't on the same playing field. Also nobody's said that agnostics believe in anything. They're just inconsistent unless they're also agnostic about the easter bunny.[/QUOTE] A creator is on another level than a little humanoid that goes after your tooth. Apply occams razor to any supernatural creatures. You don't need to believe in preposterous things to be ~consistent~

[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;44071979]I tend to refer to myself as agnostic because I feel like sometimes 'atheist' has connotations to those really obnoxious militant atheist "hahaha look at all these dumbo christian sheeple" types[/QUOTE] that's a stupid reason to call yourself a completely different faith set from the one you actually follow just say you aren't religious

[QUOTE=Explosions;44136991]You haven't explained this yet. I want to know why god and the easter bunny aren't on the same playing field. Also nobody's said that agnostics believe in anything. They're just inconsistent unless they're also agnostic about the easter bunny.[/QUOTE] R u say in religis ppl beleve in the ester bunny? Haha that's logical phallusy checkmate athiest

Then there's people like this (not sure if offtopic, he also made a video calling out this girl): [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz8o-NFG5KQ[/media]

Theres also atheist that believe in ghosts. This has just been a silly semantics argument

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44137284]A creator is on another level than a little humanoid that goes after your tooth. Apply occams razor to any supernatural creatures. You don't need to believe in preposterous things to be ~consistent~[/QUOTE] In terms of unfalsifiability they're on the same playing field. [editline]5th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=OrDnAs;44137328]Theres also atheist that believe in ghosts. This has just been a silly semantics argument[/QUOTE] Okay? Those atheists are dumb.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44137284]A creator is on another level than a little humanoid that goes after your tooth. Apply occams razor to any supernatural creatures. You don't need to believe in preposterous things to be ~consistent~[/QUOTE] i would argue that a god, by virtue of being infinitely more powerful and infinitely more complex, is in fact far more improbable then something like the tooth fairy at least if we're going by occam's razor. logically they're both equally improbable. occam's razor is kinda dumb.

[QUOTE=Falubii;44137329] Okay? Those atheists are dumb.[/QUOTE] Technically, existence of ghosts does not have to relate to existence of god.

[QUOTE=gufu;44137386]Technically, existence of ghosts does not have to relate to existence of god.[/QUOTE] True but the level of evidence for both is about the same.

[QUOTE=OrDnAs;44137284]A creator is on another level than a little humanoid that goes after your tooth. Apply occams razor to any supernatural creatures. You don't need to believe in preposterous things to be ~consistent~[/QUOTE] Explain to me why. You've just been saying this over and over without explaining why a creator is on another level.

[QUOTE=Falubii;44137414]True but the level of evidence for both is about the same.[/QUOTE] I dunno, I've never seen one grainy photo of God.