Null is the natural state. Atheists who assert there is no God pull to the negative side. Believers who assert God exists pull to the positive side. Two out off the three have no proof for their claims.
Atheism is the natural state. Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in the supernatural, not the assertion that there is no God. My dog is an atheist. My bird is. My cat is. Accept it. The end.
And why the hell should the negative side NEED PROOF? You CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE, ONLY FIND EVIDENCE that shows strongly against it. It is ONLY the positive side that needs to show that God exists.
the furthest Dawkins has gone towards atheism is saying "God almost certainly does not exist." It is impossible to claim God does not exist exactly because there is no proof. Therefore, it is more prudent to be Agnostic than Atheistic.
Do you not realize how illogical leaving in a chance for a supernatural cause of the universe is? There is not one single supernatural occurrence in our universe that we have seen, and everything that has been claimed to be supernatural has been shown to be otherwise with science. Furthermore, the universe looks exactly how it should if there were no God.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-17 3:36 ID:2BkEWTjF
It's funny watching the unenlightened run our like the children they are.
>>14 unny watching the unenlightened run around like the children they are.
fix'd
Don't you just hate being interupted while in the middle of typing something...
well, i give you credit for criticizing the patron saint of the unbelievers. still, you are being irrational in closing the door on the possibility of God. scientific method only directs you not to draw any conclusions.
Then you're irrational for not believing there is a floating teapot in orbit around earth. (im sure youve heard the argument)
Furthermore, it is perfectly logical with the evidence we have gathered of natural processes to say that God is not responsible for anything. People who realize this completely rule him out.
Sure, I'll agree with that. There's no evidence of God anywhere on Earth or even in our entire observable universe. But how does that equal being able to confidently say God cannot exist? It doesn't so I'm agnostic.
This is simply another argument concerning the burden of proof. It always ends the same way. If you want to believe there is a God simply because we cannot prove a negative, then do so. But any rational person who is not satisfied with that stance will realize that the evidence and prevalence of natural explanations is good enough today to rule out God as a possibility.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-17 4:07 ID:XU2Kpp2Y
So no string theory or 5th dimension or higher got it! As lets rule out the 90% of the universe we can't account for because there will never be a test for that in our lifetimes.
Any theist today must lie or believe in a God who tricks his creationists.
If you want to believe that God is hiding somewhere in the universe, then do so. Don't get mad at me when I laugh at you, though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-17 4:11 ID:DvabTGCf
Agnosticism is the mature stance, because agnostics understand the futility of these discussions and know that metaphysical claims of a God can neither be proven nor disproven.
Logical Positivism is where it's at, when someone says God to me, as an agnostic it doesn't mean anything. To an atheist it would be something which does not exist, but to me, it simply is a meaningless statement which is neither verifiable or unverifiable, thus any conversation of a "God" doesn't hold meaning.
Most atheists I know are atheists because their parents made them go to church or they disagree with some politician telling them they shouldn't be playing violent video games. Some atheists even do stupid things like placing emphasis on things such as Satanism and whatever rebellious shit they can pull just to turn heads.
I know not all atheists are like that, and some even have ethics and morals, but the one's I've encountered where I live are smarmy people who don't believe they should behave as "the sheeple" behave, and thus have no morals or ethics because they believe all morals and ethics are fundamentally linked to theology.
Anything that society tells them they shouldn't be, they are.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-17 4:15 ID:7tQ/yY4j
The question "does god exist" is not a vlid question. Stop wasteing time arguing about it, any conclution you arrive at is and always will be a failure. agnostic is the way
Everything I said in that post was true of the scientific method. Intellectually lazy? Do you want me to type a fucking paragraph about it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-17 4:39 ID:XU2Kpp2Y
>>36
yes, with sources to prove your contention that science allows closing the doors on anything
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-17 4:46 ID:R/ma28b4
Well too bad, I'm not going to give you a fucking paragraph or sources. It goes like this:
This stove is fucking hot. I wonder why. Oh, look, it was on. It it safe to say that the cause of the stove being hot was that the stove is on. There is no evidence that there are faeries inside of the stove causing heat. Therefore, I can rule that conclusion out.
LMAO at you claiming to know scientific method then completely ignoring it to "prove" your lazy, half-assed contention. Fuck you faggot. If you haven't already done so, I can't wait till you drop out of your shit college and get a job bagging groceries.
You're in deep denial. I gave you an example of what scientists do on the most BASIC LEVEL. Go stink up some other thread with arguments from ignorance, cockgobbler.
I also love how you add tons of unnecessary ad hominem shit to your post whenever you dont even know what you're talking about.
funny thing is they always talk out of their assholes. Sure the free market is good at a lot of things. We can all agree on that. But that idea is a pathetic hollow shell to build a national party around.
>>48
As opposed to socialists who are close minded and over intellectualise what few facts they do accept into some crazy unrealistic dystopia?
Libertarians are like agnostics because both are scientifically minded, a consequence of being open minded is that you can only say you know what you can prove and you cannot jump to conclusions. You can spurt hypothesis and suppositions around over everyone's faces like a sprinkler system, you just can't can't start placing insane unsubstantiated demands apon everyone.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-18 9:58 ID:fb5gdf1+
>>53
1) Agnostics are not scientific minded. In science something has to be proven to be taken for truth. As long as it is not proven it is not true, ie ufos are assumed not to exist, stargate sg01 is assumed NOT to be a accurate depiction of ancient egypt, the loch ness monster is assumed not to exist etc. God is assumed not to exist, plus there is no need for him anyway, there is yet a question that cant be answered by anything other than a diety of any form. Agnostics are liek 10 year old wannabe philosophers with no real problems to solve who invent soemthing that makes them interesting. Well, you fail at life.
2) Libertarians are not scientific minded because they neglect every empirical fact that does not support their position (which is a safe non-position to start with) and creates strawmen out of everything else. While agnosticism is some nerds way to seem interesting libertarianism is the political idiots way to seem to have a catch-all solution. In complex systems there are never any easy answers, something that is true in one part is not true in another etc and simple principle-politics does not apply to human modern society. But since the libertarian will take any critisism as over intellectualisation from right wing well fare socialist nazis the point is moot. Try to convince your dog that a cat is fine too, that will be easier.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-18 11:43 ID:it/Zf7qI
>>54
1) You make the same mistake as creationists when they say "EVOLUTION IS JUST A THEORY". Theories are assumptions made to explain trends seen in the facts. No greater example of why this axiom of scientific method is necessary is classical physics and the emergence of quantum physics.
Saying "Classical physics is correct." is different from saying "Within it's range of accuracy, classical physics is correct.".
Saying "God does not exist." is different from saying "From what we have hitherto seen there is no direct evidence of God's existence.".
2) By criticising the ignorance of facts and use of fallacies in others you blatantly make the fallacy of believing personality assassination proves what they are saying is wrong. I don't care about the actions of a minority of libertarians, anyone who has been on 4chan already knows there are assholes in every group. We are putting libertarianism on trial here, not libertarians. The only argument presented is the idea that a law that works in one country may not work in another. I disagree, whilst this is true for some laws this is only because the environment is different.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-18 15:06 ID:anYNn2Yl
All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, and false and meaningless in some sense.
eg. God exists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-18 15:36 ID:bUM4rOtn
God only accepts true faith in him and Satan only accepts true faith in him. There is no in between so make up your mind agnostics.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-18 15:47 ID:4Lh3KnQ+
>>57
You're either with us or against us, eh? Doesn't work that way.
You can believe in a God without those BS "holy" books.
In practice it's pretty much like Atheism but it's above that immature "GOD DOESN'T DO MAGICKS FOR ME SO THERE'S NO GOD".
Deism is just as bad as theism. And its even worse that youre treating the ideology like a sports team. Also, Atheists don't do say that shit, they say "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD SO HE DOESNT EXIST."
Trust me, deism doesn't last for long. I used to call myself one for about a week until I went back to agnosticism and then Atheism for good.
I think there's even more harm in telling people everything is fine, that's an even greater crime because it sedates them to disregard physical realities.
No, the weak-minded pussies who can't stomach reality will commit mass suicide. The rest of us will be better off for it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-19 4:29 ID:oN7w5Y4A
>>74
Or they'll become greedy assholes in a desperate attempt to make what little life they have left worth living and fuck your shit up.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-19 5:34 ID:6rq36jiC
the face fence sitting of moses
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-19 9:40 ID:Rmx1jeKC
>>55
1) No. I assume that as long as god is not proven, he does not exist. Its exactly the same as saying "god doesnt exist". When there´s one thread of circumstantial evidence that says that god may exist, i go into the mode saying "i dont believe god exist but i dont know". Until then there is no reason to give the god hypothesis any effort or credence what so ever. This is different from evolution where there have been enigmas (suicide and sacrifice, group evolution etc), but through good use of the scientific method these questions have been answered in a satisfying manner. The level of proofability you demand is impossible to attain and therefore meaningless, which by coincidence agnosticism also is.
2)First, describe how a law can be detached from its environment. And fyi, laws =/= universal etchic principles, so killing is wrong is not a law but the latter.
Secondly, libertarians has trolled this site incessantly and their own personal failures has been intimatly connected with their ideology of fail. Even gazing beying 4chan, what is my greatest impression of libertarianism? They dont believe in global warming nor second hand smoking but when they are wrong they are too arogant to admit failure. That is annoying. And so are you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-19 19:09 ID:6txgPG/M
In 1987, a young woman named Holly Ackerman was killed in a bizarre cult ritual. Now that you have read her name, she will come to you in the night and pay you a horrifying visit. You MUST do the following:
There is no fence sitting because individual religious conflict is not a matter of taking sides.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 3:12 ID:I0Gey7VE
>>79
Truth. I've heard so many times from atheists that they "are the only ones who listen to reason", yet they refuse to accept such simple logic. Are they afraid of losing converts to agnosticism? What a retarded way of thinking especially for people who claim the world is a better place without religion.
Fuck off, band-wagoner. You agnostics love to demonize belief without evidence. You, too, would deny that there is a snake with ten dicks extruding from its scales exists under your beds. Do you believe it is irrational to believe so? Absolutely not (I hope). This is the same thing atheists do with God. Why should God be any more credible of a claim than a snake under your bed with ten dicks?
It is a coward's position. A man sits on the fence so he can be exempt from criticism, while he spits at the two opposing sides below for having an opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 4:41 ID:I0Gey7VE
>>82
Atheists are beginning to refer to "converts to agnosticism" now, I was merely quoting them. I didn't deem it necesssary to use quotation marks as I believed no one here was ignorant enough not to realise that atheism had turned into a religion without realising.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 5:06 ID:U+9WDUU1
>>86
On the other hand, taking a side just for the sake of taking a side, is plain egoistic and naive. You're saying that there is only 2 sides to everything. You sound like taking a side is for the sake of spitting at each other.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 5:16 ID:qpnY5j7C
>>87
Use simple logic. What is the difference between a religion and a belief. Churches and clergy. Does atheism have this? No. So, atheism is NOT a religion, no matter how retarded some of them seem. Something being a religion is not a slur, its descriptive, and in atheism case its just not right. For a fence-shitting pussy you seem to spit more in one direction than the other, confirming my prejudice that agnostics are christians who are to coward to admit their christianity and tries to find some clever highground where they can keep their safety blanket yet still not seem like idiots who believe in elfs and unucorns. Well, you fail as always.
Perhaps it is so that we all take a stance on the issue for the sake of taking the stance. I see no reason why this is "egotistic and naive", it is simply human nature to defend one's possessions (beliefs included) when they are threatened.
There is obviously 2 sides in the conflict I refer to - theism and atheism. Not once did I imply two sides to every conflict.
Zealously or extremism is just a description of a mindset that has protruded or extruded from the center of the spectrum of an issue. The middle of the spectrum is obviously neutral, having no bias towards one mindset. Agnostics fondly label themselves at the middle of this spectrum, but I disagree. They are just as zealous as any other side of the spectrum - but with an heir of superiority. They claim the two other views on the spectrum are foolish for arguing - but they themselves have created a new view/mindset by doing so. It is made clear by the mass of agnostics who label themselves as the enlightened ones.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 6:07 ID:psh2R9q0
^^^^ this is why i think you and all your religions are fucked up.
stfu agnostics, you can take my dick in the ear before i listen to anymore of your shit too. same for those theists(?!).
jesus, mohammad, buddha, moses, all of them would be fucking ashamed of the lot of ya.
Is that so? Then why is it said Siddartha was born after some elephant fucked his mother or something silly like that?
Oh, and it is also said that when he was born, the trees moved to support him.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 17:28 ID:SERd2Kje
I consider myself an agnostic. It's not that I can't decide whether or not to believe if a god, it's just that I don't care either way.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 17:45 ID:z3tEkTva
I myself am an atheist, but I respect Buddhism greatly. I could never give up my material possessions as a lifestyle though.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-20 18:20 ID:yxEnXMMh
In 1987, a young woman named Holly Ackerman was killed in a bizarre cult ritual. Now that you have read her name, she will come to you in the night and pay you a horrifying visit. You MUST do the following: