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.