Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[Michael Hardner]

there is no reason to conclude that something exists unless one has evidence to think that it does, and there is every reason to conclude that something does not exist if there is no evidence of its existence.

But to be sure that it doesn't exist... that isn't supported and is therefore akin to believing in God. Keeping in mind, also, that it's not just "God" but the entire supporting logic - spirit worlds and so on - that are implied by belief in God.

[Bonam]

But to be sure that it doesn't exist... that isn't supported and is therefore akin to believing in God.

No. One can be sure of the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence while still being capable of realizing that it exists if evidence of its existence ever arises. I am sure that there are not 1000 faeries inside my drawer. If, however, upon opening my drawer, I discover 1000 faeries, then I will realize that they exist. There is no reason to think that god exists unless one has evidence of god's existence. There's no more to it than that no matter how one tries to spin the semantics.

Keeping in mind, also, that it's not just "God" but the entire supporting logic - spirit worlds and so on - that are implied by belief in God.

Not sure of the relevance of this. Atheism equally rejects all mystical notions whether they are related to the existence of a supernatural entity or to the existence of worlds inhabited by supernatural entities. These are both rejected due to the lack of evidence for their existence.

[wyly]

Atheism is simply rejection of mysticism. To be an atheist is to deal only with that which is rational, perceivable, and knowable. There is no belief or faith involved.

In regards to the earlier discussion: the rejection of absurd beliefs that have no basis is not an act of faith, it is an act of reason.

sums up my thoughts on it perfectly... better stated than I managed...

[bush_cheney2004]

No. One can be sure of the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence while still being capable of realizing that it exists if evidence of its existence ever arises. I am sure that there are not 1000 faeries inside my drawer. If, however, upon opening my drawer, I discover 1000 faeries, then I will realize that they exist.

OK....but to be more precise, you will perceive that they exist. This may or may not constitute "evidence". If authenticated by others, your proof of existence will increase, but it is still not a certainty. The state of "existence" is subject to the same tests as "god".

[Bonam]

OK....but to be more precise, you will perceive that they exist. This may or may not constitute "evidence". If authenticated by others, your proof of existence will increase, but it is still not a certainty. The state of "existence" is subject to the same tests as "god".

Sensory perception is the means by which humans can perceive reality, and their faculty of reason is the means by which they can understand it. It is enough to perceive something with your senses to be able to conclude that it is real. There can be no stronger evidence than that provided to you by your senses (whether used directly or enhanced through the use of scientific instruments). The reality of the existence of something is not a popularity constant, its existence is not determined by a poll which asks people whether they think it exists. Authentication by others is not necessary to establish reality; the collective is not involved in deciding what is real and what is not.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sensory perception is the means by which humans can perceive reality, and their faculty of reason is the means by which they can understand it. It is enough to perceive something with your senses to be able to conclude that it is real. There can be no stronger evidence than that provided to you by your senses (whether used directly or enhanced through the use of scientific instruments).

No...sensory perception is not infallible....it is personal and can be manipulated.

The reality of the existence of something is not a popularity constant, its existence is not determined by a poll which asks people whether they think it exists. Authentication by others is not necessary to establish reality; the collective is not involved in deciding what is real and what is not.

Accordingly, you will adamantly maintain that life does not exist in any other place in the universe, as there is no "evidence of existence"?

[Bonam]

Accordingly, you will adamantly maintain that life does not exist in any other place in the universe, as there is no "evidence of existence"?

I would say that there is in fact strong evidence for its existence. This evidence arises from using one's senses (augmented by scientific instruments) to observe the universe and realize that it very likely contains countless trillions of planets, observing what conditions are necessary for life (as exemplified on Earth), and using reason to conclude that the probability of similar conditions arising elsewhere in the universe is significant.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bonam

[Bonam]

No...sensory perception is not infallible....it is personal and can be manipulated.

It does not need to be infallible. It is simply the best method of perceiving reality that humans have.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

I would say that there is in fact strong evidence for its existence. This evidence arises from using one's senses (augmented by scientific instruments) to observe the universe and realize that it very likely contains countless trillions of planets, observing what conditions are necessary for life (as exemplified on Earth), and using reason to conclude that the probability of similar conditions arising elsewhere in the universe is significant.

No...you are using logic and indirect evidence, but it does not meet your earlier, more stringent definition [Doesn't exist until proven to exist].

Obviously I chose an example that both appeals to and challenges your position.

Edited March 31, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Like I said previously. I have a hard time even calling Deism a religion.

That is closest to what I am, (I believe in God, but nothing else), and I don't consider myself religious.

[Oleg Bach]

you're born, you live, you die, the end...I have no delusions concerning death, I accept it...carpe diem...

Nor do I. There is an ancient mention regarding the second death...the first death is what you are before you are born..dead for all intent and purpose...life is to prepare you for the second death..natural death.." The second death will not hurt you." WHO really knows about death..no one has experienced it has ever reported back..so it's a hopeful mystery..but we are similar to vegatation that grows and dies..we are a generational biology...with the mind and spirit that can regenerate...usually through genetics. BUT it may be more than than that. WE may have passed away and been reborn a thousand times. What is comforting as you get old like a dog is that you don't give a shit near the end..it's a built in thing.

[Bonam]

No...you are using logic and indirect evidence, but it does not meet your earlier, more stringent definition [Doesn't exist until proven to exist].

Obviously I chose an example that both appeals to and challenges your position.

I never said something doesn't exist until it is proven to exist. I said something doesn't exist while there is no reasonable evidence to support its existence. Many things in science are only hypothetical, and very well may exist, though their existence is not yet proven. The evidence for their existence arises from indirect observation and reason. Like I said, humans have two faculties to perceive and understand reality: perception and reason, which must be used in combination.

In scientific terms, these are: experiment and theory. Both are valid ways of arriving at knowledge in science, and have the greatest validity when theory and experiment agree.

I see no contradiction with my earlier position.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

I never said something doesn't exist until it is proven to exist. I said something doesn't exist while there is no reasonable evidence to support its existence. Many things in science are only hypothetical, and very well may exist, though their existence is not yet proven.

Excellent! Your clarification is not only welcomed, but an important opening for our "Believing Brethren". Their protocol for existence is only slightly less credible than that for the Higgs boson.

The evidence for their existence arises from indirect observation and reason. Like I said, humans have two faculties to perceive and understand reality: perception and reason, which must be used in combination.

Understood, but my contention is that human logic and/or reason do not sanction existence. Existence is independent of hominids.

I see no contradiction with my earlier position.

OK...but can you observe that your earlier position (clarified for me) leaves the barn door open for other human experiences being perceived as "god" or "god-like" artifacts?

[Bonam]

Excellent! Your clarification is not only welcomed, but an important opening for our "Believing Brethren". Their protocol for existence is only slightly less credible than that for the Higgs boson.

OK...but can you observe that your earlier position (clarified for me) leaves the barn door open for other human experiences being perceived as "god" or "god-like" artifacts?

There is compelling evidence for the Higgs boson since it is the one undiscovered particle of the standard model, which otherwise serves as an excellent explanation of particle physics. If the Higgs boson does not exist, then the standard model is wrong, but we have strong reason to believe that it is correct, at least within the realm of energy ranges and space-time scales that we have so far explored scientifically.

In comparison, my position would be that there is no compelling evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural entities. Hence, to my view, it does not "open the door" to our "believing brethren". However, if they had compelling evidence of the existence of a supernatural entity, then I would be willing to consider that evidence and perhaps change my stance in regards to it.

Understood, but my contention is that human logic and/or reason do not sanction existence. Existence is independent of hominids.

You are correct: existence exists, independent of what people may think about it, at least on an intuitive level, this is much less cut and dry once you consider quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics tells us that phenomena are actually very dependent on whether or not they are observed.

But we are not really talking about what exists, but rather what individual humans believe to exist or not to exist. That which cannot be or has not been observed cannot be deemed to exist. Before people theorized about and observed quarks, for example, there was no debate about the existence or non existence of quarks. It was simply not something that could be discussed, since the very concept of quarks had not yet entered our reality.

There are no doubt countless things which we have not yet discovered, and to us they do not exist, because we have no idea what they are and thus cannot even think about them. They are not yet a part of the reality that we can comprehend.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

In comparison, my position would be that there is no compelling evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural entities. Hence, to my view, it does not "open the door" to our "believing brethren". However, if they had compelling evidence of the existence of a supernatural entity, then I would be willing to consider that evidence and perhaps change my stance in regards to it.

There are two problems with this of course:

1) the very language (mathematics) of science is nursed and guarded by the same sort of high priests

2) "supernatural" is a disparaging term in and of itself, especially if it can only be "natural" after certification by our senses and reason.

...There are no doubt countless things which we have not yet discovered, and to us they do not exist, because we have no idea what they are and thus cannot even think about them. They are not yet a part of the reality that we can comprehend.

...and this in large part is the very same position of the deists/theists. We know there are unknowns, so the possibilities are unbounded. Ergo, one cannot declare with 100% certainty for all others that "god" does not exist.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ergo, one cannot declare with 100% certainty for all others that "god" does not exist.

One cannot declare with 100% certainty anything does or does not exsist.

[bush_cheney2004]

One cannot declare with 100% certainty anything does or does not exsist.

Of course they can...for themselves only. People do this all the time.

[Bonam]

...and this in large part is the very same position of the deists/theists. We know there are unknowns, so the possibilities are unbounded. Ergo, one cannot declare with 100% certainty for all others that "god" does not exist.

I declare for myself only. Others can think as they wish.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Of course they can...for themselves only. People do this all the time.

Then they are wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

I declare for myself only. Others can think as they wish.

Agreed...."God" could get off a bus in Buffalo, NY and announce his existence. I would just change the channel.

[scorpio]

Atheism is in and of itself a relgion of its own.

So I don't believe in UFO's. Is that a religion now?

[Jack Weber]

Another question: I have a friend who believes in pagan spirits but not in monotheism. What is she ? Be nice...

Pagan...Animist....

[wyly]

WE may have passed away and been reborn a thousand times.

I doubt that but I like the optimism that would be cool...

What is comforting as you get old like a dog is that you don't give a shit near the end..it's a built in thing.

dying young not fair...but as I get older it's becoming less frightening and I'm accepting of the reality and as the old injuries that I thought had healed come back I'm starting to look forward to it...

[wyly]

One cannot declare with 100% certainty anything does or does not exsist.

with 100% certainty I know that I exist, the earth exists, gravity exists, that light exists...with 100% certainty I know that there is no Easter bunny, tooth fairy, Santa Claus nor any god of any sort...an absence of evidence is not evidence...

[wyly]

So I don't believe in UFO's. Is that a religion now?

apparently so...