Atheists vs. Agnostics

[sharkman]

I don't think monkeys are dumb enough to make friendly with coconuts, they are much more likely to fling poo. Which is what some on this thread have tended to do rather than consider that they might not have any more proof of no God then that He exists. Fling away.

[myata]

Andrew, it's like watching monkeys copulate coconuts, I know, but reason doesn't work with the unreasonable.

I see you have little doubt in your absolute rightfullness. That's somewhat (or a lot) reminiscent of the very things you were trying to negate.

[cybercoma]

Rightfulness about what exactly? That religious teachings about science and the age of the planet and species is completely wrong? Or are you assuming that I'm saying that there certainly is no God? I've never claimed anything with certainty, other than the fact that there certainly is no proof for the existence of God and it's rather idiotic to believe in things without evidence.

There's no evidence either way for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as has been said earlier, but the default position is not to believe in it until it's proven wrong. We rightfully demand that people support their beliefs with logic and reason or any bit of evidence, unless it's God or religion. The wild claims made by the religious are completely unsubstantiated, and there are plenty of their ideas that HAVE been disproved.

Now with regards to a specific question as to whether or not a deity exists, it doesn't matter. There is no evidence for its existence, so it is completely irrelevant and so are any teachings regarding deities. Just as belief in fairies, sasquatch, ghosts, alien encounters, out of body experiences, etc. are completely irrelevant without any substantial evidence, logic or reason to believe in them.

To say that by default we should believe in something is asinine at best. Thor has not been disproven, yet none of you are claiming that people have respect for the teaching of Thor. The default is not to believe in something until evidence is provided for that something's existence.

[myata]

My, it must be really hard to realize that:

1) there could be someone else who does not think exactly like you;

2) that you cannot pursuade them to think like you, and they can't make you think like them;

3) that because of the above you either accept that you both are right in at least some way or declare each other anathema;

4) with all the obvious consequences...

Keep trying.

[cybercoma]

1) Right.

2) Yes and No. I'm persuaded by facts, evidence, logic and reason. Some people refuse to accept reason.

3) No. It comes down to the fact that without any substantial evidence for belief, you're likely to be entirely wrong.

[myata]

OK, I give up. No, one last try: look yourself up in the mirror. Now imagine yourself, with the same uncompromising power of self righteousness, except firmly grounded in Islam, Hindu or any other religion of your choice. Now, attempt to pursuade your (other) self in the benefits of progress, evolution and atheism. Please report the result here.

[cybercoma]

You've yet to establish how refusing to make the leap of faith of believing things without evidence is self-righteous. What I would consider self-righteous is making claims about science that are completely wrong, and imposing those ideas on children to young to defend themselves. Refusing to believe in these wild claims, that's not self-righteous. That's refusing to be pulled into self-righteous idiocy.

[Riverwind]

You've yet to establish how refusing to make the leap of faith of believing things without evidence is self-righteous.

Science is a tool - not an end in itself. Science, by definition, can only explain things that can be verified with physical experiments. Metaphysics concerns itself with issues that are beyond the scope of science and it is self-righteous to insist that metaphysical belief systems must be supported by science. It is also self-righteous to claim that atheism is a superior metaphysical belief system.

[cybercoma]

Religious belief about God very much trespasses on the territory of the natural physical world. It addresses things such as the origin of our species and the cosmos in a manner that is completely incorrect. How is this a one-way street? When religion makes wild claims about science and our understanding of the universe, why can't its claims be examined, tested and thoroughly debunked?

If you want to break it down to the simple question "Is there a God?" That's something different entirely. It can only be answered in probabilities, unless you're relying on faith. The choice is then made to put 100% belief into something with 0% evidence. Blind faith is stupid, regardless the subject.

[ScottSA]

Religious belief about God very much trespasses on the territory of the natural physical world. It addresses things such as the origin of our species and the cosmos in a manner that is completely incorrect. How is this a one-way street? When religion makes wild claims about science and our understanding of the universe, why can't its claims be examined, tested and thoroughly debunked?

If you want to break it down to the simple question "Is there a God?" That's something different entirely. It can only be answered in probabilities, unless you're relying on faith. The choice is then made to put 100% belief into something with 0% evidence. Blind faith is stupid, regardless the subject.

Something atheists will never be able to fathom is the idea that science has the answer to everything. As far as they are concerned, things are simple and confined to the observable and the sensual.

[ScottSA]

There's no evidence either way for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as has been said earlier, but the default position is not to believe in it until it's proven wrong. We rightfully demand that people support their beliefs with logic and reason or any bit of evidence, unless it's God or religion. The wild claims made by the religious are completely unsubstantiated, and there are plenty of their ideas that HAVE been disproved.

Well, this is a perfect example of why this argument will always go in circles. Your position here is tantamount to the other side claiming that the bible must be true, and offering as proof that the Bibile says it's true. You're doing the same thing in reverse. You're claiming that in spite of all sorts of spiritual evidence, it must be measured against observable scientific criteria, and since it can't be, it must not be true. It's hogwash. I wish atheists had just a bit more logic to their mental processes.

[Riverwind]

Religious belief about God very much trespasses on the territory of the natural physical world. It addresses things such as the origin of our species and the cosmos in a manner that is completely incorrect.

It is equally wrong to take metaphysical beliefs and use them to intrude into the domain where science is the most effective tool. The overwhelming majority of theists accept the principals of science when it comes to the natural world. The evolution deniers will happily take machines that have been developed using the principals defined by evolution.

How is this a one-way street? When religion makes wild claims about science and our understanding of the universe, why can't its claims be examined, tested and thoroughly debunked?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Blind faith is stupid, regardless the subject.

That statement illustrates the dogmatism of atheism. Blind faith is fundemental to human existance. Most successful people have become successful because they had 'blind faith' even when all of the evidence told them they would surely fail.