by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
A few pages back I thought you were genuine Flamegrilled.
I am finding it difficult to maintain that generous opinon.
For the second time...
You seem to be saying that drowning a quarter of a million people and devastating the lives of 5 million others is a loving thing to do if we look at it as part of a bigger picture. Without launching into a sermon, what is the big picture? Please try to be specific and succinct.
Flamegrilled, if you have a point to make, then make it. What you were saying previously didn't make sense and it still doesn't with an analogy.
Cofty, a simple question:
Do you believe the position of agnosticism is logically-valid and sound?
A simple 'YES' or 'NO' answer will suffice....
(And just so we're clear: I'm defining 'agnosticism' as the default position of being undecided on the belief in God, claiming there's just not information to decide, either way. Thus, the agnostic isn't willing to publicly state a claim to others, either for or against the existence of God (of course, we're ALL born as agnostics), and remains 'undecided'.
The agnostic hears the theist's arguments in support of God's existence, and the theist is given an opportunity to provide evidence to convince the agnostic; however, the agnostic doesn't consider the evidence to be compelling (i.e. the theist failed to meet his 'burden of proof'); therefore, the agnostic rejects the theist's claim, and remains 'undecided', citing a lack of evidence.
A similar opportunity is given to the proselytizing atheist, trying to convince the agnostic to accept his position that God doesn't exist. But after hearing him out, the agnostic feels the atheist ALSO failed to provide sufficent compelling evidence to support NOT believing in God, and rejects his claim, too. Hence he remains undecided, unconvinced, still citing the lack of compelling knowledge or evidence needed to make a rational decision on the matter.)
Adam
A similar opportunity is made for the prostlytizing atheist, given an opportunity to convince the agnostic to accept his position
If somebody rejects the theist's grandiose claims they are already an atheist.
I know pedantic debates about semantics are your favourite topic so please make your point succinctly.
Please don't put things in a quote box if it isn't a quote.
"Pedantic"? Cofty, these are the most-basic definitions of terms used when discussing theology, so stop being obtuse and just answer the question, YES or NO.
Heck, feel free to take the opportunity to explain your answer, either way....
A simple 'YES' or 'NO' answer will suffice....
(And just so we're clear: I'm defining 'agnosticism' as the default position of being undecided on the belief in God, claiming there's just not information to decide, either way. Thus, the agnostic isn't willing to publicly state a claim to others, either for or against the existence of God (of course, we're ALL born as agnostics), and remains 'undecided'.
Again, technically most atheists are really agnostic because they want to see evidence but the simple label doesn't really explain the position and gives more prominence to the possibility of god existing than it really deserves.
If evidence was produced for the existence of god then I would believe it, but I doubt very much I will see such evidence. So while I'm technically an agnostic, it's at the far end of the spectrum, 99.99% along - so it's simply simpler and clearer to use the label atheist.
Trying to portray theists as having a similar position is an attempt to make the positions seem equal - they are not.
We are atheists because there is no evidence of something that there should be a lot of evidence for and much circumstantial evidence against - facts that simply do not fit into the god theory as described (evidence that it is false).
Theists believe something despite the evidence to the contrary and with no evidence to support it, simply because the story was typically told to them as a child and they haven't yet realized it is simply a story.
They are not the same as you are well aware which is why you are demanding a Yes / No response to it.
So yes, technically the anwer is Yes - there is no definitive proof either way but the "either way" part is simply because it is very difficult to prove a negative. Could there be god like creatures in the universe? The only way to know would be to check the entire universe all at once and to do that would mean you were god. Does the Yahweh god of penis-cutting tribesmen exist? I would say No to that - I think there is enough information to say that he doesn't because there is evidence of the development of the story from other stories thus making the origin tale obviously false.
I am finding it difficult to maintain that generous opinon. Cofty
LOL. Once we all get over our egos we might be able to have a reasoned conversation.
But our egos would not be the only hindrance would they?
Simon said- Again, technically most atheists are really agnostic because they want to see evidence but the simple label doesn't really explain the position and gives more prominence to the possibility of god existing than it really deserves.
Yeah, and it's exactly concerns like those (and many others not mentioned, like why 'theists' should get the default name, and atheists get to wear the pejorative term, phrased as the ones who DON'T believe in God, which is the rational position to start from....). That's only a few of the reasons many atheists want to drop the useless and confusing term 'agnostic' altogether, and use a more-modern designation that relies on 'soft/hard' (whether atheists or theist) which focuses on the ACTUAL CLAIM being made/held, and on WHO bears the 'burden of proof' when trying to back their position. The only reason I didn't pose it as 'soft atheist' was to avoid confusion, since most don't know what it even means; but if you want to replace that term with the more-modern term, be my guest, as it essentially means the same thing....
But in the end it really makes no difference though, since the real question is:
Does it make sense to decide BEFORE you have sufficient information on which to base a decision, or is it better to await information?
YES or NO?
Does it make sense to decide BEFORE you have sufficient information on which to base a decision, or is it better to await information?
YES or NO?
Normally, yes - it make sense to get sufficient information before making a decision. But then the question of the existence of god is probably unlike most others and for the reasons already stated it will never be provable either way beyond all doubt. Is that important? Is it fair to demand 100% evidence one way or the other to make the right decision?
There are lots of situations in life where we have to make decisions without a 100% complete understanding of all available information. This happens in day-to-day life, in science, you name it. To demand completeness of information would mean "analysis paralysis" where you would never decide anything. We play percentage games and probabilities all the time whether we realize it or not.
So I think we already have sufficient information to make a perfectly informed decision that the Jewish god as described does not exist.
As Christopher Hitchens so brilliantly put it: either man was made by a god who is jealous, short tempered and inconsistent or god was an invention of men who were jealous, short tempered and inconsistent.
The racism, sexism and plain ignorance screams from the pages of gods supposedly hand-written book - simply the work of fanatical men.
Given that is the basis for the theism we're discussing, I think we have the evidence we need.
Now whether it matters to anyone? I don't give a damn if someone else wants to waste their life based on 2,000 year old superstitions. But I'd rather people like that kept out of any decision making that affects me and don't annoy me by trying to promote their lunacy while I'm in earshot.
Why don't we waste time trying to ascertain whether someone is the living embodiment of Elvis or not? Because it's crackpot - we know it without needing to see the evidence. Just because a silly theory caught on and has been promoted (actually forced on people by the sword I would remind you) then there is no more reason to give it more respect than it deserves. We've battled religious lunacy for millenia now and we're winning and life is better for it.
Do "true" atheists care what believers think? I don't think they do.
It's secret agnostics, wannabe atheists, who go out of their way to prove believers wrong...in order to strengthen the wall they have erected to keep out their own spiritual leanings.
