Positive proof?

[Blind groper]

All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.

I tend to agree, and when I dumped my childhood religion fifty years ago, I called myself an agnostic. However, I have had 50 years to contemplate the problem and look for evidence for deity. I have seen none. And as I pointed out, a positive evidence for the existence of deity would be really easy, if said deity existed.

So today, while I am still agnostic, I am agnostic leaning towards atheism. It is quite possible that deity exists, but has no interest in humanity, and thus does nothing to demonstrate his/her/its existence. But if that is the case, in what way is that different to there being no deity?

[Brian Peacock]

Deism is clearly unfalsifiable, but the quality and content of the claims made on behalf of the national deity of the ancient Israelites reassures me that the folly of all religions in ascribing agency to natural phenomena is present in Abrahamic monotheism as well. I have no use for the God hypothesis.

[pErvinalia]

Forty Two wrote:

So, I do not believe in any god ever described to me, because none of them has ever been presented with any evidence I found rationally leads to the conclusion that the god exists.

That makes you religious, in Seth retardo-world.

[pErvinalia]

All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't help our side of the argument when you make posts like this. In fact, the vast majority of atheists are agnostics. Seth knows this, but refuses to acknowledge it as it destroys his idiotic biases.

[Seth]

All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.

Not true. Agnosticism holds that the existence of God is unknowable. That is not my argument. In fact I do believe that the existence of God is knowable, just not at this time for some people. When a person's knowledge of the universe(s) is perfect and complete, he will know whether or not God exists.

I tend to agree, and when I dumped my childhood religion fifty years ago, I called myself an agnostic. However, I have had 50 years to contemplate the problem and look for evidence for deity. I have seen none. And as I pointed out, a positive evidence for the existence of deity would be really easy, if said deity existed.

Unless the deity doesn't want to make it easy for you.

So today, while I am still agnostic, I am agnostic leaning towards atheism. It is quite possible that deity exists, but has no interest in humanity, and thus does nothing to demonstrate his/her/its existence. But if that is the case, in what way is that different to there being no deity?

Or, the deity does have an interest in humanity but no interest in demonstrating it's existence in ways that you and other agnostics and atheists are willing to accept as valid. In other words, perhaps God does not want Atheists to know about him so he actively denies them the evidence they seek. Being God, that would be child's play for him. Thus, the absence of evidence that you have, despite your seeking, says absolutely nothing whatever about the existence or non-existence of God, it merely supports the principle that you don't know everything, and you don't know what you don't know, and you don't know what God (if there is a god) doesn't want you to know.

Therefore, declaring that there is no god is an irrational act.

[Blind groper]

REvo

I have always considered an atheist to be one who denies deity, while an agnostic simply sits on the fence.

Do you have an alternate definition?

[Seth]

All of Seth's very long winded arguments boil down to a suggestion that it is more rational to be an agnostic than and atheist.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It doesn't help our side of the argument when you make posts like this. In fact, the vast majority of atheists are agnostics. Seth knows this, but refuses to acknowledge it as it destroys his idiotic biases.

And if they are, they are no more rational than Atheists. But it is my long experience that most people who profess to be "atheists" are actually quite radically Atheist religious zealots.

[Seth]

Deism is clearly unfalsifiable, but the quality and content of the claims made on behalf of the national deity of the ancient Israelites reassures me that the folly of all religions in ascribing agency to natural phenomena is present in Abrahamic monotheism as well. I have no use for the God hypothesis.

And that is a rational statement of opinion.

[pErvinalia]

REvo

I have always considered an atheist to be one who denies deity, while an agnostic simply sits on the fence.

Do you have an alternate definition?

FFS of course I do. What have you been doing on the forums for the last 10 years?!? We've covered this over and over and over again.

Gnostic_Agnostic_Atheist.png (15.01 KiB) Viewed 2232 times

[JimC]

Were't the Gnostics an obscure and heretical Christian sect that got suppressed by the church?

How does the term gnostic (or agnostic) derive from them?

(I ask in the spirit of honest inquiry, and because I can't be fucked looking it up...)

[pErvinalia]

I don't look stuff up either. Someone will know.

[JimC]

I don't look stuff up either. Someone will know.

And will wish to display their erudition to the rest of us...

[Blind groper]

Revo

Your diagram merely illustrates the principle that the theist/agnostic/atheist beliefs fall on a spectrum. Whatever names you give to positions on the spectrum do not change the reality.

Do not get me wrong. I am definitely leaning towards atheism. I tend to call myself agnostic in the interests of preserving an open mind, but I am still waiting for any evidence for deity.

[pErvinalia]

Um, did you actually look at the diagram? You don't seem to have understood a word of it. (a)theism and (a)gnosticismm aren't on the same axis. They are separate concepts. You can be an atheist gnostic or an atheist agnostic. And you can be a theistic gnostic or a theistic agnostic.

[rainbow]

is that the bottle's countenance or the proof of the vodka?

That is 100% proof.
The point is can you be spiritual without spirits?