'Splain this one Atheists...

[rainbow]

does this allow one to attach a value judgement to logic over emotion

I much prefer my world view to be informed by logic rather than emotion because logic is objective by definition
and can not be faulted. Emotion on the other hand is subjective by definition and most definitely can be faulted
But having said that I am human and so am an emotional being as much as a logical one. However where there is
conflict between the two logic over rides emotion every time. This may not be true for everyone but it is for me

Marvin vs Arthur Dent.

What a choice!

[rainbow]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The graph doesn't work.

I lack any belief that there are no gods. Where would I fit in.

[Hermit]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The graph doesn't work.

I lack any belief that there are no gods. Where would I fit in.

Agnostic.

[piscator]

Most agnostics are studied fence-sitters. They don't want any information that may move them in one direction or another, so they fix it so they don't.
"'Does the defendant fuck buffaloes?' I can never render a verdict, as I don't process evidence that may tend to upset my cherished and superior neutrality. "Burden of proof' is a subjective game, so I won't be playing along."


==================

"All of us take things on faith. Science may prove a claim about the physics of the universe, but unless you do the experiment to confirm it, you're putting confidence in the proposition blah blah blah."

I don't take particle physics at all. Until I need to rely on some particular fermion or boson, I could give a shit. If it comes to pass that I should need to rely on some Bose-Einstein particle, we'll see how that pans out.




"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- A Saul who never returns your call

I have no faith in this definition. Why should I?

[Hermit]

Agnosticism does not automatically make anyone a fence sitter. You can very well be of the opinion that the existence of a god cannot be ultimately proven and still be a practicing theist. Likewise you can be of the opinion that the non-existence of a god cannot be ultimately proven and still act like an atheist until convincing evidence of a god turns up. Most theists as well as atheists I know are agnostics.

[JimC]

Agnosticism does not automatically make anyone a fence sitter. You can very well be of the opinion that the existence of a god cannot be ultimately proven and still be a practicing theist. Likewise you can be of the opinion that the non-existence of a god cannot be ultimately proven and still act like an atheist until convincing evidence of a god turns up. Most theists as well as atheists I know are agnostics.

[Seth]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The reason I don't identify with that quadrant is that I disagree with the premise. I currently don't know if God exists, but I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists, and unlike agnostics I know that at the very least, when humanity's knowledge of the universe(s) has achieved perfection, at that time we will know with 100 percent certainty whether God exists or not.

Moreover, it is possible for humanity to know with 100 percent certainty that God exists at some point short of perfection of knowledge if and when God chooses to provide those proofs.

So, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm (presently) a non-theistic Tolerist™.

[piscator]

Even though most Buddhists are church-going defacto theists who like to call themselves agnostic, when a word describes most everyone it doesn't mean much. You can get off on name calling if you want, but I'm not going to waste any more time with one thing there's no evidence for as any other. Nor will grant a cop-out any special status because God is defined into a realm there's no evidence for either, one that makes Him theoretically harder to ascertain than Russell's Teapot. I'm pretty goddamn certain about flying unicorns too, even though I don't bother to shit rainbow-colored analytical warrant for my personal thresholds.
Most "agnostics" are too too hung up on how they are perceived to do much but take the piss on the subject anyway.

[Seth]

Even though most Buddhists are church-going defacto theists who like to call themselves agnostic, when a word describes most everyone it doesn't mean much. You can get off on name calling if you want, but I'm not going to waste any more time with one thing there's no evidence for as any other. Nor will grant a cop-out any special status because God is defined into a realm there's no evidence for either, one that makes Him theoretically harder to ascertain than Russell's Teapot. I'm pretty goddamn certain about flying unicorns too, even though I can't shit rainbow-colored analytical warrant for my personal thresholds.

Which is all well and good and entirely within your rights. Just don't claim to be rational.

[piscator]

I'm rational.

Don't claim you're not fucking buffaloes.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday.

If by that you meant gaining such certainty via a direct revelation by a god showing himself to all mankind, i.e. clear objective evidence available universally, then sure, and bye-bye atheism.

If you simply meant that some people can become 100% certain that god exists in the absence of evidence universally available to all humans, then again, sure they can, but their 100% certainty based purely on faith has absolutely no impact on my view as to the existence of a putative deity.

[piscator]

Seth wrote:

I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, according to whatever Minister Farakhan says.

If by that you meant gaining such certainty via a direct revelation by a god showing himself to all mankind, i.e. clear objective evidence available universally, then sure, and bye-bye atheism.
If you simply meant that some people can become 100% certain that god exists in the absence of evidence universally available to all humans, then again, sure they can, but their 100% certainty based purely on faith has absolutely no impact on my view as to the existence of a putative deity.

The catch is that you have to die before you get the evidence. Says it right there in the Westminster Confession of Faith....
So Seth is a gnostic Theist? Well of course he is...

[Hermit]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The reason I don't identify with that quadrant is that I disagree with the premise. I currently don't know if God exists, but I cannot say that God does not exist, but I believe that it is possible to be 100 percent certain whether God exists or not, and that this is true for all mankind...someday. You see, unlike atheists I'm open to the chance that God exists, and unlike agnostics I know that at the very least, when humanity's knowledge of the universe(s) has achieved perfection, at that time we will know with 100 percent certainty whether God exists or not.

Moreover, it is possible for humanity to know with 100 percent certainty that God exists at some point short of perfection of knowledge if and when God chooses to provide those proofs.

So, I'm neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm (presently) a non-theistic Tolerist™.

I neither asked about nor care what quadrant you feel you belong to.

As for the two agnostic quadrants, both of them are rather heavily populated, and for a good reason too. Regardless of what you are convinced of will happen in the future, we don't possess the means to either prove or disprove the existence of god today. Should such come to light I will move to either the gnostic theism or the gnostic atheism quadrant.

What I did say is that you seem intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion, and that one of your measures to argue your case is rather desperate and emotional, namely you claim that people who describe themselves as agnostic atheists are liars.

[rainbow]

Seth seems intent on denying the existence of the bottom right quadrant of the below diagram, or at least to minimise it to near oblivion. The desperate argument he resorts to in the end - that atheists who profess to be agnostics are liars - is highly emotionally charged to say the least.

The graph doesn't work.

I lack any belief that there are no gods. Where would I fit in.

Agnostic.

Nope, I lack the belief that it is not possible to be 100% certain about the existence of gods.

[JimC]

OK, you can be 100% certain about the existence of god, but why should the rest of us give a flying continental fuck?