Skepticism

[Snarky]

That' s because someone brought the words "Agnostic" and "Atheist" to the discussion, which I don' t really understand or differentiate...

As an agnostic, I can tell you that I consider the stance of both theists and atheists to be flawed.

To be more specific, I consider myself to be a  Strong Agnostic. Though I was raised in a Catholic environment, where the ultimate question of God was secondary to the authority of the Church, religion never played a big part in family life; being more of a duty than a spiritual experience, it became less and less prominent as time went on.

Regardless, I think both extremes regularly make fairly dubious claims, regarding the proof of God's existence, as both sides inherently lack the necessary information to draw a final conclusion. At it's core, it's Faith vs Skepticism. Neither points of view seem to need any sort educated or factual basis to argue.

Which is why this thread will ultimately go nowhere.

Neither all atheists nor all believers make claims about having proof of God's (non)existence, or draw any "final conclusion" on the matter.

[Nacho]

SSH, I don' t understand you example of the cat in a box. Why I don'  believe in God is simple: I will try explain.

I can' t see the whole world. I couldn' t be sure if whales exist, or the North Pole, or China if I heavilly trust in the old skeptic tactic of "doubting of anything". So, I must trust in my perceptions and assume that the things that I received evidences enough of its existance, must finally exist. That' s why I am sure (99.999999999999999% sure) that if I fly to the East, I will finally find China, or that if I go north I will finally find the North Pole, with Whales in it... I put evidences in a balance, that' s why, for example, I am not skeptic about what happened in 9/11 2001. I believe 4 planes were hijacked by yihaddists, I don't believe the "Missile hit the Pentagon theory". I don't doubt of anything... I have a "bag" where I store evidences supporting the existance of something. If the "bag" does not reach the minimum weight, I don't believe it.

Nessie' s bag never reached the minimum weight, nor the "ghosts" bad, nor the "UFOs are Aliens!" bag...

"God" bag doesn' t reach the minimum weight, either. The bag called "Did humans create God" is full (for me).

I was looking the reason why (for you) the bag "God exists?" is full... I found it, that's why I left the discussion, but if you want to ask me anything else, I will be here for you for trying to reply as best as I can.

And I don' t declare myself "Agnostic" of "Atheist" because I know that the definitions are difficult, and I am too lazy to go to Wiki and see the differences to see which matches more to me... So, I am skeptic. I want evidences to believe, and I will believe when the amount of evidences reaches the "realistic" point.

[miguel]

This thread turned into a very interesting filosofy lesson, although I must say that some of the participants can't look beyond their own belly.
The Australian philosopher J. J. C. Smart once remarked that an argument useful (from his naturalistic point of view) for convincing believers in human freedom of the error of their ways is to point out that contemporary mechanistic biology seems to leave no room for human free will.
When transforming everything into pure knowledge people lose what makes them unique, the ability to believe in good.
Logic is only logic if you believe in it because in no way you can prove anything at the eyes of a philosopher that doesn't want you to. Reason has no value and truth can easily be achieved by simply having two people agreeing in something.
But even if Christianity is on the move, it has taken only a few steps and it is marching through largely alien territory.

For the intellectual culture of our day is for the most part profoundly non-theistic and hence non-Christian- more than that, it is anti-theistic.
Most of the so-called human sciences, much of the non-human sciences, most of non-scientific intellectual endeavor and even a good bit of allegedly Christian theology is powered by something  foreign to that of Christian theism.

To end, I would like to read some more believers into this debate. I feel it is not even.

[LimpingFish]

Neither all atheists nor all believers make claims about having proof of God's (non)existence, or draw any "final conclusion" on the matter.

Which is not what I said.

I said both extremes, as in Strong Atheists or Classical Theists; who each, by definition, consider their views on the matter to be fairly ultimate. I could have mentioned Agnostic Theists or Practical Atheists, etc, but this thread is already confusing.

[Khris]

Misj':
Which assumptions/premises are you talking about? I don't have any. If you're talking about "there is no god", that's not an assumption I had from the start and I'm thus obliged to prove, it rather went like this:
Me: ...
Believers: There's a god.
Me: Really? Prove it. Until then, what's for dinner?

And about your weird history lesson: since I don't think you didn't get what I was aiming at, I'll have to interpret it as a failed attempt at being funny.
But to humor you, replace Santa Claus with the invisible pink unicorn in my garage. (:)

[Dualnames]

So after reading 7 pages(wooh), I think we lost the topic here, or at least I got lost.
Anyway, just to say my opinion on the matter. First, I do consider being forced(not in a bad way) to be Christian without you choosing it feels wrong to me.  Secondly, yes, I do believe in God. Thirdly, I hate priests and their likes. Fourthly, even if a child is baptised(hope I spelled that wrong), can still decide to change his faith. I ,for a brief period of time, was an atheist, and all that stuff. I'm a believer, but well, I do understand what people think about religions. Considering all faiths and mostly people's determination and belief that something must be proven  so that it can be real, I'm asking this..

Can see an atom?
No, but it's there.
Can you see the wind?
No, but it's there.

It doesn't mean because you can't see something that it doesn't exist and because you see something it does.

[space boy]

Can see an atom?
No, but it's there.
Can you see the wind?
No, but it's there.

It doesn't mean because you can't see something that it doesn't exist and because you see something it does.

This is a bit of a strawman argument(and a quite common one). Most reasonable people who dont believe in something dont say that just because they cant see it. It's because they cant see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it(including the use of measuring instruments). An atom can be seen with a microscope. The wind can be felt on the skin. Thats how we know they exist. If god were real and I could  sense him with all senses except with my eyes, it would be really dumb to not believe in him.

[Misj']

Which assumptions/premises are you talking about? I don't have any. If you're talking about "there is no god", that's not an assumption I had from the start and I'm thus obliged to prove

You seem to misunderstand the difference between a research question/hypothesis and a pre-assumption. Also, you seem to think that a pre-assumption is something you have from birth which it is not. It is something you have now.

And about your weird history lesson: since I don't think you didn't get what I was aiming at, I'll have to interpret it as a failed attempt at being funny.

Orrrrr...it could have proven the point that your pre-assumption of Santa Claus being a product of one's imagination was less valid than the one that he was an historical figure (although the current view of him shares little similarity). It therefore proved my point that as long as you cannot proof that one pre-assumption is more valid than another, they are both equally valid. (I was trying to proof a point, which you apparently didn't get...if I wanted to be funny I would have started with: an Atheist, a Muslim and a Jew step into a bar...)

But to humor you, replace Santa Claus with the invisible pink unicorn in my garage. (:)

So if someone shows your example doesn't work, you make up a now one...I'm pretty sure we can continue this until the end of time. But to humour you. I have never been into your garage. I've never seen your garage. I don't know anything about your garage (I don't even know whether you have a garage). However...since colour is caused by the reflection of light, and invisibility could only exist if light is not reflected, I find it highly unlikely that the unicorn is pink. Furthermore, you're still missing the difference between a pre-assumption and a research question.

The idea that not all pre-assumptions are equally valid isn't a new one. However, if there is no evidence what so ever to show that they are not, than the only reason to state that one is more valid than another, is because one does not want to question one's own ideas/believes.

Ps. EVERYONE has pre-assumptions...
Pps. Assuming that two pre-assumptions are equally valid does not mean that you have to accept them both, nor that you have to consider them both to be true.
Ppps. Proving that one pre-assumption is more valid than another is not the same as proving the pre-assumption itself

[Khris]

Misj':
Say I approached you today and told you there was an invisible pink unicorn in my garage.
Did you have the pre-assumption that there's no invisible pink unicorn in my garage yesterday? No, you didn't. Because the idea that there are people who have unicorns in their garages is something you've never heard, or thought about before. Until today, you didn't really care what animals other people keep in their garages, correct?
So what I did was erect the hypothesis that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage, and now I'm going to have to prove it.
With the existence of a god it's exactly the same; it's a hypothesis.
You brought the whole pre-assumption talk into this discussion, but how does it even relate to the "there's a god" hypothesis?

When I mentioned Santa Claus, I was talking about the concept of a Coca Cola commercial Santa Claus flying around in a sled, bringing presents to children, not some long dead guy he's based on. You knew that perfectly well and still had to play the "Santa Claus does exist" card. That's just weak.

Ps. EVERYONE has pre-assumptions...

O RLY?

[Nacho]

Dual, you can do it in the opposite direction:

You' ve never seen an unicorn. Do you believe they exist?
You' ve never seen a Smurf. Do you really think they exist?
You' ve never seen a Gnome. I guess you assume they exist, no?
You' ve never seen a Dragon... Do we go on?

Conclussion. Not everything that exists can be seen. Not everything we can' t see exists. I use my common sense to know if something I don't  see exists or not.

And we have seen atoms (Atomic microscope).
And the wind (Moving clowds).

[Khris]

Yes, and wind is just a name for moving air. You don't doubt air exists just because you can't see it, right?

[SSH]

Nacho, Khris, do you think "1" exists?  Not the symbol "1" in whatever alphabet or notation, but the concept of 1? You cannot sense it in any way. You can sense the notation of it and you can sense 1 of something but the actual number itself is entirely abstract.

Also, do you guys believe in free will or are the decisions we make a consequence of chemicals and electrical impulses in our brains? Is there such a thing as the mind (your identity) as distinct from the brain (a physical thing)?

[Nacho]

The system brain uses for taking decissions is still very unknown and I can't really give an appropiate answer... I basically think that we have free will just in a degree... For example, if we get into troubles a person with certain chemistry in his brain will have high probabilities to get out without fighting, and one with another chemistry will have more possibilities to end in a fight... But I can' t be sure, since I am not an expert in neurology, or brain chemistry.

So, to summarize... I don' t know how people thinks.

What I am not going to do is to take the first pilgrim answerI can figure, and, without any evidence, believe on it for all my life.

So, going on with the example: I don' t know how people thinks. I don' t think that my thoughts are:
-Created by an alien.
-Inspired by a psychic Yeti.
-Transmitted by a telequinetic smurf.

In an analogue way, I don' t have answers to EVERYTHING. What I am not going to do is say: "Ok... it' s probably God".

Mankind did that for centuries. A thunder? That' s God, farting. It rains? Angels are crying. Bad harvests? God is annoyed with us...

At the moment all those replies using "God", have been proved to be false. Why there should be a future answer needing the concept "God", if no one did in the past? Dunno...

[Tuomas]

Free will is like a trained dog. It's a manner were accustomed to, and thus we act by it. It's the result of too many people thinking together, which is a wonderful thing. The problem with animals and free will is that they can't communicate the way we do. See this thread for example.

[Misj']

You brought the whole pre-assumption talk into this discussion, but how does it even relate to the "there's a god" hypothesis?

I still don't see you showing any understanding of what pre-assumptions are, I could try to explain how this relates to the discussion (which is by the way not the 'there is a god' hypothesis, since it's untestable, en therefore cannot be an hypothesis (let alone, the fact, that I mentions many posts back, that I don't care about the 'is there or is there not a god' discussion))...

When I mentioned Santa Claus, I was talking about the concept of a Coca Cola commercial Santa Claus flying around in a sled, bringing presents to children, not some long dead guy he's based on. You knew that perfectly well and still had to play the "Santa Claus does exist" card. That's just weak.

Oh...wait...this is about whether a certain concept of a certain something is true, and not about whether the something itself was ture. So to extrapolate this onto the God-question you mentioned above: this is not about whether God exists (or is a product of the human mind), but about whether a certain view/concept of God is true. I didn't realize: so you're not saying that God is a product of man's imagination, you have no doubt that God is historically correct, you're just saying that a certain concept of God is wrong. (we both know you're not saying that, so that means that you're argumentation towards the 'Santa Claus does exist' card is in itself weak.)

Ps. EVERYONE has pre-assumptions...

O RLY?

Yes. (oh...great how you are setting me up to say 'yes', and then you say: I say no, and that is equally valid as your opinion...I love it...so...) But you may disagree with that, and I respect that. Because everybody is entitled to his or her own wrong opinion.

Ps. I'm still not discussing whether or not God exists. Whatever whoever believes is up to that person. I'm merely here to discuss whether religion and logic/reason are mutually exclusive, and I still see no reason why. Not even concerning religious questions. I do believe that know-it-all behaviour and logic/reason are mutually exclusive...but that is something I observe for both religious and non-religious people. Those people lack imagination.

[Khris]

I know perfectly well what a pre-assumption is. It's something you take as granted although it isn't in order to build your argumentation on it.
I absolutely don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not god exists either; I, too, mentioned already (iirc, twice) that that's pointless.

What I am trying to get across is that the believers started the whole thing by their claim/suggestion/idea (not hypothesis, okay) that there's a supernatural being.
Since it's not testable and thus no hypothesis as required by the scientific method, that's all the more reason for me to simply dismiss it and ask what's for dinner, since there's absolutely zero evidence.

I'm not trying to discuss whether god exists, I'm saying that non-believers can lean back and mind their own business while believers - the ones who suggested the existence of a god - try to find evidence and fail at it. So, definitely not 50:50, no pre-assumptions, no question what's more valid.

If you didn't get it now, I'll give up. Probably.

About the existence of a Christian god as mentioned in the bible: that's a very different matter. There's tons of evidence pointing towards NO. And zero pointing towards YES. So under the pre-assumption that there's a god, (which of course is equally as valid as the opposite one,) I can safely say the god isn't YHWH of the bible, just as safely as I can say that a dropped object will fall down, not up.
That doesn't explain why I'm a skeptic, but it surely does explain why I'm no Christian, and this is what this thread turned out to be about.
So hurray for going btt.

[Misj']

I know perfectly well what a pre-assumption is. It's something you take as granted although it isn't in order to build your argumentation on it. ... Since it's not testable and thus no hypothesis as required by the scientific method, that's all the more reason for me to simply dismiss it and ask what's for dinner, since there's absolutely zero evidence.

But the scientific method is not against pre-assumptions (as long as they are defined of course (and preferably if you can make a reasonable claim that the pre-assumption is valid)...on the other hand having pre-assumptions without mentioning them renders the scientific method useless, since any conclusion (and sometimes the results themselves) is rendered invalid).

I'm not trying to discuss whether god exists, I'm saying that non-believers can lean back and mind their own business while believers - the ones who suggested the existence of a god - try to find evidence and fail at it.

But there are also many non-believers who try to find evidence (and fail). I'm opposed to both (although I also think that both may look for mechanisms to see whether their idea is possible or not...but even if it's (theoretically) possible, they should claim to have any hard evidence). I don't hate non-believers more than believers...I just hate people in general

If you didn't get it now, I'll give up. Probably.

I don't have much time in the coming days anyhow, so we'll probably have to discuss everything another time (I'm pretty sure poor soul will start another thread some day that we can completely hijack and make our own ).

Ps.

I...all the more reason for me to ... ask what's for dinner.

Home-made pizza...what are you going to have?

[Khris]

Hey, damn, I'm glad we sorted this out.

But there are also many non-believers who try to find evidence (and fail). I'm opposed to both.

Exactly.
There are also non-believers (and believers) who look for natural explanations for the phenomena others explain with a god. That's the way to go I think.

Also, home-made pasta

[SSH]

There's tons of evidence pointing towards NO. And zero pointing towards YES.

Once again you prove that you simply do not understand what the word evidence means. A mafia boss giving his testimony in a court is still evidence EVEN IF YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT BELIEVE IT. Richard Dawkins giving his in a court is still evidence EVEN IF I DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. etc. There is not zero evidence, just evidence YOU don't find convincing BUT OTHERS DO.

[Nacho]

Again, you discuss how I say what I say, not what I say...

Anyway, I mentioned it before (The "evidences I put in a bag" metaphor), but I will say it again. It is ME who doesn't find them convincing.

And I am sure that some other people find them convicing. I am also convinced that many people who believes to have been abducted believes it, and I am sure that some people telling they have psychic powers are convinced that they do have these powers.

Still, I don' t believe in abductions or psychic powers.