The Burden of Proof

[aeghrur]

Let us debate upon this foundation of debates, shall we?
Now, we have all seen this phrase being used left and right in the PG and the Debate Hall.
Is it the theists burden to prove god? Is it the atheists burden to disprove said being? Or is it the atheists who get the benefit of assumption?

Some also argue that it is only the neutral view which has the benefit of assumption, and that all others carry the burden of proof. I, however, disagree with this. For example, if Exodus said there was a huge slave movement out of Egypt due to the parting of the Red Sea, but no such historical event has ever been recorded, then the burden of proof should fall upon the affirmative more so than the negative. This is because there has been no scientific knowledge of such a case so the proper default would be the negative. As Wikipedia explains it:

In cases where the referent of a positive claim is of an uncommon or immaterial nature, or is unaccompanied by an explanation of causal mechanisms, a default to belief in the claim is not warranted. The proper default is skepticism. Here the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant, not with the skeptic. If one man claims Thor is real, and another claims Thor is not real, they do not share equal burden of proof. The onus falls upon the positive claimant to the degree that the claims falls outside the corpus of scientific knowledge.
If a claim contains an absurd or illogical concept such as the claim of a square circle, the entire claim can be dismissed on the grounds of incoherence without invoking burden of proof.

*Disclaimer* Wikipedia and I could be totally wrong, and that is why we debate, so let us begin? *Disclaimer*

 

[illinialex24]

I personally think for any discussion that bases policy off oh him, it should first require the burden of proof. In short, for people to say that abortions and gay marriage are bad because god opposes them, we first need proof of his existence. Since we have none at the moment, it isn't fair or right to base our laws and ideals off the wishes of him, because we have no proof of him.

For those wishing to make religion disappear, they should also bear the burden of proof to disprove his existence. You can't mess with people's faith if there is no proof, because you are also basing your argument on faith.

 

[Aesir]

The way I was taught debating and the way I think most people assume it is like this; If you make a claim you have to prove it. That's how we do it in the legal field and that's just how it's always been. People need to look at debates like a court trial, the plaintiff has to prove why his position is the best.

 

[Lord Viper]

☆ It's always nearly impossible to prove religious beliefs because there's no scientific proof to prove all that's been taught. For example, has has Noah's ark ever been found? So far there's no huge proof that it's Noah's ark from Mt. Ararat. ☆

 

[Crimson King]

It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. All you can prove is that something probably doesn't exist or can't exist, but that is going on factors that we know. For example, I can say unicorns don't exist because I have never seen one, no one has seen one, there is no evidence proving one. Now, the rebuttal to that is "there is a small pack of unicorns that exists in mountain pasture." So, it is now THEIR responsibility to prove this through evidence. Same goes with god.

Most atheists go a step further and prove that god cannot exist within the world we know and that a lot of stuff around us has logical reasonings for it.

 

[SuSa]

The way I was taught debating and the way I think most people assume it is like this; If you make a claim you have to prove it. That's how we do it in the legal field and that's just how it's always been. People need to look at debates like a court trial, the plaintiff has to prove why his position is the best.

It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist. All you can prove is that something probably doesn't exist or can't exist, but that is going on factors that we know. For example, I can say unicorns don't exist because I have never seen one, no one has seen one, there is no evidence proving one. Now, the rebuttal to that is "there is a small pack of unicorns that exists in mountain pasture." So, it is now THEIR responsibility to prove this through evidence. Same goes with god.

Most atheists go a step further and prove that god cannot exist within the world we know and that a lot of stuff around us has logical reasonings for it.

I personally believe that these two posts sum up this thread. :/

I wish it weren't that easy.

Basically if you tell me something, you better have the proof to back it up. Religion came first, then came disbelievers. Prove to me it what you believe in is true, with hard evidence and facts, faith means nothing to me.

 

[Purple]

sad how the debate hall has become these very short threads that are easily proven.

not exactly because no one wants to be the devil's advocate. But it's kind of hard to go against the facts that have been given.

Religion is never proven, but instead proven through readings of the bible that in some sense have coherence to real life. For example, the day of the apocolypse, apparently (from what a coworker has told me) Obama's currently presidency over america is practically shown in the bible (revelations). Let's pretend this is true, and that the supposive verses are in fact identical to Obama's campaign. Because that is "true". Other parts of the bible are also in a sense "true". For example noah's ark as viper was bringing up.

Religion is never actaully proven, but instead verses are given that have been "Foreseen" through the years to make you believe that everything else in the bible is also true.

So a conversation would go like this.

debater A - you have no proof that god is real.
christian - shows scripture of bible and tells what the scripture is "foreseeing"
christian - explains how if that's true, then god's reality is also true.

no proof is actually given to a full extent, but it's enough to keep their faith.

and in the debater's sense, correct me if i'm wrong crimson king but even when people use science to disprove god's existence, it never actually pinpoint's god not existing. There's it's (while more logical) just as bad as a christian's ideals.

Back to the OP however, i agree that the person bringing up the positive aspect should infact prove it. But at the same time, the negative person should bring in his facts to show that it's negative personally. Arguements should be coming from both sides.

 

[Deleted member]

Most atheists go a step further and prove that god cannot exist within the world we know and that a lot of stuff around us has logical reasonings for it.

Albeit fallaciously

Anyone who takes the extra step further is basing their argument on ignorance. Wooo go atheism it's sooo legitimate

 

[CRASHiC]

You can not prove that something does not exist.
You can prove Biblical scriptures wrong, but that only proves a religion wrong, it does not prove the absence of god.

 

[Reaver197]

While we cannot definitively disprove the existence of a god (or gods) in whatever form he/she/it/them may take, but the evidence suggests the strong probability that there is no god, or, at least, one not envisioned by the vast majority (if not all) of the religions found on Earth.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Actually, mainly people are making a mistake here.

Let me illustrate through proof by contradiction.


Let's assume it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Therefore it is impossible to prove that an X does not exist that is greater or equal to negative infinity and less then or equal to positive infinity such that X+1=X.


Let's use graph theory, an intersection is a solution.

Let's convert then into the normal form.

y=a+bx

y=1+1x
y=0+1x

b is the slope.

Since both of the slopes are one, the lines are parallel, therefore, the lines must intersect at either all points or no points.

Let x = 1.

(y=1+1x) = (y=0+1x)
(y=1+1(1))=(y=0+1(1))
(y=1+1)=(y=0+1)
(y=2)=(y=1)
2=1

Contradiction!!!


This illustrates the two chief ways of disproving something actually. Counter-examples and proving something is impossible.

1. Counter-examples establish that a general rule is wrong by proving that there is one case that it's wrong. In this particular case, I proved that it wasn't impossible to disprove the existence of something (or that it is possible to prove something doesn't exist, the two statements are logically equivalent) by proving that it was impossible for something to exist. Please note that this doesn't have the burden of proof, all such general rules not disproven are considered possible, but not followed until proven. The side proving them has the burden of proof. This is because most general rules cannot be disproven.

2. Proving that it is impossible for something to exist, this is proving that it the general rules of the universe prevent this specific whatever from existing. This is done by doing exactly that, looking in the rules of the universe until you find one that specifically prevent the entity from existing, and establishing it. For example, what I did above, I used the rules for parallel lines to prove that an intersection cannot exist between the two lines. Again, this does not have the burden of proof because it is rare for things to be impossible, at least as far as we know (disprove that a unicorn created the universe 10 seconds ago, and implanted us with all previous knowledge).



So, disproving something is far from logically impossible, but it is practically a rarity, so just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it exists, just that it's possible for it to exist and it needs proof to establish it.

 

[pacmansays]

You can never give authorative proof of anything only evidence

however, you can show something to be false outright

 

[adumbrodeus]

You can never give authorative proof of anything only evidence

however, you can show something to be false outright

Again (for the thread, there's a lot of logic phail here), wrong, very very wrong.


I feel it's worth noting that you're probably talking about science, and I'll cover why the statement is sort of right in regards to science after the basic logic primer.


DISPROOF BY CONTRADICTION!

Nothing can be proven

Take statement: There exists a black swan.

A black swan is observed, therefore there exists a black swan.

Counter-example! The statement "a black swan exists" has been proven.

Therefore, you can prove statements.



I talked about this before actually, but might as well post this in a better format:


Primer on Proving Statements:

Existential statement (aka, a statement that at least one of something exists): Proven by providing at least one example of the thing that you are saying exists (for example, a black swan).

Universal statements (a statement that things will always work a certain way): Proven by deriving the universe always works a certain way based on some fundamental law (ex: to prove all swans are black, prove that there is something fundamental in their genes that make them all black).


And now it's opposite:

Primer on Disproving Statements:


Existential statements: Disproven by proving a universal statement that eliminates the possibility that at least one instance of the thing in question can ever be observed, ex, to prove there are no black swans, prove that there is something fundamental in the swan's genotype that makes it impossible to be black.


Universal statements: Disproven by proving an existential statement that contradicts the universal statement, ex, to disprove a statement that carrots are not orange, "hold up a ****ing carrot" (props if you get the reference).



Please note that existential statements can be proven by proving a universal statement that requires it to occur in all cases, and universal statements can be disproven by proving an opposing universal statement, but that is generally unnecessary.




[/basic logic primer]


Actually, that probably deserves to be edited and added to a sticky or stickied, I've seen a lot of basic logic errors over the years.




Anyway, now for science, while what you said isn't technically true (a heck of a lot of existential statements are proven in science, and a heck of a lot of negative universal statements are proven) it's a rather fair basic explanation of the scientific method.


Basically, when the scientific method talks about positive universal statements (aka, not disproving something) when it talks about "can never be proven", and effectively, this is true, primarily because the method revolves around making limiting universal statements that are falsifiable.

These statements can only be proven completely through observing every single example, which is practically impossible, therefore making them impossible to prove. They can however, be disproven, and this is done by making observations that disagree with the universal statement.

For example, in my swan example, I have only observed white swans, therefore I make a universal statement, "all swans are white".

The data agrees with me, however it's never really proven, and people keep observing swans.


Eventually, somebody discovers a black swan, my universal statement is now disproven, therefore we have disproven the null hypothesis (the "accepted" but not proven universal statement), so we reject the null, and substitute an alternative hypothesis which agrees with the data. That becomes the new null hypothesis (namely, from the observations made, that all swans are white or black).


This process is continued forever, the null never actually accepted, and we move incrementally closer to the truth.



However, we can NEVER reject an observation. We can reject that the observation was of what we thought it was (for example, if somebody observed a yellow swan, and we later found out it was a white swan painted yellow, the observation is not rejected, we just observed a white swan painted yellow and didn't realize it).


That's why we can never reject gravity or evolution they have been observed to occur. We can reject explanations of it (aka theories of gravity and evolution) but the effect is always there.



TL;DR version: Things can be proven, but we're not interested in statements that can be effectively proven in science, only disproving statements that can be disproven. Also, you should read this, because it is how to debate, even though it is relevant to the debate at hand.

 

[RDK]

Albeit fallaciously

Anyone who takes the extra step further is basing their argument on ignorance. Wooo go atheism it's sooo legitimate

Wooo go agnosticism, which basically says it's about as likely for there to be a gremlin under my bed as there not being a gremlin under my bed.

Wooo for believing in things with absolutely no positive evidence.

Wooo for believing things might possibly exist, just because.

 

[Deleted member]

Agnosticism™: Still more legitimate than atheism since 1978!*

*Disclaimer - I don't know when agnosticism was invented. Date fabricated.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

And why is atheism any less legit than agnosticism for the aforementioned reasons that RDK put?

 

[CRASHiC]

You two are acting silly :/ Those post were not Debate Hall appropriate.

 

[Deleted member]

And why is atheism any less legit than agnosticism for the aforementioned reasons that RDK put?

The "reasons" he posted were just things about agnosticism that he finds silly. It doesn't discredit the view like my hypocrisy thesis does to atheism.

 

[Reaver197]

Would you mind repeating what your thesis is?

 

[AltF4]

IIRC, it involves equating what is sometimes called "Strong Atheism" with atheism of all varieties. Then, misconstruing any belief as having equal merit as any other.

Thus ending up with something silly along the lines of "Atheists have beliefs, too. They believe in the non-existence in any god. But they have no proof! Hypocrites!"

...though correct me if I'm mistaken.

 

[Deleted member]

Not really. Just that the majority of you guys are misusing the term atheist. You guys are not atheists. It's such a frustrating cop out, and the only reason you guys cling to the term is because it denotes negativity towards religion. And maybe it's just a more fashionable term. That's about it.

 

[Aesir]

Not really. Just that the majority of you guys are misusing the term atheist. You guys are not atheists. It's such a frustrating cop out, and the only reason you guys cling to the term is because it denotes negativity towards religion. And maybe it's just a more fashionable term. That's about it.

I'm pretty sure we came to the agreement that the only reasonable atheist position is being an atheist to all known gods, and being agnostic to the idea of god.

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah, and the main idea is that you're agnostic to the idea of god. That's the big picture. Richard Dawkins is agnostic to the idea of god. He is a "de facto" atheist. That's not an atheist. That guy is such a hornswaggler, whatever that means.

 

[AltF4]

We're not misusing the term, you are. An atheist is just someone who is not a theist. It's pretty self explanatory.

There is no deity that I believe in. I am an atheist.

But to you, in order to be an atheist you have to be 100% positively completely sure that there are no gods of any kind. Well no. That's a silly definition. In a scientific sense, you can't be 100% sure about anything. Universal doubt and all that jazz.

If Richard Dawkins is not an atheist to you, then nobody is. So this definition you've invented is meaningless. Dawkins called himself a 6.8 on a scale of 1 to 7 for being atheistic. While there may be a gray areas around the middle, I think a 6.8 is pretty clear.

 

[blazedaces]

Honestly guys, he's not worth it. You're simply putting more fuel under the pathetic fire. He was making up definitions as an excuse to be derogatory to an entire religion. He's despised atheism since he appeared in the forums many, many years ago.

I used to attend an orthodox temple. Most orthodox jews would consider conservative/reform jews "not really jews"... but that's according to their constructed definition. Well, at least their definition is an established one... his is just made up.

I realize I completely ignored my own advice, but I guess once I opened my big mouth I couldn't help myself. I've been ridiculed for being an atheist and for being jewish at different stages in my life... and it just burns every time I witness discrimination based on religion (and race, creed, gender, sexual affiliation, etc.).

You're probably going to deny you're discriminating a religion ... but it doesn't change the fact that you're calling an entire group of people's belief wrong... and in a sarcastic mocking tone nonetheless.

I realize this occurs by atheists against many other religions, but I, along with many other atheists, try to avoid it as much as possible. And two wrongs don't make a right my friend... it's not an excuse.

-blazed

P.S. I may have gone a bit too far. I apologize.

 

[Crimson King]

We're not misusing the term, you are. An atheist is just someone who is not a theist. It's pretty self explanatory.

There is no deity that I believe in. I am an atheist.

But to you, in order to be an atheist you have to be 100% positively completely sure that there are no gods of any kind. Well no. That's a silly definition. In a scientific sense, you can't be 100% sure about anything. Universal doubt and all that jazz.

If Richard Dawkins is not an atheist to you, then nobody is. So this definition you've invented is meaningless. Dawkins called himself a 6.8 on a scale of 1 to 7 for being atheistic. While there may be a gray areas around the middle, I think a 6.8 is pretty clear.

This is why I want to add rep to this room.

To add, Dawkins will never admit to being a complete atheist because he has no concrete proof that no god exists because such a thing is impossible. However, being a man of science, he accepts the minute possibility that he could be wrong. His being wrong would mean a lot of science today has to be re-evaluated.

 

[Deleted member]

I love Dawkins. "Minute"? How can anyone give a statistical probability on god's existence? Dawkins is simply covering his bases. He wants to be able to say he's a full atheist but he cannot. For if he did, he would be known as a hypocrite. So he takes the next best thing and calls himself a de facto atheist. This is not my interpretation. I've read the God Delusion from cover to cover.

If Dawkins truly was a "man of science", he would understand that his bias is no good. Science is objective. Dawkins is just a douchebag.

Blazed, this is a philosophical concept. Forgive me for providing my own thoughts! Oh no, someone is thinking for themselves and challenging definitions that have been "set in stone!" He's clearing making things up!

Seriously. SOMEONE, please. SOMEONE. Please come up with a single difference between "weak" atheism and agnosticism. I will concede if they are truly different.

Alt, explain to me why Dawkins isn't a 6.9? Or even a full 7? Please. You guys are so full of it.

 

[CRASHiC]

His being wrong would mean a lot of science today has to be re-evaluated.

No it wouldn't.
Science does not out way the possibility of God.
God does not out way the possibility of science.
One popular theory among modern day believers in God is that he simply set into motion the base while everything else worked itself out, including life itself.
Now, if the Bible were proven correct, then most of science would have to be rethought, but you can't pare up organized religion with the idea of a higher power all together.

 

[Reaver197]

I don't really get what all the fuss is about.

Atheism is the belief there is/are no god(s).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Agnosticism is withholding from belief or commitment to either for or against an argument or theory.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Theism is, of course, fairly obvious.

Essentially, from how I see it, the atheist takes the evidence and information he/she has gathered/seen and decide that it points to the nonexistence of any supernatural deity (or deities).

The agnostic takes the information and evidence he/she has gathered, and decides that it does not conclusively and/or points more strongly to one side over the other.

The theist, yadda yadda yadda. You all get the point.

As far as I can tell, the "weak" and "strong" aspects of either of those categories simply implies the confidence that one has in their respective belief system (or lack/indecisiveness of one).


Also, "does not out way"? Did you mean "does not out weigh"?

Pretty much all the major organized religions believe in a higher power, and is in fact the tenant of many of them (and probably most religions in general). There seems to be quite the correlation between religions and beliefs in higher powers, assuming, of course, that you were trying to say otherwise.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed, this is a philosophical concept. Forgive me for providing my own thoughts! Oh no, someone is thinking for themselves and challenging definitions that have been "set in stone!" He's clearing making things up!

Seriously. SOMEONE, please. SOMEONE. Please come up with a single difference between "weak" atheism and agnosticism. I will concede if they are truly different.

Thanks for your consideration.

Delorted, you still don't "get it". Definitions can never be set in stone. We define words that we need to before explaining almost any philosophy because we want to explain our own thoughts/concepts to another person as clearly as possible. But definitions (or labels, because they are in this case the same thing) are just that, terms we came up with to get a point across. Once the point is explained, unless the definition is accepted by the other person, it doesn't change their thoughts/concepts in any way.

Basically, your thesis is quite literally the same as me saying "I define all Christianity (yes, every single sect) as the belief that 1+1 = 3. Since this is mathematically impossible, I hereby decree all Christianity to be fallacious and further more all Christians to be absolute fools!"

Do you not see that all I actually proved/said was that 1+1 = 3 is impossible? That the other two lines were word salad? That it didn't have anything to do with anyone else's belief in Christianity. I might as well have said "I define concept XYZ as ... I hereby decress all XYZ to be fallacious..."? They are the same statement! Because the definition was only used to explain my original thought! No one should read this and be convinced the religion of Christianity is false and all Christians fools! Because no one else uses this definition.

Playing word salad does not give you an excuse to insult a religion, or claim their beliefs are false. And that's all you ever do the entire time! This nonsense about strong atheism, weak agnosticism... none of them change what I believe! (I'm a believer in god at the moment) If my belief were "there is no god" then that's my belief! You call it "jerkoffology" and I call it "atheism". They are just labels! They don't change anything. I could label my beliefs any word and it wouldn't change my beliefs!

Why can't you see that all you're doing is drawing up sticky labels, putting them on people's heads, and then laughing at them because you think it's funny to put sticky labels on someone's head that has the word poopyhead on it? Did you change anything about someone? No. You were just a name-caller.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Seriously. SOMEONE, please. SOMEONE. Please come up with a single difference between "weak" atheism and agnosticism. I will concede if they are truly different.

(From Wikipedia. In the public domain)

A weak atheist is someone who does not believe in any god, and thus falls under the term "atheist". But does not go so far as to make any assertions about the non-existence of all gods.

An agnostic can be viewed in this sense as a subset of weak atheism. They also do not hold a belief in any gods, and also do not make the claim that all gods are non-existent. But agnostics tack on an extra statement: That the truth of the existence of god(s) is unknow(able)nm therefore we shouldn't concern ourselves with it.

But an Agnostic would like to make an extra point, too. That they would like to be excluded from our "1 to 7 scale" from theist to atheist. The agnostic intends to abstain from the subject altogether.

I think it's pretty clear that "weak" atheism and agnosticism are not identical. Similar in many ways? Sure. Depending on your stances one could be a subset of the other (as I have said). But not identical.

Alt, explain to me why Dawkins isn't a 6.9? Or even a full 7? Please. You guys are so full of it.

I would think you'd know the answer to this. I kind of glazed over it in my last post, but I suppose I'll make it more explicit.

Let's expand the scale for a moment to 0-100 instead of 1-7. With the number of the scale indicating what you think the likelihood of god's existence is.

In a scientific sense, we cannot ever be a 0 or a 100 on this scale. It's just not tenable. You must always accept the fact that you could be wrong. Being a 0 or 100 is saying "there is no chance that I'm wrong". Which is just not scientific.

Let's apply this scale to a scientific theory, say germ theory. Germ theory is the theory that illness is caused by microscopic germs that infect the body and spread from person to person, etc... Where am I on the 0-100 scale on how sure I am about whether or not germ theory is true? Probably 99.99. But you can't say 100! You have to allow for the possibility that we've been wrong all this time about germs. This chance is very small, but not zero.

So in the same sense, it would not be scientific for anyone to be a 7 on the 1-7 theism-atheism scale. Why Dawkins picked 6.8 out of a hat and not 6.9? I don't know. But That is why he doesn't say 7, and why nobody should. It's not a CYA statement.

 

[Deleted member]

Thanks for your consideration.

Delorted, you still don't "get it". Definitions can never be set in stone. We define words that we need to before explaining almost any philosophy because we want to explain our own thoughts/concepts to another person as clearly as possible. But definitions (or labels, because they are in this case the same thing) are just that, terms we came up with to get a point across. Once the point is explained, unless the definition is accepted by the other person, it doesn't change their thoughts/concepts in any way.

Basically, your thesis is quite literally the same as me saying "I define all Christianity (yes, every single sect) as the belief that 1+1 = 3. Since this is mathematically impossible, I hereby decree all Christianity to be fallacious and further more all Christians to be absolute fools!"

Do you not see that all I actually proved/said was that 1+1 = 3 is impossible? That the other two lines were word salad? That it didn't have anything to do with anyone else's belief in Christianity. I might as well have said "I define concept XYZ as ... I hereby decress all XYZ to be fallacious..."? They are the same statement! Because the definition was only used to explain my original thought! No one should read this and be convinced the religion of Christianity is false and all Christians fools! Because no one else uses this definition.

Playing word salad does not give you an excuse to insult a religion, or claim their beliefs are false. And that's all you ever do the entire time! This nonsense about strong atheism, weak agnosticism... none of them change what I believe! (I'm a believer in god at the moment) If my belief were "there is no god" then that's my belief! You call it "jerkoffology" and I call it "atheism". They are just labels! They don't change anything. I could label my beliefs any word and it wouldn't change my beliefs!

Why can't you see that all you're doing is drawing up sticky labels, putting them on people's heads, and then laughing at them because you think it's funny to put sticky labels on someone's head that has the word poopyhead on it? Did you change anything about someone? No. You were just a name-caller.

-blazed

Uhh. Playing word salad implies that I'm strawmanning people into being what I want them; I shoehorn them into my label. This is not what I'm doing. Frankly, I don't think my weak atheism = agnosticism argument is all too blasphemous. I simply think the only reason people want the "atheist" tag on them is for the fashion statement; the pride, the stigma people think when they hear that word. They WANT that. They want to make it clear they don't like religion. This is my opinion, anyway.

And by the way, when did I ever insult a religion? I'm not name calling anyone. I'm arguing for religious tolerance and acceptance! I don't personally agree with any religions, I'm glad people have an anchor in their life. I am also not a homosexual man, yet I tolerate, promote, and am happy for all those involved.

Alt, I recall us agreeing that it is rather impossible to stay completely out of the spectrum, and I also disagree that agnostics reject the 0-7 scale. Yes, Dawkins avoids saying 7 because he is allowing for a margin of error - but why .2? Why not .0001? He doesn't even mention the decimal point in his book. This allowance for the margin of error - the doubt... is what I find so laughable about all of this. Okay, you can lean one way to a nice degree, but at the end of the day, you're still without knowledge (a-gnosis!) of the subject, and thinking critically, we know it's not going to happen. So why not just be less of a **** and just AGREE TO DISAGREE? That's to Dawkins, btw.

 

[blazedaces]

Agnosticism™: Still more legitimate than atheism since 1978!*

*Disclaimer - I don't know when agnosticism was invented. Date fabricated.

I found this statement to be a bit of an ad hominem statement. Sure it was a joke, but it is in my eyes not very different than saying "Judaism: Still more legitimate than Christianity since 1978* * Disclaimer = more bla".

Just so you know I've been writing my proposal for my senior engineering design project (the equivalent of a senior thesis for engineers) this week and have had 3 hours of sleep every night ... so I'm a bit edgy.

I also agree that we should respect all religions. But atheism is also a religion delorted.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

Alt, I recall us agreeing that it is rather impossible to stay completely out of the spectrum, and I also disagree that agnostics reject the 0-7 scale.

Well, I'm not an agnostic, so I don't want to speak on their behalf. But the theist-atheist spectrum is designed so that you have to be somewhere on it. This is because atheism is defined as being the opposite of theism. Therefore you must be somewhere on the chart.

But the agnostic would say that the chart is meaningless. And doesn't care where people tend to put them. They would view the entire subject as inane.

Yes, Dawkins avoids saying 7 because he is allowing for a margin of error - but why .2? Why not .0001? He doesn't even mention the decimal point in his book. This allowance for the margin of error - the doubt... is what I find so laughable about all of this.

Again I don't know why he picked 6.8 out of a hat instead of 6.999. The scale is only a rough introspective estimate of your conviction. Not of any actual probability of the likelihood of the existence of gods. Think of it like rating on a scale of 1-10 how much you liked a movie. How could you quantify such a number? It's impossible. But we try, anyway. It's like that.

There are things that we are VERY certain of, germ theory being one of them. I can put myself as a 6.999 on the scale of how sure I am that germ theory is right. And while I don't think any gods exist, I'm not as sure of that statement as I am about germ theory. So maybe a 6.8 is proper. I don't see the issue.

Okay, you can lean one way to a nice degree, but at the end of the day, you're still without knowledge (a-gnosis!) of the subject, and thinking critically, we know it's not going to happen. So why not just be less of a **** and just AGREE TO DISAGREE? That's to Dawkins, btw.

Putting aside the issue of whether or nor Richard Dawkins is a ****, I think you're making a subtle mistake that I touched upon earlier. Strictly speaking, we should ALL be agnostic about EVERYTHING. We can't know anything for complete certain, and there is always doubt.

But the degrees to this doubt are important. You can't just say "We don't know for certain, therefore drop the subject". Because that would be true of every subject.

We can reasonably be very sure about germ theory. When you get an infection, you get an antibiotic drug. You don't sit around wondering "Gee, but I can't know for sure if this will even work!". We're pretty sure.

While of course we don't currently assert to have the same degree of conviction that there are no gods, we can have a particular appropriate degree of certainty.

 

[Deleted member]

Well, good luck on your paper. As for atheism being a religion... you said it, not me.

Agnosticism isn't a religion. That comparison doesn't work. When I compare X legitimacy to Y legitimacy, I'm not inherently bashing Y.

I'll just touch on the one point that stuck out in your post, Alt:

"We don't know for certain, therefore drop the subject."

I'm not saying this. I know some agnostics do, but I think it's good to probe the topic. It's good to have people understand what could happen. Intelligent design is being bashed and there is so much misinformation that a reasonable guy can't say "hey, maybe we were created!" without being called a moron. It's really inflammatory.

I'll take your word on germ theory. I've never even heard of it til now. I guess that means it's like gravity, just always there. The same does not apply to god. We actually can't hold a single drop of certainty towards existence or not without using arbitrary numbers. That means if you say you're 99.15% sure god doesn't exist, you're basing those numbers from an arbitrary point of view. There's no basis for any likelihood of anything to do with god. Yet.

And yes, we probably should be agnostic about everything, but I'm also a practical guy. Yet there are a few things I'm agnostic on: Time travel. What happens in a black hole? The unknown. Aliens. God. The afterlife. Things that we can't really know for sure. And of the things we can't really know, basing opinions from nothing is just stupid. And foolish. Maybe in 100 years the Mythbusters will have busted the myth of mortality and will be 150 years old still doing their job, and they will attempt to bust the myth of god. And if they do, I'll be the first to say I'm sorry.

 

[AltF4]

1) One can only hope that the Mythbusters will be around in another 150 years.

2) We actually know pretty well what happens in black holes, and are learning quite a lot about possible alien life (unless you're one of the conspiracy theorists that think we're being visited secretly today). I would be very careful about making statements that something cannot ever be known. Because historically those kinds of statements have been proven wrong over and over. I don't think YOU have made any such claim, but it's worth noting.

3) I think it's pretty clear that there is a sliding scale of theist to atheist. Somewhere from Pope to Dawkins. (I hate using him as an example all the time... He's not any kind of atheist leader, just someone that is very vocal.) Exactly how to quantify where you are on the scale is not precise. So allow for some kind of fudge factor. But that doesn't make the scale meaningless.

Also:

I'm not saying this. I know some agnostics do, but I think it's good to probe the topic.

This is why labels are dangerous. Everyone has their own set of unique beliefs and rationales. Labels are useful to a certain extent, but in the minutia are rather imprecise.

 

[CRASHiC]

This is why labels are dangerous. Everyone has their own set of unique beliefs and rationales. Labels are useful to a certain extent, but in the minutia are rather imprecise.

Its in White nature to categorize things though, though I am uninformed as to the socital reasons behind this, I simply remember hearing this about the sociology of whites from my father while he was in college. I'd have to dig through his Sociology book to uncover it.

However, I am against organized religion, and once it has been given a name, it is organized, and there for defies the true ideal in my mind, that of the individual relationship with God or the natural world dependent upon your view on the existence of God.

 

[RDK]

Delorted, let me ask you this. Are you agnostic or atheistic towards the existence of a flying elf in the sky who individually hand-crafts every single snowflake that falls to earth during the winter?

Oh yeah, and he's invisible.

 

[CRASHiC]

Because that's the only image of God there is RDK?

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Because that's the only image of God there is RDK?

Not really, but with the way some people defend their faith in God, it sometimes makes you feel that way.