[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by Mps2216

I realize this. However, even if it is termed faith, it does not alter what the belief or faith actually is, which would be a more crucial issue. I gathered that the implicit assertion you were conveying was to make some Atheists aware that the 'belief without evidence' argument actually applied to themselves as well. I agree to some extent, however, the dichotomy between belief in the existence of an entity and the belief in the nonexistence of an entity is vastly different in many respects.

Glad to see we touched a bit of common ground. And you are certainly right that there is a difference between not believing something we haven't seen exists and believing in something we haven't seen, but with each there is still that assertion of completel knowledge that I don't feel we as humans can m

From a rational perspective, the future will reflect the past because both occur and progress upon the same principles. Although speculation concerning the future is fairly worthless and quite irrelevant to my own perspective. If my beliefs considered all possibilities which may or may not be viable events in the future, well, it wouldn't be much of a belief at all. My reality only entails the present and what I remember from the past. When the future becomes my present, my perspective will reflect it and perhaps any realizations it might provide.

Your philosophy is actually kind of similiar to what I am presenting, because you are asserting that all of your knowledge comes from experience.

[paintballonaim (Banned)]

Originally Posted by cryptic.paintball

I would like to read this if you can find it. The source is very important.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/...les/josh2.html

It's not what I read but it'll do.

[Mps2216]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

Glad to see we touched a bit of common ground. And you are certainly right that there is a difference between not believing something we haven't seen exists and believing in something we haven't seen, but with each there is still that assertion of completel knowledge that I don't feel we as humans can m

Tis why I don't assert either as well. However, I still feel that I am an Atheist, simply because I lack belief in a deity. Yes, that can be construed as agnosticism, although I consider it 'Weak Atheism'.

Originally Posted by Adema3412

Your philosophy is actually kind of similiar to what I am presenting, because you are asserting that all of your knowledge comes from experience.

Agreed. As such, given the fact that I have not experienced God, he does not exist. However, I do not assert that I will not experience him in the future.

[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by Mps2216

Tis why I don't assert either as well. However, I still feel that I am an Atheist, simply because I lack belief in a deity. Yes, that can be construed as agnosticism, although I consider it 'Weak Atheism'.

I really don't care about the name, so much as what the name means.

Agreed. As such, given the fact that I have not experienced God, he does not exist. However, I do not assert that I will not experience him in the future.

In my opinion that is perfectly logical.

[Hey wouldja]

Originally Posted by TESlight'emupTES

...lol?

lyke omg! I used the wrong form of there!!!!!! LOL SO FUNNEH!!!

[ZenMike]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

Here is what I am saying there is no proof that God does not exist, therefore one's belief that there is no God is not based on empirical evidence, but on faith. This is the same principle, which the belief in God should and often is founded. If one believes in atheism because of faith then they are well within their bounds to do so, but otherwise they should not declare themselves atheists, but agnostics who while believing that God does not exist, do not affirm God's nonexistence as fact.

Logically, there is no way to prove that anything doesn't exist, only that it has not yet been proved that it does exist.

To say that "one believes in atheism because of faith" is incorrect. Atheism is, by definition, the lack of a belief, specifically a theistic belief. You trying to redefine the word and setting false premises does not make it so.

[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by ZenMike

Logically, there is no way to prove that anything doesn't exist, only that it has not yet been proved that it does exist.

It's true, all we can do is play with probabilities, which is why my disbelief in Unicorns is higher than my disbelief in a diety.

To say that "one believes in atheism because of faith" is incorrect. Atheism is, by definition, the lack of a belief, specifically a theistic belief. You trying to redefine the word and setting false premises does not make it so.

To discount the existence of God entirely requires a leap of faith.

[NEp8ntballer]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

And to those that know that there is no God:
How can you maintain a position that there is no probability of the existence of a God or higher sentinent being, when the human ability to know is not infinite? How are you any different than the Theist who asserts knowledge of God's existence? And how can you assert the lack of existence with only a lack of evidence?

Every religion has something fundamentally wrong with it's doctrine. Any truly all knowing beign would have made the entirety of their texts applicable for eternity. By that it is shown that the bible was indeed written, edited, and compiled by man. These men could only think in their frame of mind and once their frame of mind was no longer valid their text was no longer valid. Unfortunately people have deeply rooted beliefs which cannot be shaken. Only in religion can a person be completely and utterly wrong and still think of themselves as being correct. In any other statement of knowledge when a person is proven wrong they will adopt that belief. A person studying history will not continue research trying to prove something that is wrong, a mathematician will not work on a formula which has been proven not to work, and a person working in science will not assert a theory after it has been proven false.
Continuing with beliefs that are no longer appropriate in modern society people are now metaphorically interpreting parts of the bible, or they are picking and choosing the parts that they want to believe in.

[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by NEp8ntballer

Every religion has something fundamentally wrong with it's doctrine. Any truly all knowing beign would have made the entirety of their texts applicable for eternity. By that it is shown that the bible was indeed written, edited, and compiled by man. These men could only think in their frame of mind and once their frame of mind was no longer valid their text was no longer valid. Unfortunately people have deeply rooted beliefs which cannot be shaken. Only in religion can a person be completely and utterly wrong and still think of themselves as being correct. In any other statement of knowledge when a person is proven wrong they will adopt that belief. A person studying history will not continue research trying to prove something that is wrong, a mathematician will not work on a formula which has been proven not to work, and a person working in science will not assert a theory after it has been proven false.
Continuing with beliefs that are no longer appropriate in modern society people are now metaphorically interpreting parts of the bible, or they are picking and choosing the parts that they want to believe in.

I do not care about the Bible at all in the context of this argument. It's actually completely irrelevant.

[NEp8ntballer]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

I do not care about the Bible at all in the context of this argument. It's actually completely irrelevant.

In that case I will try to answer your question again.

Although our ability to know is not infinite, our ability to know what is not is fully capable of allowing a person to KNOW that there is no god.

the difference is that I may make a pretention to knowledge what a person will gain from also following my pretention to knowledge is vastly different from any theist. The theist generally believes in an afterlife so a person with the pretention to knowledge of an afterlife will be less willing to give up that belief, and any person who is on the fence would be willing to be able to look forward to the possiblility of an afterlife as opposed to the lack of an afterlife. Hell, if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed a god I wouldn't hesitate to believe in that particular diety.

How is it possible for one to assert the lack of existence with a lack of evidence is simple. If a person were to make the claim that some species existed in the past without ever seeing it and having no proof besides the words from a bunch of anmal sacrificing farmers they would be the laughing stock of the scientific community. Why should religion be given a free pass? Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

[Mps2216]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

I really don't care about the name, so much as what the name means.

Wait, wasn't that my argument? :p

[ZenMike]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

It's true, all we can do is play with probabilities, which is why my disbelief in Unicorns is higher than my disbelief in a diety.

It's got nothing to do with probability. You can't prove something doesn't exist. Given the evidence, the existence of the Christian god is no more, or less, likely than the existence of the Lock Ness Monster, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters.

Originally Posted by Adema3412

To discount the existence of God entirely requires a leap of faith.

By your argument, it requires faith to believe that there is and will continue to be gravity, that one can't fly, that the sun will rise tomorrow. On some level that may be true, but your trivializing religious faith by claiming them to be equivalent.

But so what? Are you specifically addressing the 7 people in your poll who claimed to know there is no god? Obviously they don't have proof that no god exists. Congrats. You caught them. What now? What is your claim? That it can't be proven that gods don't exist? That's true. What's next?

[Randomperson]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

And to those that know that there is no God:
How can you maintain a position that there is no probability of the existence of a God or higher sentinent being, when the human ability to know is not infinite? How are you any different than the Theist who asserts knowledge of God's existence? And how can you assert the lack of existence with only a lack of evidence?

I know there is no god.

I wish I could believe that there was a god, but to me I feel there is zero chance of that.

I'm taller than they are?

Cause I feel like it.

[ZenMike]

Originally Posted by NEp8ntballer

Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.

No, it's not. What if there was evidence that you couldn't perceive and assume there is no evidence? What if you misinterpret the signs and assume there is no evidence?

Originally Posted by NEp8ntballer

the difference is that I may make a pretention to knowledge what a person will gain from also following my pretention to knowledge is vastly different from any theist. The theist generally believes in an afterlife so a person with the pretention to knowledge of an afterlife will be less willing to give up that belief, and any person who is on the fence would be willing to be able to look forward to the possiblility of an afterlife as opposed to the lack of an afterlife. Hell, if there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed a god I wouldn't hesitate to believe in that particular diety.

I don't know what word your trying to use, but pretention is not a word and pretension does not seem to fit.

Originally Posted by NEp8ntballer

How is it possible for one to assert the lack of existence with a lack of evidence is simple. If a person were to make the claim that some species existed in the past without ever seeing it and having no proof besides the words from a bunch of anmal sacrificing farmers they would be the laughing stock of the scientific community.

... or if someone claimed the earth were round when everyone believed it was flat. ... or if someone claimed that all objects fall at the same rate. It's not proof. It may seem unlikely and inconsistent, but it's not *proof*.

[Mps2216]

Originally Posted by Randomperson

I know there is no god.

I wish I could believe that there was a god, but to me I feel there is zero chance of that.

I'm taller than they are?

Cause I feel like it.

You know of that which is beyond knowing? Somewhat similar to believing in that which is unbelievable. Interesting...

[ZenMike]

Originally Posted by Randomperson

I'm taller than they are?

Cause I feel like it.

LOL

[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by Mps2216

Wait, wasn't that my argument? :p

Ya, we have another point of agreement.

Originally Posted by ZenMike

It's got nothing to do with probability. You can't prove something doesn't exist. Given the evidence, the existence of the Christian god is no more likely than the existence of the Lock Ness Monster, unicorns, or flying spaghetti monsters.

It has everything to do with probability. FSM and Christian God about the same, but in the case of unicorns and Nessy, we can say they have a low probability of existence, because they must follow the same laws as other animals and since they have been said to exist on earth and humans have explored much of earth we can say the probability of their existence is very low.

By your argument, it requires faith to believe that there is and will continue to be gravity, that one can't fly, that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Yes it does, but...

On some level that may be true, but your trivializing religious faith by claiming them to be equivalent.

I am not claiming them to be equivalent, because we have experience with all of the above mentioned things and we can make a reasonable assumption that they will continue to act in the same matter. But with the case of no God, we have something whose evidence for and against is equally sparse and therefore making an assumption either way takes more faith than believing in gravity.

But so what? Are you specifically addressing the 7 people in your poll who claimed to know there is no god? Obviously they don't have proof that no god exists. Congrats. You caught them. What now? What is your claim? That it can't be proven that gods don't exist? That's true. What's next?

It's simply my assault on atheism as making a similiar leap of faith as theism.

[ZenMike]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

It's simply my assault on atheism as making a similiar leap of faith as theism.

Are there atheists as closed-minded and presumptuous as theists? Yes. Are there open-minded, reasonable theists? Maybe

My disbelief in god(s) is as strong as it gets. I also believe there are not gods, much less that the Christian God is the one true god. But I can't claim to know for a fact that there is no god. I don't know if I'm the person you're going after or not, so I'll assume we agree on this and stop arguing.

[Randomperson]

Originally Posted by Mps2216

You know of that which is beyond knowing? Somewhat similar to believing in that which is unbelievable. Interesting...

Who says it's beyond knowing? If I know it, obviously it's not unknowable otherwise I couldn't know it. You know?

[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by ZenMike

Are there atheists as closed-minded and presumptuous as theists? Yes. Are there open-minded, reasonable theists? Maybe

My disbelief in god(s) is as strong as it gets. I also believe there are not gods, much less that the Christian God is the one true god. But I can't claim to know for a fact that there is no god. I don't know if I'm the person you're going after or not, so I'll assume we agree on this and stop arguing.

And we are fine.

[Mps2216]

Originally Posted by Randomperson

Who says it's beyond knowing? If I know it, obviously it's not unknowable otherwise I couldn't know it. You know?

Do you know it?