The Elliot Argument
0
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Eh, that sounds more science fiction to me. Not saying it's not possible, but it's just as much of an assumption as saying god created the universe.
It still doesn't really explain why the universal rules (physics) exist or are they way they are.
Not really, saying god exists is equivalent to saying magic exists. The theory I proposed is more realistic. Because even if God does exist, it wouldn't explain how he created the universe or why he created it the way he did. Most of the universe is very hostile to us, even the earth was once unable to sustain life. We're only here now, because the environment is now capable sustaining lifeforms like us. When the environment changed, we adapted in order to continue living. The environment is forever changing, therefore we will coninue to adapt to its pace. Now, unless god came down and told us how and why he created the world this way, we'd never be able to figure it out. At least with the theory I believe in, we can use the scientific method. Maybe not now, but one day.
If we assume that God is like the traditional meaning of the word.
I don't see how a God wouldn't be able to create the universe.
And personally I don't think we'll ever find evidence that supports either side completely.
-I would argue that point if I was an atheist, but I'm not, I'm a pantheist, so my meaning of the word god isn't exactly traditional either.
-Never claimed a god wouldn't be able to create the universe. My point was rather, couldn't he have done a better job if there was phenomenal intellegence behind the creation of the universe? If you keep tabs on space news, you'd know that very little areas in the universe are capable of breeding life. Hell, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark matter/energy. If a deity is out there, they did a crappy ass job.
-We have a better shot at finding evidence for the theory I believe in since it coincides with the scientific method. Meaning, it is capable of being researched, studied and tested when the time is available. You can't prove or disprove god. If a being were to come down from who knows where and claim they are god, would you believe them right off the bat just because they can do freaky shit that can't be explained? Or would you insist that being is just an advanced alien? Where do we draw the line between god and alien (especially since the god you're implying might exist isn't exactly traditional)?
Wouldnt that make the assumption that God was planning on creating life?
I don't see how a being could create something like a universe by accident. That's no different than saying it all occured by chance, which is something we both clearly reject.
Well I think of it like how I imagine my dream civ game.
I create a world, I create the basis for how it works.
Then I make it so that it can change itself to become better.
Then just press play and watch what happens.
Kinda like how programmers do those learning AI things.
But on a massive scale.
That doesn't sound like a god, just a highly advanced alien programmer.
thats making the assumption of what a god is like right?
Why wouldn't a god want to use his powers to see what he can make?
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Eh, that sounds more science fiction to me. Not saying it's not possible, but it's just as much of an assumption as saying god created the universe.
It still doesn't really explain why the universal rules (physics) exist or are they way they are.
Not really, saying god exists is equivalent to saying magic exists. The theory I proposed is more realistic. Because even if God does exist, it wouldn't explain how he created the universe or why he created it the way he did. Most of the universe is very hostile to us, even the earth was once unable to sustain life. We're only here now, because the environment is now capable sustaining lifeforms like us. When the environment changed, we adapted in order to continue living. The environment is forever changing, therefore we will coninue to adapt to its pace. Now, unless god came down and told us how and why he created the world this way, we'd never be able to figure it out. At least with the theory I believe in, we can use the scientific method. Maybe not now, but one day.
If we assume that God is like the traditional meaning of the word.
I don't see how a God wouldn't be able to create the universe.
And personally I don't think we'll ever find evidence that supports either side completely.
-I would argue that point if I was an atheist, but I'm not, I'm a pantheist, so my meaning of the word god isn't exactly traditional either.
-Never claimed a god wouldn't be able to create the universe. My point was rather, couldn't he have done a better job if there was phenomenal intellegence behind the creation of the universe? If you keep tabs on space news, you'd know that very little areas in the universe are capable of breeding life. Hell, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark matter/energy. If a deity is out there, they did a crappy ass job.
-We have a better shot at finding evidence for the theory I believe in since it coincides with the scientific method. Meaning, it is capable of being researched, studied and tested when the time is available. You can't prove or disprove god. If a being were to come down from who knows where and claim they are god, would you believe them right off the bat just because they can do freaky shit that can't be explained? Or would you insist that being is just an advanced alien? Where do we draw the line between god and alien (especially since the god you're implying might exist isn't exactly traditional)?
Wouldnt that make the assumption that God was planning on creating life?
I don't see how a being could create something like a universe by accident. That's no different than saying it all occured by chance, which is something we both clearly reject.
Well I think of it like how I imagine my dream civ game.
I create a world, I create the basis for how it works.
Then I make it so that it can change itself to become better.
Then just press play and watch what happens.
Kinda like how programmers do those learning AI things.
But on a massive scale.
That doesn't sound like a god, just a highly advanced alien programmer.
thats making the assumption of what a god is like right?
Why wouldn't a god want to use his powers to see what he can make?
True, but by what you described, a human could become "god" once the technology advances and allows us to create a lifelike universe. Once quantum computers become more sophisticated, that concept could become very real.
0
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Eh, that sounds more science fiction to me. Not saying it's not possible, but it's just as much of an assumption as saying god created the universe.
It still doesn't really explain why the universal rules (physics) exist or are they way they are.
Not really, saying god exists is equivalent to saying magic exists. The theory I proposed is more realistic. Because even if God does exist, it wouldn't explain how he created the universe or why he created it the way he did. Most of the universe is very hostile to us, even the earth was once unable to sustain life. We're only here now, because the environment is now capable sustaining lifeforms like us. When the environment changed, we adapted in order to continue living. The environment is forever changing, therefore we will coninue to adapt to its pace. Now, unless god came down and told us how and why he created the world this way, we'd never be able to figure it out. At least with the theory I believe in, we can use the scientific method. Maybe not now, but one day.
If we assume that God is like the traditional meaning of the word.
I don't see how a God wouldn't be able to create the universe.
And personally I don't think we'll ever find evidence that supports either side completely.
-I would argue that point if I was an atheist, but I'm not, I'm a pantheist, so my meaning of the word god isn't exactly traditional either.
-Never claimed a god wouldn't be able to create the universe. My point was rather, couldn't he have done a better job if there was phenomenal intellegence behind the creation of the universe? If you keep tabs on space news, you'd know that very little areas in the universe are capable of breeding life. Hell, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark matter/energy. If a deity is out there, they did a crappy ass job.
-We have a better shot at finding evidence for the theory I believe in since it coincides with the scientific method. Meaning, it is capable of being researched, studied and tested when the time is available. You can't prove or disprove god. If a being were to come down from who knows where and claim they are god, would you believe them right off the bat just because they can do freaky shit that can't be explained? Or would you insist that being is just an advanced alien? Where do we draw the line between god and alien (especially since the god you're implying might exist isn't exactly traditional)?
Wouldnt that make the assumption that God was planning on creating life?
I don't see how a being could create something like a universe by accident. That's no different than saying it all occured by chance, which is something we both clearly reject.
Well I think of it like how I imagine my dream civ game.
I create a world, I create the basis for how it works.
Then I make it so that it can change itself to become better.
Then just press play and watch what happens.
Kinda like how programmers do those learning AI things.
But on a massive scale.
That doesn't sound like a god, just a highly advanced alien programmer.
thats making the assumption of what a god is like right?
Why wouldn't a god want to use his powers to see what he can make?
True, but by what you described, a human could become "god" once the technology once the technology advances and allows us to create a lifelike universe. Once quantum computers become more sophisticated, that concept could become very real.
what if the universe is just a computer program in some kind of superior beings computer? O.O
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Eh, that sounds more science fiction to me. Not saying it's not possible, but it's just as much of an assumption as saying god created the universe.
It still doesn't really explain why the universal rules (physics) exist or are they way they are.
Not really, saying god exists is equivalent to saying magic exists. The theory I proposed is more realistic. Because even if God does exist, it wouldn't explain how he created the universe or why he created it the way he did. Most of the universe is very hostile to us, even the earth was once unable to sustain life. We're only here now, because the environment is now capable sustaining lifeforms like us. When the environment changed, we adapted in order to continue living. The environment is forever changing, therefore we will coninue to adapt to its pace. Now, unless god came down and told us how and why he created the world this way, we'd never be able to figure it out. At least with the theory I believe in, we can use the scientific method. Maybe not now, but one day.
If we assume that God is like the traditional meaning of the word.
I don't see how a God wouldn't be able to create the universe.
And personally I don't think we'll ever find evidence that supports either side completely.
-I would argue that point if I was an atheist, but I'm not, I'm a pantheist, so my meaning of the word god isn't exactly traditional either.
-Never claimed a god wouldn't be able to create the universe. My point was rather, couldn't he have done a better job if there was phenomenal intellegence behind the creation of the universe? If you keep tabs on space news, you'd know that very little areas in the universe are capable of breeding life. Hell, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark matter/energy. If a deity is out there, they did a crappy ass job.
-We have a better shot at finding evidence for the theory I believe in since it coincides with the scientific method. Meaning, it is capable of being researched, studied and tested when the time is available. You can't prove or disprove god. If a being were to come down from who knows where and claim they are god, would you believe them right off the bat just because they can do freaky shit that can't be explained? Or would you insist that being is just an advanced alien? Where do we draw the line between god and alien (especially since the god you're implying might exist isn't exactly traditional)?
Wouldnt that make the assumption that God was planning on creating life?
I don't see how a being could create something like a universe by accident. That's no different than saying it all occured by chance, which is something we both clearly reject.
Well I think of it like how I imagine my dream civ game.
I create a world, I create the basis for how it works.
Then I make it so that it can change itself to become better.
Then just press play and watch what happens.
Kinda like how programmers do those learning AI things.
But on a massive scale.
That doesn't sound like a god, just a highly advanced alien programmer.
thats making the assumption of what a god is like right?
Why wouldn't a god want to use his powers to see what he can make?
True, but by what you described, a human could become "god" once the technology once the technology advances and allows us to create a lifelike universe. Once quantum computers become more sophisticated, that concept could become very real.
what if the universe is just a computer program in some kind of superior beings computer? O.O
That theory has been coined before. I mean, when you put your hand up close enough, they look like pixels. O_O
0
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
Eh, that sounds more science fiction to me. Not saying it's not possible, but it's just as much of an assumption as saying god created the universe.
It still doesn't really explain why the universal rules (physics) exist or are they way they are.
Not really, saying god exists is equivalent to saying magic exists. The theory I proposed is more realistic. Because even if God does exist, it wouldn't explain how he created the universe or why he created it the way he did. Most of the universe is very hostile to us, even the earth was once unable to sustain life. We're only here now, because the environment is now capable sustaining lifeforms like us. When the environment changed, we adapted in order to continue living. The environment is forever changing, therefore we will coninue to adapt to its pace. Now, unless god came down and told us how and why he created the world this way, we'd never be able to figure it out. At least with the theory I believe in, we can use the scientific method. Maybe not now, but one day.
If we assume that God is like the traditional meaning of the word.
I don't see how a God wouldn't be able to create the universe.
And personally I don't think we'll ever find evidence that supports either side completely.
-I would argue that point if I was an atheist, but I'm not, I'm a pantheist, so my meaning of the word god isn't exactly traditional either.
-Never claimed a god wouldn't be able to create the universe. My point was rather, couldn't he have done a better job if there was phenomenal intellegence behind the creation of the universe? If you keep tabs on space news, you'd know that very little areas in the universe are capable of breeding life. Hell, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark matter/energy. If a deity is out there, they did a crappy ass job.
-We have a better shot at finding evidence for the theory I believe in since it coincides with the scientific method. Meaning, it is capable of being researched, studied and tested when the time is available. You can't prove or disprove god. If a being were to come down from who knows where and claim they are god, would you believe them right off the bat just because they can do freaky shit that can't be explained? Or would you insist that being is just an advanced alien? Where do we draw the line between god and alien (especially since the god you're implying might exist isn't exactly traditional)?
Wouldnt that make the assumption that God was planning on creating life?
I don't see how a being could create something like a universe by accident. That's no different than saying it all occured by chance, which is something we both clearly reject.
Well I think of it like how I imagine my dream civ game.
I create a world, I create the basis for how it works.
Then I make it so that it can change itself to become better.
Then just press play and watch what happens.
Kinda like how programmers do those learning AI things.
But on a massive scale.
That doesn't sound like a god, just a highly advanced alien programmer.
thats making the assumption of what a god is like right?
Why wouldn't a god want to use his powers to see what he can make?
True, but by what you described, a human could become "god" once the technology once the technology advances and allows us to create a lifelike universe. Once quantum computers become more sophisticated, that concept could become very real.
what if the universe is just a computer program in some kind of superior beings computer? O.O
That theory has been coined before. I mean, when you put your hand up close enough, they look like pixels. O_O
Mountain look like back drops until you get close O_O
0
Renovartio wrote...
I've never really been completely convinced as to why the Universe would exist when it makes far more sense for it to not have. According to a completely atheistic viewpoint. (That it happened by chance).Well, whether a single species of animals can make sense of it or not doesn't really matter, as far as we can tell it does exist.
Renovartio wrote...
As in, if you believe that there is no God at all, what would have sparked the universes creation in the first place?We don't know, the people who believe in god don't know and the people who don't believe in god don't know.
Renovartio wrote...
If one can argue that the universe was an accident you would have to wonder why would such an event occur. It's basically impossible for the universe to have been created if it that were the case.You can wonder all you want, doesn't make it implausible.
Renovartio wrote...
Also you would have to think why the laws of the universe are what they are. Seeing as there was no predetermined reason for it.We are trying to figure that out (or maybe they even have, i don't know).
Renovartio wrote...
you can't say that they're atheist by default because they're not denying a God exists.Sure, somebody has to make a stupid claim like "the god of the bible exists" or "the god of quran is real" before you are an atheist. But if there are no unscientific claims ever made, there wouldn't be faith based believers either. And therefore everybody, by default, would have been non-believers, or atheists.
1
Coconutt wrote...
Renovartio wrote...
you can't say that they're atheist by default because they're not denying a God exists.Sure, somebody has to make a stupid claim like "the god of the bible exists" or "the god of quran is real" before you are an atheist. But if there are no unscientific claims ever made, there wouldn't be faith based believers either. And therefore everybody, by default, would have been non-believers, or atheists.
What?
The statement was:
Agnostic means they the person believe that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven and believes that we'll never know.
That doesn't mean the person automatically believes that a god doesn't exist.
Also
Humans have been worshiping gods for as long as we remember. We can't prove if we always believed in a god or not. It's not something we can prove. At least for now.
Personally, I don't like the word atheist. For some people, they treat it as a religion.
I think it's one thing to not believe in god and another to call yourself atheist.
Though, that's just if I were to label myself that. Not saying everyone is like that.
0
Theories as to the existence of god are what's called unfalsifiable claims. unfalsifiable meaning there's no possible way they could potentially be disproven because there's no way to properly study the claim.
Why is that important?
You can't prove something exists if you can't put it to the test and potentially disprove or "falsify" the claim.
So does that mean god doesn't exist? no. it means that weather or not god exists is beyond our current ability to test claims. Do you believe in god? good for you. Just don't let it affect your view of hard facts. Do you not believe in god? good for you. Just don't let it affect your mood when someone chooses to have faith in something you can't disprove.
This argument is divisive, a largely western problem. there is a middle ground, I have given you my middle ground stance, I'm sure there are others.
thank you and have a nice, none divisive day.
Why is that important?
You can't prove something exists if you can't put it to the test and potentially disprove or "falsify" the claim.
So does that mean god doesn't exist? no. it means that weather or not god exists is beyond our current ability to test claims. Do you believe in god? good for you. Just don't let it affect your view of hard facts. Do you not believe in god? good for you. Just don't let it affect your mood when someone chooses to have faith in something you can't disprove.
This argument is divisive, a largely western problem. there is a middle ground, I have given you my middle ground stance, I'm sure there are others.
thank you and have a nice, none divisive day.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
>agnostic agnostic
Wut
If you don't know, or you know you're in a state of not knowing, you technically can't believe in a god. You're open to a possibility that one exist, or could exist but you're not believing in one, definitely not worshiping one. Therefore you are inherently atheist if agnostic, but not vice versa.
Wut
If you don't know, or you know you're in a state of not knowing, you technically can't believe in a god. You're open to a possibility that one exist, or could exist but you're not believing in one, definitely not worshiping one. Therefore you are inherently atheist if agnostic, but not vice versa.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
cruz737 wrote...
>agnostic agnosticWut
If you don't know, or you know you're in a state of not knowing, you technically can't believe in a god. You're open to a possibility that one exist, or could exist but you're not believing in one, definitely not worshiping one. Therefore you are inherently atheist if agnostic, but not vice versa.
I don't know aliens exist, I'm aware I don't know if aliens exist. However, I still assume that they are out there somewhere, perhaps even guiding us indirectly. Just because I'm not sure if something exists, doesn't mean I can't assume it does. You are kinda right though, except you should be saying we are all agnostic - insert spiritual orientation. No one can be 100% sure that there is/isn't a god (no one can be 100% sure of anything except that you can't be 100% sure of anything.).
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
>agnostic agnosticWut
If you don't know, or you know you're in a state of not knowing, you technically can't believe in a god. You're open to a possibility that one exist, or could exist but you're not believing in one, definitely not worshiping one. Therefore you are inherently atheist if agnostic, but not vice versa.
I don't know aliens exist, I'm aware I don't know if aliens exist. However, I still assume that they are out there somewhere, perhaps even guiding us indirectly. Just because I'm not sure if something exists, doesn't mean I can't assume it does. You are kinda right though, except you should be saying we are all agnostic - insert spiritual orientation. No one can be 100% sure that there is/isn't a god (no one can be 100% sure of anything except that you can't be 100% sure of anything.).
No, you either believe they do, or you don't. Saying you're open to existence of a god means you don't currently believe and/or worship it. Therefore an atheist.
There are many things that are shades of gray, but this one isn't. You do or you don't. Having doubt means you don't, even if you are open to a possibility. Also no, we are not "all" agnostic. Some people are sure about what they believe, even if they don't want or try to explain it with a scientific method. But that's an entirely different argument that's mostly a waste of everyone's time.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
cruz737 wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
>agnostic agnosticWut
If you don't know, or you know you're in a state of not knowing, you technically can't believe in a god. You're open to a possibility that one exist, or could exist but you're not believing in one, definitely not worshiping one. Therefore you are inherently atheist if agnostic, but not vice versa.
I don't know aliens exist, I'm aware I don't know if aliens exist. However, I still assume that they are out there somewhere, perhaps even guiding us indirectly. Just because I'm not sure if something exists, doesn't mean I can't assume it does. You are kinda right though, except you should be saying we are all agnostic - insert spiritual orientation. No one can be 100% sure that there is/isn't a god (no one can be 100% sure of anything except that you can't be 100% sure of anything.).
No, you either believe they do, or you don't. Saying you're open to existence of a god means you don't currently believe and/or worship it. Therefore an atheist.
There are many things that are shades of gray, but this one isn't. You do or you don't. Having doubt means you don't, even if you are open to a possibility. Also no, we are not "all" agnostic. Some people are sure about what they believe, even if they don't want or try to explain it with a scientific method. But that's an entirely different argument that's mostly a waste of everyone's time.
Under who's authority are you to say that's how it works? What makes this an exception to everything else that could be in the gray area? I base my statements off of what other atheists and theists say about it. One may be sure of their position, but the reality is that they can't be completely sure, their conviction is an illusion set off either by reason, faith or indoctrination. Reason is the better of the three, but useless without empirical evidence.
Atheist means you don't believe in any gods period. However, since no on is sure there is no god(s) out there, one can only be Atheist-Agnostic. You may think you know that there isn't a god, but thinking isn't the same as actually knowing. The same goes for theists.
There is no exception for this, unless you have a reason as to why there is.
0
Likhos01
Monster Girl Lover
As far as alien life is concerned, it must exist, If we consider tardigrades can live in the most hostile of environment, alien life becomes possible, though maybe not intelligent like us.
0
Cat-ness
NekoMancer
Likhos01 wrote...
As far as alien life is concerned, it must exist, If we consider tardigrades can live in the most hostile of environment, alien life becomes possible, though maybe not intelligent like us.We can make that argument when we discover intelligent life on earth, one thing I've come to know is some humans are intelligent, but mot most their far and few.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
There is no exception for this, unless you have a reason as to why there is.
Except that's wrong. I'm not going to justify someone's viewpoint on what they do or don't believe, but there are deist of all sorts of races, ages, ethnicity who are adamant in what they believe. Same thing with Atheist, there are many who are adamant that there is no god.
Again, whether they're right or wrong isn't for me to say, but they exist.
And words have meanings.
So if you're not sure, the default is no, you don't believe. Even if you think it might be possible given enough evidence.
End of argument. Stop spouting nonsense.
0
Likhos01
Monster Girl Lover
God or no god, religions are a piece of shit who sacrifices individual liberty and humanity's evolution in the name of some fucking guy who should rather be considered the Universe's Biggest piece of shit if he ever exist in the first place.
Even Hitler is an innocent kid compared to what God does in the bible. There, said it.
And this is not a bunch of fanatical shit-eaters who will ever represent some form of application of any god's will, if your god gives a fuck, he acts by himself.
So, my advice: Listen to metal, smoke weed, wear condoms, practice anal, and abort a whole lot, because the asshole in the sky, if he even exist, doesn't give a shit.
Even Hitler is an innocent kid compared to what God does in the bible. There, said it.
And this is not a bunch of fanatical shit-eaters who will ever represent some form of application of any god's will, if your god gives a fuck, he acts by himself.
So, my advice: Listen to metal, smoke weed, wear condoms, practice anal, and abort a whole lot, because the asshole in the sky, if he even exist, doesn't give a shit.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
cruz737 wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
There is no exception for this, unless you have a reason as to why there is.
Except that's wrong. I'm not going to justify someone's viewpoint on what they do or don't believe, but there are deist of all sorts of races, ages, ethnicity who are adamant in what they believe. Same thing with Atheist, there are many who are adamant that there is no god.
Again, whether they're right or wrong isn't for me to say, but they exist.
And words have meanings.
So if you're not sure, the default is no, you don't believe. Even if you think it might be possible given enough evidence.
End of argument. Stop spouting nonsense.
I can't believe I'm debating this with you, even though we just had a recent debate where you simply refuted my speculation for lack of evidence. Now here you are defending speculators as if they KNOW anything about what they believe.
It doesn't matter how sure someone is about their belief/non belief, if there are no facts to back it up, then they CANNOT be certain. They may think they are certain, but thinking and knowing are two different things. If a child believes in Santa Claus, he doesn't "know" he exists, he just "believes" it. If that same child was told by friends that Santa Claus didn't exist, he would start to have doubts. However, even with that bit of doubt, the child still chooses to believe in Santa. Even though the child doesn't "know" anymore, he still believes. The default to not knowing isn't yes or no because that final decision is up to what the individual personally thinks. I could've flipped the story around and say that the child believed his friends that there wasn't a Santa and went with that. It could've gone either way irl.
You didn't answer my other questions. Under what authority is the topic of religion so special that "I don't Know' means "No" by default? Even though with everything else, I don't know doesn't mean yes or no. If someone asks me if this sandwhich is good even though I haven't tasted it yet, and I answer "I don't know", are you gonna assume I mean "no"? Use your fucking brain dude.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
There is no exception for this, unless you have a reason as to why there is.
Except that's wrong. I'm not going to justify someone's viewpoint on what they do or don't believe, but there are deist of all sorts of races, ages, ethnicity who are adamant in what they believe. Same thing with Atheist, there are many who are adamant that there is no god.
Again, whether they're right or wrong isn't for me to say, but they exist.
And words have meanings.
So if you're not sure, the default is no, you don't believe. Even if you think it might be possible given enough evidence.
End of argument. Stop spouting nonsense.
I can't believe I'm debating this with you, even though we just had a recent debate where you simply refuted my speculation for lack of evidence. Now here you are defending speculators as if they KNOW anything about what they believe.
It doesn't matter how sure someone is about their belief/non belief, if there are no facts to back it up, then they CANNOT be certain. They may think they are certain, but thinking and knowing are two different things. If a child believes in Santa Claus, he doesn't "know" he exists, he just "believes" it. If that same child was told by friends that Santa Claus didn't exist, he would start to have doubts. However, even with that bit of doubt, the child still chooses to believe in Santa. Even though the child doesn't "know" anymore, he still believes. The default to not knowing isn't yes or no because that final decision is up to what the individual personally thinks. I could've flipped the story around and say that the child believed his friends that there wasn't a Santa and went with that. It could've gone either way irl.
You didn't answer my other questions. Under what authority is the topic of religion so special that "I don't Know' means "No" by default? Even though with everything else, I don't know doesn't mean yes or no. If someone asks me if this sandwhich is good even though I haven't tasted it yet, and I answer "I don't know", are you gonna assume I mean "no"? Use your fucking brain dude.
You're still arguing another person's beliefs and pushing your logic into their world view. I'm not saying their position is wrong or right.
>under what authority
Maybe doesn't mean yes.
When someone ask you about something you don't know about, you say "No, I don't know." You could even say, "I don't know, but it has ingredients I like", or "I know the chef and he's a great so it might be" but you're ultimately admitting you don't know. And if you don't know it's impossible to say yes, it is a good sandwich.
I'm not saying uncertainty isn't complex or could have a variety of reasons for someone being in that state, just that in this specific scenario, uncertainty means you don't believe in a god.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but words have meanings.
0
FinalBoss
#levelupyourgrind
Cruz wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
cruz737 wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
There is no exception for this, unless you have a reason as to why there is.
Except that's wrong. I'm not going to justify someone's viewpoint on what they do or don't believe, but there are deist of all sorts of races, ages, ethnicity who are adamant in what they believe. Same thing with Atheist, there are many who are adamant that there is no god.
Again, whether they're right or wrong isn't for me to say, but they exist.
And words have meanings.
So if you're not sure, the default is no, you don't believe. Even if you think it might be possible given enough evidence.
End of argument. Stop spouting nonsense.
I can't believe I'm debating this with you, even though we just had a recent debate where you simply refuted my speculation for lack of evidence. Now here you are defending speculators as if they KNOW anything about what they believe.
It doesn't matter how sure someone is about their belief/non belief, if there are no facts to back it up, then they CANNOT be certain. They may think they are certain, but thinking and knowing are two different things. If a child believes in Santa Claus, he doesn't "know" he exists, he just "believes" it. If that same child was told by friends that Santa Claus didn't exist, he would start to have doubts. However, even with that bit of doubt, the child still chooses to believe in Santa. Even though the child doesn't "know" anymore, he still believes. The default to not knowing isn't yes or no because that final decision is up to what the individual personally thinks. I could've flipped the story around and say that the child believed his friends that there wasn't a Santa and went with that. It could've gone either way irl.
You didn't answer my other questions. Under what authority is the topic of religion so special that "I don't Know' means "No" by default? Even though with everything else, I don't know doesn't mean yes or no. If someone asks me if this sandwhich is good even though I haven't tasted it yet, and I answer "I don't know", are you gonna assume I mean "no"? Use your fucking brain dude.
You're still arguing another person's beliefs and pushing your logic into their world view. I'm not saying their position is wrong or right.
>under what authority
Maybe doesn't mean yes.
When someone ask you about something you don't know about, you say "No, I don't know." You could even say, "I don't know, but it has ingredients I like", or "I know the chef and he's a great so it might be" but you're ultimately admitting you don't know. And if you don't know it's impossible to say yes, it is a good sandwich.
I'm not saying uncertainty isn't complex or could have a variety of reasons for someone being in that state, just that in this specific scenario, uncertainty means you don't believe in a god.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but words have meanings.
I never add "no" to "I don't know' if I'm uncertain about something. That must be something you do. Its unheard of for me to hear someone add that. Its true you can add those statements to "I don't Know", but that doesn't mean it'll give the person asking a piece of mind that you have any idea that the sandwhich will actually be good or not. In the end, you never tried it. The same goes for religion, you never met god, so you don't know he exists, and on the flip side you can't prove he doesn't exist because it is impossible to place the burden on an atheist to begin with. I get the feeling you're grasping straws here.
Maybe doesn't mean yes, but it doesn't mean no either. Its acknowledging a probability that something could or couldn't be without taking an actual stance on either option. Maybe you should heed your own statements when you say "words have meaning."
You still have yet to explain what makes Religion so special where uncertainty leans towards not believing exclusively. You just keep saying the same thing like a broken record without really explaining yourself. Doing things like that will get this debate nowhere.
Here, maybe a pretty girl can convince you:
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
FinalBoss wrote...
-literal diarrhea in word form-
Wow, it's almost like I've been saying the same thing for weeks. Words have meanings. You can't be certain and uncertain at the same time.
It's like you're so adamant about saying that "no" is the default side even though it completely is given the context of this situation. Why don't you just go burn a bunch of dictionaries or something?
[edit]
I'm not going to watch the video because I've seen it before.
Your arguments come straight from the comment section, you idiot. I don't know why I need to constantly repeat myself. The definition of atheist has nothing to do whether you're open to the idea of a god existing, it just means you don't believe in god. Agnostic, just means you're aware of your lack of knowledge. When you admit to not knowing, you are directly saying you have no conviction, even if you think it is possible for there to be a god.