I say I am an Agnostic, but

[Neoteny]

Well, it's infinitesimal chance for the elephant thing. It's completely unknown for "god". In science, you develop a probability for different theories based on the evidence provided-- if a lot of evidence supports one theory, it's more likely, and a more useful theory. When there is no evidence either way, then it's not likely or unlikely, it's just a hypothesis; something you ignore for the time being. There is essentially no evidence for or against most of religion, and therefore it is can be considered a hypothesis -- I consider it useless, not because I believe it isn't true, but because I choose not to believe anything about it. I may just be mincing words, but I like to be precise, as I'm trying to take the scientific perspective on the issue.

The reason I can say that the intangible elephant has an infinitesimal chance of existing: an intangible elephant-shaped humming creature would not be an elephant, as there is a lot of evidence that elephants are visible.

It's interesting... for some reason the vast majority of objections I tend to get are from the atheists. That makes little sense to me.

The simple answer is that we really are more obnoxious than theists. The thing is, there is a lot of evidence against the majority of claims most theists make (zombies anyone? It's either lies or trickery.). To say that there is no evidence either way is a bit fallacious. And this fact really ruins the credibility of all the rest of their claims. Again, why give credence to people whose credulousness is rather... blatant?

[Ditocoaf]

I don't understand. How can any religion qualify to be a hypothesis? A Hypothesis is an educated guess,.... But all religions are just guesses......... And I know that that is going to piss some people off, but I am serious. All of the 'evidence' that each religious community has is only accepted within their own community. So then isn't it a leap to call them "hypothesis?"

A "hypothesis" is a pre-test idea. In scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, gather evidence, then determine the probability of your hypothesis based on the evidence. Perhaps I could have used a better word, but my point was simply this: Religion has a proposal, but no evidence to confirm or deny it. I'll say "proposal" instead of "hypothesis" from now on.

And yes, there is no evidence to deny it. Most religious belief propose an intangible god, one that they claim is beyond proof (I know this from attending eight years of catholic school, and then spending hours discussing religion with many people of various faith since). This in itself is why a scientific approach would reject these claims -- not because it is disproven, but because it is a proposal that inherently cannot be judged by evidence, and therefore useless. The probability is not almost 0, or almost 1, or 0.5, but rather N/A -- and therefore the proposal essentially has no bearing on reality.

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

[MeDeFe]

I don't understand. How can any religion qualify to be a hypothesis? A Hypothesis is an educated guess,.... But all religions are just guesses......... And I know that that is going to piss some people off, but I am serious. All of the 'evidence' that each religious community has is only accepted within their own community. So then isn't it a leap to call them "hypothesis?"

A "hypothesis" is a pre-test idea. In scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, gather evidence, then determine the probability of your hypothesis based on the evidence. Perhaps I could have used a better word, but my point was simply this: Religion has a proposal, but no evidence to confirm or deny it. I'll say "proposal" instead of "hypothesis" from now on.

And yes, there is no evidence to deny it. Most religious belief propose an intangible god, one that they claim is beyond proof (I know this from attending eight years of catholic school, and then spending hours discussing religion with many people of various faith since). This in itself is why a scientific approach would reject these claims -- not because it is disproven, but because it is a proposal that inherently cannot be judged by evidence, and therefore useless. The probability is not almost 0, or almost 1, or 0.5, but rather N/A -- and therefore the proposal essentially has no bearing on reality.

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

Good thinking in the last sentence, now insert the word 'god' instead of 'force' and read it out loud.

Also: I think scientific hypotheses are arrived at by looking at the evidence that doesn't quite fit in with the theories so far, coming up with a hypothesis to explain it and then looking for more evidence supporting your hypothesis. Remaining evidence for god is atm nil since we're able to explain what lightnings are and how tsunamis and whirlwinds and stuff are caused. So far everything that used to be "explained" through god has turned out to have natural, identifiable causes, it's probably safe to bet on the trend continuing.

[jonesthecurl]

I just heard a noise behind me. I think it was Archibald Grumpmufflin the 32nd farting.

[Neoteny]

I don't understand. How can any religion qualify to be a hypothesis? A Hypothesis is an educated guess,.... But all religions are just guesses......... And I know that that is going to piss some people off, but I am serious. All of the 'evidence' that each religious community has is only accepted within their own community. So then isn't it a leap to call them "hypothesis?"

A "hypothesis" is a pre-test idea. In scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, gather evidence, then determine the probability of your hypothesis based on the evidence. Perhaps I could have used a better word, but my point was simply this: Religion has a proposal, but no evidence to confirm or deny it. I'll say "proposal" instead of "hypothesis" from now on.

And yes, there is no evidence to deny it. Most religious belief propose an intangible god, one that they claim is beyond proof (I know this from attending eight years of catholic school, and then spending hours discussing religion with many people of various faith since). This in itself is why a scientific approach would reject these claims -- not because it is disproven, but because it is a proposal that inherently cannot be judged by evidence, and therefore useless. The probability is not almost 0, or almost 1, or 0.5, but rather N/A -- and therefore the proposal essentially has no bearing on reality.

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

Perhaps all I can say is to expound on MeDeFe's comment. Your proposed force would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed publication due to its very nature. It would follow that so should a god hypothesis.

[Ditocoaf]

I don't understand. How can any religion qualify to be a hypothesis? A Hypothesis is an educated guess,.... But all religions are just guesses......... And I know that that is going to piss some people off, but I am serious. All of the 'evidence' that each religious community has is only accepted within their own community. So then isn't it a leap to call them "hypothesis?"

A "hypothesis" is a pre-test idea. In scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis, gather evidence, then determine the probability of your hypothesis based on the evidence. Perhaps I could have used a better word, but my point was simply this: Religion has a proposal, but no evidence to confirm or deny it. I'll say "proposal" instead of "hypothesis" from now on.

And yes, there is no evidence to deny it. Most religious belief propose an intangible god, one that they claim is beyond proof (I know this from attending eight years of catholic school, and then spending hours discussing religion with many people of various faith since). This in itself is why a scientific approach would reject these claims -- not because it is disproven, but because it is a proposal that inherently cannot be judged by evidence, and therefore useless. The probability is not almost 0, or almost 1, or 0.5, but rather N/A -- and therefore the proposal essentially has no bearing on reality.

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

Perhaps all I can say is to expound on MeDeFe's comment. Your proposed force would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed publication due to its very nature. It would follow that so should a god hypothesis.

Yes, what MeDeFe said is exactly my point; the metaphor was intentional, of course. My point is both that the proposal of an intangible supreme being is one to ignore, and not give any credence. but to say that it has been "disproven" is inaccurate. True, someone could not write about that fifth force I described in a peer-reviewed publication. But if they brought it up in a colloquium, they wouldn't be laughed out per-se... instead, they would be asked for their evidence. If they insisted it was real and should be treated as such, without said evidence, then[i] they would be laughed out. But the mere [i]proposal is legitimate, but a dead end, due to it's intangible nature. Theorizing about the existence of a god is perfectly legitimate, but also a dead end. To claim that you have found the answers about such a thing, or even to claim certainty about its existence, is ludicrous. This is the distinction I am trying to make.

[tzor]

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

Perhaps all I can say is to expound on MeDeFe's comment. Your proposed force would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed publication due to its very nature. It would follow that so should a god hypothesis.

You realize that technically speaking this has happened and no one laughed. It is called "String Theory" and it has been given serious scientific seriousness even though it is basically a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type of almost unprovable theory.

[MeDeFe]

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

Perhaps all I can say is to expound on MeDeFe's comment. Your proposed force would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed publication due to its very nature. It would follow that so should a god hypothesis.

You realize that technically speaking this has happened and no one laughed. It is called "String Theory" and it has been given serious scientific seriousness even though it is basically a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type of almost unprovable theory.

There is a difference, though, let me quote.

The logical coherence of the approach, however, and the fact that string theory can include all older theories of physics, have led many physicists to believe that such a connection is possible.

I bolded the important parts. Now for a comparison because I feel like it: god (or more generally: creator) can hardly be called logical, not even if you leave out the religious bits, a being so complex that it's capable of planning and creating a universe, supposedly from nothing, is supposed to not have to come from somewhere but just exist? Unlike anything we have been able to observe so far. I think logical coherence just committed suicide there...
A creator does not explain anything about how or why things work the way they do, because the answer is always "well, obviously the creator made it that way", it does not encompass any scientific theory at all. String theory is at least mathematically a feasible explanation.
And finally, not every physicist has accepted string theory as the be-all and end-all, the theory is possibly correct, but that's about it and it's being disputed, it even says on so on Wikipedia which you linked us to.

Also, it's not claimed that the hypothesis is by definition untestable (as usually is the case with god), it's said that it would be extremely expensive and experiments would have to take place on a scale possibly larger than our planet. So what's your point?

[tzor]

I bolded the important parts. Now for a comparison because I feel like it: god (or more generally: creator) can hardly be called logical, not even if you leave out the religious bits, a being so complex that it's capable of planning and creating a universe, supposedly from nothing, is supposed to not have to come from somewhere but just exist? Unlike anything we have been able to observe so far. I think logical coherence just committed suicide there...

You have indirectly brought up a strawman argument. But let's recap the scientific side of the argument so far. Einstien was the first to consider time a dimension just as space is and thus a property of the universe. Hawkings, in his close universe model insisted that if space was closed so was time thus the universe is a static space time object and simply is. (Actually Hawkings arguments can apply to an open universe as well you just have to play with first order of infinities.) Current models propose multiple "universes" that interact but in effect must be "static" within the higher order "multiverse." Thus each would have their own seperate time dimension. The interverse might as well be timeless, or it may be trans temoporal with it's own time dimension.

If we can suppose that a separate physical universe could interact with ours and that separate physical universe would have it's own understanding of time, then why is it the death of "logical coherence" to assume that some sentient being could not also from the convenience of being outside our own space time dimensions interact and impact space time?

Yes that argues as much for a loving "god" as it does for hiddedous "deep ones," but the point remains. The classic logic arguments against god break down once you consider things outside the universe and the confines of space time within the universe.

[MeDeFe]

If we can suppose that a separate physical universe could interact with ours and that separate physical universe would have it's own understanding of time, then why is it the death of "logical coherence" to assume that some sentient being could not also from the convenience of being outside our own space time dimensions interact and impact space time?

That's not what I said? Like, at all?
I said that logical coherence jumps out the window the moment you state that this being exists without having to be the product of something but just popped into existence or "always" has existed.

[tzor]

Also, it's not claimed that the hypothesis is by definition untestable (as usually is the case with god), it's said that it would be extremely expensive and experiments would have to take place on a scale possibly larger than our planet. So what's your point?

The point is that on the one hand even the most elegant of theories can be flat out wrong. Consider the models of the solar system (both sun and earth centered) before the relization that planets actually obit in elipses. The solution was to create a series of orbits within orbits; circles within circles. What they did was to invent the fourrier transform before the time of fourrier or better stll create the quivalent of the toy know as the spirograph. (Cool I can create square orbits, triangular orbits and loopy loop oprbits.)

Theory that can't be reasonably tested has the potential to be wrong. On the other hand theory that can't be reasonably tested as the potential to be right. Can we "test" the existance of god? (Does anyone want to?) Or is this like string theory, "it would be extremely expensive and experiments would have to take place on a scale possibly larger than our planet."

[tzor]

That's not what I said? Like, at all?
I said that logical coherence jumps out the window the moment you state that this being exists without having to be the product of something but just popped into existence or "always" has existed.

My point is that anything outside of space time has "always" existed in the viewpoint of anything within space time. Time is an illusion of space time. Any being who can observe the complete space time universe has "always" existed" since that being at observe all points of space time from what we call "the beginning" to "the end" as easily as you can look at a book from the first page to the last page.

A good example is going to fewer dimensions and the discussion in flatworld about how the one dimensional being (in lineworld) preceived the intrusion of the two dimensional being into his linear universe. The 19th century book doesn't go into the notions of extending the metaphore into space and time but the results can get even more bizzare.

[MeDeFe]

That's not what I said? Like, at all?
I said that logical coherence jumps out the window the moment you state that this being exists without having to be the product of something but just popped into existence or "always" has existed.

My point is that anything outside of space time has "always" existed in the viewpoint of anything within space time. Time is an illusion of space time. Any being who can observe the complete space time universe has "always" existed" since that being at observe all points of space time from what we call "the beginning" to "the end" as easily as you can look at a book from the first page to the last page.

A good example is going to fewer dimensions and the discussion in flatworld about how the one dimensional being (in lineworld) preceived the intrusion of the two dimensional being into his linear universe. The 19th century book doesn't go into the notions of extending the metaphore into space and time but the results can get even more bizzare.

So? It still has not always existed within its own universe.

[Snorri1234]

That's not what I said? Like, at all?
I said that logical coherence jumps out the window the moment you state that this being exists without having to be the product of something but just popped into existence or "always" has existed.

My point is that anything outside of space time has "always" existed in the viewpoint of anything within space time. Time is an illusion of space time. Any being who can observe the complete space time universe has "always" existed" since that being at observe all points of space time from what we call "the beginning" to "the end" as easily as you can look at a book from the first page to the last page.

Except that this god-fellow was there before "the beginning".

[tzor]

So? It still has not always existed within its own universe.

OK, point taken, at least it would be a point if any notion of God required such an argument. I'm not aware of any such arguments that are required. All notions of god are taken from the point of view of a person within the universe.

Snorri, one only requires the ability to be present at Time t where t is defined as less than the beginning. In the closed universe that means any time before the end. In the open universe it means any time before the point of infinity because plus infinity equals minus infinity.

Back to MeDeFe, there are two possible models one can use. The perpendicular linear temporal model. There is no reason to believe that the universe wasn't created, all of space and all of time at the same time in a perpendicular time line. There is no reason to believe that an intelligence existed in that time line before or after such creation.

The second is the completely non temporal model. Frankly, I have a hard time thinking in completely non time terms. On the other hand, thinking outside the box of time does give some very interesting results.

[Neoteny]

Say I proposed that there was a fifth fundamental force, one that does not directly or tangibly effect anything in our known experience, and could not be measured or determined with current scientific knowledge. I have a hypothesis (or "proposal") for an experiment... but there is no experiment I could conduct. Until I can come up with some way to determine the validity of my idea, the idea cannot be used in legitimate scientific theory; it is only useful for "what if" discussions. That isn't to say that this force has been disproven. But the this force cannot be assumed to exist.

Perhaps all I can say is to expound on MeDeFe's comment. Your proposed force would be laughed out of any peer-reviewed publication due to its very nature. It would follow that so should a god hypothesis.

You realize that technically speaking this has happened and no one laughed. It is called "String Theory" and it has been given serious scientific seriousness even though it is basically a "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type of almost unprovable theory.

Well, people have laughed, but string theory has a bit of math to back it up at least (speaking of straw men). String theorists aren't really making statistically outlandish claims, however.

[Ditocoaf]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

[Neoteny]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

String theory makes for interesting drunken conversations. That's all that needs to be said.

[jonesthecurl]

there are several aspects of the "science" best-guess picture right now which i don't know enough to argue with, but which I feel are headed in the same direction as "phlogiston".

I'm not sure about "strings". My head hurts whenever i read about them, which is admittedly not a valid argument.

But I really think that the "dark matter" and "dark energy" ideas will be in for bathwater changes (and I suspect that someone will theorise just why there is no baby in the bath) - and that the idea that we can only directly observe about 1% of the universe will be seen as another phlogiston.

[tzor]

I think the real answer is that sometimes things are not what we originally thought them to be becuse the universe is stranger than we thought it to be. Sometimes the simple solution is actually wrong.

Consider "vulcan." Did vulcan exist? Well sort of. It virtually exists. Vulcan, for those who are still clueless was the "planet" that was between the sun and mercury that was supposed to explain the wobbles in the orbit of mercury. Vulcan wasn't actually a planet, it was the effect of general relativity and the sun.

Dark matter might be another similiar event. It might be "virtual matter" caused by space time influences of other uiverses impacting our own. (The biggest question is no longer if the universe is closed or open but why the acceleration of the universe is flat out wacky over galactic time.)

[Neoteny]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

To bring this back to where Ditocoaf wants it I offer the following:

Ditocoaf: Militant agnostic - "I don't know and neither do you."

Agnostics frustrate me almost as much as theists. Outright claims that "we can never know" are merely a copout in an attempt to not only pander to either side of the argument, but mostly to yourself as well. Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath. At what point does this accumulation of falsities create such a burden of proof that you will deny that these cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration other than a worry over the potential dangers that have been made so painfully clear recently? We have demonstrated that so much of the "holy" texts are scientifically and ethically abhorrent, and we see "sophisticated" theologians squirm and mutter about interpretations and metaphor. You still need more proof? The reality is that the current popular gods are childish megalomaniacs who defy human dignity and respect and empathy. If they did exist, it would be far more righteous to defy them than to subvert yourself to their whims. On the other hand, to lend credence to these fantasies is irresponsible to the victims of extremists and deranged psychos blinded by the passions of faith. We need to appeal to the rational individuals of faith to take action against such insanity, and all the people wavering in the middle trying to avoid stepping on people's toes need to suck it up and finish stepping over the line. I can applaud your progress, but I cannot respect your views any more than I respect a theist's. And I think it is clear where I stand on that point.

[Juan_Bottom]

Wow... this discussion has really taken off in a direction I'm not too interested in. Hopefully it'll meander back eventually.

All I'm gonna say is that

[i]I hate string theory[i].

That is all.

To bring this back to where Ditocoaf wants it I offer the following:

Ditocoaf: Militant agnostic - "I don't know and neither do you."

Agnostics frustrate me almost as much as theists. Outright claims that "we can never know" are merely a copout in an attempt to not only pander to either side of the argument, but mostly to yourself as well. Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath. At what point does this accumulation of falsities create such a burden of proof that you will deny that these cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration other than a worry over the potential dangers that have been made so painfully clear recently? We have demonstrated that so much of the "holy" texts are scientifically and ethically abhorrent, and we see "sophisticated" theologians squirm and mutter about interpretations and metaphor. You still need more proof? The reality is that the current popular gods are childish megalomaniacs who defy human dignity and respect and empathy. If they did exist, it would be far more righteous to defy them than to subvert yourself to their whims. On the other hand, to lend credence to these fantasies is irresponsible to the victims of extremists and deranged psychos blinded by the passions of faith. We need to appeal to the rational individuals of faith to take action against such insanity, and all the people wavering in the middle trying to avoid stepping on people's toes need to suck it up and finish stepping over the line. I can applaud your progress, but I cannot respect your views any more than I respect a theist's. And I think it is clear where I stand on that point.

I always agree with NEOTENY. I can't understand it.

[Ditocoaf]

Ditocoaf: Militant agnostic - "I don't know and neither do you."

love that description. Might have to repeat it.

Agnostics frustrate me almost as much as theists. Outright claims that "we can never know" are merely a copout in an attempt to not only pander to either side of the argument, but mostly to yourself as well.

ouch... hopefully I can show you that I essentially agree with you on religious matters. Would it help to say that I'm really only nitpicking terminology and technicalities? I'm not trying to pander to theists, in fact, I have a few ways in which a science-agnostic perspective decimates religious views in a debate even better than atheism does.

Thousands of years of human mythology have shown us time and again that religious ideologies and "facts" and "laws" are tenuous and based on wishful thinking and xenophobia and wrath.

I agree with that statement completely. The religious ideologies are based on wishful thinking, and, while not always, often xenophobia and wrath. Often it's only believed because that's what one was raised to believe.

At what point does this accumulation of falsities create such a burden of proof that you will deny that these cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration

These cults have no serious foundation and deserve no respect in serious consideration. I agree completely. They are baseless, and just as useful as proposing a random scientific theory with absolutely no evidence... "the pressure of a gas at a certain latitude and longitude on earth is inversely proportional to the volume of the atmosphere on Parallel Earth, with the latitude and longitude reversed. Because the physics on Parallel Earth are completely different, this all works out. Really."

Basically, the reason I say that they can't be disproven completely, is because I'm anticipating religion's argument against atheism. In my eight years of Catholic school, I heard time and time again that God defies any analysis or proof, and that any evidence against his existence doesn't count because He made it that way. This is stupid, and actively resists reason. Very frustrating. The problem is: if you are trying to reject someone's notion of god, you have to reject their definition of god. If their definition of god includes the concept that any evidence against him is invalid, you must face that in your argument. Atheists who choose to just ignore that part of religion will have zero success in convincing anybody, or winning any arguments. In Northwest Forensics League CX Debate, that's called "dropping an argument."

So how do you reject a notion that claims that any disproof doesn't count? A theory that claims that evidence is irrelevant? Easy. In fact, their claim that God's existence cannot be proven true or false provides the perfect grounds for rejecting their claim, if you're using the scientific-agnostic perspective. Scientific principle dictates that evidence is necessary to evaluate a proposal. If there is no evidence (or if all evidence is invalid) then the proposal is moot and useless -- not because it has been "disproven," but because it cannot be known or used in any way, just as with any random, warrantless idea.

I came to a realization about my own beliefs while writing this. If someone's definition of "god" is that it can be empirically proven, then I am an Atheist. I reject their god on the grounds of all the counter-evidence. So I suppose my status as an Agnostic/Atheist depends on what theist I'm arguing against. But I have taken on default Agnosticism as a means of defense against actual, everyday religious people, the kind who don't post on internet forums. These people raised in a catholic school, have a bullet-proof vest against atheism. So I bring out the nerve gas of Agnosticism instead. Most religious people don't use far-fetched, crazy proofs to try to show that the existence of god is undeniable. Most say that he cannot be proven. I was actually quite surprised when on the internet I first discovered Christians trying to prove the existence of God... my jaw literally dropped. It was counter to every experience with theists I've ever had in RL.

other than a worry over the potential dangers that have been made so painfully clear recently? We have demonstrated that so much of the "holy" texts are scientifically and ethically abhorrent, and we see "sophisticated" theologians squirm and mutter about interpretations and metaphor. You still need more proof? The reality is that the current popular gods are childish megalomaniacs who defy human dignity and respect and empathy.

Heh. I've always said, "if God existed, he'd be a real asshole"...

If they did exist, it would be far more righteous to defy them than to subvert yourself to their whims. On the other hand, to lend credence to these fantasies is irresponsible to the victims of extremists and deranged psychos blinded by the passions of faith.

My god... (pun intended) I don't lend credence to these people. Most religious moderates don't either; they say "these people aren't really [insert religion here]" (even though it's the moderates who really aren't following the religious texts). My ideal future is for moderates to be slowly convinced away from the security blanket of religion, using rational debate, until only the most extreme are left. Stripped of the religious mainstream, they'll be much more apparent as what they are-- psychopaths-- and they'll be caught much more easily, ending mankind's delusions once and for all. Of course, people will still meditate and look for the spiritual side of life, and I don't give a shit if they do. As long as they don't claim that they've found the answer.

We need to appeal to the rational individuals of faith to take action against such insanity,

heh. I was fastposted.

and all the people wavering in the middle trying to avoid stepping on people's toes need to suck it up and finish stepping over the line.

You grossly misunderstand my position here. I hope I've made myself more clear now. I guess I'm a anti-theist science-agnostic. A "militant" one.

I can applaud your progress, but I cannot respect your views any more than I respect a theist's. And I think it is clear where I stand on that point.

This hurts, coming from you. I respect Athiests way more than theists; I simply believe that they're going about things the wrong way. In some cases.
(and among theists, I respect mysticists way more than absolutists. mysticism's fine in my book.)
I suppose the internet was the wrong place to bring my opinion... religious people are different here anyway.

[Ditocoaf]

I suppose an extremely long post should be followed by a double-post, saying

"wow, long post"


sorry

[Frigidus]

I came to a realization about my own beliefs while writing this. If someone's definition of "god" is that it can be empirically proven, then I am an Atheist. I reject their god on the grounds of all the counter-evidence. So I suppose my status as an Agnostic/Atheist depends on what theist I'm arguing against. But I have taken on default Agnosticism as a means of defense against actual, everyday religious people, the kind who don't post on internet forums. These people raised in a catholic school, have a bullet-proof vest against atheism. So I bring out the nerve gas of Agnosticism instead. Most religious people don't use far-fetched, crazy proofs to try to show that the existence of god is undeniable. Most say that he cannot be proven. I was actually quite surprised when on the internet I first discovered Christians trying to prove the existence of God... my jaw literally dropped. It was counter to every experience with theists I've ever had in RL.

The way you say this suggests that if two followers of the same god, one who believes their god can be logically proven and one who relies more on faith, asked you your opinion on their religion, your response would have two parts. "I don't believe your god exists, for you insist on absolute truth. But I also am unsure on the existence of your god, for you rely on faith." Perhaps I'm putting words in your mouth, but that's what I seem to be getting from this. Am I completely off base?