The Atheist Bible: Does one exist?

Whether or not a god exists can in theory be quantitavely determined in theory, If there was a god for example he could well just make a giant sign on the moon that says "I am god and I exist" or send a bunch of angels to tell us that he exists, that he does not do this doesn't mean that he doesn't exist; it just means that we have no good reason to think that he does.

This is exactly what we have the null hypothesis for; when something is claimed to exist we expect evidence of it's existance to substantiate that claim otherwise we hold that there is not good reason to think that it does. This is tied to Russel's teapot; If someone claims that there is a teapot revolving around the sun, but that it is too small and far away to be detectable by our telescopes, we do not say that there is no teapot revolving eliptically around the sun. Instead we carry on because functionally that teapot is nonexistant, it does not exist as far as we can tell and until we are given a good reason to think that it is there we do not presume that a piece of fine china is in orbit around our sun.

 

Well, it wasn't a comparison made with verifiability as its concern. It was about the binary nature of the proposition. If you do not believe in god, you do not believe in god. If the grass is anything other than green, then it's not green. There is no way for either to be both or 'something in between'. There is no in between, that's what I'm getting at.

 

when Quran or Bhagavad Gita believers attempt to shape the way I live my life and the society I live in I'll start asking hundreds of questions...at the moment neither is a factor in my daily life...

 

Agnostic. Why do I feel like we're going in circles? Oh yeah, because we are.

Post #54

 

It seems we are. But at least now we can see the source of the misunderstanding: you think 'agnostic' means someone who does not believe in god, while most people think 'atheist' means someone who does not believe in god. You are free to use your own definitions of words of course, just be aware that it will on occasion cause misunderstandings like in this thread.

 

Yeah, I've heard it a hundred times before on other forums, including atheist forums. It's oft quoted analogy out of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion".

It's a great analogy for explaining why you don't believe in God, but does nothing to disprove the existence of anything beyond the physical Universe. Belief is faith, not science. The proper scientific position for regarding spiritual matters is "I don't know" or "It's beyond the scope of the Scientific Method".

 

Either you have a problem with short-term memory loss or you are deliberately fabricating false accusations for some unknown purpose. Is there a third possibility?

Here is your post where you responded to my posting of the definitions of Agnostic, Atheist and Theist: http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...st-bible-does-one-exist-3.html#post1062973005

 

And the premise changes with the verifiability of the thing being considered.
It is perfectly possible for one not to believe and not to disbelieve, leaving the belief to be unresolved.

 

If your belief is 'unresolved' then by definition you do not yet believe.

 

There's plenty of other possibilities. You just said that someone who does not believe in god is an agnostic. Whatever Merriam Webster might say, I am quite sure that if I approached a dozen people in the street and asked what they call someone who does not believe in god, they will almost all say 'atheist'.

 

Nice to see you switch from accusing Merriam Webster of being wrong than me making up definitions when I clearly posted links for you and you quoted them.

 

But we need not disprove god's existance, in fact none of us are claiming to know that he doesn't exist; we are only saying that we have no good reason to believe that he does. The same would go for scientifically verifying the existance of anything that is non physical, if it were to affect the physical there would be noticeable changes to things we observe to reflect that exitance. If it doesn't affect the physical why do we care whether it exists or not since it does not affect anything we can experience.

Belief is not faith; belief is the acceptance of a claim as true or likely true, while faith is the willingness to hold a belief without evidence. In addition the scientific method explains the physical world around us, and we have good and logical reason to believe that when there is no evidence proving that something is true, then there is no good reason to think that it is true.

 

I've seen lot's of atheists declare God does not exist just as I've seen lots of theists declare God does exist. Neither can prove their position. It's a matter of faith, of belief.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
1. a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2. a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3. : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

 

Nice to see you fussing over minutiae and avoiding the actual point.

 

So you're saying that faith means "belief AND trust", or "belief IN SOMETHING FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF". So you're agreeing that faith does NOT mean simply "faith" alone.

 

I'm just following your lead to see where you are going with this. You're the one making up your own definitions. I gave some actual references and you become all bent out of shape over it. Quite amusing, but I've seen it before.

 

Nor disbelieve.

 

I believe that to be a correct statement or I do not believe that to be a correct statement. I am unresolved to the answer.

 

Bent out of shape, lol. Get over yourself.

PS. What definition did I give again? The thread is getting a bit long and I must have forgotten where I posted a definition I was using.

 

If you think 'disbelieve' means you necessarily must have actively chosen to reject the belief then I guess I understand where you're coming from. I don't, though.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops, hehe, brainfart. Obviously that should read:

So you're agreeing that faith does NOT mean simply "belief" alone.

 

same story different time in history, I think many in both groups have evolved though

 

What's to get over? I provided facts, you provided opinion. When I asked for facts, you only gave more unsubstantiated opinion.

You didn't give a definition nor any other factual data to back up your opinion. That's my point. I'm truly sorry you can't see it, but I'm certain many others are more cognizant.

 

Nuff said.

 

Agreed. Since you love to put words in the mouths of others, your position is clearly flawed.

 

Non-sequiturs as well now eh? Carry on.