A question for Agnostics about Elves

So you think an imagined entity that breaks the laws of nature that you have zero reason to believe exists could reasonably exist...okay.

 

Are you serious? Believers attack everybody else constantly, even other believers.

That's incorrect. A person can not believe in a deity and not believe in the Big Bang.

 

I note your new addition of the word "reasonably".

The existence of a being that breaks known laws of nature and that we have zero reason to believe exists, COULD indeed exist, yes.

 

I used "reasonably" as a synonym for rationally. Your contention seems to be that it is a rational choice for you to believe they could exist.

It seems to me, it is a belief without reason or irrational. Is that the agnostic/atheist divide?

 

It’s not rational to believe a god exists, but it’s a possibility that can’t be empirically proven or disproven. So god could exist but it’s not reasonable to believe so.

 

Its not rational to believe God does not exit since you have no supporting empircal evidence, yet all atheists reject the proposition God exists, therefore its reasonable to conclude atheist are irrational.

 

Its not rational for me to believe pikachu does not exist since I have no supporting empirical evidence?

 

But you say that atheists DO believe that a god exists. Speaking of irrational.

 

As I see it there is no agnostic/atheist divide. Agnostic means if we know or think it possible to know. Atheist means if we believe. I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic theists also exist.

 

Yes. This. It is POSSIBLE that elves, fairies, ghosts and Gods exist. That doesn't make it remotely likely or reasonable to believe that they do. But since they are unfalsifiable claims, they remain possible. They could exist.

 

Actually I think Atheists do have an entire world brimming with empirical evidence, in that we live here and God does not. That doesn't mean that God doesn't live somewhere else...just not here. So there is nothing irrational or deceitful in the Atheist pov. They simply call it like they see it. They don't pretend to imagine or invent heaven or heavens God. They are the least likely to be suckered into this or that cult. Ironically, in so doing, Atheists have no other Gods before the one true God(first commandment). Unfortunately, they don't believe or worship the one true God either. But that's another story. They also are not weighed down or infested with religious baggage and intertwined with dogma as if they knew mans God more than the truth. So in an odd sense, Atheists are pure, like buried gems, waiting to be discovered.

 

Knowledge is not only obtained through the analysis of empirical data.

I believe you are aware of that though and are just being disingenuous with people on this forum.

 

How else do we obtain it?

I actually agree with Koko here that we can't rationally 100% state an unfalsifiable claim to be false (which seems to be what he imagines atheist to mean regarding unfalsifiable god claims).

That said, the burden of proof is on the claimant, so it makes rational sense for people to ignore and dismiss claims about Gods in the lack of any evidence for their existence, so long as the mind remains open should evidence actually be produced later.

 

Through reason.

 

But that reason needs to be based on empirical data, no?

 

How do you know you exist?

 

Because I measure that I have thoughts. I think therefore I am.

I consider that empirical. What is "empirical" could be open to question though. All empirical observation is ultimately filtered through our senses and viewed subjectively. Even when measuring with machines, we need to read those machines.

 

Your senses are easily deceived. You may think that your thoughts are real but the only way to prove it is through reason. “I think, therefore I am” is a statement of reason. Rene Descartes is credited with founding modern philosophy and establishing the foundations of rationalism.

 

Id like to know how else an atheist can acquire it?

 

There is a whole bag at the bottom of every box of Captain Crunch.

 

nice so now we can eliminate the universities

 

Good question!

 

You present a false dichotomy. A person could believe in both creation and the big bang or believe in neither.

The theory of the big bang is supported by empirical evidence AKA science. Creationist do not present empirical evidence for their claims.

 

Captain Crunch does not discriminate!