"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

[bankside]

Kulindahr, your position leads only to the conclusion that one can cause something to become an objective fact simply by having faith that it is so. This is irreconcilable with reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not true. Not all atheists are necessarily naturalists. Most atheists are skeptics and apply the same skepticism that made them atheists to other supernatural claims as well.

That makes them more agnostics.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do tell, what exactly is militant fundamentalist atheism?

It's on display in the thread of anti-religioous cartoons. Just like its counterpart, it doesn't care about facts, logic, or even common sense, so long as i gets to drive home its point that anyone who disagrees is a fool -- a point usually made to fellow believers, so they can enjoy their shared self-righteousness.

 

[palbert]

It's on display in the thread of anti-religioous cartoons. Just like its counterpart, it doesn't care about facts, logic, or even common sense, so long as i gets to drive home its point that anyone who disagrees is a fool -- a point usually made to fellow believers, so they can enjoy their shared self-righteousness.

Temper, temper.

 

[Kulindahr]

Even the evangelical, atheist Richard Dawkins has revised his beliefs over the years...to that of becoming a born again, agnostic..

Professor Dawkins has embraced the possibility that he doesn't know everything...that's progress....

Really? I'd like to see that.

It would be an interesting departure from his essential former position that no one can no anything, except himself.

 

[Kulindahr]

I hope you are not this guy ...

Which one? The one who doesn't seem able to reason above a high school sophomore level, or the one who can't put his points into simpler English?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, your position leads only to the conclusion that one can cause something to become an objective fact simply by having faith that it is so. This is irreconcilable with reality.

No, that's the position I was responding to.

 

[Kulindahr]

Temper, temper.

"Temper"?

There's no temper involved -- that's an objective description of the dominant attitude in that thread.

The only emotional involvement I have is amusement that people who are faith-bashing are the very same thing they pretend to be bashing, and sadness that so much of humanity prefers to be that way.

 

[bort138]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism/gnosticism refers to what one claims to know and atheism/theism refers to what one believes. Few, if any, atheists claim to know that no god exists and are agnostic atheists like Dawkins. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Belief and knowledge are related but are separate issues.

 

[FirmaFan]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism/gnosticism refers to what one claims to know and atheism/theism refers to what one believes. Few, if any, atheists claim to know that no god exists and are agnostic atheists like Dawkins. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Belief and knowledge are related but are separate issues.

No matter how many times this is explained, people still seem to not get it, or intentionally ignore it. I guess an attempt to strawman atheism into some kind of faith position makes it easier to justify religious beliefs based upon nothing but faith. Whenever someone tries to make "agnostic" the middle ground between theism and atheism, between belief and non-belief, I just ask them where is the middle ground between when you believed in Santa and when you no longer believed in him.

 

[bankside]

Even the evangelical, atheist Richard Dawkins has revised his beliefs over the years...to that of becoming a born again, agnostic..

Professor Dawkins has embraced the possibility that he doesn't know everything...that's progress....

Richard Dawkins has, for years, consistently pointed out that there is no evidence for divinity, and has consistently pointed out that this is different from making a claim that there is no divinity. He has not changed. You have, perhaps, only started paying attention.

 

[Kulindahr]

No matter how many times this is explained, people still seem to not get it, or intentionally ignore it. I guess an attempt to strawman atheism into some kind of faith position makes it easier to justify religious beliefs based upon nothing but faith. Whenever someone tries to make "agnostic" the middle ground between theism and atheism, between belief and non-belief, I just ask them where is the middle ground between when you believed in Santa and when you no longer believed in him.

There's no "strawman" involved: declaration of absence based on absence of evidence is an a priori position, and thus entirely faith.

 

[FirmaFan]

There's no "strawman" involved: declaration of absence based on absence of evidence is an a priori position, and thus entirely faith.

I'll say this just one more time. I will point to this post every time you misrepresent this position to show your dishonesty. I am not claiming that no gods exist. I AM NOT CLAIMING THAT NO GODS EXIST. I am not declaring absence based upon an absence of evidence. I am saying that there is not enough evidence to convince me that the claim that a god exists warrants belief. That does not mean I am claiming that no gods exist. Again, saying "I don't accept Proposition-A" is NOT the same as saying "I believe the opposite of Proposition-A". Saying "I don't accept your claim that a god exists" is NOT the same as saying "I believe no god exists".

 

[bort138]

There's no "strawman" involved: declaration of absence based on absence of evidence is an a priori position, and thus entirely faith.

Kuli, you know better than this. This is a textbook example of straw man.

 

[mightbe]

Perhaps a reiteration is in order, just so that we're all singing in unison--I never claimed that gods simply don't exist. Plainly, I don't see any substantial reason to believe in one. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, just that there is no current evidence to support the claim. And I doubt there ever will be on either side.

 

[bankside]

There's no "strawman" involved: declaration of absence based on absence of evidence is an a priori position, and thus entirely faith.

A probabilistic conclusion is not at all a priori, and it is nothing to do with faith.

 

[bort138]

Perhaps a reiteration is in order, just so that we're all singing in unison--I never claimed that gods simply don't exist. Plainly, I don't see any substantial reason to believe in one. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, just that there is no current evidence to support the claim. And I doubt there ever will be on either side.

I agree. The time to accept a proposition is when there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. Until then, the default position is disbelief and the burden of proof rests on the theist position.

 

[bankside]

I would even agree to "inquisitiveness" rather than "disbelief." I think so far that earnest inquisitiveness about theological claims in general, and christianity in particular, has yielded mostly empty or evasive or patently erroneous, internally incoherent, responses on the part of believers.

 

[kallipolis]

^So you keep reminding us...Ad nauseum...how's the Easter weather in your neck of the woods?

 

[kallipolis]

Really? I'd like to see that.

It would be an interesting departure from his essential former position that no one can no anything, except himself.

That's a debatable point of reference that needs time, and patience....your observation is understood.