On 30 June 2014 17:41, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/29/2014 10:20 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 30 June 2014 17:02, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/29/2014 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 30 June 2014 04:43, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 9:44 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > agnosticism is of course the defining principle of the scientific >>>> method, so we really need the concept in order to understand the status of >>>> scientific theories. >>>> >>> >>> I like what Isaac Asimov, a fellow who knew a thing or two about >>> science, had to say on this subject: >>> >>> "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've >>> been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was >>> intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed >>> knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a >>> humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion >>> as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the >>> evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he >>> doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." >>> >> >> So he knows that he only has enough evidence to be agnostic, but he is >> emotionally convinced to be an atheist nonetheless. OK, so that puts him on >> a par with religious believers who are also emotionally convinced, though >> not of the same thing. >> >> >> No more so that being an aSanta-Clausist. >> > > Well there you go then. I rest my case. > > >> Actually I think there is enough evidence to prove (in the 'beyond >> reasonable doubt' sense) that the God of the bible does not exist. But you >> don't have to prove something doesn't exist to reasonably fail to believe >> that it does. I don't have proof that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter, >> but that doesn't make me epitemologically irresponsible to assert I don't >> believe there is one. >> > > Atheists don't just believe that the biblical god doesn't exist, they > believe that there are no supernatural forces involved in the operation of > the universe. > > > Where is this written? Do you speak for all atheists, or just ones in NZ? >
No just the ones I've come across, like Richard Dawkins. > While I consider this likely, I don't consider it 100% proven, because > as Arthur C Clark said, any sufficiently advanced technology is > indistinguishable from magic, and it's at least conceivable that there are > sufficiently advanced beings out there that they can act outside what we > call nature. > > That seems to really waffle. If we knew these beings could so act > wouldn't we just readjust "what we call nature". In fact that's a general > problem with saying what it would mean for some events to be supernatural. > In the past many events were thought to be supernatural, acts of God, e.g. > sickness, lightning, drought, earthquakes,...but are now thought to be > natural. So it some new phenomena is observed why wouldn't we just assume > it was natural even if we didn't have an explanation. > Hmm, well that's all-inclusive. I guess if whatever happens, you will call it natural - Biblical god appears, that's natural....OK, you've got me there. > For example I am not 100% sure that the universe wasn't created by some > intelligent beings with sufficiently advanced technology to create big > bangs (they may of course have evolved naturally in another universe). I > don't think it's likely, but that's my emotional prejudices at work. I > can't see that I can claim with certainty that it's impossible, and since > these being would fit with some definitions of god (creator of the > unvierse) then I can't say it is 100% proven that god doesn't exist. > > Didn't you slip from "something or someone beyond our current explanation" > to "god". You speak for atheists, what do you have to say for > religionists? Are they just worshiping some unknown possibility. What is > the god they believe in - that's the god I don't believe in. I think you > have muddled the word "god" in order make it seem unreasonable to assert > definitively that "god" doesn't exist. But in the process you've made > "god" into something quite different from the god of religion. A mere > shadow of the once powerful Yaweh, Baal, Zeus, Thor,... > No I was just talking about atheists. > If you are going to narrowly define atheism as not believing in the god of > the bible, then of course I will agree with you (I will even throw in the > Norse and Egyptian gods and a few others, if you like). But that isn't what > I am talking about when I say Atheism, and I doubt it's what Asimov meant > either. > > You seem to be equating atheism with asserting that nothing beyond our > knowledge of nature exists. Not just failing to believe that such exists, > but having 100% confidence that it doesn't. I don't know anyone who calls > himself an atheist and who makes such a strong statement. > I didn't say that. You can see what I said above. > Dawkins has explicity said he is not absolutely certain there is no god of > any kind. Vic Stenger explicitly says he cannot rule out a deist god. > Well that's OK then, in that case I agree with him (except for him calling himself an atheist). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
