Win Prizes Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

[Gethelred]

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack.

As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them.

If you've still got a live question posted to a christian, feel free to continue conversing for the time being.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Opine]

Anything is possible through faith.



Read this, complete the exercises and then re-read what I said.

View attachment 1294499



An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. Claims to the contrary are going to be examined and evidence for such a claim is going to be asked for.

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word 'agnostic' in 1869, and said:

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

He also said

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

A agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

There are of course degrees of agnosticism

Another agnostic might say: "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."

Yet another agnostic might say. "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Charles Darwin said in a letter in 1879: "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

Bertrand Russell "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."

Russell also said:

"Are Agnostics Atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

I cannot say that we can know there is not. This is something that I have never argued.

We also have ignosticism, which is the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed or evidence for susch searched for. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.

Is there a chance that you might apply and or critically summarise whatever you rely on to support your arguments? Size is not always everything. Often less is more, but in saying that, I like your posts.

 

[Opine]

Refer page 70 of his book for those who have it..

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

a ridiculously invisibly narrow distinction which may place every atheist into agnostic category and or every agnostic into atheist category. Your definition is so invisibly narrow that even you may have missed it.
Chelsea demands evidence because similar to you he sees none; he is undeniably atheist until he sees evudence . What is the distinction between you and Chelsea, other than the fact you barrack for a sh*t footy team? Are you subtly suggesting that you’re open to, not sure of, existence of a spaghetti monster, may or may not be ?

Chelsea "demands" evidence only because Christians make ridiculous claims for their religion.

Like I keep saying, if Christians wish to say "I can't explain it, but it works for me", that is an entirely reasonable thing to say (and might even win over more converts than ludicrous claims, frankly).

But that is a far cry from the unfalsifiable claims that Christians so often make for their belief system.

 

[Opine]

Chelsea "demands" evidence only because Christians make ridiculous claims for their religion.

.,.

I understand that. The point is he doesn’t cloak his position as something else; ever.

 

[Roylion]

Yet despite that agnosticism avoids conclusions which are non-demonstrable as well conclusions yet to be demonstrated, your arguments and choice of words clearly indicate you’ve reached a conclusion;

Bertrand Russell: An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

that there is no spaghetti monster.

I don't know whether there is or isn't a spaghetti monster. That's the whole point.

Meanwhile, objective science continues to pursue attainable answers to the question you claim to be permanently agnostic about.

Go back and read what I said.

Only you have mentioned the word "permanantly".

"I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

I’m starting to understand and sympathise with Dworkin’s criticism of those who claim to be in permanent state of agnosticism; especially while shirt-tailing on atheism.

Only because you can't distinguish between the two.

Bertrand Russell: "An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

I've said consistently that 'god' (whatever 'god is) is unknowable and any claims to the contrary should be supported by evidence.

I have never claimed or attempted to prove that there is definitely no 'god'.

 

[Opine]

Bertrand Russell: "An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial."

I've said consistently that 'god' (whatever 'god is) is unknowable and any claims to the contrary should be supported by evidence.

I have never claimed or attempted to prove that there is definitely no 'god'.

That is precisely the point I’m making, you don’t appear to have suspended judgement; importantly always favouring non-existence.

 

[Rosscoe]

Chelsea "demands" evidence only because Christians make ridiculous claims for their religion.

Like I keep saying, if Christians wish to say "I can't explain it, but it works for me", that is an entirely reasonable thing to say (and might even win over more converts than ludicrous claims, frankly).

But that is a far cry from the unfalsifiable claims that Christians so often make for their belief system.

If someone asks a Christian to explain their faith should they refrain from answering?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I understand that. The point is he doesn’t cloak his position as something else; ever.

Maybe the wider question is why you'd get so exercised about whether someone describes themselves as agnostic or atheist.

It affects literally no-one else, unlike the Christian lobby who have disgracefully elbowed their way into the secular state school system, had the gall to then do everything they can to marginalise the teaching of ethics, and diverted rivers of taxpayers' money into their "private" school bastions of obscene privilege.

 

[Roylion]

That is precisely the point I’m making, you don’t appear to have suspended judgement; importantly always favouring non-existence.

And the point I'm making that if one makes a claim to truth (such as there is a 'god'), then others are entitled (as I am entitled) to ask upon what basis they make such a claim to truth.

I make no claim - nor have I ever claimed - that there is definitely no 'god'.

"An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. "

 

[Opine]

Maybe the wider question is why you'd get so exercised about whether someone describes themselves as agnostic or atheist.

It affects literally no-one else, unlike the Christian lobby who have disgracefully elbowed their way into the secular state school system, had the gall to then do everything they can to marginalise the teaching of ethics, and diverted rivers of taxpayers' money into their "private" school bastions of obscene privilege.

I don’t know enough about that group; other than having seen their written response to the 2nd draft prior to introduction of the Religious Anti-Discrimination Bill. I’m also unaware of their involvement in the secular education system. Can you elaborate?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don’t know enough about that group; other than having seen their written response to the 2nd draft prior to introduction of the Religious Anti-Discrimination Bill. I’m also unaware of their involvement in the secular education system. Can you elaborate?

Not now, haven't the time, but there's plenty about the attempted Christian whiteanting of public education and their shoring up of massive privilege for the private school system (which is almost exclusively religious) out there. Surprised any of this is news to you.

 

[Opine]

Not now, haven't the time, but there's plenty about the attempted Christian whiteanting of public education and their shoring up of massive privilege for the private school system (which is almost exclusively religious) out there. Surprised any of this is news to you.

I also remember they funded the challenge against ARL

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What do Christians think of this?

A welcome antidote to Morrison's science-denying, Trump-loving evangelicals hogging the microphone?

Or is it setting Christians against Christians?

Labor calls for ‘grassroots mobilisation’ of religious Australians to tackle climate crisis

Care for creation unites every person in this room, Anthony Albanese tells faith summit

www.theguardian.com

 

[Rosscoe]

This is what those who espouse 'theistic evolution' believe.



I see no evidence for such. Those who do believe in such do so by pure faith alone.



Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 'god' is unknowable.

What is the basis of your belief in the possibility of the supernatural without any piece of evidence?

 

[Roylion]

What is the basis of your belief in the possibility of the supernatural without any piece of evidence?

I don't know for certain whether there's a supernatural order/sphere or not. I have no evidence for or against.

However you claim with certainty that such a supernatural sphere definitely exists. Upon what basis do you claim such?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

 

[Rosscoe]

I don't know for certain whether there's a supernatural order/sphere or not. I have no evidence for or against.

However you claim with certainty that such a supernatural sphere definitely exists. Upon what basis do you claim such?

If your are not certain. Why do you mock me when I say I am?

I am not prepared to share my basis.

 

[Roylion]

If your are not certain. Why do you mock me when I say I am?

You claim with certainty that a supernatural sphere definitely exists. Yet you offer no supporting evidence in support of that claim. I do not claim anything for or against.

You also deny the scientific fact of evolution, showing a complete ignorance / disregard for the supporting evidence which as I have told you is absolutely overwhelming in support of it. Even Christian churches support the scientific fact of evolution. You also misrepresent what evolution actually is making continual inaccurate and wrong statements about it, despite it being explained to you over and over again. Then somehow on top of that you then conflate evolution with the existence of 'god' despite the fact that evolution does not prove or disprove 'god' in any way.

I am not prepared to share my basis.

But you make a claim to truth anyway on a public forum. Why are you surprised to be asked for supporting evidence for your claim?

 

[Rosscoe]

You claim with certainty that a supernatural sphere definitely exists. Yet you offer no supporting evidence in support of that claim. I do not claim anything for or against.

You also deny the scientific fact of evolution, showing a complete ignorance / disregard for the supporting evidence which as I have told you is absolutely overwhelming in support of it. Even Christian churches support the scientific fact of evolution. You also misrepresent what evolution actually is making continual inaccurate and wrong statements about it, despite it being explained to you over and over again. Then somehow on top of that you then conflate evolution with the existsance of 'god' despite the fact that evolution does not prove or disprove 'god' in any way.



But you make a claim to truth anyway on a public forum. Why are you surprised to be asked for supporting evidence for your claim?

I have never denied evolution as you described it; I maintained that I do not believe chimpanzees produce anything other than chimpanzees and you agree. I said it does not disprove Christianity and maintain that.

How is it possible for anyone to ever produce evidence of the supernatural? It is the supernatural and that is beyond understanding by your definition.

You do claim against, because you continue to produce the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You are not saying I am not sure, maybe,maybe not. You are categorically rubbishing the claim anytime someone is making one, after you ask them about it.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You claim with certainty that a supernatural sphere definitely exists. Yet you offer no supporting evidence in support of that claim. I do not claim anything for or against.

You also deny the scientific fact of evolution, showing a complete ignorance / disregard for the supporting evidence which as I have told you is absolutely overwhelming in support of it. Even Christian churches support the scientific fact of evolution. You also misrepresent what evolution actually is making continual inaccurate and wrong statements about it, despite it being explained to you over and over again. Then somehow on top of that you then conflate evolution with the existence of 'god' despite the fact that evolution does not prove or disprove 'god' in any way.



But you make a claim to truth anyway on a public forum. Why are you surprised to be asked for supporting evidence for your claim?

Put the goose on Ignore. I did.

 

[Roylion]

I have never denied evolution as you described it; I maintained that I do not believe chimpanzees produce anything other than chimpanzees and you agree.

Here's a selection of what you've said in this very thread about evolution.

"Regarding the theory of evolution; in the time man has kept records there has never been two chimpanzees that mated and produced a human."

"empirical schmpirical it is not conclusive and therefore opinion."
."
".....without conclusive evidence I don’t know why you all chose to believe in fairytales."

".....with you unsubstantiated inconclusive nonsense."

"...if you cannot scientifically prove the source of the genes then you are assuming."

"......What if the common ancestor is god? Has science proven that it isn’t?"

"...I said I don’t believe that we evolved from apes;"

"Do you understand that the theory of evolution i was taught and was talking about was that humans evolved from chimpanzees."

"I have never believed this to be the case because I have never seen or in recorded history has there ever been a case of two chimpanzees producing anything other than a chimpanzee."

"I don’t deny the science of evolution but believe it is does not conclusively prove that Adam and Eve were fiction."

"if two orchids mate I don’t believe you get anything other than orchid."

"The connection between orchids and humans? No I don’t and neither does science; you are all on your own on that pal."

I said it does not disprove Christianity and maintain that.

How is it possible for anyone to ever produce evidence of the supernatural?

Then how you can make claims about the supernatural, if you do not have any evidence to support that there is a supernatural sphere?

It is the supernatural and that is beyond understanding by your definition.

Yep. How can you make claims about the supernatural in that case?

You do claim against, because you continue to produce the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

*Sigh*. Do you understand the point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

You are categorically rubbishing the claim anytime someone is making one, after you ask them about it.

You make a claim. You say it's the truth. Then when asked for evidence / reasons as to why would we should consider your claim to be the triuth, you offer nothing. Or quotes from the Bible. As if quotes from the Bible mean anything. That's like me quoting from the Harry Potter novels to demonstrate the 'truth' of magic and the actual existence of witches and wizards.

 

[Rosscoe]

Put the goose on Ignore. I did.

Your best argument is dead means dead.

 

[Rosscoe]

Here's a selection of what you've said in this very thread about evolution.

"Regarding the theory of evolution; in the time man has kept records there has never been two chimpanzees that mated and produced a human."

"empirical schmpirical it is not conclusive and therefore opinion."
."
".....without conclusive evidence I don’t know why you all chose to believe in fairytales."

".....with you unsubstantiated inconclusive nonsense."

"...if you cannot scientifically prove the source of the genes then you are assuming."

"......What if the common ancestor is god? Has science proven that it isn’t?"

"...I said I don’t believe that we evolved from apes;"

"Do you understand that the theory of evolution i was taught and was talking about was that humans evolved from chimpanzees."

"I have never believed this to be the case because I have never seen or in recorded history has there ever been a case of two chimpanzees producing anything other than a chimpanzee."

"I don’t deny the science of evolution but believe it is does not conclusively prove that Adam and Eve were fiction."

"if two orchids mate I don’t believe you get anything other than orchid."

"The connection between orchids and humans? No I don’t and neither does science; you are all on your own on that pal."







Then how you can make claims about the supernatural, if you do not have any evidence to support that there is a supernatural sphere?



Yep. How can you make claims about the supernatural in that case?



*Sigh*. Do you understand the point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?



You make a claim. You say it's the truth. Then when asked for evidence / reasons as to why would we should consider your claim to be the triuth, you offer nothing. Or quotes from the Bible. As if quotes from the Bible mean anything. That's like me quoting from the Harry Potter novels to demonstrate the 'truth' of magic and the actual existence of witches and wizards.

The context of those comments was that I was taught evolution different, and the conclusion was that your definition of evolution does not disprove Christianity. I still maintain that.

The Supernatural is beyond understanding by your definition; so it can never be proven maybe, I don’t know the unknown but there is the possibility of flying spaghetti monsters. You can’t provide evidence because it is beyond understanding.

If you believe the supernatural is possible; why do you ridicule it?

 

[Roylion]

The context of those comments was that I was taught evolution different,

If that is the case whoever supposedly taught you evolution didn't know anything about it.

and the conclusion was that your definition of evolution does not disprove Christianity. I still maintain that.

You said...."I like to think that Adam and Eve is the biggest love story the world has ever known." Adam and Eve never existed.

The Supernatural is beyond understanding by your definition; so it can never be proven maybe,

Yep. Any claims made by you to knowledge of the supernatural can never be proven.

I don’t know the unknown but there is the possibility of flying spaghetti monsters.

Indeed. Just like the possibility of 'god'. I'm glad you now accept this.

You can’t provide evidence because it is beyond understanding.

Neither can you. I am pleased you now accept this.

How is the supernatural possible; if it can never be proven?

Can it be proven? If so, please detail how.

I believe your answer is: I don’t know.

That is correct.

 

[Rosscoe]

If that is the case whoever supposedly taught you evolution didn't know anything about it.



You said...."I like to think that Adam and Eve is the biggest love story the world has ever known." Adam and Eve never existed.



Yep. Any claims made by you to knowledge of the supernatural can never be proven.



Indeed. Just like the possibility of 'god'. I'm glad you now accept this.



Neither can you. I am pleased you now accept this.



Can it be proven? If so, please detail how.



That is correct.

You don’t know; but you do know it can never be proven. I don’t understand it Roy and will leave it at that.