NationStates Jolt Archive

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)

God and I have talked about this, we have yet to come to a conclusion.

Atheists and do.

its not a yes/no 50/50 kinda proposition

its a trillion to one against (or worse) proposition.

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)
I've heard atheists use that argument, as well as theists. It works both ways.

Almost no atheists say that. Most rational atheists believe that, with the evidence for and against God that they have been presented, they lean towards the against God side.

As for the lack of logic in your own argument, there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist. No matter the evidence in your favor, there is no way to ever prove that something does not exist anywhere at any time ever. No matter the evidence against unicorns existing, no one can say with absolute certainty that they do not exist.

I do enjoy the strawman you attempted to set up here.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses have no implications for observable reality.

Learn the words.

You can't prove a negative, but you can sure as shit disprove a positive. Therefore, you haven't really advanced your argument.

Almost no atheists say that. Most rational atheists believe that, with the evidence for and against God that they have been presented, they lean towards the against God side.actually alot (By going by the threads on General) do use the argument "You cannot prove God exsists"

only some admit that yes, you also cannot prove God Doesn't exsist.

actually alot (By going by the threads on General) do use the argument "You cannot prove God exsists"

only some admit that yes, you also cannot prove God Doesn't exsist.
Disproving a negative. Wow. That one's a logical fallacy

Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
Definition:

The conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is affirmative, but at least one of the premises is negative.

Or: You can't prove god doesn't exist, so god exists.

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)
As an atheist, I agree. I avoid religion threads and I think that those atheists who say "religious faith is illogical" miss the point. It's supposed to be illogical; that's why it is called faith and is of a much more powerful emotional force than facts derived from logic.

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist.

I haven't actually seen that one more than once or twice. I have often seen it said that there's no way to prove God exists and in the absence of evidence of that existence there's no reason to assume it... leaving atheism as the default position.

They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)

And there's my favorite misconception!

Agnosticism is NOT some kind of halfway point between theism and atheism that presents itself as a third independent option.

Atheism and theism define the states of the possession of a belief in the existence of a deity. Either you have such a belief or you do not. Period. Either you are an atheist or you are some form of theist. And those are the only two options. There is no third one. It's a binary state of affairs.

Agnosticism defines belief in the knowability of God, not the existence of God. Whether you think it can be known if God exists or not. You can be either an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.. but you cannot be JUST an agnostic!

An agnostic theist would be someone who believes a God exist but doesn't think it can be known whether or not God exists. An agnostic atheist would be someone who doesn't believe God exists but doesn't think it can be known whether or not God exists. To stress... not just that they "don't know"... that it CANNOT BE known. That God, by the nature of the way the concept is defined, is inherently unknowable. That's agnosticism. It has nothing to do with atheism or theism... which have to do with belief, not knowledge.

---->Definition of agnostic (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk) <-----

As for people who say "I don't know if I believe in God"... they are actually stating they do not know the content of their own thoughts. While that may be a viable short-term transitory state of mind if that should persist for any appreciable length of time I would be concerned about potential psychological problems, and it doesn't make them agnostics.

The use of the term "agnostic" to represent some kind of supposed fence-sitter halfway between atheism and theism is a recent, and illogical, bastardization of the term used by people to mainly (in my opinion) cop out of committing to either side of the issue because they don't want to get drawn into any discussion of religion... which tends to be an emotionally charged topic. Or by people who just haven't really thought about it.

That's why I remain an athiest agnostic. Even though I don't believe in a god, I know that we can never be 100% sure.

Reformentia is unfortunately right about the bastardization of the word, which is why I try my best to avoid using it. I guess though, that it isn't much different from the rampant misunderstanding that atheism is the same as materialism/humanism.

I freely admit that it's impossible to disprove the divine, however it's perfectly easy to discard the divine, and as such I don't find the concept any more credible than flying super-intelligent waffles - another concept that cannot be disproved, but can easily be discarded.

I am not an agnostic. I don't think the concept of divinity is credible at all. But ideally, I have no problem with people who feel differently. I do have a major problem with the majority of the vocal religious people here, but that has more to do with their behaviour than what they believe. I honestly doubt they'd act much differently, if their belief was centered about flying waffles though, or if they weren't religious at all.

I'm certain religion can be quite helpful & healthy for some people. I know religious people in real life, and I've had the pleasure of calmly talking about various beliefs & their implications, with a handful of regulars on here.

Unfortunately I'm also certain that religion often becomes a veil of ignorance & an excuse for hatred and biggotry. Every discussion about education, science or human rights on this forum clearly demonstrates it.
But again, I'm sure religion in itself has very little to do with such behaviour. I think of it more as an excuse to be extreme about it.

As an atheist, I agree. I avoid religion threads and I think that those atheists who say "religious faith is illogical" miss the point. It's supposed to be illogical; that's why it is called faith and is of a much more powerful emotional force than facts derived from logic.

well said. :sniper: :fluffle:

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)

Taking as read the obvious and correct statements so far, that A) you're mistaken about the meaning of the word "agnostic" and B) you cannot prove anything doesn't exist...

Two important and unaddressed points remain here.

The first is that it doesn't matter that one can or can't "prove god doesn't exist". If you, or your God, or anyone else want me to believe in something, you're going to have to make a persuasive argument, whether by means of empirical proof, logical evidence, emotional salesmanship, or otherwise.

The second is that, if God is real and wants me to believe in him, it would be ridiculously simple for him to prove himself to my satisfaction. Don't try telling me god wants me to believe on my own, without proof... Were that the case, he wouldn't have made me the way I am.

Most people of faith don't believe because the existence of the divine has been proven to their satisfaction... They believe because they were persuaded or convinced. In many cases, they were convinced by authority figures in their lives while they were still young and their power of critical thinking was... Limited to say the least.

In the case of almost every adult conversion, they were persuaded or "sold". They believe because they desperately want to it to be true. The bright, rosey, paradisical (if extravagently unlikely) future promised by religious faith is so much better than the reality they see around them that they will happily believe anything with all their hearts... Just like a problem gambler believes his next jackpot is only a few wagers away. These poor souls are simply betting against reality because fantasy has a richer payoff.

And, as much as anything else, faith is a wager. Some folks will prefer a bet that only pays 1 to 1, but pays most of the time. Others will happily take a bet that pays 10,000,000 to 1, but only pays one time in perhaps ten billion.

Unfalsifiable hypotheses have no implications for observable reality.

So succinct, and yet so wise.

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist.
No, they don't say that.

And please, learn how to spell athEIst.

Also, please learn that agnosticism is not a 3rd option.

So because you know god exists he must?

There is no proof for or against its existance then it can't be proven. In conclusion if you can't present empirical facts to an arguement than stfu because it can't be argued.

Many Athiests does not logically make sense.
Neither does your title

No, they don't say that.

And please, learn how to spell athEIst.

Also, please learn that agnosticism is not a 3rd option.

For many it is. There are plenty of agnostics who simply have no stance on the existence or nonexistence of god. They either don't know or don't care, but they don't take up either banner.

For many it is.
And they're wrong. It doesn't matter if they think it is a 3rd option any more than they can think that the moon is made of green cheese or that beer comes from cows.

I can only think, or hope, Serapindal made this thread as a joke. It is a pretty big illogical fallicy(Unrepresentative example, and hell, just plain wrong), as well as being an obviously ironic title.

If it isn't, however, then this deserves to be stickied as Best Thread Ever.

And they're wrong. It doesn't matter if they think it is a 3rd option any more than they can think that the moon is made of green cheese or that beer comes from cows.

If they don't know or care, they can't be wrong. I don't know if your mother's maiden name is Shindledecker or Kostechka, that doesn't make me wrong, as I don't assume it is either one.

If they don't know or care, they can't be wrong.
No, they're wrong about it being a 3rd option.

No, they're wrong about it being a 3rd option.

Is there a God?

Options:
Yes
No
I don't know

You've removed the I don't know. So people are not allowed to not be able to know anymore, they have to take a stance.

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)

Actually... what is USUALLY posted is something very much along the lines of: "Because there is no way to prove God exists... I don't believe he/she/it does".

Very different from what you are saying 'they' say.

There is another problem in your logic, which is that it only works IF you are an Atheist. Look at the assertion that you cannot prove god does not exist...

Now, the Atheist might follow that logic... especially since many people root their Atheism in logic... but what of the religious person?

Does the Christian believe that Shiva exists? According to Christian scripture, Shiva does NOT exist... thus, Christians ARE willing to accept evidence that 'proves' God doesn't exist... provided it's one of the gods they don't like.

Agnosticism 'makes sense' because it is either Atheist OR Theist... not some kind of weird middleground.

My friend Harvey is an all-knowing invisible rabbit (aka Pooka).

You cannot prove Harvey does not exist.

Therefore, you must admit Harvey exists.

Harvey says God does not exist.

You cannot prove Harvey did not say that or that Harvey is wrong.

Therefore, God does not exist.

(Get the hint.)

Actually... what is USUALLY posted is something very much along the lines of: "Because there is no way to prove God exists... I don't believe he/she/it does".

Very different from what you are saying 'they' say.

There is another problem in your logic, which is that it only works IF you are an Atheist. Look at the assertion that you cannot prove god does not exist...

Now, the Atheist might follow that logic... especially since many people root their Atheism in logic... but what of the religious person?

Does the Christian believe that Shiva exists? According to Christian scripture, Shiva does NOT exist... thus, Christians ARE willing to accept evidence that 'proves' God doesn't exist... provided it's one of the gods they don't like.

Agnosticism 'makes sense' because it is either Atheist OR Theist... not some kind of weird middleground.
Again ... have my kids :fluffle:

Is there a God?

Options:
Yes
No
I don't know

You've removed the I don't know. So people are not allowed to not be able to know anymore, they have to take a stance.

Not at all... it is simply a fact that Agnostic does not mean 'I don't know'.

There are Atheistic Agnostics... there are Theistic Agnostics.

Agnosticism hass NOTHING to do with believing in 'god'. It is about believing it is possible TO KNOW one way, or another.

Thus - I am an Implicit Atheist (I do not accept any gods), with Agnostic tendencies (but, I'm not sure there IS a way to prove it, either way).

Again ... have my kids :fluffle:

Oh, you tease, you. :)

:fluffle:

My friend Harvey is an all-knowing invisible rabbit (aka Pooka).

You cannot prove Harvey does not exist.

Therefore, you must admit Harvey exists.

Harvey says God does not exist.

You cannot prove Harvey did not say that or that Harvey is wrong.

Therefore, God does not exist.

(Get the hint.)

Sounds about right to me.

Harvey for President!

Oh, you tease, you. :)

:fluffle:
Yeah I know Im a slut :)

Hey at least I can blame that on my priest (wow that feels wierd) :p

Not at all... it is simply a fact that Agnostic does not mean 'I don't know'.

There are Atheistic Agnostics... there are Theistic Agnostics.

Agnosticism hass NOTHING to do with believing in 'god'. It is about believing it is possible TO KNOW one way, or another.

Thus - I am an Implicit Atheist (I do not accept any gods), with Agnostic tendencies (but, I'm not sure there IS a way to prove it, either way).
Again you are turning me on with this oh so accurate discription that I am too sick to dig in for and argue

I won't believe in anything there is no real evidence for.

I won't entertain the notion of anything that's claims don't even work with known facts(omnipotence, etc).

Is there a God?

Options:
Yes
No
I don't know
Do you have the belief that there is a god?

Yes
No

Those are the only options. There is no third.

You. Lose.

Do you have the belief that there is a god?

Yes
No

Those are the only options. There is no third.

You. Lose.
Exactly ... from there you go into your reasonings WHY

Example agnostic deist

I think there is a god ... but dont think I can prove it

Or implicit atheist agnostic

I dont believe in god because I have not seen enough evidence to say yes ... and I dont think it CAN ever be proven

Yeah I know Im a slut :)

Hey at least I can blame that on my priest (wow that feels wierd) :p

Yay! UT found a use for a Catholic Priest!!!! Party!

:D

Again you are turning me on with this oh so accurate discription that I am too sick to dig in for and argue

I only do it to get you hot and ready. :D

You not feeling so good, my friend?

Or do you just mean you are 'sick'... which we already knew.... ;)

I only do it to get you hot and ready. :D

You not feeling so good, my friend?

Or do you just mean you are 'sick'... which we already knew.... ;)
Got hit with the flu and mono at the same time lol

Got it from my girlfrend who on top of that had a sinus infection

Lol at least I did not end up in the hospital like her lol (she went unconcious and her family couldent wake her up) (and yes we are alright) but just zoned a bit but cant sleep

Got hit with the flu and mono at the same time lol

Got it from my girlfrend who on top of that had a sinus infection

Lol at least I did not end up in the hospital like her lol (she went unconcious and her family couldent wake her up) (and yes we are alright) but just zoned a bit but cant sleep

Well, that all about sucks.

Flu AND Mono, eh? You finally made something to make me glad I wasn't :fluffle: you.... :D

Glad you're feeling better. :)

My friend Harvey is an all-knowing invisible rabbit (aka Pooka).

...

Harvey says God does not exist.



Yeah, but Pookas are notorious for lying.
I can't prove that Harvey WASN'T lying, so we must assume he was lying.
Does that mean that God does exist again?

Yeah, but Pookas are notorious for lying.
I can't prove that Harvey WASN'T lying, so we must assume he was lying.
Does that mean that God does exist again?
No, because my kitchen sink told me Harvey wasn't lying, and my kitchen sink is infallible & never lies.

So... :p

No, because my kitchen sink told me Harvey wasn't lying, and my kitchen sink is infallible & never lies.

So... :p

*shakes a fist*
Curse you! If it's infallible, then there's just no way I can argue against what your sink said (or what you claim it said) without calling you wrong or a liar.
And since I have no evidence, it'd be most rude of me to do either.

I suppose I'll have to live in a god-less world then. *sniff*
He loved me, y'know? Or, at least, he would have loved me if he existed.

They say that because there is no way to prove that God exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that God does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)
Many aFlyingSpagettiMonsterists don't logically make sense
They say that because there is no way to prove that the Flying Spagetti Monster exists, it must not exist. They fail to mention that there is no way to prove that the Flying Spagetti Monster does NOT exist. They seem to have a double-standard here. (Agnosticism still makes sense though.)

I look at it like this:

Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So, if you beleave in god you trust that he has a plan for your life and that if you live a certain way he will reward you for you faith in him.

That is what I call "pretty thinking" It world be nice to think that, but I am a man of science, of logic, of fact. But I do not say that if there is no proof that he exisits he must not be real. I know there are accounts of his/her existance. In this experiment we call religion were have yet to reach the results stage. But untill the results show definitive proof and make the existance of god a theroy. I will not accept or deny the existance of god.

Theroy- Validated form multiple sources and expriments. Is widely accepted scientific knowladge. Alsomost a fact.