EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[The Hungry Atheist]

As Dan says, I think this can easily become rather a point of semantics. I would say that the default position should be a lack of any belief, rather than "X doesn't exist" - if we have no information on something, we can't really form any opinion. I do have an opinion on the matter, however, so it needs to be justified, but I believe I can do so very easily - there's not enough evidence to suggest the existence of God (or green aliens, or unicorns) so it seems reasonable not to believe in them. That's about as far as my position needs to be backed up, until somebody comes along and provides some evidence.

Our default position on the existence of the Sun should be exactly the same, while we still have no information about it - but the information in this case is hard to avoid, and the evidence is fairly conclusive, so refuting its existence would be rather more difficult, and a position of lacking belief would be a lot harder to justify.

[otseng]

One is not born with a clear knowledge of Judo-Christian belief systems about certain events that took place about 2000 years ago, etc, etc.

Certainly. Noone is born with a clear knowledge of the Judeo-Christian belief system. I even doubt Jesus Christ had a clear knowledge of it when he was born.

One might merely say “well I don’t think God exists because I’ve never seen him”, and this would be more than suitable to back up her default world view.

This might be an argument that people can use, but it is not a very convincing argument. I've never seen George Washington, but does that mean he didn't exist? I've never seen the majority of the posters on this forum, but does that mean you all don't exist?

Also I hope by now we can all agree that logical proofs have nothing to do with religion (or lack of religion). The only things we should be arguing about are evidence, reason, and logic to support positions.

Ummm, I think “proof” is still ok. I don’t think the only brand of “proof” is 100%-certain-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt-infallible-utter-total-proofs. Well the justice system doesn’t think so anyway.

That is why I said "logical proof" instead of simply "proof". I think when most people refer to a proof (when attacking religion), they are referring to a logical proof. At least that is how it appears to me. They are stating, "unless you can convince me beyond all shadow of doubt, then I cannot believe it". And of course, this is an impossible task to provide such a proof.

Whether this thought is supported by evidence or not is a seperate question. One cannot have evidence of something that doesn't exist.

Not necessarily. One can have evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist.

For example, does Santa Claus deliver toys to all the kids on Christmas Eve? Well, we can look at the top of the roof for flying reindeer marks and droppings. The evidence is an untouched roof. We can look inside the chimney. The evidence is a chimney that hasn't been cleaned in 30 years. We can look at the fireplace exhaust diameter. The evidence is that it is only 12 inches in diameter. No fat person could ever fit through that. So, evidence can be used to show that something does not exist.

[Corvus]

Whether this thought is supported by evidence or not is a seperate question. One cannot have evidence of something that doesn't exist.

Not necessarily. One can have evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist.

For example, does Santa Claus deliver toys to all the kids on Christmas Eve? Well, we can look at the top of the roof for flying reindeer marks and droppings. The evidence is an untouched roof. We can look inside the chimney. The evidence is a chimney that hasn't been cleaned in 30 years. We can look at the fireplace exhaust diameter. The evidence is that it is only 12 inches in diameter. No fat person could ever fit through that. So, evidence can be used to show that something does not exist.

I think demonstrating something did not occur is a little different to demonstrating something does not exist. In your example, we have a clear area to search for evidence and an understanding of what the evidence might be. Jesus may be shown to exist by examining the evidence surrounding his life, and researching contemporary sources. His miraculous qualilties can not be reliably proven. God cannot be proven to exist, or not exist, since evidence is only limited to the natural world where he only manifests the evidence of his powers by making wooden sculptures of Jesus in remote South American villages cry blood.

So, I can disprove claims that the yeti was seen wandering a particular part of the Catskill mountains, but not the fact that the yeti exists.

[ST88]

Not necessarily. One can have evidence to demonstrate that something does not exist.

For example, does Santa Claus deliver toys to all the kids on Christmas Eve? Well, we can look at the top of the roof for flying reindeer marks and droppings. The evidence is an untouched roof. We can look inside the chimney. The evidence is a chimney that hasn't been cleaned in 30 years. We can look at the fireplace exhaust diameter. The evidence is that it is only 12 inches in diameter. No fat person could ever fit through that. So, evidence can be used to show that something does not exist.

Come now, otseng. Since it is not logically possible for one person to travel the world delivering gifts to children in the time it takes for night to circle the globe (let alone assume the existence of flying reindeer), we may assume that this St. Claus person has acquired or otherwise possesses some superhuman qualities in order to complete his route. Similarly, the reindeer would also. I don't think we can assume that these supernatural beings would leave footprints or scat as remanants of their visitations, nor can we assume that this fat person would leave skidmarks in the soot of the chimney. Once you leave the logical realm, you are free to make up all kinds of stuff -- explaining away every inconsistency, unencumbered by rationality.

[mrmufin]

For example, does Santa Claus deliver toys to all the kids on Christmas Eve?

No! Santa Claus only delivers toys to all the nice boys and girls:

He's making a list,
He's checking it twice,
He's gonna find out who's naughty and nice.

Once we factor out all the kids who didn't watch out, or cried, or shouted, the number of residences that He actually needs to service is reduced significantly. This is also consistent with the occassional Christmas Eve rooftop which does have what appear to be hoof prints of some sort, as well as the scattered sightings of Santa throughout the holiday season at Macy's, Rockefeller Center, etc.

Well, we can look at the top of the roof for flying reindeer marks and droppings. The evidence is an untouched roof. We can look inside the chimney. The evidence is a chimney that hasn't been cleaned in 30 years. We can look at the fireplace exhaust diameter. The evidence is that it is only 12 inches in diameter. No fat person could ever fit through that. So, evidence can be used to show that something does not exist.

Hey, no problem. If it appears that Santa did not visit your residence, that's because it is more than likely that He did not visit your residence. All it takes is one incident of not watchin' out, or crying, or shouting, or parking in the White Zone, and your name gets checked off as Naughty rather than Nice. But that sounds unjust? Ha! At least the Naughty aren't sentenced to the balance of forever in some hellish location.

Further, most residences will not have snow atop them on Christmas Eve to preserve hoof prints and sleigh markings. It's also foolish to rule out that Santa Claus has not outsourced at least some portion of package delivery to established providers like UPS, FedEx, Airborne, etc. Hey, it's a more populous and diverse world and even Santa might have a problem personally delivering a package to a Nice child who lived in an apartment without a fireplace.

Regards,
mrmufin

[dangerdan]

This might be an argument that people can use, but it is not a very convincing argument. I've never seen George Washington, but does that mean he didn't exist? I've never seen the majority of the posters on this forum, but does that mean you all don't exist?

Ah hah! But you will notice I am talking about a “default setting”. I too did not intrinsically know that people on this forum existed before I came to this forum. The key point is the concept of introduction. (also, even if the skeptic in my argument carried on not-believing in George Washington or Otseng, it is still quite “reasonable", though obviously this skeptics life would be extremely difficult if she is not to be hypocritical! But this is a matter of another thread possibly).

That is why I said "logical proof" instead of simply "proof".

Hmmm, so you did. Sorry mate, I didn’t pick up on that. Ummm, yes, in that case I’d agree, religion and “logical proof” are barely related.

Similarly, the reindeer would also. I don't think we can assume that these supernatural beings would leave footprints or scat as remanants of their visitations, nor can we assume that this fat person would leave skidmarks in the soot of the chimney.

Very true, further, Santa might purposely decide to not leave behind footprints and skid marks because then people that “believed” in him would not be showing adequate amounts of “faith”.

Once you leave the logical realm, you are free to make up all kinds of stuff -- explaining away every inconsistency, unencumbered by rationality.

ST88, I do not agree with all of your posts, but that is possibly one of the most superlatively articulate sentences that I’ve read on this board. Very lucid Mr 88, very lucid.

[otseng]

Hmm, did I step on some toes by doubting the existence of Mr Santa Claus?

God cannot be proven to exist, or not exist, since evidence is only limited to the natural world where he only manifests the evidence of his powers by making wooden sculptures of Jesus in remote South American villages cry blood.

I would maintain that the evidence must be more than simply a crying South American wood sculpture if the majority of the world population believes in a diety of some sort. Certainly not all, or even a small percentage, of them have based their faith on such a statue.

Once you leave the logical realm, you are free to make up all kinds of stuff -- explaining away every inconsistency, unencumbered by rationality.

Certainly. And if I have left the logical realm, I am willing to be challenged on my illogical arguments.

All it takes is one incident of not watchin' out, or crying, or shouting, or parking in the White Zone, and your name gets checked off as Naughty rather than Nice. But that sounds unjust? Ha! At least the Naughty aren't sentenced to the balance of forever in some hellish location.

But, if the naughty person accepts the free "get presents forever" card, then he won't be doomed to presentless Christmases. So, there is a provision available for even naughty kids to get presents.

[dangerdan]

But, if the naughty person accepts the free "get presents forever" card, then he won't be doomed to presentless Christmases. So, there is a provision available for even naughty kids to get presents.

Too bad if the naughty person hasn’t by chance heard about this card.


Hey, I think there are some interesting epistemological topics to draw out of this Santa example. I think I’ll start a different thread…

[Corvus]

Hmm, did I step on some toes by doubting the existence of Mr Santa Claus?

D**n right. Santa is my favourite communist.

God cannot be proven to exist, or not exist, since evidence is only limited to the natural world where he only manifests the evidence of his powers by making wooden sculptures of Jesus in remote South American villages cry blood.

I would maintain that the evidence must be more than simply a crying South American wood sculpture if the majority of the world population believes in a diety of some sort. Certainly not all, or even a small percentage, of them have based their faith on such a statue.

I don't think those sorts of statistics are really a good indication of evidence, but more something that shows the marketableness of Christianity. Because more people like Britney Spears than, say, my favourite composer, Strauss II, it does not mean there is more evidence to suggest Britney Spears has more talented songwriters. Of course, that's a matter of opinion, but so is the question of which is the better faith. The point is that the bible appeals to more opinions.

There are many reasons why it was the most successful, most of which I do not want to go into. Part of the reason is that it encourages recruitment, unlike Judaism, which, at least to this outsider, seems like an introverted religion obsessed with genealogy and ritual. I cannot think of any other religion that has evangelists and missionaries. <a href="http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 1">History and geography</a> also predisposed it to greatness, and Christianity helped europe survive the so-called dark ages. Later it was colonisation and the industrial revolution that helped carry Christianity across the globe, like McDonalds has spread across the globe. In actual fact, unless anything has changed recently, the golden arches are the most recognised symbol in the world, beating both the crescent and the cross.

I find it somewhat amusing that Italy is 85% Roman Catholic yet the birthplace of Jesus that actually saw his miracles is 85% Jewish. It's as if he convinced everyone except the people to whom he preached.

[Xanadu Moo]

bernee51:
We are all born atheists and then the god concept is introduced to us - usually by parents.

So then how did it first get introduced if it's always passed on from one generation to the next? And why has that occurred in every culture?

The concept of deity is manifested through our own biology. We give birth to offspring, and so it's natural to assume that our very existence resulted from similar processes. I don't think we should be painting the argument that the concept of deity was pulled out of thin air.

I think some of these atheistic arguments show a sense of desperation -- lunging for ways to discredit theism that are invalid. At the same time, I don't want to unilaterally attempt to pooh-pooh the integrity of those who are sincerely making atheistic arguments, because the interchange from both sides is helpful for all, and we can teach one another.

Hungry Atheist:
There's not enough evidence to suggest the existence of God (or green aliens, or unicorns) so it seems reasonable not to believe in them.

Hungry Atheist, I think that kind of argument is a lazy one. It's convenient to couch the concept of deity with science fiction characters, although there is no correlation. You're attempting guilt by association, and yet the supposed association is merely that they share unknown qualities. The concept that some don't exist (or likely don't) has no bearing on the idea of a deity. Green aliens and unicorns are not purported to have created anything that we've seen, and there is no evidence of any handiwork they might have done. There are not volumes of firsthand accounts ascribed to their existence and their actions. Likewise on analogies to Santa Claus. This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples with plastic oranges.

I believe it is preposterous to assume that which we have not yet experienced must therefore be impossible. Ultimately, whether the physical world is either reality or perception is unprovable in our current state as well. The atheistic approach is that only things observable can exist; that nothing exists beyond direct experience; or that nothing can be known outside the realm of biological processes.

This argument presupposes that no infinite quality can exist, since it can’t be properly defined. Doesn't that seem a little backwards? I.e.-the reality relying on an ability to apprehend it in order for it to be or not be? If we didn't have instruments to measure certain light waves, they're still there.

Corvus:
I don't think those sorts of statistics are really a good indication of evidence, but more something that shows the marketableness of Christianity. Because more people like Britney Spears than, say, my favourite composer, Strauss II, it does not mean there is more evidence to suggest Britney Spears has more talented songwriters. Of course, that's a matter of opinion, but so is the question of which is the better faith. The point is that the bible appeals to more opinions.

I don't know if that type of analogy works here. Actually, I'm certain that it doesn't. Devoted followers don't have "tastes" in religion as they would with art. People don't devote their lives to something because they like it -- it has to do with becoming a part of them. I think you're lumping all religion in with the type of religion that is constructed to be marketed and socially engineered. Surely there are religions that have the sole purpose to sell to the public. But it would be a mistaken generalization to group all religions in such a category.

And besides, tastes are not necessarily right or wrong. There is no ultimate authority to taste, as there is in the case of a deity with religion. For some people, Britney Spears is better music than Strauss. You're right in the sense that popularity is not a clear indication of good taste. But how do you then define good taste, and how do you determine when the masses are correct and when they're not? For example, is Strauss better than Mozart? Or better than Bach? Or better than Chopin, or Beethoven? How do you make such a determination? According to your reasoning, whichever composer has been marketed the best will be the most revered.

It's also possible that Christianity has flourished for reasons stated in the Bible. And just maybe it was because Jesus was one of the world's greatest teachers, and maybe it was because he was carrying the message that was meant to be carried to the earth. Those explanations are just as rational.