How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[stealthbomber]

@stealthbomber you obviously haven't read the thread if you're thinking that we're just arguing about agnostic vs. atheist

I'm addressing his many logical errors

The one we're currently on is his claim that atheism is "the only rational position"

in fact, the only purely rational or objective position is simply agnosticism that's not in combination with atheism or theism

you're right that you cannot consider atheism a "rational" position (objective rationality, not subjective) if you're an agnostic and believe that there's no undeniable proof either way

but Mayo is still not retracting that "atheism is the only rational position" statement

he also claims to be a weak or agnostic atheist despite that statement which could only come from a strong or gnostic (or very close to gnostic) atheist

tl;dr version, this idiot got out of line and went out of rationality to say that atheism is the only rational position but he won't back down cuz he's an idiot

well damn then i retract my calling u a dumbass. i just read this page more thoroughly.

@NoMayo15 just admit you're wrong. agnosticism is the only objectively rational position. you can't say that there is no God, just like you can't say there is with 100% accuracy. the one thing we do know for sure is that we don't know. is it most likely true that there is no God? yes. but it's not scientific fact and most likely never will be. unless we can come back from the dead, then we can nullify the idea of Heaven/Hell and truly disprove Christianity. but even that would be shaky evidence and could be countered with relative ease.

 

[Gallo]

@stealthbomber you obviously haven't read the thread if you're thinking that we're just arguing about the definitions of agnostic vs. atheist

I'm addressing his many logical errors

The one we're currently on is his claim that atheism is "the only rational position"

in fact, the only purely rational or objective position is simply agnosticism that's not in combination with atheism or theism

you're right that you cannot consider atheism a "rational" position (objective rationality, not subjective) if you're an agnostic and believe that there's no undeniable proof either way

but Mayo is still not retracting that "atheism is the only rational position" statement

he also claims to be a weak or agnostic atheist despite that statement which could only come from a strong or gnostic (or very close to gnostic) atheist

tl;dr version, this idiot got out of line and went out of rationality to say that atheism is the only rational position but he won't back down cuz he's an idiot

One thing is that atheism is a "lack of belief." Agnosticism regards the nature of knowing, not a particular stance on god. If one is truly agnostic, the question of god leads to a "weak atheist" position(I believe that's mayos position). That's still atheist, but agnostic in that it generally regards the question as unanswerable. That the nature of one's perspective renders the question of god necessarily moot and unanswered. Attempts to claim god are as such, necessarily irrational.

As far as the rationality of atheism or theism, well it is only the same if you think of it as a binary scenario. Atheism is rational if you are a weak atheist, but I would contend that atheism is similar, though more rational than theism, as believing NOT on no evidence is more rational than believing TRUE on no evidence, as at least it aligns more closely with the evidence. Of course that brings up the question of what comprises evidence and blah blah blah.

An argument supporting "strong atheism is the same as theism" does have some merit, as it is based on a belief that has no supporting evidence. Since one cannot prove a negative like "god doesn't exist", the position is irrational. I'd say however "I suspect, based on evidence that there is no god" or the opposite (suspect there is a god) are both rational statements.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@stealthbomber
what's "most likely true" to you is just based on belief (same goes for everyone), since there's no undeniable or objective evidence to sway you in either direction

a theist would say that it's most likely true that there is a God and objectively speaking neither of you would have the higher ground in an argument

he's saying that the atheist automatically holds the higher ground for reasons that he can't explain in an unbiased way that makes any sense

he also calls atheism rational generally without going so far as to claim that his own atheism is rational (he clearly stopped short of that)

 

[Zach Lowe]

@Gallo

you're just upholding all of Mayo's positions/arguments with milder language

you just said that a true agnostic is automatically atheist which makes no sense

often people claim agnosticism as a way out of the decision between atheism and theism and that's a valid position (agnosticism without theism or atheism)

you equate "due to lack of objectively rational/provable evidence, I cannot believe that there is a God or believe that there is no God" with "I believe that there is no God" which is extremely misrepresentative

believing no on no evidence and believing yes on no evidence are on exactly the same level unless you believe that lack of evidence equals evidence of the negative position which does not compute (just as lack of evidence for the negative equals evidence for the pro, which also does not compute)

I disagree with the point in your last paragraph (probably the only point in which you differ from Mayo) because you can't say that a suspicion is rational

also, just because you cannot prove this negative doesn't mean that all negatives are unprovable

 

[NoMayo15]

I think you are mistaken on your probability friend.

I'll concede that I don't know those exact numbers, but the point stands. Hopefully I'm explaining it well.

fukk Tall Israeli you're a dumbass. i just read thru this and had to say that.

the fukk happened to this thread tho? are yall really arguing over what an atheist vs agnostic is?

ill make it simple. atheists believe there is no God, agnostics say they don't know whether there is or isnt. the more scientific position would be agnosticism, because of the concession that there is no proof either way. im an atheist, but im not a scientist and dont believe in fairy tales

Agreed. Furthermore, I was trying to explain to him that theists, for the most part, will say they know there's a God. Not only do they know a god exists, but they know it's the god they follow -- whether is Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu...whatever. Most will appeal to some personal relationship or connection with this entity.

Atheists, on the other hand, generally don't claim they know a god doesn't exist, rather belief in one is not justified. Obviously theism is easier to dismiss than deism, but arguments for a deistic god are still plagued with fallacies.

Agnosticism isn't some middle-ground third option ... it's responding to a different question all together. It's like saying "blue" when someone asks you your favorite food. When considering if you believe in God, either you do or you don't. You aren't being asked if you know God exists, but if you believe in one. And if you aren't actively a believer, then by default you do not believe.

 

[NoMayo15]

well damn then i retract my calling u a dumbass. i just read this page more thoroughly.

@NoMayo15 just admit you're wrong. agnosticism is the only objectively rational position. you can't say that there is no God, just like you can't say there is with 100% accuracy.

Again, re-read the thread. Atheism isn't the assertion that no gods exist. So no, I'm not wrong.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15 A problem with saying atheism is a non-belief and not a belief itself is that definition of atheism pretty much encroaches on the definition of agnostic

By saying atheism is just not believing in God and not believing that is no God you're also saying that any undecided agnostic is automatically an atheist

so now you're claiming all the undecided people by default?

and wait, I thought atheism and agnosticism were clearly independent, they're obviously not so if you believe that an undecided agnostic has already decided in favor of atheism just by their agnosticism

So much fail
This is what happens when you just accept every pro-atheist talking point imaginable without being intellectually honest and thinking about whether all these beliefs can logically exist in one person

 

[NoMayo15]

@stealthbomber
what's "most likely true" to you is just based on belief (same goes for everyone), since there's no undeniable or objective evidence to sway you in either direction

a theist would say that it's most likely true that there is a God and objectively speaking neither of you would have the higher ground in an argument

he's saying that the atheist automatically holds the higher ground for reasons that he can't explain in an unbiased way that makes any sense

he also calls atheism rational generally without going so far as to claim that his own atheism is rational (he clearly stopped short of that)

Well, none of us can say our opinions are without bias ... we are all products of our own personal experience. But yes, atheists have the higher ground in that the evidence suggests that the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. came about from natural means, rather than some supernatural entity. That's not to say we know such a being doesn't exist, but it's only rational to believe something exists when the evidence suggests it does. In that context, both positions aren't equally as likely to be true.

 

[Zach Lowe]

The validity of this "if you're not theist, then you're atheist" position equals the validity of saying "if you're not straight, then you're gay"

 

[Mowgli]

@NoMayo15 A problem with saying atheism is a non-belief and not a belief itself is that definition of atheism pretty much encroaches on the definition of agnostic

By saying atheism is just not believing in God and not believing that is no God you're also saying that any undecided agnostic is automatically an atheist

so now you're claiming all the undecided people by default?

and wait, I thought atheism and agnosticism were clearly independent, they're obviously not so if you believe that an undecided agnostic has already decided in favor of atheism just by their agnosticism

So much fail
This is what happens when you just accept every pro-atheist talking point imaginable without being intellectually honest and thinking about whether all these beliefs can logically exist in one person

 

[Zach Lowe]

Well, none of us can say our opinions are without bias ... we are all products of our own personal experience. But yes, atheists have the higher ground in that the evidence suggests that the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. came about from natural means, rather than some supernatural entity. That's not to say we know such a being doesn't exist, but it's only rational to believe something exists when the evidence suggests it does. In that context, both positions aren't equally as likely to be true.

More bad logic

Link to a scientific paper in a highly rated journal (edit: scratch that, that's an unfair requirement, how about any journal at all) that actually says that "the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. came about from natural means, rather than some supernatural entity" or even anything close

it is not the scientist's job to think about supernatural things to begin with, much less attempt to find natural evidence against the supernatural which doesn't make sense

I see you're sticking to this lack of evidence for the pro = evidence for the negative logical fail ok do your thing plehboi

if someone was in here saying the inverse you wouldn't hesitate to attack them though

 

[NoMayo15]

A problem with saying atheism is a non-belief and not a belief itself is that definition of atheism pretty much encroaches on the definition of agnostic

By saying atheism is just not believing in God and not believing that is no God you're also saying that any undecided agnostic is automatically an atheist

so now you're claiming all the undecided people by default?

If we can both agree that belief is an (for lack of a better word) active thing, then yes, if you don't actively believe, then you are by default an atheist. Like, it's common for people to say young children are technically agnostics & atheists because they don't know, and don't believe. I don't know if a baby's thoughts are knowable, so I don't really know about that, but I follow the reasoning.

and wait, I thought atheism and agnosticism were clearly independent, they're obviously not so if you believe that an undecided agnostic has already decided in favor of atheism just by their agnosticism

Well, they haven't decided atheism, because one can still be an agnostic theist. Generally though, when people describe themselves as agnostic, they are saying they don't follow any particular religion. They basically are atheists, but don't use the term to avoid all the baggage associated with it. This thread is a great example, because you've constantly stated an atheist was someone who says there's no god ... you're not necessarily wrong, but you're not right either. Like I said earlier, when I making my de-conversion from Christianity, I didn't accept the atheist label either, clinging to agnosticism. I was ignorant in what those words meant, but only knew their colloquial uses (what you're appealing to now). It wasn't until I read up more that I fully understood those terms.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

More bad logic

Link to a scientific paper in a highly rated journal (edit: scratch that, that's an unfair requirement, how about any journal at all) that actually says that "the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. came about from natural means, rather than some supernatural entity" or even anything close

it is not the scientist's job to think about supernatural things to begin with, much less attempt to find natural evidence against the supernatural which doesn't make sense

I see you're sticking to this lack of evidence for the pro = evidence for the negative logical fail ok do your thing plehboi

if someone was in here saying the inverse you wouldn't hesitate to attack them though

Religion is bullshyt breh

 

[NoMayo15]

More bad logic

Link to a scientific paper in a highly rated journal (edit: scratch that, that's an unfair requirement, how about any journal at all) that actually says that "the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. came about from natural means, rather than some supernatural entity" or even anything close

Wow.

it is not the scientist's job to think about supernatural things to begin with, much less attempt to find natural evidence against the supernatural which doesn't make sense

I see you're sticking to this lack of evidence for the pro = evidence for the negative logical fail ok do your thing plehboi

if someone was in here saying the inverse you wouldn't hesitate to attack them though

I'm not saying a lack of evidence is evidence for the non-existence of a god. I'm saying the lack of evidence makes belief unjustified. Name a reason why you or I should believe in a god, or any claim for that matter, with little or no evidence of it's validity.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15

So what you're saying is that you cannot be undecided on theism vs. atheism
or in other words, it's invalid to be undecided

so if someone told you "I'm just agnostic, I have zero leaning towards atheism or theism, I think both are simply subjective beliefs and I only accept the objective position of agnosticism" you'd say "that makes you an atheist"



your reasoning only makes sense if being a plain agnostic (not agnostic a/theist) just means not believing in God (therefore exactly the same as your definition of atheist) and ignoring the other half which is not believing that there is no God either and making no judgement in favor of theism or atheism, but simply acknowledging lack of knowledge and leaving it at that

that's a long way to say that you have to distort your definition considerably to reconcile your conflicting beliefs, which is what you did

by decided I mean "decided in favor" which is exactly what I said
I didn't say "decided conclusively"
another way to put it is "decided to favor"

again with this "you're using the term atheist differently" crap; no, I stuck completely to your definition that you accept and showed you how it's in direct conflict with another one of your beliefs, which is that a/theism and a/gnosticism are independent

on one hand you say that any position on a/gnosticm does not define one's position on a/theism or result in a specific position on a/theism (or vice-versa, a/theism does not result in a specific position on a/gnosticism)

on the other hand you say that when someone does not favor theism or atheism over the other and is agnostic, that person's agnosticism results in the position of atheism

you either have to throw out the idea that atheism is just a "non-belief" and not a "no belief" or throw out the idea that a/gnosticism and a/theism are independent and unconnected

I think it's best to throw out the first idea