KC, you're a twit.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2012, 03:39 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 02:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 02:45 AM)Humakt Wrote:  I didnt say it was, I said there was no evidence either way.
I know, and I am telling you that atheists do not need supporting evidence for their position to be logical. Theists, on the other hand, need the evidence in their favor because they are making the positive claim. They do not have any evidence, however, so they are not at all equal to the atheist's position. I find an agnostic's position to be identical to the dweeb that refrains from stating his hypothesis prior to an experiment. They don't want to establish a position for fear of being wrong.
Believe what you want, that's your right. But as for telling me that your unsubstantiated claims are of more merit than any other unsubstantiated claim, that's another matter. As for not establishing a position, that's not correct I have a position it's that I don't know, have no evidence on which to ground any knowledge and I am unwilling to assert any position I have to make based purely on faith that I'm correct. But then we've had this conversation before, so don't feel you need you need preach at me, launch a barrage of insults or whatever, my memories good enough I remember your position.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 03:55 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 03:39 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 02:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I know, and I am telling you that atheists do not need supporting evidence for their position to be logical. Theists, on the other hand, need the evidence in their favor because they are making the positive claim. They do not have any evidence, however, so they are not at all equal to the atheist's position. I find an agnostic's position to be identical to the dweeb that refrains from stating his hypothesis prior to an experiment. They don't want to establish a position for fear of being wrong.
Believe what you want, that's your right. But as for telling me that your unsubstantiated claims are of more merit than any other unsubstantiated claim, that's another matter. As for not establishing a position, that's not correct I have a position it's that I don't know, have no evidence on which to ground any knowledge and I am unwilling to assert any position I have to make based purely on faith that I'm correct. But then we've had this conversation before, so don't feel you need you need preach at me, launch a barrage of insults or whatever, my memories good enough I remember your position.
How is disbelieving because of the absence of evidence an unsubstantiated claim? In science, that is the logical position. Oh, you don't have evidence that there are multiple universes? Well, until you present evidence we will assume that they don't exist.

I am not only telling you what I believe, I am telling you what is fact.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 04:13 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 03:55 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 03:39 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Believe what you want, that's your right. But as for telling me that your unsubstantiated claims are of more merit than any other unsubstantiated claim, that's another matter. As for not establishing a position, that's not correct I have a position it's that I don't know, have no evidence on which to ground any knowledge and I am unwilling to assert any position I have to make based purely on faith that I'm correct. But then we've had this conversation before, so don't feel you need you need preach at me, launch a barrage of insults or whatever, my memories good enough I remember your position.
How is disbelieving because of the absence of evidence an unsubstantiated claim? In science, that is the logical position. Oh, you don't have evidence that there are multiple universes? Well, until you present evidence we will assume that they don't exist.

I am not only telling you what I believe, I am telling you what is fact.
Not believing is fine, I don't believe. It is a reasonable assumption to assume the neutral state. Stating as fact non existence is a different matter, until you have evidence to support such a claim all you can do is assume.

As for "I am not only telling you what I believe, I am telling you what is fact." your presenting me with a fact and not presenting any evidence to support it. In fact your statement is in no way different in substance to the christian claim of evidence through personal revelation and I accept the authority of both equally.

To quote mine a bit - pictures or it didn't happen.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 07:14 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 04:13 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 03:55 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  How is disbelieving because of the absence of evidence an unsubstantiated claim? In science, that is the logical position. Oh, you don't have evidence that there are multiple universes? Well, until you present evidence we will assume that they don't exist.

I am not only telling you what I believe, I am telling you what is fact.
Not believing is fine, I don't believe. It is a reasonable assumption to assume the neutral state. Stating as fact non existence is a different matter, until you have evidence to support such a claim all you can do is assume.

As for "I am not only telling you what I believe, I am telling you what is fact." your presenting me with a fact and not presenting any evidence to support it. In fact your statement is in no way different in substance to the christian claim of evidence through personal revelation and I accept the authority of both equally.

To quote mine a bit - pictures or it didn't happen.
"Pics or it didn't happen" is precisely the same statement the majority of atheists make. You will find that there is no atheist, on here anyway, that believes, 100%, that there is no God.

First of all, you are putting words into my mouth. My statement is that, without evidence supporting the positive claim, I do not believe the positive claim. Atheists make a negative claim, therefore they do not require evidence. That is a fact. Second of all, that is the method of science. Are you going to argue against the scientific method?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 07:46 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 02:23 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(21-11-2012 03:19 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No, we were talking about the group that identified themselves as a 4 on the Dawkin's Scale. 1-3 are theists 4 is a pure agnostic and 5-7 are atheists. I believe Humakt is a pure 4.

But you're right... I am an agnostic theist.
Yeah, on that scale I'm a 4, there being as much evidence for as there is against, that is to say none.


I don't see how anyone with a knowledge of the workings of the natural world could claim that there is no evidence against gods or the supernatural.

Do you have no knowledge, or do you not see the workings of pathogens, predators, and mass death as evidence against a theistic god?

I would agree that the evidence regarding a deistic god is closer to neutral.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 09:48 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 07:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 04:13 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Not believing is fine, I don't believe. It is a reasonable assumption to assume the neutral state. Stating as fact non existence is a different matter, until you have evidence to support such a claim all you can do is assume.

As for "I am not only telling you what I believe, I am telling you what is fact." your presenting me with a fact and not presenting any evidence to support it. In fact your statement is in no way different in substance to the christian claim of evidence through personal revelation and I accept the authority of both equally.

To quote mine a bit - pictures or it didn't happen.
"Pics or it didn't happen" is precisely the same statement the majority of atheists make. You will find that there is no atheist, on here anyway, that believes, 100%, that there is no God.

First of all, you are putting words into my mouth. My statement is that, without evidence supporting the positive claim, I do not believe the positive claim. Atheists make a negative claim, therefore they do not require evidence. That is a fact. Second of all, that is the method of science. Are you going to argue against the scientific method?
Like I said we've already had conversation, I don't wanna get into a trading of dictionary definitions. So I'll make a "negative" claim of my own I don't believe in the atheist stance, in exactly the same way I don't believe in the opposite stance. As for arguing against the scientific method, science has nothing to do with it, we are dealing with philosophy here. Science can not test the existence of god because even if there was a god or gods there nature would be such that there would be nothing to measure, without this science can not examine the question. It is like trying to scientifically prove red is the best colour.

Importantly, we are talking about a matter of philosophy, as you say no atheist will 100% discount the existence of a god, I wont quibble that even if its perhaps a little absolutist. So, your saying that the atheists here are not 100% sure of the non existence of gods, however they must be happy enough that they are correct to be atheist and that's fine, I also feel the same, but am happier to say I don't know or in fact cant know and thus I see my position as agnostic.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 09:56 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 09:48 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 07:14 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  "Pics or it didn't happen" is precisely the same statement the majority of atheists make. You will find that there is no atheist, on here anyway, that believes, 100%, that there is no God.

First of all, you are putting words into my mouth. My statement is that, without evidence supporting the positive claim, I do not believe the positive claim. Atheists make a negative claim, therefore they do not require evidence. That is a fact. Second of all, that is the method of science. Are you going to argue against the scientific method?
Like I said we've already had conversation, I don't wanna get into a trading of dictionary definitions. So I'll make a "negative" claim of my own I don't believe in the atheist stance, in exactly the same way I don't believe in the opposite stance. As for arguing against the scientific method, science has nothing to do with it, we are dealing with philosophy here. Science can not test the existence of god because even if there was a god or gods there nature would be such that there would be nothing to measure, without this science can not examine the question. It is like trying to scientifically prove red is the best colour.

Importantly, we are talking about a matter of philosophy, as you say no atheist will 100% discount the existence of a god, I wont quibble that even if its perhaps a little absolutist. So, your saying that the atheists here are not 100% sure of the non existence of gods, however they must be happy enough that they are correct to be atheist and that's fine, I also feel the same, but am happier to say I don't know or in fact cant know and thus I see my position as agnostic.
Double negatives are grammatically incorrect, just as they are about the atheistic negative claim. You cannot prove that red is the best color using science because that is an opinion. People are making assertions as fact when creating a positive claim, so they will stand up the the scientific scrutiny or they will be drowned by their own ignorance.

Atheists say they can know when the evidence is provided. That is the most logical position.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 10:03 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 07:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 02:23 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Yeah, on that scale I'm a 4, there being as much evidence for as there is against, that is to say none.


I don't see how anyone with a knowledge of the workings of the natural world could claim that there is no evidence against gods or the supernatural.

Do you have no knowledge, or do you not see the workings of pathogens, predators, and mass death as evidence against a theistic god?

I would agree that the evidence regarding a deistic god is closer to neutral.
Heard of Newton by any chance, or would you refute his knowledge of the natural world? I haven't really talked about the type god, but pathogens, predators and mass death I can't see how these would constitute evidence against any kind of supernatural.

I would say, on the balance of probabilities and by personal preference, I can go with closer to neutral, for all intents and purposes I do not believe in god/gods/fairies and assorted bug a boos, but philosophically I feel happier with the benefit of the doubt resting on agnostism, which is just a fancy way to say I don't know. Until we have an experiment to test the existence of god its not a matter of evidence, belief in all that is a matter of faith and whereas faith my metaphorically move mountains, the technical applications of science will fly you across the atlantic.

Science can't test it, science should get on with improving things and leave philosophy, faith and preference over colours to themselves.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 10:07 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 09:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 09:48 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Like I said we've already had conversation, I don't wanna get into a trading of dictionary definitions. So I'll make a "negative" claim of my own I don't believe in the atheist stance, in exactly the same way I don't believe in the opposite stance. As for arguing against the scientific method, science has nothing to do with it, we are dealing with philosophy here. Science can not test the existence of god because even if there was a god or gods there nature would be such that there would be nothing to measure, without this science can not examine the question. It is like trying to scientifically prove red is the best colour.

Importantly, we are talking about a matter of philosophy, as you say no atheist will 100% discount the existence of a god, I wont quibble that even if its perhaps a little absolutist. So, your saying that the atheists here are not 100% sure of the non existence of gods, however they must be happy enough that they are correct to be atheist and that's fine, I also feel the same, but am happier to say I don't know or in fact cant know and thus I see my position as agnostic.
Double negatives are grammatically incorrect, just as they are about the atheistic negative claim. You cannot prove that red is the best color using science because that is an opinion. People are making assertions as fact when creating a positive claim, so they will stand up the the scientific scrutiny or they will be drowned by their own ignorance.

Atheists say they can know when the evidence is provided. That is the most logical position.
The religious, can and do say they can know when evidence is provided. But that you would say is irrational. Seems same same to me. Or a matter of opinion or faith.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 10:16 AM
RE: KC, you're a twit.
(22-11-2012 10:07 AM)Humakt Wrote:  
(22-11-2012 09:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Double negatives are grammatically incorrect, just as they are about the atheistic negative claim. You cannot prove that red is the best color using science because that is an opinion. People are making assertions as fact when creating a positive claim, so they will stand up the the scientific scrutiny or they will be drowned by their own ignorance.

Atheists say they can know when the evidence is provided. That is the most logical position.
The religious, can and do say they can know when evidence is provided. But that you would say is irrational. Seems same same to me. Or a matter of opinion or faith.
Not at all. I am waiting for them to provide evidence. Until they don't, their magical fairytales don't exist. Do you maintain the same position on the Lochness Monster? Do you think it exists? And if not, why?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: