This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we'd all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. there is no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and postulating their existence explains nothing... it doesn't even explain itself.
4. therefore i have no gods (I'm an agnostic atheist)
No belief needed
No devotion needed
No burden of proof
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. there is no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and postulating their existence explains nothing... it doesn't even explain itself.
4. therefore i have no gods (I'm an agnostic atheist)
No belief needed
No devotion needed
No burden of proof
PathwayMachine · M
@newjaninev2
Yes there is. Not that there need be. Proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. All you need is an argument to have proof. Theism means with gods, atheism means without. Though people think it means not believing, that's nonsense, and you can believe or know a god literally or figuratively exists and be atheist. Like Dawkins said we are all atheists, he only applies it to one more god than a monotheist. Of course, then there are many types of theism, not just atheism, but henotheism, polytheism - that doesn't work with Dawkins' clever sentiment. Everyone has gods. Atheism was meant to apply to those not believing in a specific god of a specific culture, much like Dawkins sentiment. An unbeliever in Jehovah may not be an unbeliever in Shiva.
Evidence, by the way, is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, so all you need is a proposition or belief. Idiot atheists that say there is no "proof" or "evidence" are just dogmatic religionists who don't know what they are talking about and don't have the sense, therefore, to know better.
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we'd all be theists)
Yes there is. Not that there need be. Proof is evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. All you need is an argument to have proof. Theism means with gods, atheism means without. Though people think it means not believing, that's nonsense, and you can believe or know a god literally or figuratively exists and be atheist. Like Dawkins said we are all atheists, he only applies it to one more god than a monotheist. Of course, then there are many types of theism, not just atheism, but henotheism, polytheism - that doesn't work with Dawkins' clever sentiment. Everyone has gods. Atheism was meant to apply to those not believing in a specific god of a specific culture, much like Dawkins sentiment. An unbeliever in Jehovah may not be an unbeliever in Shiva.
Evidence, by the way, is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, so all you need is a proposition or belief. Idiot atheists that say there is no "proof" or "evidence" are just dogmatic religionists who don't know what they are talking about and don't have the sense, therefore, to know better.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PathwayMachine
only in mathematics
You need evidence... demonstrable and in need of explanation
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
I've already told you - I have no gods.
Zero, zilch, nada... not a single magical entity stashed away anywhere. There's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and the postulation itself explains nothing.
No, you also need evidence. That's why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it
"dogmatic religionists"
I'm an agnostic atheist... what is my dogma? What are my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion?
"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it"
Isaac Asimov
Common belief, even universal belief, is not, in itself, evidence
Isaac Asimov
argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
only in mathematics
All you need is an argument to have proof
You need evidence... demonstrable and in need of explanation
you can believe or know
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Everyone has gods
I've already told you - I have no gods.
Zero, zilch, nada... not a single magical entity stashed away anywhere. There's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and the postulation itself explains nothing.
all you need is a proposition or belief
No, you also need evidence. That's why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it
"dogmatic religionists"
I'm an agnostic atheist... what is my dogma? What are my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion?
"I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it"
Isaac Asimov
Common belief, even universal belief, is not, in itself, evidence
Isaac Asimov
PathwayMachine · M
@newjaninev2
Ah. That explains it.
Evidence is natural selection. Religion. Shoved down other people's throats. Beginning in "school." Indoctrination.
Ha! This from someone who says they have no gods.
Excellent. Good for you. It might help though, if you knew what a god is. It isn't JUST a single magical entity stashed away anywhere. What you really don't need to postulate is alleles. After all, which do you think will come knocking on your door this Saturday (Saturn's day)?
There's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of royal society, and the postulation itself explains nothing.
Exactly. Hear, hear.
Look, they're obvious, but it isn't my place to say. Only you can do that.
You describe yourself as an agnostic (unknowing, afraid) atheist (self loathing theist). You're not by any chance a school teacher or former college professor, are you?
Isaac Asimov. He was a SCIENCE FICTION writer, no?
only in mathematics
Ah. That explains it.
You need evidence... demonstrable and in need of explanation
Evidence is natural selection. Religion. Shoved down other people's throats. Beginning in "school." Indoctrination.
You're certainly entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Ha! This from someone who says they have no gods.
I've already told you - I have no gods.
Zero, zilch, nada... not a single magical entity stashed away anywhere. There's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and the postulation itself explains nothing.
Zero, zilch, nada... not a single magical entity stashed away anywhere. There's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of gods, and the postulation itself explains nothing.
Excellent. Good for you. It might help though, if you knew what a god is. It isn't JUST a single magical entity stashed away anywhere. What you really don't need to postulate is alleles. After all, which do you think will come knocking on your door this Saturday (Saturn's day)?
No, you also need evidence. That's why the motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba - take nobody's word for it
There's no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of royal society, and the postulation itself explains nothing.
"dogmatic religionists"
Exactly. Hear, hear.
I'm an agnostic atheist... what is my dogma? What are my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion?
Look, they're obvious, but it isn't my place to say. Only you can do that.
You describe yourself as an agnostic (unknowing, afraid) atheist (self loathing theist). You're not by any chance a school teacher or former college professor, are you?
Isaac Asimov. He was a SCIENCE FICTION writer, no?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PathwayMachine Are you feeling alright? (serious question)
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PathwayMachine
Yes, it does... mathematics demonstrates proofs, whereas science never tries to prove anything.
I'm unsure what you mean by that... could you perhaps clarify it for me? Natural Selection is the mechanism that drives the process of evolution, and was at the heart of Darwin's great contribution to science. Evolution has long been posited (even the Ancient Greeks discussed it, but there was no identified mechanism whereby it could operate. Darwin changed that.
Alleles aren't a postulation. An allele is one of two or more different versions of a gene that can exist at a specific location on a chromosome... or do you believe that genes and chromosomes are postulations? If you like I can tell you a simple way to see your own DNA at home.
Which is the point where you step away, I note
Oh but it is... it absolutely is. Not only your place, but also your obligation. Please go right ahead and detail my atheist dogma and my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion.
That explains it
Yes, it does... mathematics demonstrates proofs, whereas science never tries to prove anything.
Evidence is natural selection
I'm unsure what you mean by that... could you perhaps clarify it for me? Natural Selection is the mechanism that drives the process of evolution, and was at the heart of Darwin's great contribution to science. Evolution has long been posited (even the Ancient Greeks discussed it, but there was no identified mechanism whereby it could operate. Darwin changed that.
What you really don't need to postulate is alleles
Alleles aren't a postulation. An allele is one of two or more different versions of a gene that can exist at a specific location on a chromosome... or do you believe that genes and chromosomes are postulations? If you like I can tell you a simple way to see your own DNA at home.
no compelling necessity to even postulate the existence of...
Which is the point where you step away, I note
Look, they're obvious, but it isn't my place to say
Oh but it is... it absolutely is. Not only your place, but also your obligation. Please go right ahead and detail my atheist dogma and my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion.
PathwayMachine · M
@newjaninev2
That's what I said.
Confirmation bias. People naturally select the evidence supporting their beliefs.
Everything is a postulation.
Step away?
You've already done that.
Yes, it does... mathematics demonstrates proofs, whereas science never tries to prove anything.
That's what I said.
'm unsure what you mean by that... could you perhaps clarify it for me?
Confirmation bias. People naturally select the evidence supporting their beliefs.
Alleles aren't a postulation.
Everything is a postulation.
Which is the point where you step away, I note
Step away?
Oh but it is... it absolutely is. Not only your place, but also your obligation. Please go right ahead and detail my atheist dogma and my beliefs and practices such as to form a religion.
You've already done that.