To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. — Pattern-chaser
But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning." — Pattern-chaser
For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not. — Pattern-chaser
To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence. — Pattern-chaser
The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin: — Pattern-chaser
The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. — Jake
There's a reason for that, don't you think? — S
There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God. — S
An atheist who finds the concept of God impossible to believe, and who gets on with their life without giving God another thought: that person is not occupying a faith position.
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason. — Pattern-chaser
Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. — Pattern-chaser
If that satisfies, you, go with it. Personally, I find your position lacks rigour. — Pattern-chaser
There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God. — S
If that satisfies, you, go with it. — Pattern Chaser
I find your position lacks rigour. — Pattern-chaser
I'm not confident you actually understand my position. — S
There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. — S
At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced. — Jake
That could be the wisest advice.
If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.
Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call. — Jake
...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness. — Pattern-chaser
Do you think that you can demolish my kind of atheism? — S
If so, then be my guest. — S
I haven't tried to justify the conclusion that there is no God — S
There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. — S
No? — Pattern-chaser
It looks to me as though that's exactly what you have argued. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your position. It seems so clear.... :chin: — Pattern-chaser
"Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here." — Michael Ossipoff
Lol. That's quite a mouthful. Do did you come up with that yourself? — S
No, those are accepted terms for describing metaphysicses, — Michael Ossipoff
But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further. — yazata
But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. — yazata
But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. — yazata
It [science] believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics'
, it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction).
Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law.
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this? — Devans99
No, science isn't faith-based.
[The laws of physics only have]...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe.
It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned.
You haven't read much about science.
A physical law is a current working-assumption.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.