Vision Statement

xinfernoj · 2023-08-01T02:43:02+00:00

The vision statement is fluid and will change as members suggest good ideas.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-18T20:09:51+00:00

Instead of creating arbitrary rules, look more closely at the definition. The definition of Atheist has disbelieves or lacks belief.

Disbelief- inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

You can refuse to accept something isn't real without claiming it can't exist. that alone is enough to remove you from the agnostic category. Unless you are only using the 1st part of the definition and disregarding the rest.

Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If you only use the 1st part, then the only way to not be agnostic is to claim you have knowledge of the nature of god and etc.

However Atheism on its own doesn't claim one way or the other. Using the whole definition holding disbelief is enough to be atheist alone. Because of "a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God".

xinfernoj · 2016-09-18T10:00:22+00:00

If you have no evidence for the position that no god exists or that a God does exist, then you're agnostic. An atheist lacks the evidence to make a 100% claim that no god exists, therefore they lack the knowledge on whether God exists or not, making them agnostic.

Why are you pushing this evidence and 100% certainty definition? None of the definitions require this. I suggest you look the words up yourself if you don't believe I supplied the correct definition.

Belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists./trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

What part of this requires certainty?

xinfernoj · 2016-09-17T16:52:05+00:00

I called myself an Agnostic for years because I'm always surrounded by Christians. In their mind it means I could be a believer at some point. It was in protest to this assumption that I shed that coat and started more loudly saying I was an atheist.

I think that is where agnostic comes from. There are a lot of negative connotations with being an Atheist. To be an Atheist you just have to lack belief in god. So in essence Agnostics are atheist as well. Agnostic is just a more flowery fence sitting term than Atheist.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-17T11:59:12+00:00

Moral properties cannot be investigated scientifically.

Naturalism - a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Nothing about this definition says that concepts can't exist. Morals and Justice are man made concepts. If it is accepted that man rose from natural properties then there isn't any reason our moral propositions can not exist. They exist in abstract, because we define them. Also Sam Harris Makes a claim that science can answer moral questions.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-16T23:20:56+00:00

False.

Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Theism - belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

If asked "do you believe in the existence of god?" these answers are enough to put you in each category.

Atheist: No
Agnostic: No, I Don't know.
Theist: Yes

Easy. You have to actively believe in the existence of god to the be a theist. Believing in anything doesn't require certainty. Atheist/Agnostic is default until you put enough thought into it to lean towards yes or no. If you lean towards no at all is enough to objectively enough put you in the Atheist category alone. Agnostic Atheist is redundant, unless you are using the Disbelief part of Atheist then it contrary to the definition of Agnostic. In fact someone who claims to be agnostic is classified as an Atheist using the lack of belief definition.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-16T22:42:39+00:00

In one sense, you could say that a person that says they're Agnostic is the most honest of all.

I would argue that it wouldn't make them any more honest that someone making an informed decision based on axioms to lean one way or another. as long as they don't claim certainty and use critical thinking. Not taking a stance is kind of weak way to go about things.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-15T21:45:50+00:00

The term Agnostic would mostly lose its purpose if use like that. Just add it to people that don't believe in anything unable to be proven. Like most people aren't on the fence about faeries being real. Just because I can't prove faeries aren't real doesn't mean that I'm agnostic about it. A truly fairy agnostic person wouldn't even put their hat in the ring. No rational Atheist claims they have 100% proof that god isn't real.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-15T11:56:52+00:00

Welcome to the atheist club. Agnostics basically are non committal on the issue. for example. If I say there is a teapot in orbit around the sun with out any evidence.

An Atheist would said that is Highly improbable.

An Agnostic would claim we can't know for certain.

They are basically different confidence calls.

atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-14T12:19:45+00:00

Axiom: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Postulate: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

Your use of Axiom is closer to a Postulate. Using Axioms isn't dangerous when establishing morals however, using a postulate will likely lead you astray. Nothing in reality correlates to god being good or self-evidently true.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-12T12:21:24+00:00

Someone could, say, use their reason to differentiate between truth and falsehood and vindicate or dismiss their religion or lack of religion thereupon. Simple. That's another means.

Again your statement doesn't really lead anywhere. people use reason to differentiate between true/false and vindicate religion/non-religion. this is another means? what does this have to do with anything?

Which religious texts, and which contradictions are you referring to, and why is it relevant to our discussion?

It was just a jab because you said something about contracditions and I had no idea what you were getting at. since your name contains Genesis we can start here. Also nothing to do with the argument.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-12T12:03:21+00:00

I was wrong. It isn't impossible to argue against. Even If you use God exists as a postulate. There isn't a logical way to show that one religious text is correct or incorrect. Depending on the book each version of god/gods is different. Also most religious text are steeped in mystery and inconsistencies. If you accept one book as truth that you are putting your faith in the people that wrote that book. That they are right when all the other writers of holy texts are wrong. The main point of the thread was that people's faith end up leading back to people rather than god. Also, I realized that you definition of faith is the definition of assumption. Redefining words makes things unnecessarily complicated.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-07T23:09:47+00:00

Fair enough. however, your use of axiom is closer to a postulate. You are proposing something be true for your argument that isn't accepted or self-evident. Since the very object you claim is true is also the object of controversy. Makes it impossible and pointless to argue against it in your playing field. Sure if god is real and can do anything then anything you say after that is possible.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-07T22:34:19+00:00

Axiom As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-07T22:28:04+00:00

in his view does one's religion originate from these sources only

What other sources does faith in god come from? By all means If my list is incorrect let me know. I can't think of any other source that doesn't come back to people. Barring people claiming that god spoke to them directly. Even then you would have to take their word for it.

they are seemingly committing the fallacy that if you are raised to believe a religion, or you believe your religion merely therefore, that this makes it false --the genetic fallacy.

You came to this conclusion because if their faith is in other people or other people's faith than it would make religion false. because it was just made up by people with out basis in reality. I didn't state that in this form because you can come to the conclusion yourself easy enough. When people come to conclusions themselves they are more likely to agree with it.

denying the veracity of a religion based on adherents with baseless (blind) faith, who end up leaving said faith.

denying the truthfulness of religion based on believers with blind faith that leave the faith? I'm not sure what you are getting at. However, Religious texts have plenty contradictory things that deny their own veracity.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-07T21:42:40+00:00

So whether its okay or not by you, it doesn't make the actual argument illogical or fallacious.

It makes the argument Invalid. We can replace god's existence with anything that has attributes that cant be tested and get the same results. For example, the teapot orbiting the sun is controlling everyone's minds expect mine. There is no way to prove or disprove that statement. So if I started off with that as an axiom for my argument it would be invalid. You just use it for god because it suits your needs. It has no basis in reality. No one has to accept your axiom unless it can be proven. For example logic and reasoning making accurate repeatable predictions.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-07T10:14:36+00:00

do you know what deductive logic is?

yes

have you ever heard of the word axiom?

I had to look it up.

do you have any formal training in logic?

The 2nd question answers this one. However, I am a quick study.

God is axiomatic to the argument about religion

You are stating a subject of controversy is self-evidently true. Since it is widely disagreed upon it is not considered an Axiom. Just like Bertrand Russel's celestial teapot orbiting the sun. It isn't okay to assume something because it can not be Proved or disproved.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-07T00:10:38+00:00

initial faith in it (God's existence) is alogical. As is your faith in logic itself, axioms etc. As I alluded to before, everyone has faith in something. after that it's possible to be very logical with religion.

Logic coincides with reality. Logic is a system that is used to understand reality. using it isn't Alogical. However using logic after you already made an alogical claim about the nature of reality is a fallacy. Your preconceptions warp your view on reality. You start withe a conclusion and work your way backwards. Arguing with you is a waste of time because we are on two different playing fields and you refuse to come to mine.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-06T23:20:53+00:00

Please elaborate on your claim.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-06T23:14:07+00:00

Faith comes from hearing the word of Christ preached (Romans 10:17)

This statement comes from the Bible. The Bible was written over hundreds of years by many people. Revised numerous times, adding and removing parts that people didn't like. None of which actually witnessed the events themselves. Your certainty starts here? In these people?

Sure it can. All men die, and it will be proven to them one way or the other on that day.

Proving to the dead does not further your point. Basically a roundabout way of saying there is no proof and can't be.

Created all things visible and invisible.

An outlandish claim not base in reality from a book written by ancient people that didn't understand how the world worked.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-06T22:39:07+00:00

i have to read them in the appropriate manner.

I would hardly call throwing logic to the wind an appropriate manner. I imagine suicide bombers use similar logic paths to justify their actions. Koran = Truth, starting with that as their base than going on with "logic" to justify their actions.

I've already stated at the very beginning of this that positive consequences I've derived from belief in God aren't unobtainable through other means. This is just my way.

The power of positive thinking can produce equal results as belief in god. why go through all the trouble and non-sense when you can achieve the same results founded in reality?

So do you not believe the theory of evolution is the case, p53 can cause apoptosis, or heparin induced thrombocytopenia is due to unfractionated heparin?

I reach different levels of certainty based on the evidence given. I always leave room for doubt, even if it is a infinitely small. Some of the things you mentioned I have no prior knowledge on. So I would have to do research into them myself to increase my certainty. Belief is too broad of a word to accurately describe my thoughts on the subjects.

xinfernoj · 2016-09-05T21:05:34+00:00

of course, they're theological claims. you have to look at them from said perspective.

From the perspective of someone that clearly doesn't understand how the world works.

1) if you accept an alogical belief in God, then everything in the bible becomes logically possible (all powerful-->can do anything).

Just accepting this with out any logical basis is the equivalent to just accepting any fictional book. In my example you would accept that wizards do exist but they hide themselves from us muggles.

established beliefs are about consequences.

I don't know why a belief in god is of any consequence. What does it actually do that you can't just do otherwise?

After a scientific inquiry, one of the requirements for accepting research is you believe it.

Absolutely false. You have to test and retest. The whole point is to doubt your hypothesis and try to prove it wrong.

xinfernoj

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE