Evolution and atheism

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Freodin
I don´t know - but I solved that embarassing personal question a long time ago (and I know others did that, too)

If there was an omniscient God who wanted me to know him, HE would know what arguments would convince me, and would present me with them.

The fact that I am still unconvinced is evidence for the non-existance of this God.

I completely agree with your post.

 

[DNAunion]

Morat: You are, however, missing an answer. Let me add it for you:

4. I have no evidence a diety exists. Until such time as I do, I will not believe.

Notice the important difference? I do not claim God does not exist. I do not claim God cannot exist. I merely claim I do not believe in God because I have no reason to.

DNAunion: I would consider that the "skeptic". A skeptic is not a naysayer, always saying something is wrong. Instead, a skeptic takes a neutral position by suspending judgement, waiting for sufficient evidence for or against a proposition to be mounted and presented.

Morat: Ah, I see. You didn't address what I said, instead you told me what I was thinking, accused me of attempting to decieve you, and then defined yourself correct. Bravo.

There's a word for that. Straw-something. You know, when you refuse to address the actual argument made, in favor of one you made up instead? Straw...Straw...what is it again?

DNAunion:

 

[Morat]

Boy, you do like trying to change definitions.  Thomas Huxley coined the term agnostic.  As Huxley used the word: "An agnostic did not deny or affirm God's existence; he did not pretend to know whether the world is made of matter, spirit, or whatever."  Desmond and Moore, Darwin, pg 568.A

Later, some agnostics added the faith that deity is unknowable.

  I'll let Huxley speak for me.

 Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.


["Agnosticism", 1889]

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

No, you can't.  Only by misusing the word. 

  Be sure to mention that the Agnostics themselves. They'll be thrilled to know they've been mislabelling themselves. I'm sure it'll go over well with them. Bertrand Russell doesn't use your definition, and the OCRT site doesn't agree with you either.

Definition of Agnostic:
Agnosticism is a concept, not a religion. It is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God.

An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics note that theologians and philosophers have tried to to prove, for millennia, either that God exists or that God does not exist. None have convincingly succeeded.

Are they Theists? No, because Agnostics do not believe in a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses.

  I'd suggest making it a full-time job to correct all this "misuse". Because if I'm "misusing it" I'm in great company.

This is not a fourth position. This is #2.  I do not believe a deity exists and I do not have any evidence I will accept to change that belief. 

  Your #2 implies that there exists no possible evidence to change my belief.

   You seem to be unable to accept that skepticism is a valid position. Apparantly, in your world, one must choose immediatly between the two or suspend judgement entirely.

    Kind of special pleading, isn't it? Do you treat every topic this way? How many other things can you claim you believe in without sufficient evidence? 

Semantic deception again.  "I do not believe in God" is the same as "I do not believe deity exists"  

The deception is inferred from the language and words that you use.  Those words form a deception.  If you want to deceive yourself, that's fine, but don't ask me to share that deception.  There's another phrase that atheists use a lot -- "critical thinking". Try using it on what you post.

   Of course, I'm lying to you. Naughty me. Perish the thought that you're in error. I must not even understand my own thoughts. *sigh*. I'm not sure how I'll handle the burden of being such a moron. A lying one, in fact.

Fair enough. I certainly wasn't trying to convince you that a deity does exist or get you to change your belief. I was merely pointing out that it <B>is a belief</B>.

&nbsp;&nbsp; What? Not having a belief is a belief? Weird world you live in.

Let me point out one other corollary of your statement, one lost on many atheists but that you correctly stated:

"I have no reason to"

Many atheists will claim evidence for deity doesn't exist at all.&nbsp; You correctly put this into personal terms that <B>you</B> don't have evidence ("reason to")&nbsp;<B>you</B> accept.&nbsp; Nicely done.

&nbsp; Why thank you. I try to speak only for myself. I don't know why other weak atheists think the way they do. I could guess, if you'd like.

However, now you and I have an epistemological question we have to personally address: what level of evidence should be enough to convince us? I bring this up because we keep presenting evidence to creationists that evolution by natural selection happened. They don't accept the evidence. We say they should.


Now the shoe is on the other foot: what evidence for the existence of deity would be sufficient to convince us we had a "reason to" believe a deity exists?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Something that was unexplicable in naturalistic terms, would nice. Not "currently unexplicable" but "pretty much forever unexplicable". Someone just getting up and walking off after being dead for three days, without anyone playing any sort of medical games, would be an excellent bit right there.

&nbsp; I'd be somewhat skeptical of the claim itself, but if verified, it'd be quite a substantial piece of evidence.

&nbsp;