Incorrect. You're claim is scientific materialism.
Is it, really?
I challenge you to quote me precisely where I ever made such a claim.
Your entire reply is a denial that you hold a position, NOBODY does not hold a position.
I hold a position on theistic claims.
Holding a position on a claim,
is not the same as making a claim.
Agreed. I would be interested in your evidence to support scientific materialism, as much as you would be interested in evidence for Christian existentialism.
I don't make that claim. At least, not as I understand "scientific materialism". Perhaps you should define what you mean by that exactly...
The thing that's stopping such an exchange is semantic trickery that result in..."Scientific materialism does not require an argument!"
So now, you are equating "scientific materialism" with mere atheism?
Another truth claim, that scientific empiricism is the only form of evidence.
It's the only form of evidence that I know of that can actually be independently verified.
If you know of "other forms" of evidence that allow such, I'm all ears...
I would add that there are actually arguments of inference from scientific empiricism that support the existence of God, so you're claiming that inference is worthless as well I suppose, as far as being called 'Evidence.'
I'm unaware of such "arguments".
I also can not prove 100% that it's incorrect that God does not exist, for the sake of argument let's just stick everyone in the 90% category. Ok I fall below 100%. So...does that mean I get to place the 'Agnostic' qualifier in front of 'Theist'?
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
You don't
know. You
believe.
And does that mean that I also have nothing to defend because of the qualifier.
No, because the thing you believe is accurate, is actually a positive claim.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim. Always. In this case, that claim is "god exists". That's the claim that is being discussed.
But I believe that you're conflating what I was complaining about. We are all in a debate forum, so yes I get it, labels don't mean much in here if people peel away at the layers of the onion anyway...my complaint was geared towards the push to convince the general public (many of whom may even care less about debate altogether) that an 'Agnostic Atheist' has nothing to defend.
In agnostic atheism, there IS nothing to defend, because there are NO CLAIMS to defend. It really is that simple. The position is a
response to a claim...
How many times must it be explained...........................
But that's quite alright...next time a layperson (not that I'm an expert lol) on the street tells me that ONLY i have something to defend, I will simply use the linguistic gymnastics of explaining to them that I have an 'Agnostic' qualifier in front of my theism label so NO i do not have to defend anything either!
After all this time, you still manage to be completely oblivious to the point........
As a theist, you are ACCEPTING specific claims as TRUE.
As a theist, you are CLAIMING that a god exists.
This gives you a burden of proof.
As an atheist, I am
responding to the claims of a theist by pointing out that you fail to meet your burden of proof and that I don't accept the claims as a result.
This does not require any defending. This is not a claim. It's a response to a claim.
Translation, YOUR version of 'Tested' or nothing. Your positive claim that scientific empiricism is the only means to truth.
For crying out loud.....
A literal genesis / flood story
makes claims about physical reality.
When you wish to assess the truth value of claims about physical reality, you need to cross reference them with actual physical reality.
The flood story makes predictions about geology, archeology and genetics.
All those things can be tested.
If you know of another way then empiricism to test claims about reality in actual reality with equal or better track record, I'm all ears.
Until then, I see no better method then empricism to validate claims about reality in actual reality.
Agreed. I am not in the 100% category myself. Of course, according to you that means I have nothing to defend. Because I am an agnostic theist (90%).
For the bazillionth time.... It's the THEISM part that gives you a burden of proof. That's the part that includes the claims.
Sheesh...........................
Not really. You say that there is ZERO evidence whatsoever that God exists!!!
Yep. And by wich I, off course, mean valid / rational evidence.
That sounds like a pretty strong reason for you to just come out and say that 'You Believe' that God does not exist.
In everyday conversation, I might agree to that. But on forums such a this one, I don't like using the word "believe". Because technically, "believe" means to "accept as true / correct".
Which sounds a bit to "certain" and "factual" for my taste, for a claim that cannot be shown to be such.
So instead, I prefer to just say that I consider it "extremely likely" that no gods exist.
That is much more in line with my actual stance.
And it is based completely on the total lack of rational evidence that gods in fact do exist, coupled with the very oulandish nature of these claims.
Let's take alien life for example.
There is zero evidence that alien life exists.
However, life exists right here on this planet. And the variety thereof is extreme, even absurd. So to claim that life exists on other planets is not that outlandish - after all, it exists right here in enormous numbers and variety.
So we have at least 1 precedent of a planet that contains life.
So the idea that life might exist elsewhere as well, isn't that outlandish at all.
Totally not the case with the claims of the supernatural....
I say that 'I Believe' that God does exist. It sounds like we are both pretty accurately skating in that '90% Belief' realm. The problem is that you are denying that scientific materialism is a position. (and also denying the scientific materialism inferences to God as evidence).
The problem rather seems that you are suddenly claiming all kinds of things concerning my position on "scientific materialism" while I literally haven't used those words once, nore have I talked about anything else then (a)theism in this thread.
Ok. I'm an agnostic theist.
Great. So why do you accept the claims of theism?
Agreed. And both of us are making a claim.
I'm not.