12th December 2012

“Unbelief, not agnosticism, is the logical response to a proposition for which there is no factual evidence.”

Dirk Campbell

4 Responses to “12th December 2012”

  1. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    You certainly don’t simply accept something upon nothing. If someone walks into the pub and claims to have just seen the Loch Ness monster we might be willing to go have a look but without seeing for ourselves the man’s claims aren’t going to set into motion a whole series of stories about said monster on their own. Man has to do that. The fact the what is supposedly inspired by god, or divine revelation, is so strikingly of human design makes it all appear to be backfill behind an unlikely claim. Just as the folklore behind Loch Nessie does the same. Anyone remember that grainy and poorly lit picture that was touted to be an actual photo of Nessie? I have one of those of Jesus, sure it looks like my brother in the basement, but trust me its Jesus.

  2. Bruce Williams Says:

    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

    ? Christopher Hitchens

  3. WPJ Says:

    Absolutely correct! Yet not perfectly stated by all parties. Agnosticism is also a logical response to a proposition where no evidence exists (Dirk), but by definition can not be fathomed by man. Belief in a “God” is unknowable by this term. It lies beyond the realm of the capability of the mind. This is why I feel the term of Atheism is so much more desirable. Wonderful quote of Christopher’s presented by Bruce and words by Sinjin emphasize the importance of rational analysis when confirming whether Nessie, pink zebras or Jeus do or do not exist.
    I still hope to pick a congenial and pleasant fight with anyone regarding the discussion of the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
    Still promoting the existence of Santa,

  4. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    “I think therefore I am” is a statement that represents something that I simply know to be true but I can’t explain how it is that I’ve come to think.

    Like gravity, I know if I drop a brick it will fall to the ground 100% of the time. I don’t know how gravity works, and I could not explain why it works, I just know it is the way things are. Scientifically speaking a scientific law.

    The difference between agnosticism and atheism is in the “knowing” I think. Insofar as I understand agnostics stand on the notion that god existance is unknowable.

    As an atheist I think you can know. Just as you know you exist for being able to examine your own presence through thought. God on the other hand, omnipotent, all-being, ever present and omnipresent, is not something I have ever sensed in any way.

    Think about it, as big as god is, he ought to be knowable to everyone or he isn’t that big.

    That not only is there no empirical evidence to study a devine power, there is also no (scientific) law that corelates with the existence of a god as you would find with gravity or “I think therefore I am”.

    The threshold of flatly blind belief is a giant step into nothing. It is absurd, invalid, corrupt, without any cause for any concern at all.

    What is really required to get from unknowable to knowable under these circumstances?

    Santa? That is surely good company for supernatural deities. Add in Sasquatch, Nessie, Vampires, Ghosts, Goblins, Harry Potter, et cetera.

    I suppose you could construct an argument to say the existence of the most powerful personified force in the universe exists and should be believed on the basis that he is too much for mere mortals to comprehend/unknowable, but I think we all know these supernatural types don’t exist.

    The threshold to say they do would have to be unrealistically low to suggest otherwise.

    God is preposterous. I know he doesn’t exists becuse the whole notion is absurd.