Christianity Is Too Exclusive

[jimmyjimmy]

One can not know what happened before the Big Bang and still disbelieve in God much like David Hume had no idea how life came into existence but still disbelieved in God. All of us, agnostics, atheists and theists don't know what happened before the Big Bang; the difference is that agnostics don't know if a deity exists, atheists don't believe a deity exists and theists believe a deity exists.

To say that one doesn't know what happened yet know it wasn't (fill in the blank) is irrational. It's a gigantic leap of faith (wrong-headed of course).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No.

They just don't accept the claim of theists that a god created it.
Not accepting a claim as true is not a claim to knowledge.

It's just the expression that you aren't convinced that the claim in question is true.



Agnosticism and atheism are different answers the different questions.
One does not rule out the other. In fact, the quantify one another.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I'm not actually aware of any "gnostic atheists".

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge.
Atheism pertains to beliefs concerning theistic claims.

They are not the same thing.

Are you positive that God did not create the physical universe?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You refer to yourself as an atheist. That's a claim that there is no god.

No, it's not.

You are certain that God didn't create the physical universe, are you not?

As certain as you are that the interdimensional unicorn didn't do it.

You are 100% sure of that,

The only thing that I am 100% certain about concerning this subject, is that I am not convinced that the claim that god did it, is true.

so you make that claim by faith because, by your own admission, you "do not know".

I didn't make that claim. You just pretended I did.

You do not come to any data without presuppositions.

Right, which is why you need a method of inquiry to removes those biases.

You think that scientists don't have these, that they are neutral, which is not possible.

No, I don't think that.

Look at climate change, for example. Scientists look at the same data yet come to different conclusions.

Not really, no. But let's not get into that here.

That's the same in any field. Medicine, sociology, anthropology. . . it's the same in any field. Look at the same data, yet come to differ conclusions. To say otherwise is foolishness.

And the red thread in all those fields is the scientific method, which is exactly the method of inquiry that can squeeze out those biases.

This is why you (and other people) need to test your conclusions, hypothesis, theories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you positive that God did not create the physical universe?

As positive as you are that the interdimensional unicorn didn't do it.

You might think it's an evasive answer, but it's really not.

I hope to make you realise how silly your question is.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe that gods exist. Why would I consider the option that an entity that I don't believe exists, did anything at all?

Am I positive that god didn't do it? Intellectual honesty dictates that I should say "no".

Just like intellectual honesty dictates that I can't be certain that an undetectable, invisible dragon isn't about to eat me.

Also, not unimportantly, notice how you are asking me to be "certain" about "negative claims".

This comes down to asking me to prove a negative again.

Are you certain that an invisible alien is NOT about to kidnap you?

 

[[serious]]

Then you are an agnostic? Otherwise you are placing your faith, yes, faith in an unknown. In an uncertainty. You cannot escape a faith-basis.

It's possible to reject one explanation while not subscribing to any particular alternate. He may very well be agnostic, but he is not obligated to be based on not knowing what kickstarted the universe.

As an analogy, I may not know what car you drive, but I'm confident it isn't a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Am I positive that god didn't do it? Intellectual honesty dictates that I should say "no".

Just like intellectual honesty dictates that I can't be certain that an undetectable, invisible dragon isn't about to eat me.

Stringing these two statements together is not intellectual honesty.

These questions are difficult to wrestle through. It takes work, and it takes a lot of typing (with two fingers) on my part. The two things I appreciate most are intellectually honestly, and staying on topic. If either is lacking, it make a difficult thing and impossible thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Stringing these two statements together is not intellectual honesty.

Explain.

These questions are difficult to wrestle through. It takes work, and it takes a lot of typing (with two fingers) on my part.

No, they really aren't difficult to wrestle through.

You can't have certainty about things that are by definition unfalsifiable and unsupportable.

I can't prove that there is NO undetectable dragon about to eat me. From which it follows that I can't be certain that NO such dragon is about to eat me.

However, it is a meaningless idea, because I can come up with an almost infinite amount of such claims, which is only restricted by my imagination.

This is why such negative, unfalsifiable claims are meaningless.

So yes, intellectual honesty dictates that I can't be certain that NO invisible dragon is about to eat me. However, since there is zero data to suggest that there IS such a dragon, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

And I feel the exact same way about the gods that the various theists happen to believe in.