14 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI don't need 'proff' to say that he doesn't exist as I have the absence of 'proff' that he does.
There is no 'proff' that God exists outside the imaginations of Christians. I don't need 'proff' to say that he doesn't exist as I have the absence of 'proff' that he does.
This must have made sense in your head while you were typing it; at least the spelling is correct. I think you missed the double negative, making your post self contradictory and nonsensical.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseActually Hal, it's a perfectly reasonable stance. The absence of proof for god not existing is the illogical stance. If a claim is made for the existence of something, then proof should be provided. Its existence cannot be considered true due to an absence of proof against it. If it were, then my claim that a xuxuxlux existed would have no refutation, despite a lack of proof.
The supreme king-of-non-logic strikes again. Your stance is a universal-negative, which is illogical. Please, grow up.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat is the agnostic stance (I don't know). Rwingett was doing some huge semantic and logical gymnastics to maintain a positive belief in the absence of God while retaining its logical consistancy.
I think he repeated the standard atheist stance, a la rwingett. "The burden of proof rests on the one making a positive claim about the existence of God". Something like that.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThe reasonableness aside, I was just pointing out its logical implications.
Actually Hal, it's a perfectly reasonable stance. The absence of proof for god not existing is the illogical stance. If a claim is made for the existence of something, then proof should be provided. Its existence cannot be considered true due to an absence of proof against it. If it were, then my claim that a xuxuxlux existed would have no refutation, despite a lack of proof.
Yes, you can make your xuxuxlux claim and with the absence of proof, I would be forced to take an agnostic stance on it. To be axuxuxluxic is illogical.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's not agnostic at all, this is the basis of wek atheism. In the absence of any proof, a stance of denial is adopted. The logical implications are correct.
The reasonableness aside, I was just pointing out its logical implications.
Yes, you can make your xuxuxlux claim and with the absence of proof, I would be forced to take an agnostic stance on it. To be axuxuxluxic is illogical.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYou are the one playing semantics here. There is no positive belief at all, merely an absence of belief. Denial founded on a lack of proof is not a positive belief.
That is the agnostic stance (I don't know). Rwingett was doing some huge semantic and logical gymnastics to maintain a positive belief in the absence of God while retaining its logical consistancy.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanFair enough. Let me spell out the beliefs as I understand them:
You are the one playing semantics here. There is no positive belief at all, merely an absence of belief. Denial founded on a lack of proof is not a positive belief.
Strong-atheism: The belief that there is no God or gods.
Weak-atheism: The denial founded on the lack of proof for a God or gods.
Strong-agnosticism: The belief that there has neither been nor will be any proof that God exists or not.
Weak-agnosticism: The belief that in the light of current evidence it can neither be confirmed or denied that a God or gods exist.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by StarrmanTaking my definitions cited above, a truly neutral person would take the stance of weak agnosticism IMO.
It's not agnostic at all, this is the basis of wek atheism. In the absence of any proof, a stance of denial is adopted. The logical implications are correct.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI disagree, a neutral person might adopt either of the weak stances. But the stance (as cited in your definitions) of weak agnosticism, whilst perhaps being neutral, is not in my opinion, logical.
Taking my definitions cited above, a truly neutral person would take the stance of weak agnosticism IMO.
14 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanBut the stance...of weak agnosticism, whilst perhaps being neutral, is not in my opinion, logical.
I disagree, a neutral person might adopt either of the weak stances. But the stance (as cited in your definitions) of weak agnosticism, whilst perhaps being neutral, is not in my opinion, logical.
Naïve perhaps, but certainly not illogical...in the strictest sense of the word.