cockbeard wrote:I'm not sure you can assign a probability to something you have no knowledge of. If I am agnostic I am aware that I know nothing, I have accepted the subjects unknowability. Although I guess being as we have two different meanings of atheist then the odds of that being true are halved? Once again I've no idea why you're talking about probability in this manner. At the Grand National there can be 30 horses running, each of them can either win the race or not win the race, however the odds aren't 2-1 on every horse, neither are they 30-1
acemuzzy wrote:I'm not sure equating belief in ghosts with the question of where the universe came from is hugely helpful.
acemuzzy wrote:Dawkins uses probability similarly misleadingly IMO. I suspect somebody has read The God Delusion (which tbf I didn't think was all bad). For me, agnosticism is "we can't possibly know", as opposed to "I don't know" (which is uncertainty/ignorance). I think i'm possibly in both of those camps. I'm not sure equating belief in ghosts with the question of where the universe came from is hugely helpful.
GooberTheHat wrote:
I think of agnosticism as "we can't possibly know" to, but for me with added "I don't really care either".
legaldinho wrote:Definitely live in a computer simulation. Definitely. But "I'm not sure whether there is a God or not"? Madness! 2+2 = 17!
g.man wrote:God is in the details.
Facewon wrote:FWIW I like the "I don't believe there's sufficient evidence for god" definition of atheism. A small adjustment, but the sufficient evidence bit allows you to not overreach.
Vela wrote:If gods exist then they should be among the last things science ever discovers, not the first things human civilisations proclaims to exist.
The existence of such things was determined apparently when people were lacking any explanations for how things got here. It's the wrong way round.
SpaceGazelle wrote:It's not that we can't possibly know. New information pushes God further back with every new discovery. God isn't getting angry and causing Storms anymore. He's, and this is a biggie, no longer required to create all the plants and animals. He's no longer required to make all the planets and stars. He's (got to be a human type guy apparently) now pushed all the way back to the big bang. Now, that's a bit of a head scratcher for sure, but no more of a problem than where all the people came from. Evolution was the final nail in the coffin tbh. It's now looking reasonable that if you can combine quantum mechanics and GR successfully you can explain where all the matter came from (literally out of nothing btw), so where does that leave God now? To still cling on to the idea that there is a God that is interested in human affairs, especially all the wanking, seems a tad insane.GooberTheHat wrote:I think of agnosticism as "we can't possibly know" to, but for me with added "I don't really care either".
g.man wrote:More likely than all that big bang nonsense.
GooberTheHat wrote:But you're atheist so don't believe there is a programmer?
SpaceGazelle wrote:There is, but our God is probably doing it as a homework assignmentGooberTheHat wrote:But you're atheist so don't believe there is a programmer?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!