Not really - it's more rational to believe in an absence of a thing if there's absolutely no empirical evidence for it than it is to believe in the existence of a thing that has no empirical evidence.cockbeard wrote:... whether that's a faith in a presence or absence of a higher power, it's an equally irrational point of view. ...
djchump wrote:Not really - it's more rational to believe in an absence of a thing if there's absolutely no empirical evidence for it than it is to believe in the existence of a thing that has no empirical evidence. But like you say, it's *most* rational to remain agnostic when faced with lack of evidence.cockbeard wrote:... whether that's a faith in a presence or absence of a higher power, it's an equally irrational point of view. ...
LittleFranklin wrote:Russell's Teapot for instance.
Yes, Dark Energy etc. But those theories aren't considered absolute truth. They're just the current most popular working models that fit the evidence.Mod74 wrote:Or String theory, M-theory, Loop quantum gravity and Causal dynamical triangulation?Russell's Teapot for instance.
For sure - I totally agree that it makes sense to distinguish between atheist and agnostic (and FWIW always considered myself agnostic). IMHO it does get rather confusing when the religious discussion ends up with the "strong" atheists lumped into the same category as the fence-sitting agnostics.cockbeard wrote:Ok, that's fine. Personally from the previous thread and the way logic and ration was used, I thought it sensible to treat it as an absolute. I think that some decisions can seem more rational than others, but that whether something is rational or not is binary. Maybe only down to a very specific facet but binary within that. We can agree to disagree on that, but I would like to draw that line between agnostic and atheist
LittleFranklin wrote:Yes, Dark Energy etc. But those theories aren't considered absolute truth. They're just the current most popular working models that fit the evidence.Or String theory, M-theory, Loop quantum gravity and Causal dynamical triangulation?Russell's Teapot for instance.
LittleFranklin wrote:How do you imagine a natural God would work?
Try being gay in Middle America.Gonzo wrote:... Yet I don't think it does as much harm as the antis say it does.
Pot of some colour.  You realize what this thread is about yus?Space wrote:If you believe in something which is clearly bollocks, you are a little bit stupid. Bye bye thread, I shall not miss you.
Because science?Gonzo wrote:We're back to the "cause v tool" dichotomy. Try being gay in China. Think you'd fare better?
I expect homophobia is pretty universal, but I don't think it would be as strong without some doctrine backing it up. But China probably has some quite old fashion cultural outlooks, so I can believe it would be worse, I just don't think I've ever seen any evidence for it.Gonzo wrote:I'm guessing: same or worse than middle america. Almost certainly the latter. If you pursue your enquiry, I'll back that up. But I imagine if you think about it a teen, you won't.Why, how do they treat gays in China?
"Expressed"?ÂGonzo wrote:... The point is, repressive, homophobic culture is just that. Whether it is expressed through religion or some other form of social organisation doesn't affect that. To blame only religion is to miss the point.
drivelthegod? Really? NiceGonzo wrote:i only backed up drivelthegod to provoke face and he didn't bite
And what causes and propagates this "social conservatism"?Gonzo wrote:... social conservatism is the cause of homophobia.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!