you are simply citing widespread belief in the supernaual as evidence upon which to elevate supernatural concepts over other entirely uevidenced concepts.
Then just answer one question: Do you believe that belief in religion or the supernatural has a biological function that was selected by nature being that most human beings in human history are driven towards it?
It sounds superficially reasonable and smacks of mindless middle-ism whilst being unable (in my view) to hold up to rational analysis (with regard to any concept of god I have ever seen anyone actually advocate or define).
What is irrational about not having enough evidence in either direction to make a declaration in either direction? Why do I have to choose?
The point of the FSM, IPU and other such "absurd" entities is to demonstrate that the the argument that "you cannot refute god" is logically irrelevant. There are an infinite multitude of irrefutable entities. Yet nearly all are considered absurd. So irrefutability alone is not a criteria upon which rational agnosticism can be justified.
I understand the purpose. I find it a vacuous argument because it is actively trying to persuade people not to believe in God. I mean, that's the goal, no need to beat around the bush. It has now gone from mere disbelief if supernaturalism to taking on its own identity -- where a lack of belief in something is applauded as something inherently good and something that should be modeled after.
quote:
There is a reason why it is a logical fallacy. You are leaning upon your own incredulity to make the case for you.
Er no. That is what you are doing in differentiating the irrefutable FSM and IPU (and whatever other "absurd" entities" you find incredulous) from other equally irrefutable entities which you consider worthy of your agnosticism. I advocate that they should all be treated with skepticism on the basis that they are more likley the product of human invention than not.
You freely admit that the FSM and IPU are concoctions intended to be ridiculous in order to equivocate God _______ (<----- agnostic).
The bible is a breeding ground for illogical and inconsistent claims.
I agree, because we have something to actually discuss. See the difference between something specific versus a concept so vast it could mean anything? As much as the bible says that the bible and God are synonymous, that very well might not be the case. If we were to be arguing specifically about the God of the bible in relation to infallibility, that is something that could be refuted logically. In that case, I would lean closer to your position of atheism. But the bible doesn't encapsulate the concept of God, it doesn't own the name of God, which means the concept of God is left open to interpretation.
Because it is so open, it would only be fair to remain open as well.
Then why not the IPU? Seriously. Why exactly is Vishnu more worthy of agnosticism than the IPU?
Sure, the IPU could exist. That means I am agnostic towards the IPU as well. Satisfied?
Is there any evidence in favour of the concept of god being a human invention? Would such evidence have any bearing on the likelihood of such concepts being more or less likely to be the product of human invention than to actually exist?
I think there is ample evidence to suggest that many conceptions about "God" (insert concept -----> here ________) are fabrications. But it is also entirely possible that God reveals himself to the faithful, and only so much for a specific reason. I will go so far to say that I have had some very surreal experiences, which may largely attribute to my stance on God. There were a couple of instances that I could not explain rationally.
The other thing that makes me question is the illogical hatred towards that which doesn't exist. In a sense, atheists make me question the reality of God more than theists do, as ironic as it might sound.
Why is this seemingly innocuous question considered by those (such as RAZD) who advocate agnosticism as so confrontational?
I don't understand. Can you expound?
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
™ Version 4.2
(1)
