This entire thread has been proving that atheism is not a faith based position, more recently with me explaining that agnostic atheism IS atheism, and that it is what most atheists technically are. Atheists don't believe in god because he cannot be proven. Atheists tend to believe in what has been proven. No faith is required to believe in what is proven, faith is required to believe in something that goes beyond the scope of what has been proven, which atheists do not. If god were proven, atheists would believe in him.
LOL. Haven't been high in a long time so the idea of you being really high and forgetting what everyone was trying to say is funny to me. My position is that I don't believe in god, but acknowledge that it is technically possible he exists. My point has been proving that atheism is not a faith based position, and that being an agnostic atheist(not believing in god but admitting that it is POSSIBLE that he exists) doesn't make you any less of an atheist, and it's what most atheists(myself included) are.
You cannot prove there is not a god. This again is the principle of Falsifiability. You cannot logically say that god does not exist. You cannot prove it. That is beyond the measure of science. You can choose not to believe in a god that hasn't been proven, but to believe that there is for CERTAIN to higher being that created us then that is FAITH BASED. 'For example, "all men are mortal" is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. "All men are immortal," by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, "it will be raining here in one million years" is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.' Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exactly. Welcome to the discussion, you might be confused as you said that as if I disagree. My point is to assume you know one way or the other is a position or faith. This is textbook science.
I don't claim to be able to prove there is no god. This is why I don't say for 100% there is no god. I simply don't believe in him because it hasn't been proven that he's real, nor is there any evidence suggesting he's real, meaning that I have no faith.
Now we are getting somewhere. I feel the same way about some mystical 'him' in the sky. Wow. Communication can be a trip. The point is since you cannot prove it you have faith in your sense of logic or the idea of science or whatever but you cannot prove it so you cannot call it logic either. You don't have to call it faith but again it isn't solid logic. Things like the atom where at one time faith based positions without the ability to refute them. 'Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, but not of zero importance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper's view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not lead to the conclusion that the theory is true or even partially true.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability I simply like to keep an open mind.
LOL, well you seem to hold the same position as myself With that said, I'm out for now. This combination of weed, hash and mango has rendered me useless.
Fuck man you can';t "logically" say that outer space chupacabra's or Crab people don't exist either. Wheres your proof they don;'t exist huh??
^You can only prove positives. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I feel like I've typed this before...
You are failing to comprehend. READ 'That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.' Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My whole point is that since the existence of GOD can not be proven or dis-proven by testing then neither a BELIEF in GOD or a BELIEF that GOD DOESN'T" EXIST are SCIENTIFIC positions and are by default then positions of "FAITH". Understand now?
Null hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are falsifiable using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1]
well, technically every belief is built on faith - faith that you're belief is the correct one. an atheist has faith in the concept of there being no creator god, and agnostic has faith in not being sure either way, a buddhist has faith in the buddha's teachings. faith isn't defined by what you believe, it's about how strongly you do believe.