Agnostic vs Atheist

Quote:

But stop trying to pretend that asserting that there is no spiritual component is any more logical than asserting that there is.

Ok, let's do logic then.
a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.
b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.
c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.
d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Now, if you accept these 4 premises as true, the conclusion that it is highly unlikely the supernatural exists seems quite reasonable.

a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.

b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.

c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.

d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

But stop trying to pretend that asserting that there is no spiritual component is any more logical than asserting that there is.

Ok, let's do logic then.
a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.
b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.
c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.
d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Now, if you accept these 4 premises as true, the conclusion that it is highly unlikely the supernatural exists seems quite reasonable.

Why on Earth would anyone with a brain accept those self-serving psuedo-premises?????

Why?????

There is no good reason to assert that there is any sentient life on any of the 60 stars closest to our star. Absent evidence to that effect, there is no good reason to assume that there is.

The use of the concept of "need" here is being perverted for sake of your simple-minded thesis. If the only basis upon which one can advance the concept of a deity is the mere existence of the cosmos, then the principle of the simplest explanation kicks in, and there is no "need" for a deity as first cause.

In the matter of whether or not there is sentient life on a planet orbiting any of the 60 nearest stars to our star, however, circumstances of argumentation are radically different. We know, for example, that life has arisen on at least one planet in the cosmos, so it is a less implausible contention that it might arise elsewhere than that there is an anthropomorphic deity which created the cosmos, as we have no exemplary corolaries to which we can refer, as is the case in the rise of sentient life on a planet.

However, you are absolutely correct to state that there is no good reason to assume that there is sentient life on any planet orbiting any of the 60 stars nearest to our "home" star. If one were to speculate, however, one does have an example of the rise of sentient life upon which to base a speculation--a condition which does not apply to assertions about the existence of a deity.

When one approaches an intersection with a traffic light which is green, one proceeds on an assumption that cross-traffic will stop. This is an act of faith really, because they might not (i came literally within inches of being killed one night in such a circumstance). However, it is informed faith, as opposed to blind faith.

You always fail to make a distinction between acts of informed faith and acts of blind faith. Furthermore, your attempt to construct an analogy from the rise of sentient life fails miserably.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

But stop trying to pretend that asserting that there is no spiritual component is any more logical than asserting that there is.

Ok, let's do logic then.
a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.
b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.
c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.
d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Now, if you accept these 4 premises as true, the conclusion that it is highly unlikely the supernatural exists seems quite reasonable.

Why on Earth would anyone with a brain accept those self-serving psuedo-premises?????

Why?????

Ok then, which of those premises do you not agree with, and why?
Surprise me and articulate an argument for once.(please save the 'omgzorz you can't know the NATURE OF REALITY' stuff for a future post) Since you claim to be highly intelligent, it shouldn't be hard for you.

Quote:

a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.

How the hell do you know there is NO EVIDENCE of anything supernatural???

Are you simply, for self-interest purposes, defining all evidence as being of a non-supernatural nature?

And what makes you pretend that this has anything to do with logic?

Quote:

b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.

I already mentioned that. But simply because there is nothing that requires it is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

Quote:

c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.

Do you just make this shyt up by yourself...or do you have help???

How the hell do you know that everything known exists withing the non-spiritual realm????

Quote:

d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Read that one again...and if you don't laugh out loud...you have no sense of humor.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

a:There is no evidence, though thousands of years of recorded history, of anything supernatural.

How the hell do you know there is NO EVIDENCE of anything supernatural???

Point me to forensically sound documentation of anything supernatural? if not, my premise stands.

Quote:

Are you simply, for self-interest purposes, defining all evidence as being of a non-supernatural nature?

What other kind is there? Until you can show another kind exists, my premise stands.

Quote:

And what makes you pretend that this has anything to do with logic?

It's a premise. Do try to keep up.

Quote:

Quote:

b: There is nothing known that requires a supernatural explanation to exist.

I already mentioned that. But simply because there is nothing that requires it is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

That's nice. I didn't claim this as evidence, only as a logical premise to a conclusion. Have you studied logic at all? :/

Quote:

Quote:

c: Everything known exists within the material (read - non spiritual) realm.

Do you just make this shyt up by yourself...or do you have help???

How the hell do you know that everything known exists withing the non-spiritual realm????

Prove me wrong. Show me evidence of anything supernatural. If you can't, my premise stands.

Quote:

Quote:

d: Most 'supernatural' beliefs can be traced back to something material.

Read that one again...and if you don't laugh out loud...you have no sense of humor.

Har..oh wait no.
Belief in god in people today can be easily traced to the bible, and the society we live in which tends to enshrine it.
You name a supernatural belief, it can be traced back to a physical cause.

You need to get over your PM obsession Snood . . . once you subtract Frank's personal attacks (which leaves you with nothing more than his sing-song assertions, unfortunately), it does happen to be on topic for this thread.

We only assume that constructs of the human imagination do not exist in reality. Everything else considered on its own merit.

Frank,
That you do not understand why the burden of proof always lies with the affirmative claim is a critical flaw in your 'logic'.

It is partially why you are stuck in your self imposed rut of ignorance.

It must suck to be unable to make a judgement for the crippling fear of being wrong.

I pity you.

I will concede one thing to you, Frank. You truly don't know shyt.

The best thing about arguing with Frank is that I always win because I don't bother arguing with Frank, I'm a simple minded atheist who knows his ****. (he also owes me dinner (the scum-bag))