scspkr99 wrote:I'm not saying you don't understand your history it I'm saying you don't know it if your standard of verifiable is to mean anything.
I'm an agnostic deist, simply put it means that whether God exists or not is entirely uninteresting and we should consider science the best method of understanding how it is and how it works. Philosophy can give us ways of understanding but does not answer empirical questions. I answered that science is certainly not a crock only that your presentation of it is wrong. It's also not just about maths and experiments.
My argument with the type of atheism you seem to represent here is that it does atheists a disservice, it's critical of theism while committing the same kinds of lazy reasoning that theists are often accused of and guilty of.
Also atheism is the lack of beliefs in all theist gods and so again trying to suggest that the Christian is an atheist about the Jewish god is wrong, apart from the Abrahamic religions sharing a large part of the concept of God suggesting someone can be both theist and atheist simultaneously fails the law of non contradiction and again shows that you don't really understand what these words mean.
lol, its like talking to a badly programmed bot. Are you human? One advantage humans have over machines is that we can see what someone means regardless of syntax. Is there even a word for believing in only 1 god out of 1000? I could have coined the term 'atheistic' to indicate a degree of non-belief. The point is
humans are psychologically pre-disposed to believe in God.
I don't represent atheism at all. I see no reason whatsoever to posit a God. So I am not an atheist. How is that lazy reasoning? I have asked you at least twice to give me at least one objective reason, free from the influence of human psychology to posit the existence of God. You talk of lazy, lol. you can't even give me a single reason!
The real question is: what is the infinite regress of why there is something rather than nothing? That is a question that seems logical to an objective, evolved ape in the macro world. But it may not even make sense at the most fundamental level. 'Sense' is a psychological entity, that is the result of cascading emergent properties through physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology and psychology.
The real laziness is to posit a unimaginably complex supernatural entity to explain gradually decreasing complexity. (ie from psychology down to fundamental particle physics is a decreasing scale of complexity)
lol at these ridiculous terms. So, an 'Agnostic Deist',
(some copy and paste)
Agnostic: someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God.
Deist: Deists believe in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority or holy text.
And you talk of me not understanding terms, heh.
So when you say: "I'm an agnostic deist, simply put it means that whether God exists or not is entirely uninteresting and we should consider science the best method of understanding how it is and how it works. "
What do you mean by it
? Surely for the 'deist' part of your self pigeon-holing, you believe God exists. I can understand people believing it after having it brainwashed into them by parents and society, and as a way to combat the fear of death and the apparent meaninglessness of existence, but you don't even have that excuse, you're actually daft enough to believe there are purely rational grounds?
: define "God"
tell me a single rational reason to posit the existence of your definition of "God".
If you don't believe there is a god then you are not a deist of any kind.
If you are unsure about whether god exists then you are 50% atheistic and 50% deistic.
Either way you need to have at least one reason to posit the existence of God. In which case I refer you to Question 2:
tell me a single rational reason to posit the existence your definition of "God".