On 1/19/2014 4:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>
>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
> Would you say...
>
> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
Umm. No, because it is "still" possible to conclude that all "extant" 
definitions of such a god are absurd (i.e., existing religions), while 
**provisionally** discounting one that is not yet defined, *but* still 
allowing that one's own knowledge may be insufficient to draw a 
conclusion. This is pretty much the stance of even the supposed "strict 
atheists", I have ever had describe their position. Even the ones that 
don't hold it do so on the sole basis that its an unnecessary addition 
to existing theory, which has consistently shown no evidence, or reason 
to suppose one might find such evidence, of supernatural entities, 
including gods.

Its still a "provisional" stance, but, in the same sense that one would 
not reject, say, the law of gravity, without a significantly radical 
replacement, and the necessary evidence to show that it possessed 
attributes which explain things the current concept does not. I.e, as 
close as possible to impossible, as possible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message