I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also? (page 7)

EdenOne

Do you find anything unsound with my definition? Please elaborate. Or is this a case of a fallacy of authority?

Eden

Jonathan Drake

Eden I think your getting absurd.

Dictionary:

Thesaurus:

fukitol

You've presupposed the existence of 'something' in your definition EdenOne. Contradicting yourself.

You're arguing for agnosticism but going about it the wrong way. Agnosticism in its simple modern sense just says there is not enough evidence to know either way.

Agnosticism in its formal aception is that God, if exists, cannot be known. A more modern and prosaic notion is: "I can't decide if God exists or not". Absentheism leaves open the possibility that a deity exists and can be known. Or doesn't exist. Or exists and cannot be known. What is saying simply is this: God's presence can't be attested here and now. (hence, the term "absence" because the possibility of presence also exists), and that's all we can say about deity that can be demonstrated without resorting to grandiose claims about the existence or non-existence of deities.

Eden

fukitol

Agnosticism has different meanings but the 'formal' one you've given is not at all the popular understanding most people mean who describe themselves as agnostic.

This is an excellent thread to demonstrate a form of fallacious reasoning known as 'persuasive definitions' or the 'Definist' fallacy.

EdenOne

Let me put it this way: If Joe says: "there is a deity in the universe", and Jack says: "there is no deity in the universe", let me ask you, who has the heaviest burden of proof? Because in order to conclude beyond question that there is no deity in the universe, Jack must scan the entire universe to make good on his claim. As for Joe, if he finds a deity lurking on the nearest planet, his search for evidence is over. Therefore, the heaviest burden of proof falls on atheists, not on theists.

This is not to say that Theists are right and Atheists are wrong. This simply means that the Atheist demand for evidence from Theists is a fallacy because they make the same grandiose claims without providing any evidence to back it up. It's better to be a absentheist, by far.

Eden

EdenOne

Fukitol, I gave both the classic and the popular notions of agnosticism. There are others, but I think those will sufffice to illustrate the point. As for definitions, if you find anything unsound with my definition of "absent" other than it can't be found in a popular online dictionary, you're welcome to elaborate.

Eden

Jonathan Drake

If Joe says: "there is a deity in the universe", and Jack says: "there is no deity in the universe", let me ask you, who has the heaviest burden of proof?

Joe.

Science has all the proof in the world that life has developed without a god. There is NO proof that a God ever did a single damn thing. The bible, and God assert there was a flood (as do many cultural legends) science has absolutely disproved this. The evidence in science falls against God by disproving all the crap supposedly associated with God on our planet.

If joe says that he knew a man who broke into a bank with his son and saved everyone inside from a fire, but EVIDENCE shows that the bank doesn't even exist - how can you possibly say joe might be right?

this is exactly what you're doing. People are saying God exists because of things that have been proven untrue, but you're suggesting despite this they might still be right.

fukitol

I already did comment on your definition of absent, go back and read it again.

EdenOne

If i'm elaborating on a new mathematical equation, and it's not working, I may say: "Something is missing here" in the sense of "something is absent". When I finally crack the equation, the bit that was missing, or absent, had never been there before. And yet, its absence was noticeable. As you can see, for something to be "absent" doesn't have to necessarily be pre-existent.

Eden

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

Share this