say what? (The atheist delusion)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 12:49 (4681 days ago) @ scoobypoo

DHW: I agree emphatically that not knowing the answers does not give us "reason" to believe either way; nor does it give us "reason" to disbelieve either way. That is my brand of agnosticism.
SCOOBYPOO: I think not knowing the answers is precisely the "reason" to disbelieve.-In that case, since no-one knows the answer to the question of how life originated, you clearly disbelieve the theory of abiogenesis, which is the alternative to design and for which there is not one shred of scientific evidence. This leaves you disbelieving in a designer, and disbelieving in chance as an agent capable of producing life. How do you reconcile these two disbeliefs?-Dhw: I do not give equal credulity to both sides of the fence. I give them both equal incredulity.
SCOOBYPOO: Do you give equal credulity to all religions? -It appears that you do not read my responses (1). I give no credulity to any religion.
 
SCOOBYPOO: Even if you disavow just one, then I think your argument falls apart.-What argument are you referring to? Let me repeat yet again: "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a supreme being."-SCOOBYPOO: To say that something is possible is one thing; but to "believe", without credible evidence, is something else entirely.-Agreed, but it appears that you do not read my responses (2). "Neither believe nor disbelieve" does not mean "believe".
 
SCOOBYPOO: Maybe this is just semantics, as 'believe' actually means knowing without proof.
So, using that definition, yeah you can believe anything.
My point is you can't "know" [meaning provable] and for me that is reason _not_ to believe, and not only that; it's also reason to state that someone who does believe has no valid reason to do so.
 
Perhaps you should study the thread "Re DHW ... An Epistemological Framework", in which some of us discuss the distinctions between truth, knowledge and belief. Belief is of course a subjective matter, and what seems valid to X will not seem valid to Y. If you mean there is no OBJECTIVELY valid reason for belief, that is self-evident since objective validity would constitute absolute truth (as opposed to "knowledge", which depends on consensus). I agree with you, then, that there is no universally valid reason for belief, either in a designer or in abiogenesis, but how many times do I have to tell you that I am not a believer? Perhaps you have not grasped the difference between not believing and disbelieving. We need these distinctions, and yes, they are a matter of semantics. We can't discuss anything without defining what we mean. An atheist believes there is no god. That is a definite stance, and is what I mean by disbelief. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves that there is a god (or gods). He is neutral.
 
DHW: Some of our correspondents are committed one way or another, and apart from the utterly wacky or the insultingly fundamentalist, I have respect for their views even if I don't share them.
SCOOBYPOO: If I say my pink unicorn created the universe, that is just as credible as any religion, and you can't disprove it. So why give credence to silly beliefs just because children are successfully brainwashed over and over again?-It appears that you do not read my responses (3). Respect does mean giving credence. And in my subjective judgement, your pink unicorn is "wacky". (It is, of course, no different from Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot, and you really don't need to keep repeating his point that no-one can disprove it. That has long since been accepted.) However, in my subjective judgement, the unproven theory of a conscious form of energy which lies beyond the boundaries of our cognition is not "silly". (NB my earlier comment that theism need not be along the lines of conventional religions.) I merely regard it as being beyond my credulity. With equal subjectivity I do not regard as "silly" the unproven theory that chance is capable of assembling a machine too complicated for even our most intelligent brains to understand, let alone emulate. I merely regard it as being beyond my credulity. My position is not entrenched. If science or personal experience should bring new factors into play, my attitude may change, but at present I see no reason for belief in either theory, and so I suspend judgement. That, let me repeat, is my brand of agnosticism. What is yours?