|
Sqrl said: |
All right, I think I would take issue with (at least) points #9 and 10:
|
9. The problem with incomplete proofs: To say that you have "logically" concluded god does not exist without following the rigorous standards of a logical proof actually violates the very first point. Specifically that our ability to reach any agreement is founded on the idea that we can present an argument for the assessment of others. The discussion of god lacks evidence and thus the strongest possible argument is ruled out. The only remaining option is logic and failing to present the logic for the assessment of others while claiming that your position is still logical is either ignorance of the terms, abuse of terms, or intellectual dishonesty. |
This disagreement is not with the point, per se, but...
I don't know where I've said that I've "logically concluded god does not exist," but it doesn't sound exactly the same to me as what I actually maintain, or what I believe I have written in this thread.
When you say "the discussion of god lacks evidence," I agree, which is precisely why I do not believe in god. I'm not claiming that I can construct a proof as to why god does not, or could not, exist. But I also don't think that I have to do any such thing.
I believe it's like anything else: the man who claims that leprechanus or the Loch Ness monster are real has the burden of proving it to the rest of us--much like you say in point #1, we "expect others to present a case that convinces our senses of their point."
Until such a thing is proven to me, I'm not going to believe in it. God has not been proven to me; I don't believe in god.
|
10. Conclusion: In the absence of proof the only logical position is to be skeptical. Agnosticism is the default skeptic position because it is the only choice amongst Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism that does not advocate a position of certainty. |
I do not agree that atheism necessarily advocates a position of certainty.
And I don't believe that agnosticism is near close enough to my lack of belief in god to be an appropriate descriptor. Unless we also want to say that I'm also "agnostic" about leprechauns, Nessie, the possibility that ancient aliens are responsible for building the pyramids, water dowsing, and the Tooth Fairy.
I couldn't prove to you that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, but I'm not agnostic about the Tooth Fairy, either. Actually, I feel as though there's just as much good reason to believe in her as there is to believe in god. That is to say, there isn't any, which is why I don't.
