RocketGirl: Animator

[Baconsticks]

Because you expect to win this argument, right?

[Dr. Sticks]

just because something is redundant does not make it not true.

[Baconsticks]

2+2=5

[RocketGirl]

just because something is redundant does not make it not true.

But it does make it irrelevant.

Maybe, strictly speaking, I believe something for which I have empirical evidence, but unlike those who believe without evidence, I also have knowledge, which trumps belief.

[Dr. Sticks]

christians have evidence, you just don't believe it. likewise, you.
just because people that believe the world (and universe) is only several millenia old are crazy, that doesn't mean that you get to use an entirely different term for your act of believing something else.

if I were a theist, and stated my beliefs, and I said "do YOU believe that?" you would say "no." I would then ask "well, what do YOU believe?" and you said "actually, I don't believe. I know. and I know that there is no god, based on scientific evidence" you would be neither correct nor polite. (of course, you'll have to forgive me for implying that you would be a jerk like that. I know that in that situation you would probably use "believe" despite your discomfort with using it about your own ideology)

[Segovia]

I tried to stay out but now I feel I must give my opinion. I don't preach about my religion because of a conclusion I have come to. I figured that my religion can be right but it could also be wrong. I do know that every body has a different opinion. The fact is that these kind of matters are too big to be answered by mere humans like ourselves. It can't be answered so easily. There could be a God and there may not be. The fact is that the only way we will ever find out is to die. I choose to believe in God because it gives me hope, strength and courage. People who debunk God take these things away from us and that is not very respectful and just plain mean.

[Dr. Sticks]

see? there! agnostic theist in action. There's no such thing as an agnostic that isn't either a theist or atheist

[Segovia]

I am not agnostic. I believe in God. I am just aware of the chance that he could not exist.

[RocketGirl]

christians have evidence, you just don't believe it.

No, that's not the case at all; just calling something evidence doesn't make it so.

Their so-called "evidence" is subjective, and therefore suspect; it cannot be studied, vetting, peer-reviewed, tested, or otherwise examined in such a way as to truly be understood, let alone verified as genuine.
By contrast, empirical evidence CAN be tested for its veracity; indeed, most empiricist thinkers welcome--even demand--that their data be tested to ensure that they're not deluding themselves, that their facts are indeed as they've perceived them.

The difference between those two is so vast, I have trouble comprehending how you've managed to equate them, frankly.

just because people that believe the world (and universe) is only several millenia old are crazy, that doesn't mean that you get to use an entirely different term for your act of believing something else.

No, that's true; thankfully, that also not the reason why one gets to use an entirely different term. And it's not a term for believing, but rather for constructing an accurate mental picture of the world; when that picture is based on empirical evidence, belief isn't even a factor.

if I were a theist, and stated my beliefs, and I said "do YOU believe that?" you would say "no." I would then ask "well, what do YOU believe?" and you said "actually, I don't believe. I know. and I know that there is no god, based on scientific evidence"

...which isn't what I'd say. At all.

It would be, "I don't believe; I stick to what can be factually proven. I may speculate, but those speculations are tentative; they are not beliefs. Pending new evidence, those tentative conclusions may end up being forced to change, but they're not beliefs, they're speculations of the probabilities of the truth of something or other.
"The likelihood of a god, given the evidence is close enough to nil that behaving as if such a creature doesn't exist is the more reasonable course."

That's a VERY different animal than what you're suggesting.

(of course, you'll have to forgive me for implying that you would be a jerk like that. I know that in that situation you would probably use "believe" despite your discomfort with using it about your own ideology)

I would NOT use the word "believe"; belief is far too strong a term--in now way would I claim to be THAT certain of anything for which there is not a mountain of empirical evidence, enough so that thinking otherwise would be ludicrous at best--and it's inaccurate anyway.

I realize most people have a hard time conceiving of a worldview in which nothing is 100% for certain, where everything is seen as nothing more than tentative probabilities, but that's the most logical course.

[Segovia]

you know looking back at my statement it brought to mind this comic because I sounded kind of like Ozy.



Rocket girl, did you read my statement because I feel it could give you a new paradigm.

[RocketGirl]

I choose to believe in God because it gives me hope, strength and courage.

That word, there? VERY important, that.

Choosing to believe is not the same thing as having facts on your side.
And you could easily choose to believe in a different god, or in some sort of spiritual energy, or in nothing at all, or in frickin' Superman, really; the fact that you draw strength from that is not a point in favor of the existence of whatever it is you choose to believe.

People who debunk God take these things away from us and that is not very respectful and just plain mean.

Personally, I prefer harsh reality to comforting delusion, and if whatever you believe in isn't real in the first place, it can't be taken away from you.
Why not just accept that whatever strength you draw from this belief in something comes from yourself, and the crutch of the illusion isn't necessary? In an off-hand kind of way, that's very respectful; it gives you the credit for your strength, instead of some outside agency.

[Segovia]

See there's that mean I was talking about. You are just mean Rocketgirl.

[Dr. Sticks]

I am not agnostic. I believe in God. I am just aware of the chance that he could not exist.

agnostic is "knowing that you can't know 100% if there is a god or not". you can be either an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. You are an agnostic theist.

[Segovia]

Does an agnostic still go to church every sunday and part take in religious festivities?

Just thinking about myself being agnostic just makes me sick to my stomach. Literally.

[Dr. Sticks]

Their so-called "evidence" is subjective, and therefore suspect; it cannot be studied, vetting, peer-reviewed, tested, or otherwise examined in such a way as to truly be understood, let alone verified as genuine.
By contrast, empirical evidence CAN be tested for its veracity; indeed, most empiricist thinkers welcome--even demand--that their data be tested to ensure that they're not deluding themselves, that their facts are indeed as they've perceived them.

yes, by people that DON'T believe in god. they're ignoring the possibility that life is a facade, put in place by god.

The difference between those two is so vast, I have trouble comprehending how you've managed to equate them, frankly.

well, I'm obviously spewing crap to play devil's advocate, because I think that you put a little too much thought and zeal into all this science and religion stuff.

No, that's true; thankfully, that also not the reason why one gets to use an entirely different term. And it's not a term for believing, but rather for constructing an accurate mental picture of the world; when that picture is based on empirical evidence, belief isn't even a factor.

so basically, you get to call it not-belief because you're right. which is subjective to your own belief that you're right.

...which isn't what I'd say. At all.

It would be, "I don't believe; I stick to what can be factually proven. I may speculate, but those speculations are tentative; they are not beliefs. Pending new evidence, those tentative conclusions may end up being forced to change, but they're not beliefs, they're speculations of the probabilities of the truth of something or other.
"The likelihood of a god, given the evidence is close enough to nil that behaving as if such a creature doesn't exist is the more reasonable course."

That's a VERY different animal than what you're suggesting.

...you would seriously say that? that's being way too much of an asshole. Why be hostile to someone just because they're not an atheist?

I realize most people have a hard time conceiving of a worldview in which nothing is 100% for certain, where everything is seen as nothing more than tentative probabilities, but that's the most logical course.

like I said before, spewing crap to play devils advocte, blah blah blah