To WillYumm:
Yes, I was making a distinction between proof and evidence. I'm not sure why that's silly. I don't think it's scientific at all to talk about "proof." Scientists talk about evidence and confidence.
I think you're really stretching if you're saying that the reason we're not all undecided about the existence of voodoo and ghosts is because those subjects are covered by science. There are endless metaphysical ideas that I could have used as examples here.
Also, I'm a hypocrite if I believe in man-made climate change? I'm no expert on the subject, but I'm pretty sure that the greenhouse effect and the correlation between industrialization and temperature increase are pretty well documented.
Anyway, I feel we're getting off track here. The whole point that I was originally trying to make is that it's not ridiculous (as Gabe claimed) to believe that something doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence for that thing's existence. Just because a definitive case can't be made either way for the existence of god, or bigfoot, or voodoo, or ghosts, doesn't mean that we should be forced into remaining undecided in our beliefs about these subjects. I don't think it makes sense to firmly believe in the existence of any of them, because such a belief would be unfounded. Remaining undecided or believing in non-existence are both reasonable options, because neither is contradicted by the lack of evidence. The idea of a god just doesn't make sense to me personally, based on what I see in the world around me, so I choose to believe in nonexistence.
You seem to disagree with the whole notion that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of god. You've argued that either the evidence is there but we are incapable of detecting it, or that the evidence is right in front of our faces, and I just don't recognize it. Well, evidence that is not detectable just isn't evidence, and the supposedly apparent footprints of god (the existence of the universe and the existence of life, for example) have alternate explanations that are more verifiable.
First of all, I meant creationism in a general sense, not just Christian creationism.
I'm not asking for proof of anything. I've already said a couple of times that absolute knowledge is not a reasonable expectation when trying to answer this or any other question. You can use your "there might be evidence, but we don't know how to find it" argument in support of voodoo, or ghosts, or whatever other idea without clear supporting evidence. Does that mean we should all claim to be undecided about the existence of voodoo or of ghosts?
There is no legitimate field of science that studies bigfoot (sorry, cryptozoologists), just like there is no legitimate field of science that studies god. In both cases, we have no reproducible evidence in favor of existence, but there is also no way to disprove existence. In the case of bigfoot, we all choose to use the lack of positive evidence as reason to believe that bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm arguing that it's reasonable to do the same with god.
Creationism is a perfectly valid hypothesis for explaining the existence and state of the universe, but I don't think it makes sense to accept that hypothesis when there are hypotheses with much more evidence to support them.
Right. If absolute knowledge of whether there is or isn't a god is the standard, then there is no logical choice but to be an agnostic. But absolute knowledge is not a useful standard for being right or wrong about anything in life, because nobody really has absolute knowledge about anything. So people label themselves with what they believe.
Because there is no clear evidence in bigfoot, I believe that there is no bigfoot. Because there is no clear evidence of a god, I believe that there is no god. Just because the idea of god is more important than the idea of bigfoot, that doesn't mean that the line of reasoning no longer applies.
I only use bigfoot as an example because it's one everyone is familiar with.
I see agnostics as being more explicitly undecided, i.e. and agnostic would say "I really don't know whether there are gods or not."
Either way, that doesn't mean that atheism is a religion, which is all That One was getting at.
I'd also like to add that we hold firm convictions in things we can't truly know all the time. I can't truly know that bigfoot doesn't exist, but do I firmly believe it? Yes. What's ridiculous about that?
Because Kelly mentions it so often here on Videogum, I started watching Gilmore Girls, and I've really been liking it! But isn't Lorelai kind of awful sometimes? In the most recent episode I watched, Luke was cooking her breakfast at her house and all she could do was complain that they weren't going to eat at Luke's diner. Like, he just made a whole breakfast! What is he supposed to do, throw it out?
Since I can't get my response to show up above, I'll post it down here:
It's really just that, as the show went on, they included fewer and fewer of the moments that made the character likeable. I kept watching out of some sort of feeling of obligation because i really enjoyed the first ~4 seasons.
The Office ruined Steve Carell for me. I grew to hate his character so much that I could barely even watch him in other things without getting annoyed.
Two people are having a heated debate about Islam in the YouTube comments section for this video.
If an adorable duckling can't bring us together, what can?
I know it's usually down-vote suicide to be an apologist for whomever Gabe is making fun of, but isn't Seinfeld being ironic?
He says that he drank plenty of soda as a kid, and he didn't exactly grow up wealthy. He doesn't let his own kids drink it, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's actually for the ban.
Comments