A theism, a theism, my kingdom for a theism

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Some atheists think it's the agnostics' views that are untenable. Just because an agnostic thinks not knowing is more reasonable than knowing doesn't mean he should label atheists intellectually dishonest. That's just inflammatory. For us, it's not an opinion.

Can an atheist prove that any and every god conceived doesn't exist?

Can a theist prove that their particular god (or gods) exist?

I stand by my belief that the agnostic position is the most honest.

(Although, to put on the table, xilman raised a very important point above: Exactly what god(s) are we talking about during this discussion here?)

[Xyzzy]

Perhaps this fits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

It posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god. It does not, however, assume that humans are either inherently evil or innately good, nor does it present humans as being superior to nature. Rather, the humanist life stance emphasizes the unique responsibility facing humanity and the ethical consequences of human decisions. Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by davar55

I made a decision on entering this thread to try to avoid my
occasional pedantic approach to explaining my religious non-beliefs.
So I've avoided certain statements and arguments...

Dude, you've totally forgotten the name of the thread. ;)

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Perhaps this fits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

A discussion which emanated from this link has been moved to a new thread "Ethics without Religion" by request of two people.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
...

I would challenge this axiom.

If you search high and low for Santa Claus, in every nook and cranny,
and can't find him, sure he MIGHT be hiding in some town you passed,
or on the moon, but your search does provide some tangible evidence
that Virginia was mis-led.

IOW an unsuccessful search is meaningful too.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

IOW an unsuccessful search is meaningful too.

Absolutely. By adding decimal points.

It will never reach zero.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Can an atheist prove that any and every god conceived doesn't exist?
...

First, conceivability does not entail possibiity or certainty.
Just because someone can CONCEIVE of something which
they call god doesn't mean it exists or even necessarily
that it may possibly exist.

Some atheists don't care about proof, they just don't believe
or need any arguments. Others don't believe and would love
to hear a proof they're right. Finally, some think they know
how to disprove the existence of a god.

Pick a god, any god ...

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Absolutely. By adding decimal points.

It will never reach zero.

Why? There are other avenues to explore. Why exactly do
you rely on probability to make an epistemological argument?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Some atheists don't care about proof, they just don't believe
or need any arguments.

Then they're being intellectually dishonest.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Then they're being intellectually dishonest.

Not if their "belief" is correct.

Your definition of intellectual dishonesty would then apply to
theists too, since they can't prove their god exists, and
to agnostics who believe without proof that it can't be proven
either way. Perhaps it can.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Why? There are other avenues to explore.

Such as? Exactly defined, if you please?

Originally Posted by davar55

Why exactly do you rely on probability to make an epistemological argument?

Let's try this from another angle (physics).

Can absolute zero be achieved?