View Single Post
Old 04-16-2012, 12:16 PM   #236
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angelic Dissonance2 View Post
The point is that since it can be neither proven nor disproven, one should not base their actions on the notion that a god exists--or doesn't. They can--but they shouldn't. They should measure their actions against the sum of their knowledge, and should seek to both increase that knowledge to the fullest extent possible and make it relevant.

Sceptism applies to all situations. Cynicism--not so much.
One can certainly be undecided on a subject but then we're getting to a point as to determining which thought has more value. One is objectively more reasonable than another. If you're truly stuck in the middle, then you must admit that you don't know, but it'd be cumbersome to live as if a god exists just in case.

Is it really worth entertaining the idea that Russell's Teapot exist? Is it important?

In short, the most honest thing to say is that, "I can't prove one way or another if a god exists; therefore the most reasonable thing to do is to lack a belief that it's remotely real."

There could be micro organisms on Jupiter and it's certainly possible; but surely you can see the problem in assuming that there is life on Jupiter in the lack of compelling evidence.

The fallacy occurs when the agnostic assumes a positive. It is always more reasonable to not draw a positive conclusion in something that can't be proven.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote