God's ahead in Kansas

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I can't say that I agree with that. Saying that I don't believe in God is not saying I believe there is no God. I personally don't accept that there is or ever has been any evidence of any God.

I thik we talked about this before once, C1ay. I have always thought you were internally consistent, based on a large number of posts I have read from you. If you think there is no evidence for God, that does not make you an atheist. An atheist concludes there is no god, based on the evidence. That is different than acting as if there is none, based on lack of evidence. I don't mean to get in to semantics here, but your position (as i understand it) is not a belief system and it closer to the textbook definition of agnosticism. You do seem to lean toward God's non-existence, but you remain open to any data, or argumentative framework.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I thik we talked about this before once, C1ay. I have always thought you were internally consistent, based on a large number of posts I have read from you. If you think there is no evidence for God, that does not make you an atheist. An atheist concludes there is no god, based on the evidence. That is different than acting as if there is none, based on lack of evidence. I don't mean to get in to semantics here, but your position (as i understand it) is not a belief system and it closer to the textbook definition of agnosticism. You do seem to lean toward God's non-existence, but you remain open to any data, or argumentative framework.

I disbelieve in any God, a traditional trait of atheists and I don't believe anyone can prove or disprove the existance of any God, the traditional trait of agnostics. I also don't believe in the need to disprove something that no one has shown any logical proof of but I don't particularly know what belief or disbelief that would belong to.

[Kukucan]

Speaking of semantics:

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Now this a bit of a stretch. Most evolutionsists are Naturalists, which is certainly a belief systems. And if anyone holds to the basket of theses we group into evolution becasue of a lack of alternatives, that is a belief system as well. Lack of alternatives does not a theory make.

Originally Posted by Kukucan

Evolution is NOT a system of belief, but a scientific theory which has no credible alternative.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I disbelieve in any God, a traditional trait of atheists and I don't believe anyone can prove or disprove the existance of any God, the traditional trait of agnostics. I also don't believe in the need to disprove something that no one has shown any logical proof of but I don't particularly know what belief or disbelief that would belong to.

I think we might consider you agnatheostic.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Kukucan

Speaking of semantics:

Sorry, K- I could not pick up your point in this post (113). Other than you caught me fat-fingering "because" again. By far my most common typo.

Could you clarify your point?

[Shirwany]

Since I am not particularly articulate, I recommend a look at the AAAS letter that politely declines the Kansas invitation. It is a model of succinct prose and one of the most elegantly worded declarations of the larger position of the scientific community. The letter can be viewed at www.aaas.org

Cheers

[Shirwany]

Oh and by the by, I think Biochemist is entirely correct. "Agnostic" is a more valid position. Since empirical rules cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of God, having no knowledge of God (AGNOSIS) is the more consistent description.