say what? (The atheist delusion)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 31, 2012, 15:48 (4462 days ago) @ scoobypoo

DHW: I agree emphatically that not knowing the answers does not give us "reason" to believe either way; nor does it give us "reason" to disbelieve either way. That is my brand of agnosticism.
> 
> I think not knowing the answers is precisely the "reason" to disbelieve.
> Do you give equal credulity to all religions? Even the most extreme? If not, even if you disavow just one, then I think your argument falls apart.
> To say that something is possible is one thing; but to "believe", without credible evidence, is something else entirely.
> 
> Maybe this is just semantics, as 'believe' actually means knowing without proof.
> So, using that definition, yeah you can believe anything.
> My point is you can't "know" [meaning provable] and for me that is reason _not_ to believe, and not only that; it's also reason to state that someone who does believe has no valid reason to do so. 
> 
> If I say my pink unicorn created the universe, that is just as credible as any religion, and you can't disprove it.
> So why give credence to silly beliefs just because children are successfully brainwashed over and over again?-In the nearly three years since I've contributed to this forum, NONE of the theists that have spoken here advocate the kind of simple evangelical claptrap that you keep confusing as the "theist position."-I'm a Buddhist (and by extension, automatic agnostic) and Buddhism highlights in a rational way, exactly what most theists talk about: Transcendant experience. I'll return to that later.-You speak of knowing. What role then, does inference play? If you live near vesuvius, and you see smoke at the mountaintop... are you going to investigate if there's fire? You're going to make a decision. But it will be inference and NOT material, "in your hand" knowledge. Your decision to leave or stay in Pompeii will be based on the odds you place that the mountain is going to blow. When you realize--on a deep level--how much of our knowledge is based on inferential reasoning, you should become more skeptical. (I am a computer scientist by training.) -The realization I'm talking about is the realization that much of our knowledge is projected onto things, and is always limited by language, and what is already known. Science is about model building, and the program of Dawkins asserts ultimately--that all things will be explained by math. I don't think so.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"