Agnostics are shy atheists.
If the answer is either yes or no, and you say "maybe", you say "no", substantially.
Why? Because every "no" is simply a refuted "yes" (philosophically speaking).
If the answer is either yes or no, and you say "maybe", you say "no", substantially.
Why? Because every "no" is simply a refuted "yes" (philosophically speaking).
Agnostics are mathematicians. Or at lest very close to being mathematicians.
There's the old joke of a biologist, a physicist and a mathematician on a train in Scotland.
They see a black sheep and the biologist says: Hey Scotland is full of black sheep!
The Physicist responds with we have evidence of one black sheep in Scotland.
And the mathematician concludes, there exists at least one sheep, at least one of whose sides is black, in Scotland.
So when agnostics say you can't disprove anything, we mean it. We mean it in the literal mathematical sense of negatives not being provable.
Oh but you don't live your life according to such extreme ideological purity, if somethings darn close to a duck you call it a duck.
That's great if it works for you, but my mind is much stricter then that.
It is too small for our telescopes, so we have absolutely no evidence for a teapot orbiting the sun.
You don't believe in that teapot, do you? That's silly.
But Dawkins is a biologist, and I'm a computer scientist, I don't believe in the teapot, but I also don't KNOW it's not there.
And that has nothing to do with shyness.
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)
What I mean is, how can you claim to know anything if you allow the possibility of supernatural things interfering with your experiments?
You simply confirm that if 3 persons of human species are exposed to the same reality (yes, reality, because the impressions may be different, but the reality is well defined and precisely one):
So, if 3 persons of the same species are all concluding more or less different things, then you have the definite answer that none of them is seeing absolutely everything, that is: the whole reality:
So: you can't be God, because:
If you were God, you would know it (together with the exact reality of all things...)
I don't agree with the "refuted yes" idea. In logic, "no" is not necessary equal to "not yes". For example, "not black" could be "white", but also "green". "God" does not have a well defined enough definition: it's very likely that God is not a bearded man on a cloud, but questions like whether omnipotence or omnipresence exist (and their correlations) are a whole new can of philosophical worms :)
And this is exactly the definition of "God".
You can't act against "logic" without hurting yourself. If you are a hacker (like me), you never ever can act against logic, otherwise your program won't work (and exactly the same happens with life itself).
Also, would you please stop telling people what they believe? I don't think I'm the only person here who finds it to be rude. You can civilly argue a point without telling people that they're not really agnostics or whatever.
Also known as negation: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html#tendency_t...
Profile of a rapist [...]
3) Negating behavior or comments - [...] Does he try to tell you what you are feeling or thinking? Or worse, tell you what you are not? Comments like "you don’t really mean that" are serious indicators of someone trying to negate you. A person who negates others is trying to take away the other person’s thoughts, feelings and needs and attempting to project his wants onto that person.