[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
People aren’t “believing in a not existing god” they are not believing in a god that doesn’t exist, which takes zero faith.[/quote]
You seem to be confusing belief with lack-of-belief and, possibly, atheism with agnosticism. There are three possible options with regard to the veracity of a proposition: 1) believe it’s true, 2) believe it’s false, 3) have no opinion either way. Applying this, there are three possible options with regard to the proposition “god exists”: 1) believe that it’s true (believe god exists), 2) believe that it’s false (believe god does not exist), 3) have no opinion on the matter (I don’t know if god exists or not). Number 1 is theism, number 2 is atheism, number 3 is agnosticism.
[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
it would take more effort/faith to not believe in every single made up thing there is[/quote]
Actively disbelieve is not the same as “not believe,” it’s the difference between certainty and uncertainty, between belief and lack-of-belief.
[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
not believing in something does not mean you believe in the negative of that thing[/quote]
I never said it did. You’re the one confusing agnosticism and atheism.
[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
There is a reason that scientific facts are independently verifiable and such techniques as double blinds are often employed. They eliminates the need to rely on the subjective senses and “reality” of any one individual.[/quote]
You are always relying on the senses of one individual: yourself. How do I know someone repeated my research? I use my senses to hear them say they did or read their study or look at their instruments. I’m assuming my senses aren’t lying to me about any of that, that the scientist is really standing in front of me really saying what he appears to be saying, that the study is really in my hands and that it really has the text on the page that it appears to have, that the instruments are really in front of me giving me the readings they appear to be giving. I’m assuming that I’m not hallucinating, that I’m not being taunted by Descartes’s demon, that I’m not a brain in vat, that I’m not living in a computer simulation. This assumption is an act of faith because you can’t prove that your senses are in fact telling you the truth. I was talking about philsophical skepticism (see the link in my previous post), hence my remarks about Philosophy 101.
I guess I’m going to have to spell it out using a matrix analogy. If you were plugged in, the matrix could be telling you that the geiger counter shows an increase in radiation when in fact not only is the radiation decreasing but you’re not even holding anything in your hand at all, let alone a geiger counter. The matrix could be showing you a study confirming your research when there in fact never was a study at all. Independent verification is impossible in such a situation where everything can be fake. Science assumes, among other things, that we’re not in such a situation. It has to, it can’t work otherwise. The necessity of such assumptions doesn’t make them any less assumptions nor any more proven. They are still acts of faith.
[quote=“redesigned, post:117, topic:46812”]
a gamer gate apologist up to this point[/quote]
You should really read more carefully if you think I’ve been a gamergate apologist. Few people on this planet have done as much research debunking gater talking points as I have. But what else would one expect from a new atheist?
