"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 217 by Clownboat]



[center]

Your position almost completely clarified[/center]

By the way you are defining atheist here, I am an atheist, because I am without a belief in any god or goddesses.

Ok, that's very clear now.
Thanks.

I however have very much in common with this though as well:
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Therefore, my agnostic claim.

Yes, the first definition is good. That's the one that I use.

I say that agnosticism should mean "having no knowledge of the existence or characteristics of gods or goddesses"

And just to be clear, saying that you are an agnostic isn't necessarily making a claim. It just means we admit to not knowing anything about the existence of nature of gods or goddesses.

IF, however, you go further to say that it's also IMPOSSIBLE to know.. that is a claim.
As a skeptic, I'd have to challenge it.

Are you claiming that nothing CAN be known about gods?

Why I shy from the label 'atheist' still has to do with the brainwashing I received for 2 decades about burning in a lake of fire with gnashing of teeth begging for just one drop of water.

Ok, that makes sense.

You might have been indoctrinated to believe that atheists will burn in Hell.
These evil religious ideas really STICK, don't they?

Well, maybe then, you can call yourself an EX-theist or a NON-theist.
At least we would know your position on theism.

But you pick the label that you like, of course.

I also struggle with how my mother would feel if she heard I was one of those evil atheists her church tells her about.

Right.
You have to stay in the closet, so to speak.
You aren't the only one.

I think that's a great reason to keep your atheism on the "down low".
Thanks for the clarification.

Just that one last bit and I think I'm done.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Do you claim to know that it's impossible to know anything about the existence or nature of gods?
  
  

____________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 218 by William]


[center]

You believe or you don't.
You're a theist or you aren't
Part two[/center]

If that were the case, there would be no arguments.

Since there are arguments, it can be established as to why that is the case.

It is the case because nothing is ever 'black and white' (like your statement suggests) - it is like saying "You are either male or female" - it is not true.

I really have to be skeptical that "NOTHING" is ever black and white.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Most computers, for example, work on binary systems of 0 and 1. Math problems are also very binary. You get the right answers or you don't. You pass or you fail. You are dry, or you are wet. Things are UP or they are DOWN.

Please decide.
Otherwise, .... you aren't deciding, are you?
Put your hand on a red oven burner... can you decide if it's cold or hot? It may not be PERFECTLY hot ( whatever that means ).

Maybe you demand that opposites should be ABSOLUTES. I don't demand that.
I know that reality doesn't offer us many of those absolute positions.

In my high school, for example, you had to get at least 65% in anything to pass. 64% was a fail.

I think that you are saying that the distinction "theism" and "atheism" has shades of grey, or in other words, NOT perfectly diametric opposites.

Could you elaborate?

It is like saying "he is an atheist" and expecting that to explain 'him'.
In the same way, it is like saying "she is a theist" and expecting that to explain 'her'.

I think you are talking about some "middle ground" between theism and atheism.
I'd like to know what's in the middle.

You believe or you don't believe.
What's in the middle of that?

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 211 by Blastcat]

It's much better.
You made yourself clear, but I don't think you have thought out the implications of your position as well as you might have imagined.

Ok good its better, but please explain...about these implications.. Are you telling me God will strike me down with lightning or that the sneaky atheist ninja's will assassinate me or have me tortured by aliens?

When I finally accepted the fact that I had "lost the faith", I called myself an agnostic, and debated atheists because i was trying to tell them that they were making a claim too...

I didn't think that I could be an atheist, because i thought I needed to CLAIM that "no gods or goddesses exist".

Yes but you came from a position of faith. I did not. My motive or thinking is not the same here, I have never been a theist and have only briefly called myself a atheist before being aware of what it means to be an atheist, and now I have "repented" that mistake to use a theist term

That was my problem.
Atheists don't ALL make claims.

No I am sure they don't....but if I asked you to join a team where a few were great guys but a few was looking to find any way to kill you, would you be glad to join?

If I gave you a bucket of water and put clean water and sewage water in it both, would you drink it just because it also contained clear water forgetting the sewage water which is also there?

I wouldn't. I would feel so embarrashed to be a atheist with what I have seen from them that I would never dare to tell others what I were when they asked me that question.

I find some of them appaling and I do not want to be appaling to myself or be classified with people I find appaling!

But on top of that, I don't think there is ANY grounds for me being one. There is 0 evidence of me being one really since I have not rejected the theist claim or belief. I am still investigating it, like I just did with the JW's.

These days, if an atheist would tell me that he KNOWS that there is no God... that would be a POSITIVE claim subject to my skepticism. I would explain to that kind of atheist ( and yes, there must be many of that type ) that he or she is wrong. I'd actually want to ARGUE with that kind of atheist. I think they aren't thinking their atheism all the way through if they claim to KNOW that no gods or goddesses exist.

Yeah, me too...and I tend to do just that which is why when I debate dogmatic atheists people think I am a theist, and when I debate dogmatic theists people think I am a atheist.
I HATE dogma!

You are probably at the right starting point if you aren't making a claim that you know that gods or goddesses do not exist.

What I tell people is that I begin with agnosticism.
I don't know anything about the existence of gods or goddesses..

Yeah I agree with you about that.

I also tell people to try so shy away from double negatives like "aren't making a claim that gods or goddesses do not exist".

Lets remove that double negative. We would get : You are making a claim that gods exist. Are you?

I don't think that you really are.

No true I am not, how can I? How on earth would I know? I am a small speck on a small speck in a orbit of small specks. I am not God, I don't know everything so for me to be convinced of something that big is absurd.

Whats the point for a worm in a bucket to try to ponder about supermen of Andromeda?

So double negatives or not the end is the same. I am not CONVINCED by either position! Frankly both sides sounds like worms in a bucket to me

[William]

[Replying to post 218 by William]




You believe or you don't.
You're a theist or you aren't

If that were the case, there would be no arguments.

Since there are arguments, it can be established as to why that is the case.

It is the case because nothing is ever 'black and white' (like your statement suggests) - it is like saying "You are either male or female" - it is not true.

I really have to be skeptical that "NOTHING" is ever black and white.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Apparently.

Most computers, for example, work on binary systems of 0 and 1. Math problems are also very binary. You get the right answers or you don't. You pass or you fail. You are dry, or you are wet.

You will note that I was being specific to human beings.

Computers, math etc are neither 'atheist' or 'theist' and it is evident in what I had to say, that I was speaking specifically of humans in relation to self identity, and in that, indeed - "Nothing is black and white."

Things are UP or they are DOWN.

Nope. "In and Out" There is no 'up or down' in reality.

I think you are talking about some "middle ground" between theism and atheism.
I'd like to know what's in the middle.

Well you won't even begin to appreciate what that is until you learn to drop your balck and white belief in these two positions being the only possible ones.

You believe or you don't believe.

More black and white. No shades of grey. YOU believe or YOU don't believe. What I do is different. YOU would do well not to project YOU onto everyone else.

So I ask you, 'believe' what? What is it you either 'believe' or 'do not believe' and why do you think there is no in between?

What's in the middle of that?

The vastness of the grey area. But you won't see that if you are positioned in either of the two polarities. The polarities act as a barrier.

Indeed, labeling others 'atheist' or 'theist' when they do not self identify as being either, is a liberty not rightfully yours to be making a call on. You take liberties in doing so, and some can, rightfully enough, feel offended by that.

Perhaps, as a self identifying atheist, you feel it is your right to take such liberties?

I don't see why you would think so, since being an atheist is just about lacking belief in any ideas of GOD. What has lacking belief in any ideas of GOD got to do with you therefore having the right to label others however you feel so inclined to?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 222 by Hector Barbosa]


[center]AGNOSTICISM ≠ ATHEISM
Part Two: Getting from agnosticism to atheism in one smooth move[/center]

It's much better.
You made yourself clear, but I don't think you have thought out the implications of your position as well as you might have imagined.

Ok good its better, but please explain...about these implications.. Are you telling me God will strike me down with lightning or that the sneaky atheist ninja's will assassinate me or have me tortured by aliens?

Good guess !

I didn't think that I could be an atheist, because i thought I needed to CLAIM that "no gods or goddesses exist".

Yes but you came from a position of faith. I did not.

I was debating atheists back then from a position of no faith.

My motive or thinking is not the same here, I have never been a theist and have only briefly called myself a atheist before being aware of what it means to be an atheist, and now I have "repented" that mistake to use a theist term

If you don't currently have a belief in any god or goddess I hardly see how it's a mistake to say so.

That was my problem.
Atheists don't ALL make claims.

No I am sure they don't....but if I asked you to join a team where a few were great guys but a few was looking to find any way to kill you, would you be glad to join?

I would if I were suicidal.

But atheism isn't some kind of a team.
It's a position on theism.

If I gave you a bucket of water and put clean water and sewage water in it both, would you drink it just because it also contained clear water forgetting the sewage water which is also there?

Are you holding a gun to my head in this scenario?

I would feel so embarrashed to be a atheist with what I have seen from them that I would never dare to tell others what I were when they asked me that question.

Oh, atheists are such a nasty bunch, all right.

I find some of them appaling and I do not want to be appaling to myself or be classified with people I find appaling!

I think that just texting one of these atheists is infectious.

You have to be careful not to conflate the PEOPLE who hold a position with the position itself. Even if HITLER was an atheist, it doesn't affect the validity of the position on theism. Sometimes we suggest that beginners try out the label "non-theist" instead of "atheist", if you think it offends.

But it makes sense that you don't want to associate with evil people.

But on top of that, I don't think there is ANY grounds for me being one.

How about the ground of disbelief in gods or goddesses?
No?

There is 0 evidence of me being one really since I have not rejected the theist claim or belief. I am still investigating it, like I just did with the JW's.

No shame in believing in some god or goddess.
Lots of people do.

Some of THEM are even nice people.
( not like us evil atheists )

I think they aren't thinking their atheism all the way through if they claim to KNOW that no gods or goddesses exist.

Yeah, me too...and I tend to do just that which is why when I debate dogmatic atheists people think I am a theist, and when I debate dogmatic theists people think I am a atheist.
I HATE dogma!

Well, if you are considering loving a god or a goddess, you might have to learn how to also love the dogma. Some of those gods really INSIST on the dogma, you know.

Why don't you try to have conversations with NON DOGMATIC people for a change?

You are probably at the right starting point if you aren't making a claim that you know that gods or goddesses do not exist.

What I tell people is that I begin with agnosticism.
I don't know anything about the existence of gods or goddesses..

Yeah I agree with you about that.

If you don't know anything about the existence or characteristics of gods or goddesses, then you most certainly ARE an agnostic.

So, it seems we have that figured out.
One small step for man.. a huge step for mankind, perhaps.

We would get : You are making a claim that gods exist. Are you?
I don't think that you really are.

No true I am not, how can I?

Right.

So, we are climbing another step.
You aren't making a claim that any god or goddess exists, NOR are you making any claims about the characteristics of any gods or goddesses.

That's a great place to start.

I don't think that you have any problems labeling yourself an agnostic.
It's just that you can't seem to pull that "atheist" trigger.

Now.. one of the IMPLICATIONS of not knowing anything about the existence or characteristics of gods or goddesses is that you may find it difficult to BELIEVE that they exist or believe what characteristics they have.

Not believing that gods or goddesses exist is atheism.
So, if you don't want to be an atheist, watch out.

You MAY have to start telling people that you KNOW they exist, and what characteristics they have. Because some cat might ASK you.

How on earth would I know?

When it comes to gods or goddesses, I can't help you there, I don't know either.

I am a small speck on a small speck in a orbit of small specks. I am not God, I don't know everything so for me to be convinced of something that big is absurd.

I'm not afraid to know BIG things.. I'm afraid to say I believe in things for which I haven't enough evidence to say is real.

If I don't know something is true or real, I just admit it.
There's no shame in that.

Whats the point for a worm in a bucket to try to ponder about supermen of Andromeda?

I'd have to discuss that with the worm.

I am not CONVINCED by either position! Frankly both sides sounds like worms in a bucket to me

Could you give us an example of some bad atheist argument?
I don't LIKE bad arguments, so I probably would just agree with you.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 219 by Goat]

I am going to have to quibble a bit. Athiest/theist has to do with belief in God. Gnostic/Agnostic has to be with knowledge.

I agree.

You can be an agnostic athiest.. in other words you can believe there is no god, but you don't KNOW it.... you can be an agnostic theist, where you don't KNOW there is a god, but you believe it anyway, or you can be, believe it or not, a gnostic agnostic, where you know you can't know if there is a god nor not.

Thanks. I was struggling to find a term for those who insist that knowledge of God is impossible. Gnostic agnostic.. It's a bit of an oxymoron, but it also kinda works.

I've never met someone who would say that they KNOW that they can't know anything about the existence of characteristics of gods or goddesses.

[OnceConvinced]

Most atheists I know was quick to accept them as atheists, so hey if the atheists wants to claim them that's their choice, for all I know all of the atheists could be ex-theists who was mad at God for not being their personal Santa.

We atheists accept it when people tell us they are atheists. We aren't trying to distance ourselves from the false ones.

You see to most atheist and theist it is really not a matter of evidence, for the evidence is not on either side. Its a matter of WILL. It a matter of if you WANT to believe in something which has some evidence, but some reason to doubt it, or if you don't.

I reckon it is true that no matter whether you are a believer or a non-believer you are going to be trying to prove you're right. That's a human nature type of thing. You are always going to be looking for things to strengthen your position, even if you are already adamant that what you believe is true. You always get a kick out of discovering something that supports your position and you want to show others. Human nature. Not a theist purpose or an atheist purpose... just a human purpose.

So as far as I am concerned they are just two different fairytales.

Fair enough.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 224 by Blastcat]

If you don't currently have a belief in any god or goddess I hardly see how it's a mistake to say so.

maybe not, but I don't, so the mistake could apply

I would if I were suicidal.

But atheism isn't some kind of a team.
It's a position on theism.

Ok...but you are not suicidal are you?
A team with the same position. "team" is just another way of saying they have a similar purpose or goal. Most atheists I have met debate as a "team" just like communists or socialists and republican's well tend to.

Are you holding a gun to my head in this scenario?

No, I am arguing for WILL and WANTING, NOT force. My point was that you can not force beliefs. I thought you understood that.

Oh, atheists are such a nasty bunch, all right.

Its a matter of opinion. I think they are embarrassing.

I think that just texting one of these atheists is infectious.

You have to be careful not to conflate the PEOPLE who hold a position with the position itself. Even if HITLER was an atheist, it doesn't affect the validity of the position on theism. Sometimes we suggest that beginners try out the label "non-theist" instead of "atheist", if you think it offends.

But it makes sense that you don't want to associate with evil people.

It appears that you do too, I clearly stated SOME atheists, you spoke of atheists in general.

But yes I agree that Hitler being an atheist does not validate theism any more than religious power abuse validates atheism.

Non-theist and atheist is not the same thing. Atheist means to reject a belief or not believe a idea presented. Non-theist just means you are not a theist.

I am a non-theist and a non-atheist but that does not make me a atheist or a theist as I have proven many times now and William actually proved that point too.

How about the ground of disbelief in gods or goddesses?
No?

Nope, for I DON'T DISBELIEVE God, Gods or Goddesses. I think there are some evidence which points to there being theists, but not conclusive evidence.

No shame in believing in some god or goddess.
Lots of people do.

Some of THEM are even nice people.
( not like us evil atheists )

Sure some of them is nice and I agree there is less shame in being a theist than a atheist unless the theist is blatantly lying in which case there is less shame in being an atheist.

Atheists being evil is your words. I have never said that.

Well, if you are considering loving a god or a goddess, you might have to learn how to also love the dogma. Some of those gods really INSIST on the dogma, you know.

Why don't you try to have conversations with NON DOGMATIC people for a change?

But again I am NOT. I am not trying to believe or disbelieve I am looking to learn more truth and gather evidence. I wouldn't know what Gods insist on and you wouldn't either since you don't believe in one.

I am trying but there sure isn't a lot of non dogmatic people these days

If you don't know anything about the existence or characteristics of gods or goddesses, then you most certainly ARE an agnostic.

So, it seems we have that figured out.
One small step for man.. a huge step for mankind, perhaps.

Yeah well I am not opposed to the agnostic label. But I am opposed to being labelled agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

Right.

So, we are climbing another step.
You aren't making a claim that any god or goddess exists, NOR are you making any claims about the characteristics of any gods or goddesses.

That's a great place to start.

Yep

I don't think that you have any problems labeling yourself an agnostic.
It's just that you can't seem to pull that "atheist" trigger.

yep again, because I know how atheism is defined and it doesn't apply to me. But the agnostic label I can see do to a degree.

Now.. one of the IMPLICATIONS of not knowing anything about the existence or characteristics of gods or goddesses is that you may find it difficult to BELIEVE that they exist or believe what characteristics they have.

Not believing that gods or goddesses exist is atheism.
So, if you don't want to be an atheist, watch out.

You MAY have to start telling people that you KNOW they exist, and what characteristics they have. Because some cat might ASK you.

Yes but see how you change the meaning here?

You first write having difficulty believing as applying to agnostics, and then you write atheist do not believe.

Having difficulty believing and not believing is not the same thing.

Just like having difficulty climbing a tree and not climbing it isn't.
You can have difficulty doing something and succeed, if you don't climb you can not.

In other words as you just stated a atheist can not really succeed in believing in God for they have already made the stance to disbelieve, however an agnostic can.

I'm not afraid to know BIG things.. I'm afraid to say I believe in things for which I haven't enough evidence to say is real.

If I don't know something is true or real, I just admit it.
There's no shame in that.

Nor am I, but it is dishonest to claim to know something you don't know.
You admitted not being able to prove there is not God, so you don't know if there is or not, that's the big thing I was talking about, and that big thing you don't know any more than I do.

Could you give us an example of some bad atheist argument?
I don't LIKE bad arguments, so I probably would just agree with you.

Sure! I will give you 5 common ones
1. the argument that there is no evidence pointing to a God
2. the argument that the evolution theory is fact
3. the argument that scientists are united and do not make mistakes
4. the argument that humans evolved from apes
5. the argument that something can come out of nothing.

[William]

[Replying to post 227 by Hector Barbosa]

Non-theist and atheist is not the same thing. Atheist means to reject a belief or not believe a idea presented. Non-theist just means you are not a theist.

I am a non-theist and a non-atheist but that does not make me a atheist or a theist as I have proven many times now and William actually proved that point too.

Yes. It seems to be something certain types of people willfully ignore.

I am not sure WHY this is the case. Perhaps it is nothing more than - once finding something which offends another, this acts as a kind of 'weapon' in which to subtle attack that person with, rather than to (as in this case) respect that persons right to label themselves as they will and leave it at that?

Perhaps a rule could be made whereby no one is allowed to label anyone if that person has made it clear that they object to such labeling?

Sure, I understand the need to argue what positions mean what - but drawing the line at being allowed to label others when they object to the label is also appropriate.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 227 by Hector Barbosa]



[center]

Still wrestling with that "atheism" concept[/center]

If you don't currently have a belief in any god or goddess I hardly see how it's a mistake to say so.

maybe not, but I don't, so the mistake could apply

Sorry... that's hard to understand.
Could you clarify?

I would if I were suicidal.

But atheism isn't some kind of a team.
It's a position on theism.

Ok...but you are not suicidal are you?

It was a joke.
For the record, no, I'm not.

A team with the same position. "team" is just another way of saying they have a similar purpose or goal.

Atheism does not have a "goal".
It's a position on theism.

Sooner or later I hope that this sinks in.

Most atheists I have met debate as a "team" just like communists or socialists and republican's well tend to.

Atheists and atheism are two distinct things.
PEOPLE have positions. atheism is a POSITION some atheists are quite obnoxious.

Some of them are very cool cats.

The position itself doesn't DEPEND on the characteristics of the people holding it. Hitler could have been an atheist ... doesn't mean that atheism is wrong because of Hitler.

Sooner or later, it's going to sink in.
Atheism is a philosophical position on the question of theism.

That's all.

Are you holding a gun to my head in this scenario?

No, I am arguing for WILL and WANTING, NOT force. My point was that you can not force beliefs. I thought you understood that.

I was joking.
I will drink dirty water if you hold a gun to my head.

Other than that... I'm NOT really into drinking dirty water.
And.. sorry, but I don't see how me saying that helps your case.

Oh, atheists are such a nasty bunch, all right.

Its a matter of opinion. I think they are embarrassing.

Embarrassing to whom?

Nope, for I DON'T DISBELIEVE God, Gods or Goddesses.

Then you don't believe.
Thanks for the double negative.

I have grown to love those.

I think there are some evidence which points to there being theists, but not conclusive evidence.

Oh, lol.

That must have been a typo, right?
I agree.. we have TONS of evidence that theists exist.

I have NO idea what evidence of any god or goddess you might be thinking about.
Let me know, that kind of evidence would be SPECTACULAR.

No shame in believing in some god or goddess.
Lots of people do.

Some of THEM are even nice people.
( not like us evil atheists )

Sure some of them is nice and I agree there is less shame in being a theist than a atheist unless the theist is blatantly lying in which case there is less shame in being an atheist.

Why is there less shame in being an atheist?
I don't think that having a philosophical position on theism shameful.

Really... why do you think that atheism is SHAMEFUL?

Atheists being evil is your words. I have never said that.

I know it was my words.
I was joking again.

Believe what you want.

You seem to believe that being an atheist is somehow SHAMEFUL.
Believe that if you want, too.

Convincing ME of that is another matter.
I am NOT ashamed to state my position.

Well, if you are considering loving a god or a goddess, you might have to learn how to also love the dogma. Some of those gods really INSIST on the dogma, you know.

Why don't you try to have conversations with NON DOGMATIC people for a change?

But again I am NOT.

You think that I am dogmatic?
What DOGMA am I displaying?

This is important. If you are alleging that I'm being dogmatic somehow, I'd really like to know.

Please respond.

I am not trying to believe or disbelieve I am looking to learn more truth and gather evidence.

Your goal ISN'T to form an opinion on the existence and characteristics of some gods or goddesses?

Well.. then you have already achieved your goal.
Congrats.

You ALREADY don't have an opinion.

I wouldn't know what Gods insist on and you wouldn't either since you don't believe in one.

I told you that I have no clue.
I'm agnostic.

I am trying but there sure isn't a lot of non dogmatic people these days

How would you find one?
Am I dogmatic, in your opinion?

Could you tell me why ... one way or the other?
I feel that you are accusing me of dogmatism.

I don't like it.
Cats have claws.
Watch out.

Yeah well I am not opposed to the agnostic label.

Good.
It's important to be able to define your position.

But I am opposed to being labelled agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

You haven't decided yet.
Ok.

That's fair.

I'm trying to help you decide one way of the other.
It sometimes takes a long while.

No use beating around the bush.
I hope I make myself clear about how agnosticism should lead to atheism.

I don't think that you have any problems labeling yourself an agnostic.
It's just that you can't seem to pull that "atheist" trigger.

yep again, because I know how atheism is defined and it doesn't apply to me. But the agnostic label I can see do to a degree.

I don't know what you mean by "degree" of agnosticism. You either know about the existence or characteristics of gods or you don't.

Something is either blue or it's NOT blue.
Something is either dry or WET.

The sun is shinning or it's NOT.
It's cloudy out or NOT.

1+1=2 or it does NOT.

Someone is alive or DEAD.
I live in Africa or I do NOT.

Gimme a break here.. you are an agnostic or you aren't.
You believe in gods or you don't.

if you believe a teensy weensy bit YOU BELIEVE.
What's this "shades of grey" nonsense?

You can't decide anything?

Do you currently believe in a god?
The answer to that should be yes or no.

But you aren't sure.
You don't know. It's your own mind... but you can't tell.

_____________________

Important note:


I was trying to make a case that IF one doesn't KNOW anything about the existence or characteristics of gods or goddesses, that one can't possibly BELIEVE in gods or goddesses.

Did you completely miss that argument?
It's really my point in all of this you know.

Since we have established that you are an agnostic, could you give my argument some attention?
____________________

Yes but see how you change the meaning here?

No.

I said it would be hard to believe.
It's a turn of phrase. And I guess it was a very unfortunate one, too.

You first write having difficulty believing as applying to agnostics, and then you write atheist do not believe.

Having difficulty believing and not believing is not the same thing.

It's darn close.

Let's just say that not jumping in the pool of theism for ANY REASON keeps you out of that "water". Having difficultly jumping in means that YOU HAVEN'T jumped in.

____________

I just meant that if we don't KNOW anything about the existence of gods, we can't BELIEVE that they exist.
____________

Just like having difficulty climbing a tree and not climbing it isn't.

If you ARE climbing the tree, then you ARE a tree climber.
I agree.

If your difficulty stops you from climbing on, you aren't a tree climber.

I regret using that turn of phrase.
This is a language difficulty, I assure you, NOT a philosophical one.

________________

I mean to say that if you don't know anything about X.. you can't say that you believe X is TRUE.
________________

You can have difficulty doing something and succeed, if you don't climb you can not.

I know, but that's not what I meant.

If I said it was DIFFICULT for me to believe, but that I believed anyway, I'd just say that I believed, and that it was a hard thing to pull off.

By "its difficult to believe" I meant "I DON'T". It's like I'm saying "it's difficult for me to JUMP IN" the pool of theism. I don't jump in half way. It's JUMP or NOT JUMP.

The acts of Jumping and believing are binary propositions. You are or you are NOT.
You jump or you DON'T jump.

You tap dance or you DON'T tap dance.
You believe something or you DON'T believe something.

Don't get stuck on how I phrased it. Focus on the meaning.
If you are having TROUBLE believing something it means that you DO NOT believe it.

Think of set theory for a second:

You are in the set of those who believe in gods or goddesses, or you are NOT in that set. Two circles. One circle is THEISM. Having DIFFICULTY getting into the circle called "THEISM" means that you are still OUT of the circle.

These language debates are really exhausting.
Could we get back to atheism and agnosticism?

In other words as you just stated a atheist can not really succeed in believing in God for they have already made the stance to disbelieve, however an agnostic can.

I did not state that I had a bias against belief in gods or goddesses.
You are mistaken ( should I say you are lying? )

Before I became an atheist I was a theist. I didn't ALREADY HAVE THE STANCE of DISBELIEF, my friend. It was the exact OPPOSITE of that. I BELIEVED in God.

THEN, LATER, I became an agnostic just about the same way that you are now.
Not really having thought it all through. I HAD MY DOUBTS about my beliefs.. and started to ask questions. I came to realize that NOBODY had the answers. They just said that they did. To me, it was all pretend.

They offered no evidence, you see, other than their firm beliefs.
Their firm belief wasn't evidence for what they believed in so firmly.

So my alarm bells started ringing. IF THEY could not help me, I would read everything I could about the subject. SOMEONE must really know. Right?

So I was a bookworm. I read voraciously.
I tried to read the whole "Spirituality and Philosophy" section of my local library.

I read many books on the "occult" as well.. I was open to everything.
I spent years doing that.

And then, lo and behold, I slowly became an agnostic.
This was in the early 60's.

Most books on atheism were about how wrong it all was. There was WAY more Christian propaganda books than any books written by ATHEISTS in my library.

But then.. aahhhhh the internet happened.
So.. I started to interact with those mysterious atheists.

I had SUCH an airtight argument against theism and atheism.
It's just that I never tested it out with any actual atheists.

I didn't KNOW any at the time.
The internet fixed that.

I started debating those arrogant atheists online.

But I had a mistaken belief that atheists CLAIMED to know that there was no gods or goddesses. I got that idea from descriptions of atheism from THEISTS. I was set straight. It actually took me a few years to catch on though. I hope that discussing this with me might save you some time. I was wrong for decades.

DECADES !!

Some atheists might CLAIM there is no gods or goddesses. I still think they are WRONG to do so. I would argue against them, because I think they are making a mistake. How can they KNOW such a thing? Anyway, an AGNOSTIC knows that he doesn't know anything about the existence or characteristics about gods or goddesses.

Focus for a second on your agnosticism.
Do you KNOW anything about the existence of gods or goddesses?

Yes or no?

If you DON'T know anything about them.. how can you say that you BELIEVE in them?

That's a key question here... if you don't KNOW something is true, how can you BELIEVE that it is?

I will keep repeating the question.
I think it's a key to open the door of your indecision about theism.

Nor am I, but it is dishonest to claim to know something you don't know.

FIRST OFF:

I don't like to use the word "dishonest" here, because it implies that we know the MOTIVATION behind the knowledge claim.

I can't read minds, and as far as I'm concerned, thinking that people are dishonest is WAY more cynical than saying they are MISTAKEN.

I think that way more people are MISTAKEN than DISHONEST.

If you are going to guess.. guess nicely, why don't you?
I've come to realize that very honest people are VERY mistaken about very many things. And yes, there are liars.

But for example, calling people liars will get you a warning in here.. so it's best to avoid that. I suggest using the word " mistaken" instead of "lie".


SECONDLY:

I completely agree that we should not pretend to know what we do not.

That kind of skepticism will lead us to agnosticism when it comes to the existence of gods or goddesses, for sure.

I think it's well applied skepticism. Skepticism leads to agnosticism, agnosticism leads to atheism.

I happen to firmly believe that once we thoroughly think about the implications of agnosticism, we should be atheists, too. That's how it happened to me.

I think that one leads to the other to the other, you see.

_________________

If we want to arrive at a decision on the God Hypothesis, there are two initial BIG steps:

• 
  1. Skepticism. Not to pretend to believe what we really don't. You made that step.
  2. Agnosticism. Applying that skepticism to the God Hypothesis. Again, you made the step.
  
  The two next possible steps:
  
  
  3. Atheism. Realizing that not knowing is NOT a good reason to believe.
  
  OR
  
  4. Theism. Believing .. for some other reason. Like for example, the theory of evolution is wrong. Or that atheists have not DISPROVED the God Hypothesis.
  
  

_________________

You admitted not being able to prove there is not God, so you don't know if there is or not, that's the big thing I was talking about, and that big thing you don't know any more than I do.

That's right.

I can't disprove the God Hypothesis.
That's one of the PROBLEMS with the God Hypothesis.

Look up the word "unfalsifiable".
It's a problem.

I also admitted not being able to prove "Not Santa".
Is my inability to DISPROVE the God Hypothesis evidence for God?

Demanding a DISPROOF of a hypothesis is not a reasonable request.
Sorry.

We can look for evidence. If we don't FIND any, then that's it for the hypothesis, sorry to say.


If there is no evidence for a claimed phenomenon, we can say that the phenomenon is indistinguishable from a phenomenon that isn't happening.

As far as I am concerned, there is no evidence for the claimed "God" phenomenon.

Could you give us an example of some bad atheist argument?
I don't LIKE bad arguments, so I probably would just agree with you.

Sure! I will give you 5 common ones

1. the argument that there is no evidence pointing to a God

Ok, I think that's a very common argument against the existence of God.
I don't know how it's a BAD argument, though. I think it's very good.

If there was evidence, I'd just accept it and be a theist. End of story.
What EVIDENCE are you talking about?

Why is it a mistake to say that there is no evidence when we don't observe any evidence?

2. the argument that the evolution theory is fact

That's a scientific argument, not an atheist or theistic argument.
I think you are paying a lot of attention to creationist propaganda.

Not all theists are creationists.
Not all atheists believe in evolution. ( though they really should )

3. the argument that scientists are united and do not make mistakes

Huh?

I've never heard of that one.. lol.

Scientists make mistakes all the time.
You have been paying attention to VERY unthoughtful people, my friend.

How is science related to atheism, anyway?
Atheism is a position on THEISM.

4. the argument that humans evolved from apes

That's about science again.
That has nothing to do with not having a belief in God.

It's a scientific theory.
And a very good one.

You should investigate.
I think you've been hoodwinked by the creationists.

They have SUCH a strong lobby.

5. the argument that something can come out of nothing.

That's a controversial scientific theory.
We have no conclusions as yet.

What we HAVE is apologists using that as IF atheists have to believe that. We DO NOT.
I SURE DON'T, and I'm an atheist.

Science is NOT about theism.
Science is NOT an atheist argument.

Just who were you TALKING to?
YouTube geniuses?


NO WONDER you think atheists are unreasonable. You were hanging around UNREASONABLE atheists.

I would NEVER use ANY of those arguments, except for the first one, which I do consider excellent.

The rest ARE all terrible.

About that evidence.....
As a skeptic I DEMAND evidence.

Why do you think it's a bad idea to say that there isn't any evidence pointing to "God"?

IF that evidence was so convincing we would both be theists, my friend.
Right?

Why aren't you a theist then, if the evidence for a god or goddess is so darn GOOD?
I think you just MIGHT question the evidence for the God Hypothesis too.