@MaRTiiaNN You can play word games and talk semantics all day long, but I'm sorry to tell you that you yourself are being just as stubborn as you claim atheists to be.
There is obviously a lot of debate as to the propper use of these labels, that's the problem with labels. There are so many ways to word these beliefs, knowledge, lack-there-of, or combination of the two, and I think it's kind of funny that we argue over something so trivial, yet here we all are doing just that! Go figure.
@blfry How am I being stubborn by claiming that nobody knows if there is or isn't a God? If you don't like debating about then why did you get yourself involved?
@MaRTiiaNN "How am I being stubborn by claiming that nobody knows if there is or isn't a God?"
If nobody knows if there is a god, then why believe in him/it?
I assert Nobody knows if there is or isn't a magical, invisible, intangible elf in my attic. So then, would you believe in him? If not, you don't believe. That's all Atheism is.
Not believing or disbelief IS NOT a positive assertion that the thing in question doesn't exist.
Do your own research and you can confirm that's true.
OK, so I don't believe that there is some heavenly god floating around somewhere up above, I believe there was some guy named Jesus back in the day who claimed to be the son of god
( key word ''Claimed" ) but what I would NOT doubt is the possibility of our existence because of the influence of other life forms from other planets... Where does that put me?????????
@MOTOVATOR101 You would be an Agnostic and it's more a knowledge based belief that has one viewpoint towards God and that's you just don't know and won't know one way or the other but a Realist works just as well.
@MOTOVATOR101 Nor am I. The Agnostic recognizes that any idea of God can't be proved true or false. It's essentially the same as a Realist but it just goes a bit further.
@MaRTiiaNN Really i could care less about the proving true or false part, but If someone thinks they can prove it ( god that is ) , then by all means prove it & good luck with that,,, but if that was the case then i think we would of stumbled across it by now or had some in your face piece of evidence, but that's just MHO
@MOTOVATOR101 Oh for sure man. If one of these Gods does exist, my first question to it would be, "So these depictions of you.. are they accurate? Because if they are I'm afraid you're the biggest dick ever." Common sense all the way.
I realize that gods can't be proven, and I'm not ready to believe anything I can't prove.
There's a small flaw in your argument though: You can't both not be a theist and not be an atheist. It would be like saying you both don't believe and believe at the same time.
@Xgya2000 That's not a flaw, that's the default position. Not knowing one way or the other. Evidence right suggest one does not exist but there's still a chance one can exist. An Atheist does not believe in a God. To say Agnostic Atheist would be saying I don't believe in a God but one could exist. The Atheist part is a belief because you believe on to not exist when the Agnostic part says one could exist somewhere, but its unknown at this time. That nullifies your belief that one doesn't exist.
"Not knowing one way or the other" - When did theism have anything to do with knowing things?
"To say Agnostic Atheist would be saying I don't believe in a God but one could exist" - Exactly. I don't believe, but I have no evidence one does or doesn't exist.
Not believing =/= belief, for the same reason not collecting stamps =/= hobby.
I don't believe gods don't exist. I just don't believe they do. This last statement makes me an atheist.
@Xgya2000 "I don't believe gods don't exist. I just don't believe they do." That's an oxymoron. You hold the belief a God doesn't exist. That's a belief. Theism doesn't have anything to do with knowing things, you're right. It's a belief, just like atheism.
@Xgya2000 I don't know whether a God exists or not. It's beyond human knowledge at this time. No it's not the opposite, this is why I can't have this discussion with any
Atheist, there stuck in their own minds and talk circles around there own definition and beliefs.
"I don't know whether a God exists or not" - Dis I ask if you knew? I asked if you believe. Answer the question please. I don't know if a god exists or not either. In fact, this is the main reason why I don't believe
The most common thing I address when I talk to Agnostics is explaining how not having a belief isn't the same as a belief.
Right now, you do not hold a belief towards Grubajow, the flying panda god in my backyard. You don't hold a belief because you don't know about him. You're an atheist.
Now that I've told you about my claim, I have the Burden to Prove it. I provide no proof. You're still an Atheist.
@devious21 Look up the word "disbelief" and tell me you don't hold a belief that there isn't a God. Next look up the word "Atheism" and you'll find it's defined as "the doctrine or BELIEF that there isn't a God. No I'm an Agnostic, not an Atheist. I don't write off anyone one persons claim towards something until I do my own research on the subject, then I'll formulate my belief. As far as my belief in a God is concerned, I believe nobody knows and we can't know at this time.
@MaRTiiaNN "tell me you don't hold a belief that there isn't a God."
I don't believe in any gods. If you want to change that to a "believe" statement(I believe there aren't any gods) fine but you don't get to shift the burden of proof. That's a logical fallacy.
You are trying to make not believing in a god a claim that Atheists KNOW gods do not exist. I'm telling you, that is not what Atheism is.
Atheism deals with belief. Specifically, they do not BELIEVE theist claims.
@MaRTiiaNN "As far as my belief in a God is concerned, I believe nobody knows and we can't know at this time."
So you are agnostic(weak agnostic). You believe god is unknown. I am also agnostic. That is in contrast to a strict agnostic who believes god is unknowable (which has a burden of proof to make such a claim).
Where I disagree with you is your understanding of the following:
By the way, this whole *Agnostic-Atheist, Agnostic-Theist* bullshit is stupid. There is, and should only be one type, Agnostic, meaning you don't know either way, and don't belive there is a way to know either way, until future evidence is shown.
I think you need to look up the history of the term Agnostic. That's not what Huxley meant. Secondly, there actually isn't any hard criteria for what counts as a god or not. Look at pantheism (universe is god). At what point precise point does it become too abstract to count a god? Supposing there is some higher or more evolved life form, which one of us gets to decide if counts as a god or not and if that makes you a Theist or Atheist?
No matter your definition, if you believe a god exists, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Not having a definition usually puts you in the second category.
@Xgya2000 Without a consensus, "god" is a meaningless term. If you were to go beyond the idea of Agnosticism merely referring to whether or not you can confirm your belief, after a point, what counts as god could be so abstract you can't even think of anything appropriately strange enough.
@blockhead365 "Without a consensus, "god" is a meaningless term."
We all have some general idea of what a god CAN be (higher being, omniscient, etc.).
If you can't come up with a definition of what you think god is, then you probably don't believe in it. Remember, Atheism is NOT claiming that ANYTHING that could be considered GOD is IMPOSSIBLE.
It's simply not believing any of the current claims for God(s). By default, you don't believe God exists (like everything else), until there's proof.
@blockhead365 "Look at pantheism (universe is god). At what point precise point does it become too abstract to count a god?"
When they define things we already know exist as a "God".
If someone wants to say "I believe God exists and I define God as the universe" - then fine. I believe in their "God" as well. It's a useless statement.
Tiresome exercises aside, the issue arises when people claim believe in a god or deity that isn't simply another name for something we understand.
I am agnostic untill I have a reason to be otherwise. Going out on a limb and claiming to know something I don't know isn't in my nature. I am neither theistic or atheistic as both views need an ample amount of faith in what we don't know.
@DivineHorseShit This is a ridiculous argument from people under the misconception that rejecting one claim requires making another (theists and "agnostics"). It stems from a misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works. This is how your sentiment translates to rational thinkers:
"Atheism requires faith because there's no evidence that there's no evidence for gods."
See how silly that sounds? The refutation is so old it's in Latin: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
brilliant response, concise and right on the matter.
However, atheism is simply not believing, it has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't evidence (that's what a/gnosticism is for)
Your above sentence doesn't look silly enough to make the point...
Try "Atheism requires faith because there is no evidence for anyone to have a reason not to believe". Not believing when there is no evidence is what everyone SHOULD do.
@Xgya2000 Different point. You're right in saying people can have belief or disbelief regardless of the evidence, but that's not why I used "no evidence for gods" instead of "no reason to believe." I said it that way in this case specifically because of the tired old "atheism requires faith" argument which directly implicates a lack of evidence. I was only pointing out how that argument sounds especially silly when absence of evidence is the specific reason for the atheist's position.
Hard atheism requires faith, as the belief that no gods exist is forever unprovable (heck, I'm of the opinion even finding a propre definition of what a "god" is is impossible - I'm an ignostic)
Soft (or agnostic) atheism doesn't. This is the position I and most atheists I know of take.
If the reason you don't believe (atheist) is because you don't have evidence (agnostic), I agree, your position is the only sane one available. But your post didn't show that.
@Xgya2000 My post didn't show that because it wasn't my point, as I explained below. What I am saying is: the position of an "agnostic" as neither theist nor atheist, is indefensible. (It requires cognitive dissonance, logical fallacy, or intellectual dishonesty.) I used a position of agnostic atheism as one example of how "both positions require faith" is a ridiculous statement. I am not saying that all atheism is agnostic atheism, but all atheism is atheism regardless of "knowledge."
@Xgya2000 You wrote: "Hard atheism requires faith..."
Faith has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist because I reject baseless claims about the existence of gods. If someone makes an outrageous claim, but provides no empirical evidence, the only rational reaction is to reject the claim. I'm not agnostic. I believe that if a god or gods exist, there would be evidence.
@YY4Me133 You didn't finish reading the sentence you quoted.
"Hard atheism requires faith, as the belief that no gods exist is forever unprovable"
The rest of your comment defined you as a regular or weak atheist. So, his comment obviously wasn't addressing "Atheism" but "Strict" or "Hard" Atheism.
@devious21 I read it, and disagree. That no leprechauns exist is also unprovable, but I don't think that means they might. Same thing goes for gods. It does not take faith to reject baseless claims.
I believe that all gods are fictional characters. I think that would define me as a "strong" atheist, but I don't care for such labels. Am I a "strong a-leprechaunist" because I believe they don't exist? If so, is being a "strong a-leprechaunist" unreasonable? If so, why?
"I believe that all gods are fictional characters." - Care to tell me what a "god" is? Most people can't agree upon a definition.
correct the sentence by "gods known to man", and I actually hold the same opinion. But I can't exclude anything and everything that could correspond to the above definition, because I have no way to prove such a claim.
Same goes for leprechauns. I put both in the same category, just as you do. I just don't take the burden of proof upon me.
@Xgya2000 People who believe in gods define them. I respond to their claims. I ask for evidence, but get none. I don't have to prove things don't exist to believe they don't. I require evidence before I entertain the possibility that a thing does, or even might, exist. I believe gods are fictional characters for the same reason I believe leprechauns and invisible garden faeries are fictional characters: there's no evidence they do exist. I have no problem dismissing baseless claims.
Making a claim of your own that gods do not exist = gnostic atheism.
"People who believe in gods define them". This means you only disbelieve gods you know of, not all of them.
If you claim gods don't exist, you have to give a definition for what a god is. When you do, you then have someone point out to you that this definition isn't all-inclusive.
@Xgya2000 Please don't presume to tell me what or how I do think, or what or how I should think. I find the concept of gods to be incoherent, therefore I believe that no gods exist. If presented with evidence that a god or gods exist, I'd examine it and either reject it as unsound, or no longer be an atheist.
@Xgya2000 Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't have to prove things don't exist to say they don't. If someone disagrees, they're free to prove me wrong, but it's irrational to believe a thing for which there's no evidence exists. Things I believe don't exist include, but are not limited to, leprechauns, invisible garden faeries, the Bogeyman, the Tooth Fairy, gods, fauns, Santa Claus, the monster under the bed, and centaurs. I have no problem saying those things don't exist.
"it's irrational to believe a thing for which there's no evidence exists" - Agreed. This is actually my position.
If you say things don't exist, you're making a claim. If you're making a claim, you have to prove it. "Things I believe don't exist" doesn't correspond to your above sentence.
This is the reason I stick to 'I don't think/believe they exist'
Can you prove gods don't exist? If not, why do you hold to this belief you deemed "irrational"?
A disbelief in the existence of something is not the same as claiming it does not exist. Disbelief requires no more than absence of evidence; claiming it does not exist requires evidence.
@YY4Me133 "I don't have to prove things don't exist to say they don't. If someone disagrees, they're free to prove me wrong, but it's irrational to believe a thing for which there's no evidence exists."
You don't have to prove things don't exist to say YOU DON'T BELIEVE in them. You DO have to prove they don't exist if you claim to KNOW they don't exist. That's the difference between Agnostic and Gnostic Atheism.
We are using Agnostic as Weak Agnostic. Sounds like it's just a misunderstanding
@YY4Me133 "I don't have to prove things don't exist to believe they don't."
That's absolutely correct. That's indicative of the standard Atheist, which is also agnostic as it doesn't make any additional claim of certainty. It's simply a statement of not having a belief in a god.
If you were a Gnostic Atheist, you'd be saying - Not only do I not believe in any gods, I KNOW god(s) do not exist. You would now have a burden of proof.
@devious21 Being agnostic has nothing to do with certainty. It's the belief that nothing can be known about the nature or existence of a god. I believe that if a god or gods exist, we could discover things about it/them, therefore, I am not agnostic.
@YY4Me133 "Being agnostic has nothing to do with CERTAINTY. It's the belief that nothing can be KNOWN about the nature or existence of a god."
You're using the definition of agnostic where god is unknowable, or strict agnosticism. Me and Xgya are both using regular or weak agnosticism. God is unknown.
They both deal with certainty but Strict Agnosticism requires a great deal of certainty. It claims knowledge of god is impossible. It doesn't get anymore certain than that.
This is making an outrageous claim (I am of the opinion the very definition of what gods are is unknown, so believing they don't exist is out of the question)
You are agnostic in that you do not think that there is sufficient evidence to prove gods exist. You remain an atheist because you do not believe they do.
Always remember that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
@Xgya2000 Don't tell me what I am. Agnostic means you believe nothing can be known about the nature or existence of a god. I, however, believe that if a god or gods exist there would be evidence, therefore, I am not agnostic. I'm an atheist.
Great last line, but meaningless. If I ever see evidence for anything I think does not exist, my position will change. To me, saying that anything is possible is taking the easy way out. It's a way to avoid having to take a position on issues.
"Agnostic means you believe nothing can be known about the nature or existence of a god" - Nope. All it means is you think it is currently unknown. While some of them do think it is unknowable, not all of them do.
I do have my position on this issue: I don't believe anything that I can't prove.
Can I prove god exist? Nope. Can I prove gods don't exist? Neither. If you can prove either one or the other, I'll change my position.
I will predict from 6 to 10 years from now, one of those I have been arguing with will be arguing about the same things but from my perspective. I am going to quit now. Agnostic *theist* out.
Ok, so on the face of it, it is probably more likely in my belief that god does not exist, however there is a real chance that some supernatural being does exist. Say 45 percent that a god or supreme being exists, but probably around 55 percent chance that some supreme being exists. I do think it is hard to know for sure though as there is evidence against and for, so I thought thinking this way would make me agnostic.
If you hold belief that gods exist, it makes you a theist; else, you're an atheist This position doesn't deal in probabilities, but opinion.
Your position really is agnostic in nature. What the video is about is the fact nobody can be solely agnostic, that anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist.
Agnostics have an astonishing Commitment issues.......it's that simple. Funny you should use "the scales of Justice" for emphasis, considering both Atheists and Agnostics don't believe there is any Justice. (At least not where God is concerned). Did you guys know that in order for "anyone" to NOT believe in HIM...........they have to acknowledge HIM first? Acknowledgement, even on a purely non-existent level....is still Acknowledgement. =)
Using your logic, everyone on the planet acknowledges an infinite amount of possibilities, most of which they never heard about.
I agree on at least one level: The word "god" has no definition everyone can agree on.
I do not believe in xtruborgnats. A word I made up. Without a definition. I can say that I don't believe in an infinite amount of things without definitions without acknowledging them beforehand.
An atheist is fairly well defined: a-theos, no Gods; the assertion of a belief that a God does not exist. It is not simply the lack of belief in a God; as some people state.
Slight correction on the video: the definition of "strong agnostic" is that the ultimate knowledge of existence is unknowable. but other forms, (including Huxley's original form) acknowledge that the answer is potentially knowable in the future.
Atheist = A-theos. You're right. But all it means is "godless": "not acknowledging a deity or divine law" (merriam-webster). You go too far in searching for an argument, and it leaves holes
Atheism was first coined in French, "athéisme", meaning a-theism, or simply "not theism" or "not believing in gods"
Atheism is a form of disbelief. From its root "Dis-""away from" -belief.
I see you're very reluctant to believe gods exist. You're also very reluctant to believe gods don't exist. For the same reasons, I suppose.
Unless you're willing to believe? (not reluctant = willing) If someone brings proper evidence, I'm very willing to believe. Until someone does though, I'll be reluctant (disbelieve).
'I see you're very reluctant to believe gods exist. You're also very reluctant to believe gods don't exist. For the same reasons, I suppose.'
It is more like I believe in every claim. I don't reject any number that might come on the dice. I would not reject head or tails before the coin lands. If you force this, then I would be closer to theism and I would assert the holy dice or god of order vs chaos.
I AM NOT REJECTING ANYTHING! Please get this into your head!
See, you're trying to deal with 2 different beliefs:
Belief gods exist. Belief gods don't exist.
Theism is holding to the former. Atheism is not holding to the former. The latter has no bearing upon this discussion. As far as I know, there isn't a single word to describe holding to the latter (or NOT holding it, for that matter). I'm as fervently opposed to the former as I am to the latter, for the same reasons.
Tell me how one can refrain from both holding a belief and from not holding it?
You see disbelief as a way to be undetermined. This is simply false and it is well documented what it really is. It is a rejection, holding something as false. There is no way around this if you stick to disbelief or belief.
You can be agnostic just like theist can. Think it is false or true because of lack of evidence to support either claim.
This is why I say agnostic atheist and theist are victims of argument to ignorance.
"There is no way around this if you stick to disbelief or belief." - I pointed to several dictionaries that simply equate disbelief with "Not believe" or "The inability or refusal to believe"
I don't think the assumption that god exists to be false. I just think there isn't enough information for me to believe. This makes me an atheist.
I don't hold to the assumption that god doesn't exist, but there isn't a word for people not holding to the above assumption.
If you come to my backyard, and thuroughly investigate the area and find no evidence for a massive diamond - you may become a Gnostic Atheist. Your belief approaches knowledge that the daimond does not exist.
The rest of the time, you were an Agnostic Atheist.
All belief or non-belief that does not claim certainty, is Agnostic. That's why Agnostic by itself is not a satisfactory answer on the question of "what you believe". It answers "what you know".
@steverock85 "This is the exactly the problem. You compere the idea of god with pink unicorns, huge diamond and something we KNOW that is false."
Then modify the analogy to be a fountain in my backyard. The belief structure still applies the exact same way.
You also don't KNOW they are false. I could claim there is a pink unicorn on a planet too far away to see with microscopes. You just don't have any justification to believe me.
'So you don't like comparing a supernatural god to other supernatural creatures but you have no problem likening god to whether or not you have hair?'
Yes! That is exactly what I am saying.
I don't think it is the same compering what we can observe here in the natrual world vs what we might observe in the after-existence.
Science gains knowledge from disproving hypothesis and do experiment that supports the idea. How are we going to establish that there is no afterlife?
@steverock85 "I don't think the god idea is that ridiculous but I don't think the other idea is either. I don't know what to believe!"
The crucial part that you are missing is that Atheism isn't the positive claim that "god or gods are impossible". It's simply not having a current belief in any particular god or gods.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim (theists). If you aren't convinced by their claim, you can not believe them (Atheist). Just like you do for all over claims.
'The crucial part that you are missing is that Atheism isn't the positive claim that "god or gods are impossible"'
Yes it is. Unless you are saying that there are no atheist that make gnostic claim.
Atheism alone is gnostic. When you think something is true or false it is a gnostic claim.
It is only when you coin agnostic with either theism or atheism that you have established you are undetermined what it is BUT are leaning to the other.
'No it's not. Atheism alone is simply a lack of belief. Has nothing to do with knowledge or certainty.'
Does not matter if it is lack believe, you are still rejecting even if you use interval to make the rejection smaller. I am not sceptical or doubtful about god/s existence
My proposition is only about knowledge. We don't have and can't have any knowledge if god exist or not. Not making the belief proposition makes it undetermined.
@steverock85 "We don't have and can't have any knowledge if god exist or not."
This is the strict agnostic view.
God is defined by the person making the claim. By saying "it is impossible to have knowledge of god", you are assuming knowledge about that god to assume understanding him is impossible.
How can you make that assumption for all possible god claims?
What you are doing is defining god yourself (theist) and then saying your definition of god is unknowable (proof not required).
If I would throw a dice and tell you to believe it will land on the number one, then you could say you don't know if it will land on one but it is unlikely as there are five other numbers, (agnostic atheist), believe me(theist), disbelieve me(atheist) or be simply agnostic. (totally unsure what it is going to land on)
In this case agnostic atheism has the strongest argument, but it does not make agnosticism impossible. You can feel completely unsure. Do you understand now?
@steverock85 "If I would throw a dice and tell you to believe it will land on the number one, then you could say you don't know if it will land on one but it is unlikely as there are five other numbers"
This is a bad analogy because you're comparing the existence of something to the probability that something may occur.
God existing is not a dice roll. Each claim for god is either true or it's not AND has a Burden of Proof. If you believe a claim you're Theist. ANYTHING ELSE, you're Atheist.
'This is a bad analogy because you're comparing the existence of something to the probability that something may occur.'
This is why we are nothing alike. I don't think the burden of proof matters because I think it is very unlikely we will be able to gain any knowledge if there is after existence.
For me all are true until I die and observe what it is. This is what most people who are strong agnsotic or militant agnostic are talking about flipping a coin or casting a dice.
@steverock85 "This is why we are nothing alike. I don't think the burden of proof matters"
That sentence is a huge problem. If I said "I don't think logic matters", you wouldn't be able to take me seriously.
The real problem is belief structure you have created is slightly broken. Within that framework, it's very hard to place Burden of Proof properly. You can't just throw it out. That's crazy.
@steverock85 "For me all are true until I die and observe what it is."
How can they all be true? That's nonsense. There are multiple conflicting claims. They cannot all be true.
What you mean to say is "they are all possible". Of course they are. That again stems back to the fact that you think Atheists are someone denying that a god is possible. That of course is not the case but it will never make sense because you don't understand how belief works.
@steverock85 "Why worrying about proofs? Do you really think you can prove or disprove existence of god/s?"
2 things:
1) Burden of Proof isn't about "proofs". The point is 1 party has an obligation for justifying their claim.
2) If you think god is unprovable, why do you believe in it? It's obviously justifiable because you believe in it. That's the proof we are talking about. Justification to believe.
"No, I meant what I said."
You think all possibilities are true? That's contradictory.
@steverock85 "Consider schrodinger's cat for this example."
No.
You continue to use probability analogies, not those that deal with existence.
I could talk for a long time why this is wrong to do but you have to understand that the default position for every existence claim is disbelief. Everyone starts there. Somewhere along the lines you are convinced by some justification that the claim now exists.
If your reasons for belief are valid, other people will believe too (indoctrination aside).
You're making an infinite regression. One cause has to be the first one, and has to be either completely random, or eternal (or both). No other options available.
"How" we exist: I don't know about you, but I was born from a female hominid.
"Why": Make your own reason. Reality doesn't deal in "why" questions. Minds do. Unless you can prove reality has a mind, the only person that can know why you exist is you.
@steverock85 "If we exist because of coincidence, then what coincidence created our coincidence..because of god/s, then what god created our creator."
'I could talk for a long time why this is wrong to do but you have to understand that the default position for every existence claim is disbelief. Everyone starts there.'
This is false. Disbelieve B(x) means ~B(x). It means to reject. You clearly don't understand what knowledge is. Knowledge is when we GOT the 'default' position. If we knew god/s exist, then your default position would be belief. It is the truth of the proposition.
@steverock85 "This is false. Disbelieve B(x) means ~B(x). It means to reject."
Okay, if you are defining disbelieve as "knowing something isn't true" - Then say "not believing".
Before you hear a claim, you do not believe it. If you hear an unjustified claim (there are dinosaurs in my attic), you do not believe it.
That is the default position. Not believing something. The person making the claim has the burden to convince you otherwise. Until that happens, you are justified in not believing.
'Before you hear a claim, you do not believe it. If you hear an unjustified claim (there are dinosaurs in my attic), you do not believe it'
If you still compere disbelief to your loss of belief in santa then that is your loss of understanding.
You don't understand what I am trying to say because you have never experienced being unsure about existence of god/s. You only know how to reject and to accept.
Like I said, I am unsure, you are not. Call me theist if you like.
'Before you hear a claim, you do not believe it. If you hear an unjustified claim (there are dinosaurs in my attic), you do not believe it.'
It is the correct use of knowledge because WE have the truth of the proposition. I I would assert "electrons have hair" then disbelief is your "default".
But if you assert this to god existence, then WHAT proof do you have it is the "default" position? With this you indirect are saying NO god/s exist!
@steverock85 "Knowledge is when we GOT the 'default' position."
We are talking about belief. The default position everyone holds about any claim is not to believe it.
By default, you don't believe things until you are convinced or someone has provided justification to believe it. Not the other way around.
If it was the other way around, you would believe everything until it was disproven. You couldn't function that way because you would simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs.
@steverock85 "Knowledge is when we GOT the 'default' position."
I'm not using "default position" as a buzzword for truth or the value that your knowledge relates to.
It refers to the fact that by default, you don't have belief in things until you actively believe it. Not believing is the default position to hold in all existence claims.
This is a big part of why your probability metaphors and current state (do I have hair) aren't analogous to belief. They have no default position
@steverock85 Youtube's new character restricting is making it impossible to respond to you without it looking like a jumble of answers. If you'd like, PM me a messenger to discuss.
@steverock85 "Your main fallacy is the application of "default" value."
I've tried repeatedly to explain it. It seems very clear and I'm not sure what your problem is with it.
"Second is asserting disbelief is undetermined when it is ~b(x) or rejection of belief."
I just explained I don't think disbelief is undetermined. It depends how you are defining disbelief. You are defining it as "I know there there is no god" which is not how I'm using it because that's not what Atheism is.
@steverock85 "Third is when asserting all those who are not theist are atheist and making a false dilemma."
Bottom line is if you don't have a belief in god, you're an Atheist. That's the definition. If you do, you're a theist. Any other option you insert is not dealing with belief. It is dealing with knowledge.
You think there HAS to be something other than Atheism (i.e. agnostic) because you believe atheism is a CLAIM that I KNOW God doesn't exist. That's wrong.
Even if you are also agnostic, that does not change what disbelieve is. You may two proposition, but that does not change the meaning or nature of what disbelief is.
Atheist may choose to postpone their belief by using the word agnostic because there is no evidence and hold it is unlikely to be true (like your dinosaur for example) but I would say that is the fourth fallacy and taking an argument to ignorance. Theist can do the same.
The very reason why I look at god differently from unicorns, dinosaur is because we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world.
I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea.
As for god existence, we must first assert why and how we exist. It is to early to say what is likely and what is unlikely and of its nature.
The very reason why I look at god differently from unicorns, dinosaur is because we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world.
I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea.
As for god existence, we must first assert why and how we exist. It is to early to say what is likely and what is unlikely and of its nature.
The very reason why I look at god differently from unicorns, dinosaur, is because we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world.
@steverock85 "we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world."
So you are defining your god as something that cannot be observed in reality. If it can't be observed, how do you know about it or have any information on it to believe it?
Most religions are based on accounts of God being observed in the past. If you're saying god is un-observable, then how would you even know about it?
@steverock85 "I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea."
Just because you can prove a negative when the scope is finite, that doesn't mean you get to shift the burden of proof when it comes to your god where the scope is infinite.
It's not up to everyone to disprove your god exists. It's up to you to provide justification that he does. If you can't, everyone is justified to disbelieve it.
@steverock85 And I'm using "disbelieve" to mean "not believing it". Not the way you were using it before that means "knowing it is false".
Make sure if we are discussing belief, that you stay there and don't jump into knowledge. That's like changing units of measurement in math without doing any conversion.
God idea is not so ridiculous if you look at the fact we are observing something in Quantum Mechanics that is even more absurd.. Saying the default(knowledge) is false is arrogant.
How are you going to measure what I believe if I don't know what I believe? It is like forcing measurement that does not apply. Do you believe or disbelieve I have hair?
Agnostic is "I don't know" to the question of "Do you have knowledge of God"
It's NOT "I don't know" to the question of "Do you believe in God".
If you don't actively believe in God, then you're Atheist. It's clear you are a Theist. You are just an Agnostic Theist. How can you not know what you believe? Even I know what you believe.
'If you don't actively believe in God, then you're Atheist. It's clear you are a Theist. You are just an Agnostic Theist. How can you not know what you believe?'
You feel I actively believe in god? What actions have I taken for my belief? Arguing with you that I am not atheist? I assure you, if god exist, then I am taking my chances because I don't follow any religion. -Not even an atheist one.
I am not atheist, and I am fine if atheist think I am theist and the other way around.
If anything is possible then it is possible that we did not evolve from apes but from pink unicorns.
The problem is that it is a factual statement? We both know that is false because we have evidence for the other. Is god existence a factual statement? No. It is not because we can not observe it.
If you think I am theist, then again, I don't see the problem. I will even assert my belief. I believe in the holy dice. The dice is a metaphor for my beliefs.
@steverock85 "If anything is possible then it is possible that we did not evolve from apes but from pink unicorns."
Yes it is possible. But I don't believe it or know it to be true.
"The problem is that it is a factual statement? We both know that is false because we have evidence for the other."
Yes, that's a reason we KNOW it to be false. You don't NEED that reason to NOT believe in it. Because the Burden of Proof is on the person making the claim.
I will tell you what I believe of god existence if you can tell me what you believe about my hair. Do you believe I have hair or do you disbelieve it?
@steverock85 "I will tell you what I believe of god existence if you can tell me what you believe about my hair. Do you believe I have hair or do you disbelieve it?"
Did you read the comment where I told you "probability" and "state of" metaphors were not analogous to claims of existence?
"Do I have hair or not?" isn't a claim. It's just a question. And it has nothing to do with existence.
@steverock85 "I will tell you what I believe of god existence if you can tell me what you believe about my hair. Do you believe I have hair or do you disbelieve it?"
Did you read the comment where I told you "probability" and "state of" metaphors were not analogous to claims of existence?
"Do I have hair or not?" isn't a claim. It's just a question. And it has nothing to do with existence.
"You could be Truman, man in a matrix, or having an angel watching you masterbate" - But do you believe any of those?
"who knows..." - Nobody ever asked you what you know. Stop answering you don't know, you stated that many times over, and it was said to you many times over that this doesn't answer the question
@steverock85 "If it does not reject nor accept, then you are not talking about belief claim and making it undetermined."
I agree that you either believe or disbelieve something. The problem is if I use "disbelieve", you equivocate that to mean "know it's not true". I define disbelieve as "not believing" as in "I do not BELIEVE in god". You are defining disbelieve as "belief that the opposite is true" or "I KNOW there is no god".
'That entire line of reasoning begs the question.'
And are you going to answer it? Do you honestly think you will have any answer? We have had several thousand of years in trying to answer this paradox.
There is no mathematical answer, no scientific as the can not observe this, and only fallacious philosophical answers.
We do have mathematical, and scientific answers that we will never be able to answers those questions. This is the first thing you learn in those courses.
"For me all are true until I die" - This makes you a theist.
You basically said: "I believe all gods exist". Even if you said you also believe all gods don't exist, what makes an atheist is the fact he/she doesn't believe gods exist.
@steverock85 "be simply agnostic. (totally unsure what it is going to land on)"
When dealing with existence, the default position is disbelief (or not believing).
Everyone is justified in not believing claim they haven't heard yet. As well as claims that have no justification. That is why we have Burden of Proof.
That's what Atheism is. It's everything before you cross the line of Theism (actively holding a belief). Atheism isn't claiming certainty that there is "no god".
I am getting tired of this infinity debate of what I am supposed to call myself. I am just going to call my self agnostic theist and assert the holy dice and I don't want to talk about it.
This video confirmed that I am, in fact, agnostic.
olimario 3 days ago 3
@olimario
but are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?
(A "I don't know so I don't believe", or an "I don't know but I still believe" type of person?)
Xgya2000 2 days ago
@devious21 LMAO now you're trying to tell me what I am. That's very religious of you. Have a good one. :)
MaRTiiaNN 3 days ago
Comment removed
ZiriusASD 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZiriusASD "You need to let this go. Your arguments make no sense."
What part of it makes no sense.
"As far as beliefs go. I'm agnostic. You can debate it till you turn blue in the face. ;p"
I'm not challenging whether or not you're agnostic. It's like you didn't even read my comment.
I was addressing how Atheism relates to belief and how not-believing something isn't belief in the opposite.
devious21 3 days ago
Comment removed
ZiriusASD 4 days ago
@ZiriusASD Finally, someone who understands. I'm Agnostic as well and would you agree that Atheists don't see the flaw in their beliefs?
MaRTiiaNN 4 days ago
Comment removed
ZiriusASD 4 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN You can play word games and talk semantics all day long, but I'm sorry to tell you that you yourself are being just as stubborn as you claim atheists to be.
There is obviously a lot of debate as to the propper use of these labels, that's the problem with labels. There are so many ways to word these beliefs, knowledge, lack-there-of, or combination of the two, and I think it's kind of funny that we argue over something so trivial, yet here we all are doing just that! Go figure.
blfry 4 days ago
@blfry How am I being stubborn by claiming that nobody knows if there is or isn't a God? If you don't like debating about then why did you get yourself involved?
MaRTiiaNN 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaRTiiaNN "How am I being stubborn by claiming that nobody knows if there is or isn't a God?"
If nobody knows if there is a god, then why believe in him/it?
I assert Nobody knows if there is or isn't a magical, invisible, intangible elf in my attic. So then, would you believe in him? If not, you don't believe. That's all Atheism is.
Not believing or disbelief IS NOT a positive assertion that the thing in question doesn't exist.
Do your own research and you can confirm that's true.
devious21 3 days ago
OK, so I don't believe that there is some heavenly god floating around somewhere up above, I believe there was some guy named Jesus back in the day who claimed to be the son of god
( key word ''Claimed" ) but what I would NOT doubt is the possibility of our existence because of the influence of other life forms from other planets... Where does that put me?????????
MOTOVATOR101 6 days ago
Comment removed
blfry 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MOTOVATOR101 Sounds like you are a prime candidate for Scientology.
Tom Cruse will be right over to measure your thetans, but keep your checkbook handy cause this religion is even more expensive than catholocism.
blfry 5 days ago 5
@blfry Here's the deal, you wanna categorize me as something then categorize me as a Realist, not an Atheist not agnostic not a Catholic, A Realest.
Anything else puts me in the religious arena and I want no part of religion or anything that is related to religion...
MOTOVATOR101 5 days ago
@MOTOVATOR101 I'm with you. I'm so sick of all this back and forth all the 'extremists' have going on.
Kiyi1994 5 days ago
@Kiyi1994 To me all of these different religions are just social clubs.
MOTOVATOR101 5 days ago
@MOTOVATOR101 You would be an Agnostic and it's more a knowledge based belief that has one viewpoint towards God and that's you just don't know and won't know one way or the other but a Realist works just as well.
MaRTiiaNN 5 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN Call it what you want but this whole "God" thing, Im just not buying it...
MOTOVATOR101 5 days ago
@MOTOVATOR101 Nor am I. The Agnostic recognizes that any idea of God can't be proved true or false. It's essentially the same as a Realist but it just goes a bit further.
MaRTiiaNN 5 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN Really i could care less about the proving true or false part, but If someone thinks they can prove it ( god that is ) , then by all means prove it & good luck with that,,, but if that was the case then i think we would of stumbled across it by now or had some in your face piece of evidence, but that's just MHO
MOTOVATOR101 5 days ago
@MOTOVATOR101 I completely agree.
MaRTiiaNN 5 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN Honestly MaRTiiaNN,, I'm rout-in for em', you know prove it, but right now my common sense makes more sense.
MOTOVATOR101 5 days ago
@MOTOVATOR101 Oh for sure man. If one of these Gods does exist, my first question to it would be, "So these depictions of you.. are they accurate? Because if they are I'm afraid you're the biggest dick ever." Common sense all the way.
MaRTiiaNN 5 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN
I'm an agnostic atheist.
I realize that gods can't be proven, and I'm not ready to believe anything I can't prove.
There's a small flaw in your argument though: You can't both not be a theist and not be an atheist. It would be like saying you both don't believe and believe at the same time.
Xgya2000 5 days ago
@Xgya2000 That's not a flaw, that's the default position. Not knowing one way or the other. Evidence right suggest one does not exist but there's still a chance one can exist. An Atheist does not believe in a God. To say Agnostic Atheist would be saying I don't believe in a God but one could exist. The Atheist part is a belief because you believe on to not exist when the Agnostic part says one could exist somewhere, but its unknown at this time. That nullifies your belief that one doesn't exist.
MaRTiiaNN 5 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN
"Not knowing one way or the other" - When did theism have anything to do with knowing things?
"To say Agnostic Atheist would be saying I don't believe in a God but one could exist" - Exactly. I don't believe, but I have no evidence one does or doesn't exist.
Not believing =/= belief, for the same reason not collecting stamps =/= hobby.
I don't believe gods don't exist. I just don't believe they do. This last statement makes me an atheist.
Xgya2000 4 days ago
@Xgya2000 "I don't believe gods don't exist. I just don't believe they do." That's an oxymoron. You hold the belief a God doesn't exist. That's a belief. Theism doesn't have anything to do with knowing things, you're right. It's a belief, just like atheism.
MaRTiiaNN 4 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN
"You hold the believ a god doesn't exist" - I just said otherwise.
Not believing one thing means believing the opposite?
Let me ask you: Do you believe gods don't exist? If you do, you labeled yourself a hard atheist. If not, it means you believe gods exist.
Xgya2000 4 days ago
@Xgya2000 I don't know whether a God exists or not. It's beyond human knowledge at this time. No it's not the opposite, this is why I can't have this discussion with any
Atheist, there stuck in their own minds and talk circles around there own definition and beliefs.
MaRTiiaNN 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaRTiiaNN
"I don't know whether a God exists or not" - Dis I ask if you knew? I asked if you believe. Answer the question please. I don't know if a god exists or not either. In fact, this is the main reason why I don't believe
Xgya2000 4 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN "It's a belief, just like atheism."
The most common thing I address when I talk to Agnostics is explaining how not having a belief isn't the same as a belief.
Right now, you do not hold a belief towards Grubajow, the flying panda god in my backyard. You don't hold a belief because you don't know about him. You're an atheist.
Now that I've told you about my claim, I have the Burden to Prove it. I provide no proof. You're still an Atheist.
Not believing isn't an active belief.
devious21 4 days ago
@devious21 Look up the word "disbelief" and tell me you don't hold a belief that there isn't a God. Next look up the word "Atheism" and you'll find it's defined as "the doctrine or BELIEF that there isn't a God. No I'm an Agnostic, not an Atheist. I don't write off anyone one persons claim towards something until I do my own research on the subject, then I'll formulate my belief. As far as my belief in a God is concerned, I believe nobody knows and we can't know at this time.
MaRTiiaNN 3 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN "tell me you don't hold a belief that there isn't a God."
I don't believe in any gods. If you want to change that to a "believe" statement(I believe there aren't any gods) fine but you don't get to shift the burden of proof. That's a logical fallacy.
You are trying to make not believing in a god a claim that Atheists KNOW gods do not exist. I'm telling you, that is not what Atheism is.
Atheism deals with belief. Specifically, they do not BELIEVE theist claims.
devious21 3 days ago
@MaRTiiaNN "As far as my belief in a God is concerned, I believe nobody knows and we can't know at this time."
So you are agnostic(weak agnostic). You believe god is unknown. I am also agnostic. That is in contrast to a strict agnostic who believes god is unknowable (which has a burden of proof to make such a claim).
Where I disagree with you is your understanding of the following:
Disbelief isn't a positive assertion
Burden of Proof
Read yhoo.it / ywMLNJ
David M's answer.
devious21 3 days ago
By the way, this whole *Agnostic-Atheist, Agnostic-Theist* bullshit is stupid. There is, and should only be one type, Agnostic, meaning you don't know either way, and don't belive there is a way to know either way, until future evidence is shown.
zaczoc 1 week ago
Agnostic pride ftw! Fuck the extremes of both sides.
zaczoc 1 week ago 2
I think you need to look up the history of the term Agnostic. That's not what Huxley meant. Secondly, there actually isn't any hard criteria for what counts as a god or not. Look at pantheism (universe is god). At what point precise point does it become too abstract to count a god? Supposing there is some higher or more evolved life form, which one of us gets to decide if counts as a god or not and if that makes you a Theist or Atheist?
blockhead365 1 week ago
@blockhead365
No matter your definition, if you believe a god exists, you're a theist. If you don't, you're an atheist. Not having a definition usually puts you in the second category.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 Without a consensus, "god" is a meaningless term. If you were to go beyond the idea of Agnosticism merely referring to whether or not you can confirm your belief, after a point, what counts as god could be so abstract you can't even think of anything appropriately strange enough.
blockhead365 1 week ago
@blockhead365 "Without a consensus, "god" is a meaningless term."
We all have some general idea of what a god CAN be (higher being, omniscient, etc.).
If you can't come up with a definition of what you think god is, then you probably don't believe in it. Remember, Atheism is NOT claiming that ANYTHING that could be considered GOD is IMPOSSIBLE.
It's simply not believing any of the current claims for God(s). By default, you don't believe God exists (like everything else), until there's proof.
devious21 1 week ago
@blockhead365
"Without a consensus, "god" is a meaningless term" - It makes theism meaningless.
Because atheism means simply "not believing gods exist", if the term has no meaning, EVERYONE's an atheist.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@blockhead365 "Look at pantheism (universe is god). At what point precise point does it become too abstract to count a god?"
When they define things we already know exist as a "God".
If someone wants to say "I believe God exists and I define God as the universe" - then fine. I believe in their "God" as well. It's a useless statement.
Tiresome exercises aside, the issue arises when people claim believe in a god or deity that isn't simply another name for something we understand.
devious21 1 week ago
I am agnostic untill I have a reason to be otherwise. Going out on a limb and claiming to know something I don't know isn't in my nature. I am neither theistic or atheistic as both views need an ample amount of faith in what we don't know.
DivineHorseShit 1 week ago
@DivineHorseShit This is a ridiculous argument from people under the misconception that rejecting one claim requires making another (theists and "agnostics"). It stems from a misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works. This is how your sentiment translates to rational thinkers:
"Atheism requires faith because there's no evidence that there's no evidence for gods."
See how silly that sounds? The refutation is so old it's in Latin: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
KungFuOctopus 1 week ago
@KungFuOctopus
brilliant response, concise and right on the matter.
However, atheism is simply not believing, it has nothing to do with whether there is or isn't evidence (that's what a/gnosticism is for)
Your above sentence doesn't look silly enough to make the point...
Try "Atheism requires faith because there is no evidence for anyone to have a reason not to believe". Not believing when there is no evidence is what everyone SHOULD do.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 Different point. You're right in saying people can have belief or disbelief regardless of the evidence, but that's not why I used "no evidence for gods" instead of "no reason to believe." I said it that way in this case specifically because of the tired old "atheism requires faith" argument which directly implicates a lack of evidence. I was only pointing out how that argument sounds especially silly when absence of evidence is the specific reason for the atheist's position.
KungFuOctopus 1 week ago
@KungFuOctopus
Hard atheism requires faith, as the belief that no gods exist is forever unprovable (heck, I'm of the opinion even finding a propre definition of what a "god" is is impossible - I'm an ignostic)
Soft (or agnostic) atheism doesn't. This is the position I and most atheists I know of take.
If the reason you don't believe (atheist) is because you don't have evidence (agnostic), I agree, your position is the only sane one available. But your post didn't show that.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 My post didn't show that because it wasn't my point, as I explained below. What I am saying is: the position of an "agnostic" as neither theist nor atheist, is indefensible. (It requires cognitive dissonance, logical fallacy, or intellectual dishonesty.) I used a position of agnostic atheism as one example of how "both positions require faith" is a ridiculous statement. I am not saying that all atheism is agnostic atheism, but all atheism is atheism regardless of "knowledge."
KungFuOctopus 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 You wrote: "Hard atheism requires faith..."
Faith has nothing to do with it. I'm an atheist because I reject baseless claims about the existence of gods. If someone makes an outrageous claim, but provides no empirical evidence, the only rational reaction is to reject the claim. I'm not agnostic. I believe that if a god or gods exist, there would be evidence.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
@YY4Me133 You didn't finish reading the sentence you quoted.
"Hard atheism requires faith, as the belief that no gods exist is forever unprovable"
The rest of your comment defined you as a regular or weak atheist. So, his comment obviously wasn't addressing "Atheism" but "Strict" or "Hard" Atheism.
devious21 1 week ago
@devious21 I read it, and disagree. That no leprechauns exist is also unprovable, but I don't think that means they might. Same thing goes for gods. It does not take faith to reject baseless claims.
I believe that all gods are fictional characters. I think that would define me as a "strong" atheist, but I don't care for such labels. Am I a "strong a-leprechaunist" because I believe they don't exist? If so, is being a "strong a-leprechaunist" unreasonable? If so, why?
YY4Me133 1 week ago
@YY4Me133
"I believe that all gods are fictional characters." - Care to tell me what a "god" is? Most people can't agree upon a definition.
correct the sentence by "gods known to man", and I actually hold the same opinion. But I can't exclude anything and everything that could correspond to the above definition, because I have no way to prove such a claim.
Same goes for leprechauns. I put both in the same category, just as you do. I just don't take the burden of proof upon me.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 People who believe in gods define them. I respond to their claims. I ask for evidence, but get none. I don't have to prove things don't exist to believe they don't. I require evidence before I entertain the possibility that a thing does, or even might, exist. I believe gods are fictional characters for the same reason I believe leprechauns and invisible garden faeries are fictional characters: there's no evidence they do exist. I have no problem dismissing baseless claims.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
@YY4Me133
Dismissing the claim = agnostic atheism.
Making a claim of your own that gods do not exist = gnostic atheism.
"People who believe in gods define them". This means you only disbelieve gods you know of, not all of them.
If you claim gods don't exist, you have to give a definition for what a god is. When you do, you then have someone point out to you that this definition isn't all-inclusive.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 Please don't presume to tell me what or how I do think, or what or how I should think. I find the concept of gods to be incoherent, therefore I believe that no gods exist. If presented with evidence that a god or gods exist, I'd examine it and either reject it as unsound, or no longer be an atheist.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
@YY4Me133
You failed to answer my argument.
The belief that gods don't exist is as proven or provable as the one that they don't exist.
Unless you can demonstrate how gods don't exist, you're making a baseless assertion.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't have to prove things don't exist to say they don't. If someone disagrees, they're free to prove me wrong, but it's irrational to believe a thing for which there's no evidence exists. Things I believe don't exist include, but are not limited to, leprechauns, invisible garden faeries, the Bogeyman, the Tooth Fairy, gods, fauns, Santa Claus, the monster under the bed, and centaurs. I have no problem saying those things don't exist.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133
"it's irrational to believe a thing for which there's no evidence exists" - Agreed. This is actually my position.
If you say things don't exist, you're making a claim. If you're making a claim, you have to prove it. "Things I believe don't exist" doesn't correspond to your above sentence.
This is the reason I stick to 'I don't think/believe they exist'
Can you prove gods don't exist? If not, why do you hold to this belief you deemed "irrational"?
Xgya2000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xgya2000
You're confusing two separate things:
1. Not [believing something exists].
2. [Claiming something does not exist].
A disbelief in the existence of something is not the same as claiming it does not exist. Disbelief requires no more than absence of evidence; claiming it does not exist requires evidence.
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133 "I don't have to prove things don't exist to say they don't. If someone disagrees, they're free to prove me wrong, but it's irrational to believe a thing for which there's no evidence exists."
You don't have to prove things don't exist to say YOU DON'T BELIEVE in them. You DO have to prove they don't exist if you claim to KNOW they don't exist. That's the difference between Agnostic and Gnostic Atheism.
We are using Agnostic as Weak Agnostic. Sounds like it's just a misunderstanding
devious21 1 week ago
@YY4Me133 "I don't have to prove things don't exist to believe they don't."
That's absolutely correct. That's indicative of the standard Atheist, which is also agnostic as it doesn't make any additional claim of certainty. It's simply a statement of not having a belief in a god.
If you were a Gnostic Atheist, you'd be saying - Not only do I not believe in any gods, I KNOW god(s) do not exist. You would now have a burden of proof.
devious21 1 week ago
@devious21 Being agnostic has nothing to do with certainty. It's the belief that nothing can be known about the nature or existence of a god. I believe that if a god or gods exist, we could discover things about it/them, therefore, I am not agnostic.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133 "Being agnostic has nothing to do with CERTAINTY. It's the belief that nothing can be KNOWN about the nature or existence of a god."
You're using the definition of agnostic where god is unknowable, or strict agnosticism. Me and Xgya are both using regular or weak agnosticism. God is unknown.
They both deal with certainty but Strict Agnosticism requires a great deal of certainty. It claims knowledge of god is impossible. It doesn't get anymore certain than that.
devious21 1 week ago
@YY4Me133
Hard atheism is believing gods don't exist.
This is making an outrageous claim (I am of the opinion the very definition of what gods are is unknown, so believing they don't exist is out of the question)
You are agnostic in that you do not think that there is sufficient evidence to prove gods exist. You remain an atheist because you do not believe they do.
Always remember that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
@Xgya2000 Don't tell me what I am. Agnostic means you believe nothing can be known about the nature or existence of a god. I, however, believe that if a god or gods exist there would be evidence, therefore, I am not agnostic. I'm an atheist.
Great last line, but meaningless. If I ever see evidence for anything I think does not exist, my position will change. To me, saying that anything is possible is taking the easy way out. It's a way to avoid having to take a position on issues.
YY4Me133 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YY4Me133
"Agnostic means you believe nothing can be known about the nature or existence of a god" - Nope. All it means is you think it is currently unknown. While some of them do think it is unknowable, not all of them do.
I do have my position on this issue: I don't believe anything that I can't prove.
Can I prove god exist? Nope. Can I prove gods don't exist? Neither. If you can prove either one or the other, I'll change my position.
Xgya2000 1 week ago
To the author.... bravo... you made a video about Wikipedia page...
ImMOrTaLBG92 1 week ago
I will predict from 6 to 10 years from now, one of those I have been arguing with will be arguing about the same things but from my perspective. I am going to quit now. Agnostic *theist* out.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
nerds
isyou 2 weeks ago
Ok, so on the face of it, it is probably more likely in my belief that god does not exist, however there is a real chance that some supernatural being does exist. Say 45 percent that a god or supreme being exists, but probably around 55 percent chance that some supreme being exists. I do think it is hard to know for sure though as there is evidence against and for, so I thought thinking this way would make me agnostic.
KrunchyJD 2 weeks ago
@KrunchyJD
If you hold belief that gods exist, it makes you a theist; else, you're an atheist This position doesn't deal in probabilities, but opinion.
Your position really is agnostic in nature. What the video is about is the fact nobody can be solely agnostic, that anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
I now have a title for my beliefs! Im a agnostic theist. jus learned somethin new about myself today. Craziness...
Dice562 2 weeks ago
Agnostics have an astonishing Commitment issues.......it's that simple. Funny you should use "the scales of Justice" for emphasis, considering both Atheists and Agnostics don't believe there is any Justice. (At least not where God is concerned). Did you guys know that in order for "anyone" to NOT believe in HIM...........they have to acknowledge HIM first? Acknowledgement, even on a purely non-existent level....is still Acknowledgement. =)
ucancallmebaby1 2 weeks ago
@ucancallmebaby1
Using your logic, everyone on the planet acknowledges an infinite amount of possibilities, most of which they never heard about.
I agree on at least one level: The word "god" has no definition everyone can agree on.
I do not believe in xtruborgnats. A word I made up. Without a definition. I can say that I don't believe in an infinite amount of things without definitions without acknowledging them beforehand.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
An atheist is fairly well defined: a-theos, no Gods; the assertion of a belief that a God does not exist. It is not simply the lack of belief in a God; as some people state.
Slight correction on the video: the definition of "strong agnostic" is that the ultimate knowledge of existence is unknowable. but other forms, (including Huxley's original form) acknowledge that the answer is potentially knowable in the future.
Seekarr 2 weeks ago
@Seekarr
Atheist = A-theos. You're right. But all it means is "godless": "not acknowledging a deity or divine law" (merriam-webster). You go too far in searching for an argument, and it leaves holes
Atheism was first coined in French, "athéisme", meaning a-theism, or simply "not theism" or "not believing in gods"
Atheism is a form of disbelief. From its root "Dis-""away from" -belief.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
can we not just all love each other?
IcenaldicN00bTuber 2 weeks ago
Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.
I see you're very reluctant to believe gods exist. You're also very reluctant to believe gods don't exist. For the same reasons, I suppose.
Unless you're willing to believe? (not reluctant = willing) If someone brings proper evidence, I'm very willing to believe. Until someone does though, I'll be reluctant (disbelieve).
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xgya2000
'I see you're very reluctant to believe gods exist. You're also very reluctant to believe gods don't exist. For the same reasons, I suppose.'
It is more like I believe in every claim. I don't reject any number that might come on the dice. I would not reject head or tails before the coin lands. If you force this, then I would be closer to theism and I would assert the holy dice or god of order vs chaos.
I AM NOT REJECTING ANYTHING! Please get this into your head!
steverock85 2 weeks ago
See, you're trying to deal with 2 different beliefs:
Belief gods exist. Belief gods don't exist.
Theism is holding to the former. Atheism is not holding to the former. The latter has no bearing upon this discussion. As far as I know, there isn't a single word to describe holding to the latter (or NOT holding it, for that matter). I'm as fervently opposed to the former as I am to the latter, for the same reasons.
Tell me how one can refrain from both holding a belief and from not holding it?
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
@Xgya2000
You see disbelief as a way to be undetermined. This is simply false and it is well documented what it really is. It is a rejection, holding something as false. There is no way around this if you stick to disbelief or belief.
You can be agnostic just like theist can. Think it is false or true because of lack of evidence to support either claim.
This is why I say agnostic atheist and theist are victims of argument to ignorance.
It makes much more sense to be only agnostic.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
"There is no way around this if you stick to disbelief or belief." - I pointed to several dictionaries that simply equate disbelief with "Not believe" or "The inability or refusal to believe"
I don't think the assumption that god exists to be false. I just think there isn't enough information for me to believe. This makes me an atheist.
I don't hold to the assumption that god doesn't exist, but there isn't a word for people not holding to the above assumption.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
If you come to my backyard, and thuroughly investigate the area and find no evidence for a massive diamond - you may become a Gnostic Atheist. Your belief approaches knowledge that the daimond does not exist.
The rest of the time, you were an Agnostic Atheist.
All belief or non-belief that does not claim certainty, is Agnostic. That's why Agnostic by itself is not a satisfactory answer on the question of "what you believe". It answers "what you know".
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
This is the exactly the problem. You compere the idea of god with pink unicorns, huge diamond and something we KNOW that is false.
It is easy to prove that you can be only agnostic or total unsure about something.
Do you disbelieve I have hair? You can't answer this question without taking a argument to ignorance.
I don't think the god idea is that ridiculous but I don't think the other idea is either. I don't know what to believe!
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "This is the exactly the problem. You compere the idea of god with pink unicorns, huge diamond and something we KNOW that is false."
Then modify the analogy to be a fountain in my backyard. The belief structure still applies the exact same way.
You also don't KNOW they are false. I could claim there is a pink unicorn on a planet too far away to see with microscopes. You just don't have any justification to believe me.
devious21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21 "I could claim there is a pink unicorn on a planet too far away to see with microscopes."
Haha. I obviously meant telescopes.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 ""Do you disbelieve I have hair? You can't answer this question without taking a argument to ignorance."
So you don't like comparing a supernatural god to other supernatural creatures but you have no problem likening god to whether or not you have hair?
Having hair isn't an existence claim. By default, we don't believe things EXIST until we have justification to believe they do.
Almost everyone on the other hand is born with hair. That's reversing the default position.
devious21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21
'So you don't like comparing a supernatural god to other supernatural creatures but you have no problem likening god to whether or not you have hair?'
Yes! That is exactly what I am saying.
I don't think it is the same compering what we can observe here in the natrual world vs what we might observe in the after-existence.
Science gains knowledge from disproving hypothesis and do experiment that supports the idea. How are we going to establish that there is no afterlife?
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "I don't think the god idea is that ridiculous but I don't think the other idea is either. I don't know what to believe!"
The crucial part that you are missing is that Atheism isn't the positive claim that "god or gods are impossible". It's simply not having a current belief in any particular god or gods.
Burden of proof is on the person making the claim (theists). If you aren't convinced by their claim, you can not believe them (Atheist). Just like you do for all over claims.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
'The crucial part that you are missing is that Atheism isn't the positive claim that "god or gods are impossible"'
Yes it is. Unless you are saying that there are no atheist that make gnostic claim.
Atheism alone is gnostic. When you think something is true or false it is a gnostic claim.
It is only when you coin agnostic with either theism or atheism that you have established you are undetermined what it is BUT are leaning to the other.
Thus, argument to ignorance.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Yes it is. Unless you are saying that there are no atheist that make gnostic claim."
Some atheists make gnostic claims. All atheists do not make gnostic claims.
"Atheism alone is gnostic"
No it's not. Atheism alone is simply a lack of belief. Has nothing to do with knowledge or certainty.
"When you think something is true or false it is a gnostic claim."
Correct. The things you think are true are beliefs that you hold with a great deal of certainty. They become your "knowledge".
devious21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21
'No it's not. Atheism alone is simply a lack of belief. Has nothing to do with knowledge or certainty.'
Does not matter if it is lack believe, you are still rejecting even if you use interval to make the rejection smaller. I am not sceptical or doubtful about god/s existence
My proposition is only about knowledge. We don't have and can't have any knowledge if god exist or not. Not making the belief proposition makes it undetermined.
Again, I don't know what to believe
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "We don't have and can't have any knowledge if god exist or not."
This is the strict agnostic view.
God is defined by the person making the claim. By saying "it is impossible to have knowledge of god", you are assuming knowledge about that god to assume understanding him is impossible.
How can you make that assumption for all possible god claims?
What you are doing is defining god yourself (theist) and then saying your definition of god is unknowable (proof not required).
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
If I would throw a dice and tell you to believe it will land on the number one, then you could say you don't know if it will land on one but it is unlikely as there are five other numbers, (agnostic atheist), believe me(theist), disbelieve me(atheist) or be simply agnostic. (totally unsure what it is going to land on)
In this case agnostic atheism has the strongest argument, but it does not make agnosticism impossible. You can feel completely unsure. Do you understand now?
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "If I would throw a dice and tell you to believe it will land on the number one, then you could say you don't know if it will land on one but it is unlikely as there are five other numbers"
This is a bad analogy because you're comparing the existence of something to the probability that something may occur.
God existing is not a dice roll. Each claim for god is either true or it's not AND has a Burden of Proof. If you believe a claim you're Theist. ANYTHING ELSE, you're Atheist.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
'This is a bad analogy because you're comparing the existence of something to the probability that something may occur.'
This is why we are nothing alike. I don't think the burden of proof matters because I think it is very unlikely we will be able to gain any knowledge if there is after existence.
For me all are true until I die and observe what it is. This is what most people who are strong agnsotic or militant agnostic are talking about flipping a coin or casting a dice.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "This is why we are nothing alike. I don't think the burden of proof matters"
That sentence is a huge problem. If I said "I don't think logic matters", you wouldn't be able to take me seriously.
The real problem is belief structure you have created is slightly broken. Within that framework, it's very hard to place Burden of Proof properly. You can't just throw it out. That's crazy.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "For me all are true until I die and observe what it is."
How can they all be true? That's nonsense. There are multiple conflicting claims. They cannot all be true.
What you mean to say is "they are all possible". Of course they are. That again stems back to the fact that you think Atheists are someone denying that a god is possible. That of course is not the case but it will never make sense because you don't understand how belief works.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
Why worrying about proofs? Do you really think you can prove or disprove existence of god/s?
What you mean to say is "they are all possible".
No, I meant what I said.
Consider schrodinger's cat for this example. Because we don't have any knowledge what it is, then every idea will render true relative to you.
This might even be its true state, who knows.
We have 0 knowledge of what the after existence might be or its complexity if exist.
Our very existence is a paradox.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "Why worrying about proofs? Do you really think you can prove or disprove existence of god/s?"
2 things:
1) Burden of Proof isn't about "proofs". The point is 1 party has an obligation for justifying their claim.
2) If you think god is unprovable, why do you believe in it? It's obviously justifiable because you believe in it. That's the proof we are talking about. Justification to believe.
"No, I meant what I said."
You think all possibilities are true? That's contradictory.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Consider schrodinger's cat for this example."
No.
You continue to use probability analogies, not those that deal with existence.
I could talk for a long time why this is wrong to do but you have to understand that the default position for every existence claim is disbelief. Everyone starts there. Somewhere along the lines you are convinced by some justification that the claim now exists.
If your reasons for belief are valid, other people will believe too (indoctrination aside).
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
If we exist because of coincidence, then what coincidence created our coincidence.
If we exist because of god/s, then what god created our creator.
How and why do we exist?
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
You're making an infinite regression. One cause has to be the first one, and has to be either completely random, or eternal (or both). No other options available.
"How" we exist: I don't know about you, but I was born from a female hominid.
"Why": Make your own reason. Reality doesn't deal in "why" questions. Minds do. Unless you can prove reality has a mind, the only person that can know why you exist is you.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "If we exist because of coincidence, then what coincidence created our coincidence..because of god/s, then what god created our creator."
That entire line of reasoning begs the question.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
'I could talk for a long time why this is wrong to do but you have to understand that the default position for every existence claim is disbelief. Everyone starts there.'
This is false. Disbelieve B(x) means ~B(x). It means to reject. You clearly don't understand what knowledge is. Knowledge is when we GOT the 'default' position. If we knew god/s exist, then your default position would be belief. It is the truth of the proposition.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "This is false. Disbelieve B(x) means ~B(x). It means to reject."
Okay, if you are defining disbelieve as "knowing something isn't true" - Then say "not believing".
Before you hear a claim, you do not believe it. If you hear an unjustified claim (there are dinosaurs in my attic), you do not believe it.
That is the default position. Not believing something. The person making the claim has the burden to convince you otherwise. Until that happens, you are justified in not believing.
devious21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21
'Before you hear a claim, you do not believe it. If you hear an unjustified claim (there are dinosaurs in my attic), you do not believe it'
If you still compere disbelief to your loss of belief in santa then that is your loss of understanding.
You don't understand what I am trying to say because you have never experienced being unsure about existence of god/s. You only know how to reject and to accept.
Like I said, I am unsure, you are not. Call me theist if you like.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@devious21
'Before you hear a claim, you do not believe it. If you hear an unjustified claim (there are dinosaurs in my attic), you do not believe it.'
It is the correct use of knowledge because WE have the truth of the proposition. I I would assert "electrons have hair" then disbelief is your "default".
But if you assert this to god existence, then WHAT proof do you have it is the "default" position? With this you indirect are saying NO god/s exist!
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
When I make a claim you've never heard, you don't have the truth of that proposition. Or you would already have knowledge and would be past belief.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
We know some positions are already true or false if we have knowledge.
If we don't have knowledge then there is no truth. This is what it means to take agnostic stance on god/s existence.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Knowledge is when we GOT the 'default' position."
We are talking about belief. The default position everyone holds about any claim is not to believe it.
By default, you don't believe things until you are convinced or someone has provided justification to believe it. Not the other way around.
If it was the other way around, you would believe everything until it was disproven. You couldn't function that way because you would simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Knowledge is when we GOT the 'default' position."
I'm not using "default position" as a buzzword for truth or the value that your knowledge relates to.
It refers to the fact that by default, you don't have belief in things until you actively believe it. Not believing is the default position to hold in all existence claims.
This is a big part of why your probability metaphors and current state (do I have hair) aren't analogous to belief. They have no default position
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
'They have no default position'
And god existence does? Why is the default state rejection of their existence? I am just as unsure of gods existence as I am to your hair.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "And god existence does?"
The belief in gods existence does. Not the truth value of existence. You keep pulling the conversation back into knowledge and out of belief.
"Why is the default state rejection of their existence"
I just explained it's not rejection. It's just not belief. This is a big part of where this becomes confusing.
If no one ever approached you with the claim of the lochness monsters, are you actively rejecting it? No. You simply do not believe it.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
If it does not reject nor accept, then you are not talking about belief claim and making it undetermined. Read about belief propositions.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 Youtube's new character restricting is making it impossible to respond to you without it looking like a jumble of answers. If you'd like, PM me a messenger to discuss.
devious21 2 weeks ago
I have long time ago reach the limits of what I want to discuss this. It is just hard not to answer fallacies or false information.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 If you're implying I have made a fallacy I would challenge you to demonstrate it.
Yes, agnostic means you don't have knowledge. But again, that's separate from the question of belief.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
"If you're implying I have made a fallacy I would challenge you to demonstrate it."
I do each time when I reply. Your main fallacy is the application of "default" value.
Second is asserting disbelief is undetermined when it is ~b(x) or rejection of belief.
Third is when asserting all those who are not theist are atheist and making a false dilemma.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Your main fallacy is the application of "default" value."
I've tried repeatedly to explain it. It seems very clear and I'm not sure what your problem is with it.
"Second is asserting disbelief is undetermined when it is ~b(x) or rejection of belief."
I just explained I don't think disbelief is undetermined. It depends how you are defining disbelief. You are defining it as "I know there there is no god" which is not how I'm using it because that's not what Atheism is.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Third is when asserting all those who are not theist are atheist and making a false dilemma."
Bottom line is if you don't have a belief in god, you're an Atheist. That's the definition. If you do, you're a theist. Any other option you insert is not dealing with belief. It is dealing with knowledge.
You think there HAS to be something other than Atheism (i.e. agnostic) because you believe atheism is a CLAIM that I KNOW God doesn't exist. That's wrong.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
Even if you are also agnostic, that does not change what disbelieve is. You may two proposition, but that does not change the meaning or nature of what disbelief is.
Atheist may choose to postpone their belief by using the word agnostic because there is no evidence and hold it is unlikely to be true (like your dinosaur for example) but I would say that is the fourth fallacy and taking an argument to ignorance. Theist can do the same.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@devious21
The very reason why I look at god differently from unicorns, dinosaur is because we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world.
I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea.
As for god existence, we must first assert why and how we exist. It is to early to say what is likely and what is unlikely and of its nature.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21
The very reason why I look at god differently from unicorns, dinosaur is because we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world.
I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea.
As for god existence, we must first assert why and how we exist. It is to early to say what is likely and what is unlikely and of its nature.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@devious21
The very reason why I look at god differently from unicorns, dinosaur, is because we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "we are talking about something we can observe here in the natrual world vs the unatrual world."
So you are defining your god as something that cannot be observed in reality. If it can't be observed, how do you know about it or have any information on it to believe it?
Most religions are based on accounts of God being observed in the past. If you're saying god is un-observable, then how would you even know about it?
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
I don't that is the problem. Read about Gödel's theorems. Unless some god will come and say 'hi', then we are at loss of having any knowledge.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "Unless some god will come and say 'hi', then we are at loss of having any knowledge."
And again you are back at knowledge. I'm challenging belief, I agree with you on knowledge.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "I would not for example believe you have god in your closed because this can be tested and is very unlikely idea."
Just because you can prove a negative when the scope is finite, that doesn't mean you get to shift the burden of proof when it comes to your god where the scope is infinite.
It's not up to everyone to disprove your god exists. It's up to you to provide justification that he does. If you can't, everyone is justified to disbelieve it.
That is how belief works.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 And I'm using "disbelieve" to mean "not believing it". Not the way you were using it before that means "knowing it is false".
Make sure if we are discussing belief, that you stay there and don't jump into knowledge. That's like changing units of measurement in math without doing any conversion.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
When you believe or disbelieve, you are accepting or rejecting. I am not making that up. Read about belief proposition.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "When you believe or disbelieve, you are accepting or rejecting. I am not making that up. Read about belief proposition."
Accepting or Rejecting WHAT? - The CLAIM.
NOT the truth.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
God idea is not so ridiculous if you look at the fact we are observing something in Quantum Mechanics that is even more absurd.. Saying the default(knowledge) is false is arrogant.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@devious21
How are you going to measure what I believe if I don't know what I believe? It is like forcing measurement that does not apply. Do you believe or disbelieve I have hair?
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "if I don't know what I believe?"
Just to be clear:
Agnostic is "I don't know" to the question of "Do you have knowledge of God"
It's NOT "I don't know" to the question of "Do you believe in God".
If you don't actively believe in God, then you're Atheist. It's clear you are a Theist. You are just an Agnostic Theist. How can you not know what you believe? Even I know what you believe.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
'If you don't actively believe in God, then you're Atheist. It's clear you are a Theist. You are just an Agnostic Theist. How can you not know what you believe?'
You feel I actively believe in god? What actions have I taken for my belief? Arguing with you that I am not atheist? I assure you, if god exist, then I am taking my chances because I don't follow any religion. -Not even an atheist one.
I am not atheist, and I am fine if atheist think I am theist and the other way around.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
'How can you not know what you believe?'
Because it is far more complicated then it seems. You could be Truman, man in a matrix, or having an angel watching you masterbate. Who knows..
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "Because it is far more complicated then it seems... Who knows.."
That's what you know. We are STILL talking about what you BELIEVE. I'm not asking you what you are certain about or what's possible.
If I made the claim that angels watch you masturbate:
Do you believe me? NO! (You don't believe things until you have justification to believe)
Do you know it to be true? No (You don't know)
Is it possible? Absolutely (Almost anything is possible)
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
If anything is possible then it is possible that we did not evolve from apes but from pink unicorns.
The problem is that it is a factual statement? We both know that is false because we have evidence for the other. Is god existence a factual statement? No. It is not because we can not observe it.
If you think I am theist, then again, I don't see the problem. I will even assert my belief. I believe in the holy dice. The dice is a metaphor for my beliefs.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "If anything is possible then it is possible that we did not evolve from apes but from pink unicorns."
Yes it is possible. But I don't believe it or know it to be true.
"The problem is that it is a factual statement? We both know that is false because we have evidence for the other."
Yes, that's a reason we KNOW it to be false. You don't NEED that reason to NOT believe in it. Because the Burden of Proof is on the person making the claim.
Not all belief is knowledge.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
I will tell you what I believe of god existence if you can tell me what you believe about my hair. Do you believe I have hair or do you disbelieve it?
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "I will tell you what I believe of god existence if you can tell me what you believe about my hair. Do you believe I have hair or do you disbelieve it?"
Did you read the comment where I told you "probability" and "state of" metaphors were not analogous to claims of existence?
"Do I have hair or not?" isn't a claim. It's just a question. And it has nothing to do with existence.
devious21 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "I will tell you what I believe of god existence if you can tell me what you believe about my hair. Do you believe I have hair or do you disbelieve it?"
Did you read the comment where I told you "probability" and "state of" metaphors were not analogous to claims of existence?
"Do I have hair or not?" isn't a claim. It's just a question. And it has nothing to do with existence.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
"You could be Truman, man in a matrix, or having an angel watching you masterbate" - But do you believe any of those?
"who knows..." - Nobody ever asked you what you know. Stop answering you don't know, you stated that many times over, and it was said to you many times over that this doesn't answer the question
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "You feel I actively believe in god? What actions have I taken for my belief?"
You've assigned attributes and defined the god you don't KNOW exists. Atheists don't do that.
"Arguing with you that I am not atheist? I assure you, if god exist, then I am taking my chances because I don't follow any religion."
Appeal to pascals wager? Every choice would be taking a chance, so it's a mute point.
"I am not atheist"
That's correct. You're a theist that isn't certain. Agnostic Theist.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
As for god existence, we must first assert why and how we exist. It is to early to say what is likely and what is unlikely and of its nature.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "If it does not reject nor accept, then you are not talking about belief claim and making it undetermined."
I agree that you either believe or disbelieve something. The problem is if I use "disbelieve", you equivocate that to mean "know it's not true". I define disbelieve as "not believing" as in "I do not BELIEVE in god". You are defining disbelieve as "belief that the opposite is true" or "I KNOW there is no god".
The difference is crucial as is Burden of Proof.
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
Talking about gods existence is talking about something beyond what we can observe in nature!
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devious21
'That entire line of reasoning begs the question.'
And are you going to answer it? Do you honestly think you will have any answer? We have had several thousand of years in trying to answer this paradox.
There is no mathematical answer, no scientific as the can not observe this, and only fallacious philosophical answers.
We do have mathematical, and scientific answers that we will never be able to answers those questions. This is the first thing you learn in those courses.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85
"For me all are true until I die" - This makes you a theist.
You basically said: "I believe all gods exist". Even if you said you also believe all gods don't exist, what makes an atheist is the fact he/she doesn't believe gods exist.
Xgya2000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xgya2000
'"For me all are true until I die" - This makes you a theist.'
Fine. I feel better when both of you know that I am against your belief.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
@steverock85 "be simply agnostic. (totally unsure what it is going to land on)"
When dealing with existence, the default position is disbelief (or not believing).
Everyone is justified in not believing claim they haven't heard yet. As well as claims that have no justification. That is why we have Burden of Proof.
That's what Atheism is. It's everything before you cross the line of Theism (actively holding a belief). Atheism isn't claiming certainty that there is "no god".
devious21 2 weeks ago
@devious21
I am getting tired of this infinity debate of what I am supposed to call myself. I am just going to call my self agnostic theist and assert the holy dice and I don't want to talk about it.
steverock85 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@steverock85 "I am just going to call my self agnostic theist and assert the holy dice"
"holy dice" isn't an argument. And if you're just going to assert a position without being able to reason it properly, that's a sad thing.
Don't give up. Read up on epistemology. Forget about Atheism and Theism and just get a good grasp on how belief works.
devious21 2 weeks ago