Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need a singular descriptive of a state of mind which is unable to rule out the possibility of a cosmic director, but does not embrace any sort of affirmative belief in such an entity.
Again you are foisting an invalid (and indeed pejorative) argument that atheists do not want to believe in a god. In fact many (deconverts) dearly wanted to believe but could not because the evidence was so poor.
Even if some atheists held the 'Don't believe because I don't want to' position, that would make no difference to the logical basis and position of atheism per se.
I agree that I am calling atheists anti-theists, but that goes with the territory. I am willing to drop that argument (that all atheists detest the idea of G()D(s) - only anti theist atheists do)
So it is about lack of evidence...
Quote:
I agree that being born atheist is the default position (give or take an evident instinctive inclination to believe in some kind of invisible protector). God belief (in the form of the local brand of religion) is then taught.
I think rather that everyone is born agnostic. Atheism is a choice not to believe that G()D(s) exist. Not really a default although claimed to be the default for ages...
Quote:
Yes indeed. If one or other of the gods was as clearly visible and provable as the sun or moon - or even as provable by the ancient record as the Pharaohs or dinosaurs, that would pretty much make the case.
So you are saying that if some entity visited you and told you that it was G()D, you would accept that as evidence. I don't think that you would, or even should. But then again I am an agnostic...
Quote:
Indeed, for a long time it was thought that 'Creation' and the bible were Both of those and in fact this 'evidence' has crumbled until there is nothing much left but First cause, abiogenesis and the efforts to make 'Consciousness' into some kind of gap for God.
Consciousness is so far the only viable thing which is a contender for that position.
Quote:
The door is always open for some kind of evidence for a god.
As you are an atheist who requires evidence of G()D, you need to establish clearly what you would expect that evidence to be.
Quote:
I think the 'Consciousness' argument will eventually go the same way, but we are still at the 'don't know' stage.
If I ask believers in dark matter to explain the concept and explain what evidence supports it, I think it is very likely that reasonable evidence would be offered. Maybe not hard evidence but evidence that makes the existence a logical conclusion. That's very different from getting no evidence from theists.
You are correct, but the argument was "I don't believe anything Because I don't know enough" as the only logical conclusion. I don't think so.
If the terms didn't confuse so many, this thread won't exist.
true, levels and rows. There are levels, rows and columns. Personality types, emotional state, and what is known are the labels. It would be "the cube of us". Of course trying to make our own personal stance the center of the cube confuses the issue a tad. Van really is just breaking it down to a basic understanding using the definition. If we did that it would be far simplier. But we are human.
Nope. No such thing. An atheist believes G()D(s) do not exist.
Agnostics have no such beliefs.
I do not believe in "your" (insert religion) type of god.
I may belive in "something" (insert science data) but I have no idea what it is.
I have no idea
I believe in "no-nothing".
^This bit here. This makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist.
You cannot know. (you are an atheist if you choose to believe G()D(s) don't exist rather than remain neutral.)
But in relation to the size of the universe and in relation to the theory of multiverses, it is likely that 'mythological' cirtters do exist...
It matters not that you have evidence of their existence...the numbers make it likely.
This make me an atheist in belief, and agnostic in knowledge. Which I find to be the most rational positions to hold.
As mordant says above, there is a distinction in formality, and context of the conversation is key. My description of my knowledge position is a formal description because my frame of reference attempts to be consistent with epistemology. My belief position, which is what I identify with as a practical & everyday position, is informal and not tied to any strict frame of reference (e.g. it is just "mine").
I agree that I am calling atheists anti-theists, but that goes with the territory. I am willing to drop that argument (that all atheists detest the idea of G()D(s) - only anti theist atheists do)
Some atheists are anti theists and some are not. It depends what that means anyway. That is why I reckon that the term atheist (based on the agnostic knowledge -position) is the best label and definition.
Quote:
So it is about lack of evidence...
Yep.
Quote:
I think rather that everyone is born agnostic. Atheism is a choice not to believe that G()D(s) exist. Not really a default although claimed to be the default for ages...
Thank you. That illustrates the point perfectly. We are born knowing nothing of any god and moreover believing nothing about any god - because we know nothing about it, until we are taught. That is not only the logical basis of atheism on agnosticism but is the practical one. I think confusion arises because practically everyone is taught about some gods or others and those who come to disbelieve make a conscious rejection of the claim. The rationale is still the same - the evidence is not good enough, belief fails, and that is why atheism is actually more practically useful as belief -position. Agnosticism is merely the inadequacy of the evidence for gods. The matter gets further complicated by the believers refusing to accept the reasons for rejecting the god -claim and latching on to all sorts of accusations which are really not much to do with it - want to lead a sinful life, was hurt by the church, hate God...all really nothing much to do with the rational basis.
hang on, need to go out for bread...will get back to you on the rest.
So you are saying that if some entity visited you and told you that it was G()D, you would accept that as evidence. I don't think that you would, or even should. But then again I am an agnostic...
Consciousness is so far the only viable thing which is a contender for that position.
As you are an atheist who requires evidence of G()D, you need to establish clearly what you would expect that evidence to be.
Consciousness isn't going away any time soon...[/quote]
This make me an atheist in belief, and agnostic in knowledge. Which I find to be the most rational positions to hold.
As mordant says above, there is a distinction in formality, and context of the conversation is key. My description of my knowledge position is a formal description because my frame of reference attempts to be consistent with epistemology. My belief position, which is what I identify with as a practical & everyday position, is informal and not tied to any strict frame of reference (e.g. it is just "mine").
I agree; that is pretty much the position I started this with though not explained as well. The one thing I might state differently would be to use "because I am" instead of "and". I don't think it is rational to believe in a god if you don't know there is one. I don't need absolute proof, but an absolute lack of proof is a barrier to belief I just can't get past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It resuires slightly less explanation of what the terms mean.
It is bit confusing 
