Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Cyberman]

I have misunderstood nothing. No evidence means precisely what it means. You are adding a clause to no evidence that does not logically belong.

You said before that agnostics make the claim that they don't know if there is knowledge for anything. If you meant all agnostics make this claim, then it's certainly not correct. If just some of them (but not all), then I agree.

I have no idea what you mean by agnostics making a claim not to know if there is knowledge. That sounds unfocussed and silly to me; perhaps you'd like to clarify?

The term 'agnostic' is a qualifier and has to be applied to some other descriptor for it to mean anything. Hence, you would be described as an 'agnostic theist'; that is to say, you say youi have a belief in a god or gods (or even "God") but you don't make a claim to know that it exists. Most atheists here, and probably the majority of atheists in general, would self-identify as 'agnostic atheists' for similar reasons.

About evidence, to *rationally* claim to know that something does not exist, you need an evidence of its non-existence, e.g. the non-existance of luminiferous aether. It's not rational to claim to know luminiferous aether does not exist without evidence. The same goes for God existence. Do you claim to know that God does not exist?

Without wishing to put words into Maelstrom's mouse, that (generally speaking) is not what atheists do. I agree that an assertion of non-existence, whether that be a knowledge or a belief claim, would be irrational without evidence. Do you have any? Or are we to conclude that your belief is irrational?

Are you saying that some people who works on SETI projects who believe that extraterrestrial intelligence exists are nuts?
Note that most of them are scientist searching for extraterrestrial intelligence using scientific methods. Are they nuts?

Probably, if they really believe that before the evidence suggests is in (and certainly if they let that belief interfere with their work). Case in point: the famous "LGM-1" signal. If that had been found by someone convinced that extraterrestrials exist, or claimed to know it as a fact, they would have pounced upon it as proof of contact without further investigation. Luckily, they did decide to investigate it and that led to the discovery of pulsars.

As you point out, these people are searching, I.e. trying to find evidence. However, you're still confusing belief with knowledge. As we've seen, belief without evidence is irrational. Knowledge without evidence probably is nuts.

There are many examples of this on science.
One other example is the existence of graviton. There is no evidence of its existence at the moment. Yet, several physicists working on string theory believes that the particle exists. Are you calling them nuts too?

Until the evidence is in, every claim to the particle's existence is going to be irrational by default. That's why they're looking for it. But why are you tossing red herrings regarding modern science, instead of addressing the real issue of a god - any god?

I get all of this, but this is by no means evidence/proof/reasoning for the existence of God. We're simply talking about your desire to be happy under the influence of religion.

I agree that there is no evidence or proof that God exists at the moment, but I disagree that there is no valid reason (other than evidence) to believe in existence of God.

Great - disagreement is good for debate, which above all else is the bread and butter of a forum. You have the floor: please explain why there is no valid reason to believe in the existence of "God" if as you say there is no evidence that it exists at the moment.

I rest my case in saying that it's not logical for you to be stating that there's no proof that God doesn't exist.

Just to be clear, I'm not stating that there never be a proof that God exist or does not exist. I'm stating that *at the moment & as far as I know*, there is no proof that God exist and there is no proof that God does not exist.

In which case, the only rational course open to you is not to believe in its existence.

I'm still open to the possibility that I don't know enough or that in the future someone will discover the evidence of God existences or non-existences.

Healthy, but weak. You're basically holding on to your belief with the hope that someone might validate it someday.

It seems so far that you haven't reasoned your way into being a theist, which means there's a void between rationality and your belief. I'd say you can figure out *on your own* why God doesn't exist by attempting to rationalise your belief and then realising it can't be done... unless you actually have something of substance to share.

I have said my reason to (stay to) be a theist and my reason to not change my position to atheist. I don't see any argument from you refuting my reasoning.
If you think you have any argument, do you think I should change my position to atheist under my circumstance? What's the reason?

Well, if I had to give a reason, it would probably be that atheism - a.k.a. not holding a position of belief - is the only rational option. That any help?