I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

I think you as much as me, have your own beliefs and won't change them. Fair enough, I don't have an issue with this, you seemingly do with that I won't change.

It isn't about changing beliefs. It is about really hearing other people's beliefs and what's behind them. It's about putting out what it is you believe and getting clear on why you believe it. I don't feel threatened that by really hearing what others have to say that my cherished beliefs will be put in danger.

But I'm not really so much about defending any particular beliefs as I am about being open to the best ones. What I should like to believe is what is in fact true about the world and myself. It isn't their being my beliefs which make them special to me. They are special to me because they are the ones I have the most reason to think true so far. I won't miss the ones that have to go to make room for better ones.

By withholding your own beliefs and not hearing those of anyone else, you are basically offering nothing. I don't understand this.

I'm not withholding my beliefs. I don't know, and see no reason to commit based on a lack of evidence. I know many atheisms proclaim a lack of belief, but this lack of belief only comes from being unable to disprove a negative. That's about it for my view/belief. I always think I must be missing something from the a position, but the logic just does not compute with me (or at least how atheism has been explained to me so far). Happy to hear more, but I doubt I'll hear anything new.

I think it's interesting that you say "I have the most reason to think true so far". I see this whole discussion as a result of how people view things at an intrinsic level, which defines what it holds to be 'true'. I get the impression from you that you base all things on what is tangible/proven, and while I accept that all things proven are true, I do not limit myself to all only things that are proven are true. I go beyond this and leave my position open to accept the possibility of many things irrespective of what is proven. For example, I know many people who claim to have had many odd experiences when family/friends have died (some religious, some not) and while skeptics always pooh-pooh these sort of things I see no reason to do so based on what I know of the people who have experienced it. This is perhaps a bias of mine.

---

The active non-belief would involve calling yourself an atheist, espousing the ideology/views, coming to an atheist forum etc.

Those are activities, not active non-belief. Active non-belief would be claiming the absolute non-existence of any God. Some atheists claim that, most don't.

This is where some of the atheist perspective becomes very fuzzy to me. Why claim to be an atheist (along with the connotation this tag implies), but then state you don't claim the "absolute" non-existence of a god? If you claim to disbelieve due to the lack of evidence, do you really believe that evidence will (or can) be produced? If not, the lack of believe is interchangable with not believing. I think claiming the absolute non-existence of a god is the same as claiming the absoltue non existence of any mythlogical creature you choose. For some reason this may hold some weight for you, if so for all intents and purposes you may as well claim no god exists, under the same rationale that you caanot dismiss anything which does not exist. The whole position seems contrived rather than a conclusion that was reached.

I consider existence (both the universe and sentience) to be something which requires an explanation.

Yet you don't seem to consider the existence of God to be something that requires an explanation. And just because you think something requires an explanation doesn't mean you get one.

No I don't. We can only seek that which we can obtain. We can choose to believe all that is, is what we can observe/measure but I see no reason to believe this. That we can make sense of the universe, does not equate to we can decipher literally everything.

So in the absense of an explanation you prefer to say "no" instead of "i don't know" as you have no evidence? This makes no sense as there is an explanation, whether we can get find out what it is, is another story.

What evidence would you require to prove a god exsits?

The right words from the right person would do it for me. It's a bit of a tall order for random chance since I have already specified the words and the person. Trivial for a God to accomplish, not really separable from coincidence, but I've deliberately set the bar very, very low to maximize the Christian God's opportunity to gain my belief. I'm basically begging here. It's not something other skeptics would find plausible, but it would be enough for me.

Really? Words don't do much for me. I would need some form of evidence to believe or disbelieve. Until then I will remain here on "my fence".

I've asked this several tiems now, and no one addresses the question. The "infalliability of science" was a parodied response to whateverist.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I doubt this.

Who's Jeff? Whateverist made the claim first. Scientific theories are infallible until they're unproven. That's my perspective.

I know atheists have this issue, but it's not really my problem how you view me. Much like it's not your problem how I view you. It's just interesting to hear other people's persepctives and then question them, particuarly on this issue as it's all really belief based. (this is, of course, my belief). I get the fence sitting thing (although I have no idea why I must commit without the required facts), but why I would I be ignorant? Have I not applied logic correctly, otherwise I would have the same conclusion you have?

For many years, I called myself an agnostic. I realize now that for much of that time it would have been more accurate to say I was an agnostic theist, and for a year or two was an agnostic atheist before I realized the atheist part. I don't know and I don't believe. However, there is no better word for someone who wavers one way or the other alot, so I don't have a problem with you thinking of yourself as just an agnostic: the situation you present is a case when I think it's probably the best description.

If you describe yourself retrospectively you're applying your current view to what you were previously.

I find it interesting that many atheists view agnosticism as a weakness as agnostics lack the courage to leap from off the fence. From a Christian perspective I would be as damned as you are.

I don't view it as a weakness, sometimes it's a way for an atheist to avoid calling themselves an atheist, which is hard to respect online when there isn't much in the way of consequences for being honest. In your case, I think it's the right word for now, since you shift between belief and non-belief. Good point about the Christian perspective.

If it doesn't mean anything, why do only atheists claim it?

To be frank, atheists have a tendency to be grammar nazis and theists have a tendency to be what we would consider to be fast and loose with things like grammar, spelling, and meaning.

As science is the best tool we have to evaluate the universe mean that it can or will answer the god question?

The most science can possibly do is show an omnipotent conscious being isn't required as an explanation for the universe. Proving an omnipotent being that doesn't want to be detected doesn't exist is impossible.

I don't assume this to be true, therefore I don't assign science the value as many atheists do. That said, if science disproved a god (not sure how it would) I would accept it.

Not sure how much more science can do. It offers reasonable possible natural explanations for the origin of the universe; but we don't yet have the technology to perform the experiments we would need to run to know which of them is best supported by evidence. There are an infinite number of things that we can or could imagine that science can never conclusively prove do not exist. If that's enough for you to keep believing (or wavering), I suppose you can continue to do so for life.

What are these reasonable natural explanations?

We will continue to go round in circles as I see your position as belief based (this is what causes you to view me as self-righteous), yet you see yours as objective.

Any beliefs that may cause some people to view you as self-righteous are not directly related to any views on the probability of God's existence.

There are related as I've asked for people's assessment of the evidence, the assigment of probabilities, known knowns, unknown unknowns etc, yet no one can do so. Until then my perceived self-rightoueness of knowing we both don't know "shit" will remain. The arrogannce of admitting my ignroance seems to annoy people here, probably as I haven't given them the respect they think they deserve when assessing what is, and what is not.

Case and point, this is where my perceived self-righteousness kicks in. You're climaing your position of being "without belief" is a fact.
I admit you hold no belief of a god - do you think that you need to subscribe to a set of beliefs (assumptions you hold to be true)to reach an atheistic conclusion?

This is an interesting point. It depends on the atheist. Someone who was not raised to believe in God and never did would not require a particular set of beliefs in order to continue not believing in God. An atheist might not believe in God merely because they are too apathetic to the idea to acquire an active belief in God. A theist might stop believing in God for emotional reasons, like believing God would protect them and concluding God doesn't exist when that turns out not to be the case. You are probably thinking of people like me, who were raised to be theists, came to value logic and evidence as standards for believing things, and at some point applied those standards to our belief in God.

These are all personal reasons, all of which require the application of perspective. All I'm arguing against is the claim that atheism is not a belief or not an applied set of views. It is. It may be right, it may be wrong, But it requires a certain mindset.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm telling you how I view your position.

And just how many times are you going to tell us this?

As many times as you ask.

I don't think you will agree with how I view you, for if you did, you wouldn't be an atheist. If you want to state your views, go right ahead. As long as we don't hold our breath to convince the other that we're 'right', it's an interesting topic.

It's only interesting to me if there's a chance someone could change their mind. If you have something new to say on the topic, I'm all ears.

Nope I got nothing. I don't expect anyone to change their mind. Agreed that it would be more interesting, however I think this has happened once or twice in internet forum history.

So what do you believe to be the cause of existence?

Other people not knowing the cause doesn't mean you're right about the cause.

What have I claimed to be right about? Not knowing?

Or is there no cause as it's not been proven?

Whatever the cause or non-cause is, it's dishonest to claim to know what it is before we know what it is.[/quote]
Exactly, leave it at that. Why claim the probability of a god is akin to mythological creature, unless of course, you've already made your mind up.

If so, how do you rationalise existence (yours) or do you just not think about it?

Existence is observed, not rationalized. I think, therefore I am...I think.[/quote]

You need to rationalise it for the observations to hold any value. Working on the basis of monkey see, monkey see is not enlightening to anyone.

How do you know or assess the likelyhood of a god(s)? You seem to have assumed it possesses the same odds as winning the lottery. Why?

It's just an example. However, since many thousands of gods have been proposed, and infinitely many conceivable gods could be proposed, the odds that if a god or God exists, it's the one you're thinking of, seem pretty slim. In general, I would think the odds that something exists that is supposed to intervene in our world yet whose actions are undedectable are very small. We can even detect dark matter indirectly, even though it may be impossible to ever observe it. Consider this: if it is impossible to set odds for something, and the odds could be anywhere from 1/1 to 1/infinity, how likely is it that the odds will fall close to 1/1?[/quote]

I wouldn't even try/bother to define a god. I would be contradicting myself by doing so. I don't even bother with ascribing any form of odds except for 50/50 (like Frank Zappa)

What you've just said illustrates that some atheists are looking for some control in an uncertain universe and this is why you have an overdependence on science.

It hasn't been established that we have an 'overdependence on science'. Maybe we have just the right dependence on science, or not enough.

Are you asking for a method to establish that you have an overdependece on science? If so, would you require a scientific method to prove it? What value you've given something is all in your head. You may believe science can solve every issue known to man, go right ahead, some believe god can solve every issue known to man.

"Why should we believe it unless it's not proven or tested" assumes that everything is testable/knowable, for in it's absense you assume it doesn't exist. Why do you assume this?

[/quote]Because there isn't time enough in the universe to assume that every possible thing that is untestable/unknowable actually exists. [/quote]
That you say this to me reflects, that in the absemce of infinite time you will make a decision to counter limited time. You can do this if you want, but it just seems like wishful thinking.

Interesting. I focus more on humanities capabilities and choose not to assume that we can assess all that is (in an absolute sense).

So do I.

And yet you commit to a side still believing this?

It makes sense to attempt to understand the universe/world/existenec as best we can, but why do you think we are in a position to assess what exists , whether it's in material, supernatural etc sense?

[/quote]I don't. [/quote]
SO why identify with a position where the ability to assess literally everything is assumed?

This is the irony of the atheist position, it's commonly asserted that the burden of proof is on the believer, yet most atheists believe that all that exists is in the natural world.

That's because the burden of proof is on the person that is claiming that something exists. If I claim that I have a football signed by Joe Namath and you doubt me, it's up to me to produce convincing evidence, not just say 'Hey, you can't prove I DON'T have a football signed by Joe Namath!'. An atheist may be asserting a positive belief if they say that all that exists is the natural world. That's not a tenet of atheism (there are no tenets of atheism) and there are atheists who believe in an afterlife, astrology, ESP, reincarnation, and the like. I would say I don't believe that anything beyond the natural world exists. I'm open to contrary evidence.

You realise you're asking for a contradiction? Asking for evidence that something exists outside of the natural world is not going to happen?

I realise this is only because that which can be proven to exists, does exist. This is circular.

This is not the same as denying the way we see the natural world.

Agree. It is just adding something to the way you see the natural world that there isn't a good reason to add.

Some will see this a a god of the gaps, maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

If you go by the definition of God of the Gaps as positing God where we are ignorant, I'll go with maybe it is.
[/quote]

The phrase is in direct conflict with "everythnig can be explained" and I don't posit god where we are ignorant, I just don't dismiss a god where we are ignorant.

---

but I just remembered Selliedjoup used to post on ravingatheists.com

WOW! That must have reinforced his martyr complex; those people are really obnoxious and quite nuts.

I posted there too,a couple of years ago. I left when one of the moderators called me a cunt once too often.Fair dinkum, Raving Atheists has the most concentrated collection of loons, arseholes and dead cunts I've ever seen on an internet forum.

Not a lot of difference to be fair. Their posts were virtually the same as those here, the only difference was they finished most sentences with cunt. Apart from that they were pretty much the same.

That you think I'm a martyr makes me laugh, I chose to come here. You seem to think your perspective is common, you're in the minority.