(April 3, 2018 at 3:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 3, 2018 at 3:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Cabbages are neither conscience, nor intelligent.  That’s the worst analogy ever, lol.

Perhaps but it also works against the inane notion that everyone is "born atheist".

I agree that that is an equally silly analogy.

I am not an expert on the subjects of ( Agnostic - Atheist - etc... ) but i well give it a try :-
If agnostic mean ( lack of knowledge about the existence of god ) : Then we humans are all agnostics weather we state it or not .
If Atheist 1 mean ( lack of belief on the subject on god ) : then we are { Non-believers } all atheists .
If Atheist 2 mean ( There is no god and i am sure about it ) : Then technically he is lying because he is not sure about it but it`s just more convenient for him to say ( There is no superman and i am sure about it ) rather than saying ( Superman may exist or may not exist )  . 

The amount of arguments regarding these subjects baffles me , For me it`s ( There is no god until we prove one exist ) method , Regarding your question About why people want it black or white , it`s the human nature i think , we love to categorize and segregate things and people into distinct boxes ,  and the existent of a gray area constitute a problem for many people , Lot of things in life get pushed into 2 categories just to simplify it while it`s really more complicated .

Quote:Perhaps but it also works against the inane notion that everyone is "born atheist".

Nope it would be a different kind of atheism but atheism none the less

(April 20, 2018 at 5:09 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

Quote:Perhaps but it also works against the inane notion that everyone is "born atheist".

Nope it would be a different kind of atheism but atheism none the less

Exactly right.

I take issue when people say that they are an atheist like rocks or babies are... they're not. As adults they've actually considered God and realized God is unlikely to exist. A baby might grow up and actually become religious and be stupid enough to think God makes a lot of sense. Definitely a different kind of atheism, but it's still a kind of atheism. The alternative is to say that babies are theists...

I don't think rocks are atheists at all though. Part of the definition of both theism and atheism requires that it to involve personhood. Only persons can be atheists or theists. If you want to say literally anything that isn't a theist is an atheist including non-persons or even non-living beings... then sure, rocks are atheists just because they don't have theistic beliefs (or beliefs at all for that matter!).... but that is NOT what atheism is like for anyone who has ever been told what God supposedly is. At least as some vague creator of the universe. This is why I can't be an ignostic: I agree that some conceptions of God are literally totally incoherent or so vague that it's not clear what is meant... but many others are clear but clearly contradictory... or if not contradictory then certainly unfalsifable. Deistic gods are clearly some sort of person who has super powers and doesn't get involved, who is invisible and undetectable... but doesn't want you to follow any particular religion. I can imagine an invisible dude, or invisible mind ... I just have no need to take it seriously.

I'm agnostic atheist about most gods, gnostic atheist about some and ignostic about others.

Let me give an example for each: I'm agnostic about all impersonal deistic gods, I'm gnostic about any God that involves contradictory abilities like ultimate freedom and ultimate knowledge or the ability to do the logically impossible and make square circles.... and I'm ignostic about a God that is something like "The ground of all being" without it being clear what the fuck that even means.

---

(April 3, 2018 at 3:54 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(April 3, 2018 at 2:59 pm)Hammy Wrote: The absence of belief of adult atheists is nothing like the absence of belief of a cabbage. The absence of belief of a cabbage is like the absence of belief of a baby. Neither babies nor cabbages consciously address the God concept, actually think about it, and conclude it is nonsense. They just are nonbelievers by default. I'm an agnostic atheist myself but it irks me when so many people pretend they're like a cabbage or baby in their atheism, when they've clearly thought about God and considered it nonsense. It's not like they don't have an opinion on the improbability of it. Even people who have never believed in God, think about it at some point before considering that it is nonsense. We don't live in a vacuum.

Now you're starting to get it.

I got this a very very long while ago. And I think I remember this wasn't the first time you congratulated me on it

In fact I got it long before you joined AF. I've been posting here and thinking about this stuff for a while you know. Check my join date

Quote:Prospective believers and non-believers don't start in some intellectually isolated ignorance.

Well, everyone starts off in that state when they are born but I take it you mean once people actually develop they are no longer in that isolated state.

See the first quote on my signature, from myself. That's the best way to put it I think. Next time an atheist says "I don't not believe in God I just lack belief" I will say "We start off as atheists but we don't start off believing God is highly improbable. So do you believe God is highly improbable or are you entirely 50/50 on it? Don't pretend you don't understand the concept any more than a baby!"

Some concepts of God are too vague to be clear enough to even address. Vague "Ground of all being" crap that 'spirtual' people claim to subscribe to. But I am sure that that is something that both of us agree on. People who call themselves 'not religious but highly spiritual' tend to piss off both the religious and non-religious alike for not even being fucking clear about what the fuck they supposedly believe lol.

Such extremely vague conceptions of 'God' I believe are conceptions of God that both the religious and non-religious should be ignostic about. Even the people who claim to believe in that crap should be ignostic about it, because what they supposedly believe in is literally so vague they themselves can't even know what the fuck they are talking about lol. Well, at least if they articulate it as poorly in their own heads as they do to you and me, that is.

Quote: People grow up with a proposition on the table, "Does God exist?" Someone either believes that the proposition is true, that it is false, or indeterminate. The degree of certainty makes no difference. Likely true is still true. Likely false is still false. Don't know / don't care is still maybe.

Right. Likely true is still true and likely false is still false. But I don't agree that the degree makes no difference at all: There's a big difference to me considering God improbable because I know of no evidence of Him, and me pretending I can prove that something completely undetectable doesn't exist.

Quote:People grow up with a proposition on the table, "Does God exist?" Someone either believes that the proposition is true, that it is false, or indeterminate. The degree of certainty makes no difference. Likely true is still true. Likely false is still false. Don't know / don't care is still maybe.

Nope the proposition is if one is justified in believing in god and to what level of certainty can one say they know it . The lacking atheist simply says the theist have fail to provide such a reason thus they don't accept proposition . But acknowledge the are not certain .  I don't know how many times i need to repeat this . And you have not shown it to be at fault. You simple keep trying to impose your own prefered dichotomy because it suits your agenda .

Technically I should say I am not even certain that I am not aware of any evidence. I could be aware of evidence but fail to realize that it is evidence. But I have strong reason to believe that I have no evidence for God. As my reasoning skills are strong enough to be highly certain that nothing that I have ever experienced in life in any way entails by deduction or infers by induction that a completely undetectable supernatural creator exists... and it seems to me that all possible evidence of such a creator is beyond any experience by definition anyway... which is why I think believing in it is so silly.