(July 21, 2013 at 10:27 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: The way I see it, Agnostic refers to knowledge, and Atheism refers to belief.

As an agnostic, I don't know whether or not there is a God.
As an atheist, I don't believe there is one.

And as an agnostic atheist, I lack any sort of belief in any sort of gods due to lack of evidence. I have no positive proof they don't exist, but the lack of any sort of verifiable evidence does the hard work for me.

I don't not believe in all gods becuase I don't know all gods that have been (will be) proposed. But as to the abrahamic ones, again, the lack of evidence does the hardwork for me.

There is no 'belief in non gods', at least not as far as I personally am concerned. That is simply a redefining of the term to make it on par with the positive claims of theism and theists.

As always, qualia soup explains my position perfectly:

(July 22, 2013 at 4:36 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And as an agnostic atheist, I lack any sort of belief in any sort of gods due to lack of evidence. I have no positive proof they don't exist, but the lack of any sort of verifiable evidence does the hard work for me.

As an atheist you lack belief in any deity.
As an agnostic you claim not to know.

The lack of proof supports your agnosticism, not your atheism.

You're stating that your atheism rests on your agnosticism. Which is a positive claim of belief: no proof justifies this belief (to you)

Yet as a Christian, I have no positive proof that God exists, the lack of any sort of verifiable evidence doesn't do the hard work for me.

As a Christian I have belief in a deity
As an agnostic I claim not to know

Therefore your automatic conclusion, that deity is falsified by lack of verifiable evidence, must be false.

(July 22, 2013 at 5:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Therefore your automatic conclusion, that deity is falsified by lack of verifiable evidence, must be false.

Ah, but a deity can be falsified, in the case of the christian one. Sure, an abstract deity might exist, but the more specific claims christians do(in issues like morals), or the more unsubstatiated ad-hoc's they add e.g. apologetics, it is not enough for me nor for anyone that doesn't believe that, be presuposition in the first place. You know, miracles are shy of video cameras.

Yah where ideas inform your beliefs rather than proofs. ... and in the same way that I verify them.

Claims are indeed false if they can be falsified. I don't know of any that I make. That isn't to say that some do make them.

You're a little miracle poet. And I've seen the video!

So yeah, it all boils down to that 'god' is just as subjective as how christians usually consider other morals ( others, even with all those 40k types and increasing of not True Christians™ ). Personally I already know that, that gods rely on the unknown, doubt, fear, even the so natural human compassion. To those stubborn enough, no reason will stand.

I agree about those mindless Catholics poet. Although I shouldn't be so generalist.

I consider non religious morals to be subjective. A perfect moral standard can't be anything else but perfect. You disagree that God is that standard, and that's your prerogative.

Subjectively either your belief or mine are correct. Objectively both are correct. Schrödinger's cat is/isn't in the box.

(July 22, 2013 at 7:29 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I agree about those mindless Catholics poet. Although I shouldn't be so generalist.

I consider non religious morals to be subjective. A perfect moral standard can't be anything else but perfect. You disagree that God is that standard, and that's your prerogative.

Subjectively either your belief or mine are correct. Objectively both are correct. Schrödinger's cat is/isn't in the box.

Schrödinger's cat is definately in the box.


MM

*alive :p

(July 22, 2013 at 8:44 am)fr0d0 Wrote: *alive :p

Scroedinger made up the cat in the box example to show the absurdity of the interpretation that it was in both states.