(August 10, 2013 at 7:30 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Agree, but what's the point?

The point is that if it does not exist, it is rather absurd to take the agnostic position regarding whether it may or may not exist.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:30 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: I have said many time that I do not claim that I know God exists.
Do you claim to know that God does not exist? Please answer this.

According to the state of evidence in relation to god I can verily state that he does not exist. Simple. Now prove to me that he does, or stop being an ignorant agnostic afraid to take a rational position.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:30 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Please answer this. Do you believe that graviton exist? There is no proof of its existence.

Gravity is real. The term theory does not make it false. If you think gravity is false, please be a dear and jump off a skyscraper. If gravity is false, you will simply float through the air. If gravity is real, you will plummet toward your death. Good luck.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 6:30 am)Maelstrom Wrote: 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.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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?

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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?

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote: 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.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote: 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.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 6:36 am)FallentoReason Wrote: 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?

(August 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:30 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Agree, but what's the point?

The point is that if it does not exist, it is rather absurd to take the agnostic position regarding whether it may or may not exist.

Yes, *if* it does not exist. You never state any evidence nor reason why you think God does not exist.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:30 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: I have said many time that I do not claim that I know God exists.
Do you claim to know that God does not exist? Please answer this.

According to the state of evidence in relation to god I can verily state that he does not exist. Simple. Now prove to me that he does, or stop being an ignorant agnostic afraid to take a rational position.

You said "state of evidence"? Please clarify. What evidence that proof God does not exist?
Without being able to answer this, an irrational theist (similar to irrational atheist) can say the same thing to you, something like:

"According to the state of evidence in relation to God I can verily state that He does exist. Simple. Now prove to me that He does not, or stop being an ignorant atheist afraid to take a rational position."

(August 10, 2013 at 7:40 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:30 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Please answer this. Do you believe that graviton exist? There is no proof of its existence.

Gravity is real. The term theory does not make it false. If you think gravity is false, please be a dear and jump off a skyscraper. If gravity is false, you will simply float through the air. If gravity is real, you will plummet toward your death. Good luck.

If graviton does not exist, it does not mean that gravity does not exist. Gravity exists regardless graviton exists or not. You certainly do not know what graviton is.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:21 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: If there is an evidence that God does not exist, i.e. if the truth is God does not exist, then yes, that might be a reason to hide the truth. But if there is no evidence that God does not exist then we don't know what the truth is. Why should I change my position to atheist? What's the reason?

Because theist implies belief in a god. Without getting into yet another argument about nomenclature, what you're essentially saying here is that you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational.

Moreover, my point is that whatever label you choose to identify as, your actual beliefs are not impacted. I can claim to be a theist until the cows come home, but I still don't believe in a god, and am therefore an atheist. The reasoning you've given for why you're a theist can't possibly be the reasons you actually are one, only why you'd identify as one. That's fine, but you can't actually believe in a god because you're afraid of what people around you will do if you said you didn't.

And if you believe because it makes you happy, then you're running high risks of having beliefs that don't conform to reality.

Quote:You can choose to *try* to believe in something.

But you can't make yourself believe in anything that you find to be untrue. You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a belief system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize.

Quote: It's a process that take time. I never said that if you choose to believe in something then at the very moment you do believe in it right away. Again, it takes time and effort. Your effort can be successful (you can finally after weeks, months, or years later truly believe) or it can also fail.

Why else do you think christians meet at church so much? Or why they spend so much effort attempting to get at children? Nab 'em while they're impressionable, spend enough time ensuring that their belief systems never harden to the point that those unevidenced beliefs are rejected... and bam, you have a believer.

But that's just reinforcing something that was already there.

Quote:In my case, I choose to *stay to* believe in God. I have believed in God in years so it's not a difficult thing to do for me.

Or rather, you choose not to take challenges to your beliefs seriously.

Quote:I never said that that's the only reason, and you shouldn't assume that I'm not believe very fervently in whatever I believe. It's certainly irrational to make this assumption without more information.

Hence the "if" at the beginning of the sentence: I wasn't making an assumption. In fact, I'm dead certain there are other reasons you believe.

Quote:Yes, I'm very ok believing in things that may be untrue.

That's a pity.

Quote:How about you? Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue?

I apportion my belief to the available facts, with the caveat that additional information will make me change my mind. If evidence of a god comes to light, that's the time I'll believe one exists, but the rational standpoint is to disbelieve in a thing until that evidence is presented. Not discount entirely, but disbelieve.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: You never state any evidence nor reason why you think God does not exist.

How hard is it to understand that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim? From a logical standpoint, there is no evidence for god's existence. Therefore, he does not exist. When someone comes along and makes a claim that something exists for which there is no evidence, the burden of proof is on that individual for making the positive claim. If you still do not understand the burden of proof after this explanation, please kindly go fuck yourself.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote: 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?

I never said that (all) "agnostics making a claim not to know if there is knowledge". Maelstrom said that before. I certainly disagree if he meant *all*. It's clear if you read my post correctly/completely. So what do you what me to clarify?

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote: 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?

I said many time that, as far as I know, there is no evidence that God exist. Why do you ask for evidence? I also have mentioned that I have a reason (not evidence) to believe God existence so you shouldn't jump to conclusion that my believe is irrational without refuting my reasoning.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.

I fail to see the connection between "LGM-1" signal, pulsar or anything you said above with evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Let's make it simple. Is there any evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence? If you answer yes, what's the evidence? If you answer no, do you believe that extraterrestrial intelligence exists? Same question for graviton.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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 certainly does not agree about "going to be irrational be default". I have explained before about my position in my first post. You make many claims without supporting them with reason/argument.

The reason I brought up this issue is that I want to show that there are several scientists that do believe without evidence, e.g. several scientist working on SETI projects and on string theory. And for me it's a rational belief because there is a reason to believe in graviton and extraterrestrial intelligence existence. What do you think? Do you think there is no reason at all to believe in the existence of graviton and extraterrestrial intelligence?

In other words, I want to show that if I can give a valid reason (even without evidence) to believe in God existence, then it's a rational belief (of course as long as the reason is valid).

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.

If you read my previous post, I have posted my reasoning. Please read again. What's your reasoning?

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.

You certainly does not read my previous posts. If you do, you won't say that without at least refuting my reasoning why I choose to (stay to) be a theist.

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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.

I also said above that someone might come with evidence of God non-existences. So it's a wrong interpretation from you to judge me to hope that someone might validate it someday. I'm searching for the truth. If someone can come with evidence of God non-existences, I will be an atheist. But so far, no evidence (either way).

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:05 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: 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?

You haven't given any reason yet. An irrational theist (just like irrational atheist) can say the opposite thing without giving any reason, something like this:

"Well, if I had to give a reason, it would probably be that theism - a.k.a. holding a position of belief - is the only rational option. That any help?"

---

(August 10, 2013 at 8:18 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:50 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: You never state any evidence nor reason why you think God does not exist.

How hard is it to understand that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim? From a logical standpoint, there is no evidence for god's existence. Therefore, he does not exist. When someone comes along and makes a claim that something exists for which there is no evidence, the burden of proof is on that individual for making the positive claim. If you still do not understand the burden of proof after this explanation, please kindly go fuck yourself.

Now I'm repeating myself, I *never* claim that I know God exists.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:27 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Now I'm repeating myself, I *never* claim that I know God exists.

Then you should be able to adhere to the logical claim that he does not exist.

Burden of proof? What? Nobody told me about that...

@theo Zacharias,

Quote:I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist. In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me. It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

Is this the reason why you think it's valid to believe in god?

This isn't reason that god exists or to think that god exists. This is reason to identify as a theist. And it's unfounded, what you're basically saying is if you call yourself and atheist, bad things will happen, so you'll call yourself a theist.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 10, 2013 at 7:21 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: If there is an evidence that God does not exist, i.e. if the truth is God does not exist, then yes, that might be a reason to hide the truth. But if there is no evidence that God does not exist then we don't know what the truth is. Why should I change my position to atheist? What's the reason?

Because theist implies belief in a god. Without getting into yet another argument about nomenclature, what you're essentially saying here is that you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational.

No reason to support your argument. An irrational theist (similar to irrational atheist) can say/force the opposite thing without any reason:

"you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you don't believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational."

(August 10, 2013 at 8:14 am)Esquilax Wrote: And if you believe because it makes you happy, then you're running high risks of having beliefs that don't conform to reality.

What are the risks of my belief even if in the future it's proven to be false?

(August 10, 2013 at 8:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:You can choose to *try* to believe in something.

But you can't make yourself believe in anything that you find to be untrue. You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a belief system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize.

Another straw man argument. You said above that I believe in anything that I find to be untrue? When did I ever said that? What I said is I don't know whether it's true or not (just like any other agnostic atheist).
I again see no argument on your post, an irrational theist can say the opposite thing to you:

"You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a *disbelief* system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize. "

(August 10, 2013 at 8:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:In my case, I choose to *stay to* believe in God. I have believed in God in years so it's not a difficult thing to do for me.

Or rather, you choose not to take challenges to your beliefs seriously.

I also seek for evidence that God does not exist and also for a reason (other than evidence) to be atheist. But none so far.
I can say the same thing to you: that you choose not to take challenges to your disbeliefs seriously. How? By embracing a dogmatic "default" that the theist is the one who should give the evidence or reason.

(August 10, 2013 at 8:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:I never said that that's the only reason, and you shouldn't assume that I'm not believe very fervently in whatever I believe. It's certainly irrational to make this assumption without more information.

Hence the "if" at the beginning of the sentence: I wasn't making an assumption. In fact, I'm dead certain there are other reasons you believe.

Quote:Yes, I'm very ok believing in things that may be untrue.

That's a pity.

Again there is no argument/reason from you why it's a pity.
Almost all of the things in the world may be untrue. Even theory in science may be untrue. So it's a pity to believe in scientific theory?

(August 10, 2013 at 8:14 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:How about you? Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue?

I apportion my belief to the available facts, with the caveat that additional information will make me change my mind. If evidence of a god comes to light, that's the time I'll believe one exists, but the rational standpoint is to disbelieve in a thing until that evidence is presented. Not discount entirely, but disbelieve.

You don't answer my question. Please answer with "yes" or "no" first.
Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Yes or no?
Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue? Yes or no?

---

(August 10, 2013 at 8:39 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: @theo Zacharias,

Quote:I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist. In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me. It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

Is this the reason why you think it's valid to believe in god?

This isn't reason that god exists or to think that god exists. This is reason to identify as a theist. And it's unfounded, what you're basically saying is if you call yourself and atheist, bad things will happen, so you'll call yourself a theist.

Yes, I agree that this is not the reason/evidence that God exists (I never said otherwise).
I also agree that this is a reason to become a theist. Unfounded? Why? No argument from you above.
Are you saying that I should be an atheist even though there is no evidence that God does not exist and even though I know most likely bad things will happen to me if I become an atheist?
I fail to see why this is irrational. For me, the opposite is the one that is irrational.