I have some questions for the posters here.

[Frank Apisa]

Can't argue a god out of existence and can't argue a god into existence. What's a poor Frank gonna do?

But here's the problem, Frank's assigned some kind of value to god existing or his questions and position would be different.

I think Frank's a closet believer.

(frank, stop touching that, it sees you)

Nope...I do not do that "believing" nonsense.

All the "gods" currently popular seem like douche bags to me...especially the MOST popular ones.
Funny that people who use the descriptor atheists call others "believers"...when so many of them do the "believing" themselves. They "believe" there are no gods.
Me, I do not believe there are no gods...and I also do not believe there are any gods.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Can't argue a god out of existence and can't argue a god into existence. What's a poor Frank gonna do?

But here's the problem, Frank's assigned some kind of value to god existing or his questions and position would be different.

I think Frank's a closet believer.

(frank, stop touching that, it sees you)

Nope...I do not do that "believing" nonsense.

All the "gods" currently popular seem like douche bags to me...especially the MOST popular ones.
Funny that people who use the descriptor atheists call others "believers"...when so many of them do the "believing" themselves. They "believe" there are no gods.
Me, I do not believe there are no gods...and I also do not believe there are any gods.

(Bold mine)

Corrected this misconception in your other thread.

Boru

[Frank Apisa]

Are you sure?

Surely you have not looked everywhere in "this world"...and done it all at the same moment?

I've looked everywhere I need to know to answer the question.  It's not as if a person has to know everything to know anything - I wouldn't know my own name by that standard.

No problem. I agree with you.

Although some of the stories suck, big time. That god of Abraham is one cruel bastard in my opinion. I'd sooner worship Loki than that god. Although I would much rather not do any of that worshiping stuff.

Then there we have it, we have a mutually exclusive claim to what gods are.  If what you just agreed to is true, that appears to be an answer to the question of their existence posed as a comment beyond the confines of those stories.

I would never do that. 

But if you are saying "There are no gods" (I'm not entirely sure if you are or not) then I am incredulous. 

Should I not be?

-ah, but that's exactly what you've done.  A fairy by any name.  Ask yourself this, though, would the claim I know that there is no -tinkerbell- that particular fairy, be different?  Why should it be.  What planned objection do you have for the possible existence of a god that I could not also apply to tinkerbell, and what assertion of the impossibility of knowledge could I not also apply to my own name?

So, here we have a fairly routine and not at all difficult question.  Are the characters in these myths real?  The answer is no, as a matter of fact.  I get that you might split the baby here, but I don't.  The notion of a theistic god, any theistic god....the entire set, the whole genre, literally is a myth that we tell children.

C'mon, Nudger. My guess: You have not looked nearly enough to make the assertion "no theistic world creators in our world."
But, you are an atheist...and you are going to insist you have.
Fine with me. 
Theists are that way, too. Can't budge them from their guesses about the REALITY either.
Kinda fun to discuss it though.[/quote]

---

Here is my opinion on the properties usually associated with gods:

1) The universe requires a prime mover, and that is God.
A) No, it isn't clear that there needs to a be a prime-mover.  It doesn't solve the infinite regress problem.  Positing an infinitely-complex cause for the universe just increases complexity.  If there is a prime-mover (which I think unlikely), there is no reason to think it is intelligent or would fit anyone's definition of a god.

2) The universe has laws, which requires a law-giver, and that is God
A) No, what we call laws are simply logical patterns.  That patterns exist (as opposed to no patterns) is not something I need a god to cause (which would have to exist as part of infinitely more complex patterns).

3) Some omni-everything intelligence created your soul and loves you.
A) Huh?  Why is that a requirement of the universe, what the heck is a soul, and where is the evidence that any cosmic sky daddy loves me?

Therefore I don't believe in any gods.  If you define some different type of god, I'll consider it (as god can mean anything), but at present I don't believe in any gods, and I obviously don't currently believe in things I've never heard of.

The universe does not require a prime mover. I agree. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The universe has laws...and no gods are required. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The "god loves you" bullshit sickens me. But there might be a god anyway.

I also do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

---

(Bold mine)

Corrected this misconception in your other thread.

Boru

Are you actually saying that there are not many people who use atheist as a descriptor...WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" THERE ARE NO GODS?

C'mon!

[LadyForCamus]

@Frank Apisa Congrats. You’re an atheist. Anything else?

[Frank Apisa]

@Frank Apisa Congrats. You’re an atheist. Anything else?

I am NOT an atheist.

[brewer]

Nope...I do not do that "believing" nonsense.

All the "gods" currently popular seem like douche bags to me...especially the MOST popular ones.
Funny that people who use the descriptor atheists call others "believers"...when so many of them do the "believing" themselves. They "believe" there are no gods.
Me, I do not believe there are no gods...and I also do not believe there are any gods.

I see you still can't get the reply's right. Keep trying pookie.

Sorry Frank, types like a duck, takes positions like a duck................. You're a believer in my book.

Pascal would be so proud, win or lose you get the golden ticket.

[Frank Apisa]

Nope...I do not do that "believing" nonsense.

All the "gods" currently popular seem like douche bags to me...especially the MOST popular ones.
Funny that people who use the descriptor atheists call others "believers"...when so many of them do the "believing" themselves. They "believe" there are no gods.
Me, I do not believe there are no gods...and I also do not believe there are any gods.

I see you still can't get the reply's right. Keep trying pookie.

I'm working to get the replies correct, Brewer, but if you get enjoyment out of that kind of childish jabbing, go for it. Costs me nothing...and you get a bit of happiness. 

Sorry Frank, types like a duck, takes positions like a duck................. You're a believer in my book.

Ahhh, I see the problem. You have mistaken me for someone who gives a crap about your "book." Finish coloring it...I won't interfere. 

Pascal would be so proud, win or lose you get the golden ticket.

Pascal's wager is one of the most absurd philosophical widgets ever. If it weren't for Occum's Razor, it would be THE most absurd.

I have a suggestion for what you should do with "the ticket", but you would first have to remove your head. 

How'd I do with the formatting this time?

[HappySkeptic]

The universe does not require a prime mover. I agree. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The universe has laws...and no gods are required. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The "god loves you" bullshit sickens me. But there might be a god anyway.

I also do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Here are two different ways of describing the difference between atheist and agnostic.

1) Agnostic/Gnostic refers to whether the existence of gods are personally known, or can in general be known. Theist/Atheist refers to belief/lack-of-belief in gods.

One is a question about knowledge, the other is belief. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not think that the question of gods/no-gods can be proven either way, but I don't believe in any of the them. As for unknown gods - Why would I believe in what I can't define or know?

Some are gnostic atheists, who believe that the existence of gods is both knowable (should they exist), and such beings have failed the tests for existence (based on the standard definitions of gods, and the evidence in our possession).

2) There is a sliding scale of belief (as per Dawkins) where at one end is a belief that God almost certainly exists, at the other is a belief that gods almost certainly do not exist, and somewhere in between describes most people. This does not distinguish between knowledge and belief, and I therefore find it less useful.

---

The single term "agnostic" for describing one's belief is not useful, IMO. If you are describing belief, are you really half-way in between believing and non-believing? If you are describing knowledge (that we can't know either way), then you are saying nothing about your belief. Does an agnostic pray to every deity, just in case? Of course not. Does an agnostic worry that they are going to hell? I hope not. Saying "I don't know" is really telling us nothing about how you interact in your life with the god concept.

[brewer]

I see you still can't get the reply's right. Keep trying pookie.

I'm working to get the replies correct, Brewer, but if you get enjoyment out of that kind of childish jabbing, go for it. Costs me nothing...and you get a bit of happiness. 

Sorry Frank, types like a duck, takes positions like a duck................. You're a believer in my book.

Ahhh, I see the problem. You have mistaken me for someone who gives a crap about your "book." Finish coloring it...I won't interfere. 

Pascal would be so proud, win or lose you get the golden ticket.

Pascal's wager is one of the most absurd philosophical widgets ever. If it weren't for Occum's Razor, it would be THE most absurd.

I have a suggestion for what you should do with "the ticket", but you would first have to remove your head. 

How'd I do with the formatting this time?

If not a believer, why so consumed with your argument and atheists? It certainly does not make you look intelligent. More like a one trick pony.

That reply was a bit better.

[Frank Apisa]

The universe does not require a prime mover. I agree. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The universe has laws...and no gods are required. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The "god loves you" bullshit sickens me. But there might be a god anyway.

I also do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Here are two different ways of describing the difference between atheist and agnostic.

1) Agnostic/Gnostic refers to whether the existence of gods are personally known, or can in general be known.  Theist/Atheist refers to belief/lack-of-belief in gods.  

One is a question about knowledge, the other is belief.  I am an agnostic atheist.  I do not think that the question of gods/no-gods can be proven either way, but I don't believe in any of the them.  As for unknown gods - Why would I believe in what I can't define or know?

Some are gnostic atheists, who believe that the existence of gods is both knowable (should they exist), and such beings have failed the tests for existence (based on the standard definitions of gods, and the evidence in our possession).

2) There is a sliding scale of belief (as per Dawkins) where at one end is a belief that God almost certainly exists, at the other is a belief that gods almost certainly do not exist, and somewhere in between describes most people.  This does not distinguish between knowledge and belief, and I therefore find it less useful.

---

The single term "agnostic" for describing one's belief is not useful, IMO.  If you are describing belief, are you really half-way in between believing and non-believing?  If you are describing knowledge (that we can't know either way), then you are saying nothing about your belief.  Does an agnostic pray to every deity, just in case?  Of course not.  Does an agnostic worry that they are going to hell?  I hope not.  Saying "I don't know" is really telling us nothing about how you interact in your life with the god concept.

I am convinced that in discussions about REALITY...especially in discussions about whether gods exist or not)...the words "believe" and "belief" are used as a disguise for "guess." I understand why theist do it. It makes more sense for them to say, "I 'believe' there is a god" than to say, "I guess there is a god."

Not sure why people who use atheist as a descriptor do it. Easy for them to say, "MY guess is there are no gods." No big deal.

In any case, I do not do guessing on the issue...so I do not do "believing."

If you insist, however, I am willing to make a guess. I promise I am doing this legit. I am going to toss Mr. Coin in a second. Heads, I will guess there is at least one god; Tails I will guess there are no gods. (My wife and I use Mr. Coin to settle difference in pool picks during the NFL season, so it gets lots of work.)

I flipped...TRULY...and it came up HEADS. I hereby guess there is at least one god.

Makes as much sense as what the theists and atheists do on the issue.

---

Here are two different ways of describing the difference between atheist and agnostic.

1) Agnostic/Gnostic refers to whether the existence of gods are personally known, or can in general be known.  Theist/Atheist refers to belief/lack-of-belief in gods.  

One is a question about knowledge, the other is belief.  I am an agnostic atheist.  I do not think that the question of gods/no-gods can be proven either way, but I don't believe in any of the them.  As for unknown gods - Why would I believe in what I can't define or know?

Some are gnostic atheists, who believe that the existence of gods is both knowable (should they exist), and such beings have failed the tests for existence (based on the standard definitions of gods, and the evidence in our possession).

2) There is a sliding scale of belief (as per Dawkins) where at one end is a belief that God almost certainly exists, at the other is a belief that gods almost certainly do not exist, and somewhere in between describes most people.  This does not distinguish between knowledge and belief, and I therefore find it less useful.

---

The single term "agnostic" for describing one's belief is not useful, IMO.  If you are describing belief, are you really half-way in between believing and non-believing?  If you are describing knowledge (that we can't know either way), then you are saying nothing about your belief.  Does an agnostic pray to every deity, just in case?  Of course not.  Does an agnostic worry that they are going to hell?  I hope not.  Saying "I don't know" is really telling us nothing about how you interact in your life with the god concept.

I am convinced that in discussions about REALITY...especially in discussions about whether gods exist or not)...the words "believe" and "belief" are used as a disguise for "guess." I understand why theist do it. It makes more sense for them to say, "I 'believe' there is a god" than to say, "I guess there is a god."

Not sure why people who use atheist as a descriptor do it. Easy for them to say, "MY guess is there are no gods." No big deal.

In any case, I do not do guessing on the issue...so I do not do "believing."

If you insist, however, I am willing to make a guess. I promise I am doing this legit. I am going to toss Mr. Coin in a second. Heads, I will guess there is at least one god; Tails I will guess there are no gods. (My wife and I use Mr. Coin to settle difference in pool picks during the NFL season, so it gets lots of work.)

I flipped...TRULY...and it came up HEADS. I hereby guess there is at least one god.

Makes as much sense as what the theists and atheists do on the issue.