A question about atheistic “beliefs” (opinions, guesses, etc.)

[Frank Apisa]

All the way to equating gods and aliens- I guess it’s time for that part of the routine.  Gods don’t have anything to do with aliens.  They’re stories we tell for effect here on earth.

I don’t know whether or not alien life exists.  I like to think it does, though, somewhere.  Be a shame if we were all alone.  Doesn’t even have to be intelligent.  I like plants, I’d settle for some dumb alien flora.

I'd settle for some plants in this forum. Not a hell of a lot of intelligent life here...that's for sure.

---

Anyone who alleges that he/she KNOWS there are no gods...is full of shit.

I am agnostic about anything that has not been established as impossible. Leprechauns, angels, and fairies seem a very remote possibility here on Earth...but I cannot logically say they do not exist. Neither can you, but that won't stop you.

And yet you never actually deal with the statements I made.

If your problem is with "positive atheism" or "gnostic atheism", then you should deal with the arguments made by those people (there are a few on these boards, but not many).  Usually the problem is with the definition of gods.  Gnostic atheists do have some good arguments.  They are not sufficient to cover all possible gods, but they may be sufficient to cover what most people call God.  You should look them up.

I am an agnostic atheist, but you have not acknowledged that this label makes sense.  You maintain that we must either call ourselves agnostics, or else are full of shit.

I have not said that at all. What I have said...MANY TIMES...is that all indications are that damn near EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor (as you do) either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

How about you?

Is your blind guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

Okay, if it is your blind guess.

Might even be correct.

But I don't know...and neither do you.

[HappySkeptic]

I have not said that at all. What I have said...MANY TIMES...is that all indications are that damn near EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor (as you do) either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

How about you?

Is your blind guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

Okay, if it is your blind guess.

Someone took a similar position over at the amazon religion/atheists boards as well, and it was frustrating.  We were all told that not believing was the same as believing in the opposite, so the only rational position was being agnostic.

There is a difference between knowledge/ignorance and belief.  Being ignorant of the ultimate causes of the universe (which I admit) is a completely different question from whether I believe in a god, and it makes no sense to me to use one word to encompass both things.

Your idea:  

atheist (most believe there aren't any gods [instead of just doesn't believe])  ---- agnostic (acknowledges they are ignorant of whether gods exist) --- theist (believes in gods).

But, there are two different questions here.  At the ends, there is belief, and in the middle there is a question about knowledge or ignorance. That's why I don't believe they should be on a line. Also, not believing is not the same as believing the opposite.

How silly would it be if I stuck directly with knowledge, and put the line this way:

atheist (knows there aren't any gods)  ---- agnostic (acknowledges they are ignorant of whether gods exist) --- theist (knows there are gods).

This is not what makes and atheist or theist.  Ask the people at church if they know there is a god.  The honest ones will say that they can't prove it.  They feel it, or hope it, or think 1 billion people can't be wrong.  They do not know it as verifiable knowledge.  They have made a personal decision to believe, and have kept with that choice because of the need to connect with loved ones when they are dead.

Ask most people why they call themselves and atheist, and they won't say "because I can prove there are no gods".  Of course they can't.  The do not believe in any gods.  They may, like me, believe that gods are unlikely, but I cannot know.  I cannot "know" enough to evaluate whether my probabilities are valid.  But belief is about grabbing onto an idea you can work with to make choices in life. 

I believe in science, and that has no need of gods, and disproves many god concepts.  But I can't speak about disproving all gods (ones that do nothing, or deistic ones) -- I simply think that contemplating my ignorance serves no purpose.  For me to say "there could be a god" is as meaningless a statement as "there could be a garflebarb".  I don't know what either of them is, or how I could test for them.  To say I'm on the fence about belief in either of them is ridiculous.  I don't believe in either, despite acknowledging that I am completely ignorant about both.  As I said before, the set of things that can be imagined is unlimited, and therefore any particular imagined thing has a small probability of existing barring some evidence.

Is that blind, or just reasonable?

[The Grand Nudger]

You could only be arguing from your personal experience elsewhere... certainly doesn’t apply here. I’m one of the few gnostic atheists this board has ever had.

... and I tend to cut to the chase, telling people that I’m an antitheist on account of how it’s more relevant to any of my positions on the broader subject. Also keeps them from wasting their time, or my time, trying to argue their silly gods into existence with me. Generally speaking, it gets through their skulls and all that’s left is a vague “ but what if you’re wrong”. What if indeed, it would be identical to having miscounted the jelly beans in a jar for me. No greater or lesser import.

So, wrong on both counts, I guess, better luck with the next set of unfortunates? Not only have these agnostics here told you that you were wrong about them, you didn’t think to ask an actual gnostic, either.

[Frank Apisa]

I have not said that at all. What I have said...MANY TIMES...is that all indications are that damn near EVERY person who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor (as you do) either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

How about you?

Is your blind guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

Okay, if it is your blind guess.

Someone took a similar position over at the amazon religion/atheists boards as well, and it was frustrating.  We were all told that not believing was the same as believing in the opposite, so the only rational position was being agnostic.

There is NO FUCKING WAY I have ever said that "not believing" is the same as "believing in the opposite direction." And if I had encountered the asshole proposing that...I would have taken him/her apart.

It is idiotic.

For you to suggest that is similar to my position is just absurd. Wake the hell up.

[/quote]

[HappySkeptic]

I said "similar", not "the same". I'm angry at the fool over at Amazon who was adamant about that too, so kudos to your reaction (though not to the violence level).

Your position is that most atheists actually DO hold a belief that no gods exist, not that they must. Your position is that you are NOT an atheist, likely owing something to this premise.

Go with your own convictions, but you aren't gaining any converts. I don't see any argument that would cause me to drop my "atheist" moniker, nor an argument against anything I've written.

[Paleophyte]

I did not "give a definition of god", Asshole.

I heard this funny joke about how you don't hurl insults.

I gave a "what I mean when I use the word 'god'" for the purposes of discussion. But apparently you are not bright enough to understand that.

And apparently you're too gormless to know that when you claim to be taking the only logical position you are outside the realm of simple discussion. Define your terms properly or your argument gets ignored as baseless twaddle. I look forward to your epistemological framework for understanding existence external to the universe.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I did not "give a definition of god", Asshole.

I heard this funny joke about how you don't hurl insults.

I gave a "what I mean when I use the word 'god'" for the purposes of discussion. But apparently you are not bright enough to understand that.

And apparently you're too gormless to know that when you claim to be taking the only logical position you are outside the realm of simple discussion. Define your terms properly or your argument gets ignored as baseless twaddle. I look forward to your epistemological framework for understanding existence external to the universe.

He's banned so i doubt you will find out

[arewethereyet]

I heard this funny joke about how you don't hurl insults.


And apparently you're too gormless to know that when you claim to be taking the only logical position you are outside the realm of simple discussion. Define your terms properly or your argument gets ignored as baseless twaddle. I look forward to your epistemological framework for understanding existence external to the universe.

He's banned so i doubt you will find out

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gotten answer if Franky was here from now till now on. Direct answers weren't exactly in his wheelhouse.

[The Architect Of Fate]

He's banned so i doubt you will find out

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gotten answer if Franky was here from now till now on.  Direct answers weren't exactly in his wheelhouse.

Yeah, he did seem kind of evasive. Kind of why I didn't want to interact with him.

[Deesse23]

Didnt have a clue about anything, contradicted himself constantly, redefined words to suit his bullshit, but was a pompous ass who thinks everyone else is stupid.
How novel.