Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Indeed. Belief that the proposition "God(s) exist" is false.

How or why is it that after all of this time, and the vast majority of atheists that you've ever interacted with on this board telling you flat out that they wouldn't call it true or false, but inconclusive...and seeing them disagree, bluntly, with those few who would affirm that statement....that you still insist on this?

Because it is self-protective in-group bullshit for intellectual pansies who would rather pride themselves in a quality they share with cabbages, i.e. lack of belief, than openly take a stance with all the attendent responsiblities for that stance. Just because you repeat and insist on redefining common words to avoid criticism or from some misguided attempt to secure the mantel of normative belief...talking louder does not make it true.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's your opinion, buddy. Not a fact. The fact is that they have told you..many times..and you were aware of that when you posed the question..and this is all performative. You actually do understand that there's a difference between an agnostic atheist, which the boards are filthy with..and a gnostic atheist...which are thin on the ground here and everywhere else. Which is to say, that not only is this all performative, you knew beforehand that your comments and declarations themselves were complete and utter bullshit.

I want you to consider the idiocy of complaining to me..an actual living breathing gnostic atheist...about agnostic atheists redefining common words to avoid criticism? What criticism you fucking loon, I keep asking. I'm the guy you're looking for, they're not. If agnostics are the ones redefining these words for some Very Not Good purpose...then wtf has that got to do with me? I can acknowledge it. What's your deal?

[Jehanne]

How or why is it that after all of this time, and the vast majority of atheists that you've ever interacted with on this board telling you flat out that they wouldn't call it true or false, but inconclusive...and seeing them disagree, bluntly, with those few who would affirm that statement....that you still insist on this?

Because it is self-protective in-group bullshit for intellectual pansies who would rather pride themselves in a quality they share with cabbages, i.e. lack of belief, than openly take a stance with all the attendent responsiblities for that stance. Just because you repeat and insist on redefining common words to avoid criticism or from some misguided attempt to secure the mantel of normative belief...talking louder does not make it true.

I suppose that you could never serve on a jury??

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's your opinion, buddy. Not a fact. The fact is that they have told you..many times..and you were aware of that when you posed the question..and this is all performative. You actually do understand that there's a difference between an agnostic atheist, which the boards are filthy with..and a gnostic atheist...which are thin on the ground here and everywhere else. Which is to say, that not only is this all performative, you knew beforehand that your comments and declarations themselves were complete and utter bullshit.

I want you to consider the idiocy of complaining to me..an actual living breathing gnostic atheist...about agnostic atheists redefining common words to avoid criticism? What criticism you fucking loon, I keep asking. I'm the guy you're looking for, they're not. If agnostics are the ones redefining these words for some Very Not Good purpose...then wtf has that got to do with me? I can acknowledge it. What's your deal?

An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron just like a Christian atheist. Semantic games to blur essential distictions.

[Jehanne]

That's your opinion, buddy. Not a fact. The fact is that they have told you..many times..and you were aware of that when you posed the question..and this is all performative. You actually do understand that there's a difference between an agnostic atheist, which the boards are filthy with..and a gnostic atheist...which are thin on the ground here and everywhere else. Which is to say, that not only is this all performative, you knew beforehand that your comments and declarations themselves were complete and utter bullshit.

I want you to consider the idiocy of complaining to me..an actual living breathing gnostic atheist...about agnostic atheists redefining common words to avoid criticism? What criticism you fucking loon, I keep asking. I'm the guy you're looking for, they're not. If agnostics are the ones redefining these words for some Very Not Good purpose...then wtf has that got to do with me? I can acknowledge it. What's your deal?

An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron just like a Christian atheist. Semantic games to blur essential distictions.

The term dates back to the 19th-century, and refers to an absence of knowledge resulting in an absence of belief. I do not know who shot William II of England; as such, I choose to suspend judgment on the careless nobleman who was among many who accompanied him that fateful day.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's your opinion, buddy.  Not a fact.  The fact is that they have told you..many times..and you were aware of that when you posed the question..and this is all performative.  You actually do understand that there's a difference between an agnostic atheist, which the boards are filthy with..and a gnostic atheist...which are thin on the ground here and everywhere else.  Which is to say, that not only is this all performative, you knew beforehand that your comments and declarations themselves were complete and utter bullshit.

I want you to consider the idiocy of complaining to me..an actual living breathing gnostic atheist...about agnostic atheists redefining common words to avoid criticism?  What criticism you fucking loon, I keep asking.  I'm the guy you're looking for, they're not.  If agnostics are the ones redefining these words for some Very Not Good purpose...then wtf has that got to do with me?  I can acknowledge it.  What's your deal?

An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron just like a Christian atheist. Semantic games to blur essential distictions.

Essential differences like what, the difference between what a person does and doesn't believe, and what they do and do not claim to know?  IDK, seems razor sharp to me.  

Most of these guys don't believe in god, but wouldn't claim to know that there wasn't one.  I also don't believe in gods..but do claim to know that there aren't any.  What criticism is it that you think agnostics are trying to avoid that I, Not An Agnostic but definitely an atheist, would be super happy to address?

[Belacqua]

I am open to demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the existence of gods. 

I think these are reasonable standards. They are standards held by very many people in our time, place, social class, and educational level. 

It's good that you can state your standards of judgment. If someone disagreed with these standards, I hope they could explain why. I'm sure you could defend them properly, and have a genuine good-faith conversation.

Unfortunately there are atheists who pretend that they have no such standards, and their atheism is just some sort of pure nothingness. (This might be true of atheists who had never heard religious claims and never given any thought to the issue at all. If they were raised by wolves or something.) Like you, they hold strongly to certain epistemological and metaphysical principles, but they don't seem to recognize that their conclusions are based on principles.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's pretty clear that people can believe in gods, and not believe in gods, before they know what the words reason, epistemological, or metaphysical mean. So much for good faith discussions.

[emjay]

I am open to demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the existence of gods. 

I think these are reasonable standards. They are standards held by very many people in our time, place, social class, and educational level. 

It's good that you can state your standards of judgment. If someone disagreed with these standards, I hope they could explain why. I'm sure you could defend them properly, and have a genuine good-faith conversation.

Unfortunately there are atheists who pretend that they have no such standards, and their atheism is just some sort of pure nothingness. (This might be true of atheists who had never heard religious claims and never given any thought to the issue at all. If they were raised by wolves or something.) Like you, they hold strongly to certain epistemological and metaphysical principles, but they don't seem to recognize that their conclusions are based on principles.

Just to interject my own views on personal testimony in case you're interested...

Yes, most theist or 'wooist' personal testimony I would tend to dismiss out of hand but it would be largely dependent on their awareness of and willingness to accept psychological explanations of things; their credibility goes up the more the latter is the case. Like I was talking about in the other thread, things like believing in superstition or divination, when the effects of such things have simple psychological explanations, means someone has very low credibility to me. Or perhaps the most frustrating one for me, not recognising the power of expectation... that you often see what you expect to see or what is pervasive in your mind... basically the concept of a Rorschach test. Basically if something would not convince me in my own mind, why should personal testimony to the same effect in others hold any sway? And that is the majority of the sort of testimony I hear, at least around me, in my family.

[Jehanne]

An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron just like a Christian atheist. Semantic games to blur essential distictions.

Essential differences like what, the difference between what a person does and doesn't believe, and what they do and do not claim to know?  IDK, seems razor sharp to me.  

Most of these guys don't believe in god, but wouldn't claim to know that there wasn't one.  I also don't believe in gods..but do claim to know that there aren't any.  What criticism is it that you think agnostics are trying to avoid that I, Not An Agnostic but definitely an atheist, would be super happy to address?

I have encountered these atheists -- they place the Christian or Islamic God in the same category as the FSM, IPUs, ISM, etc., possible, yet "very, very, very improbable". As for me, I would just be in the "very improbable" category.