I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

Exactly, why claim not A?

---

Of course, I know atheists claim not to claim, you only reject any claims to do with gods. I don't know if this is a disingenuous tactic, or something you consider to be a valid approach towards assessing what could be.

The base assumption of the atheist is only that which has been observed/measured exists.

[Ace Otana]

The base assumption of the atheist is only that which has been observed/measured exists.

Wrong yet again, atheism simply means without theism. It's got fuck all to do with anything else. Why do you guys insist on adding things to it? Seriously?

How does someone stating "I don't believe in god" make it a claim, how is a lack of belief a belief?

Going to try and make it as easy and simple as possible. My 7 year old cousin had no trouble understanding, I never needed to go this far with her.
Ok, now moral, which means someone with a sense of what's right and wrong. Amoral - which means without a sense of right and wrong. Following me so far? Ok, now theism - which means belief in a god. Atheism - which means without said belief in god. Understand now?

[Zen Badger]

Exactly, why claim not A?

---

Of course, I know atheists claim not to claim, you only reject any claims to do with gods. I don't know if this is a disingenuous tactic, or something you consider to be a valid approach towards assessing what could be.

The base assumption of the atheist is only that which has been observed/measured exists.

Finally you're starting to get it.

And when you finally produce evidence for your god I'll accept its existence.

Until then all your word plays don't mean a damned thing.

Just to clarify, I'm agnostic in respect of the existence of god, i.e I can't prove it doesn't exist. But then I don't have to, anymore than I have to disprove the existence of leprechauns.

But I'm atheist inasmuch as I don't need to defer to a deity figure or some ancient and largely incoherent book of bullshit in order to be a moral person.

And no, you do not use the bible for your source of morality either.

Otherwise you would think it mandatory for a rapist to marry his victim.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Exactly, why claim not A?

---

Of course, I know atheists claim not to claim, you only reject any claims to do with gods.

Any unsubstantiated claims. Which at this point means every one thatt has been presented to date.

I don't know if this is a disingenuous tactic,

That's called "poisoning the well", a fallacy. A disingenuously worded and unsubstantiated claim of us being disingenuous. And again, you refuse to even define this god thing, hiding behing a vague and preposterus claim citing A SINGLE INability that you ascribe to it. And who is the disingenuous one here?

or something you consider to be a valid approach towards assessing what could be.

A thinly veiled claim that it is not.

The base assumption of the atheist is only that which has been observed/measured exists.

Disingenuous Intentional Strawman much? Hell, you refuse to even DEFINE this thing. We can't even think about what sort of evidence to look for at this point. You are poisonong the well again.

[Napoléon]

Here's one for Clive and Sulliedpoop.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

An absolute claim that something "may" exist is exactly the same as a relative claim that something does / does not.

In both cases, you are not claiming any specific truth other than a law of logic that is already assumed true (A or not A).

SJ, you said "exactly" to this. Does this mean you are in complete agreement with it?

---

@Napo
Indeed. Funny thing is, they want to use evidence, logic and reason precisely up to the point that their claims are destroyed by them. And only at that point do they spit on whichever poses the most inconvenience at the time.

[Whateverist]

I claim a god may exist then.

That's fine. And I claim that if in fact one does show itself our concept of the natural world will be expanded even if we lack the capacity to understand exactly what it is we've been shown.

My question for you becomes, what are you going to do with that claim? Will it effect any of your plans or generate any new projects? If not, it is hard to see how the belief inherent in your claim makes much of a difference otherwise.

When I talk about what I believe, it isn't just a question of considering evidence and arguments. Beliefs are not always rational and may or may not be operative regardless of what one considers to be reasonably supported.

So I also look to see if such beliefs seem to animate my actions. But I don't find myself wondering about the existence of gods or rethinking my actions in light of what One might think if It did exist. I don't feel the presence of gods walking down the street. So far as I can tell, there are no beliefs about gods that are operative in the way I live my life.

Now whether or not such beliefs should be operative in my life is entirely a separate question. As a bare abstract possibility, I am 100% agnostic about the existence of gods. I find no more evidence than you do for or against the existence of gods. I don't have any reason to believe the statement that gods don't exist is true. I agree with your claim that gods may exist, but I find myself pretty apathetic generally toward claims for which no evidence is available.

This is where the tired haggling over the burden of proof comes in. I'll just say that if one agrees that there is no evidence yet feels that it does matter, then one must have more beliefs regarding gods actually operative in their psyches than I have in mine. I won't insist anyone owes me any proof but I damn sure don't owe them anything either.

---

An absolute claim that something "may" exist is exactly the same as a relative claim that something does / does not.

In both cases, you are not claiming any specific truth other than a law of logic that is already assumed true (A or not A).

Well that cuts to the heart of the matter.

[Mister Agenda]

Wrong yet again, atheism simply means without theism. It's got fuck all to do with anything else. Why do you guys insist on adding things to it? Seriously?

Strawmen are much easier to argue against.

How does someone stating "I don't believe in god" make it a claim, how is a lack of belief a belief?

The only claim is that you don't believe in god. Following the law of charity and knowing that I'm not in a position to argue with you about what your opinions are, I'm inclined to take your word for it.

Going to try and make it as easy and simple as possible. My 7 year old cousin had no trouble understanding, I never needed to go this far with her.

Your cousin doesn't have an agenda. I tend to be trusting of people's motives, that's why I picked a user name to remind me that is also something I should be skeptical about.

Ok, now moral, which means someone with a sense of what's right and wrong. Amoral - which means without a sense of right and wrong. Following me so far? Ok, now theism - which means belief in a god. Atheism - which means without said belief in god. Understand now?

And the funny thing is, I don't think he is just pretending to not understand. His need for atheism to be something he can poke holes in is so great that he is not able to understand.

[Ace Otana]

The only claim is that you don't believe in god. Following the law of charity and knowing that I'm not in a position to argue with you about what your opinions are, I'm inclined to take your word for it.

Thing is, if it be a claim, why would I need to prove to anyone that I don't believe? Also, how do I prove that I don't believe in god. For me it's a mere statement. I'm stating my position regarding the claim 'that a god exists'. I don't believe in a god. When theists say a god exists, I respond by saying - "I don't believe you".

Your cousin doesn't have an agenda.

She's intelligent for one. Very well educated, goes to a private school an everything. Speaks perfect French. This silly feller thinks he can redefine things. ಠ_ಠ

And the funny thing is, I don't think he is just pretending to not understand. His need for atheism to be something he can poke holes in is so great that he is not able to understand.

My thoughts exactly.

[Mister Agenda]

This is where some of the atheist perspective becomes very fuzzy to me. Why claim to be an atheist (along with the connotation this tag implies), but then state you don't claim the "absolute" non-existence of a god?

Because I don't believe in any gods or God.

If you claim to disbelieve due to the lack of evidence, do you really believe that evidence will (or can) be produced?

I don't have to believe that evidence will be produced to be open to it if it is.

If not, the lack of believe is interchangable with not believing.

Well, you got that right.

I think claiming the absolute non-existence of a god is the same as claiming the absoltue non existence of any mythlogical creature you choose.

But here you are back to 'claiming the absolute non-existence' of things in the very next sentence. How do you keep centrifugal force from destroying your brain?

For some reason this may hold some weight for you, if so for all intents and purposes you may as well claim no god exists, under the same rationale that you caanot dismiss anything which does not exist.

Why can't I dismiss anything which does not exist?

The whole position seems contrived rather than a conclusion that was reached.

I used to believe pretty much everything. ESP, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, pyramid power, alien abductions, and so on. I used to believe in God, too. I thought the Duke University studies had proven statistically, as far as it could be proven, that ESP was a real phenomenon. Then some kids fooled those scientists and exposed how poor their protocols were. When they tightened their protocols to prevent trickery, their 'proof' disappeared. Now, I was already an agnostic theist at this point for moral reasons, having read the Bible through twice. I had trouble believing that the Bible was a reliable source of information about any God worthy of worship. My personal experience with glossolalia and supposed ghosts had given me reason to doubt that all accounts of these things were true. Now the Duke U thing. I started to become more skeptical. I became interested in logic and more interested in how science is actually done. My positon on God is EXACTLY the same position I hold for these other claims for EXACTLY the same reasons, plus one: not only is there no evidence that God really exists, every one of the hundreds of arguments for the existence of God that have so far been presented are either formally fallacious or built on weak premises. Watching otherwise intelligent people contort their reason into knots to justify believing in this idea was a significant factor in me deciding to let it go, despite my conditioned attachment to it. The position is called rational or scientific skepticism, and although it doesn't necessarily lead to atheism, it is pretty rare for a rational skeptic to not reach that conclusion eventually. I know it's convenient for you to view our position as some kind of dodge to avoid making a solid claim, but skepticism cuts both ways: we are skeptical of contrary claims as well and suspicious of people who make them absolutely (speaking as a rational skeptic).

No I don't. We can only seek that which we can obtain. We can choose to believe all that is, is what we can observe/measure but I see no reason to believe this. That we can make sense of the universe, does not equate to we can decipher literally everything.

Then what point is it that you are trying to make about the universe requiring an explanation?

So in the absense of an explanation you prefer to say "no" instead of "i don't know" as you have no evidence? This makes no sense as there is an explanation, whether we can get find out what it is, is another story.

I DO say 'I don't know'. Please pay attention. We DO have evidence for natural explanations of the universe. It's hard to imagine how the Bible Genesis account, taken literally, could be more falsified. At this point, I think it's safe to say that any creator God that may exist has made a univererse that looks like natural causes, all the way down. A natural cause is the most parsimonious explanation. We live in a universe that appears consistent with no intelligent creator. I see no reason not to oblige a God that, if it exists, clearly doesn't want anyone to think it exists on grounds of reason or evidence, which are what I try to operate on. And I can't help but note that the version of God left that is consistent with what we have learned from science is composed largely of ad hoc explanations for its apparent absence.

Really? Words don't do much for me. I would need some form of evidence to believe or disbelieve. Until then I will remain here on "my fence".

Belief and disbelief are binary. You either believe or you don't. If you haven't decided, you don't believe. In the words of the poet: 'If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.' Being in a state of 'not believing or disbelieving' is not the same as wavering between believe and disbelief. And it is not at all a moral high ground or a more reasonable position. You're starting to sound like that atheist who doesn't like the word that I have trouble respecting.

Who's Jeff? Whateverist made the claim first. Scientific theories are infallible until they're unproven. That's my perspective.

You shouldn't be proud of it.

If you describe yourself retrospectively you're applying your current view to what you were previously.

I have always been amenable to following the more precise and less problematic meanings of words once I am aware of them. I don't see why I would not have accepted the term 'agnostic theist' had I known of it when I was one. What is wrong with the term that you suspect I would not have?

What are these reasonable natural explanations?

You can't be this uninformed AND helpless to find out for yourself if you're posting here. One of the reasons I kept a spot for God for so long was that I was unaware of alternative natural explanations based on evidence. In my defense, the internet was barely started in the early ninieties, I had to read books and go to classes to correct my ignorance. If you want someone to explain the current state of cosmology to you, I suggest you start a new thread in the science forums.

There are related as I've asked for people's assessment of the evidence, the assigment of probabilities, known knowns, unknown unknowns etc, yet no one can do so. Until then my perceived self-rightoueness of knowing we both don't know "shit" will remain. The arrogannce of admitting my ignroance seems to annoy people here, probably as I haven't given them the respect they think they deserve when assessing what is, and what is not.

Yes, you have managed to put a sneer into claiming ignorance. Bravo.

These are all personal reasons, all of which require the application of perspective. All I'm arguing against is the claim that atheism is not a belief or not an applied set of views. It is. It may be right, it may be wrong, But it requires a certain mindset.

If that were true, only people with that certain mindset would be atheists, which is demonstrably untrue. Check out the Raellians.

As many times as you ask.

Who has asked you for your view on our position?

Nope I got nothing. I don't expect anyone to change their mind. Agreed that it would be more interesting, however I think this has happened once or twice in internet forum history.

Eh, the five thousandth and first showing of lurkers what we're talking about. I'm sure it's educational for them, and guys like you keep giving us the opportunity to have the conversation yet again.

What have I claimed to be right about? Not knowing?

That not believing or disbelieving is a real postion.

Exactly, leave it at that. Why claim the probability of a god is akin to mythological creature, unless of course, you've already made your mind up.

You've made your mind up about mythological creatures? I'm open to new evidence.

You need to rationalise it for the observations to hold any value. Working on the basis of monkey see, monkey see is not enlightening to anyone.

Then you must have a rationalization. Let's hear it.

I wouldn't even try/bother to define a god. I would be contradicting myself by doing so. I don't even bother with ascribing any form of odds except for 50/50 (like Frank Zappa)

There's no logical reason to set the odds at even, and apparently you don't even have an idea of what it is you're setting odds on.

Are you asking for a method to establish that you have an overdependece on science?

I'm quite sure you're comfortable with the unsupported assertion.

If so, would you require a scientific method to prove it? What value you've given something is all in your head. You may believe science can solve every issue known to man, go right ahead, some believe god can solve every issue known to man.

You're remarkably bad at guessing what I may believe considering how much I've told you about my positions.

That you say this to me reflects, that in the absemce of infinite time you will make a decision to counter limited time. You can do this if you want, but it just seems like wishful thinking.

What do you think it is that I wish? This could be construed as someone actually, finally, asking you what you think their view point is.

And yet you commit to a side still believing this?

Believing what? That it's unreasonable to believe in something that there's no good reason to believe exists?

You realise you're asking for a contradiction? Asking for evidence that something exists outside of the natural world is not going to happen?

According to many people who believe it, it happens all the time. We just keep missing it.

The phrase is in direct conflict with "everythnig can be explained" and I don't posit god where we are ignorant, I just don't dismiss a god where we are ignorant.

Neither do I. I don't offer a god where we are ignorant, either, especially since the track record is science 100, gods 0.