I can feel your anger

[Simon Moon]

Something which may exist, and is unable to be observed.

A transcendent galactic penguin that craps out stars may exist, but it is unable to be observed.

Do you BELIEVE it exists?

[downbeatplumb]

We have 49 pages on the theist position.

"if there is no evidence for something then it is silly NOT to believe in it"

[Mister Agenda]

Exactly, why claim not A?

We're not claiming 'not A'. We're not claiming 'A'. There's a difference. I don't believe you have $40 in your left front pocket. That doesn't mean I believe you don't have $40 in your left front pocket.

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.

It seems to work well for everything else. How about you give us the benefit of the doubt and assume we haven't all conspired to project a disengenuous tactic?

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

Sigh. No. No...the base assumption of the rational skeptic is that we don't have a sound reason to believe that things we haven't observed, at least indirectly, exist. We have good reasons to believe that things we haven't observed yet do exist, but we don't know they do until we observe them. Flying penguins may exist, but it makes no sense to believe they do exist until there is evidence for them, so we don't believe in flying penguins.

Consider this. You made some deal out of saying 'I don't know' and claim that we're saying 'we do know'. Those are perfectly good answers to a question about whether you know something. However, it is a piss-poor answer to 'Do you believe X?' If you don't know if you believe, you don't believe. To believe something is to hold it as true. If you don't know if it is true, or at least think it is probably true, you don't believe it is true. We don't know if there is a God (speaking for the agnostic atheists). We don't believe there is a God. There is no contradiction between those two statements.

[Simon Moon]

We're not claiming 'not A'. We're not claiming 'A'. There's a difference. I don't believe you have $40 in your left front pocket. That doesn't mean I believe you don't have $40 in your left front pocket.

There is a long thread from over a year ago on the forum 'ravingatheists.com' from Selliejoup where we told him this exact thing in as many different ways possible in the attempt to explain it. He didn't get it then, either.

[Mister Agenda]

I like to believe there's a lurking audience with members that are capable of taking these concepts on board, otherwise the sensation of the wall hitting my head repeatedly might get frustrating.

[Jackalope]

There is a long thread from over a year ago on the forum 'ravingatheists.com' from Selliejoup where we told him this exact thing in as many different ways possible in the attempt to explain it. He didn't get it then, either.

Trolls gotta troll.

[Ace Otana]

We're not claiming 'not A'. We're not claiming 'A'. There's a difference. I don't believe you have $40 in your left front pocket. That doesn't mean I believe you don't have $40 in your left front pocket.

There is a long thread from over a year ago on the forum 'ravingatheists.com' from Selliejoup where we told him this exact thing in as many different ways possible in the attempt to explain it. He didn't get it then, either.

That settles it then, he's a troll.

[Creed of Heresy]

I like to believe there's a lurking audience with members that are capable of taking these concepts on board, otherwise the sensation of the wall hitting my head repeatedly might get frustrating.

I'm one of those.

I just get ignored every time I do it. Maybe because I destroy their bullshit too fast or something. I'm serious, there's been about a half dozen threads with these twinks where they'll pull some bullshit up, I'll deconstruct it brick-by-brick and all I get is the chirping of crickets. When I point it out, I am informed that they somehow overlooked it, and that they will get back to it. Never happens, as you can imagine.

[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.

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.

There's nothing to get, there's only something to accept as a worldview. Understanding and acceptance are not the same thing. With regard to an leprechaun I'm an apathetic atheist, as I can see no reason to debate it's existence nor would I bother to come to a forum to discuss it's non-existence. That you have issues with the bible is not relevant to what we're discussing, although it does indicate your point of focus.

---

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

If one exists, you could argue that "things are the way they are for a reason", I'm not convinced why any 'belief' must manifest in the material world, this is my belief.

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.

Ok, is this why atheists refuse to admit that they hold a belief as they are not always rational?

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.

I find it contradictrory that you claim not to wonder about the existence of a god, yet come here. Do you consider that the universe is one of those things that happens from time to time? Is is just luck that we're here?

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.

That's your choice. I'm apathetic towards unicorns. I simply struggle to explain existence with the proof posited by some, so I see no reason to claim either stance.

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.

Yes it is tired. If you feel it doesn't matter, why do you discuss it? If one does exist, it's plausible to assign some order or design to everything. If not, it's random.

---

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.

Wrong way around, what if it isn't produced?

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

Well, you got that right.

Hence it's a claim, or least requires some form of rationale to assess that it's should not be believed, which rests on materialism.

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?

By believing that only that which can be proven does exist, discounts the possibility of anything being unknowable. Using examples such as the unicorn only illustrates this. I see your position as claiming the non-existence of god on this basis. You may claim not to claim it, maybe so you have no burden of proof, or that you're still 'open' to the possibility of a god. If you do claim to be open, what exactly are you open to - A guy with a white beard and robes showing up at your hosue and doing some amazing party tricks? The ccommon position is just tasking for some evidence, which of course discounts the unknowable. It's really not a hard concept to understand.

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?

Because you can't disprove a negative, hence the common assertion (alhtough misguided) of equating a purposeless mythical creature to a the concept of a god.

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).

'm the opposite I didn't believe in many things in the past on the basis you now do. I now see no reason to assign mankind the ability to assess what is true.
You're welcome to believe we must be able to assess what does and doesn't exist. This is a belief.

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?

That it requires an explanation does not mean we must be able to understand/observe it.

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.

What are these natural explanations? I've never proposed the literal account of the bible, some Christians don't either. Can you elaborate on "all the way down"? I'm not sure if your response was to me, or to Christians.

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.

I don't define my position as a response to theism. You can call me what you'd like ,I call myself an agnostic primarily as I don't think the evidence that many atheists long for will come.

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.

It's not a matter of being proud of it, I don''t base my beliefs on other people's beliefs. Others can choose to allocate science value waaaay beyond it's scope, that's their choice. Why I should?

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.

No I'm not making claims of what these natural explanations are. Each time I ask this question the common answer is 'go read some science books'. I have read science books and haven't reached your conclusion, so you're going to have to be a little more specfic. Don't send me a link to a Lawrence Krauss youtube clip or something about Stephen Hawking's positing the total energy of the universe being 0, or everything began at the big bang, and then invoking "imaginery time" or my personal fave of the multiverse.

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.

The sneer is only directed at those arrogant enough to consider that they're able to determine anything.

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.

Only those who use the lack of belief brand of atheism, which seems to be nearly all. Never had the pleaseure of the raellians.

As many times as you ask.

Who has asked you for your view on our position?

Does it need to be an explicit request?

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.

If this forum is educational, people need to read some more. Atheist forums are the equivalent of reading Richard Dawkins, actually no sorry I take that back. Low blow.

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

That not believing or disbelieving is a real postion.

re you claiming that you don't not believe or disbelieve now? Can you also make assertions, posit alternate options and this still does not constitue a position?

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.

It makes me laugh that this is one the 'heavy hitters' in the atheist's arsenal. Do you really believe it? If so, my work here is done as you will have just proved my point.

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.

Exactly, so the options are it either does or doesn't exist. That's as far as anyone can go. 50/50.

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.

[Cato]

[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='309720' dateline='1342237815']
Did you seriously quote the entire thead just to say you were ok with unicorn fucking?