Arguments against existence of God.

[Jeffonthenet]

I understand, trust me. It is pretty clear that some people just cannot admit that they are wrong. I asked a yes or no question, a question that is either true or false but cannot be neither. One who refuses to answer is simply evading… whether they are aware of it or not.

Is it true that you still beat your significant other?

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda

I don't think that is anything like the question I asked you. Simply from the fact that there is such a thing as a "loaded question" doesn't mean I asked you one… though that seems to be the magnificent logical principle that the self appointed champions of reason on the internet arrogate to themselves. Asking you if you believe that there is no God or not only assumes that you cannot both believe that there is no God and not believe that there is no God at the same time and in the same sense. Essentially all you have to accept is the law of non-contradiction. I do not, like the fallacious example, assume off the bat that you are irrational or beat your wife.

[Simon Moon]

It absolutely makes no sense.

I use the words to describe my position on the existence of gods as follows:

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist. As far as I'm concerned, this defines me as agnostic on the existence of gods.

I also lack beliefs in gods. As far as I'm concerned, this defines me as an atheist.

Those are the definitions I use. Those are the most formal definitions.

You can call me anything you want, as long as you understand I have those positions concerning my knowledge and belief on the existence of gods.

To make it even clearer, when I consider existence of gods, I keep my positions on what I can know and what I believe separate in my mind.

[Cato]

both at the same time.

Not possible.

Belief is a binary mental state.

I have to disagree with this. For some questions a perfectly appropriate response is 'I don't know', 'I suspend judgement until I have more facts', etc. Some questions lend themselves to a binary answer; such as, "As a human, do you have a belly button?". In this case the don't know/suspend judgement reply is as silly as the 'no' reply.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

But you are missing another option, not having any belief whatsoever.

Which was stated:

He doesn't believe God exists but doesn't believe he doesn't.

..."he"...? Tell me, what use has a god for a penis?

---

Is it true that you still beat your significant other?

I don't think that is anything like the question I asked you. Simply from the fact that there is such a thing as a "loaded question" doesn't mean I asked you one… though that seems to be the magnificent logical principle that the self appointed champions of reason on the internet arrogate to themselves. Asking you if you believe that there is no God or not only assumes that you cannot both believe that there is no God and not believe that there is no God at the same time and in the same sense. Essentially all you have to accept is the law of non-contradiction. I do not, like the fallacious example, assume off the bat that you are irrational or beat your wife.

Jeff's logic :

Ask loaded question

Deny it's loaded

Ask same loaded question

deny it's loaded

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum

[Whateverist]

Again this is war of semantics. Commonly, people referred to the position as being agnostic. Now there is a war going on about the usage of atheism and agnosticism.

It's used in both ways, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can't just say a word means what I want it to mean only but it's used in a way ( and has been used for a long time) that opposes your desire of how the word is to be used.

Well it is important that we arrive at a common convention if we are to discuss it at all. Since you do not claim to be an atheist or agnostic, perhaps you should allow us to tell you what they mean to those of us who use them to describe our positions.

Honestly anyone who defines agnosticism in terms of what one doesn't believe is simply way off base. The theist community makes very little distinction between belief and knowledge. (That is sort of the problem.) I assume you are familiar with the formal philosophic sense of "knowledge", otherwise this might be the problem.

If we were on a theist/deist site and insisted on referring to "religious beliefs" as a form of superstitious bullshit, we would probably not be allowed to post, even if that actually is the most common colloquial use most of us encounter (here).

Since you say you don't want to get bogged down in semantics and you are in 'our house', I would ask that you work with the more formal meanings of the words in play .. as we use them here. I'd be willing to discuss ways to convey what you mean with you if that helped.

[Skepsis]

Is it true that you still beat your significant other?

I don't think that is anything like the question I asked you. Simply from the fact that there is such a thing as a "loaded question" doesn't mean I asked you one… though that seems to be the magnificent logical principle that the self appointed champions of reason on the internet arrogate to themselves. Asking you if you believe that there is no God or not only assumes that you cannot both believe that there is no God and not believe that there is no God at the same time and in the same sense. Essentially all you have to accept is the law of non-contradiction. I do not, like the fallacious example, assume off the bat that you are irrational or beat your wife.

I've already explained why I feel it's loaded somewhere. You have brought this up so many times I can't even remember if I explained in this thread or another, but nevertheless its been covered.
The reason it's loaded is due to your own ignorance of what it means to be an atheist.
Hell, I'll humor you.
My answer to your question is no, and I'm prepared to spoonfeed you the information if I have to.

[Simon Moon]

I have to disagree with this. For some questions a perfectly appropriate response is 'I don't know', 'I suspend judgement until I have more facts', etc. Some questions lend themselves to a binary answer; such as, "As a human, do you have a belly button?". In this case the don't know/suspend judgement reply is as silly as the 'no' reply.

I do not disagree with much of what you stated.

But your responses of "I don't know", "I suspend judgement until I have more facts", etc still means that you have no beliefs in whatever the claim is you are responding to.

Either one has a belief, or one doesn't. It could be a strong belief or a weak belief, but it is still a belief. If you are answering, "I don't know" or "I suspend judgement until I have more facts", then you are in the state of not having the belief.

[Mystic]

1. Evil/Suffering
2. Bad design in nature, and in some features of humans.
3. Arguments against free-will.
4. God not showing himself in obvious undeniable fashion.
5. No guidance (only applicable if you don't believe guidance has been sent) [this argument is made by people whom believe in guidance, "if there was God, he would send us a form of guidance/communication", and it has some strong persuasion, see thread about "leadership" for example]
6. Imperfect World (similar to 1, but slightly different).

Please add some if you know more.

7. Virtue is impossible in eternality because it's not acquired.
8. Greatness earned is greater then greatness not earned..

What else.

[LadyForCamus]

1. Evil/Suffering
2. Bad design in nature, and in some features of humans.
3. Arguments against free-will.
4. God not showing himself in obvious undeniable fashion.
5. No guidance (only applicable if you don't believe guidance has been sent) [this argument is made by people whom believe in guidance, "if there was God, he would send us a form of guidance/communication", and it has some strong persuasion, see thread about "leadership" for example]
6. Imperfect World (similar to 1, but slightly different).

Please add some if you know more.

No evidence of god.

[Mystic]

1. Evil/Suffering
2. Bad design in nature, and in some features of humans.
3. Arguments against free-will.
4. God not showing himself in obvious undeniable fashion.
5. No guidance (only applicable if you don't believe guidance has been sent) [this argument is made by people whom believe in guidance, "if there was God, he would send us a form of guidance/communication", and it has some strong persuasion, see thread about "leadership" for example]
6. Imperfect World (similar to 1, but slightly different).

Please add some if you know more.

No evidence of god.

Arguments against God, it can be in 4... if you mean undeniable display of God to all people like through writing in the sky or something.

But this premise is:

1. Contested.
2. Absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence.