Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

Don't be an idiot maelstrom. "I don't know" is the most intellectually honest and reasonable stance of all.

If everyone simply stated I don't know, there would never be any progress in anything. Rather than seek answers, people would shrug and state the truly ridiculous and ignorant I don't know.

Being agnostic is just as dumb as being a theist. Whereas theists fill in the gaps of knowledge with something that cannot be proven to exist, the agnostic makes the claim I don't know if there is knowledge for anything.

I think you misunderstood what agnostic is. I don't object that there is an agnostic that irrational, but not all agnostics are like that.
A rational agnostic also seeks answers. They seek evidence for both God existence and God non-existence and come to the conclusion that, at least for now, there is no evidence either way.

Let me start with a simple thing. Although I wasn't born a theist, I was born in a theistic environment. The people in my environment can tolerate difference in theism (e.g. difference in belief in God as long as it does not disturb other people) but cannot tolerate atheism. Yes, I agree that this is a wrong view. But this is the reality in my environment. If I don't believe in God publicly, it will most likely bring an overall negative effect to me and to my family. If I secretly don't believe in God, I will have to lie in many circumstances. So, at least for me, believing in God brings an overall positive effect to me. I don't know whether God exists or not because there is no evidence either way as far as I know. So why not choose a side that brings an overall positive effect to me?

Right.. well this is fairly troubling. I can sort of imagine under what circumstances you must be in, but for the purposes of our discussion this is no where near an explanation for why you think God exists. It's simply external matters that are non-evidentially/philosophically related that have pushed you to be a theist. Therefore, for you to say that you don't see any reason for God to not exist is pure nonsense if you didn't rationally come to a belief in God.

Why should we be expected to argue against a position you didn't reason yourself into?

I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist. In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me. It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

There is no evidence of intelligent being other than human.
What is your view about this? Do you believe that there is non-human intelligent being?

Until intelligent life other than humanity can be positively and verifiably proven, then I will not believe that other intelligent life is possible. I am an atheist. An agnostic may state it is possible, but I would rather follow the current evidence until I am proven wrong.

Ok, so you don't believe that non-human intelligent exists.
I wonder, what do you think of some people who work on various SETI projects who believes that non-human intelligent exists despite no evidence of it so far? Do you think they are all irrational because they believe something without evidence?
Or maybe you think that there is no single person work on the projects (that search for extraterrestrial intelligence) that believes that non-human intelligent exists?

[Silver]

I think you misunderstood what agnostic is. at least for now, there is no evidence either way.

I have misunderstood nothing. No evidence means precisely what it means. You are adding a clause to no evidence that does not logically belong.

I wonder, what do you think of some people who work on various SETI projects who believes that non-human intelligent exists despite no evidence of it so far?

There will always be nuts who chase conspiracy theory leads.

[FallentoReason]

I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist.

Sorry, I didn't mean to express it in that way. What I meant was that anyone in your position would definitely feel the pressure (whether directly or indirectly from someone) to become a theist.

In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me.

I'm sure it does, which makes sense relative to your circumstances.

It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

I get all of this, but this is by no means evidence/proof/reasoning for the existence of God. We're simply talking about your desire to be happy under the influence of religion.

I rest my case in saying that it's not logical for you to be stating that there's no proof that God doesn't exist. It seems so far that you haven't reasoned your way into being a theist, which means there's a void between rationality and your belief. I'd say you can figure out *on your own* why God doesn't exist by attempting to rationalise your belief and then realising it can't be done... unless you actually have something of substance to share.

[Esquilax]

I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist. In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me. It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

No, that's a reason not to express your atheist beliefs until a time when your circumstances change. You can't will yourself into theistic belief any more than you can make yourself believe that unicorns exist; you don't choose your beliefs at all. Your beliefs are an evolving set of acceptances that change based on additional knowledge and rationalizations, but you're not able to consciously force something to be believable for you. Want a test? Here's a claim: I'm a fire elemental, typing this on a lead lined, fireproof keyboard. Now, make yourself believe that that's true.

Now, whatever it is you actually believe- and I'm not going to speculate on what that is- is not connected to the pragmatic reasoning you've given here; if your circumstances are the only things keeping you theistic, then you must not believe very fervently in them. And if you believe because it makes you happy then... well, I hope you're okay with believing in things that may be untrue.

[FallentoReason]

^couldn't have said it better myself!

[Theo Zacharias]

I think you misunderstood what agnostic is. at least for now, there is no evidence either way.

I have misunderstood nothing. No evidence means precisely what it means. You are adding a clause to no evidence that does not logically belong.

You said before that agnostics make the claim that they don't know if there is knowledge for anything. If you meant all agnostics make this claim, then it's certainly not correct. If just some of them (but not all), then I agree.
About evidence, to *rationally* claim to know that something does not exist, you need an evidence of its non-existence, e.g. the non-existance of luminiferous aether. It's not rational to claim to know luminiferous aether does not exist without evidence. The same goes for God existence. Do you claim to know that God does not exist?

I wonder, what do you think of some people who work on various SETI projects who believes that non-human intelligent exists despite no evidence of it so far?

There will always be nuts who chase conspiracy theory leads.

Are you saying that some people who works on SETI projects who believe that extraterrestrial intelligence exists are nuts?
Note that most of them are scientist searching for extraterrestrial intelligence using scientific methods. Are they nuts?

There are many examples of this on science.
One other example is the existence of graviton. There is no evidence of its existence at the moment. Yet, several physicists working on string theory believes that the particle exists. Are you calling them nuts too?

It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

I get all of this, but this is by no means evidence/proof/reasoning for the existence of God. We're simply talking about your desire to be happy under the influence of religion.

I agree that there is no evidence or proof that God exists at the moment, but I disagree that there is no valid reason (other than evidence) to believe in existence of God.

I rest my case in saying that it's not logical for you to be stating that there's no proof that God doesn't exist.

Just to be clear, I'm not stating that there never be a proof that God exist or does not exist. I'm stating that *at the moment & as far as I know*, there is no proof that God exist and there is no proof that God does not exist. I'm still open to the possibility that I don't know enough or that in the future someone will discover the evidence of God existences or non-existences. Btw, what's your position in this matter?

It seems so far that you haven't reasoned your way into being a theist, which means there's a void between rationality and your belief. I'd say you can figure out *on your own* why God doesn't exist by attempting to rationalise your belief and then realising it can't be done... unless you actually have something of substance to share.

I have said my reason to (stay to) be a theist and my reason to not change my position to atheist. I don't see any argument from you refuting my reasoning.
If you think you have any argument, do you think I should change my position to atheist under my circumstance? What's the reason?

[Silver]

you need an evidence of its non-existence

If something does not exist, it simply does not exist. No proof is required that something does not exist. Proof is only required if someone is making the claim that something exists for which there is no proof to support its existence. You continue with your fallacious burden of proof shifting.

I agree that there is no evidence or proof that God exists at the moment.

Not just at the moment. Tens of thousands of years of human evolution have yet to provide proof of any deity's existence.

[Theo Zacharias]

I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist. In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me. It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

No, that's a reason not to express your atheist beliefs until a time when your circumstances change.

If there is an evidence that God does not exist, i.e. if the truth is God does not exist, then yes, that might be a reason to hide the truth. But if there is no evidence that God does not exist then we don't know what the truth is. Why should I change my position to atheist? What's the reason?

You can't will yourself into theistic belief any more than you can make yourself believe that unicorns exist; you don't choose your beliefs at all. Your beliefs are an evolving set of acceptances that change based on additional knowledge and rationalizations, but you're not able to consciously force something to be believable for you. Want a test? Here's a claim: I'm a fire elemental, typing this on a lead lined, fireproof keyboard. Now, make yourself believe that that's true.

You can choose to *try* to believe in something. It's a process that take time. I never said that if you choose to believe in something then at the very moment you do believe in it right away. Again, it takes time and effort. Your effort can be successful (you can finally after weeks, months, or years later truly believe) or it can also fail.
In my case, I choose to *stay to* believe in God. I have believed in God in years so it's not a difficult thing to do for me.

Now, whatever it is you actually believe- and I'm not going to speculate on what that is- is not connected to the pragmatic reasoning you've given here; if your circumstances are the only things keeping you theistic, then you must not believe very fervently in them. And if you believe because it makes you happy then... well, I hope you're okay with believing in things that may be untrue.

I never said that that's the only reason, and you shouldn't assume that I'm not believe very fervently in whatever I believe. It's certainly irrational to make this assumption without more information.
Yes, I'm very ok believing in things that may be untrue.
How about you? Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue?

[Silver]

You can choose to *try* to believe in something.

Which is precisely the problem with people who claim they know something exists without the proof to back it up. Anyone can convince himself that anything is true, so long as that individual forgoes with reality.

[Theo Zacharias]

you need an evidence of its non-existence

If something does not exist, it simply does not exist.

Agree, but what's the point?
You seem to say that God does not exist because it does not exist.

No proof is required that something does not exist. Proof is only required if someone is making the claim that something exists for which there is no proof to support its existence. You continue with your fallacious burden of proof shifting.

I have said many time that I do not claim that I know God exists.
Do you claim to know that God does not exist? Please answer this.

I agree that there is no evidence or proof that God exists at the moment.

Not just at the moment. Tens of thousands of years of human evolution have yet to provide proof of any deity's existence.

And so is extraterrestrial intelligence, and yet many scientist working on SETI projects believe in its existence.

Btw, you haven't response to my statement before about several scientist being nuts because believing something without evidence. Do you think they are nuts?

Please answer this. Do you believe that graviton exist? There is no proof of its existence so you should not believe that graviton exist, right? But string theory predicts that graviton exists. So you should not believe in string theory either? But several physicist believes in string theory. Do you think they are nuts?

---

You can choose to *try* to believe in something.

Which is precisely the problem with people who claim they know something exists without the proof to back it up. Anyone can convince himself that anything is true, so long as that individual forgoes with reality.

There is no argumentation on your statement. Anybody can easily state the opposite thing (without any argument), something like this:

"Which is precisely the problem with people who claim they know something does not exist without the proof to back it up. Anyone can convince himself that anything is false, so long as that individual forgoes with reality."

Also, you use straw man argument many time. I never claim I know God exists and yet, you said, like in above, that I claim this.