Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[fr0d0]

From a current thread where someone is claiming that all religions claim this, I just would like to see from AF members their own position.

[Tonus]

I chose the second, as that is what I would have answered when I was a believer. But if you had twisted my arm, I would have admitted that I was certain that god exists. :p

[Mister Agenda]

May I call your position agnostic Christianity? It seems from your posts that like many atheists, you're using some nuance in your terms. It's not unusual for an atheist to point out that atheism isn't a claim that God doesn't exist, but a state of mind in which one doesn't believe God exists. Similarly, theism is the state of mind in which one believes that at least one deity exists, and is not, in itself, a claim for existence. Most atheists seem to be agnostic atheists. Most Christians seem to be 'gnostic' Christians, but both of these could be artifacts of who talks the most about their position.

I assume you would expect an atheist to put 'none of the above' for your poll, or would you rather we not vote at all?

[fr0d0]

"Certain" is what you're encouraged to profess. I think it's biblical. Tiberius covered it well in a post about the Dawkins scale. I would say I'm certain too

---

Well it's a question for Christians MA, but all and everything is allowed as usual. All faiths, non faiths etc etc..

I know of no gnostic Christians. I used to have "agnostic Christian" as my religious views but it caused so much confusion I dropped it.

I posted the poll just to see if there were really any gnostic Christians on here.

[Jackalope]

IMO, a person's responsibility for demonstrating the truth of thier beliefs only comes into play when attempting to convince another to adopt those beliefs.

You may not feel you're making a strong claim, and you may be right - but if you want me to believe as you do, if you don't have a way to overcome my skepticism, you aren't going to get very far.

[fr0d0]

I said nothing about the strength of the claim of belief. I believe there is an extremely strong case and that everyone should have the chance to enjoy the benefits. I'd be selfish if I didn't.

If you're not convinced then I haven't communicated the information. You have all of your own information to weight it against too. Given my knowledge, you would be convinced to believe. Given your information I would disbelieve.

---

Insanity I'm a slap you

[Angrboda]

I'd say many find this a disingenuous equivocation designed to protect an irrational belief. I'm not sure what I believe, but I'm inclined to believe a theist is being more dishonest with an equivocation of this sort, than an atheist is being if their stance is likewise an equivocation.

[Jackalope]

I said nothing about the strength of the claim of belief.

I don't think I was clear. I was intending that to mean whether or not your claim was belief only (weak claim) vs. knowledge (strong claim). In the case of the latter, I'd not make an issue about someone's belief unless they were insistent that I believe as well.

Hope that clears it up.

[fr0d0]

If a strong belief is knowledge, and I'd agree with your definition, then I'd say that was outside of the realm of religious belief, or a worldview, an attempt at understanding purpose etc.. that is I don't think you can apply knowledge to purely mental problems, beyond helping to support the logic.

---

I'd say many find this a disingenuous equivocation designed to protect an irrational belief. I'm not sure what I believe, but I'm inclined to believe a theist is being more dishonest with an equivocation of this sort, than an atheist is being if their stance is likewise an equivocation.

The atheists (as we're confining her/him here) is a base stance that forgoes thought beyond the material. To me it's dishonest not to consider the wider spectrum of human capability > that is where all religious endeavor, in my opinion, resides.

[Angrboda]

I'd say many find this a disingenuous equivocation designed to protect an irrational belief. I'm not sure what I believe, but I'm inclined to believe a theist is being more dishonest with an equivocation of this sort, than an atheist is being if their stance is likewise an equivocation.

The atheists (as we're confining her/him here) is a base stance that forgoes thought beyond the material. To me it's dishonest not to consider the wider spectrum of human capability > that is where all religious endeavor, in my opinion, resides.

I honestly can't attach any meaning to what you've said. It just sounds like a word salad, or a marketer on speed.