Atheist or Agnostic?

[Mudhammam]

You could ask, "Is the proposition 'Seven headed dragons do not exist' also 'bullshit bereft of evidence'"?

There's no evidence that seven headed dragons have ever lived, and there's no evidence that excludes the possibility that seven headed dragons have ever lived. The default position is simply, "I have no reason to believe that seven headed dragons have ever lived."

You have to give a yes or no answer to this rather simple question.

---

You have to understand definitions before you use words. I don't know the definition of God and evidence in the framework of your question. Define what constitutes both in your mind and I'll be happy to give you a simple answer.

[datc]

A belief in the lack of gods is a far more realistic claim than the belief in gods, in my opinion. The total absence of any evidence of gods, combined with the knowledge of all the previous man made gods, make it a claim in tune with reality. To believe in God when there is no evidence seems irrational to me.

But if there is no evidence whatsoever for God, and there is no evidence whatsoever against God, how can you claim that lack of belief is more "in tune with reality"?

As I suggested, if you live your life without worrying about God (or gods, or unicorns), then you are demonstrating your atheism to all concerned. But that's a practical lifestyle choice of your own personal active life. It has no value for the speculative question of whether God exists.

[Mudhammam]

 But if there is no evidence whatsoever for God, and there is no evidence whatsoever against God, how can you claim that lack of belief is more "in tune with reality"? As I suggested, if you live your life without worrying about God (or gods, or unicorns), then you are demonstrating your atheism to all concerned. But that's a practical lifestyle choice of your own personal active life. It has no value for the speculative question of whether God exists.

Why can't you walk and chew gum at the same time? I don't live my life worrying whether god exists or not, but I still engage in the speculative question. We treat most propositions bereft of evidence that way.

[Bad Wolf]

I do not understand why you partition "belief" and "knowledge" this way.

I didn't, this is the agreed use of the terms.

"Belief" is not "blind faith without evidence"

I didn't say that.

; it's a very normal and everyday intellectual phenomenon: an assent to a proposition.

Yes and very distinct from knowledge. And I don't know why you have to call it an assent to a proposition, belief is belief, just call it that.

Further, knowledge is often defined (not entirely correctly, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion) as justified true belief.

"justified true belief' ? Why do you have to phrase it like that? Knowledge is things we think we know. I know that 2+2=4 or at least I think I do.

Knowledge and belief are not independent of each other.

No but they are concepts that are different enough to warrant separate words with different meanings.

One cannot know P without giving mental assent to, i.e., without extending belief to, P.

So what you are saying is that you can't know something without believing it. I suppose I can agree with that but knowledge and belief are still two different concepts no matter how related they are.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no faith, and I see no reason to lend credence to bullshit bereft of evidence, but I know better than to claim knowledge I don't have.

Is the proposition "God does not exist" also "bullshit bereft of evidence"?

What evidence do you think exists for a negative claim?

Also, since you seem to be taking up the god-cudgel, you'll have to define what you mean when you use that word.

Now, if you're talking about Yahweh, then yeah, bullshit bereft of evidence. If you've got evidence for god(s), feel free to present it. Bring facts.

---

Is the proposition "God does not exist" also "bullshit bereft of evidence"?

Let's be clear about who is claiming what. Religion is claiming that a god exists and we should worship him. We atheists are simply saying 'we don't believe you'. 

I think the sweet jar analogy is very relevant here.
Imagine a big jar of sweets, neither you or I know how many are in the jar, there are too many to count.
Now you claim that the amount of sweets in the jar is odd.
I say, I don't believe you, because you haven't demonstrated that. You have no way of knowing how many sweets are in the jar. 
Now, because I don't believe the amount of sweets in the jar is odd, does that mean that I believe the amount of sweets in the jar is even?
No, of course not. 

And this is the atheist position.
Christianity and all other religions and their followers have not met the burden of proof. They have not provided sufficient evidence for their claims.

A more accurate telling would be him guessing the exact number, out of a thousand or so possibilities.

Simply because I know that his guess is very likely to be wrong does not mean that I think I know the right number. Indeed, I'm very happy to say I don't have a clue as to the exact number.

[Bad Wolf]

But if there is no evidence whatsoever for God, and there is no evidence whatsoever against God, how can you claim that lack of belief is more "in tune with reality"?

Ok firstly, there isn't no evidence whatsoever for god, its just really bad evidence that wouldn't be used in any other state of enquiry for example, scientific investigation or a court of law. Also there is evidence against the existence of your god. Plenty of stuff in the bible is physically impossible. It certainly counts against the existence of your specific god. Not that anyone will ever be able to conclusively prove that he doesn't exist. 
A lack of belief to all un evidenced, extraordinary claims is 'in tune with reality', otherwise you would be in the ridiculous position of believing every claim you hear. I own a pet dragon, yep i believe you. Every friday night I play poker with the cast of friends, yep I believe you. 

As I suggested, if you live your life without worrying about God (or gods, or unicorns), then you are demonstrating your atheism to all concerned. But that's a practical lifestyle choice of your own personal active life. It has no value for the speculative question of whether God exists.

Disagree with that too. Atheism isn't a choice. Belief and the lack of isn't a choice. You are either convinced of something or you aren't. There is no conscious choice involved. It really isn't a 'practical lifestyle choice'

[Jenny A]

Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the game, but it is possible to be a gnostic atheist with regard to some gods, but a agnostic theist with regard to other gods, or the idea of a god in general.

For example, I am a gnostic atheist with regard to Zeus and Thor because thunder has been adequately explained without the use of a thunder god.  Similarly, I am sure there isn't a sun god like Ra or Apollo, just a sun which we can see.  I'm also gnostic on the subject of whether the god described by the Old Testament exists as described by the Old Testament. That god conflicts with what we know about the way the earth and life were created and therefore does not exist as described.  You could say I'm a gnostic non-believer in Biblical inerrantcy.

But I'm an agnostic atheist about the possibility of a god more generally. Thus whether I'm gnostic or agnostic depends largely on how you define god.

[Whateverist]

As I suggested, if you live your life without worrying about God (or gods, or unicorns), then you are demonstrating your atheism to all concerned. But that's a practical lifestyle choice of your own personal active life. It has no value for the speculative question of whether God exists.

Likewise, the speculative question of whether or not gods exist has no value for the living of my life.  Lacking a proper definition of gods, I have more important business to attend to.

---

One cannot know P without giving mental assent to, i.e., without extending belief to, P.

So what you are saying is that you can't know something without believing it. I suppose I can agree with that but knowledge and belief are still two different concepts no matter how related they are.

Believing that a proposition is true is pretty different than believing in gods.  Regarding the number of sweets in the jar, I don't have to believe the number of sweets is either even or odd .. I know that it must be (assuming we're not counting fractions of sweets).  Even-ness and oddness are not in question and require no leap of faith.

With gods, before we can answer any 'simple' questions regarding them, we really do need a workable definition.  Otherwise, we are left to decide if we believe in them without any general agreement as what even counts as one.  It would help a lot if theists would at least admit that there is no general agreement. Those in an organized religion pretty much define god(s) based on their particular orthodoxy.  They really can't just ignore the fact that "gods" describes a class of supernatural beings, of which theirs is but one.  The "supernatural" tips you off that you won't actually find one in the natural world.  Each one has to invent the category of "false gods" to account for this.  If they were honest with themselves they would admit that the only thing that sets their own exemplar of gods apart is its being theirs, a situation which precisely mirrors the situation for every believer in every other god.

[robvalue]

Datc: the reason there can be no evidence against "God" (I don't think you've even defined it yet?) is that it is usually an unfalsifiable proposition. That means, it literally cannot be proved wrong. If I say "God is everywhere and he loves you but you can't see him or feel him but he's there" that is unfalsifiable. You can't prove it's not true.

Unfalsifiable statements are useless. Every single one. They can never be proved wrong or right, neither can we even know if it is possible that they are right. And every single one is as good as any other. For example:

"I have a metaphysical pet dragon."

"I met God. He is Vishnu."

"You're actually a brain in a VAT and this is all an illusion being stimulated by chemicals."

"I am God. I created the universe. I have now taken human form and abandoned my godly powers."

You can't prove any of those wrong. But that doesn't mean you should take any of them seriously, either. They are all committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. You are randomly professing a belief in something you literally cannot know anything about.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!argumen...lity/c1831

Of course, if you have a definition of God for us that is in some way falsifiable, then please go for it!

To worry about unfalsifiable statements means to take every one you hear seriously forever. In other words, you now have to give time to considering all the claims I made above. Is that sensible? Of course, you can say that your belief or knowledge is somehow "special" and you "just know" it is true, or whatever. But that does not help us evaluate the claim at all. And if it's unfalsifiable, then you cannot "just know" either. That is another fallacy called special pleading. To say your "faith" is somehow more true than a muslims faith, or my faith that I am God.

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!special-pleading/c43p

And quite clearly, these things can't all be true, not in any simple sense. So it comes down to whether you care if your beliefs are true. If you don't, then really there's nothing more to say.

[downbeatplumb]

I am currently 100% convinced that there is no such thing as god or gods.
In the same way I am convinced that there are no pixies.
This seems a reasonable stance given the complete lack of any evidence for any supernatural beings of any kind.
I am however willing to be swayed by evidence.
If someone found a pixie or a god and presented enough proof I would admit I was wrong and go on with my life.

It was once reasonable to believe that there were no black swans, then people went to Canada and found some. So by improving knowledge we can increase our chances of having a correct view of reality.

The difference is my atheism isn't at the core of my being.

It is me not agreeing with theists when they assert there is a god.

Theists tend to make this belief a core part of themselves and it is very hard to persuade someone that what they believe is fundamentally true and affects their life in many different ways is based on something that is false.

They thrash around trying to reconcile facts to their beliefs rather than the other way around, it is both sad and funny.