Atheist or Agnostic?

[datc]

Atheism isn't a choice.

It is if you are an agnostic, just as theism is a choice in this case.

Only if you are a "gnostic" are you ineluctably moved toward belief by evidence either for or against God's existence.

---

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.

It most certainly does have such value, because if God exists, then it makes sense to pay heed to Him in your own personal life. If God does not exist, then it makes sense to ignore everything that claims divinity.

I mean, are you as though autistic toward God? Even if God existed, you'd consider Him irrelevant? If the speculative question of whether God exists has been settled, say, in favor of God, would you still refuse to interact with God? That seems crazy, at least like not paying attention to other human beings.

[downbeatplumb]

Atheism isn't a choice.

It is if you are an agnostic, just as theism is a choice in this case.

No you are wrong. if you don't have enough evidence to be certain in something's existence then you can't just tell yourself you'll believe it any way. 

I don't believe in god.
 
This is not a choice I made but a fact.

You believe in god and that is also a fact.

What you or I believe has no impact on reality.

But reality should impact on what we believe.
Often this seems not to be the case.

[abaris]

I mean, are you as though autistic toward God? Even if God existed, you'd consider Him irrelevant? If the speculative question of whether God exists has been settled, say, in favor of God, would you still refuse to interact with God? That seems crazy, at least like not paying attention to other human beings.

You are a catholic, aren't you? I grew up as a catholic too and one of my first steps towards atheism - still as a child - was to think, I don't like that guy they're talking about in church and in the bible. For me god was petty, a schoolyard bully, shoving people around and killing them. And to top it off, he shoves you into the eternal oven if you don't play nice.

So I didn't want to worship a being like that and thought, well, if there's an almighty god, he's certainly nothing like in the bible. I didn't give a shit anymore and lived my life trying to be a decent person, but not because of god. For a pretty long time I have been a deist, thinking maybe there's something out there making things tick. But certainly not something looking into everyone's bedroom and counting the times you masturbate. Being a deist also didn't conflict with my education in the same way theism does, since I didn't have to believe in that preposterous claim of the earth only being a few thousand years old and mankind poofing into existence.

Yeah, I know, the Catholic church is moving away from that too, but that doesn't change the contradictions between science and dogma. So, to repeat myself, I'm agnostic because I can't rule out with absolute certainty that some force is moving the universe. But that doesn't have to be any kind of god. A few thousand years ago, people looked up at the sun and the moon and since they couldn't explain them, they called them gods. The classical god of the gaps reaction. Who knows, what we will know about the universe in another ten thousand years? If we still exist as a species, that is.

[robvalue]

If you say you are choosing to believe in God, then it's not a belief, it's a professed belief.

You are either convinced by the claim that there is a god, or a particular God, or you are not. If you actually believe it, then it is not a choice.

I don't believe any God claims I have ever heard, and I cannot choose to believe them even if I wanted to. That's why the discussion about why people hold beliefs is so important. I think people often haven't thought about it that much. They may be surprised what they are basing it on, if they can analyze it critically and honestly enough.

[Simon Moon]

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"?

Because the belief in the existence of a god requires a lot more unsupported factual  and illogical assumptions. Disbelief requires none.

The belief in a god and the disbelief in a god are not positions of equal merit.

To believe in a god, one has to assume so much is true without evidence or valid and sound logic to support it. To disbelieve in a god, all one has to do is not be convinced by the arguments theists make for the existence of their gods. Atheism is not a claim, it is a response to a claim.

I have no unsupported claims or fallacious arguments to support my absence of belief. I only have to reject the arguments of theists.

And the funny thing is, you seem to inherently understand this process, as in your very first post when you bring up the example of unicorns. You understand that not believing in unicorns is justified based on the lack of evidence for their existence.

Why do you make a special case for your god?

[datc]

Because the belief in the existence of a god requires a lot more unsupported factual  and illogical assumptions.

Not if there is no evidence whatsoever against God.

Alright, suppose you are a definite agnostic. Why then wouldn't you lean toward agnostic theism simply out of overabundance of caution, as per the Pascal's wager?

[Simon Moon]

Because the belief in the existence of a god requires a lot more unsupported factual  and illogical assumptions.

Not if there is no evidence whatsoever against God.

By your standards, there's no evidence whatsoever against the existence of Shiva, Ahura Mazda, Vishnu, or any of the other 1000's of gods you don't believe exist. 

But again, as explained to you over and over (and over), you are passing the burden of proof. I am not making a claim that gods don't exist. I am only responding to the claim made by theists that a god does exist.

Alright, suppose you are a definite agnostic. Why then wouldn't you lean toward agnostic theism simply out of overabundance of caution, as per the Pascal's wager?

Seriously?! 

Pascals Wager fails on all levels.

Just how would I go about applying Pascal's Wager? Do I believe in ALL gods (even the ones with mutually exclusive doctrines), so I don't offend any of them? Is that what you do, simply out of overabundance of caution? Wouldn't want to piss of Allah and end up in Jahanamm being punished for eternity, would you?

And lets say I decide to believe in your god, simply out of overabundance of caution. Wouldn't your god be able to see through my little "I'll believe just to cover my ass" ploy?

[abaris]

Alright, suppose you are a definite agnostic. Why then wouldn't you lean toward agnostic theism simply out of overabundance of caution, as per the Pascal's wager?

Ah, I see. So you cautiously waste your life away fretting over something that has no evidence whatsoever. The only life you have for all you know.

[robvalue]

Pascal's wager also fails because you cannot choose to believe.

You still haven't even defined God yet We could be talking about a porcupine for all I know.

If it's unfalsifiable, then there can be no evidence for or against it and it's a useless proposition.

[datc]

Just how would I go about applying Pascal's Wager? Do I believe in ALL gods (even the ones with mutually exclusive doctrines), so I don't offend any of them? Is that what you do, simply out of overabundance of caution? Wouldn't want to piss of Allah and end up in Jahanamm for eternity, would you?

And lets say I decide to believe in your god, simply out of overabundance of caution. Wouldn't your god be able to see through my little "I'll believe just to cover my ass" ploy?

Overabundance of caution seems to suggest that you pick the god who threatens the most punishment for ignoring him and pay proper respects to that god, in whatever they consist.

---

Ah, I see. So you cautiously waste your life away fretting over something that has no evidence whatsoever. The only life you have for all you know.

All men die; this life is a mere finite good. But eternal life is infinite good. If there is even a chance of gaining the latter by taking proper precautions, then these would seem to be justified.