Why don't some people understand lack of belief?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Do you recognize that there's a difference between my position and some agnostic atheists position, or not?

Similarly, are you a gnostic theist like..say..Mystic..or an agnostic theist..like my wife?

I believe in God. Make of that what you will.

[KevinM1]

 
Are you really attempting to dumb down and trivialize these distinctions?  Who cares?  Well everyone seems to care on this forum and the distinctions are used to give a more granular understanding of our position.

Yes, because those imaginary distinctions make atheism a trivial position. Nobody cares if you're 20% or 80% certain that no God exists. The issue isn't certainty. It's whether or not you are willing to commit to a stance despite the various uncertainties and vicissitudes of human existence.

If I tell my friend that I'll meet him for lunch. I just say whether or not I'll show or if I need to check my calendar.I don't say, well, I'm an agnostic scheduler so I assume I'll be there unless my car unexpectedly breaks down. Nor do I insist that I'm a gnostic scheduler because there is no circumstance under which I would miss lunch.

First, you are again dismissing these distinctions out of hand without justification.

Second, the distinctions, outside of gnostic/agnostic, aren't about certainty, but rather descriptors about atheism.  Ignostic: the question of god is meaningless because there's no cogent definition of a god.  Apatheist: the existence or non-existence of a god is ultimately irrelevant.  There are, of course, other descriptors.

Third, gnosticism/agnosticism has always been a descriptor of certainty.  It's literally "I know/I don't know."  And while that certainty doesn't necessarily have a 1:1 ratio with belief (there are agnostic theists, too... people who don't know if a god actually exists, but still believe for other reasons (personal comfort, fear of the unknown after death, cultural inertia, etc.)), it does tend to inform it.  There is a meaningful distinction between "I know there's no god" and "I don't know if a god exists."  And, to demand one's answer on the god question without at least considering that part of it is, yes, idiotic.  Especially when there's more than the Abrahamic god to consider.

So, when I say "I consider all earth religions utter BS, but am open to the possibility of something existing that might fulfill the definition of 'god' in a satisfactory manner," my sliding scale of agnosticism isn't trivial or meaningless.  Rather, it's a way to answer the god question as clearly as I can.  Because 'god' is a variable in this question, and not all values for 'god' provide the same answer (nor should they, IMO).

[Simon Moon]

 
Are you really attempting to dumb down and trivialize these distinctions?  Who cares?  Well everyone seems to care on this forum and the distinctions are used to give a more granular understanding of our position.

Yes, because those imaginary distinctions make atheism a trivial position. Nobody cares if you're 20% or 80% certain that no God exists. The issue isn't certainty. It's whether or not you are willing to commit to a stance despite the various uncertainties and vicissitudes of human existence.

Why is not being convinced that a god exists, a trivial position? This is the standard skeptical position on any existential claim.

I am willing to commit to a stance on the claim that gods exist. That position being, theists have not met their burden of proof to justify my belief in the existence of gods.

Just because we are not convinced that gods exist, does not mean, that we are forced to take the oposite position by default (that we are convinced that gods don't exist).

If I tell my friend that I'll meet him for lunch. I just say whether or not I'll show or if I need to check my calendar.I don't say, well, I'm an agnostic scheduler so I assume I'll be there unless my car unexpectedly breaks down. Nor do I insist that I'm a gnostic scheduler because there is no circumstance under which I would miss lunch.

False analogy.

Scheduling lunch is not an existential claim. There is no skeptical position on scheduling lunch.

I think the problem you are having, is that you put so much importance on the existence of your god, that you are unable to understand, that we just see it as yet another unsupported supernatural claim.

Just because the existence of a god is imperative for you to get your sources of: purpose, morality, existence of the universe, etc, does not mean we have to view the existence of gods with the same gravitas. Your god claims are just another magical claim to us.

So, the fact that you see our position as 'not taking a stance', has no more meaning to us, as telling us, that since we are not convinced that UFO's are alien space craft, we are not taking a stance on the alien claim.

[Mystic]

It's like someone realize they were lost and start bragging to everyone they are lost. It's ok to be lost and doubt, but to make it as if it should the end result.

[Astreja]

Certainty is blessed. Doubt is just a tool to get there.

Doubt is power, because it allows for growth.  Certainty is a dead end.

[Mystic]

Certainty is blessed. Doubt is just a tool to get there.

Doubt is power, because it allows for growth.  Certainty is a dead end.

if doubt is need to test certainty, certainty will have to grow.

To settle for doubt and ignorance... I don't see merit in that.

I don't see, has never been proof of a proof not being true.

Mere denial of evidence never been proof evidence should not be convincing.

[Astreja]

Doubt is power, because it allows for growth.  Certainty is a dead end.

if doubt is need to test certainty, certainty will have to grow.

To settle for doubt and ignorance... I don't see merit in that.

I don't see, has never been proof of a proof not being true.

Mere denial of evidence never been proof evidence should not be convincing.

I am a strong agnostic, MK.  With the possible exception of mathematical proofs, I think that at best we can only approach truth.

Doubt, by the way, is not ignorance.  They are very different things.

[Amarok]

Yes, because those imaginary distinctions make atheism a trivial position.

It's far from imaginary and far from trivial 

 Nobody cares if you're 20% or 80% certain that no God exists. 

Then those people are not very bright  and why should i define position by what others think ?

The issue isn't certainty.

Yes yes it is . It's not to you maybe but who cares about that ?

It's whether or not you are willing to commit to a stance despite the various uncertainties and vicissitudes of human existence.

Nope it weather your justified in making said commitment . If not best not .

And your analogy sucks as your lunch date is not an existential claim about the existence of something so i won't bother refuting it . You once again failed to refute the position just mock and whine about it

---

if doubt is need to test certainty, certainty will have to grow.

It is  needed 

To settle for doubt and ignorance... I don't see merit in that.

To settle for reasonable doubt is a merit 

I don't see, has never been proof of a proof not being true.

No but a good reason to doubt a claim 

Mere denial of evidence never been proof evidence should not be convincing.

You call it denial reasonable people call it . You having zero evidence and them not accepting you claim based on it .

[Mister Agenda]

Do you recognize that there's a difference between my position and some agnostic atheists position, or not?

Similarly, are you a gnostic theist like..say..Mystic..or an agnostic theist..like my wife?

I believe in God. Make of that what you will.

I make it that you are too evasive to answer the question honestly.

---

It's like someone realize they were lost and start bragging to everyone they are lost. It's ok to be lost and doubt, but to make it as if it should the end result.

In a group, the person who is lost and knows it has much more to offer than the person who doesn't know it or refuses to believe they are lost.

[Edwardo Piet]

Do you recognize that there's a difference between my position and some agnostic atheists position, or not?

Similarly, are you a gnostic theist like..say..Mystic..or an agnostic theist..like my wife?

I believe in God. Make of that what you will.

I think your point is that whether you are 100% certain of God or 99% certain of God you can still honesty assert "God exists."

The fact that I'm only 99.99999999999999999% certain that Thor doesn't exist doesn't stop me from saying Thor doesn't exist. So why should it stop me saying all the other Gods don't exist either?