I have some questions for the posters here.

[Mister Agenda]

Two completely different things. Sorry you do not see that. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that there is no sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...but that does not = no sentient beings on any of those planets. That is not a reading comprehension problem...it is a logic problem.

Don't lose your cool yet. We've got a long way to go..

Until you have evidence that there is, the reasonable stance is to not believe that there is any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol (except for ours); especially since we have little idea of what the odds actually are.

[Paleophyte]

I do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Compare the following statements:
- I believe that god exists.
- I believe that god does not exist.
- I do not believe that god exists.
Do you see the difference?

I know of many atheists who are certain they KNOW that no gods exist...or KNOW that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I think they are all full of soup.

I have never seen any theist who thinks that way...or atheist who thinks that way...come up with any logic or science that rationalizes those guesses.

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs.

 
Ladies and gentlemen, Frank and his amazing strawmen dancing to the tune of unfounded smug superiority.

I'm hoping we can all discuss this reasonably...

If you wanted reasonable discussion then coming onto a forum, telling people what they think and insulting them for it was a poor way to go.

[Mister Agenda]

Not at all.

We both KNOW that gods exist in the land of fairy tales and daydreams. But that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing whether or not they exist in the REALITY.

Why not address that?

If you are saying "They do not exist in the REALITY...say it.

Because you're not capable of getting it unless it's spelled out? That is obviously what is meant. This may not be the forum for you. I certainly don't have patience for this kind of asshattery.

---

I do not have a comprehension issue.

Most people who have a comprehension issue don't comprehend that they have a comprehension issue.

---

I do not do "believing", Lady. I do have opinions...and I make guesses. But I never call my opinions or guesses "beliefs."

So you don't think anything is actually true. That's an interesting position to hold. Do you think it's true that you don't do believing?

---

**When I use the word "god" I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

Hmm. That definition could include an acne-ridden teenager who hit 'run' on the 'start universe' app. If that's how the universe started, I don't think it would make that kid a god in any meaningful sense. There's some speculation we've already accidentally created universes in cyclotrons, I'm far from convinced of that but it's definitely not inconceivable that beings who are not god-like in any conventionally accepted sense of the word could initiate a universe.

---

Nope...I do not do that "believing" nonsense.

All the "gods" currently popular seem like douche bags to me...especially the MOST popular ones.
Funny that people who use the descriptor atheists call others "believers"...when so many of them do the "believing" themselves. They "believe" there are no gods.
Me, I do not believe there are no gods...and I also do not believe there are any gods.

Believers call themselves believers, we're just using their own terminology for themselves, which is only polite. It's pretty clear to most folks that what believers in this context believe in is a God or gods. We're nonbelievers because in this context we don't believe in any God or gods. In context 'believer' does not mean 'someone who has any beliefs at all' and 'nonbeliever' does not mean 'someone who has no beliefs at all.' I also don't believe there are no gods or that there are any gods. Which makes me an atheist. But I believe plenty of other stuff. I believe the earth will continue to orbit the sun for a very long time, for instance.

---

@Frank Apisa Congrats. You’re an atheist. Anything else?

I am NOT an atheist.

What god do you believe in?

[possibletarian]

**When I use the word "god" I mean [/font][/color]"The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

What do you mean by entity responsible for creation of the universe ?

Do you have a reason to propose one, and if not why not simply withhold belief or guessing until you have a good reason ?

guesses are never truly random, and if they are what purpose do they serve ?

[Frank Apisa]

I live my life without a care about divine punishment, divine commands and divine intervention.

I do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

That is all it takes to qualify for the atheist descriptor.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...sh/atheist

""
atheist
noun [ C ]
 religion
uk
/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ us
/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/
someone who does not believe in any God or gods


not believing in any God or gods, or relating to such beliefs

American Dictionary:
someone who believes that God does not exist
""


All these descriptions of "atheist" are valid and all you need is to fit in one of them for it to apply to you.

AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

I do not care if I "qualify" to be an atheist or not. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. 

An atheist is someone who uses the descriptor atheist. I do not...and I would not.

I do not "believe" any gods exist...and I do not "believe" there are no gods.

If a descriptor must be used for me, I guess "agnostic" would apply. But I think descriptors often do a poor job of describing a position, so I actually state my position. Once again, it is:

I do not know if any "gods"** exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

**For the purposes of this discussion, when I use the word "god" I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

---

@Frank Apisa

If you are not an atheist then you are a THEIST. So, which god do you believe in?

If you suppose one MUST be either a theist or atheist...you are poorly informed.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...I ALSO AM NOT A THEIST.

[arewethereyet]

That is all it takes to qualify for the atheist descriptor.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction...sh/atheist

""
atheist
noun [ C ]
 religion
uk
/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ us
/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/
someone who does not believe in any God or gods


not believing in any God or gods, or relating to such beliefs

American Dictionary:
someone who believes that God does not exist
""


All these descriptions of "atheist" are valid and all you need is to fit in one of them for it to apply to you.

I do not care if I "qualify" to be an atheist or not. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. 

An atheist is someone who uses the descriptor atheist. I do not...and I would not.

I do not "believe" any gods exist...and I do not "believe" there are no gods.

If a descriptor must be used for me, I guess "agnostic" would apply. But I think descriptors often do a poor job of describing a position, so I actually state my position. Once again, it is:

I do not know if any "gods"** exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

**For the purposes of this discussion, when I use the word "god" I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY."

Moderator Notice
Copying and pasting the same thing over and over again is considered spamming and is against the rules...the rules you don't seem to want to read or follow. Consider this a formal warning.

[Frank Apisa]

If you want to think you KNOW there are no gods...fine with me. I am acquainted with people who think they KNOW there is at least one god...and that is fine with me also.

There was no "problem" when we began. I just wanted to find the answers to some questions...and I have. 

Thank you for your help.

No problem man.

I live my life without a care about divine punishment, divine commands and divine intervention.

I do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

AND I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

You are, an agnostic atheist, as you describe yourself.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST OF ANY KIND.

Not really a courtesy thing, you describe yourself as an agnostic atheist.

I am not an atheist of any kind.

Now you're just fibbing, I know you've seen it at least once.

No...I have not.

That's an interesting proposition, is it just a guess or an opinion or what have you?

It has been my experience that:

Theists don't particularly like it when you show them the fault in their "logic."

Atheists seem to loathe it when you show them the fault in theirs. 

I'm hoping we can all discuss this reasonably.

If you want to deem that to be an opinion...fine with me.

---

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

CAPS don't make you right, they just make you loud. Try bold for emphasis if you need it.

The strict definitions for theist and atheist don't leave any room for anything else. If you believe then you're a theist, if not then you're an atheist. The Law of the Excluded Middle removes all other possibilities. That said, strict definitions rarely work well in a fluid and ever changing society. Many people use nonbeliever instead. I prefer something with a little more class like heathen, infidel, or heretic.

Agnostic is pretty muddled as it tries to insert what we do and don't know into what we believe or don't believe. Two very different beasties. At any rate it doesn't suit you. What you are is Holier Than Thou. You like to think that you're better than theists because they can't prove that god exists. And you like to think that you're better than atheists because we can't prove that god doesn't exist. All the while you're tilting at strawmen on both sides and completely failing at the whole Righteous Rationalist schtick. Meanwhile the rest of us are getting a chuckle out of the fact that we can't disprove your god because you've failed to adequately define it.

I do not do "holier than thou" nonsense.

I do not think I am better than theists or atheists.

Obviously I think my take on the question is the preferred one...which is why I use it. My guess is you think your take on the question is the preferred one...which is why you use it.

Fine with me.

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not going to call you an atheist going forward because it is impolite to use terminology for someone that they reject. However, I do feel a need to point out that the definition of atheist is not: 'someone who calls themselves an atheist'.

[Frank Apisa]

Two completely different things. Sorry you do not see that. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that there is no sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...but that does not = no sentient beings on any of those planets. That is not a reading comprehension problem...it is a logic problem.

Don't lose your cool yet. We've got a long way to go..

Until you have evidence that there is, the reasonable stance is to not believe that there is any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol (except for ours); especially since we have little idea of what the odds actually are.

The "reasonable" thing to do is to say, "I do not know if there is any sentient life there...and it is my opinion that none of my other fellow humans does either."

[Mister Agenda]

Until you have evidence that there is, the reasonable stance is to not believe that there is any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol (except for ours); especially since we have little idea of what the odds actually are.

The "reasonable" thing to do is to say, "I do not know if there is any sentient life there...and it is my opinion that none of my other fellow humans does either."

If I do not know sentient life is there, how can I believe it? The answer is: I don't.