I have some questions for the posters here.

[Ranjr]

I'm an atheist and would like to ask some questions.

Except I'm not and have other motives.  Just like that god guy.

[Belacqua]

I do not do “believing.” If I make a guess, I call it a guess; if I make an estimate, I call it an estimate; of I offer an opinion, I call it an opinion.
 
Lots of people make guesses. People who call themselves theists guess that there is a god; people who call themselves atheists often guess there are no gods. They tend to call those things “beliefs.” I call them guesses.

On forums like this one, the word "believe" sometimes gets filled up with nuances that aren't necessarily required.

Normally in philosophy, "I believe it" just means "I hold it to be true." So anything I hold to be true is my belief -- and you're right, the belief can come about through guessing, estimating, opinion, etc. But if you hold it, it's a belief. 

I think there is room for agnosticism, in that there are things that might be possible which we can't decide about -- life on other planets, for example.

Some people want to define "belief" as "something people hold to be true without any evidence." This carves out an epistemological category that is seen as inferior. Then they can say that "The things I hold to be true are knowledge, because they are based on evidence i accept, while the things you hold to be true are just belief, because they are based on evidence I don't accept." It's begging the question a bit. 

Since Plato, the standard definition is that knowledge is justified true belief. That is, something you hold to be true, which is also justified, and also happens to be true. So belief and knowledge aren't as incompatible as some people here want them to be. 

RESPONSE:  I appreciate your position and I thank you for sharing it. However, I will stick with I said. 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." Some people may be unwilling to have discussions with me because of this...and I will lives with that.

This is sometimes a problem on this forum. When someone mentions the word "God," a lot of people automatically define it to mean the worst, most angry Old Testament-type. Your definition -- that which creates the universe -- is perfectly fine. The God of the philosophers (e.g. Spinoza) or the God of the theologians (e.g. Martin Buber) is not the one who asks us to throw people into volcanoes. So if the angry tribal God is the only one people are willing to talk about, they're shutting down most of the conversation.

As you can see, most people on this forum have had the same conversation a thousand times. If someone comes along who doesn't understand them immediately they switch immediately to personal insults. That's just the kind of forum it is. Personal insults are the norm.

[brewer]

I can't imagine a life where any fantastical thing anyone can think of makes it into the 'no one can say it doesn't exist it so it might be true' vault.

(and Bel whines)

[Frank Apisa]

So, you make guesses, give estimates, and have opinions.  Cool.  Do you ever state a fact? Is there any particular reason that you guess, estimate, or are of the opinion that atheists are guessing?

I often give "facts."

I am not saying that atheists are guessing. 

I AM SAYING that people who assert "There are no gods" are guessing. Therer is absolutely no way for anyone to KNOW that there are no gods.

---

The creator may not even be the almighty god, but some lesser being that learned a few tricks.  So I need a better definition.

Under the given scenario, if there is a god, he's ashamed to show his face.

I am not saying that there is an almighty god. If you want a "better" definition than the one I gave for the purposes of this discussion...start your own discussion...and give a better definition.

---

---

I do not doubt that the Earth is a spheroid. I do not doubt that France exists. Of course there is evidence for those things.

Doubt is a VERY useful tool. Unrestrained skepticism may be intellectually perverse.

What does this have to do with anything I have written?

Can you doubt that the Earth is a spheroid? Can you doubt that France exists? Of course you can’t, because the arguments and evidence for these are overwhelming.

Doubt is a very useful tool, but unrestrained skepticism is intellectually perverse.

Boru

---

Brewer was right, you absolutely have a comprehension issue.

I do not have a comprehension issue.

If you do not want to participate in this discussion...go somewhere else.

---

We have no reason to introduce the concept of a god to any discussion, unless it carries some kind of proof with it.

This is a discussion on an Internet Forum about issues of atheistic takes on the question of "Are there any gods."

We have to talk about gods to have the discussion. If you feel it is not worthwhile...go find a thread that you do find interesting.

[arewethereyet]

So, you make guesses, give estimates, and have opinions.  Cool.  Do you ever state a fact? Is there any particular reason that you guess, estimate, or are of the opinion that atheists are guessing?

I often give "facts."

I am not saying that atheists are guessing. 

I AM SAYING that people who assert "There are no gods" are guessing. Therer is absolutely no way for anyone to KNOW that there are no gods.

---

So, you just stumbled onto an atheist forum to make sure we know what atheist means?
Gee, that's never happened before.
You kinda suck as a troll.  AND STOP YELLING, ya twit.

[Frank Apisa]

I'm an atheist and would like to ask some questions.

Except I'm not and have other motives.  Just like that god guy.

Ask your questions if you want to...I will be happy to respond. If you do not want to ask them...just don't ask them.

[no one]

This guy:
Brewer was right, you absolutely have a comprehension issue.


Newb bewb:
I do not have a comprehension issue.

If you do not want to participate in this discussion...go somewhere else.

I did participate, it is not my fault you are too stupid to understand.

[arewethereyet]

---

Brewer was right, you absolutely have a comprehension issue.

I do not have a comprehension issue.

If you do not want to participate in this discussion...go somewhere else.

---

We have some rules - you should read them.  There's a link at the top of the page.

Moderator Notice
Rule 21 - Putting limitations on who is allowed to post in a thread is not allowed...read the rules and govern yourself accordingly.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I wish I had more time to properly quote and answer Bell than currently.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Personal insults are the norm.

...and AF is all the better for it.