Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[The Grand Nudger]

I suspect that a rejection of any given nutters specific god reads and seems, to them, like a rejection of any possible gods - but that's due to their thematically appropriate myopia and not an accurate description of the position of the majority of atheists here or elsewhere.

You'd think they'd be thrilled, just downright tickled, that most atheists don't think that you can prove that there are no gods.

[Belacqua]

Just to interject my own views on personal testimony in case you're interested...

Yes, most theist or 'wooist' personal testimony I would tend to dismiss out of hand but it would be largely dependent on their awareness of and willingness to accept psychological explanations of things; their credibility goes up the more the latter is the case. Like I was talking about in the other thread, things like believing in superstition or divination, when the effects of such things have simple psychological explanations, means someone has very low credibility to me. Or perhaps the most frustrating one for me, not recognising the power of expectation... that you often see what you expect to see or what is pervasive in your mind... basically the concept of a Rorschach test. Basically if something would not convince me in my own mind, why should personal testimony to the same effect in others hold any sway? And that is the majority of the sort of testimony I hear, at least around me, in my family.

This all sounds reasonable to me. When you or I hear someone claiming that he's had an experience of God, we reject it for reasons we find sound. We judge such claims according to certain principles:

~ Psychological explanations (i.e. the mental state of the person having the experience) are more credible to us than divine explanations.

~ Determining the origin of any given experience requires a [Rorschach-like] interpretation. People who already believe in the divine are likely to interpret the origins as divine, while those of us who call divinity "woo" will explain it in other ways.

Little kids I suppose will just repeat what they hear from their parents, but some people hear and adopt other standards. The Tooth Fairy, or the voice of Jesus, will no longer be compatible with the way they interpret the world. 

My parents never made any woo-like claims, so I never had to reject any of that. But I've been thinking lately about how much of what they taught me has stuck with me over the years. Like political ideology, or other values. As far as I can tell, I've fallen extremely close to the tree. (Except my dad worked a lot harder than I do.)

[Simon Moon]

Your statement is bullshit:

Wikipedia -- Spectrum of theistic probability

Please, tell me why I am wrong in your own words. Is there any atheist who does not believe that the proposition "God(s) exist is false? And how could the term atheist apply meaningfully to anyone not taking that stance?

Atheism is not the claim that gods do not exit. It is the disbelief that gods do exist.

Atheism is the response to a claim, not a claim in itself.

Theists claim a god exists, I am unconvinced their claim is true, so I disbelieve it.

[Simon Moon]

That's your opinion, buddy.  Not a fact.  The fact is that they have told you..many times..and you were aware of that when you posed the question..and this is all performative.  You actually do understand that there's a difference between an agnostic atheist, which the boards are filthy with..and a gnostic atheist...which are thin on the ground here and everywhere else.  Which is to say, that not only is this all performative, you knew beforehand that your comments and declarations themselves were complete and utter bullshit.

I want you to consider the idiocy of complaining to me..an actual living breathing gnostic atheist...about agnostic atheists redefining common words to avoid criticism?  What criticism you fucking loon, I keep asking.  I'm the guy you're looking for, they're not.  If agnostics are the ones redefining these words for some Very Not Good purpose...then wtf has that got to do with me?  I can acknowledge it.  What's your deal?

An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron just like a Christian atheist. Semantic games to blur essential distictions.

It is only through using the colloquial definition of agnostic, instead of the formal definition that would have one thinking they are oxymorons.

Agnosticism is a position that concerns knowledge. Atheism is a position that concerns belief, or lack there of.

As long as one understands the difference between knowledge and belief, then it should be pretty easy to understand how agnostic-atheism is not an oxymoron.

[The Grand Nudger]

If Neo told me he had some credible honest apologetics in his pocket, I wouldn't believe him. That's not to say that I think I know for sure that he doesn't. I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

[Mister Agenda]

There's only one thing essential to anyones atheism, and you've been here long enough to know that, though it's obviously frustrated you the entire time.

Indeed. Belief that the proposition "God(s) exist" is false.

If you want to make it a belief, 'belief that the proposition 'God(s) exist' is insufficiently evidenced to reasonably warrant acceptance' would be one you'd find a lot of agreement with around here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Said the girlfriend with one black eye, what are you doing, going for two?

He's already told you, that's self protective in-group bullshit for intellectual pansies. A way for you to dodge Something™..though he doesn't seem to be too keen on explaining what that may be.

[Mister Agenda]

How or why is it that after all of this time, and the vast majority of atheists that you've ever interacted with on this board telling you flat out that they wouldn't call it true or false, but inconclusive...and seeing them disagree, bluntly, with those few who would affirm that statement....that you still insist on this?

Because it is self-protective in-group bullshit for intellectual pansies who would rather pride themselves in a quality they share with cabbages, i.e. lack of belief, than openly take a stance with all the attendent responsiblities for that stance. Just because you repeat and insist on redefining common words to avoid criticism or from some misguided attempt to secure the mantel of normative belief...talking louder does not make it true.

Theist: A person who believes in a God or gods.
Atheist: A person who doesn't believe in a God or gods.

No cabbages referenced. And atheists have been using the term this way since the 1800s.

The Atheist does not say “There is no God,” but he says, “I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.” Charles Bradlaugh, 'A Plea for Atheism', 1864

[R00tKiT]

I think it's better to define the word "atheism" as an umbrella term, there are essentially two subsets of atheism : 

soft/weak atheism/agnosticism  (=disbelief in God)
strong/hard atheism (= belief that there is positively no God)

The fact that most atheists here are soft atheists, doesn't mean we should eliminate the other subset of atheism from the dictionary. 

And needless to say that hard atheism is not rational.

[Jehanne]

I think it's better to define the word "atheism" as an umbrella term, there are essentially two subsets of atheism : 

soft/weak atheism/agnosticism  (=disbelief in God)
strong/hard atheism (= belief that there is positively no God)

The fact that most atheists here are soft atheists, doesn't mean we should eliminate the other subset of atheism from the dictionary. 

And needless to say that hard atheism is not rational.

As a "soft atheist", I do not think it irrational to say that there is no God to the same extent that there are no fairies, pixies, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.