Agnosticism Is *not A Rational Position To Take*

[Checkmate]

.........

Atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

.............

As an atheist, I must take umbrage with this rather over-simplistic defintion of atheism. Read more here.

 

If one MUST attempt to reduce atheism to a simple AND true definition, then one MUST go with the one that I have emphasized over and over again. Break the word down into it's component parts.

 

A- (No or without), THE- (God), ISM- (Belief) = WITHOUT GOD BELIEF. Atheism.

 

Atheism is NOT the DENIAL of god, it is the LACK OF GOD BELIEF. ("Skeptical about the existence of god". Sound familiar?) It is a HUGE semantic difference. If I hold an apple in my hand, then I HAVE it. When I drop the apple, I no longer HAVE it. I am not DENYING the existence of the apple, I just no longer have it.

 

Likewise, I don't have a god belief. Ergo I am an atheist. When I ask you, "Do you have (possess) god-belief?" and you answer, "No", (Or even, "I'm skeptical about it.") this answer says that you are an atheist. KNOWING or not knowing what is god is irrelevant.

 

There is NO "maybe" answer to this question. You either HAVE god-belief, or you do not. You either hold an apple, or you do not. It IS that black and white.

 

One is either an Agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist.

 

 

Y'know, for someone who didn't want to labor much in this thread, I sure am spending a lot of time discussing this. Hey, Asimov! Get back here and take up the gauntlet, dude!

[Thackerie]

Mr. Grinch, With all due Respect sir, I will not admit I'm an Atheist because I'm not an atheist! It's not because I'm afraid to admit it, it's because I'm not an atheist. Because one doesn't "Worship" a god, doesn't mean some sort of higher being doesn't exists. I think its more difficult for you to grasp then us. Why it offends you that some of us hope but don't 'know 'theirs a higher power is beyond me. By your definition I'm an Atheist, by the rest of the world minus Asimov, I'm an agnostic..

 

I'm with you, Japedo, I certainly don't believe that there is such a thing as the biblical god nor do I indulge in any form of worship. But I think it is impossible to know with certainty whether there is some sort of higher power that might be termed "god" (for want of a better word). So I think that makes me an agnostic, not an atheist. But, if other people who have the same mindset want to call themselves atheists, it's no skin off my tushy.

 

As to why some people who call themselves atheists insists that we should all adopt the same label, I can't be sure but I think it may stem from a lack of strong conviction on their part, and from old habits developed during their days in fundie xian cults.

[Checkmate]

Mr. Grinch, With all due Respect sir, I will not admit I'm an Atheist because I'm not an atheist! It's not because I'm afraid to admit it, it's because I'm not an atheist. Because one doesn't "Worship" a god, doesn't mean some sort of higher being doesn't exists. I think its more difficult for you to grasp then us. Why it offends you that some of us hope but don't 'know 'theirs a higher power is beyond me. By your definition I'm an Atheist, by the rest of the world minus Asimov, I'm an agnostic..

Hello, Japedo.

 

Look, I'm not trying to FORCE anything onto anyone. And I DO understand what is going on. And I am NOT "offended" by anything. What I AM trying to bring to the fore is Intellectual Honesty.

 

Am I correct in gathering that YOU possess some sort of "hope" for a "god" or "higher power"? Yet you don't choose to "worship"? If this is your position, then you are correct. YOU are NOT an Atheist. YOU are a DEIST. You believe in a "higher power", but you don't worship. That is perfectly fine with me. I'm not on any crusade to get everyone to be an atheist like me. I'd just like there to be HONESTY in our discussions and dealings.

 

Why are you now getting pissed off at me for trying to bring clarity to everyone's assumed positions?

[Thackerie]

.........

Atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

.............

As an atheist, I must take umbrage with this rather over-simplistic defintion of atheism. Read more here.

 

If one MUST attempt to reduce atheism to a simple AND true definition, then one MUST go with the one that I have emphasized over and over again. Break the word down into it's component parts.

 

A- (No or without), THE- (God), ISM- (Belief) = WITHOUT GOD BELIEF. Atheism.

 

Atheism is NOT the DENIAL of god, it is the LACK OF GOD BELIEF. ("Skeptical about the existence of god". Sound familiar?) It is a HUGE semantic difference. If I hold an apple in my hand, then I HAVE it. When I drop the apple, I no longer HAVE it. I am not DENYING the existence of the apple, I just no longer have it.

 

Likewise, I don't have a god belief. Ergo I am an atheist. When I ask you, "Do you have (possess) god-belief?" and you answer, "No", (Or even, "I'm skeptical about it.") this answer says that you are an atheist. KNOWING or not knowing what is god is irrelevant.

 

There is NO "maybe" answer to this question. You either HAVE god-belief, or you do not. You either hold an apple, or you do not. It IS that black and white.

 

One is either an Agnostic Theist, or an Agnostic Atheist.

 

 

Y'know, for someone who didn't want to labor much in this thread, I sure am spending a lot of time discussing this. Hey, Asimov! Get back here and take up the gauntlet, dude!

 

Sorry, but your convoluted semantics mean absolutely nothing to me. I am going by the simple and clear definition of the words as I know them. If you feel that makes you a superior person to me, then glory, glory for you.

[Japedo]

Mr. Grinch, With all due Respect sir, I will not admit I'm an Atheist because I'm not an atheist! It's not because I'm afraid to admit it, it's because I'm not an atheist. Because one doesn't "Worship" a god, doesn't mean some sort of higher being doesn't exists. I think its more difficult for you to grasp then us. Why it offends you that some of us hope but don't 'know 'theirs a higher power is beyond me. By your definition I'm an Atheist, by the rest of the world minus Asimov, I'm an agnostic..

Hello, Japedo.

 

Look, I'm not trying to FORCE anything onto anyone. And I DO understand what is going on. And I am NOT "offended" by anything. What I AM trying to bring to the fore is Intellectual Honesty.

 

Am I correct in gathering that YOU possess some sort of "hope" for a "god" or "higher power"? Yet you don't choose to "worship"? If this is your position, then you are correct. YOU are NOT an Atheist. YOU are a DEIST. You believe in a "higher power", but you don't worship. That is perfectly fine with me. I'm not on any crusade to get everyone to be an atheist like me. I'd just like there to be HONESTY in our discussions and dealings.

 

Why are you now getting pissed off at me for trying to bring clarity to everyone's assumed positions?

 

 

 

awww Mr. Grinch, I'm not pissed at you... I adore ya..

 

I hope there is a higher power, I Just don't know/believe enough to swear to it. I believe there's honesty on all sides of this debate, Just miscommunication about definitions. I think the large majority that call themselves agnostic, Don't know enough to swear there is a god/higher power. I think the common (I could be wrong here, I often am ) But the Common meaning of Atheist is to believe there is No God. It could just be semantics and definitions of splitting hairs I dunno?

[Saviourmachine]

We all know how to answer the default questions:

• Do you believe that God exists?
  
• Do you believe that God does not exist?
  
• How do you know that God does not exist?
  
• How can you be sure that God does not exist?
  

Competence of answering these questions depends not of the label someone got. If I'm labelled a liberal by a liberal because I like free markets in public transport e.g., I don't give a shit. Nevertheless (s)he shouldn't expect that I adhere to all the default viewpoints of standard liberalism. I'm supporting GreenPeace and am pro nuclear fusion.

 

If a xian defines every set of propositions in a human mind as a belief system and hence atheism as a belief, I couldn't care less.

[Checkmate]

.........

As to why some people who call themselves atheists insists that we should all adopt the same label, I can't be sure but I think it may stem from a lack of strong conviction on their part, and from old habits developed during their days in fundie xian cults.

Thackerie, are you reading the same thread I'm in? If anyone is behaving like a Christian here, it is YOU. Instead of rationally discussing the topic at hand, you keep bringing emotionalism into the fray. You're not dealing intellectually with our posts, but rather you keep retreating into psychoanalyzing us. THAT is right out of the Xian playbook.

 

I've said it over and over again: No one is trying to force any "labels" onto you. I would simply like it for someone to PROVE logically why claiming the position of Agnostic (only) makes sense.

 

I'm willing to be convinced if I am wrong. But so far, I haven't heard anything from the other camp except hand-wringing and whining about being "labelled". (Sounds like Xian modus operandi to me. "When you begin losing, make unsound and unfair accusations of the other person. Don't deal with the topic at hand. Insult and avoid!")

 

I think I'm done here. It really does feel like I'm arguing with sub_zer0 or daniel.

[Thackerie]

.........

As to why some people who call themselves atheists insists that we should all adopt the same label, I can't be sure but I think it may stem from a lack of strong conviction on their part, and from old habits developed during their days in fundie xian cults.

Thackerie, are you reading the same thread I'm in? If anyone is behaving like a Christian here, it is YOU. Instead of rationally discussing the topic at hand, you keep bringing emotionalism into the fray. You're not dealing intellectually with our posts, but rather you keep retreating into psychoanalyzing us. THAT is right out of the Xian playbook.

 

I've said it over and over again: No one is trying to force any "labels" onto you. I would simply like it for someone to PROVE logically why claiming the position of Agnostic (only) makes sense.

 

I'm willing to be convinced if I am wrong. But so far, I haven't heard anything from the other camp except hand-wringing and whining about being "labelled". (Sounds like Xian modus operandi to me. "When you begin losing, make unsound and unfair accusations of the other person. Don't deal with the topic at hand. Insult and avoid!")

 

I think I'm done here. It really does feel like I'm arguing with sub_zer0 or daniel.

 

Sorry, but after being told that my point of view is "moot" (by Asimov) and that I am emotional (by you, which is, BTW, rather dismissive and insulting), I don't feel very welcomed to post in this forum. But, if you are sincere about wanting to hear something other than your own words parrotted back at you and not just being augumentative, let me just say that I think the problem here is that you are trying to force agnostics to proclaim either that they believe or disbelieve when belief doesn't really factor into it. I don't think one can rationally "believe" in something that they don't know exists or not. Maybe that's just me, but it's my opinion and I'm standing by it. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to beat the subject to death, either, so, good day to you, sir.

[Ouroboros]

Your question regarding string theory is, I'm sorry to say, lost on me as I don't understand enough about it to have an opinion.

Exactly my point. You have to be agnostic about string theory until you know more about it, or until scientist have evidence for it to exist or not. While Santalogy can already today, currently in our time, be tested and proven. So those two belief systems are different. One you are agnostic about, while the other you're not. The question of God is more like string theory to me. It can't be tested at present time. So to me you can't compare belief in God with belief in Santa.

[Amethyst]

Why is this so difficult for some of you to grasp? To deny this Truth™ is the very definition of Intellectual Dishonesty.

 

Why do you care so much, anyway? We're not ramming our beliefs down anyone's throat the way Christians do. So why give a crap what someone wants to label themself, when they're not doing anything to you? We have a right to call ourselves whatever the heck we want to in the U.S.

 

Perhaps some people aren't ready to be dragged out of the closet yet -- so why force them? Especially when you haven't met them in RL and they don't live anywhere near you.

[Taphophilia]

Why is this so difficult for some of you to grasp? To deny this Truth™ is the very definition of Intellectual Dishonesty.

 

Why do you care so much, anyway? We're not ramming our beliefs down anyone's throat the way Christians do. So why give a crap what someone wants to label themself, when they're not doing anything to you? We have a right to call ourselves whatever the heck we want to in the U.S.

 

Perhaps some people aren't ready to be dragged out of the closet yet -- so why force them? Especially when you haven't met them in RL and they don't live anywhere near you.

 

I agree, why does it matter how one is comfortable in labeling one self? It's not my call.

 

I call myself agnostic because I am very comfortable in accepting the possibility that there may be a god/surpreme being/deity, while at the same time I am very comfortable in accepting that there is no god/supreme being/deity.

 

I think the difference lies in that athiests want proof before acceptance, while agnostics understand there is no proof either way and are at least open to the possiblity either way without proof.

 

Taph

[Vigile]

Your question regarding string theory is, I'm sorry to say, lost on me as I don't understand enough about it to have an opinion.

Exactly my point. You have to be agnostic about string theory until you know more about it, or until scientist have evidence for it to exist or not. While Santalogy can already today, currently in our time, be tested and proven. So those two belief systems are different. One you are agnostic about, while the other you're not. The question of God is more like string theory to me. It can't be tested at present time. So to me you can't compare belief in God with belief in Santa.

 

Ok, let's try it another way. I am not agnostic that an invisible fairy lives in my bathroom. I can't know for sure that she doesn't exist and in fact live there and I can not prove that she doesn't since she is invisible and undetectible by any other known measures. Why is this fairy idea any different from a god idea? Both ideas are just as unprovable and to me just as outlandish. Do I have to take the position of "agnostic" for all things that I can't possibly know or understand?

 

To me even the term agnostic somehow gives credibility to the theistic position when IMO it deserves no credibility whatsoever. No one has ever offered any proof for such a position that is worth the paper it was written on and in fact the idea of god is just so ambiguous that I don't even know what it is that I'm supposed to be agnostic about.

 

There are a lot of things that I do not know nor understand. If I have to be labeled agnostic about them that is fine, but I refuse to be labeled agnostic about something that is just as ill conceived and ill defined as the invisible fairy that may or may not live in my bathroom. To label me as such would be to completely negate any meaning of the word agnostic.

 

BTW, it's good to have you back to debate with. You always challenge me. Sorry about your pop.

[Thackerie]

If I have to be labeled agnostic about them that is fine, but I refuse to be labeled agnostic about something that is just as ill conceived and ill defined as the invisible fairy that may or may not live in my bathroom. To label me as such would be to completely negate any meaning of the word agnostic.

 

Fine, you're not an agnostic. I wouldn't condescend to call you one if the word so offends you.

 

I, on the other hand, am an agnostic in the original sense of the word. I do not consider myself a deist because I don't profess to believe in a deity. I don't consider myself an atheist, in the original sense of the word, because I am not absolutely convinced there is no deity (or higher power). I am open to the possibility either way but I don't "know." Therefore, I am an agnostic, and the label suits me just fine. If that bothers anyone, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

[BigToe]

If someone has looked at the evidence both for a god and against a god and finds them both in want, it makes sense to me that they neither profess a belief in god or a belief in no god. I also don't think someone must live as if they believe in a god or believe there is no god. Why can someone live as though they don't believe in god but neither believe there is no god? It really isn't as if agnostics sit there and question "hmm do i believe in god? yes, ok then I do this" or "no, then i will do this instead." I would say that a great number of agnostics live as if they don't know either way. I don't think people must consider it at all times or be consumed by it to live one way or the other only.

 

I neither hope god exists or hope god doesn't exist. Does that mean I don't care? Perhaps. I see it as hoping for something I can't know isn't the most rational thing to do or contemplate daily, so I don't.

[Mike D]

When I left Christianity I called myself agnostic for about a month but I think that's because I didn't really understand all the philisophical jargon or mumbo-jumbo so to speak, whether theist, deist, atheist, agnostic, etc. But eventually my understanding came to be that I would have to end up either atheist or deist, because after all at the end of the day when it comes to the generic "god" question there either is a god or there isn't... plain and simple it's either Door #1 or Door #2, there isn't a Door #3. So, I picked a door.

[BigToe]

But why should we force someone to choose one when they don't believe either?

[Ouroboros]

Ok, let's try it another way. I am not agnostic that an invisible fairy lives in my bathroom. I can't know for sure that she doesn't exist and in fact live there and I can not prove that she doesn't since she is invisible and undetectible by any other known measures. Why is this fairy idea any different from a god idea? Both ideas are just as unprovable and to me just as outlandish. Do I have to take the position of "agnostic" for all things that I can't possibly know or understand?

Well, I think the invisible fairy or IPU fare better in comparison than Santa, since it by it's definition impossible to disprove. The question of God according to agnosticism is too incoherent to even have a definition. i.e. the Christian God that do have a definition (his attributes are fairly well defined) can be disproven, while the 'unknown' god can not, since it's definition is not set.

 

(You do understand I'm not defending my own position, since I'm an atheist, but I'm on the wall with the agnostics and defend it for them. )

 

To me even the term agnostic somehow gives credibility to the theistic position when IMO it deserves no credibility whatsoever.

True, it kind of does. But it also gives some credibility to atheism as well.

 

No one has ever offered any proof for such a position that is worth the paper it was written on and in fact the idea of god is just so ambiguous that I don't even know what it is that I'm supposed to be agnostic about.

Exactly, that's why the definition say "the existence of God or gods is unknown, unknowable, or incoherent." Basically, the definition of what/who god is, is so impossible to set, so we can't know if there is a kind of god or another kind of god that haven't thought about yet, and we can't prove that this 'unknown' god doesn't exist. So, in a sense, agnosticism gives some support for deism.

 

There are a lot of things that I do not know nor understand. If I have to be labeled agnostic about them that is fine, but I refuse to be labeled agnostic about something that is just as ill conceived and ill defined as the invisible fairy that may or may not live in my bathroom. To label me as such would be to completely negate any meaning of the word agnostic.

I think most people can make up their minds of what they believe, and hence not be 'pure' agnostic anymore. Some decide to still keep the option open, and are agnostic by choice. Some decide to be uninformed of any reasons to make the standpoint. And I only defend their right to do so, even though I don't belong to that group anymore.

 

BTW, it's good to have you back to debate with. You always challenge me. Sorry about your pop.

Thanks. It's always good to be back here and throw darts in random directions and see who get hit and start throwing back! We'll see for how long I'll be on and discussing, but if I disappear again it'll be only temporary. I'll always come back as a nasty weed in the garden.

 

And regarding my dad, I'm surprised that I didn't feel panic and a pending religious return of my mind when it happened. I know he's gone, and I doubt I'll see him again somewhere over the rainbow, and I feel deep loss and sorrow, but again it didn't break me to a point to reconvert! Kind'a shows how certain I am about my views.

[Ouroboros]

You're right Serene.

 

What about the question regarding life on other planets? Do we know? No. Can't be believe there is, or decide not to believe? Yes. Do we have to, or can we stay undecided about the question? Yes.

 

So one can be agnostic about "life on other planets".

 

Can we confirm it today? Not with our current technology. Only if we do find alien life have we proven the standpoint, but as long as we can't travel to each planet in the universe, we can't confirm the non-existence yet. We might be able to one day in the future though.

[Mike D]

But why should we force someone to choose one when they don't believe either?

I don't think we should force anyone to do anything, I am just saying for me that's what it came down to.

 

But one thing you said I don't really understand..... how can someone not believe either? Isn't that just willful ignorance? The question is pretty simple either something exists or it doesn't. I can see how someone might be unsure, but to me that's not the same as saying I don't believe one way or the other, it's saying I am inconclusive on the matter pending further investigation, evidence, etc. Maybe they just need more confidence to make a belief statement one way or the other. Or maybe they just don't care one way or the other, and want to label themselves as something anyway.

 

I think for someone to say they are agnostic with no belief statement one way or the other is to say I am not comfortable making a belief statement because <insert reason here> so this is where I stand. Agnostic.

[Checkmate]

But why should we force someone to choose one when they don't believe either?

"Force"? Okay, this is where I keep getting lost.

 

How is having a discussion “forcing” someone to change their views or position?

 

I THOUGHT that this was a DISCUSSION forum, where individuals were free to DISCUSS ideas, beliefs and whatnot. Since when did it become mandatory to have a legitimate reason to discuss anything? Why does the subject have to “matter”?

 

Since when did simply discussing a subject and arguing your point mean that you were “forcing” someone to do your will?

 

And when did we decide that we were all on the same “team”? When was it ruled that we as individuals could not question/debate other “teammates”?

 

I suppose it’s alright to lambaste and criticize CHRISTIAN beliefs, “forcing” THEM to come out of THEIR closet. But when it comes to ANY OTHER belief system, from members of “our team”, the rules change. That is a no-no.

 

I wasn’t aware that I was violating some Rule of Ex-Christian Forum Etiquette. Apparently there is one that reads, “Thou shalt not question, debate or challenge any beliefs other than Christianity.” I must have missed the memo.

 

I’m sorry that in DISCUSSING particular beliefs (and obviously scoring points for “my side”) I have somehow “forced” some of you out of the closet. I never realized my words had this kind of power.

 

Maybe I need to go on ChristianForums and convert the faithful, since a well-argued position is obviously all that is required to “force” a stranger “out of the closet”.

 

 

P.S. – Please don’t discuss or examine my atheism because I am much too fragile in my unbelief to tolerate such scrutiny.

[Thackerie]

But one thing you said I don't really understand..... how can someone not believe either? Isn't that just willful ignorance? ... I think for someone to say they are agnostic with no belief statement one way or the other is to say I am not comfortable making a belief statement because <insert reason here> so this is where I stand. Agnostic.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. What I cannot for the life of me understand is how someone can "believe" or totally disbelieve in something without knowing, or at least having a strong conviction, that it really does or does not exist. Of course, maybe it's just me, because I never really was a fundamentalist xian who felt compelled to do all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to convince myself and others that I was a believer. That's why some of this discussion about something called a "god belief" that supposedly everyone simply MUST have seems like total bullplop to me.

[Asimov]

Well, I admit that I misunderstand how you are trying to twist the clear and simple meaning of words. Here's how the terms are defined at dictionary.com and how I and most other English-speakers understand them:

 

It's not a twist, and what you said here:

 

"atheism is the conviction that there is no deity in any form whatsoever"

 

Is not the same thing as what you said here:

 

Atheist:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

 

If you're gonna go by the dictionary.com, then go by it and stop changing the meanings.

 

Simply and clearly, atheism is the disbelief in a god or gods. By disbelieving in a god or gods, you deny they exist. Great, that's what I've been saying about atheism since my first post.

 

Now that we got that out of the way...

 

Agnostic:

1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

 

So you claim it is uknowable:

 

To make an absolute statement like that is nearly as retarded as claiming that Elvis never did drugs. In order to make such a claim, one would have to know every single epistemic system that will ever arise. Unless there is a condition placed on this statement such as "at this time, it is unkowable if there is a God".

Of course, that is an obtuse statement. If one is to define God, then we can know whether or not, through evidence and logical argumentation whether or not this kind of God is a valid concept. If there is no evidence then we are back to square one of it being unkown and therefore the atheistic position is a natural one.

 

We must ask ourselves these questions:

 

1) What definition of God are you using?

2) Why is it impossible to know if God exists?

3) How do you know it is impossible to know if God exists?

 

I stand by my comment. I am an agnostic, under definition 1. I am not an atheist. I have arrived at this conclusion after years of thinking about it and studying religious topics, so I believe it is at least as rational as your own viewpoint (unless, of course, you also have your own private definition of "rational"). And, BTW, I have as much right to comment on this board as you do.

 

Your position is irrational, I have been using the same definition from post 1, and your conclusion is invalid. You have as much right to comment, doesn't mean your comments are valid or informed.

 

 

 

 

We all know how to answer the default questions:

[*]Do you believe that God exists?

 

No.

 

[*]Do you believe that God does not exist?

 

Wordplay...same thing as the first one.

 

[*]How do you know that God does not exist?

 

I don't.

 

[*]How can you be sure that God does not exist?

 

Through logical argumentation and lack of evidence to support Gods existence.

[BigToe]

Apparently people have read into my words something I wasn't implying or trying to say, so I appologize for any responsibility in the miscommunication that stems from my end. I wasn't saying anyone here was forcing anyone to do anything (I personally don't think we should "force" anyone - including christians - about what they should or shouldn't believe). Nor did I say you couldn't question another person's beliefs or how they arrived to them. What I was saying is that there isn't just the choice between Door 1 and Door 2. Someone can choose not to enter either door and we shouldn't make them choose to enter a door they don't want to go in. You can question someone all day and night why they rather remain outside, but I don't think anyone should make anyone else pick one unless that person chooses to do so on their own.

 

As for not believing either- I don't believe God exists, but I also don't believe God doesn't exist. I don't find it a hard choice. It really doesn't matter to me either way and has no bearing on my life at this point. Now, should I find suitable evidence in the future to say that yes a god exists or no, no gods exist, then perhaps I shall choose to believe one way or the other. Right now, I choose not to make a belief statement as to something I cannot say I know may exist but may not exist, so for now god neither exists nor doesn't exist. Does that make me apathetic and uncaring, I guess to some it does. As it is for me, I see no reason to believe but also see no reason not to believe, so I do neither.

 

Is it being willfully ignorant? I don't think so. I see it as the only way to be intellectually honest with myself. I don't know the answer, so why should I pretend one way or the other. Sure, the question may be a simple yes or no to the question of existence, but until I know the answer, I don't feel qualified to take a stab at it. Does it mean I take this position because I am uncomfortable taking a positive or negative stance? Hell yes it does, taking a stance either way is a stance I don't agree with so I choose to take a nonstance. I see no reason why I should take a stance either. It won't improve the quality of my life, it won't make me smarter, it won't empower me, it won't improve the lives of others or make the world a better place, it won't give me riches or fame or lots of sex. Likewise, not taking a stance doesn't make me stupid or poor, it doesn't make me evil or in want. There is nothing in it for me to make a decision either way. An incredibly selfish reason to not believe or disbelieve something, but being 100% selfless isn't entirely wise either.

[Thackerie]

... To make an absolute statement like that is nearly as retarded as claiming that Elvis never did drugs. ...

 

I am bored with this entire subject. I merely expressed my opinion, which you have utterly failed to change, that I am an agnostic, not an atheist and not a deist, based on the original meaning of these words as they are understood by me and most people. Admittedly, I may not be up on the jargon of the club members, but I think you calling my comments mute and retarded says a lot more about you than me.

[Saviourmachine]

[Reformatting = mine]

 

We all know how to answer the default questions:

1. Do you believe that God exists? - No.
   
2. Do you believe that God does not exist? - Wordplay...same thing as the first one. [That's yes?]
   
3. How do you know that God does not exist? - I don't.
   
4. How can you be sure that God does not exist? - Through logical argumentation and lack of evidence to support Gods existence.
   

 

Let I also answer them for myself:

1. Do you believe that God exists? - No. I am apatheist in practise. I live as if there was no God.
   
2. Do you believe that God does not exist? - No. I think it's possible that the universe is a model in a world having an ontological character different from ours. God is the programmer.
   
3. How do you know that God does not exist? - I don't know. But a programmer can program beliefs in peoples mind.
   
4. How can you be sure that God does not exist? - I have no clue. But I consider previous option. (Only a god-programmer can plant such a firm belief in someones mind )
   

The difference between you and me in 1. and 2. is grounded upon a "middleground of belief", namely that someone can neither believe or disbelieve a proposition. I declare you a FenceHitter.

 

Let us move on to other fields of our "expertise":

1. Do you believe that aliens* exist? - No. Until now no evidence is found by astronomy etcetera. The Nazca lines I consider of terrestrial origin e.g.
   
2. Do you believe that aliens do not exist? - No. I think its very probable.
   
3. How do you know that aliens do not exist? - I don't.
   
4. How can you be sure that aliens do not exist? - I have some clue, but it involves a lot of space travelling that isn't possible yet.
   

Also here I can answer "no, no" IMHO. And still I think that asking questions exposes more of the intellectual scope of someone thoughts than the ability of feeling comfortable with certain labels. Maybe its interesting to upgrade this discussion to the types of modal logic that are available.

 

* common sense of the word