Fed up of non believers

[ivanava]

Getting it now. Agnostic and believe it is an otiose discussion.

 

As for your previous comment that atheism isn't a belief, do atheists believe that God does not exist?

 

Do atheists have proof to confirm that contention?

 

If they believe something to be true without proof then they BELIEVE it, yes?

 

That makes atheism a belief whether you like it or not.

 

Agnostics are believers only in the matter of believing that mankind will never know the answer.

 

We cannot prove that contention, which makes it only a belief.

 

But you must be giving God some characteristics in order to form that belief, which is a very illogical thing to do.

 

And do you believe that its possible that a non corporal monkey sits on everyone's shoulder, if not, why not? If you do think its possible what was your reasoning behind it?

[mjw47]

Obviously, you aren't indifferent given some of your earlier arguments & comments. You also seem to be confusing knowledge or a lack of with belief. If you are apathetic, it would mean you hold no positive belief in God's existence(if you did you wouldn't be apathetic). So just by being apathetic, you also have an absence of belief in God's existence. This is where your argument or claim to be purely agnostic fails.

 

 

 

Again the root of atheism is the absence of belief: the positive belief there is a god is absent from their mind. Babies, and those who have never been exposed to the claim God exists - or those who haven't come up with the belief in God - are default atheists because this(they have an absence of belief). Those who have been exposed to those claims, but reject those claims due to lack of evidence, or because it's "unknowable", still have an absence of belief in Gods existence.

 

Atheism makes no knowledge claims; although some atheists may state a god doesn't exist - or claim to know a god doesn't exist. This is secondary to absence of belief. And this is where you are getting confused.

 

The word atheist itself refers to God in it's meaning, 'without God', which is a claim in itself - I am without a God - an atheist is claiming an absence of belief in a deity.

 

In order to claim that you do not hold a belief, you must have an opposing point of view, agreed?

 

Some thought must have gone into you deciding to take that view?

 

Had you decided that no decision could be reached either way because of lack of proof then you would be an agnostic.

 

You however, have decided to refer to yourself as an atheist, which presumably means that you have decided on the balance of probability that you cannot hold a belief in a God?

 

A decision has been reached by you following some thought, you cannot however provide proof of the validity of your view.

 

This, whether you like the description or not, makes you a 'believer.

 

Belief is the state in which an individual holds a conjecture to be true.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven.

 

As to my claim to be purely agnostic failing ,you do understand the words 'Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves', don't you?

 

The reference to knowledge in the word agnostic is to an absence of it.

 

'a' without + gnostic knowledge.

 

As there is no actual knowledge currently available as to the existence or non existence of God(s), and as we believe such knowledge will never be available, we believe the rational way to deal with the situation is to accept that the jury is out, and liable to remain that way, so why give it any consideration?

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2014 at 15:51 ----------

 

But you must be giving God some characteristics in order to form that belief, which is a very illogical thing to do.

 

And do you believe that its possible that a non corporal monkey sits on everyone's shoulder, if not, why not? If you do think its possible what was your reasoning behind it?

 

Why? If I don't believe or disbelieve in equal measure why would I waste time giving God characteristics?

 

And what the hell is it with you and the monkey?

 

And did the monkey used to be a sergeant or do you mean non corporeal?

( cheap shot, but come on, who could resist? )

 

And whilst billions of people throughout the world believe in deities and I neither believe nor disbelieve them why would some irrational poster on SF ask me to believe in a monkey with no body?

Edited March 16, 2014 by mjw47

[Ryedo40]

In order to claim that you do not hold a belief, you must have an opposing point of view, agreed?

 

To have an absence of belief, no opposing belief is necessary. If I do not know or I am not aware of what exists, then the belief in what exists is absent(it's just not there.)

 

I'll make easier for you: I do not know or I am not aware of what is in the box. Therefore, what is in the box - if anything - does not exist to me. I have an absence of belief(this is why I'm atheist). If I wanted to, I could guess what is in the box, but guessing isn't believing my guess is true. Theists, on the overhand, guess a God is in the box - and they are theist because they believe their guess is true(they hold the positive belief God exists.) I find no reason to believe their guesses - or what they claim is evidence supporting their view. I do not hold the positive belief God exists, I have an absence of that belief. This does not mean a God is not in the box.

 

I am agnostic atheist. However, your pure agnostic stance - with your indifference either way, fails. If you are indifferent, then you cannot hold a positive belief that God exists. You must have an absence of that belief(meaning you are atheist.)

 

Agnosticism is joined at the atheist hip whether you like it or not.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Ryedo40

[ivanava]

The word atheist itself refers to God in it's meaning, 'without God', which is a claim in itself - I am without a God - an atheist is claiming an absence of belief in a deity.

 

So you can only be with or without God, there isn't any middle ground.

 

 

In order to claim that you do not hold a belief, you must have an opposing point of view, agreed?

 

Some thought must have gone into you deciding to take that view?

 

Had you decided that no decision could be reached either way because of lack of proof then you would be an agnostic.

 

You however, have decided to refer to yourself as an atheist, which presumably means that you have decided on the balance of probability that you cannot hold a belief in a God?

 

A decision has been reached by you following some thought, you cannot however provide proof of the validity of your view.

 

This, whether you like the description or not, makes you a 'believer.

 

Belief is the state in which an individual holds a conjecture to be true.

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven.

 

As to my claim to be purely agnostic failing ,you do understand the words 'Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves', don't you?

 

The reference to knowledge in the word agnostic is to an absence of it.

 

'a' without + gnostic knowledge.

 

As there is no actual knowledge currently available as to the existence or non existence of God(s), and as we believe such knowledge will never be available, we believe the rational way to deal with the situation is to accept that the jury is out, and liable to remain that way, so why give it any consideration?

 

Why? If I don't believe or disbelieve in equal measure why would I waste time giving God characteristics?

 

You must have made a decision on what God is, in order to belief that it can't be known, how can you possibly believe that it can't be known if you have no idea what it is.

 

 

And what the hell is it with you and the monkey?

 

And did the monkey used to be a sergeant or do you mean non corporeal?

( cheap shot, but come on, who could resist? )

 

And whilst billions of people throughout the world believe in deities and I neither believe nor disbelieve them why would some irrational poster on SF ask me to believe in a monkey with no body?

 

You either believe that the non corporeal monkey on everyone's shoulder is possible or you don't, so do you think it is possible that we all have one on our shoulders?

[mjw47]

To have an absence of belief, no opposing belief is necessary. If I do not know or I am not aware of what exists, then the belief in what exists is absent(it's just not there.)

 

I'll make easier for you: I do not know or I am not aware of what is in the box. Therefore, what is in the box - if anything - does not exist to me. I have an absence of belief(this is why I'm atheist). If I wanted to, I could guess what is in the box, but guessing isn't believing my guess is true. Theists, on the overhand, guess a God is in the box - and they are theist because they believe their guess is true(they hold the positive belief God exists.) I find no reason to believe their guesses - or what they claim is evidence supporting their view. I do not hold the positive belief God exists, I have an absence of that belief. This does not mean a God is not in the box.

 

I am agnostic atheist. However, your pure agnostic stance - with your indifference either way, fails. If you are indifferent, then you cannot hold a positive belief that God exists. You must have an absence of that belief(meaning you are atheist.)

 

Agnosticism is joined at the atheist hip whether you like it or not.

 

You believe that on the balance of probability there is nothing in the box.

 

You are not devoid of all thought as to the content of the box, that isn't possible seeing as how you have decided to award yourself a descriptive label, agnostic atheist.

 

I've asked this before, now I'm asking you directly, is it possible to call yourself agnostic without any other additional codicil?

 

---------- Post added 16-03-2014 at 17:52 ----------

 

So you can only be with or without God, there isn't any middle ground.

 

 

 

 

You must have made a decision on what God is, in order to belief that it can't be known, how can you possibly believe that it can't be known if you have no idea what it is.

 

Not according to a lot more knowledgeable people than you.

 

 

I can't know what it is because I don't know what it is?

 

According to theists God is the creator of the universe and all mankind.

I have insufficient evidence to either believe or disbelieve that claim.

 

The monkey analogy is stupid, stop it, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous than usual, which I didn't think possible.

[ivanava]

 

Not according to a lot more knowledgeable people than you.

 

If they think it is possible to be something other than with or without god then they can't be more knowledgeable.

 

 

I can't know what it is because I don't know what it is?

 

Then you can't know that it is unknowable.

 

According to theists God is the creator of the universe and all mankind.

I have insufficient evidence to either believe or disbelieve that claim.

They give God many more attributes than just being the creator, many of which are testable, so it is possible to conclude that they are wrong, meaning there is no reason to believe, and without that belief you are an atheist.

 

The monkey analogy is stupid, stop it, you're making yourself look even more ridiculous than usual, which I didn't think possible.

 

I can fully understand why you don't want to answer the question, it will leave you with a dilemma. If the monkey isn't possible then why would you think God possible, and if you think the monkey is possible then you are crazy, its quite the dilemma isn't it.

[Ryedo40]

You believe that on the balance of probability there is nothing in the box.

 

If that's what I believe, then you believe you have a non-tangible monkey on your shoulder.

 

Already addressed the rest in my previous post.

[mjw47]

If they think it is possible to be something other than with or without god then they can't be more knowledgeable.

 

 

 

 

Then you can't know that it is unknowable.

 

 

They give God many more attributes than just being the creator, many of which are testable, so it is possible to conclude that they are wrong, meaning there is no reason to believe, and without that belief you are an atheist.

 

 

 

.

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

Who said anything about it being possible for there to be something other than a God or no God?

 

I got a load of crap about probability theory, from the usual pedantic 'look at me I'm such a clever little dick' crowd when I pointed out that at the end there either will be, or won't be a God, which is a yes or no endgame.

 

An agnostic isn't claiming there is an alternative, they are claiming no one knows, which they don't, and therefore it's not worth worrying about.

 

It isn't a third possibility, it's a third and alternative way of looking, or in an agnostics case, not bothering to look at the options.

 

Holding an equal amount of belief/disbelief as to each of the two possibilities makes someone an atheist how exactly?

 

Which religion exactly is making these testable claims?

 

There are five main religious beliefs.

 

Judaism

 

Christianity

 

Islam

 

Hinduism

 

Buddhism

 

In addition there are literally hundreds of offshoots from the above five plus Sikhism, Shinto etc etc.

 

Billions of people adhere to these faiths.

 

So which ones have you excluded from any possibility of being correct by means of your infallible test methods?

[skinz]

It's long but a good watch.

 

 

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Seneca.

[ivanava]

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

 

Who said anything about it being possible for there to be something other than a God or no God?

I have no idea, why do you ask?

 

 

I got a load of crap about probability theory, from the usual pedantic 'look at me I'm such a clever little dick' crowd when I pointed out that at the end there either will be, or won't be a God, which is a yes or no endgame.

 

An agnostic isn't claiming there is an alternative, they are claiming no one knows, which they don't, and therefore it's not worth worrying about.

How do you know that no one knows?

 

It isn't a third possibility, it's a third and alternative way of looking, or in an agnostics case, not bothering to look at the options.

 

Holding an equal amount of belief/disbelief as to each of the two possibilities makes someone an atheist how exactly?

You are either with God or without God, there isn't a middle position.

 

 

Which religion exactly is making these testable claims?

 

There are five main religious beliefs.

 

Judaism

 

Christianity

 

Islam

 

Hinduism

 

Buddhism

 

In addition there are literally hundreds of offshoots from the above five plus Sikhism, Shinto etc etc.

 

Billions of people adhere to these faiths.

 

 

All of the above.

So which ones have you excluded from any possibility of being correct by means of your infallible test methods?

 

All of them.

 

God doesn't exist other than in the believers mind, have you decided if the non corporeal monkeyis possible yet.

Edited March 16, 2014 by ivanava