Then by my understanding of the definition; and I’m not going to claim I know, and what appears to be others understanding of the definition of atheist and agnostic, you would be agnostic not atheist. By definition, now that isn’t to say that the actual practice or belief follows the definition to a T. This I simply don’t know.
the whole thing is muddled, unless we accept my definitions. i do not believe in god, how could i be agnostic? if i have a backpack and i tell you i have a baby dragon in there, i got it when i time traveled back to the time when they existed, you are not gonna just have faith that i am telling the truth. but i am damn sure not letting you look inside. so you cannot prove i am lying. the evidence all points to me lying, but you cant prove it. you quite literally do not know, and cant, because i wont show you. my proposition is non-falsifiable. but let be honest, you dont believe. lets not get tied up on the idea that you cannot know.
Why, no. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make here. That is reasonable for atheists. What is reasonable for agnostics is to be clear about what is known and what is believed. Try to understand. Lack of knowledge is not synonymous with lack of belief.
of course it is! i cant understand. i cant believe in something i know zero about. i have never even heard of any credible evidence for god. so i know nothing of him, how can i believe in him? belief is something we do because we have knowledge of things. without knowledge, there is nothing to believe in! these things are all undefined if we have no evidence, so what are we even using words to describe? and how would be profess to have any faith in these things! lack of knowledge = lack of belief, for every rational person. without any information, how we claim to believ in anything, we dont even really know wtf we are discussing. this is "theological noncognitivism". when we say "god", that doesnt even mean anything, because we know nothing about it. so how could we have any position about it except ignorance and non-faith/belief! one more thing. we do know a little bit about god. we know there is no evidence of his existence. so given that, why would anyone believe? he is logically equivalent to all other propositions that lack any evidence whatsoever. and we clearly would not remain "agnostic" relative to literally every supported proposition. again, agnostic is just a polite thing you tell religious women so you can get some and they will not think you are an ass. women are spiritual and you have to pretend. but we are all random homeez here so you can toss that BS. but it is clear the status of god. he is an unknown, and unsupported by any evidence, that is a fact. so you dont believe in him, case closed.
So says you. There are and have always been atheists who say exactly that. This is inherently contradictory, can't you see? "i lack belief in his existence" = I deny existence "i obviously cannot be certain he does not exist" = existence is possible It is clear from what you maintain that what you really mean is " i lack knowledge of his existence and i obviously cannot be certain he does not exist." Which is accurrate, logical, and exactly what I've been saying all along. Then you are agnostic by this definition. But we know from your earlier rhetoric that you heap scorn on anyone who says they believe, so you professed open mindedness about the possible existence of God really has no credibility. I simply don't believe you. There are only three ways to go here: The supernaturals believe in God absolutely even if knowledge cannot validate it. The agnostics believe in knowledge absolutely but may have faith in God conceptually. The atheists believe in knowledge absolutely and possess no faith whatsover.
Here is a website that talks about this very topic. You might find it interesting. BTW the author of the website considered himself an agnostic atheist prior to converting. “For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult.” Rich Deem Seriously this website discussed in great detail this entire debate. Evidence for God from Science
:insane: They are defined and you simply won't accept them. Beliefs are conceptual in nature and do not require knowledge. Well, nobody is buying it. You clearly don't even understand the definition of "belief" Because the entire world doesn't follow martonian "logic". The fact is that many people do and many others accept it as a possibility. There is an accepted term for such people. Religious women are a waste of effort, junior. They rarely do anything they consider sinful and when they do they are immediately smitten with guilt and expect me to feel guilty, too. But they do say "Oh God!" with great sincerity. I always tell them it isn't necessary, they can call me Red. Mind closed.
HERE I IS!!!!! I am at work and do not have time to really enter a pissing contest where there will be no winners. Maybe tonight, at home, I'll give some of my views so you guys can laugh and have a good time.:thumb:
but how sure are you that you would have the same beliefs if you had been born in rural india? if your beliefs are likely to have been different, how much value can you (or god) give them? i say, most people dont really have a choice.
Faith is not sorely a biblical term. Science uses it all the time. You come to the conclusion based on the concrete evidence at hand. Nothing suggest it has to be just with the eyes. Gravity cannot be seen but can be experienced other ways. Kinda like jumping from a 10 story building. All the way down I might be saying I believe. Radio waves cannot be seen, but I grew up listening to "pick a dixie" football games on my radio on Saturday night. Concrete evidence can be seen in many ways in science as well as in the spiritual realm. Faith is such knowledge proven and shared (after all who really wants to jump 10 stories)? But enough of that, before you know it, I would start using that definition in the "Biblical sense." Red would come by and let me know we don't go there, you are "out of context" to the true spirit (sorry, poor choice of words) to the true texture of our discussion. Well, before I leave can I guess why this discussion sounds like the one in the "evolution" thread?" It would stand to reason if there is a supernatural existence, than so too with God. Why I can see the wheels spinning from here.
