Thread: So...if you're SO sure that no "God" exists...

I did read it.

And then I went back to the first two wordsa and said "Well maybe I should point this out." Because you know, that's 86% of the reason NOT to believe.

And I never mentioned any specific religion either.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I did read it.

I was being facetious. I'm sure you read it. It just didn't show in your response.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

And then I went back to the first two wordsa and said "Well maybe I should point this out." Because you know, that's 86% of the reason NOT to believe.

And I never mentioned any specific religion either.

So, if I've given you no proof that I could name all 52 states, in alphabetical order, in less than 20 seconds, but you have no evidence to believe that I can, it's logical for you to actively believe that I can't?

If Travis Pastrana came to you and told you he could do a double backflip on a dirtbike, and there is no evidence that says it's possible, it's acceptable to just assume that he's lying?

I'm not talking about "just not having a belief" in God. I'm talking about "actively believing that one doesn't exist." There is is a difference.

Yes, it is logical to assume that you are lying.

In order for it not, those abilities would have to be so insanely common (i.e. Breathing) that it would be illogical NOT to believe you.

There are 50 states by the way...

Not in Czechaslorussia there is are amn't.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yes, it is logical to assume that you are lying.

In order for it not, those abilities would have to be so insanely common (i.e. Breathing) that it would be illogical NOT to believe you.

Well I'd suppose that is a matter of perspective. To me, the logical stance would be to suspend both belief of disbelief, because amazing feats happen every single day, and what I've experienced as normal, in the past, isn't the end-all / be-all of perfectly possible feats.

Now, if you've seen 1000 people attempt to do a double-backflip, and crash, then ok. I could see how that would make it more logical. But if you have just never seen people (or only seen 1 or 2 people) attempt to do it and fail, I don't find it very logical to assume that the next person, that comes up to you and says they could do it, is lying.

Originally Posted by wasup

There are 50 states by the way...

Whoa, where the fuck was my head at??

Proof before belief.

No proof, no truth, really. No reason to do A, then B.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Whoa, where the fuck was my head at??

I was thinking that maybe you considered Puerto Rico and Iraq states

...Puerto Rico and the PHILLIPINES.

The Philippines gained their independence a LONGGG time ago...

That's a lie.

Can anybody prove that the government is not keeping two states a secret from us? Do you believe that they are not?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

As I said before, it's not necessarily that cut and dry. That is but one interpretation of the word atheist.

"Are you actively for abortion?"

"No."

"So you're against it?"

"No. I just don't care. People can do what they want. Why the hell should I care whether John and Jane Doe abort their children or not?"

In that example, the word "No," when first used, is analogous to the word "atheist." It has more than one implication.

I don't get what you're saying; are you describing someone agnostic to abortion? I don't think that makes sense. Everybody "believes" in abortion in the sense that it exists; but not everybody "believes" that it should be done. I'm not getting the analogy.

I really think it's as simple as I said it was. Agnostics don't have a yes or no answer to the question, "Do you believe in god?", but theists and atheists do. There is no atheist who believes in god, by definition, and no theist who doesn't believe in god. Ultmately, one is wrong, and one is right. Agnostics just can't answer the question, like if someone asked me if I believe that there is gold on Pluto; I really don't believe or not believe that, I just don't know; I consider the answer unknowable to me at the present time, I'm waiting for further evidence either way, etc.

Not believing in god is not the same as saying that an atheist can prove there is not a god, or that an atheist wouldn't change their mind if a god appeared to them. It just means the same thing as not believing in elves, that's all there is to it. I don't get the problem. (Again, I'm talking about god, not the universe, life and everything that some people try to say is "god".)

Seriously, I think people make if much more complex than it really is. As long as you acknowledge the possibility that of course any rational atheist would change their mind with sufficient evidence, there's really no confusion.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No. I, personally, am interested more along the lines of a third interpretation, one in which is analogous to us all being different facets of the same mind, and that one mind being that which governs us, maybe not actively, but indirectly.

I seems exactly like option 2 to me. Once you get into things like "minds" that don't refer to the processes of an actual brain, "governing indirectly" (it's always indirect, because an interested, caring God is obviously out of the question) by some unknown "force", and the use of analogies instead of concrete terms and facts, it's all the same mumbo-jumbo to me. Sorry, maybe you guys know what you are talking about, but I sure don't. Obviously everything is part of the universe, and I'm sure there's weird stuff out there we don't know about.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This probably goes back to what Omega was saying about trying to personify the universe, but it is simply an idea that I'm interested, and one that has been supported (albeit to no degree of certainty) by some credible, scientific paradigms - not least of which are the principles of non-locality, Schrodinger's cat(sp), Holomovement, Bohm's Implicate/Explicate order, and other "less scientific" ideas such as the Akashic Records.

Quantum mechanics is science. It may be weird, it may be hard to understand and counter-intuitive, but it is science nonetheless. If you are talking about science that we haven't gotten around to doing yet, why not say that instead of describing it in some mystical terms like "god"? God is things we haven't figured out yet? Sounds like the same old god to me, it's just advanced from lightning to the uncertainty principle. It may even be the case that there are some things we will never figure out; I think that is probably true, but that still doesn't give us an excuse to name it "god".

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It's not really that I'm trying to get anyone to disprove any one interpretation. It's more that I'm trying to get down to the meat and potatoes of everyone's "atheism," to see exactly how they are viewing themselves, exactly how deep their atheism is, and whether or not they are atheistic (anti-theistic) against only organized interpretations, or the idea of a Higher Being, in and of itself.

How "deep" is relying on evidence (instead of faith, speculation, gut feeling, superstition, etc.) to make up our minds on what to believe? I'd say for most atheists that would be 100%, or else they wouldn't call themselves atheists. Atheists are rare, remember.

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

I think his issue wasn't with infinity, it was with the methodology and steps of your argument.

But anyway Yeah.


For the record, why do you feel the need to call something God?

Throughout the whole debate you have been bending and changing this idea of something simply so you can call it God


Why? Whats so special about needing something to call "God"?

I'd admit I'm kinda new at debating, sorry for my poor skills.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't get what you're saying; are you describing someone agnostic to abortion? I don't think that makes sense. Everybody "believes" in abortion in the sense that it exists; but not everybody "believes" that it should be done. I'm not getting the analogy.

Ah. Bad analogy. Didn't realize it, when I wrote it.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I really think it's as simple as I said it was. Agnostics don't have a yes or no answer to the question, "Do you believe in god?", but theists and atheists do. There is no atheist who believes in god, by definition, and no theist who doesn't believe in god. Ultmately, one is wrong, and one is right. Agnostics just can't answer the question, like if someone asked me if I believe that there is gold on Pluto; I really don't believe or not believe that, I just don't know; I consider the answer unknowable to me at the present time, I'm waiting for further evidence either way, etc.

But, many atheists state that their position is simply one of "not having the belief," (as opposed to having disbelief) so, by your analogy, would you be better related to an atheistic than agnostic? (about the gold on pluto)

You don't have a belief in the gold on pluto, because you're not sure. You would have to have more evidence to believe that it was there.

Many atheists say that they are just without belief. Not belief in the opposite. So, by relating that to your pluto analogy, you would be saying said atheists are actually agnostic. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Not believing in god is not the same as saying that an atheist can prove there is not a god, or that an atheist wouldn't change their mind if a god appeared to them. It just means the same thing as not believing in elves, that's all there is to it. I don't get the problem. (Again, I'm talking about god, not the universe, life and everything that some people try to say is "god".)

Seriously, I think people make if much more complex than it really is. As long as you acknowledge the possibility that of course any rational atheist would change their mind with sufficient evidence, there's really no confusion.

The confusion, for the most part, is in the words "sufficient evidence."
You have to recognize that there are different levels of atheism. While some people who call themselves atheist will say "I just don't carry a belief in God," others will say "There is no God. Period. You're stupid if you believe otherwise," as if they are debating someone on the sum of 2 and 2 equaling four.

When it comes down to debating, many who claim to be the former, will take the position of the latter, sometimes unbeknown to themselves. You cannot band together the entire community of people who declare themselves atheists and say "well they wouldn't react like this, or that" because it's just not accurate.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I seems exactly like option 2 to me. Once you get into things like "minds" that don't refer to the processes of an actual brain, "governing indirectly" (it's always indirect, because an interested, caring God is obviously out of the question) by some unknown "force", and the use of analogies instead of concrete terms and facts, it's all the same mumbo-jumbo to me. Sorry, maybe you guys know what you are talking about, but I sure don't.

Your problem seems to be more with the terminology than the idea. I use the word "God," only because, in relating the many interpretations of God, should a conscious system of waves be the actuality of the universe, that word, as we understand it - in its most fundamental form as a Supreme Being - would stick. I understand that it's not exactly what Christians see as their "God" or the Greeks considered as their "Gods", but it would fit the overall concepts that that (those) words describe.

That said, I would suppose to call it "God" is arbitrary, albeit fitting.

[Edit: By the way, you should check out the book The Holographic Universe, sometime. It's a really interesting interpretation of the whole holographic principle I've been talking about, but told in a way that's really easy (even for me, haha) to understand.]

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Quantum mechanics is science. It may be weird, it may be hard to understand and counter-intuitive, but it is science nonetheless. If you are talking about science that we haven't gotten around to doing yet, why not say that instead of describing it in some mystical terms like "god"? God is things we haven't figured out yet? Sounds like the same old god to me, it's just advanced from lightning to the uncertainty principle. It may even be the case that there are some things we will never figure out; I think that is probably true, but that still doesn't give us an excuse to name it "god".

The study of quantum mechanics is science. Quantum mechanics, themselves, is a natural order. I'm not just throwing the word "God" out there just to say "Well there is stuff we don't know about! Maybe that's God!!" I'm am talking about a, very possible, natural order - that we just might not have figured out yet - and how that order - if self-aware - would be analogous to the "God" many religions are trying to describe. Sure, the terminology maybe a little gag-worthy to some, but the concepts would be similar enough to where the word would fit.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

How "deep" is relying on evidence (instead of faith, speculation, gut feeling, superstition, etc.) to make up our minds on what to believe? I'd say for most atheists that would be 100%, or else they wouldn't call themselves atheists. Atheists are rare, remember.

I don't believe they are all that rare.

And remember, as I said, there are different levels of atheism. The are those that just do not carry the belief, and there are those that carry the belief of nonexistence, and conduct themselves accordingly. That is what I meant by "how deep."

Originally Posted by Omega Weapon

However actually the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not originate in the field of intelligent design.

He originates, and I believe works best, as a counter to the agnostic point of

"we can't prove or disprove God, so theres no point believing fully either way"

The point was that you can say exactly the same thing about an invisible pink unicorn, or a flying spaghetti monster, but you clearly don't believe in them. Even though you can neither prove or disprove their existence.


However he does work in context of intelligent design, and that seems to be the way he is taken by most these days.

Hmm, maybe I'm just a crazy Agnostic, who takes it too far, but I believe in the possibility of the flying spaghetti monster, an invisible pink unicorn, or anything really. I mean damn, I even question reality. I question everything.

I think it is the most scientific stance because the scientific method is not about fact, but theory. Testing and retesting with new information. There is no fact in science, it is about theory.

One of the reasons why is because of dreams. Dreams can be so absurd, but at the time seem completely real. Sometimes you only realize how absurd it was when you wake up. I think it is a possibility what we have been experiencing this whole time may not be true reality, or maybe there is no true reality.

I know a lot of people think I'm crazy for taking this stance, but I think it's logical. Nothing can be proved nor disproved, so I think there is a possibility of anything.

A lot of people misinterpret what I say though. They ask things like "well if you believe there is a possibility of anything, then why wouldn't you jump off a cliff since theres a possibility of anything happening." I base my actions in this reality based on the assumption that it is real. I still think its possible that this reality could be just a sort of elaborate dream, that we can't begin to comprehend. And it's possible that our whole live up to now has just been a implanted memory. I've come up with plenty of possibilities of reality and god, but I don't believe anything.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But, many atheists state that their position is simply one of "not having the belief," (as opposed to having disbelief) so, by your analogy, would you be better related to an atheistic than agnostic? (about the gold on pluto)

Just ask it as a yes or no question, and people are easy to sort out. Theists and atheists can answer the question, agnostics can't. I know there are levels of doubt about whether you think you are definitely right or wrong, after you answer yes or no, both for theists and atheists. But does that mean lots of theist are really agnostics too, because they acknowledge that the may be wrong? Why are only atheists accused of overlapping into agnostic, and never theists?

For agnostic to mean anything, it has to be the people in the middle who just can't answer the simple question--they have to expound on it, and may have many reasons for not giving a simple yes-or-no answer. Theists and atheists can say that they do believe or don't believe, but at the same time recognize that they may be wrong; agnostics say that they just don't have enough information to form an opinion. Otherwise we're all agnostics, right?

You don't have a belief in the gold on pluto, because you're not sure. You would have to have more evidence to believe that it was there.

I don't think that I have enough information to form an opinion on whether there is gold on pluto, therefore I am an agnostic. I have no belief, I have no disbelief. I just don't know. I also don't think it's knowable at the current time, I don't care, the question is irrelevant and meaningless, etc. All those are agnostic answers.

Many atheists say that they are just without belief. Not belief in the opposite. So, by relating that to your pluto analogy, you would be saying said atheists are actually agnostic. Am I wrong?

Not having the belief means that you don't believe, right? You either believe or not, to my way of thinking. "I don't believe there is a god" = "I believe there is no god".

I don't know why atheists are always put thru this semantics thing. Why aren't theists made to prove that they aren't really agnostic? (I don't mean just you, it seems to be a common theme.) Is it the negative that messes people up? Where it goes in the sentence doesn't change the meaning.

The confusion, for the most part, is in the words "sufficient evidence." You have to recognize that there are different levels of atheism. While some people who call themselves atheist will say "I just don't carry a belief in God," others will say "There is no God. Period. You're stupid if you believe otherwise," as if they are debating someone on the sum of 2 and 2 equaling four.

When it comes down to debating, many who claim to be the former, will take the position of the latter, sometimes unbeknown to themselves. You cannot band together the entire community of people who declare themselves atheists and say "well they wouldn't react like this, or that" because it's just not accurate.

I think it just comes down to people's styles of expressing themself, how argumentative they are, what kind of opinion they have of people who don't think like they do, what mood they're in, how logical they are, etc. That's more the "levels" of atheism that I see. If you answer no to the question, you're an atheist, in my opinion. An atheist may have more or less doubt that they are right, I suppose; just like a theist may have more or less doubt that they are right. They still have a belief, one way or the other. Unlike the agnostic, who neither has nor doesn't have a belief.

Your problem seems to be more with the terminology than the idea. I use the word "God," only because, in relating the many interpretations of God, should a conscious system of waves be the actuality of the universe, that word, as we understand it - in its most fundamental form as a Supreme Being - would stick. I understand that it's not exactly what Christians see as their "God" or the Greeks considered as their "Gods", but it would fit the overall concepts that that (those) words describe.

That said, I would suppose to call it "God" is arbitrary, albeit fitting.

Can you define the word "God"? I can't, in the way that you are using it.

[Edit: By the way, you should check out the book The Holographic Universe, sometime. It's a really interesting interpretation of the whole holographic principle I've been talking about, but told in a way that's really easy (even for me, haha) to understand.]

I'll put it on my list, thanks. Did you ever read The Tao of Physics? I liked that on a lot, when I was in my quantum phase a long time ago. The weirdness is described in an easy to understand way.

The study of quantum mechanics is science. Quantum mechanics, themselves, is a natural order.

Is "biology" the science or life itself? Semantics again, I guess.

I'm not just throwing the word "God" out there just to say "Well there is stuff we don't know about! Maybe that's God!!" I'm am talking about a, very possible, natural order - that we just might not have figured out yet - and how that order - if self-aware - would be analogous to the "God" many religions are trying to describe. Sure, the terminology maybe a little gag-worthy to some, but the concepts would be similar enough to where the word would fit.

OK, I understand now. I guess since I haven't heard of any evidence to suggest that such a self-aware thing exists, there's no reason to think that it's there. Lots of things "might be there", it might be fun to think about, but it seems meaningless to argue that it's probably true. Anything's possible, I guess. A "consciousness" seems amongst the most unlikely thing, anyway, to me. It is still anthropomorphizing, in my opinion, just at a seemingly higher level. I say seemingly because I think it's really the same old thing. Just my opinion, no offense--I think it's just human nature, and no matter how educated people are, they can't resist the thought that there's "something more"--which is always this "higher being". Which maybe there is, but I don't see any proof of it.

I don't believe they are all that rare.

5%, I think, in the US. Uncommon, at least.

And remember, as I said, there are different levels of atheism. The are those that just do not carry the belief, and there are those that carry the belief of nonexistence, and conduct themselves accordingly. That is what I meant by "how deep."

Just as there are different levels of theism? See my point? Why does it get so complicated? Three categories. Yes, no, maybe. Theist, atheist, agnostic.

I think that the people that you are saying "don't carry the belief" must be agnostics, if they cannot say that they "believe there is not".

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Whoa, where the fuck was my head at??

actually when I was little the number "52" was drilled into my head. and into my sisters heads as well. and they did a little thing on what people know and a lot of people say "52" as well

for the life of me, I don't know why I was taught "52" states, puerto rico was never a state

anyways, back on topic

have any of you, ever had a moment? Its hard for me to describe this moment.

its happened to me only twice in my childhood, provoked by nothing.

the first time I was ten and playing in my bedroom. then, all of a sudden, it was like time stopped. but it didn't stop. just it was a moment that seemed endless.

in this moment, I no longer knew who I was. I no longer knew where I was. I looked into the mirror *we had a vanity in the room* and I could no longer recognize myself

and I started to ask myself questions

"who am I?" the first response in my head was my name "but I am not a name? who am I really?"

so I started to think. am I, me, because of the things I like? so I looked at my times, but all attachment to them was gone. so I thought "if I stop liking all the things I like, do I stop being me?"

so then I thought of the people I knew. am I who I am because of the people I know? "do I stop being me if I forget everyone I know?"

then I looked in the mirror and recognized it was a girls face "do I stop being me if I stop being a girl?"

again this was all in an INSTANT.

and in that instant I completely let go of every outer attachment that I had perceived as being me. my name. my age. my nationality. the things I like. the people I loved. all of the things 'left me'

my heartbeat rose, I started to panic. it felt like any moment the room would collapse if I stopped believing I was in a room.

I didn't know who I was if I wasn't any of these things. but I recognized too in that moment when I stopped being a ten year old girl, that I still was. that I still thought, that I was still conscious. I wasn't my name! I wasn't my age! I wasn't my gender! I wasn't the things I say or do! I just..was!

"I am!" that was the only answer I could get in the end and in the moment when I got that answer there was a dread, a fear that took over me. because I felt like if I stayed in this moment of just being I would die - because nothing around me really was real, except me. I was the only real thing in this bedroom.

and I felt, that if this moment continued, I would become God - and lose all sense of human identity, and simply be.

I shake my head and I let go of the moment. And my sense of reality changed. the room became stable. I identified myself with my name, my gender, my age, my family, and I went back to playing my game with my toys.

I never wanted to experience that again, at least in my youth - because it made me feel everything I thought I was, everything I do in life, wasn't real. It was all some grand play. and some how, I, 'I' was something else. I come from a catholic background, I was not aware of the belief of the Christ consciousness or God consciousness.

that happened again a second time only about two years later, completely unprovoked. that time, after the moment of just 'being'. it took longer for me to recover from it. I had to go to the mirror to even remember if I was a boy or a girl. because I had no recollection at that moment what a girl or boy was supposed to mentally feel like. all I knew was that 'I am' 'I am me', and nothing else. again I felt like the room would collapse if I stopped believing I was in a room. all that was real, was me.

this would shape my understanding of God as the years passed by. though as an adult I have never had this experience again. I think its because as an adult, I have real responsibilities and goals for my life, where as when I was a child I lived day by day. moment to moment.

(im not athiest, obviously, but I wanted to post my personal experience on a different understanding of God not presented in the churches)

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Edit: Eek, such misunderstanding of atheists. I think all of the atheists here have made clear that they are open to evidence, just like any rational, intellectual person would be.

There is a problem with this statement. The question of god is not about evidence at all; it is about interpretation. The evidence for god is there, it has been there for as long as humanity can remember. The difference between an atheist and a theist is not any amount of evidence, but the interpretation of the evidence at hand. In order to be 'open' to the evidence for god, you must be open to interpretations of the world around you; because the evidence for god is the world around you.

There is no thing that anyone can show to you and say 'this proves god' because, barring the case of a literal anthropomorphic man in the sky god, god is all encompassing. To many theists, every moment of existence is proof of god, and to say "I am open to the evidence" would mean "I am a theist" to them.

As Oneiraut pointed out earlier, there are scientists and philosophers who have shown how the body of evidence that humans currently possess can imply god to a rational and logical thinking human being; respected and famous minds who made lasting contributions to humanity. Bohm was hardly the first to make such suggestions and he hasn't been the last.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There is a problem with this statement. The question of god is not about evidence at all; it is about interpretation. The evidence for god is there, it has been there for as long as humanity can remember. The difference between an atheist and a theist is not any amount of evidence, but the interpretation of the evidence at hand. In order to be 'open' to the evidence for god, you must be open to interpretations of the world around you; because the evidence for god is the world around you.

There is no thing that anyone can show to you and say 'this proves god' because, barring the case of a literal anthropomorphic man in the sky god, god is all encompassing. To many theists, every moment of existence is proof of god, and to say "I am open to the evidence" would mean "I am a theist" to them.

Evidence as in, something that can intersubjectively be agreed upon to exist. That's the difference between science and faith - in science you don't interpret things in arbitrary ways so as to support your presumption that God exists but you simply look at that which is and go from there.

And as I said before, subjective emotions and similar things are not a form of evidence at all. They are mere psychological substitutes for the missing evidence.

Again... it's NOT an argument. Neither to me "personally", nor in any other way. I might just as well say that a giant bunny created the universe and I feel his furry presence every moment I walk the earth. That would be my "interpretation" of the seemingly obvious "evidence".

Originally Posted by Korittke

Evidence as in, something that can intersubjectively be agreed upon to exist. That's the difference between science and faith - in science you don't interpret things in arbitrary ways so as to support your presumption that God exists but you simply look at that which is and go from there.

And as I said before, subjective emotions and similar things are not a form of evidence at all. They are mere psychological substitutes for the missing evidence.

Again... it's NOT an argument. Neither to me "personally", nor in any other way. I might just as well say that a giant bunny created the universe and I feel his furry presence every moment I walk the earth. That would be my "interpretation" of the seemingly obvious "evidence".

I agree; in science, one does not interpret things in arbitrary ways, but the one word that my agreement hinges on is 'arbitrary'. Without interpretation, there is no science, only data. The same thing can be said for religion. This is the problem with the FSM, IPU, FTp, etc., (insert acronym here) arguments; they embody a certain arbitrary-ness with the intention of implying that all religious interpretations are as arbitrary. This is not the case, and I would even go as far to say that no fundamental religious belief or doctrine is arbitrary in nature. They are all rooted in the evidence available at the time of their inception. The older the religion, the more outdated the evidence, therefore the more outdated the interpretation.

The reason why very few people seem to grasp this concept is because the most common modern religions are actually extremely old, and even the newest ones are simply piggy backing off of the older ones. I'm going to make a bold assumption by saying the reason for this is because the intelligent minds of the common era no longer attempt to create religions based on modern information and ideas, they simply become scientists and keep their spiritual/religious beliefs to themselves. Either that or they become buddhists because that one still works pretty well (and is actually still relatively new if you count the 'beginning' of most other religions by the beginning of their proto-judeo predecessors)

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Why are only atheists accused of overlapping into agnostic, and never theists?

That's not true.
There are Agnostic Theists, Neutral Agnostics, and Agnostic Atheists.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Theists and atheists can say that they do believe or don't believe, but at the same time recognize that they may be wrong; agnostics say that they just don't have enough information to form an opinion. Otherwise we're all agnostics, right?

You are making a generalization that doesn't really incorporate the entire spectrum. This may be something that you don't agree with, as an atheist, and some theists don't agree with, as theists, but:

There are people who identify themselves as atheists and believe, strongly, that God does not exist.

There are people who identify themselves as atheists and don't have a belief in God, but don't state actively that "it" doesn't exist.

There are theists who believe God exist, but recognize that they could be wrong, because they do not, logically, know for sure.

There are theists who believe they know that God exist.

It would be nice to be able to break it down into "you're either this or that," but people don't actually identify themselves with such definition. As Dawkins himself recognizes, there are levels to Atheism, just as there are levels to Theism. It's not simply black and white.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't think that I have enough information to form an opinion on whether there is gold on pluto, therefore I am an agnostic. I have no belief, I have no disbelief. I just don't know. I also don't think it's knowable at the current time, I don't care, the question is irrelevant and meaningless, etc. All those are agnostic answers.

But you simply have no belief. According to the way many atheists define themselves as "just not having a belief" you would be "atheist." Do you see the double standard I'm trying to show? It's subtle, but it's there.

Saying "Well, I don't have enough information to decide, either way" may seem like an enough to be an agnostic answer, but to say "Well, I simply don't believe. I don't know, but I don't believe" is enough to be an atheist answer, by some accounts. To say "No. I KNOW that such and such doesn't exist" is enough to be an atheist answer, by some accounts.

It's not very cut and dry...from anyone's stance.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Not having the belief means that you don't believe, right? You either believe or not, to my way of thinking. "I don't believe there is a god" = "I believe there is no god".

So, by this statement, you're saying that there is no such thing as agnosticism?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't know why atheists are always put thru this semantics thing. Why aren't theists made to prove that they aren't really agnostic? (I don't mean just you, it seems to be a common theme.) Is it the negative that messes people up? Where it goes in the sentence doesn't change the meaning.

I think you're mistakenly taking me for someone that only picks on atheists. I would say the same to a hardcore theist. I already recognize that many theists are agnostic theists. I don't really know why you think I'm not just as critical of them.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think it just comes down to people's styles of expressing themself, how argumentative they are, what kind of opinion they have of people who don't think like they do, what mood they're in, how logical they are, etc. That's more the "levels" of atheism that I see. If you answer no to the question, you're an atheist, in my opinion. An atheist may have more or less doubt that they are right, I suppose; just like a theist may have more or less doubt that they are right. They still have a belief, one way or the other. Unlike the agnostic, who neither has nor doesn't have a belief.

In one context, we have gnosticism being hinged upon belief. - "I don't have a belief, either way."

In another context, we have gnosticism being hinged upon "knowledge" - "I may believe one thing, but I don't know.

It depends on who you ask. There are people, in both camps (theists and atheists) who aren't so "solid" about their position, and that causes confusion.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Can you define the word "God"? I can't, in the way that you are using it.

I can only put it into a sense that "with religions hinging on the idea of a supreme being, and/or supreme beings, this possible phenomenon of a 'super-consciousness,' should it exist, would be most fitting of the word that we use to label those ideas."

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'll put it on my list, thanks. Did you ever read The Tao of Physics? I liked that on a lot, when I was in my quantum phase a long time ago. The weirdness is described in an easy to understand way.

Nope. But I will put it on mine.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Is "biology" the science or life itself? Semantics again, I guess.

Biology is the science. The etymology of biology is:

bio/ = life,
/logy = the study of.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

OK, I understand now. I guess since I haven't heard of any evidence to suggest that such a self-aware thing exists, there's no reason to think that it's there. Lots of things "might be there", it might be fun to think about, but it seems meaningless to argue that it's probably true. Anything's possible, I guess. A "consciousness" seems amongst the most unlikely thing, anyway, to me. It is still anthropomorphizing, in my opinion, just at a seemingly higher level. I say seemingly because I think it's really the same old thing. Just my opinion, no offense--I think it's just human nature, and no matter how educated people are, they can't resist the thought that there's "something more"--which is always this "higher being". Which maybe there is, but I don't see any proof of it.

No offense taken. The thing is that it's easy to write something off as something minimalistic, when too convinced of the opposite to consider diligent inquiry. You can't honestly consider any possibility when you're looking for proof instead of small pieces of evidence. If you refuse to suspend whether or not you feel someone's saying "A" automatically implies that they are simply reaching for "B", and you are open-minded enough to look at that "A" as if it is actually substantial until logically refuted, then you are more likely to pass up evidence of "B" because you're simply refusing to acknowledge it as such, for lack of proof.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

5%, I think, in the US. Uncommon, at least.

Just looked into that. Looks like you're right.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Just as there are different levels of theism? See my point? Why does it get so complicated? Three categories. Yes, no, maybe. Theist, atheist, agnostic.

I think that the people that you are saying "don't carry the belief" must be agnostics, if they cannot say that they "believe there is not".

Again, this is only part of what the groups of atheists say for themselves every day. Many atheists claim the "Default Position." They say that they "simply don't carry a belief of."

If what you're saying is true, you're calling a large percentage of self-proclaimed atheists in DV agnostics. Believing in absence is not the "default position." It is the leap of faith that many atheists try to disown.

You don't like my simple theist/atheist/agnostic test of the yes, no, or maybe answer, I take it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You are making a generalization that doesn't really incorporate the entire spectrum. This may be something that you don't agree with, as an atheist, and some theists don't agree with, as theists, but:

There are people who identify themselves as atheists and believe, strongly, that God does not exist.

There are people who identify themselves as atheists and don't have a belief in God, but don't state actively that "it" doesn't exist.

There are theists who believe God exist, but recognize that they could be wrong, because they do not, logically, know for sure.

There are theists who believe they know that God exist.

Yes--you are describing atheists who don't believe, theists who believe. They're still in those two categories. Maybe I'm too simple to think that the subtleties of "how much you don't believe" really mean that their belief is right? Some atheists would give million to one odds, others only hundreds--and the hundred-to-one odd people are somehow really not atheists?

It would be nice to be able to break it down into "you're either this or that," but people don't actually identify themselves with such definition. As Dawkins himself recognizes, there are levels to Atheism, just as there are levels to Theism. It's not simply black and white.

For agnostics it's not black and white, that's true--they feel like they don't have enough information, altho they may lean one way or the other. I know even Dawkins says that, in his 1-7 scale theist to atheist. His two atheist categories are 6) Very low probability, but not zero and 7) "I know there is not god".

Since nobody can "know" there is no god (they can say that, but they can't really know, because you can't prove a negative) the last category is actually meaningless. So all atheists go into category 6, really. (Category 1 and 2 are theist, analgous to the atheist 7 and 6, and categories 2-5 are agnostic). So, one category of atheist.

But you simply have no belief. According to the way many atheists define themselves as "just not having a belief" you would be "atheist." Do you see the double standard I'm trying to show? It's subtle, but it's there.

No I honestly don't. Again, gramatically, "I don't believe" = "I believe not". They are equivalent statements--unless you add the disclaimer "I neither believe, nor don't believe". Either you believe, you don't believe, or you don't know what to believe. How can there be any other choices?

Saying "Well, I don't have enough information to decide, either way" may seem like an enough to be an agnostic answer, but to say "Well, I simply don't believe. I don't know, but I don't believe" is enough to be an atheist answer, by some accounts. To say "No. I KNOW that such and such doesn't exist" is enough to be an atheist answer, by some accounts.

Nobody who is intellectually honest knows one way or the other. I think that is what my problem is with your division of the atheists.

It's not very cut and dry...from anyone's stance.

Except mine, I guess. Only agnostics are confused, and don't know what they really believe.

So, by this statement, you're saying that there is no such thing as agnosticism?

No, I was saying those sentences mean the same thing. Agnostics don't say they don't believe, right? They don't say they believe either.

I think you're mistakenly taking me for someone that only picks on atheists. I would say the same to a hardcore theist. I already recognize that many theists are agnostic theists. I don't really know why you think I'm not just as critical of them.

Oh no, I don't think that. That's why I said I didn't mean just you. It just got me going on the subject. You have to admit it's usually atheists who have to defend their absolute stance. Like everybody's really a theist, and atheists are just being obstinate. Theists always "faith" to fall back on, and that's accepted.

In one context, we have gnosticism being hinged upon belief. - "I don't have a belief, either way."

In another context, we have gnosticism being hinged upon "knowledge" - "I may believe one thing, but I don't know.

Nobody knows for sure either way. You only go with what you believe. (Do you mean agnosticism?)

It depends on who you ask. There are people, in both camps (theists and atheists) who aren't so "solid" about their position, and that causes confusion.

In the Dawkins scale, those people are agnostics.

I can only put it into a sense that "with religions hinging on the idea of a supreme being, and/or supreme beings, this possible phenomenon of a 'super-consciousness,' should it exist, would be most fitting of the word that we use to label those ideas."

OK I see. I get confused about what might be included in this "universal type" god. So it has to have "consciousness"? Something that is hard to define even amongst the simple beings we are familiar with.

Nope. But I will put it on mine.

Yea it's good; oh yea I got to put yours on my Amazon list. I'm not buying anything new this year, so I'm collecting everything that I want to ask for my birthday. So I won't get it for a few months. (I've done really good, I haven't bought anything yet. I haven't run out of anything either. )

Biology is the science. The etymology of biology is:

bio/ = life,
/logy = the study of.

Well I asked because you said quantum mechanics wasn't the science or something. Nevermind.

No offense taken. The thing is that it's easy to write something off as something minimalistic, when too convinced of the opposite to consider diligent inquiry. You can't honestly consider any possibility when you're looking for proof instead of small pieces of evidence. If you refuse to suspend whether or not you feel someone's saying "A" automatically implies that they are simply reaching for "B", and you are open-minded enough to look at that "A" as if it is actually substantial until logically refuted, then you are more likely to pass up evidence of "B" because you're simply refusing to acknowledge it as such, for lack of proof.

Small pieces of evidence would be fine. I don't live my life needing to have absolute proof of everything I believe. I just don't even see the small pieces of evidence. Me not understanding something is not evidence of a higher power. I don't think I'm not open-minded. Maybe it wouldn't take much evidence at all to make me an agnostic--I just don't think it's there. I think all tendencies towards belief in gods is easily explained by human nature, memes, human wishful thinking, etc. Some weirdness in quantum mechanics doesn't automatically make me think "Aha--proof of consciousness exists in subatomic particles!" or something.

Anyway, that's a useless sort of "god", if you ask me. But I guess you didn't ask my opinion of that.

Just looked into that. Looks like you're right.

See, you can throw a lot of those "not have belief" people you are talking about into the agnostic category.

If what you're saying is true, you're calling a large percentage of self-proclaimed atheists in DV agnostics. Believing in absence is not the "default position." It is the leap of faith that many atheists try to disown.

No--I don't think so. I don't think there are very many atheists here who say that they absolutely know there is no god, and can prove there is no god, etc. If you "know" something, you should be able to prove it, right?

O thanks for being the only person whose I've ever discussed this with who didn't insult me every which way. You know, I really can't help that I'm an atheist (even if I didn't want to be one, which isn't the case, I'm fine with it.) If I don't think the proof is there, what can I do about that? Nothing. I have to admit I don't give the same credit of --I think they just aren't admitting that there is no proof.

Oneironaut and Moonbeam, the king and queen of long, bit by bit debate posts. You two are definitely the ones I have ended up in such debates with the most. It's interesting to see you in one with each other.