Christian to atheist?

Originally posted by JS357
The complication I have seen come up, is the notion that "I don't know" implies "It is possible" that deity exists.

Edit: I have seen this false implication drawn by both theists and atheists.

It does not imply that. Nor does it imply "It is not possible that deity exists." (Edit: Of course. It has no ontological implications, it is an epistemic statement about one's own mental state.)

I think the position that athiests are taking; that they are correct and thiests have to prove them wrong by producing physical evidence of a metaphysical concept is their way of avoiding the problem of proving a negative and the reason they seem to want to relegate agnosticism to is due to the fact that agnosticism requires them to prove just that. God may or may not exist it is simply not Knowable. I think If athiests were being honest with themselves they would admit to being agnostic when it comes to that question.

Originally posted by JS357
I would disagree that the unconditional statement, "It is quite possible that a deity exists" should be accepted as true. It may be that you do not mean this statement unconditionally.

There is at least one condition I think is needed. It is to define the rules by which the statement would be accepted. For example, a rule could be that any purported beings ...[text shortened]... ue. 🙂 Their lesson for us is to say, "We'll await publication of the alleged proof."

Mathematical conjectures exist within a larger body of work that has many verifiable components. There has never been a verified god. Every claim for the existence of a particular god rests on exactly nothing.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think the position that athiests are taking; that they are correct and thiests have to prove them wrong by producing physical evidence of a metaphysical concept is their way of avoiding the problem of proving a negative and the reason they seem to want to relegate agnosticism to is due to the fact that agnosticism requires them to prove just that. God may ...[text shortened]... being honest with themselves they would admit to being agnostic when it comes to that question.

I am not claiming I am correct. I am not making a claim at all. The only person with a claim on the table is the theist. The burden of proof rests entirely upon his shoulders.

I will admit to being an agnostic atheist, with your much ballyhooed agnosticism being a modifier to my atheism, but that is all.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
But what if the majority of us decide to cange the definition of athiest; surely you will have to call your concept something else I am simply saying that it would be simpler to label the revised concept of athiest something else from the start.

Of course it is easier and more sensible to stick with definitions, or at least use the ones found in dictionaries or the ones most commonly understood. However, my point is that one cannot dictate a definition, nor does a definition carry any real value above communication. One can not argue about the 'true meaning' of a word. One can only argue about what is the commonly accepted usage, discuss what one means by a word, or argue about what is the best usage based on the original meaning of a word or its etymology.

If I where a theist who accepted that there may be no god, what classification would I be in?

Originally posted by divegeester
If I where a theist who accepted that there may be no god, what classification would I be in?

An agnostic theist.

Originally posted by JS357
I would disagree that the unconditional statement, "It is quite possible that a deity exists" should be accepted as true. It may be that you do not mean this statement unconditionally.

There is at least one condition I think is needed. It is to define the rules by which the statement would be accepted. For example, a rule could be that any purported beings ...[text shortened]... ue. 🙂 Their lesson for us is to say, "We'll await publication of the alleged proof."

Deities which are logical contradictions can be dismissed. But that is a hollow victory, for all it demonstrates is that the theist simply doesn't know what he's talking about. There may be a god with a different set of attributes than the ones the theist has listed. So trying to 'disprove' gods is a fool's errand. It's like a game of cosmic whack-a-mole. But more importantly, it is wholly unnecessary. It is sufficient to observe that the theist has failed to demonstrate his claim and that it is therefore unworthy of belief.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think the position that athiests are taking; that they are correct and thiests have to prove them wrong by producing physical evidence of a metaphysical concept is their way of avoiding the problem of proving a negative and the reason they seem to want to relegate agnosticism to is due to the fact that agnosticism requires them to prove just that. God may ...[text shortened]... being honest with themselves they would admit to being agnostic when it comes to that question.

if you believe god is unknowable, then you have taken an extreme view yourself; perhaps something that can be described as a strong atheist/agnostic. there is no way you can know if god is unknowable.

if you define god as the unknowable, then you have fallen into the same trap as the theists with their god of the gaps, and that domain of god will change in indirect proportion to knowledge.

even russell didn't believe that god is unknowable.

from the essay: what is an agnostic?

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

he's right as far as knowledge is concerned. but that gap of the unknowable has shrunk considerably since he wrote that in 1953, and it continues to shrink.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think the position that athiests are taking; that they are correct and thiests have to prove them wrong by producing physical evidence of a metaphysical concept is their way of avoiding the problem of proving a negative and the reason they seem to want to relegate agnosticism to is due to the fact that agnosticism requires them to prove just that. God may ...[text shortened]... being honest with themselves they would admit to being agnostic when it comes to that question.

The problem you have is that your appraisal of the situation is completely and utterly wrong. You act as though there are theists on one side, making the claim that god exists, and that there are atheists on the other side making the claim that god does not exist, and, finally, that there insufferably smug agnostics in the middle rolling their eyes at the opposing camps.

Wrong.

There is only one side. There is only one claim. And it is the theist's claim that god exists. Atheists are not claiming the opposite. They are observing that the theist's claim has not been demonstrated and therefore it is unworthy of belief. There may indeed be gods flitting about, but as the theist has failed to demonstrate his case, belief must be withheld. The claim will be treated as though it were false, without making any pretense whatsoever that it is false.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if you believe god is unknowable, then you have taken an extreme view yourself; perhaps something that can be described as a strong atheist/agnostic. there is no way you can know if god is unknowable.

if you define god as the unknowable, then you have fallen into the same trap as the theists with their god of the gaps, and that domain of god will chan ...[text shortened]... he unknowable has shrunk considerably since he wrote that in 1953, and it continues to shrink.

I think your getting confused between the veracity the bible/ koran/ any other description of god; and wether or not god or gods, do or dont exist; if there has been some actual evidence for the non existence god or gods since 1953 I'd be grateful for a link. As for the assertion that I am claiming that god is not knowable I am simply expressing the sum of the evidence availible thus far. I think any other position must by definition be to some extent, an act of faith.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think your getting confused between the veracity the bible/ koran/ any other description of god; and wether or not god or gods, do or dont exist; if there has been some actual evidence for the non existence god or gods since 1953 I'd be grateful for a link. As for the assertion that I am claiming that god is not knowable I am simply expressing the sum of ...[text shortened]... ble thus far. I think any other position must by definition be to some extent, an act of faith.

the confusion is on your part. i did not indicate specific belief systems since my comments are geared for the general case.

there is nothing that is "unknowable." there are only things that we do not currently know. there is a vast difference between the two. it seems from what you say above that you are pretty much in agreement with this and you're just repeating what i said, i don't see why you're presenting it as an argument of opposition.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the confusion is on your part. i did not indicate specific belief systems since my comments are geared for the general case.

there is nothing that is "unknowable." there are only things that we do not currently know. there is a vast difference between the two. it seems from what you say above that you are pretty much in agreement with this and you' ...[text shortened]... t repeating what i said, i don't see why you're presenting it as an argument of opposition.

I am afraid until you show me some evidence for the non existence of god or gods or even one cosmologist who claims we know everything there is to know about the physical universe, or perchance a God or Gods who illuminate our forum with absolute proof of their existence then I shall continue to keep my mind as open as I possible can and call myself an agnostic.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I am afraid until you show me some evidence for the non existence of god or gods or even one cosmologist who claims we know everything there is to know about the physical universe, or perchance a God or Gods who illuminate our forum with absolute proof of their existence then I shall continue to keep my mind as open as I possible can and call myself an agnostic.

your reply has nothing at all to do with the line of discussion we were having, it shows that you have completely failed to comprehend it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your reply has nothing at all to do with the line of discussion we were having, it shows that you have completely failed to comprehend it.

No it just proves your being obtuse because Its not as simple as tearing down the straw man that is the bible, your simply wrong. I still see no evidence for your position. Perhaps you should just shut your eyes and maybe the agnostic position will go away; but dont hold your breath.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I think the position that athiests are taking; that they are correct and thiests have to prove them wrong by producing physical evidence of a metaphysical concept is their way of avoiding the problem of proving a negative and the reason they seem to want to relegate agnosticism to is due to the fact that agnosticism requires them to prove just that. God may ...[text shortened]... being honest with themselves they would admit to being agnostic when it comes to that question.

Some atheists may take the stance that their belief that no deity exists, is a default position that requires no justification. I would say fine for them, but if they want me to believe it needs no justification, they have the burden of proof. Maybe they can do it, maybe not. And they certainly don't owe me a proof.

But I don't think the statement "God may or may not exist" is as automatically acceptable as it seems. If it is equivalent to the statement "It is possible that God exists" then I would ask for the justification, if any, of the statement that it is possible. Some agnostics seem to miss this point.

I for one identify myself as a non-theist on the basis of looking for belief in deity in myself and finding none. I do believe some formulations of deity are logically impossible, but I think the Christian deity is not well enough defined to allow this to be determined. This fact (if it is a fact) does not require me to agree that the Christian God is possible.