What Would Convince You To Not Believe?

Originally posted by vistesd
Whether vivify intended ridicule or not, I don’t know. There’s plenty of ridicule to go around on these threads. As you know, it is not an arrow that I draw from my debate quiver. But—

His Santa Claus example is not entirely off-point with regard to your comment, as an argument from analogy. Children often believe in Santa up to some age—likely mostly ...[text shortened]... heists on here seem to be strong theists. There is at least one weak theist that I am aware of.

I picked his comment and used it as a generalisation; it is a fair anology of the belief in 'gods' but I stand against the notion that being a theist is result of not growing up. Faith (asI understand it) is more than belief in fairy tales...or is it...

This is an excellent thread, one of the best recently, and it has made me think about my own reasons for belief.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes; and that’s why I think it is demonstrable that agnosticism reduces to weak atheism (lacking belief).

Well no theist or atheist has ever presented any evidence to me that has come close to moving me from my agnostic position, you are all whistling in the dark.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well no theist or atheist has ever presented any evidence to me that has come close to moving me from my agnostic position, you are all whistling in the dark.

If you do not have a belief (a firm conviction) that a god or gods exist you are an atheist.

It's that simple.

It's the default position if you don't know something (in this case if god/s exists) not to believe
it does until evidence is presented that justifies believing it does.

Everyone claiming to be an agnostic (ie they don't know if god/s exists or not and don't currently
believe in one) IS an atheist AS WELL AS being an agnostic.

I don't need to present you evidence to convince you god/s doesn't exist for you to be an atheist.

You already don't have a belief in god/s, so you are already by default an atheist.

Now I would have to present evidence and arguments if I wanted to convince you not just to
not have a belief in god/s but to actively believe god/s don't exist and thus make you a strong
or gnostic atheist.

But to simply be an atheist, or weak atheist, you just have to not believe.

Nothing more is required.


And the two positions theist and atheist are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
So you are either one or the other.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you do not have a belief (a firm conviction) that a god or gods exist you are an atheist.

It's that simple.

It's the default position if you don't know something (in this case if god/s exists) not to believe
it does until evidence is presented that justifies believing it does.

Everyone claiming to be an agnostic (ie they don't know if god/s ...[text shortened]... and atheist are mutually exclusive and exhaustive.
So you are either one or the other.

Things are always simple for theist's and atheists, that is why theist's and atheist's get on so well, one does not really make sense without the other.

You can tell me I am a weak/agnostic atheist until you are blue in your strong/gnostic atheist face, but it will only be true for you, from your atheist viewpoint

I understand your strategy of dividing the world into two camps, and dragooning everyone who has not observed any evidence for the existence of god or gods into the atheist (albeit as a weak/subordinate member) camp, unfortunately I have not observed any evidence for the non existence of god or gods either.

I agree that gnosticism and agnosticism are claims of knowledge/lack of knowledge respectively, which is why I reject the term 'belief' as having connotation's of faith fatally associated with it.

I think that a lot of atheist's confuse a rational rejection of any known dogmatic text purported to be the word of a god or gods by theist's with evidence of the non existence of god or gods.

We need more knowledge, belief is meaningless in it's subjectivity.

Originally posted by vivify
For religious folks here, what would be a legitimate reason to not believe in your chosen? In other words, what kind of evidence would be needed in order disprove the validity of the god you follow?

There are many here who call themselves "ex-Christians"....I do not believe they were true Christians in the first place...A believer who has come to know God can say like Jeremiah, "His word is like a fire burning in my bones".... There is nothing the world can throw at me that would make me change my mind.
It is like getting married, you have a close relationship with your spouse...than someone tries to tell you He or She is not real.

To me, to be an unbeliever is such ridiculousness, so shallow....but I also understand deception. As much as you accuse Christians of being deceived, we feel the same way about you. God opens up our understanding.

The bible so rightly says that the things of God are foolishness to unbelievers. My advise to unbelievers who want to know God....pray, humble yourselves before Him....

Originally posted by checkbaiter
There are many here who call themselves "ex-Christians"....I do not believe they were true Christians in the first place...A believer who has come to know God can say like Jeremiah, "His word is like a fire burning in my bones".... There is nothing the world can throw at me that would make me change my mind.
It is like getting married, you have a close ...[text shortened]... ers. My advise to unbelievers who want to know God....pray, humble yourselves before Him....

1) You say "ex-believers" were never really believers...what about Solomon, who revered God, but turned to worshipping other gods later in life? Since his heart turned from God, are you willing to assert he was never really a believer?

2) The thing with your "spouse" example, is that I don't need faith to believe she's real. You need faith to believe your god's real. Mark Twain once said, "Faith is believing what you know aint so."

3) You say non-believers are the ones who are deceived. Or "shallow". You believe a talking snake fooled mankind into sin. And that a man's wife turned into a pillar of salt. That a god that's commited genocide REPEATEDLY, ordered gays be stoned, and ordered that women be stoned if they're married without being virgins, yet ordered no punishment for men who aren't virgins when they're married...yet believe that this god is "loving" and "just".

If you replace "God" with "Darth Vader", and switch ancient Israel with a futuristic planet...would you believe that the Darth Vader character is just? Like if Darth Vador slew 70,000 minions just because he was mad at one person (like the bible god did when David counted his army)?

If so, please re-evaluate whether you're deceived or not.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Things are always simple for theist's and atheists, that is why theist's and atheist's get on so well, one does not really make sense without the other.

You can tell me I am a weak/agnostic atheist until you are blue in your strong/gnostic atheist face, but it will only be true for you, from your atheist viewpoint

I understand your strategy of dividin ...[text shortened]... of god or gods.

We need more knowledge, belief is meaningless in it's subjectivity.

I am using the word “belief” in the conventional sense of thinking that something is so. The standard definition of knowledge in epistemology is “justified true belief”. That is—

I think that X is the case; I have justifications for thinking that (I’m not just guessing, or else I really couldn’t say that I know); and X turns out to be the case (to be true). So, yes, to believe that something is the case (to think so) is necessary for a claim to knowledge. (This surely just makes sense.)

The agnostic protests: “But I am not making a claim to knowledge!” [“Weak” agnosticism as per JS357.*] Good. The weak atheist doesn’t make a claim to knowledge either; s/he lacks belief based on a perceived lack of justification. Weak atheism is sometimes called agnostic atheism, which may be more precise.

The controversy generally arises when someone asserts that all atheism must be of the strong sort—and active disbelief, or a claim to have a justified true belief that there is no god. But all that atheism requires is an absence of belief, not disbelief (as JS357 points out). Implicit (weak) atheism just means that the absence of belief has not been stated (or perhaps even considered) explicitly.

So, as an agnostic, you cannot (logically) think that there is a god—that is all that absence of belief (in the standard epistemological sense) means. If you prefer to use different terms, that’s fine. But the agnostic still has an absence of belief in god(s)—an absence of “thinking-so” that there is a god.

There used to be a logician (and teacher of logic) on here who argued that both agnosticism and weak atheism violate the law of the excluded middle. If the positions of the agnostic/weak atheist contain a bona fide logical proposition, he might be right. I’m still playing with that . . . From a pragmatic viewpoint, the weak atheist lives his/her life just as would a strong atheist—as if there is no god. From that pragmatic point of view, how does an agnostic live?

_________________________________________________

* Strong agnosticism claims that knowledge is not possible; but that results in the same absence of belief.

NOTE: I understand your rejection of the word “belief” as having become fatally associated with some religious usages of the word “faith”. That is why I used the word “think”—one could rephrase the standard epistemological definition to something like “justified true thought”.

Originally posted by vistesd
I am using the word “belief” in the conventional sense of thinking that something is so. The standard definition of knowledge in epistemology is “justified true belief”. That is—

I think that X is the case; I have justifications for thinking that (I’m not just guessing, or else I really couldn’t say that I know); and X turns out to be the case (to be ...[text shortened]... uld rephrase the standard epistemological definition to something like “justified true thought”.

I could argue that I think anyone who calls them self a weak atheist, should simplify their lives and fess up to being an agnostic, ( all language is a bit semantic, ) but I have never tried to label someone against their will.

"So, as an agnostic, you cannot (logically) think that there is a god—that is all that absence of belief (in the standard epistemological sense) means. "

I also cannot think that there is no god either, because there is no evidence to support the proposition, but your are saying the same apparently, you can call me a weak atheist if you like, but I will keep calling myself an agnostic, and woe betide any atheist I catch telling a theist that god, or gods do not exist. 🙂

Maybe agnostic should be confined to anyone who does not care whether or not there is a god or gods on account of the answer being irrelevant, in the absence of proof either way, I will restrict myself to challenging claims about the existence of supernatural beings for which there is no evidence, whilst keeping my ears pinned firmly back in case some knowledge concerning my own existence drifts by.😞

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes; and that’s why I think it is demonstrable that agnosticism reduces to weak atheism (lacking belief).

I think so too. While agnosticism reduced to (or includes) weak atheism, I think weak atheism does not reduce to even weak agnosticism, or reduces misleadingly. It is certainly true that "I lack belief that P" implies "I do not know that P," but weak agnosticism is associated, rightly or wrongly, with a belief that P (God exists) is possibly true. I don't know even that. I don't know that "God exists" is true because the words refer to an entity being in a state that I do not know is possible. A full analysis is needed, and a full definition of the terms never seems to be made.

However if the weak agnostic also lacks belief that "God exists" is possibly true, without denying it is possibly true, he's where I am.

So there are subtleties that "refuses to believe" misses by a mile. IMO no state of theological belief reduces to that.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I could argue that I think anyone who calls them self a weak atheist, should simplify their lives and fess up to being an agnostic, ( all language is a bit semantic, ) but I have never tried to label someone against their will.

"So, as an agnostic, you cannot (logically) think that there is a god—that is all that absence of belief (in the standard episte ...[text shortened]... ing my ears pinned firmly back in case some knowledge concerning my own existence drifts by.😞

"Maybe agnostic should be confined to anyone who does not care whether or not there is a god or gods ..."

Look up apatheism on Wikipedia and see if that fits you.

"acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life.

Apathetic agnosticism (also called pragmatic agnosticism) acknowledges that any amount of debate can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.

Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.[1]"

Originally posted by kevcvs57
I could argue that I think anyone who calls them self a weak atheist, should simplify their lives and fess up to being an agnostic, ( all language is a bit semantic, ) but I have never tried to label someone against their will.

"So, as an agnostic, you cannot (logically) think that there is a god—that is all that absence of belief (in the standard episte ing my ears pinned firmly back in case some knowledge concerning my own existence drifts by.😞

and woe betide any atheist I catch telling a theist that god, or gods do not exist.

Assuming by "god" you mean capital 'G' "God" (which I refer to as "G"od) am I assume you would not, in the hypothetical scenario that someone doubted you were not actually a pink fire breathing racoon, tell any doubters there are no pink fire breathing racoons!? (and I challenge anyone to prove anything in the physical world with the same rigour that is expected of us before it is deemed permissible for us say "G"od doesn't exist)

I do say without any trace of doubt that "G"od does not exist.

Originally posted by JS357
"Maybe agnostic should be confined to anyone who does not care whether or not there is a god or gods ..."

Look up apatheism on Wikipedia and see if that fits you.

"acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies ...[text shortened]... t change. Similarly, there would be no change if someone proved that God does not exist.[1]"

Apatheist I like it without even googling it. From this point on I consider myself an Apathetic Agnostic or Apatheist.

There is a big difference between having a label you do not like imposed on you, and one you do like proffered.

My only reservation is at the very end:

"Apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God exists, their behavior would not change."

This is not the same as 'if it were proved that God exists' is it? Because clearly, if that happens all non bets are off.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are kind of like Hitler saying, I don't understand, what did I do wrong?

You must be a real "liberal" Democrat if you compare me to Hitler.

Originally posted by JS357
"...and to ensure that the people of these planets behave as friendly as possible toward one another, we swing by from our spaceships now and then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them."

How's that working on Earth?

It seems it will be necessary for something like a worldwide flood again to wipe out all the evil unbelievers in order to bring righteousness to the world. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well no theist or atheist has ever presented any evidence to me that has come close to moving me from my agnostic position, you are all whistling in the dark.

You will have to be one of the kind that must be wiped out. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!