The argument over whether or not I believe your (the royal your) religious tenets (which cannot be proven) is essentially the issue of the thread.
You don’t have a belief system about my crazy notions, just as I have no belief system in regards to your religion, because I don’t subscribe to it one iota.
I thought that the issue of the thread was that lack of belief is not the same as belief, regardless of what the belief is about. With that in mind, not believing that all the children are in the room is not the same as believing that all of them are not in the room. In the first case, I take no position about whether the room is occupied, I simply have no belief about it at all. It would be entirely possible to not believe they *are *in the room, as well as not believe they aren’t in the room.
In the second case, I actively believe that the room is empty.
This thread would be less confusing if one substituted the word “faith” for “belief” in the OP.
Well I have no stake in this argument then. I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t agree with your usage of the word. Nothing more to say I suppose. 
Actually, I didn’t mean to say the argument is over whether or not I believe in religious tenets (obviously), but rather is that a belief system in itself. I still say, no, it’s not. I don’t have a belief system invested in something that I deem totally nonsensical.
This is the most concise analogy I’ve ever heard on the subject (not that I heard it in this post first) and I would just like to emphasize it.
Simply put, there is a use of the word “to believe” and a use of the word “to have a hobby” and to the extent they are related, they are not subject to logical rules like double negation yielding an affirmation. Believing in god is not the same as not-believing in no god, the latter of which I actually cannot make sense of.
This thread, as many of these do, conflates two different arguments.
Epistemology: What do I know? Is there enough evidence to believe in something?
Belief: What do I actually believe, regardless of the evidence?
Agnosticismrefers to the first. An agnostic believes there isn’t enough evidence to decide the God question. Atheism refers to the second. An atheist believes that God doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, the word belief can be used in either context, so it can get confusing.
You can be agnostic **and **be an atheist. You can be agnostic **and **be a theist. Atheism and Theism are opposites, but agnosticism can rest with both of them.
Lobohan is both an agnostic and an atheist.
Exactly. The first is atheism, the second is agnosticism.
Derleth seems to be operating from the agnostic point of view. It’s why he talks about evidence and proof and reasonableness. He is offended that his point of view is seen as being opposite from theism, which it isn’t. Larry is stating something tautologically true, but the conclusion is confusing to some because it’s unclear whether the word “belief” is being used in an atheistic or agnostic context.
Which God? Does this apply to your belief that Zeus and Shiva and Isis do not exist?
What does belief in science mean anyway? Do you mean belief in a particular result? Science is a process - we believe it works because it has produced good results, and no one who understands science has the slightest belief or confidence that there are no mistakes. Reproducibility and peer review are all about accepting that there will inevitably be mistakes.
For specific conclusions, all our belief is provisional. We might accept a result, but should be willing to accept evidence that the “known” result is incorrect. It happens all the time. It is not trust but trust and verify, which is why the steps leading to a conclusion must be explicitly documented. Plus, people tend not to trust surprising results - take cold fusion as an example. People immediately tried to reproduce the results and couldn’t. No trust there, was there?
I do believe that Zeus exists. I don’t know who Shiva is. I believe I may have heard of Isis, but not sure. As the scriptures say there are many gods but one God.
Good question, first would be can the world be actually figured out, which includes is it predictable and stable enough, and is it’s perdictibility be found out. To some degree I agree, to a much bigger degree I disagree.
Then we get to the part where we must trust that science is done with the intention of providing you, Voyager, the truth as best as man is reasonable capable of. Is this a reasonable assumption? Think of all the disciplines involved in something like man made global warming, the political implications, the money involved, the immensity of the work that no single person can verify it. Kingdoms can rise and fall depending on if it is believed true or not, regardless of if it is true or not.
Seriously?
The Zeus from what is commonly referred to as Greek Mythology? That Zeus? Not like the Great Dane next door named Zeus or anything like that?
Exactly. But the moment you go from “I don’t believe in God” to “There is no God” you become an avid [albeit unaware, for many] stamp collector.
The Zeus that the Greeks worshiped. It is clear that God has hidden Himself from the Greeks in Acts 17:16-34, until He revealed Himself through His servant Paul. Until this time they were left with the supernatural beings that were not hidden from them, but these were lesser gods.
Some of these “lesser gods” created the world. How does the Bible account for that?
A lot of people give Zeus the time of day because of the thunderbolts.
Remember, the parable of the fig tree teaches us that Jesus too had a directed energy blast. It also teaches us he was a childish dick since he blew up a tree because it didn’t have any fruit. The moral equivalent of hurling a grenade into the drive-thru window of a Jack-in-the-Box because their shake machine is broken.
Test what they claim against the Word, let them live or fall by the sword.
Why not test what they claim against science?
Burma Shave.
Prove to me scientifically that there was a real person named Plutarch.
What does that have to do with anything?
The mere fact that you can see me or read me speak GOD into existence, means that you are aware of that belief of mine, and you do not believe it. So you do believe that GOD does not exist.
I can tell you that I am eating Ben & Jerry’s Green Smurf Ice Cream right now with a woman with 3 legs and 3 hands. The fact that you can’t see me doing it and you don’t know that such a woman could or does exist, and therefore you don’t believe it, does not make it untrue for me.