The question is not just whether you think they could possibly exist, but whether you think they are equally as likely to exist as not to exist.
That’s a meaningless measurement.
Thank you, Cat Whisperer. I’m not sure why this disposition gets these people so out of sorts…but it is not an unusual disposition among agnostics at all.
And like you, when dealing with atheists, I tend to listen to the music…not the lyrics.
This is a pretty evasive response. Let me ask it this way – do you think that the existence of Loki is just as possible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? Do you have a problem with people calling Norse mythology mythology? Do you argue with peope and try to tell them they can’t possibly prove that Loki doesn’t exist?
Or the Matrix. You can’t rule out the Matrix, can you?
Can you make a meaningful guess about the existence of Zeus?
Two uninteresting points that no one is disputing.
Can you make a meaningful guess about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
If you want to talk about logic, you should start by looking up the meaning of the words, “null hypothesis.”
That’s an evasive response.
You are an agnostic, fair enough, you do not know whether god/gods exist or not.
Do you believe in god/gods or not?
Wrong.
The burden of proof and the null hypothesis aren’t based on a coin toss. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or the null hypothesis is not falsified.
And that’s the way everybody actually works, despite silly protestations from some folks that IPU’s are just nonsense and don’t have to be addressed but we can’t have a null hypothesis when it comes to God and, gorsh, we just can’t place the burden of proof!
Every day, we correctly and instinctively perform the logical calculations (because life would be unlivable otherwise). Is there an invisible monster that will eat you when you get out of bed in the morning? What’s the NH, where’s the burden of proof? Are there invisible cars that run up and down the streets, unpredictably? What’s the NH, where’s the burden of proof? Was the universe created last Tuesday before lunch and everybody who claims to be your family, friends, or loved ones are merely put there to mess with you by an evil prankster God? What’s the NH, where’s the burden of proof? And so on, and so on, and so on.
I can wager that you don’t actually worry about invisible monsters, invisible cars, or the naughty prankster God. And that’s because we routinely use proper logic when it comes to all sorts of claims, but due to societal pressure we are expected to act differently with a few ‘special’ claims.
Because it’s false, that’s why. Hasn’t it occurred to you that it’s just slightly irrational for you to try to dictate to other people what their beliefs must be based on their self-identification?
Let me put it this way. If you really want to insist on your own definitions, then no one you’re arguing with is an atheist.
You ARE an atheist.
For myself, the answers are No, no, yes, respectively.
Well invisible cars and monsters would have no mass, wouldn’t they? So, not very menacing really.
Hi, Diogenes.
We are discussing whether agnostics are atheists here.
I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe gods do not exist.
No…I am an agnostic.
But I thought I mentioned that!
You seem to be confusing the people who advocate a position with the position itself.
People who debate a particular issue do not encompass the entire spectrum of adherents to that issue.
Okay, then we have just established that you are an agnostic atheist, since you don’t currently believe that any gods exist.
If you take issue with this, then please tell us which gods you believe exist.
Hi, Jr. Mod.
Hi, atheist.
Not at all, that’s in fact the absolute key distinction, and one which Frank seems to be avoiding answering.
Just about all the intelligent non-believers on this board who have explained their position on God hold a position that is remarkably similar to Frank’s up to a point… it’s something like:
-I see no evidence that God exists
-Although I can not prove his/its nonexistence, at least in the general case
-I find the existence of an unneeded and unobservable supernatural force less likely than its nonexistence (for the same reason that any invisible supernatural force/being is less likely than the nonexistence of it… occam’s razor, the null hypothesis, etc.)
-Therefore, I assume he/it does not exist until proven otherwise, and use the word “atheist” to describe myself as someone who does not believe in God, despite my lack of full logical 100% ironclad proof of that position.
Frank seems to agree on the first two points, but not the third and fourth, and I have yet to see him clearly explain why. In fact, I have no idea whether he in fact agrees with every little bit of it except for the “use the word ‘atheist’” part, or whether his position is in fact substantially different.
So, Frank, which is it? Where do you differ from that position?
Some are, some aren’t. You are.
That makes you an atheist.