I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. — David Mo

Sorry, I attributed your comment to someone else earlier. The word can mean without belief in theism. But this forces the issue that there are those with theistic beliefs.

There are people that believe in telekinesis, ghosts, and clairvoyance, but the word a-paranormalist does not exist. There are no a-fairyists, no a-SantaClausists, a-extraterrestrialists, etc even though there are large populations of believers and non-believers for each of these beliefs.

It means that a creator is not falsifiable, which is why The God of the Gaps tactic is used so often.

For instance, when Newton came up with gravity, his theory was incomplete and couldn't deal with more than two objects. He invoked God to explain this gap in knowledge. Later on, someone else solved it with perturbation theory.

People also used to think divine forces were responsible for the Heavens above. But when scientists starting explaining what we see in the sky with physical laws, God was then moved to another gap in knowledge and said to have engineered this system.

In the theory of evolution, some people explain gaps in knowledge with what is called guided evolution, wherein God fills in the gaps, such as he did with Newton.

Even if you explain every single aspect of evolution, someone can just say God engineered evolution itself (I belive this is called theistic evolution). No matter how much you explain, someone can just say "God did it". That's why unfalsifiable claims are not accepted as science. You can always just make something up that no one can disprove.

There are three properties of a scientific theory that are often mentioned.

• Predictive Power
• Falsifiable (this is intertwined with predictive power)
• Explanatory power

I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable — Malice

Unfalsifiable or unverifiable? If you were presented with sufficient evidence of a "creator agent" then that agent's non-existence would have been falsified. However, you might take the position that we currently have no investigatory methods that allow us to investigate things that exist outside space/time, outside the known universe, or which are metaphysical. Then, you might claim that the phenomenon is unverifiable.

When you say "unverifiable", how are you differentiating it from "unfalsifiable"? When I say unfalsifiable, I mean that it's currently not testable. There is nothing you can do to falsify the claim that "God is the prime-mover". Because every time you explain something without God, you can just move God further into the background, and say God engineered it.

My conclusion is that atheists/agnostics - that is, those who simply claim not to believe in God - should argue their skepticism and stop fussing with "the true meaning of atheism" and "the burden of proof" — David Mo

What more is there then, "The evidence has not convinced me"? If you aren't convinced by my claim that there is a 6 foot tall, invisible, untouchable, white rabbit that visits me each day, do you have the burden to discredit my claim? Ok, then I would like you to refer to the rabbit as Harry as I don't think you can prove his non-existence. Also, Harry is very sensitive about people not believing in him.

Malice
6
It's linguistic evolution. How words are pronounced, spelled, and defined change over time. It's why we speak so many different languages. Words do not have intrinsic meaning.

I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable. I don't have to label it, I can just state it. I don't care if people call my position atheistic or agnostic or agnostic atheist. I only care that I've communicated my position.

Would I like to see the langua — Malice

Great. YOU do not care.

I DO!

I care when someone tells me (and insists, that I AM AN ATHEIST...simply because of a definition which came into being because of an error...and with which I do not agree.

So...I challenge it.

English is such a diverse language...it should easily have a word for those who "suppose there are no gods" / or "suppose it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...and another for those who do not make those suppositions.

"I care when someone tells me (and insists, that I AM AN ATHEIST...simply because of a definition which came into being because of an error...and with which I do not agree."

Haha, I am sorry you are so upset about it? That must suck.

Personally, I am all for everyone learning a constructed language as an international language, instead of choosing a natural language. There is a ton of issue with the language we speak, this is just one tiny thing in an ocean of problems.

When you say "unverifiable", how are you differentiate it from "unfalsifiable"? — Malice

I'm not sure how to interpret your claim in the context of your use of "possibility". Do you mean anything is possible, so therefore, a creator agent is possible? Are you thinking that there is a greater-than-chance probability for the existence of a creator? Can your claim be demonstrated to be true, accurate, or justified (i.e., verifiable)?

I think it's possible that somewhere down the line, say The Big Bang or further back, there could be a creator of some kind. I have no reason to believe there is, and as such, I don't, but I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove or disprove it any more than I can prove or disprove that your invisible bunny Harry exists.

I'm afraid you haven't responded to the threefold alternative I raised. Could you do it now, please?

There are people that believe in telekinesis, ghosts, and clairvoyance, but the word a-paranormalist does not exist. There are no a-fairyists, no a-SantaClausists, a-extraterrestrialists, etc even though there are large populations of believers and non-believers for each of these beliefs. — CeleRate

There are some words for all this: mythology, pseudoscience or magic thinking. If they're meant to be something philosophical, metaphysical is their category. It depends on the nuances. There's probably no common word because those nuances exist. Some specialties have their category: sectarians, ufologists, astrologers, parapsychologists, fortune tellers or magicians. There are even some neologisms like terraplanists. It depends on the diffusion that they have had. We are not going to invent a category for every nutcase who invents a mosquito cult. And those who don't believe in these things are usually called skeptics, rationalists or scientists, depending on the case.
So I find it quite normal that there is words for believers, theists, atheists or agnostics.

What more is there then, "The evidence has not convinced me"? — CeleRate

Sounds like a good reason to me. You passed the buck to the theist. It's his turn. Although he may ask you if you know many arguments about the existence of God. Then you can ask him to enlighten you. And the debate is on. But you didn't hide behind the excuse that you didn't believe in anything to keep your mouth shut. You did right.

It would be (b) then. It makes more sense to me to just say unfalsifiable since it cannot be demonstrated whether or not a creator of some sort lurks out there somewhere.

I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove or disprove it any more than I can prove or disprove that your invisible bunny Harry exists. — Malice

Then the question is, on what basis do you accept a given claim? Do you accept claims of an existent God because you cannot refute them? If so, then do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that? Or, do you have different reasons?

Then the question is, on what basis do you accept a given claim? — CeleRate

When it comes to contingent truths, I accept claims that can be falsified but are supported by evidence. For example, if I was working on a murder case and the evidence pointed to Bob Joe as the killer, then I would accept that. But if Bob Joe told me The Devil used his magic powers to frame him, I wouldn't accept that. Can I disprove it? No, but he cannot prove it, and so I have no reason to believe it.

Do you accept claims of an existent God because you cannot refute them? — CeleRate

No, because it cannot be proved/disproved, so I have no reason to accept/deny it.

do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that? — CeleRate

No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely.

do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that?
— CeleRate

No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely. — Malice

How would you determine that there is a difference between the two examples? If, for example, a good friend told you that they were giving away all their money to Exxon because they sincerely believe that doing so is God's will, would you simply acknowledge the news because you have "no reason to accept/deny it"?

How would you determine that there is a difference between the two examples? If, for example, a good friend told you that they were giving away all their money to Exxon because they sincerely believe that doing so is God's will, would you simply acknowledge the news because you have "no reason to accept/deny it"? — CeleRate

When talking about a god as a creator of the universe, it's very far removed from us and there just really isn't much information to go by.

But when people start talking to supernatural beings or doing their will, it's closer to home, and we have information available to us.

We already know there have been hundreds or thousands of these types of beliefs throughout history. And they contradict each other, which means at least most of them are wrong.

On top of that, we can apply Occam's Razor and better explain it as delusions if they're hearing voices. If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons.

There are competing explanations that have more evidence/support and so I choose them.

If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. — Malice

Do you consider yourself an atheist?

The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons. — Malice

Yes. When we discovered this about our tendencies we learned to say correlation is not causation.

Do you consider yourself an atheist? — CeleRate

It's a term I identified more with when I was younger. I like to think of myself as an explorer. But I do consider myself an atheist in terms of not being convinced there is a god, especially a personal god.

It would be (b) then. It makes more sense to me to just say unfalsifiable since it cannot be demonstrated whether or not a creator of some sort lurks out there somewhere. — Malice

Thank you.
Your position is similar to Thomas Huxley's, who coined the word "agnosticism" to refer to it. According to him, there was no word for it in his day. It's a kind of skepticism.

Of course, you can call yourself whatever you like.

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist." — Frank Apisa

I think most Christians, for example, would find theist way too broad. They'd want to get specific fast.

There is no goddam way I want any person using the descriptor "atheist" to insist that because I lack a "belief" in any gods...that I am perforce an "atheist." — Frank Apisa

I would resist their labeling you that way. I don't think they get to label you, nor do I think they have any ground to insist you label yourself that way. The term covers meanings that do not fit the same person. Resist.

I think most Christians, for example, would find theist way too broad. They'd want to get specific fast. — Coben

A Christian is a type of theist, its not “too broad” a description its a broad description. The next question would be “what kind of theist are you?” To which the answer would be be “Christian”, and of course “what kind of Christian?” And so on.

I would resist their labeling you that way. I don't think they get to label you, nor do I think they have any ground to insist you label yourself that way. The term covers meanings that do not fit the same person. Resist. — Coben

Resist what? Why? These are just categories that ease communication. You are a human...why dont you resist that label? Its the same thing.
So too with the word “atheist”, its a broad label that describes someone who lacks a belief in god. The next questions would be “what kind of atheist?” To which the answer might be any number of sub categories such as anti-theist or agnostic. Someone may fall under the broad “atheist” and none of the sub categories and thats fine too, just like a theist who believes in god but nothing much more than that wouldnt fall under the christian or Jewish sub categories.
If you do not want to be under a certain category, there must be a reason why you do not belong there...its not enough to just not agree with other people in that category about other things (for example, not wanting to be called an “atheist” because of all the angry, disrespectful, religion trashing atheists one has met.)

A Christian is a type of theist, its not “too broad” a description its a broad description. — DingoJones

I didn't say it was too broad, just that Christians would find it too broad. I doubt vast majority would ever identify first as a theist and see if the other wanted clarification. Even Christian is too broad for many: they'll want to get in which large category, like Protestant, and then down into their specific church. Being merely a theist could still be really quite seriously the wrong thing to be given which kind.

Resist what? Why? — DingoJones

He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred.

In your reply to Dingo...you wrote:

He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred. — Coben

Thank you.

I've tried explaining that to Dingo...but it became obvious that his user name was not an accident, and was probably a corruption of something similar.

I didn't say it was too broad, just that Christians would find it too broad. I doubt vast majority would ever identify first as a theist and see if the other wanted clarification. Even Christian is too broad for many: they'll want to get in which large category, like Protestant, and then down into their specific church. Being merely a theist could still be really quite seriously the wrong thing to be given which kind. — Coben

That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. (Although, it might mean it doesnt fully describe them). If a Christian thinks that they are not a theist, that's a failure of understanding on their part.

He's an agnostic who doesn't want to be called an atheist. I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. If you think he should, feel free to try to convince him. I was supporting him in what he preferred. — Coben

You were telling him to “resist”, I took that to mean you agreed the label didnt include him. So I was directing those questions at you, not him.

I don't think anyone should or really can make him take that label. — Coben

I agree, but that's not the problem. If the term's going to be descriptive, it will have to apply to people according to the term's definitive traits. According to Frank Apisa's preferred defition, I'm an agnostic, but not an atheist. I'm fine with that. From around age 15 to age 35, I used that definition myself. I'm a little rusty with the term used like this, but i'm sure I can adapt. The point is, though, that I have to adapt and he doesn't. If we want to use the term as a descriptive lable, we can't both use the terms as we'd naturally be inclined to. Someone has to give.

Now, if we were talking about a particular topic, that wouldn't be problem. Adapting is easy, because I have a context to tailor my non-native usage of the word to. The term is the topic, though. Refusing the label outright is getting in the way of the topic. A descriptive label may be more useful for some people than others, and that's worth exploring. But if it's a win-lose debate about which term is more "rational", I'm not interested. Language isn't a formal system like maths, anyway.

That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. — DingoJones

Oit really seems to me you are not reading me carefully or paying attention to the context. He said, originally to me that

If I use a single word to describe myself...it is agnostic. I suspect the distinction I am making about this issue is of greater importance to someone using that descriptor...than to someone using "theist." — Frank Apisa

Get it? he is talking about a subjective feeling of importance he attaches to a word. I argued, in relation to his subjective not liking a term being used for him, that many theists would probably have strong reactions to the word theist. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. But either way it
nothing
to
do
with
what
you
keep
bringing up.

I never said.....

That doesnt mean the word “theist” doesnt describe the person, its not the wrong category/label. — DingoJones

I know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me.

You were telling him to “resist”, I took that to mean you agreed the label didnt include him. So I was directing those questions at you, not him. — DingoJones

The label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting.

Someone has to give. — Dawnstorm

I don't think so. Language is not a machine.

But if it's a win-lose debate about which term is more "rational", I'm not interested. Language isn't a formal system like maths, anyway. — Dawnstorm

Yeah, that's where I've been disagreeing with Mr. Apisa, and in part because of that, I think he can define himself in a way he feels is most clear. And he wants to use the term agnostic, which sure seems correct. If he doesn't want to be called an atheist, well, jeez there must be something more important to fight against. A man who uses an accurate term to describe himself, rather than a term that might be misleading, because there are certainly people out there who use the term, and no incorrectly (also) to mean people who believe there is no God. Many use it to mean that one simply lacks a belief in God. Dictionaries often include both. I think he should label himself as he likes
and
we
lose
nothing.

No one, not a single atheist or theist or tree loses anything if he calls himself an agnostic.

It seems to me that the real fight is somewhere else and it is all getting jammed through this keyhole.

Thank you. — Frank Apisa

You're welcome. If you look at his next response to me, he keeps mis-contexting my responses and misinterpreting them.

Oit really seems to me you are not reading me carefully or paying attention to the context. He said, originally to me that — Coben

No, I think that the confusion is in how I interjected. I wasnt arguing against Frank with you as a proxy, I just picked up on what you said in your other conversation and was interested in discussing it with you.

Get it? he is talking about a subjective feeling of importance he attaches to a word. I argued, in relation to his subjective not liking a term being used for him, that many theists would probably have strong reactions to the word theist. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. — Coben

Ya, and they’d be wrong, like I said...

I know that Christians are theists, so please drop this line with me. — Coben

Ok, it just didnt seem like it from what you said. You said the label was wrong in that context after all so I dont feel like I was making a terrible error. Anyway, ok, understood.

The label is ambigious. To some it means lacks a belief, to some it means believes there is no God. To some it means either. Given this, I think it is perfectly find for him to resist being labeled as something that has several meanings out there in the culture, even if one of them is correct regarding him. And the one that is correct is not as exact as agnostic. I'm done. This is not interesting. — Coben

Agnostic and atheist are not the same thing, the former is a position in relation to belief in god and the latter is a position about knowledge of god. So it makes no sense to say one is more accurate than the other.

Anyway, if you arent interested then you arent interested. Enjoy the rest of your day, or night depending on where you are.