They only claim to be theist.

Why would they do that ? In my experience I’ve come across individuals with real faith who really believe in God that not even the sceptic in me would question it.

Why would they do that ? In my experience I’ve come across individuals with real faith who really believe in God that not even the sceptic in me would question it. — Deus

Faith in supernatural things is not real belief or genuine action. It's make-believe. Do people enjoy warm fuzzy feelings and so appear to have faith? Yes but it's dishonest make-believe and bad faith. Humans don't really believe in supernatural father figures any more than other animals do.

6 famous minutes of Derrida:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch-DliKSGu0

The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

Nor does it rule out the infinity of other ridiculous ideas we can come up with. Are we supposed to entertain them all, or just the ones that were popular between three- and one-thousand years ago?

It’s not a preference I actually don’t care! :wink: although I have to admit Pascal had an interesting take on it with his Pascal’s wager although personally I wouldn’t go that far. — Deus

Not sure what your 'preference' reference is to (l'm assuming whether you prefer God or not god?)

Pascal's wager is problematic as how do you know which God to make yourself believe in? What if you pick the wrong God? I also hold it is impossible to make yourself believe something. You are either convinced or not convinced.

I think both positions are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism is a negative answer to the question: “Do you believe in God?” whereas agnosticism is a negative answer to the question: “Supposing God exists/does not exist, can we have knowledge about God/the divine/God's non-existence ?”.

Even being an agnostic theist may not be incoherent, for instance: Nicholas of Cusa thought that God was essentially unknowable (he was agnostic, in that sense, about God), but he still was a christian (this of course is still problematic, since a christian must, in some sense, believe that we can have knowledge about God, even if through faith. But someone could say that God is unknowable and yet still be a deist).

One could object here, as Sade did, that it is impossible to believe in what one does not understand, but I'm not sure that's true.

Alternatively, agnosticism may be interpreted as the answer to the question: “do you know if God exists/ does not exist?”, and I think most atheists would reply: No, but I think it is very unlikely/implausible , since I haven't seen any evidence of his existence, and the arguments purporting to prove God's existence don't convince me.

There may be some atheists who would claim that they can prove that God does not exist with certainty, depending on how God is defined, because some definitions of God seem to entail logical contradictions, and, they would say, something that entails a logical contradiction simply cannot exist.

In my opinion, such a proof may not be possible, but that is a matter for another discussion.

Faith in supernatural things is not real belief — Gregory

What is real belief then? Belief that Mars is the 4th planet from the sun? That’s not belief that’s evidence. Scientific evidence. Belief is for another way of putting it faith…there’s nothing wrong with it…

Nor does it rule out the infinity of other ridiculous ideas we can come up with. Are we supposed to entertain them all, or just the ones that were popular between three- and one-thousand years ago? — Kenosha Kid

There are a few ideas definitely worth entertaining not because of implications but curiosity as to whether God exists which cannot be proven scientifically or theoretically…other interesting concepts which are worth entertaining is do we live in a simulation? It’s what philosophy is for.

It depends what stage you are at with your reasoned reflection and what arguments you have been exposed to.

For an analogy: imagine that you have gone walking in a freezing forest and you have gotten lost. And no one has found you for months, but somehow you've managed to survive, against the odds.

I am justified in believing you are dead, as is everyone else apart from.....you. Our evidence that you are dead is that you have been missing for months in a freezing forest. You too know that you have been missing for months in a freezing forest, but this doesn't provide you with good evidence that you are dead; for you have apparently cast iron evidence that you are still alive. Of course, if you subsequently encounter angels and such like in the forest, then it would start to become reasonable for you to believe that you had died as well. So, it all depends on what apparent evidence you have and its probative force.

Other things being equal - that is, you have no basic belief in God - then the default is not agnosticism, but atheism. To be agnostic at the outset is, well, silly. Just to assume there is some evidence God exists apropos nothing is not remotely reasonable. And the fact this world does not at all appear to be the kind of place God would create and place innocent people in, provides you with powerful reason to disbelieve in God.

So, you should start an atheist if you are reasonable. The burden of proof is squarely on the theist. And to think that the brute possibility God could exist provides you with some reason to doubt atheism is, well, unreasonable (anything is possible - but it is not reasonable to believe anything). At the outset you have no reason to think God exists, and apparently good reason to think God does not exist.

That should continue to be your position until or unless you encounter arguments for God's existence. If those arguments are valid and have premises that seem self-evident to rational reflection, then you should - if you are reasonable - start to take seriously that your belief that no God exists is open to reasonable doubt.

There are such arguments, of varying probative force. There is no question they exist, for they are discussed by philosophers to this day. But you should satisfy yourself of this by exposing yourself to them and seeing what your own reason says about them.

It is at that point that it would become reasonable for you to adopt an agnostic position. For now you have apparent evidence that God exists. Indeed, if you continued to be confident in your atheism you would have discovered that you are unreasonably committed to atheism. After all, being reasonable is not about what you believe, so much as the manner in which you believe it. And so if you continue to be an atheist despite being unable decisively to refute arguments for God's existence, then you have discovered that you are unreasonable.

Reasonable agnosticism, then, requires appreciating some of the force of the arguments for God's existence. Someone who thinks the arguments for God's existence are rubbish, but nevertheless calls themselves an agnostic is a bit of a twit. (Needless to say, this place is full of them). A reasonable agnostic thinks there's a good case for God.

If just one of those arguments appears to be valid and have premises that are far beyond any reasonable doubt, and you have sincerely attempted to refute it and failed, then it would be silly to continue to be an agnostic. For now you have the best evidence that God exists. Likewise, if the cumulative power of all the arguments for God raises the probability that God exists significantly over 50%, then you should stop being an agnostic and describe yourself as a theist. (There's more than one way a thesis can be proved - sometimes it is by one zinger of an argument, sometimes it is by a cumulation of weaker arguments). A reasonable person's beliefs are responsive to evidence: responsive, that is, to reasoned arguments.

Needless to say, above I am describing how I came to believe in God. The important point, however, is that agnosticism is not the default. You have to earn the right to be an agnostic - earn it, that is, by appreciating some of the probative force of the case for God. And it is an inherently unstable position. For God does not both exist and not exist. So either atheism is true, or theism is true. And yet the reasonable agnostic thinks the apparent case for both positions is roughly equally matched. They must at the same time, however, acknowledge that one set of those appearances is illusory.

There IS something wrong with "supernatural faith". In fact it's sinful if I may use the word. Perhaps there is a lesser condition where belief in God is needed for a moment. But for the most part supernatural faith (leaping towards God without evidence) is as inauthentic as positions attack by religious people (modern culture, ect). Believers nurse on their own consciences

I started off as an atheist that’s for sure but then some events happened in my life that convinced me that there was a higher power/intelligence which no philosophical argument could. But for the sake of this topic I just wanted to get a feel of this site which of course veers towards the sceptical and analytical approach when it comes to the God question.

What interests me and what I expect would interest atheists equally is understanding how someone could not believe in god and to the atheist how someone could. Then you have the agnostics right down the middle. I respect all three positions equally as they’re of equal merit and equally rational.

In my opinion the agnostic position makes the most sense and is the strongest out of the three even though I believe in God myself.

In my opinion the agnostic position makes the most sense and is the strongest out of the three even though I believe in God myself. — Deus

It isn't the strongest. The case for theism is the strongest. By far. If you think agnosticism is reasonable, then you must think that the case for God is about as strong as the case against, yes? Otherwise how is it a reasonable position?

convinced me that there was a higher power/intelligence which no philosophical argument could. — Deus

I recommend undergirding your belief in God with rational arguments, for they're more stable. So long as your belief in God is based on some experience of yours, it is held hostage to your future experiences. You could lose it as easily as you acquired it - all it would take is a countervailing experience of similar or greater potency, or for your memory of the original experience to fade or disappear altogether.

If you understand that God exists on rational grounds, then one's belief is as robust as those arguments and does not depend on one's own psychology and experiences to the same extent.

What interests me and what I expect would interest atheists equally is understanding how someone could not believe in god and to the atheist how someone could. — Deus

That's more interesting to me as well.

In my opinion the agnostic position makes the most sense and is the strongest out of the three even though I believe in God myself. — Deus

Agnosticism has the strength of skepticism, which always wins, but it's not a victory that pays out much ultimately. No one lives as a skeptic, and you'd really liked it your success to have some relevance (which is why Davidson is trash).

Come to think if it, it's why AP in general is useless garbage.

If you understand that God exists on rational grounds, then one's belief is as robust as those arguments and does not depend on one's own psychology and experiences to the same extent. — Bartricks

Oh I have some grounds based on non-psychological experience. For instance the emergence of life or abiogenesis which is poorly understood to this day and age. Feel free to read

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

So far science has not been able to replicate the origin of life (abiogenesis) using the bottom up approach for the emergence of life but perhaps one day we will understand at least how life formed from inorganic matter to having the ability to self-replicate and pass on information using RNA. The chances of this happening by accident are astronomical but not 0. Then there’s the beauty of evolution itself with all its diversity predator prey and then us the toolmakers, hunters, farmers with that slice of divine spark. The evolution of consciousness itself - that huge gap from simple chemical reactions in thermal vents to consciousness - sure it took a few billion years yet here we are…then go before that to the formation of stars before life…it didn’t have to happen but it did so that’s why I lean towards theism this rise in complexity of life … there just had to be an intelligence agency that set the rules and laws in motion before backing off.

No amount of complexity and interconnection of parts of the world means there are minds outside the universe. God=many-worlds but instead it leaps further to a mind. The world may be as complex as a mind which lives within it but there is no connection there to a mind outside it. All arguments for God are activities of faith. If you really want it, the argument will work but it's just more bad faith

Is agnosticism a better position than atheism? — Deus

It's useful if you have a belief in something, but are pretty sure all religions are wrong. So, for the sake of communication perhaps agnosticism better represents your position to other theist. But, to atheist it really could go either way. I believe I 'saw' something, but any evidence would just look irrational; like free association or something.

A few notes on the sociology of theist threads,

There's always one, often two or more. They tend to be first threads of new members, and are never started by agnostics or atheists or other non-believers.

Folk tend not to come to discussions about god in order to have their ideas tested. More often they are looking to have their prejudices reinforced.

Amongst professional philosophers and there associates theism is overwhelmingly rejected. In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely tyhat those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads.

And it seems that the theists threads are dominated by 'Mericans. That's not a surprise, I suppose, since most members are American, from what I understand. But there appear to be vanishingly few loud theists form Europe, Asia or Australia. That would be in line with demographic trends, which show an anomalous preference for religious belief and practice in the USA.

I find it interesting how some threads start with 'what do you think?' then in response proceed to be quite dogmatic, as if the mind is already closed. As you say, some god threads don't seem to be about acquiring new information, just playing tennis against what is presumably a familiar 'opponent'.

Folk tend not to come to discussions about god in order to have their ideas tested. More often they are looking to have their prejudices reinforced. — Banno

I’m all up for listening to different viewpoints respecting differing opinions and ideas of course. As for having my faith tested … go ahead I’m willing to entertain all arguments without being zealous or evangelical in my attempts. Above all I’m up for a good debate and the intellectual challenge such a topic poses of course. Whether I have the ability to do so is another question but I do wish to improve my debating skills :) …

You’ve hit the nail on the head though, the theist does not want their ideas tested but I’d like to think I’m a better breed of theist than that

Although you state that most professional philosophers dismiss the god claim their best bet is really agnosticism or at least it should be rather than hard atheism…it’s more shall we say open minded and foolproof…

Who pissed in and 's cereal such that they need to trash somebody else's thread?

The thread is about argument strength. Have a little respect and address it or STFU.

I don't think this trend is isolated to this subject.

Not dogmatic at all although I have made clear my position where I stand in the spectrum not the question I’m theist and proud but wish to learn more about the differing opinions and what stance people take on it. Atheist ? No problem at all same for all other positions when it comes to the question…just want to know the logic behind it without being combative…

Although you state that most professional philosophers dismiss the god claim their best bet is really agnosticism or at least it should be rather than hard atheism… — Deus

That's not the case. A large majority are explicitly atheist.

It doubtless comes from understanding argument and logic well. It is very difficult to develop a coherent notion of god. Hence the need for theology.

That's not the case. A large majority are explicitly atheist. — Banno

If they changed their mind; would they say anything?

So far science has not been able to replicate the origin of life (abiogenesis) — Deus

That's the god of the holes; invoking god to explain something for which there is at present no scientific explanation.

There's a few problems with it. Firstly it assumes scientism - the primacy of scientific explanations, and That might not suit your needs. Science makes the methodological assumption of physicalism, in self-consciously restricting itself to what we might call "physical" explanations. Thus it rejects god as an explanation for methodological reasons. There's a prima facie a contradiction, then, in supposing both scientism and god.

But more poignantly, if your aim is to base your theism on a firm base of rational enquiry, you will not find the firmness you desire in science. Consider the consequences for your theism should scientists tomorrow show a physical process that explains abiogenesis. If your faith is based on science, then to be consistent your would be obliged to reject your faith.

But of course, that's not what would happen. Instead, folk question the science, and do so to the point of inanity. See the evolution/creation debate.

The definition just says that atheism is, disbelief (non-belief) in God. It doesn't mean the atheist rules out the existence of God. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Better to take atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists.

That leaves a middle ground of neither believing that god exists, nor disbelieving that god exists, for agnosticism.

There are two experiences on the side of scientists. First, many have been profoundly shocked by the miracles their methods accomplish. Moreover, few of them would deny that the more complex the world is seen to be the more they are amazed at the world, not at God (or whatever).

They’re positions on different axes, not different positions on the same axis.

One axis has:
I believe God exists. (theism)
I don’t believe God exists. (weak atheism)
I believe God doesn’t exist. (strong atheism)

The other has:
I know that for sure. (gnosicism)
I don’t know that for sure. (weak agnosticism)
Nobody could possibly know for sure. (strong agnosticism)

You can mix and match your answers to both questions.

How does the atheist rule out the existence of God? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Usually by showing problems with the arguments that purport to demonstrate that god exists, then pointing out inconsistencies in the notion of god that render him logically impossible, and finally by rejecting the immorality that so often follows from theism.

...we don't really know anything with certainty. — Tom Storm

You know this for sure?

Something for us to chat about in another thread, perhaps.

:up:

You can mix and match your answers to both questions — Pfhorrest

And the strongest argument from a logical standpoint?