I dont know but, but I cant prove they dont.

Does that mean you do not believe?

I am skeptical.

If you asked me Yes or NO, I would say no

So I must assume if there is little or no strong evidence for this idea that flying pink elephants exist that you will not believe it; is that the case?

Does it require faith to not accept this idea that flying pink elephants exist?

Yes, I take it on faith because I cannot prove it.

So if I make up something right now, you would have faith that it is not true?

So every piece of fiction requires faith to disregard as true?

So everything in your life is a positive belief? Your default stance is to accept something as true, until you gather the faith or knowledge to determine that this is false?

That is a good point.

Wow, I posted this a couple of days ago, saw no responses, and forgot about it. I'm pleased to see it became something nice.

In response to Bushidobillyclub's:


If you told me you saw pink elephants yesterday, I would not believe you. I would argue that this is not because I have faith that things are false until proven to be true, but is perhaps because my mind calculates quickly the Probability of Validity: I have seen or heard that only gray/black/brown elephants exist. I have also seen pink elephants in cartoons, and they are always portrayed as hallucinations.
Thus, I decide that you are probably not telling the truth, so I do not believe you. In this case, the only thing that is taken by faith to be true is our perception of reality that is you and your speech, and the virtual reality that is our memories.

However, if you tell me that pink elephants exist somewhere in the universe for sure, I would neither believe nor disbelieve. Instead, I would acknowledge the possibility because I know the universe is huge and that something might exist that would fit the description of a pink elephant. On the other hand, I would believe that you had not been to many other places in the universe to see this pink elephant (again based on memories), so I would believe that you're talking out of your ass.

Well, that was long winded, but I hope that cleared up some things.

Again, as I understand it, Atheists believe that God does not exist. If this means that they believe that God does not exist quite as many religions describe, than I would venture to say that many Agnostics and even Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. also feel this way. That is to say, there are plenty of people (particularly Agnostics) who don't quite buy the description of God that their religion tries to sell. Do we label all these people Atheist then? I prefer not to do this.

I, then must define Atheist to mean anyone who *believes* that God does not exist. Note that I highlighted "believes," because I do think that Atheism is a slippery slope to defend, and its weapon of defense is not always logic but rhetoric and sometimes, as Nubby noted, based on ridicule.

As for the Problem of Evil, I feel it is somewhat a silly point by which to try to prove God's existence. Why does God have to be omniscient, omnipotent, or beneficent? Maybe God cannot know *everything*, like indicated by the Abrahamic God who, when walking through Eden, asks where Adam and Eve are. Maybe God is not omnipotent, because there is the paradox of whether God can create a boulder too heavy for even Him to lift? If he is not omnipotent, then this paradox disappears. Finally, perhaps God is not beneficent because there is evil in this world, though perhaps God is wise enough to give us free will to decide to do evil, so the beneficence maybe does not factor in here. More to the point of whether God is beneficent, in the Old Testament, God routinely do "ebad" things, so he perhaps is not such a nice guy.

Let me finish with something interesting: A Jewish friend recently asked me if I honestly thought that Jewish people traditionally believed God was "good?" It's only in the New Testament and in Islam where the Abrahamic God is described as beneficent, so it makes sense that this characteristic isn't important for Jewish people.

Makes you wonder...what if the God you worship is evil? Do you still worship him just because he can kick major ass, or even, do you have a moral obligation to *not* worship him?

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not Omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is Malevolent
Is he both willing and able?
Then Whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing or able?
Then Why call him God?"
-Epicurus

You say you would neither believe nor disbelieve? What is this state called? Is this not a contradiction?

Again lets go back to what a belief is?

We must ask ourselves what is a belief? What is the lack of a belief?

An idea is either believed or not believed, there is no middle ground. This would apply to the philosophical law of non contradiction.

Even if something is convincing, however you hold reservations, regardless of what they are, you still do not believe.

You used the phrase, "don't quite buy it" Good phrase, it illuminates the issue with common understanding regarding atheism.


See this indicates to me where the problem lives. When I say I don't quite buy something, what does that mean?

If you have bought something, you own it, you are in possession of something, what is that thing?

Belief.

If I have NOT bought something, I do not own it, I am NOT in possession of it, what is this thing I have?

Nothing.

Your self proclaimed issue with this is that so many people that you do not want to call atheist would then be atheist.

Why is an issue? Is it the stigma attacked to the word? I think so. I think the religious have made the word such a horrible thing, that to relate to it makes someone feel dirty . . . .

You should seriously ask yourself why you do not want to associate this word with lack of belief. That is all that it is, lack of belief.

Agnostic is an assertion on the ability to obtain positive knowledge that a god exists, not the individuals acceptance of its truth.

No, not quite. I have a coin that's 50% heads, vice versa tails. Do you believe it will be heads? Or do you disbelieve it will be heads?

Well, you'd answer that you neither believe nor disbelieve, but that there is a possibility of both. Even if you tip the odds however which way, if I say there's a certain percentage for heads, you still wouldn't say, "Oh, I believe it'll be this way. Definitely!" You'd still say, "Probably it'll be heads or probably it'll be tails."

I suppose we do not have a name for this state, but we can call it the state of Limbo between Outcomes, or the State between Belief and Disbelief.

And you are right in saying that however one holds his reservations, he still does not believe.

...but he still doesn't disbelieve either.

So are you saying that god is a probability to people that believe, as well as a probability to those that do not believe?

You use an example where it is a given that a coin has two sides. We all believe this, there is no question as to the existence of coins or that they have heads, AND tails. Then you try to assert that belief in god is like a coin toss.

LOL.

So the fact that one minute the coin can be heads then the next when we toss it again, it can be tails, does this make this a good example?

No. God either exists or god does not exist, if god exists now, then the next moment god does not exist . . . wow.

The worst example EVER.

Probabilistic entities do no require belief. If the probability can be known, then it exists plain and simple regardless of what state it exists in from toss to toss.

Heads never stops existing becuase it is on tails.

________________________________

Anything less then a belief, is non belief.

Here I do not quite see your point. These people who I "don't want to call Atheist" - they don't buy the traditional sense of God, ie. they don't believe in it, but it's not that they do not believe in *a* sense of God. Thus, it's not that they disbelieve the possibility of God altogether, it is that they disbelieve the *traditional*, or Abrahamic/Hindu/Buddhist/Greek/etc sense of God and believe in something slightly different or something slightly looser.

These people, I would argue then, are not, of course, Atheist. By the above argument, these people would fall under Agnosticism because they acknowledge the possibility of some sort of deity; they simply say that we do not know. Now, you may say that this "fact" that we do not know is a belief, but we have not proven the existence of God, nor have we proven that there isn't a God. Thus, by the scientific method, we can only shrug our shoulders and say, well...we don't know.

Now, I don't care if I'm association with the label "Atheist," only that it is not true, at least by my above definition. I do not believe that there is no God, gods, or deity of any kind, shape, or form. I acknowledge that it is possible. I do not believe that these deities do not exist, nor do I disbelieve that they do not exist. Thus, I seem to exist at this state of Uncertainty that I described much earlier.

Often in this world, we find that things are not quite black and white, I suppose. There is a spectrum, and there is a middle ground. I contest that Belief/Disbelief also has a middle ground called Uncertainty.

And to tell you the truth, this state of Limbo, or State between Belief and Disbelief...let's just call it the state of Uncertainty. I wish I had come up with that sooner. ;-)

I do think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that the exact nature of God is a probability. I am saying that we HUMANS can feel about a certain concept a measure of uncertainty. For me, I say that God MIGHT exist, but that he MIGHT NOT exist. This is perfectly logical, for I do not know whether he exists or not.

Let me ask you a question: Is there a pen in my pocket or isn't there?

You have no basis by which to say, "I believe there is a pencil in your pocket." You have no basis to say the reverse is true either. So, this is uncertainty, and I argue that this is the state of Agnosticism, at least for some, and at least for me.

Now, some versions of Quantum Mechanics take the pen in the pocket situation a step further. Some versions say that until you look in my pocket, *there is BOTH a pen in my pocket, and there is NOT a pen in my pocket*. Two universes exist simultaneously and when you finally view the pen, you collapse the two universes into one reality. This idea is illustrated by the thought experiment usually called Schrodinger's Cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
This idea is an observable phenomenon actually. I believe Quantum Tunneling can be explained simply by this idea, as well as the Wave-Particle Duality.

Now, apply the same logic to divine beings. For such beings beyond our comprehension, we can easily say perhaps these beings BOTH exist and do not exist. Perhaps the whole concept of existence is completely different for divine beings? Who are we to define and limit the nature of a supposedly infinite being anyhow?

Anyway, I think I have sufficiently shown you how there is not simply Belief and Disbelief, but Uncertainty as well.

Well, as to be very specific as to what I'm referring to:
In your post appears the statement to the effect of:

One moment, God exists...in the next, he does not...Wow, that's a bad example.

Well, perhaps yes, or perhaps he exists and does not exist at the same time. As I wrote above, if God is beyond our comprehension, etc, perhaps paradoxes like this fit. After all, you have the Trinity, where God is three things, but one thing? And then God has a son, who is supposedly God at the same time, who then dies and returns to God, who is himself? I mean, that's ridiculous, but when taken from the viewpoint of Quantum Mechanics, the concept is not quite so ridiculous (though it is still somewhat ridiculous).

Either you believe or do not. I have no reason to believe that there is a pen in your pocket.

Why would I believe this? Regardless of if it CAN be true, it is still a subject of what we ACTUALLY believe.

If you gave me a reason to believe you had a pen in your pocket then I would at least ask myself to make a judgment based on evidence, however even if I do not make a judgment, I do not have a belief that there IS a pen there.

Why, or how could the default view ever be that there IS a pen in your pocket?

Now If I could see the bulge of a pen in your pocket, then I would have a belief that you have something pen shaped in your pocket, and that is good enough for me especially if you just had one in your hand I looked away then you asked me to make a judgment.


I do fully understand you.


You have not answered for yourself what a belief is.


Once you answer this for yourself, then you will have everything you need to answer this question.

__________________________

You can go to Quantum mechanics if you like but I do not see it as necessary to deal with the idea of belief.

Nor do I think you can have a superposition of a universe with and without a god, that requires a god to have created this universe, and also have a universe where god did not create the universe.

Word soup at best.

My definition of a Belief: An idea that is taken to be true.



So, back to the pen:

-You do not take it to be true that there is a pen in my pocket.
-So...do you take it to be true that there is NO pen in my pocket?


NOTE the EDIT.

What is the default? Is the default really uncertainty?

I think with 0 info, the default is lack of belief. With some info gain uncertainty, then when enough info comes in then you can have a rational positive belief for or against the idea.

With no information would there, Could there, ever be a reason to believe?
This is where faith comes in dude.
If you where a close friend of mine who was trust worthy and said that there was a pen in your pocket, Id believe you . . . . on faith.


All atheism is, is a lack of faith in the premise that god exists. We do not believe. There are plenty of atheists that DO take a positive assertion that there CAN BE NO god. This does not make atheism a positive, there is no dogma that states lack of belief must also included a positive rejection. Uncertainty is not accepting it as true. Uncertainty and a positive rejection both share one thing in common, neither hold the assertion as true . . . Yet.

However all it takes to be a theist is belief that there is a god, and all it takes to be an atheist is a lack of that same very belief.

Here is an example I use all the time to help illustrate the proper use of the "A" prefix.

Asexual. Describes a creature that reproduces "without" sex.


You can be both an agnostic atheist, and an agnostic theist.
You can also be noncommittal if it makes you more comfortable, however be prepared to always have people like me break down the scientific, mathematical nature of the relationships between ideas and the decision to accept, or reject the truthfulness of those ideas. We are after all talking about human nature, and the relevance of acceptance of ideas from perception.

I think the issue here is credulity. What does it take for you to accept something as true?

"With no information would there, Could there, ever be a reason to believe?" Well, believe what?

-Believe that there IS a God? Nope, there's not enough information.
-Believe that there IS NOT a God? Nope, there's not enough information.

The simple fact that you did not answer yes or no to my question shows that you have not decided because -there is not enough information-. This state where you have not decided due to a lack of information is the state of Uncertainty.
And what if I told you that you would never have enough information. Well, you maybe you would say that you cannot believe either way, and that's it - maybe Agnostics cannot believe either way because they don't feel there is enough information and there is never enough information.

Thus, they do not believe, and they do not disbelieve. They are uncertain.

Simply put:

Yes. = Believe.
No. = Disbelieve.
I don't know if the answer is Yes or No. = Uncertainty.

Okay, that's the last time I'm going to explain it in this thread. THAT I believe.

I do not argue that point at all.

I am uncertain. I am not what is sometimes called a strong atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist.

I do not hold that god cannot exist, I do not hold that we can likely know. I do not hold that a god does exist.

To be a theist one MUST accept that god exists.
To be atheist all one must not do is accept that god exists.
___________________________________________________

You have a perspective of what atheism is, and will not change that apparently regardless of the logic of how and when a non belief becomes a belief.

Uncertainty is by its very nature NOT a positive belief.