Do you believe in God?

[Azuremen]

That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'.

How is that anything like guilty till proven innocent?

Do you agree that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Yes and no. Yes in that a lack of evidence, aka no research or studies, is not evidence for the lack of something. No in that the absence of results from a test can be considered evidence.

 

[Jubby]

You have a misunderstanding of what faith is in a Christian sense.

Actually, I do know what faith is, and faith in a Christian sense. That is something I knew very well for some time.

One item that you will need to remember in any debate, is that you cannot make presumptions on what knowledge someone does or does not have. I don't take it personally, but you won't gain any traction in any argument by doing this. Next time, ask.

And you can believe in whatever you want, as long as you can justify or give reasons for that belief.

Yes I can, and we only need to justify them to ourselves. That's what makes it a belief. If it doesn't make sense to ourselves, we wont believe it.

Now, if you want to learn other beliefs, than great. Learn about it.

What other belief systems do you know about in depth, TankAss?

 

[homeforsummer]

The Genetic Fallacy is when one tries to invalidate a position by criticising the way a person came to hold that position. The way a person came to hold a position (or how he reacts to objection) has no relevance on the truth of the position in itself.

What's the fallacy called when the only technique you have for arguing your point is dismissing other peoples' posts as various fallacies?

That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'.

No, that's called Christianity.

 

[BobK]

Why do I have to justify what I believe?

I believe there is nothing beyond this life. Why? Because.

Hardly any less valid than your argument and reasons for believing in your God.

That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Would you care to explain the line of reasoning that led to that statement? I ask because I honestly cannot see how you arrived at it from Azuremen's statement.

 

[TankAss95]

Actually, I do know what faith is, and faith in a Christian sense. That is something I knew very well for some time.

Do you mind me asking what influenced your unbelief?

One item that you will need to remember in any debate, is that you cannot make presumptions on what knowledge someone does or does not have. I don't take it personally, but you won't gain any traction in any argument by doing this. Next time, ask.

In what sense of knowledge? Imagine if you were a soldier home from duty, and I started to criticise your experience, telling you that I know what it's like (even though I've never been there). You have every right to refute my statement.

I can't understand why someone can say that they 'used' to be Christian. If you really did accept Jesus as the Son of God, and had a personal relationship with God himself (two things that every Christian I have encountered has claimed if asked), then what triggered your unbelief? We're you confused at the time?

And I don't want to cause any offense (genually), I'm really curious to know.

Yes I can, and we only need to justify them to ourselves. That's what makes it a belief. If it doesn't make sense to ourselves, we wont believe it.

The first best thing I was taught back when I first got into primary school, is that you can think whatever you like, as long as you can give a reason/explanation as to why you think so.

Now, if you want to learn other beliefs, than great. Learn about it.

What other belief systems do you know about in depth, TankAss?

What do you mean?

What's the fallacy called when the only technique you have for arguing your point is dismissing other peoples' posts as various fallacies?

Over this short discussion I have never brought up any points defending my belief in itself (not intentionally, anyway). I was just refuting something I found fallicious.

No, that's called Christianity.

?

Would you care to explain the line of reasoning that led to that statement? I ask because I honestly cannot see how you arrived at it from Azuremen's statement.

It's about a negative/positive view about something. It depends what Azuremen actually meant. Did he mean that there is no afterlife (in an absolute sense? Or did he mean that there is almost certainly no afterlife?
The point I was trying to make is that to make a claim about the existance of something (either positive or negative) you have to give reasons for that view (in a debate). It is then that the participants can give their opinion about the view which someone has claimed.

Let's take my cat for example. He is not an atheist, he is an agnostic. He does not have the means to express and opinion in itself. He just doesn't know.

The atheist position is that either:
A) God does not exist.
B) It is highly unlikely that God exists.

The agnostic:
A) Undecided.
B) It is impossible to know if God exists.

Agnostic is the neutral ground. Atheism/Theism are both positive statements. The atheist has to support his claim that God does not exist or that his existance is highly unlikely, and the theist has to support his opposite claim.
That's why the labelling of atheism as 'a lack of belief' is fallicious and actually a spoilage of the English language.

As I said absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Atheism is actually a positive claim in itself.

 

[Famine]

The atheist has to support his claim that God does not exist or that his existance is highly unlikely, and the theist has to support his opposite claim.

Not when the thing in question is non-falsifiable. Since your God of Abraham defines itself through non-falsifiable qualities, it's not beholden on anyone to prove or disprove it because it's impossible to do so. You can only disregard it as unlikely or unviable (the default position) or make a belief-based value judgement (a subjective position) that it's real.

If you're not talking of the God of Abraham specifically, just deities, the responsibility for proof falls on the shoulders of those the assert the existence of them - proving non-existence is futile.

See Russell's Teapot.

 

[niky]

As I said absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Atheism is actually a positive claim in itself.

And absence of evidence against is not evidence against absence?

Atheism is an easy position to defend, simply because proof for God is impossible to produce.

You've got the entire argument the other way around. The Universe is innocent of divine cause until proven guilty. It's theism that suspects some deity of divine foul play, creating this Universe without being asked to. It's up to theists to prove this position.

 

[TankAss95]

Let's take fairies or unicorns or even Russell's Teapot itself. I say they almost certainly don't exist. Why? Because these were used in a creative sense rather than actual historical accounts. And for Russell's teapot, it almost certainly does not exist because the author used it as a analogy.
So now I have given reasons why I view these things as almost certainly non-existent in reality (well, rather poorly at that).

Not when the thing in question is non-falsifiable. Since your God of Abraham defines itself through non-falsifiable qualities, it's not beholden on anyone to prove or disprove it because it's impossible to do so. You can only disregard it as unlikely or unviable (the default position) or make a belief-based value judgement (a subjective position) that it's real.

So then, was I born an atheist? No. I was born an agnostic.
The burden of proof lies on the person who claims. A theist most certainly has to give a reason for his claim, but the atheist has to do so too because he is also making a positive (or negative, rather) claim in itself.

Azuremen: I don't believe that there is an afterlife.
Me: I do.

The neutral position is 'don't know'. Anything else other than the neutral position of a non-falsifiable claim has to have a reason along with it.

If you're not talking of the God of Abraham specifically, just deities, the responsibility for proof falls on the shoulders of those the assert the existence of them - proving non-existence is futile.

See Russell's Teapot.

I disagree. Firstly because I don't see God on par as the belief of a flying teapot - God is an explanation of true reality.
Obviously that is a subjective statement, but secondly, to imply that something is non-existent or unlikely to exist, you have to have an explanation for that stance since it is not neutral. As I said, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Do you mind me asking you if you are an agnostic or an atheist?

 

[huskeR32]

You have a misunderstanding of what faith is in a Christian sense. It's closer to trust than anything else.

We've gone over this. Faith is faith is faith, regardless of if it's used in a "Christian sense" or not. Faith is belief without evidence to back up the belief. Doesn't matter what you are having faith in, it always means the same thing. Stop trying to make theism special.

Atheism/Theism are both positive statements. The atheist has to support his claim that God does not exist or that his existance is highly unlikely, and the theist has to support his opposite claim.

Somehow (and I don't know how, since you've been told so many times), you're still misusing the word atheism.

Atheism is not a positive statement about anything. It's the lack of making (or believing in) the positive statement that god exists. Let's try and clear this up once and for all:

Azuremen: I don't believe that there is an afterlife.
Me: I do.

If Azuremen had said "There is not an afterlife," then he would have made a positive claim that you could have reasonably expected him to provide proof for. But he didn't. He just said what he believed. There is a big difference between those seemingly very similar statements. Now, let's apply this to your misunderstanding of atheism:

Atheists say "I don't believe in god." You argue against them as if they said "There is not a god."

See the difference?

 

[homeforsummer]

?

"Guilty until proven innocent" = Christianity.

Being encouraged to confess and repent each week regardless of how good you've been is pretty much the definition of guilty until proven innocent. Do nothing, be sorry for it.

 

[Famine]

Let's take fairies or unicorns or even Russell's Teapot itself. I say they almost certainly don't exist. Why? Because these were used in a creative sense rather than actual historical accounts. And for Russell's teapot, it almost certainly does not exist because the author used it as a analogy.
So now I have given reasons why I view these things as almost certainly non-existent in reality (well, rather poorly at that).

None of which is the proof you demand.

So then, was I born an atheist? No. I was born an agnostic.
The burden of proof lies on the person who claims. A theist most certainly has to give a reason for his claim, but the atheist has to do so too because he is also making a positive (or negative, rather) claim in itself.

No, he isn't. The claimant is the one who invokes the entity. Simply saying "Wait, what? No." isn't a claim.

Your God of Abraham is, specifically, non-falsifiable through claims of non-falsifiable attributes. It's not beholden on anyone to prove or disprove it because it is neither proveable nor disproveable - that's what non-falsifiability is.

Deities in general - ones that don't have non-falsifiable attributes claimed on their behalf - are not non-falsifiable. To invoke one requires proof.

The neutral position is 'don't know'. Anything else other than the neutral position of a non-falsifiable claim has to have a reason along with it.

No, because non-falsifiable claims cannot either be proven nor disproven.

I disagree.

I wouldn't for a second expect that you wouldn't.

Firstly because I don't see God on par as the belief of a flying teapot - God is an explanation of true reality.
Obviously that is a subjective statement, but secondly, to imply that something is non-existent or unlikely to exist, you have to have an explanation for that stance since it is not neutral. As I said, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

Proving non-existence is impossible. That takes us right back to Russell's Teapot. Or, if you'll only consider things that take the form of a deity, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


The claim is that the existence of your God explains reality. The burden of proof is thus on those who make that claim. Of course your God is non-falsifiable, so that means you cannot prove it any more than we can disprove it and there is no burden of proof.

Meanwhile in the land of objectivity, the edges of the map are being filled in.

Do you mind me asking you if you are an agnostic or an atheist?

...

 

[Moglet]

Let's take fairies or unicorns or even Russell's Teapot itself. I say they almost certainly don't exist. Why? Because these were used in a creative sense rather than actual historical accounts.

That's exactly my take on religion.

I've said it once and I'll say it again; Just because Hogwarts is in a book it doesn't mean it's real.

 

[TankAss95]

@Famine:

So the burden of proof lies on the affirmer of the non-falsifiable claim, then the refuter shares some of the burden in the argument (if the argument is strong, of course)? Fine, I can deal with that, I think.

So why atheist? Why not agnostic? What is the difference between the two?

 

[Touring Mars]

So why atheist? Why not agnostic? What is the difference between the two?

Atheist means lacking belief in God(s). Agnostic means lacking knowledge.

I choose to be an atheist because I am agnostic on the matter of the existence of God(s). I'm agnostic because there exists a lack of objective evidence that God exists. By definition, objective evidence does not depend on what I think or choose to believe. Therefore, while I choose to be atheist, I do not choose to be agnostic.

Theists can be (and really ought to be) agnostic too, because there does exist a lack of objective evidence of the existence of any God(s). But despite that lack of objective evidence, theists choose to believe that (their) God exists. Since belief in God does not require there to be any evidence anyway, it is perhaps not that surprising that theists can be agnostic as well.

 

[Jubby]

Do you mind me asking what influenced your unbelief?...
I can't understand why someone can say that they 'used' to be Christian. If you really did accept Jesus as the Son of God, and had a personal relationship with God himself (two things that every Christian I have encountered has claimed if asked), then what triggered your unbelief? We're you confused at the time?
And I don't want to cause any offense (genually), I'm really curious to know.

No offense taken. If it was too personal, I'd either PM you, or decline statement.
I learned about God as a child. I really gave it the chance that it deserved. Over time, I learned more. I became educated. I didn't restrict my thought to "because God..." as I once did. Even then, I still held the faith. When a man of God (Reverend) judges a person, it had a strange effect. When a mother, also a believer, has forsaken her son (my brother), and no one is there by the grace of God for him, it continued to make me think. No repercussions, they continue to be lifted up by Him despite their sin. I stopped attending services. Nothing bad happened. The normal good things didn't cease, either. I realized that I had control over my life and I was able to make things happen. Me. I wasn't waiting for God to give something to me or take it away. I had to earn every thing. Fortunately, that's the truth of life. I remained on the fence for many years. Over the last few years, I've objectively looked back at it. Where was he? What did he do? How did he help? How did he hurt me? When I thought about it; Nowhere, nothing, not at all, and... not at all. It was me. When I did something, a consequence fell. It was an expected consequence. So, if he wasn't anywhere, or make any contributions, then does he really exist? I don't believe so. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll find out someday. We'll die and either find that we're at the crossroads, or as I tend to think, we'll move on to the next existence.

In what sense of knowledge? Imagine if you were a soldier home from duty, and I started to criticise your experience, telling you that I know what it's like (even though I've never been there). You have every right to refute my statement.

You made a presumption of my knowledge of the Christian faith. I wanted to address a poor presumption. That's why I said to ask before making a presumption that may not be accurate.

What do you mean?

I presume you're asking about the other belief systems. What I was asking was: Do you know or understand other theologies beyond basic information (Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, etc.)?

 

[TankAss95]

Atheist means lacking belief in God(s). Agnostic means lacking knowledge.

I choose to be an atheist because I am agnostic on the matter of the existence of God(s). I'm agnostic because there exists a lack of objective evidence that God exists. By definition, objective evidence does not depend on what I think or choose to believe. Therefore, while I choose to be atheist, I do not choose to be agnostic.

Theists can be (and really ought to be) agnostic too, because there does exist a lack of objective evidence of the existence of any God(s). But despite that lack of objective evidence, theists choose to believe that (their) God exists. Since belief in God does not require there to be any evidence anyway, it is perhaps not that surprising that theists can be agnostic as well.

So what you are saying is that things have to be certain in order for us to know them? I disagree. Just because we don't have 100% knowledge about something does not mean that there is no objective truth to be found.
The way I understand it is that there is similarities between certainty and knowledge. After all, we are not certain about almost everything. I presume that you are certain that you have a head for example. Yes? Well theoretically you could be in some sort of matrix with your thoughts being stimulated by a mad scientist! I am pretty sure that I am holding a phone in front of me right now (app for the win! Thanks Jordan! 👍 ). I can not be certain that I am holding a phone, but I can know that I am holding a phone because it is a basic belief that I rationally accept (without even thinking to be honest).
So we can know the truth about reality by weighing the for and against arguments and then coming to a conclusion. Now of course you could be smart and reject what I have said because I am only believing things on my own perception, but seriously, I just believe that I am holding a phone in front of me right now, and that it is true reality. I also believe that you exist, and that there are other conscious minds out there other than my own. Why? Common sense. It's a basic belief. It's a leap of faith and I refuse to see it as being irrational. If you refuse my claim that we can know things without being 100% certain then there is little point of you wasting your time here in The God thread, reading this post.

I would also like to add that we can be certain about things that we don't know, too. I can't know wether Napoleon spat in a puddle on the 18th of April, 1805. What I do know though that he either did or he didn't, and the it is true or false independently as to wether we can know it. Even if our knowledge is changing and shifting it does not mean that there is no objective truth to be found contrary to what postmodernists claim to think.

I can't help but feel that you are restricting yourself if you only accept what is 100% certain (if you do, of course. I don't want to put words into your mouth). I really think that you have to accept basic thruths, even if there is no certainty for, in order to get to where you want to be. But after all, your the smart guy. I'd hate to lecture you.

In conclusion can we know things without certainty? Well, I believe we can.

 

[BobK]

It's about a negative/positive view about something. It depends what Azuremen actually meant.

Well, this is what he said:

I believe there is nothing beyond this life.

Did he mean that there is no afterlife (in an absolute sense? Or did he mean that there is almost certainly no afterlife?

He said, "I believe there is nothing beyond this life." He did not say "I'm pretty sure there is nothing beyond this life", nor did he say "I believe there is nothing beyond this life, but I could be wrong."

I don't understand why you're questioning what he "really" meant, nor do I see what difference it makes. Continuing, though:

The point I was trying to make is that to make a claim about the existance of something (either positive or negative) you have to give reasons for that view (in a debate). It is then that the participants can give their opinion about the view which someone has claimed.

You haven't explained how that is in any way, shape or form like "guilty until proven innocent". Please fill in that gap for us.

The atheist has to support his claim that God does not exist or that his existance is highly unlikely, and the theist has to support his opposite claim.

Good grief, why does an atheist have to support a claim he is not making? Agreed, there are some atheists who proclaim (rather loudly sometimes) that God does not exist. Yes they should support their claim(s). But that's not true of all atheists.

That's why the labelling of atheism as 'a lack of belief' is fallicious and actually a spoilage of the English language.

As I said absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Atheism is actually a positive claim in itself.

The definition of atheism has been pointed out to you again and again and again. If anything is a "spoilage of the English language" in this thread, it would be your redefinition of words to suit your purposes.

 

[HP]

Surely the onus of proof lies with those claiming something to be true?

Without theists there'd be no atheists that's for sure so in this case it makes logical sense to me that the burden of proof lay with theists.

Personally, as I've stated, I believe there is nothing else. We are born, we live then we die and feed the worms and that is it IMO.

 

[TankAss95]

Well, this is what he said:

He said, "I believe there is nothing beyond this life." He did not say "I'm pretty sure there is nothing beyond this life", nor did he say "I believe there is nothing beyond this life, but I could be wrong."

I don't understand why you're questioning what he "really" meant, nor do I see what difference it makes. Continuing, though:

It does make a difference. There is a logical difference between believing that there is no afterlife and not-believing that there is an afterlife.

You haven't explained how that is in any way, shape or form like "guilty until proven innocent". Please fill in that gap for us.

Sam: I believe that there is no gold in mars.
Julie: I do not believe that there is gold on mars.

See the difference?

The statement "Gold on mars does not exist until it has been proven" is clearly fallacious for example. Now if you believe something is not, then that is in itself an absolute statement. On dealing with a non-falsifiable concept such as the afterlife, a belief that it does not exist needs justification. A disbelief in the afterlife is neutral, and does not require justification.

Why is this important? Well because I am fed up having the burden of proof places upon me while others get away from it. Sure, a lack of belief does not need justification, but a belief that there is no (p) does, just like the belief that there is (p).

Good grief, why does an atheist have to support a claim he is not making? Agreed, there are some atheists who proclaim (rather loudly sometimes) that God does not exist. Yes they should support their claim(s). But that's not true of all atheists.

The definition of atheism has been pointed out to you again and again and again. If anything is a "spoilage of the English language" in this thread, it would be your redefinition of words to suit your purposes.

You have questioned above as to why it really matters, then answered the question in your own post. If you claim to believe that there is no afterlife, then that is not a neutral statement. If you claim to believe that there is no God, then that is not a neutral statement. If you claim that you do not believe that there is an afterlife/God however, then that is a neutral statement.

 

[Dapper]

Atheist means lacking belief in God(s). Agnostic means lacking knowledge.

I choose to be an atheist because I am agnostic on the matter of the existence of God(s). I'm agnostic because there exists a lack of objective evidence that God exists. By definition, objective evidence does not depend on what I think or choose to believe. Therefore, while I choose to be atheist, I do not choose to be agnostic.

Theists can be (and really ought to be) agnostic too, because there does exist a lack of objective evidence of the existence of any God(s). But despite that lack of objective evidence, theists choose to believe that (their) God exists. Since belief in God does not require there to be any evidence anyway, it is perhaps not that surprising that theists can be agnostic as well.

Agnosticism is a belief, not a deficit, agreed? I disagree that because there is no objective evidence God exist then everyone is automatically Agnostic.
Being Agnostic, meaning to personally establish the defined belief, only requires one to "do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable", conclusions being either believing in God (theism) or the disbelief in God (atheism). This means that as soon as one takes the theist or atheist stance they are disqualified, by definition, from being agnostic. One can not be agnostic without the declaration of not being committed to the existence or non existence of God according to every definition I am privy to.

So, how can one pretend their religious conclusion are certain without evidence (which is what every atheist and theist does) yet be agnostic (which is the exact opposite of pretending religious conclusions are certain without evidence)?

 

[Joel]

Atheism is not a positive statement. It's a lack of a belief in god, not saying that there is no god. Big difference. See Russel's teapot.

 

[Famine]

@Famine:

So the burden of proof lies on the affirmer of the non-falsifiable claim, then the refuter shares some of the burden in the argument (if the argument is strong, of course)? Fine, I can deal with that, I think.

No. Non-falsifiable claims can neither be proven nor disproven, so there is no burden of proof at all. Such claims can - and should - be wholly ignored.

That's why the labelling of atheism as 'a lack of belief' is fallicious and actually a spoilage of the English language.

Which it isn't. For a start, it's Greek. "Theism" is the belief in at least one God (from the Greek "theos" ["god" or "divinity"]). This is modified by the Greek prefix "a" which means "the absence of". "Atheism" is thus "the absence of belief in at least one god".

"Gnosis" is Greek for "knowledge". A "gnostic" is someone who holds knowledge. "Gnosticism" is the practice of obtaining knowledge. Once again the Greek prefix "a" is applied to give us "the absence of the practice of obtaining knowledge".

There are those who would argue that we cannot know if God exists - we don't have the knowledge - and we are thus agnostic ("the absence of holding knowledge") about God unless we believe in God. The problem with that line of enquiry is that there is no objective way to know of the existence or non-existence of God - the knowledge is simply unobtainable because your God is non-falsifiable - and so it automatically becomes a belief matter and you either believe in your God (theist), believe that there is no God (nontheist) or lack any belief in gods (atheist). Christian theists are Islamic nontheists. Islamic theists are Hindu nontheists. Hindu theists are Nordic nontheists. Those of us who simply do not believe in any of them are atheists.

 

[Sach]

Non-falsifiable claims can neither be proven nor disproven, so there is no burden of proof at all. Such claims can - and should - be wholly ignored.

When?

Always?

Any subject matter?

What if someone mentions something non-falsifiable in passing?

 

[Touring Mars]

So what you are saying is that things have to be certain in order for us to know them?

No, absolutely not - as has been pointed out repeatedly in various threads, science is not about establishing certainty at all - it is about creating knowledge through the discovery of evidence. Our knowledge may always be incomplete, but various claims can be disproven or ruled out because of the presence of evidence that unequivocally demonstrates the falsity of such claims. Where there is a lack of evidence, or in the case where a claim cannot be falsified by evidence, one cannot be anything but skeptical or agnostic regarding that claim. Where there is evidence, we can use it to construct theories which in turn explain the presence of that evidence. Importantly, theories can be tested and are always open to new evidence, but this does not mean that we are incapable of accruing knowledge. The key point here is that our knowledge is informed by evidence that everyone is privy to and able to analyse for themselves.

In conclusion can we know things without certainty? Well, I believe we can.

Of course we can. But the question is, what qualifies as 'knowing' something? Scientific knowledge is that which is supported by evidence and can be demonstrated to a skeptical third party. Without evidence, you do not have a theory (a real, scientific explanation), but merely a hypothesis, which may or may not be testable. Personal revelation, experiences and fleeting thoughts that go through your head do not qualify as scientific evidence.

because there is no objective evidence God exist then everyone is automatically Agnostic.

That is what I was saying...

This means that as soon as one takes the theist or atheist stance they are disqualified, by definition, from being agnostic.

No... theism/atheism is about belief, not about knowledge. Whether one is agnostic depends on one's state of knowledge on a subject - belief is completely separate. Part of my point was that, if we hold the existence of God to the same (basic) standards of evidence as we do everything else, then it would be fair to say that the jury is still out on his existence (because there is no objective evidence to support the claim) and therefore we are all technically agnostic on the matter. Of course, there will be those who deny this, and who claim to have evidence of God's existence, but whenever they are asked to provide that evidence, they refuse and/or are incapable of doing so.

 

[Famine]

When?

Always?

Any subject matter?

What if someone mentions something non-falsifiable in passing?

It is not possible to objectively know that something non-falsifiable is true or false - you can only believe in it, disbelieve it or disregard it. If objective knowledge isn't what you're after, you can go right ahead and believe in it or disbelieve it.

 

[BobK]

Okay. *Deep breath* Let's try this again from the top.

I believe there is nothing beyond this life.

That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'.

Would you care to explain the line of reasoning that led to that statement?

Or, to put it another way, how did you get from "I believe there is nothing beyond this life" to "That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'."?

Your answer was something along the lines of "well, it depends on what he really meant". I am willing to stipulate that he meant exactly what he said, your unwillingness to do so has nothing whatsoever to do with
how did you get from "I believe there is nothing beyond this life" to "That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'."?

There is a logical difference between believing that there is no afterlife and not-believing that there is an afterlife.

Yes. Of course. You're right. No argument on that. But, again, it's totally irrelevant to my question. To reiterate, my question is:

How did you get from "I believe there is nothing beyond this life" to "That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'."?

You may as well have said, "Two plus two equals four". That's just as correct as "There is a logical difference between believing that there is no afterlife and not-believing that there is an afterlife". And just as irrelevant to my question, which is, to reiterate:

How did you get from "I believe there is nothing beyond this life" to "That's like 'guilty until proven innocent'."?

 

[Dapper]

TM- What is "technically agnostic"?
Not being semantical, agnosticism, or any religious affiliation, has only to do with belief. Even if God was 100% proven tomorrow and it was found out the new testament is correct, that wouldn't make everyone a Christian. They would only be Christian if they declare Christianity.

I don't understand where knowledge has anything to do with being agnostic, again, no definition has a caveat that despite one's beliefs, their knowledge base is what determines their religious affiliation.

Atheism is not a positive statement. It's a lack of a belief in god, not saying that there is no god. Big difference. See Russel's teapot.

Declaring atheism is believing you know an answer without all the information and while the answer is not attainable, it is pretending a conclusion is certain without demonstrable evidence.

 

[homeforsummer]

I don't understand where knowledge has anything to do with being agnostic

Well, it's part of the word for a start...

"Gnosis" is Greek for "knowledge". A "gnostic" is someone who holds knowledge. "Gnosticism" is the practice of obtaining knowledge. Once again the Greek prefix "a" is applied to give us "the absence of the practice of obtaining knowledge".

 

[Touring Mars]

TM- What is "technically agnostic"?

I mean that, due to the lack of evidence that any Gods exist, everyone is effectively agnostic when it comes to the existence of Gods.

Not being semantical, agnosticism, or any religious affiliation, has only to do with belief.

Agnostic literally means (being) without knowledge, so it can apply to anything, not just religion. In the context of the debate about the existence of God, no-one can rightly claim to have knowledge (as defined as objective, scientific evidence) of the existence of God, therefore, strictly speaking, everyone is agnostic when it comes to the existence of God, whether they admit it/realise it/believe it or not.

I don't understand where knowledge has anything to do with being agnostic

It has everything to do with it - by definition, agnostic means 'without knowledge'. If you do not know, then you are agnostic. If you claim not to be agnostic, then you need to provide evidence to back up your claim. Remember that theists (believers) can be (and ought to be) agnostic too.

Declaring atheism is saying you know an answer without all the information and the answer is not known, it is pretending a conclusion is certain without demonstrable evidence.

No.

Declaring atheism - that you do not believe in any Gods - is just that, and only that.

Declaring agnosticism - that you do not know whether Gods exist or not - is to admit that one doesn't have enough information/evidence to know either way, and may never have. I argue that everyone is effectively agnostic because no-one currently has that information. Being agnostic on the existence of God is entirely sensible, since to claim otherwise would require one to provide evidence to back up that claim.

Not believing that Gods exist (atheism) is not the same as claiming that you know for certain that Gods do not exist (that is nontheism, not atheism). Atheism is simply a lack of belief, not a statement of certainty either way. As such, atheism is entirely consistent with agnosticism - and agnosticism on the existence of Gods is entirely consistent with the evidence (or more specifically, the lack of it).

 

[Dapper]

The Greek root is not the definition! Agnostic in the English language strictly deals with beliefs or opinions, is a noun, meaning a person, place or thing, and by it's modern English definition is a "person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion", or in the religious context, that one is a person who believes God is unknowable; And then considering any being intelligent enough to consider life's origins (or anything really), at the precise moment it does so, it, from then on, has a belief about life's origins (or anything) whether it be God, no God, or that we can't know, therefore it is impossible for a person to be defined as Agnostic and still hold an affirmative stance on whatever issue. Once you ponder something you have to form a belief.

Saying atheist contemplate life's origin and then do not have a belief is pat.