Neither a theist nor an atheist.

[abaddon]

For myself, I'm an igtheist. I can be atheist or theist depending on the definition of god. I'm atheist to most known definitions, and agnostic about all unknown definitions. It's untrue to believe a person must be either atheist or theist, unless you have just one particular (and defined) god in mind.

This is incorrect. You must still either be an atheist or a theist when it comes to the ill-defined gods you are also agnostic about.

No it's not incorrect. Even accepting the "lack of belief" definition of atheism (and there's no compelling reason to accept it) it doesn't mean I should have phrased anything different to be "correct". My intended meanings conform with dictionary definitions of the terms.

I was using agnostic in the "weak agnostic" sense. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism for a clarification of the distinction). You seem to want only "strong agnosticism" as the single correct way to understand agnosticism. Is it important to you to limit the choices? If so, then why?

Similarly, it is an atheist who gets to define atheism

That's a pretty nutty idea. This isn't a discussion about specialized technical uses of words, as among physicians or other experts in a specialized field. "Atheists" are experts in absolutely nothing.

For the most part, all the speakers of a language determine what the words of that language mean. Writers of dictionaries sort those meanings and come up with the most succinct summaries that they can.

 

[dystopian]

No it's not incorrect. Even accepting the "lack of belief" definition of atheism (and there's no compelling reason to accept it) it doesn't mean I should have phrased anything different to be "correct". My intended meanings conform with dictionary definitions of the terms.

I assure you it *is* correct. And there *is* compelling reason to accept the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism. For one, contrary to what you seem to believe; it IS part of the dictionary definition. Two, when the overwhelming majority of atheists themselves hold that that is in fact the definition of the word that defines them, you may think that's meaningless; but to think that to be meaningless is in fact absurd. Would you accept the logic that if surgeons define heart surgery as a surgical procedure done on or relating to the organ of the heart; that their definition is meaningless so long as everyone without a medical degree defines it as filling balloons with helium and floating about town with them? Don't be stupid.

I was using agnostic in the "weak agnostic" sense. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism for a clarification of the distinction).

Yes, I am aware of the distinction. It doesn't particularly matter, however, since a person who withholds judgement on the basis that it MIGHT one day be possible to know; must still neccessarily either be an atheist or a theist. Both strong and weak agnosticism must either fall into agnostic theism or agnostic atheism; you haven't established otherwise.

Incidentally, I find it highly ironic that you reject the definition of atheism as being one that includes simply the lack of belief (what we refer to as weak, or negative atheism); but then point to a wikipedia page on the types of agnosticism. What, does wikipedia only serve as a source to define words in ways you agree with but not otherwise? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions

You seem to want only "strong agnosticism" as the single correct way to understand agnosticism. Is it important to you to limit the choices? If so, then why?

No, it doesn't matter if one is a weak or strong agnostic. The only reason I stated that agnosticism means the belief that we can never know whether god exists or not is that it is the base form of the core concept of agnosticism. The core concept being the notion that we can't know whether god exists. Adding that we *might* one day be able to know is all well and good, but it represents a modification of the base notion. And in any case, it does not conflict with my statement that one must still either also be an atheist or a theist. Just because you refuse to make a definitive judgement on whether god exists or not (or whether we can *know* for the rest of the time) doesn't mean you've somehow transcended the requirement that you must still either believe or not believe. One can believe or disbelieve a thing without simultaneously rendering a judgement on its ultimate validity. There are many things I believe and disbelief in without judging them to be absolutely true or absolutely false.

That's a pretty nutty idea. This isn't a discussion about specialized technical uses of words, as among physicians or other experts in a specialized field. "Atheists" are experts in absolutely nothing.

Nonsense; it is in fact a specialized word. It is a term denoting a philosophical stance; one needs to have a certain level of understanding of the underlying philosophical concepts in order to be able to define the word.

For the most part, all the speakers of a language determine what the words of that language mean. Writers of dictionaries sort those meanings and come up with the most succinct summaries that they can.

Good thing the dictionary supports my definition, then.

 

[dystopian]

Yeah dumb dumb. Sure it does. Look up atheist, not atheism:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Congratulations, you've found one of the reasons why the dictionary is not an absolute source of knowledge. When the definition for atheist CONFLICTS with the definition of atheism (which is what an atheist ascribes to); then that means the dictionary is FLAWED. Merriam-webster could easily rectify this by replacing the singular (and incomplete) definition for atheist, with the dual definitions found under atheism. This would both keep the current definition intact and add a new one that then fully defines the two possible forms of being an atheist.

Of course, merriam-webster is hardly the end-all-be-all of dictionaries, nor do its compilers have the ability to correctly define the entirety of its contents. One might also point out the fact that the online version of its dictionary is NOT identical to its offline version. And other english language dictionaries provide slightly different (and sometimes more correct) definitions of words. Random House Webster's for instance, defines atheist as:


a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin:
1565–75; < Greek áthe ( os ) godless + -ist

See? They manage to incorporate both definitions that merriam webster only lists under atheism.

Finally, it may have occurred to you that English is not my native language and that as such, I do not exactly consider an *english* dictionary to be some sort of final authority on the meaning of words that also exist in my language.

In addition, usage of words is defined by those who use the words. If the majority of society uses the term atheist to mean "someone who believes that God does not exist", that is, for all intents and purposes, the definition of the word.

Which simply isn't true. Majority definition usage of words does NOT replace original definitions, it simply ADDS a new definition to the list of definitions of a word.

Of course, if you want to use the slang definition that cool cat atheists use, go ahead.

Arguing that it is the 'slang definition' when it is in fact the *original* definition of the word is laughably absurd.

 

[jonJ]

Really the question is not about some imaginary being.

The question is about what we all can experience.

The question is: How did the universe get here?

And for some the answer is; Some sentient being or beings created it. This makes you a theist.

And for some the answer is: No sentient beings were involved. This makes you an atheist.

And for some the answer is; I don't know. This makes you an agnostic.

The question is: How did the Sydney Harbour Bridge get here?

And for some the answer is a detailed description, extending over many pages, of the political preparations, the planning, the ordering and provision of materials, the assembly in careful stages of the components, the construction of supports, the connection of the pieces, the clean-up process, painting, and opening to traffic.

And for some the answer consists of seven words: 'People made it by doing people stuff!'

Which group's claim to knowledge would you take seriously?

 

[Kharakov]

Nonsense. The common usage of a word is often irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word. It is a *doctor* that gets to define medical terms, not a layperson. Similarly, it is an atheist who gets to define atheism; not 'society'. Incidentally, the merriam webster website does in fact use my definition. Not yours.

Yeah dumb dumb. Sure it does. Look up atheist, not atheism:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Congratulations, you've found one of the reasons why the dictionary is not an absolute source of knowledge.

So you cited the wrong definition at Merriam Webster to prove that I was wrong about the definition, and then you change positions on Merriam Webster's validity as a dictionary when you find that it does not support your specific view of the word atheist:

When the definition for atheist CONFLICTS with the definition of atheism (which is what an atheist ascribes to); then that means the dictionary is FLAWED.

And other english language dictionaries provide slightly different (and sometimes more correct) definitions of words. Random House Webster's for instance, defines atheist as:

a·the·ist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

See? They manage to incorporate both definitions that merriam webster only lists under atheism.

Yup. Although you really should read the clarification of the word atheist that they provide in the synonyms section.

"An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings."
...
"Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity."

Finally, it may have occurred to you that English is not my native language and that as such, I do not exactly consider an *english* dictionary to be some sort of final authority on the meaning of words that also exist in my language.

You probably should use the definition that English natives use on an English speaking discussion board.

At the very least say

" When a native English speaker uses a term, I will talk to them in a condescending manner about their incorrect usage of the term, citing English dictionaries to show that they used the word incorrectly.

When the English dictionaries are shown to disagree with what I said the term means, I will say the dictionaries are faulty and cite other dictionaries.

When the other dictionary has a clarification of the term that confirms what the native English speakers are saying, I will not notice it until it is pointed out to me.

I will also mention that English is not my native tongue after failed attempts to use English dictionaries to confirm what I claim a word means. I will say that I do not consider English dictionaries to be authorities on what words mean when I am speaking the English language.

"

Does that sum up your thoughts nicely?

Which simply isn't true. Majority definition usage of words does NOT replace original definitions, it simply ADDS a new definition to the list of definitions of a word.

You don't know that the word "atheist" didn't mean "lamb's wool" in some older dialect. The point being, it's usage to mean something else could predate all modern usage of the word.

Does this mean, that discovering some  homophone in an older language, we should use it to mean what the homophone means?

I'm pretty sure we will still use atheist the same as our peers do, and if we decide to speak a common language so that we can communicate ideas with one another, we sort of need to have some definitions in place.

Of course, if you want to use the slang definition that cool cat atheists use, go ahead.

Arguing that it is the 'slang definition' when it is in fact the *original* definition of the word is laughably absurd.

Not really, the usage of the term "slang" is correct.

The 4th definition of slang at dictionary.reference.com is: the jargon of a particular class, profession, etc.

 

[abaddon]

…there *is* compelling reason to accept the 'lack of belief' definition of atheism. For one, contrary to what you seem to believe; it IS part of the dictionary definition.

Dictionaries are rough guidelines lacking context. They often attempt to make up for that by giving example phrases. Citing them isn't all that compelling. I want to know the context whenever a word's being argued about.

Two, when the overwhelming majority of atheists themselves hold that that is in fact the definition of the word that defines them, you may think that's meaningless; but to think that to be meaningless is in fact absurd.

Why is your assertion about a "majority of atheists" supposed to be so compelling that questioning it would be absurd? It's likely that most, if not all, atheists adopted the term "atheist" for themselves because there's a god they disbelieve in. Reworking the term is something some (don't know how many, maybe just a few) started in on after their acknowledgment of their disbelief in a deity or all deities.

What's most interesting to me is you care about people defining themselves. You make it an issue of identity, but surely identity is more a matter for individuals and not a group. Unless the "majority of atheists" are a hive-mind? You want to make up everyone's mind with a generality, holding to some system that some atheists contrived.

Would you accept the logic that if surgeons define heart surgery as a surgical procedure done on or relating to the organ of the heart; that their definition is meaningless

Right there it's already a mere tautology.

so long as everyone without a medical degree defines it as filling balloons with helium and floating about town with them? Don't be stupid.

People without medical degrees defined both heart and surgery. The two words combined are widely understood, and it's surgeons using terms that were already defined by the real people.

Analogizing atheists with specialists isn't compelling. Specialists often use very obscure terms that most people would say "Huh?" at. Otherwise they may use common terms in specialized ways among themselves. The latter specialized usage does not obviate the common usage of those words. So even if atheists had their own special usage for the word "atheist" then everyone would still also have the common usage for it too.

But I think you're saying "People who best know their own beliefs should be the ones who get to say what they mean by the word". To which I say: 1) ok; and 2) I am an atheist and am participating in that discussion, because there's no authority that ever finalized the topic; and 3) I wonder, again, do you imagine the "overwhelming majority of atheists" finalizing, once and for all, how everyone must define themselves? (And managing, in a self-serving way, to do it so that no one may say "I'm an agnostic" anymore without some fussy person correcting them and telling them they're such-n-such a kind of atheist and that's the last word on it.)

Both strong and weak agnosticism must either fall into agnostic theism or agnostic atheism; you haven't established otherwise.

That's only true if "lack of belief" automatically makes one into an atheist. You assumed the point of contention in your conclusive "Thou must" assertion. I'm not contesting an established truth, as you like to pretend. I can withhold believing one way or the other regarding Gods that I haven't even heard about yet. I am not a disbeliever in them. "Lacking belief" does not commit me to a stance remotely similar to disbelief, and it's too general to be meaningful.

What, does wikipedia only serve as a source to define words in ways you agree with but not otherwise?

So the usefulness of wikipedia is a binary choice too? If some phrases on a page worked to help convey an idea, it doesn't mean I find the whole website authoritative, on anything at all.

Adding that we *might* one day be able to know is all well and good, but it represents a modification of the base notion.

I didn't add that. I said I'm agnostic about gods I've not heard about. I like taking particular cases to takes stances on, and want to avoid generalizations as much as possible. Hence my interest in the viewpoint of igtheism. It's the stance most amenable to those of us who prefer specific cases to applying a general principle across the board.

… doesn't mean you've somehow transcended the requirement that you must still either believe or not believe.

There's no such requirement. I am not an atheist about gods I don't know about. I might very well believe them after learning of them, it depends on whether they fit how I understand the world or not. Until I know if they're a fit or not, then I do indeed fully withhold both belief and disbelief. "Lack of belief" would make babies and rocks into atheists, which makes it over-general and thus a useless addition, so I discount it and thus discount the notion I must be either atheist or theist in regard to any god. And, again, it must be a god that's been specified for this either/or to apply anyway. If a Christian is a theist regarding Jehovah but atheist regarding Zeus then people can be both theists and atheists simultaneously. And maybe even agnostics as well! You have to say which god you mean to know which applies to the person.

Nonsense; it is in fact a specialized word. It is a term denoting a philosophical stance; one needs to have a certain level of understanding of the underlying philosophical concepts in order to be able to define the word.

Do persons need to know this philosophical stance and agree with it for the term to apply to them?

Are you trying to obviate anyone disagreeing with this particular little schema you've attached to with this "can't argue with the experts" shit?

 

[dystopian]

So you cited the wrong definition at Merriam Webster to prove that I was wrong about the definition, and then you change positions on Merriam Webster's validity as a dictionary when you find that it does not support your specific view of the word atheist:

...what? Are you seriously suggesting that the definition for *atheism* is wrong because the definition used for *atheist* isn't as comprehensive as the one used for atheism? Wtf?

Yup. Although you really should read the clarification of the word atheist that they provide in the synonyms section.

So what? That little blurb incomplete; which is understandable given that they don't actually have the room to properly address the difference between positive and negative atheism.

You probably should use the definition that English natives use on an English speaking discussion board.

I will use the definition used by english-speaking atheists.

Does this mean, that discovering some  homophone in an older language, we should use it to mean what the homophone means?

It means that words can have *multiple* meanings; and that one should utilize the one that makes the most sense given the context. Since atheism's definition includes several different ways in which it can be expressed, one should *not*, like you're doing, lock oneself into using only one of them.

Dictionaries are rough guidelines lacking context. They often attempt to make up for that by giving example phrases. Citing them isn't all that compelling. I want to know the context whenever a word's being argued about.

Yes, why are you pointing this out to me? I should think that my discussion with kharakov should establish that I agree with you on this. I didn't cite the dictionary definition as an authoritive source; I cited it as just one bit of evidence.

Why is your assertion about a "majority of atheists" supposed to be so compelling that questioning it would be absurd?

For the same reason that it'd be absurd to question that 'doctors' are people who perform medicine, even though most of them say that's what they do instead of making balloon animals like we might want to believe. When we're discussing the activities and beliefs of a distinct group of people, then it is THAT group of people who get to define those activities and beliefs, not the people who are NOT a part of that group. Why? Because that's how we get definitions like "atheist = satan worshipper"; or "Gay person = sheepfucker". Outsiders do not commonly have the proper understanding of a group's beliefs and thus their definitions of that group's beliefs can't be expected to be as accurate as a proper definition that's established by the members of the group itself.

It's likely that most, if not all, atheists adopted the term "atheist" for themselves because there's a god they disbelieve in. Reworking the term is something some (don't know how many, maybe just a few) started in on after their acknowledgment of their disbelief in a deity or all deities.

I can count on one hand the number of self-defined atheists I've met throughout my life that define atheism purely as the belief that god does exist, and none of them had thought through the consequences of such a strict singular definition.

What's most interesting to me is you care about people defining themselves. You make it an issue of identity, but surely identity is more a matter for individuals and not a group. Unless the "majority of atheists" are a hive-mind? You want to make up everyone's mind with a generality, holding to some system that some atheists contrived.

If the majority of *individuals* within a group define their beliefs a certain way, then that weighs more heavily when it comes to defining the beliefs of the group as a whole. than if a handful of individuals within the group define themselves in a slightly different way; especially when that slightly different way is still acknowledged as fitting within the majority spectrum of belief. If you don't accept the use of labels and words to describe certain groupings of people, then you might as well throw the entirety of language away because clearly, it should be up to me how I define a glarbooglooble and you can just pfinktploppity plop your own klooplah.

People without medical degrees defined both heart and surgery. The two words combined are widely understood,

No, I don't think so. Those two words have from the get go been defined by the surgeons themselves; if I invent a word for something, and then for the definition I say what basically amounts to: "this word is defined as what that person does"; then I'm not really the one who defined the word, I'm just the person who came up with a word to go with the existing definition.

and it's surgeons using terms that were already defined by the real people.

Are you suggesting surgeons aren't real people?

But I think you're saying "People who best know their own beliefs should be the ones who get to say what they mean by the word". To which I say: 1) ok; and 2) I am an atheist and am participating in that discussion, because there's no authority that ever finalized the topic; and 3) I wonder, again, do you imagine the "overwhelming majority of atheists" finalizing, once and for all, how everyone must define themselves?

No, I've never said that the majority represents some sort of absolute authority. But it doesn't really matter, does it? If you were to say that atheism is the specific belief that god does not exist; I say, okay... that's *A* form of atheism I already accept as part of the wider and more elaborate definition. I think you're confused here; *I* am the one who'se arguing that atheism can't be reduced to a singular definition (as that would leave many atheists out); and furthermore. None of which, incidentally, is relevant to my original argument in this thread, which is namely that regardless of how you define either theism or atheism, you still either believe or don't believe in god no matter how many qualifications like 'I believe this god does not exist' or 'I don't believe but I can't really know for sure' you tack onto that.

(And managing, in a self-serving way, to do it so that no one may say "I'm an agnostic" anymore without some fussy person correcting them and telling them they're such-n-such a kind of atheist and that's the last word on it.)

It's hardly being fussy; anybody who'se been an atheist for any length of time (and has spent time discussing it on the internet or elsewhere); will have more than once experienced the reason WHY I do so; namely, people using the term 'agnostic' as some sort of false 'neutral' ground that lets them off the hook (compared to us filthy 'angry' atheists); at the same time not realizing (or wanting to acknowledge because that takes away their precious ability to not be subjected to the same biases from theists as the rest of us nonbelievers are exposed to) that just because they're an agnostic doesn't mean they're therefore not both either a theist or an atheist as well. Agnostic isn't a third option between atheism and theism; it's a descriptive term that can slightly *modify* one's atheism or agnosticism. All it does is change your positition from "I do/do not believe this" to "I do/do not believe this, but I don't *know*".

That's only true if "lack of belief" automatically makes one into an atheist.

Which it does. The only way that it can't (and even then not really) is if you NARROW the definition of atheism to only meaning "someone who believes god does not exist"; in which case your earlier objection to your perception that I wasn't allowing for individuality to matter when it comes to these definitions. But even then, lack of belief is already included in the definition of 'believing god does not exist'. I suppose you COULD decide to define atheism as something that doesn't even address the belief in god at all; or reverse its definition to mean the opposite of nonbelief, but what would the fucking point of *that* be?

I can withhold believing one way or the other regarding Gods that I haven't even heard about yet. I am not a disbeliever in them.

And here is the problem, you are mistaking 'disbelief' for 'believe in non-existence.' That's not what it means. That's not what a lack of belief means either. Here we come into the territory of strong/weak atheism, which is at the crux of this sort of argument and which is very much a *necessary* distinction to make.

If I say "I believe god does not exist"; a theist might (and they usually do) go through the following exercise: They start by demanding how I can know that; at which point I the atheist and the theist might go through a lengthy argument about how the various attributes of god are incompatible with reality and therefore god can't exist and therefore that's what I believe. The theist might counter by arguing (correctly), that my argument falls apart as soon as we're dealing with a less well defined god; that I have no definitive reason to believe ALL possible deities don't or can't exist.

This train of argument is precisely why so many theists INSIST on only allowing atheism be defined as the denial of god; because it lets them create an easy strawman argument that shows the 'arrogance' of atheists.

Here's where strong versus weak atheism comes into play. Strong atheism refers to the type of atheism the theist argues against; the belief that (or a specific) god does not exist. Weak atheism refers simply to the lack of belief in god's existence. This is a subtle but important difference. I am a strong atheist when it comes to the judeochristian god; it is well defined enough for me to ascertain the impossibility of its existence. Like you, however, I can not believe in the non-existence of gods I haven't even imagined much less properly defined. So yes, it IS possible that there is some kind of god out there; I can't discount this possibility. But the fact that I accept the possibility does not mean I don't therefore lack a belief in this god. Do I believe in glargoobleglar the destroyer? No, even though I can't discount the possibility that he exists, I do *not* believe that he does. Therefore, I lack belief; I am a weak atheist when it comes to glargoobleglar. Just like you are. You're not an agnostic about glargoobleglar, because that would require you to make a claim about whether or not we *can* know whether he exists. You don't believe in him; that's not the same as being agnostic about him.

 

[untermensche]

Really the question is not about some imaginary being.

The question is about what we all can experience.

The question is: How did the universe get here?

And for some the answer is; Some sentient being or beings created it. This makes you a theist.

And for some the answer is: No sentient beings were involved. This makes you an atheist.

And for some the answer is; I don't know. This makes you an agnostic.

The question is: How did the Sydney Harbour Bridge get here?

And for some the answer is a detailed description, extending over many pages, of the political preparations, the planning, the ordering and provision of materials, the assembly in careful stages of the components, the construction of supports, the connection of the pieces, the clean-up process, painting, and opening to traffic.

And for some the answer consists of seven words: 'People made it by doing people stuff!'

Which group's claim to knowledge would you take seriously?

You would take both seriously since they both convey the truth.

But in the case of a bridge, we know how bridges arise. We don't have a clue how universes arise and there is no accepted scientific explanation for how they do. There is no "better" explanation to accept. There are only opinions. That is why saying "I don't know" is just as good.

 

[Wiploc]

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
No I'm not agnostic either. I'm not undecided. I have decided and I choose neither.

[...]

... Your problem is that you clearly don't understand what the word "atheist" actually means despite multiple people explaining it to you in a fair amount of detail.

That could be the problem. Or it could be that NOP doesn't like dichotomies, and therefore believes in being neither-pregnant-nor-not-pregnant, or neither-dead-nor-not-dead, or neither-a-member-of-a-political-party-or-not-a-member-of-a-political-party.

Either way, there's not much to discuss, but the thread stays alive because NOP won't be nailed down as to the nature of the disagreement.

 

[jonJ]

You would take both seriously since they both convey the truth.

But in the case of a bridge, we know how bridges arise. We don't have a clue how universes arise and there is no accepted scientific explanation for how they do. There is no "better" explanation to accept. There are only opinions. That is why saying "I don't know" is just as good.

No, the difference is between working on the basis that an explanation is possible, and dismissing the question with a wave of the hand. To say that something might have been done by a magic man we know nothing about using magic methods which are incomprehensible to us is effectively just the same as saying 'I don't know, and I don't want to". Theism and agnosticism are merely different ways of asserting the same thing: 'Materialism is wrong, because God".

 

[untermensche]

You would take both seriously since they both convey the truth.

But in the case of a bridge, we know how bridges arise. We don't have a clue how universes arise and there is no accepted scientific explanation for how they do. There is no "better" explanation to accept. There are only opinions. That is why saying "I don't know" is just as good.

No, the difference is between working on the basis that an explanation is possible, and dismissing the question with a wave of the hand. To say that something might have been done by a magic man we know nothing about using magic methods which are incomprehensible to us is effectively just the same as saying 'I don't know, and I don't want to". Theism and agnosticism are merely different ways of asserting the same thing: 'Materialism is wrong, because God".

There is a difference between saying that this or that conception of god is ridiculous and absurd and saying I know how the universe arose.

The question is: How did this universe and therefore me get here?

The question isn't about gods.

And the only possible honest answer is; I don't know.

 

[jonJ]

And the only possible honest answer is; I don't know.

"I don't know, let's find out!" or "I don't know, let's make shit up."?

 

[untermensche]

And the only possible honest answer is; I don't know.

"I don't know, let's find out!" or "I don't know, let's make shit up."?

When you say I don't know you are saying I don't believe these stories about gods. If you believed them, you'd know.

But just because every human story about gods is worthless that doesn't help explain how the universe and more importantly, me, got here.

I still don't know.

Just because physicists tell me all about what happened after the Big Bang, I still don't know. If they say the universe just popped into existence without any cause at all, I don't take them at their word, they have no evidence of the event or one like it, and I still don't know.

 

[jonJ]

And the only possible honest answer is; I don't know.

"I don't know, let's find out!" or "I don't know, let's make shit up."?

When you say I don't know you are saying I don't believe these stories about gods. If you believed them, you'd know.

But just because every human story about gods is worthless that doesn't help explain how the universe and more importantly, me, got here.

I still don't know.

Just because physicists tell me all about what happened after the Big Bang, I still don't know. If they say the universe just popped into existence without any cause at all, I don't take them at their word, they have no evidence of the event or one like it, and I still don't know.

If believing in stories about gods told me how a universe was made, I'd be able to make a universe. That's what 'explanation' means. Unless stories about people doing things with magic tell me how to do magic, they're not explanations.

 

[Kharakov]

If believing in stories about gods told me how a universe was made, I'd be able to make a universe. That's what 'explanation' means. Unless stories about people doing things with magic tell me how to do magic, they're not explanations.

If you don't have the ability to do something, explaining how something is done is not going to give you that ability.

 

[untermensche]

And the only possible honest answer is; I don't know.

"I don't know, let's find out!" or "I don't know, let's make shit up."?

When you say I don't know you are saying I don't believe these stories about gods. If you believed them, you'd know.

But just because every human story about gods is worthless that doesn't help explain how the universe and more importantly, me, got here.

I still don't know.

Just because physicists tell me all about what happened after the Big Bang, I still don't know. If they say the universe just popped into existence without any cause at all, I don't take them at their word, they have no evidence of the event or one like it, and I still don't know.

If believing in stories about gods told me how a universe was made, I'd be able to make a universe. That's what 'explanation' means. Unless stories about people doing things with magic tell me how to do magic, they're not explanations.

I assume there is some explanation. So all I could ever say is; "I don't know".

And I don't know is I don't know.

It isn't, I know for certain this or that.

 

[jonJ]

If believing in stories about gods told me how a universe was made, I'd be able to make a universe. That's what 'explanation' means. Unless stories about people doing things with magic tell me how to do magic, they're not explanations.

If you don't have the ability to do something, explaining how something is done is not going to give you that ability.

If I have the resources to do it, it is. What else does 'explain' mean?

Explaining to me how God made the universe from the materials he had on hand would give me the power to recreate the universe from those materials by doing the same things as God. If it doesn't do that, it's not an explanation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on the OP, you seem to fall squarely into the agnostic category, or as I like to call it, The Pragmatic Atheist.

the false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.

The false dichotomy of atheism v theism? That isn't a false dichotomy. Just because an question is indeterminate, doesn't mean that it isn't a yes/no question.

The middle path, on the other hand, is cooperation vs competition.

You are mistaking a childishly misunderstood view of a tenet of Buddhism with wisdom.

 

[Kharakov]

If believing in stories about gods told me how a universe was made, I'd be able to make a universe. That's what 'explanation' means. Unless stories about people doing things with magic tell me how to do magic, they're not explanations.

If you don't have the ability to do something, explaining how something is done is not going to give you that ability.

If I have the resources to do it, it is. What else does 'explain' mean?

Umm, explain means telling how something is done. An explanation does not guarantee that someone will be able to do something, or that someone has the resources to do something.

Explaining to me how God made the universe from the materials he had on hand would give me the power to recreate the universe from those materials by doing the same things as God. If it doesn't do that, it's not an explanation.

What, so you want the power of God, do you? hehehe...

 

[untermensche]

Explaining to me how God made the universe from the materials he had on hand would give me the power to recreate the universe from those materials by doing the same things as God. If it doesn't do that, it's not an explanation.

If I gave you a baseball could you throw a no-hitter for the Mets?