Frank Apisa wrote:Setanta...will you discuss with me the implication of an atheist asserting: There are no gods?
No, because we've been down that road before. You're simply trying to construct a contention that atheists and theists are equivalent but polar opposite believers. I do not believe that there are no gods. I don't believe that any description of god ever offered to my consideration was plausible. In some case, quite apart from belief, one knows that statements about gods, or from religious texts are complete falsehoods. The contention, for example, that god made the earth stand still while Joshua fought a battle--a complete and outrageous ignorance of the consequences of the application of the laws of thermodynamics. Science is not my god, and in fact, often bores me. But the scientific method is preferrable to a superstitious guessing game.
I am only an atheist to the extent that i am so described by others. This is no belief set, and is not reliant upon a set of assumptions. It is the rejection of someone else's set of assumptions, which do not convince me.
Quote:And will you discuss why you think that an atheist who...when talking about the unknown...says: There are no gods...
...is appreciably different (as far as guessing or believing is concerned) from a theist who...when talking about the unknown...says: There is a God?
Sometimes, casually, and simply for the sport of getting someone's ire up, i've said there are no gods or goddesses. In fact, in deference to an intelligent and sweet young lady who worked in a coffee shop after graduating university, while awaiting a better opportunity--i developed the habit of saying: "There are no gods or goddesses, except for the Coffee Goddess, and she's in caffeine, not salvation."
But, once again, you are attempting to get those who are branded atheist to construct for you your thesis that agnosticism is an intellectually superior point of view. The "professional atheist" who busily runs about, "fact-checking" and denying scriptures, digging out "sins" of the religionist, is simply someone who has replaced one belief set with another. Your point is valid with such people as that. In serious discussion, my position is simply that there is no good reason to believe what the theist has to offer, i have enough in life to deal with in matters which are of a proximate concern and for which not all aspects are known to waste my time in consideration of fanciful tales of supernatural beings. Supernatural claims are extraordinary claims, and therefore the burden of proof lies with those making the claim. Inasmuch as the closest approach to an intellectual basis for theism is in the origin of the universe--running something like, the existence of the universe implies a god, to which the reply is that who created god? and when told god is internal, you simply point out that the universe might be eternal, and that you intend to cut out the middle man--and is a feeble argument, it's just not something i think about. If someone asks me point blank if i believe in god, i say no--plain and simple. I refer you to the preeminently reasonalbe statement that Kokopeli made:
mesquite wrote:Is not believing there is a god, the same thing as believing there is not a god? I believe not.
I'll take that a step further: the lack of any specific belief is not equivalent to adherence to belief.
Let's not go down the little green men living in a moon made of cheese road again, because that
will eventually be the logical consequence of examining a contention of the superiority of agnosticism. For me, there is no atheism, because i'm not pursuing a belief system, i'm denying other beliefs systems offered for consideration.
... which, of course, over-shadows all the little stuff. 
)