I'm curious as to where we draw the line between not believing in a proposition and believing that a proposition is false. If you don't believe in a proposition, doesn't that naturally entail that you believe the proposition to be false?

I'm a 'there isn't' atheist, because I believe that there is no God. I'm a naturalist because I believe that supernatural agency does not exist. This isn't an impossible or irritating task for me. Many people have this view of knowledge, that it is this dogmatic, absolute rule that isn't subject to doubt. Knowledge is a practical and provisional concept that is always subject to doubt. The only propositions that are not subject to doubt are analytic propositions. I argue that there is no God or supernatural agency based on the principle of parsimony, the verification principle, and the incompatibility of certain conceptions of God with the universe we live in. I consider it to be knowledge (justified true belief) that God and supernatural agency doesn't exist, but I could be wrong. I have more than enough reason to say that God doesn't exist, but I'm perfectly willing to change my position on supernatural agency when and if it is ever verified to exist. I'm not going to change my position based on peoples' personal experience with the divine (mysticism) or their faith (wishful thinking). Show me the money!!!

"Show me the money" look for yourself dont let the treasure find you.

I have changed my mind im a freethinking agnostic

I have looked for the money, but I can't find it anywhere and believers tell me that it's everywhere. The burden of proof is on the person making the proposition.



Then you have the wrong idea of what knowledge is.

Well O great sage tell me apart from an agnostic or atheist how should describe myself so the individual has more grasp of my views.The point of treasure hunting is to find your own treasure then you dont have to share it.

I think the decision has to be up to you, but the only thing I would say is that it would be a shame if you were to shun a lable you feel is appropriate simply because you feel that other people might judge you on it in terms of open-mindedness.

On the other hand, you shouldn't let the fact that I feel this way influence you either.

But all terms come with some baggage and evangelicism, unless you invent your own.

I have a very good friend who is a committed atheist and he gets rather concerned i call myself an agnostic.I find its almost like the faithful who also seem to require me to believe.Is it a reinforcement of their own beliefs to secure a convert.I can only ever say when ever i thought things where becoming clearer it mists over and i realise how almost impossible it is to ever define your beliefs.So im an agnostic as there is no more appropriate handle to rivet to my head.

The problem seems to be to me, particularly in relevence to those with an interest in Philosophy, to be that matters of belief and matters of knowledge are quite distinct.

As someone with a respect for philosophy, I agree that you can tend to get as far as "I think therefore I am" or "one can doubt everything but the existence of doubt" before you have to start making assumptions.

Based on this I think it's pretty hard to answer questions regarding "knowledge" with definite answers. As I said earlier - pretty much everyone is technically agnostic, because only the most zealous have no feelings of doubt. I refrain from agnosticism not because I don't feel it is a valid position - it is just too broad a category to make much sense. Like answering "human race" to the query "what race are you?" It has something very apparent in its favour - but tells us very little.

To me, the question of "what do you believe" implies more wriggle room than "what do you know". To me saying you believe in something comes with an unspoken caveat that it is based on your experiences, the evidence you have looked at, your hunches, and so on.

Now, you can answer agnostic to this too, why not? I am agnostic on the question of whether or not an alien civilisation exists that rivals ours in terms of technological sophistication. Nothing I understand about the formation of life would throw the idea out of the window, but nothing could possibly confirm it either.

My tendancy to declare myself athiest in terms of God is also made in ignorance of knowledge about the matter. I think it's easy to see how humans have invented gods as a psychological security blanket or ultimate arbitrator of social authority, and that frustrates me as I reckon more people could do without it - to their benefit. However, I don't feel a position of agnosticism is intellectually assailable - even if it is fence-sitting or bet-hedging.

Has anyone pushed rudely, really, or do those who just push assertively get labelled rude by the theist majority?

Yea, it happens a lot. I've seen quite a bit of derisive, condescending and downright insulting pushyness from a number atheists (and am probably guilty of it myself in my younger years).

... you're not under the impression that disgust towards another mindset is is exclusive to theists, are ye?

No, but I'm alive to the fact that groups who were previously cowed into relative silence tend to get labelled rude when they first realise they can make their voices heard (and whilst atheists have always been about it does seem to me that it is only in recent years when they have been loud and proud on media platforms within the US).

"Uppity blacks", "loud mouth feminists", "the love that dare not speak it's name is now the love that won't shut up", "angry atheists" and so on.

Now it may well be that a psychological result of realising that you can speak at last leads some to be rather more vocal than maybe they should - so it was a bit naive of me to presume you couldn't think of examples - I can myself.

However, in the crudest of gestalt views, is "rude atheists" a sign of the character of the group, or a characterisation assigned to the group by those who feel differently?

you know, i am not religious at all, but, the more i read into quantum theory, astronomy, biology etc, the only answer that makes any type of sense is that there is a creator. it may just be an easy way out, but, i can't see any other way out. think about life beginning. SOMETHING had to make the first move. are we to believe that two inanimate objects just decided to join and live? i don't know, something is very strange. i am going to post a controversial topic about a purple man my brother and i used to see. look out for it.

Your human psychology naturally leads you to believe that there is a pattern and a person who started that pattern. It's called fundamental attribution error in psychology. Feeling isn't knowing. I don't know what you're talking about when you say that "two inanimate objects decided to join and live", but I agree that the universe is very absurd.

Giving it a fancy name does not make it proved.If anyone chooses to see a creative force and a pattern to the universe its not necessarily an error but a diferent view, shared by many.

I often wonder how those who believe in the strong determined universe can also be convinced atheists.

Xris, it's not just a fancy name, it's an academic term. You seem to be assuming that this error hasn't been verified, but it has. Fundamental Attribution Error is a psychological error where people see intent and purpose behind events that have no intent or purpose. This error can manifest itself as superstition or simply walking down the street, someone bumps you on the shoulder by mistake, and you see malicious intent behind the event. Human beings have this tendency because we are highly intelligent social animals who form complex societies based on the ability to see intent in other people's behavior. Applying this personhood and intent to nature is just an extreme example of the error.



Something can be determined by intent and purpose, or it can be determined by natural circumstances. The universe is determined by the latter.