Identifying false religions.

If you consider "GOD" to be unimaginable and incomprehensible by humans, then I assume that you cannot fully imagine or comprehend "GOD". What is it then, about your state of non-understanding of "GOD" that leads you to conclude those who claim a more complete understanding are wrong?It seems to me to be the height of arrogance for one who does not know something to claim that it *cannot* be known. Your position, so far as I can understand, is that "GOD" cannot be fully understood and so all religions are to some extent false. However that claim is made with the admission that you don't really understand "GOD" at all... so how would you really know?Your criteria for distinguishing false religions seems to be based on extending your inability to understand "GOD" to everyone else, and that is simply poor reasoning.

Exactly, beyond *your* capabilities. Now how exactly do you get from there to it being beyond the capabilities of anyone else, including those who claim to have been personally visited, entered, and altered by that being?Your inability to understand "GOD" is only indicative of your shortcomings, not of "GOD" being universally incomprehensible. Ok, so taking that into account how can you conclude that all religions are to some extent false? Perhaps then you could modify the statement of your reasoning so that it does not include the term "GOD", which you say it has nothing to do with.

How do you know this? Or is this another one of your "beliefs" which is illogical and unreasonable?I think I can speak for most of us that in the context of identifying false religions you can keep your personal, illogical, unreasonable, undesired beliefs to yourself. Proposing them as a method of identifying false religions is worthless and confusing to the issue.

How could you conclude all religions are to some extent false, when many of them claim the existence of gods which do not provide evidence of their existence?

You tell me, it seems like you are painting with a fairly broad brush. Considering you have probably not considered every religion individually, I assumed you were speaking of some broader criteria which allowed you to rule out all religions simultaneously.

Sure, but that is because the term "atheism" only speaks about one side of the issue. I don't know of a term to describe not-positive-claim-that-gods-are-non-existent, but presumably an agnostic would fall within that term should it exist. No, it does not. Number 1 is belief in the existence of Bigfoot, to the point that they consider it a real being. Number 2 is uncertainty, or reservation of judgment. With #2, someone would not be comfortable considering Bigfoot to be a real being. Other additional options wouldn't include the belief that Bigfoot exists, otherwise they would be option #1."Believing" means "to have confidence or faith in the truth of" whatever. Someone who does not know, or does not care, or does not think they have adequate information to make a decision at this time, obviously does not have confidence or faith in the truth of the claim. No, it cannot. Someone cannot simultaneously believe that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, at least not reasonably. They may be uncertain, or alternating between two answers, but they cannot hold the two at the same time. They are very clearly mutually exclusive positions. Sure, there can be a smooth range of belief about the existence of Bigfoot. One way of expressing it is probabilities; they could range from nearly zero all the way up to nearly 100% certainty. However we are not talking about the confidence of the individual about the issue, we are talking about their decision.The question is: "Does Bigfoot exist?" Someone might consider it a 60% chance that Bigfoot exists but be unwilling to make a positive claim. This means they are in position #2. Another person might assess the probability exactly the same and yet be willing to make the positive claim that Bigfoot exists. They would be in position #1. The acceptance of the possibility of Bigfoot existing/not existing is not the same as actually believing that Bigfoot exists/does not exist. Since you don't hold a formal opinion at this time, for whatever reason, you are firmly in position #2. This means that you are neither in position #1 nor position #3.This means you don't believe Bigfoot exists. You might allow that it is *possible*, but you are not prepared to conclude that it does exist. Therefore, you lack that belief. The only way to come to an agnostic position in response to a claim is to consider that claim as unreliable. Were you to consider the claim reliable, you would believe it and therefore not be agnostic toward the claim.Considering the claim as unreliably representing the truth is not a decision on the actual state of whatever the claim was about, it is simply the decision to lack confidence in the claim's reliability. Such a decision is, in essence, agnostic. Exactly, and nobody claimed that it was. However, evidence is required in order to consider the claim reliable in representing the truth. Lacking the evidence, it is reasonable to consider the claim unreliable.Let me put it in plain English: If someone claims Bigfoot exists, but has no evidence to back it up, I will consider the claim unreliable. The claimant's lack of evidence to back up their claim does not mean that their claim is false, and I didn't conclude that it was. I only decided that the claim shouldn't be considered reliably true. I would still be open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists, but I simply wouldn't believe that particular claim. Exactly, and so it is quite reasonable to dismiss those claims as unreliable. Not false, not making any decision regarding the existence of god whatsoever, simply deciding not to trust the truth of the claims. What you consider as "self-evident" does not follow. Agnosticism is an atheistic position. However, many atheists here do not consider complete agnosticism to be a reasonable position.Remember, everything that isn't Theism is atheism; thats a very broad definition. Someone who believes that aliens created humans and placed them on Earth would be argued against by most atheists on this board, and yet that does not mean the alien position isn't atheistic as well. Similarly completely impartial agnosticism being unreasonable by the standards of other atheists does not make it Theistic. You are going at it backwards. Beliefs should meet a standard of evidence to be considered true, not a standard of evidence to be considered false.But even more tellingly, you are not actually agnostic. You are theistic, because you believe that god/s exist. You admit that it is a non-rational opinion, yet you do believe that a god or gods exist.

There are two major problems with your thought here. The first is your terminology: "Disbelief" is rejection or lack of belief. That is not the same as belief that Bigfoot does not exist, and does not equate with position 3.The second problem is that you completely missed the significance of the word "not". Position 2 is included in both not believing to exist and not believing to not exist and that's just reasonable. Disbelief is not the same as believing to be false. Agnostics have disbelief. Perhaps because thats not what the words mean? Or because there is a wider range of beliefs than that?Someone who claims that there are no gods (which you seem to have confused with atheism for some reason) would indeed be #3. An agnostic would indeed be #2. A theist would be #1. The issue is that the term "atheist" literally means "not-theist", so you cannot simply label #3 as "the atheist position". It simply isn't the case. On the flip side, theists claim that they *know* gods exist for the power and control this offers, as well as social gain. Only when pressed will people like jar or RAZD or even you admit that their belief is personal, unprovable, and not absolutely certain. Merely acceptable to them for personal reasons.Far more than shallow and pedantic, I consider such behavior dishonest and unethical. Now if you are done throwing insults and measuring your dick, how about you get back on topic? "athe(os) godless""Theos" is Greek for "deity" or "god". Atheos is then the lack of a deity or god... which means godless.Someone who does not believe a god exists obviously is "godless", so that fits nicely. However that does not imply a positive claim that gods don't exist.

You have to go back there quite a bit, but you will find that we were discussing a *claim* of Bigfoot's existence. Disbelief in that claim does not imply a belief that Bigfoot does not exist. No, it does not. If you believe the claim you are position 1. If you believe that the claim is definitely false then you are position 3. Lack of position 1 is 2 or 3. Lack of position 3 is 1 or 2.At no point does position 2 encompass both believing and not believing the claim. Those are mutually exclusive concepts.(I will admit that the scale does not work if someone is actually insane, but thats the least of their problems.) If they believe the claim, they would be theists. In order to be anything else they must disbelieve the claim. Remember, we are talking about claims here. No, it is lack of belief in god. A subtle, but important distinction. Yes, that is its original meaning. You can see this in other words with Greek roots: For instance, gnostic and agnostic. A gnostic claims to *know* (the Greek word "Gnosis" means knowledge) while an agnostic does *lack* knowledge.This is the exact same linguistic term used in theism and atheism from the Greek root of "Theos", meaning "deity or god". Theos - theism is the jump from "deity or god" to "belief in deity or god". Similarly the jump from atheos to atheism is the jump from "lack of deity or god" to "lack of belief in deity or god".It really is that simple.

It isn't a retreat, it is simply what we were talking about from the start. You are just rambling on your own tangent, and if my unwillingness to follow you makes you claim victory, that is up to you. World English Dictionary:
n
rejection of belief in God or gods[C16: from French athisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]Your linguistic interpretation is false.

Then perhaps you don't understand why the term is applying the way it does because you consider the term to have changed when it has not.The term originally meant the same thing that I and many others use it as meaning. You think the term means something else now, but lots of people disagree with your new meaning.It seems pretty clear to me that you are wrong.But anyways, back to the topic....

Belief in the possibility of something is not the same as belief in the reality of something. I believe that it is *possible* for me to win the lottery. I don't believe that I *will* win the lottery.Being open to the possibility of god/s existing or not existing is not the same as believing *that* god/s exist or do not exist.It is true that there is a spectrum of confidence levels when considering a conclusion; one can be very sure something exists or not sure at all. However, everyone has a "credulity level" at which they believe the conclusion. This often varies depending on the importance/commonality of the claim: For instance I would be willing to take the word of a waiter that the clear fluid handed to me in a glass is water, but not so willing to take their word for them having Bigfoot locked in the freezer.My point is that there is a dividing line where someone switches from believing something is *possible* to believing that something *is* (similarly, there is a divide between *possibly not* and *not*). Where this dividing line lies differs between different people and may be the subject of great debate, but that is what the three positions addresses.Someone who only believes Bigfoot may possibly exist is a number 2. Someone who believes that Bigfoot *does* exist is a number 1. Conversely, someone who believes that Bigfoot may possibly not exist is a number 2, and one who believes that Bigfoot does not exist is a number 3. Of course. Without any data how can they authoritatively speak about what does not exist out there?

No, my level of credulity is based on my subjective expectation of the concept being true. The calculation of probabilities still occurs, admittedly in a cursory manner, it is just that my credulity is so high regarding the glass of possibly-water that I am virtually never going to question it. That may also be the case, but no it is not the point of my position here. Something that has occurred many times previously in my experience will likely be considered with great credulity, while something that has not will be considered with less. While not exactly my point, I would agree that not only might they measure the probability of the concept being true as higher, but also regard it with more credulity. Your utter lack of reading comprehension continues to astound. 1 is not the same as 2. 2 is not the same as 3. 1 is not the same as 3. They are all distinct positions.HOWEVER, the category of "not 1" includes both 2 *and* 3. This has consistently been my point, and your failure to understand it is trying my patience.1 is belief in the claim. 2 and 3, not being belief in the claim, are not belief. Depending on your use of the term it may be "disbelief" or not, it is really irrelevant to my point.

Correct. Sure? We are talking about what people *believe*. If you can point out how that could be anything but subjective I am all ears.Their method of getting there can be, and in some cases should be, as non-subjective as possible, but their belief or non-belief itself is going to be "subjective".

Probably not. I really hope so.