An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

Question: if you know the reasons that you believe in God wouldn't be sufficient to convince anybody else, then why did you allow them to convince you?What led you to adopt a lower standard of evidence than you believe others hold?

Could you be more specific and explicit about how it is different? I know you think there is a difference. But even after all these years I am not sure exactly what you think the difference is. It seems to me that you apply a double standard. I'm trying to see why you think there isn't one.You say that you are not agnostic about evolution, that you take a positive position on this. Fair enough. But if you are not agnostic about evolution how can you then be agnostic about the un-evidenced alternatives to evolution no matter how unfalsifiable they may be? If I asked you if an un-evidenced unfalsifiable alternative to evolution occurred (e.g. our old friend Last Thursdayism) would you succinctly say "No"....?Or not?

I think there are actually two questions and they give different answers.'Do you believe in god(s)?'The answer to that is either yes or no. (The answer 'don't know' means that the you don't believe in god)The second question 'does god exist?' can factually only be answered with 'I don't know'.The diference between the two questions explains why Dawkins can be both an atheist and an agnostic and why the leader of the Church of England can be both an agnostic and a theist.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Even if the universe was created last thursday, I would still know about evolution. I'd just be wrong.Me knowing about evolution doesn't rule out Last Thursdayism, because you can't evidence against it, so I can take a positive position towards evolution while being agnostic to Last Thursdayism.

Right, but also: Answering the question 'does god exist?' with a "no" could just be you expressing your belief that it does not exist. The questions don't have to be seperate. Some here would disagree. But saying 'no' still leaves the ambiguity to the question of whether or not you believe that they don't exist.You'd have to add: "Do you believe there isn't a god?"

Your are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said I wouldn't be able to convince anybody else about God, I just said I choose not to be an evangical.Thats not my personal way of living.I try to set an example for others who know me, or of me, by leading what I believe to be a Roman Catholic life style.People, especially some of my clients over the years have asked me about my beliefs in God and I discuss it with them and then recommend that they talk to someone who has more knowledge in the Catholic faith than I do.

In message 71 you stated the following:"Yes, it is I the theist, who after study, mediation, introspection and life experiences does come to a belief.
Is that something the atheist cannot accept?"In return, I asked this question in message 82:"If someone arrives at the belief that the Hindu pantheon really does exist after a lifetime of study, mediation, introspection, and life experiences would you feel compelled to believe in the Hindu pantheon as well?"Your answer in message 97 was "No".So it would seem that a lifetime of study, mediation (meditation?), introspection, and life experiences is not acceptable to you, either. No, it isn't. I have yet to see any evidence of the supernatural, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do think that if there is a supernatural realm someone should have found evidence of it by now, but I am not going to dogmatically rule out the possibility that the supernatural does exist.

You are missing the point. The same sort of claims that you make about God would not convince you that Vishnu exists. We are saying that you have a double standard.

Yes I could, but then I would just be offering a statement of belief rather than fact using inexact language. Yes, but they would then be wrong ;-) That's why it needs two questions one about the belief and one about the facts. If you can't support a 'Yes' answer to the question 'does god exist?' with proof, you're just wrong. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You started this conversation saying that we know evolution occurred as a result of positive evidence. I agree that we do indeed know this.But you cannot claim to know that evolution took place whilst professing to be completely ignorant and uncommitted as to whether something other than evolution (e.g. Last Thursdayism) occurred instead.If you think one occurred you necessarily think the other didn't. This is simply inarguable. We all agree that knowledge is imperfect and potentially fallible. Indeed it was you who suggested that this form of "trivial" agnosticism shouldn't stop us claiming knowledge on the basis of positive evidence. Again - I agreed.Accepting (even tentatively) one position necessary involves rejecting (albeit tentatively) other alternative positions. This is simply inescapable.Yet you seem unable to accept this undeniable fact.CS - Did life evolve on Earth?

Right. But its there none the less:A: "Does god exist?"B: "No." (I believe it does not)It doesn't have to be:B: "No." (It is a fact that it doesn't.) But we don't have to be talking about facts, especially if we're just discussing beliefs. You can reasonably answer "no" to the question "does god exist?" without having to make a statement of fact.

Well I disagree. When I say that I know life evolved, I'm not saying that I know the universe wasn't created last thursday. No, I don't think that accepting one position necessarily involves rejecting an unfalsifyable alternative.

How can life have evolved over millions of years as per the evidence if the universe popped into existence as is less than a week ago?It's one or the other. Obviously. So you know life evolved but have no idea if it didn't.Huh?

Right. But even if the universe popped into existence as is less than a week ago, it could still be in a way where I know that life has evolved over millions of years as per the evidence.

You could be wrong in your knowledge. We both agree about this.What you can't logically do is know that life evolved on Earth whilst also claiming to have no idea if it didn't.That is the contradiction you find yourself in by relentlessly insisting that unfalsifiable notions cannot be rejected.