An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

and it's still wrong, nonetheless. That's why, if we're not just talking casually - which I assumed we weren't because we were discussing how Dawkins can be an agnostic AND an atheist and how there are several kinds of atheist etc - two questions are required. One that deals with belief and one that deals with fact.

You are assuming I would accept a lifetime of study, meditation, introspection and life experiences of someone else and if I do not then I don't accept MY own lifetime of study, meditation, introspection, and life experiences. That's not really fair to require me to accept someone's conclusions, is it?

But I'm not claiming that I have no idea if it didn't. As I said:

quote:

---

When I say that I know life evolved, I'm not saying that I know the universe wasn't created last thursday.

---

Technically, I'd be "trivially agnostic" to evolution because of Last Thursdayism but I've already stipulated that the distinction from that is not enough to get me to stop saying that I know evolution is true.

What is wrong? Oh, yeah, in a more formal sense you're right. I'm basically saying that we can allow for it in the casual sense. And that its not wrong to do so.

That's why crashfrog's question in Message 106 was pertinent:

quote:

---

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?

---

Doesn't matter now, I think we're in agreement :-)Edited by Tangle, : I swear, if I get the bloody quote syntax wrong one more time, i'll go out and give five quid to a Christian.

What shadow71 believes, and how he comes to those beliefs are up to him. As long as he does not try to impose those beliefs on others, I have no problem with him. And if he wants to express those beliefs in public, I don't have a problem with that either. That's what free speech is about.

Technically I am "trivially agnostic" to Leprechauns/gods/fairies etc. because I cannot disprove the existence of these things any more than you can disprove Last Thursdayism. But, like you, I've already stipulated that the distinction from that is not enough to get me to stop saying that these entities are products of human psychology. If Last Thursdayism occurred then evolution didn't. You have claimed to be (non-trivially) agnostic towards Last Thursdayism. If you don't know whether or not Last Thursdayism occurred then how can you claim to know that evolution did?You cannot logically know that life evolved on Earth whilst also claiming to have no idea if it didn't.Yet this is the contradictory position you find yourself in. The real (comparative) test is to answer this question succinctly:'Did the universe come into being fully formed Last Thursday?I maintain that my position on god(s) is pretty much identical to yours on Last Thursdayism. The key difference is that you are still operating under the illogical assumption that you can be simultaneously ignorant that something hasn't happened whilst having positive (albeit tentative) knowledge that it has.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I agree. What I am replying to is his question:"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?"When that method arrives at a god that shadow71 does not believe in he does not accept it. That is the point I was trying to make. It goes back to the famous Stephen Roberts quote:"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."I am merely phrasing it in a way that is more accessible to shadow71.

I think you answered your own question.From you in message 71:"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?"

shit disturbers.

Your reading my question wrong. I am not saying an atheist must accet my conclusions. I am asking if an atheist cannot accept the fact that after study, dediation, introspection and life experiences I have come to my belief. I have no problem with an atheist accepting his or her non-beliefs. I was just struck at the reluctance to accept their non-beliefs. Especially as in the quote in Granny Magda's post from Carl Sagan where in the last sentence he used the term delusional to describe anyone who accepted a deity.

But even tho it didn't, I could still know that it did. (I'd just be wrong) ...and now I'm repeating myself. Because the evidence that shows me that evolution occured does not show me that Last Thursdayism didn't. But I don't, because when I say that I know evolution occured I am not saying that I know that LT didn't.I think that's the third time I've said that now. If you're just gonna keep spinning round and round trying to trip me up then I'm just going to stop replying. This seems to be your standard MO and its annoying. "I don't know but I doubt it"? That's a move away from the positive atheist position...In order for my position to match yours, I'd have to have the evidence for evolution also be evidence against LT. But I don't because you can't have evidence against LT.

I think it's entirely possible to "come to" theistic beliefs. In my case, however, study, dedication, introspection and life experiences have taken me continuously away from theistic beliefs.It often seems to be a case of starting at a theistic belief and using one's confirmation bias to convince oneself that one got there progressively.

Can you accept the fact that after study, introspection, and life experiences that someone can come to a belief in the Hindu pantheon?