Do you believe; and why?

[Dill]

(05-16-2019, 10:35 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Agnosticism addresses knowledge, how can we know? Being agnostic is saying that you don't know, and aren't sure if you can know.

Atheism is a subset of agnosticism, simply means you lack a belief in a God or Gods. Within atheism there is "strong" atheism which proclaims there is no God, a stance I do not share. I am an agnostic atheist and feel that is the most honest position I could hold at the moment.

I'm not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

No my friend, one does not necessarily follow from the other, especially since I've never claimed "there is NO evidence". As I've said a few times now, I've seen no evidence to date that would warrant a belief in a God. That does not mean no evidence exists. 

Even if one were to say "there is no evidence to support belief a in God" -  it doesn't necessarily follow that "there is no God". The could be no evidence, yet God may still exist.

X has not yet been proven does not mean X cannot be proven. The question is whether you should believe X sans proof / evidence.

As to the bold, I can only assume you're being hyperbolic. If not, I'm concerned that you are not at all serious about this discussion. 

It seems you are choosing to ignore that not all Christians are operate on faith alone. Some believe they have proofs / evidences that God exists and that we should believe. There are many different factions of Christianity, with many different views and interpretations. 

When someone says to me they are a Christian, I usually try to understand what they mean by that, because if you were to interview 1,000 Christians, I promise you will get a myriad of responses as to what being a Christian entails and what beliefs are correct. 

When interacting with Christians of different denominations, they will often use the "No True Scotsman" card when offering why another denomination has it wrong. This is why I try to avoid assuming what they believe, and instead ask what they believe and why.

Except it isn't. Non-belief is the absence or lack or a belief in something. This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake. 

If you say you believe X and I say I don't believe X, only one of us has an active belief. The fact that I don't believe X doesn't mean that I believe [not] X. Therefore, what would I be offering evidence for exactly?

I'm asking for any proof that X is actually the case, and why people should believe X is the case at all.

You stated that my "non-belief" in X is a belief in and of itself. However, I would only have a burden of proof if I were claiming that my non-belief was correct or true. In that case, it would be a belief. However I have never held that position.

Correct, which is why I don't make that claim that I can, and why I think the natural default should be non-belief. It seems reasonable that non-belief would be the initial default with any claim. If you tell me you have a fire breathing dragon in your garage - I can't know 100% if that's the case or not. However, I would take the position of non-belief until it was shown to be the case that you did have said dragon, at which time I would then justifiably believe.

If the proposition is "there is no reason to believe in a God or God's" - then yes, the default would be non-belief for me. People can present a million "reasons" to believe.

Except, people have changed their minds on both sides. They have been compelled to re-think what they believe. These topics and discussions are quite interesting in my opinion. I think they give some insight to who we are, what we desire, where we find common ground and what we are conflicted about. I dare say an existence with dialogue, inquiry and the exchanging of ideas would be the true definition of meaningless in my book. Luckily, we have these tools and they should be enjoyed and utilized as often as possible.

LOL maybe somebody had some philosophy courses.  But why would existence "with dialogue" etc be meaningless? Or did the spell check crop your "without"?

I agree with much of what you say here, although I am a "strong atheist," not an agnostic. I would say there is quite a bit of evidence to support a belief there is no god, not simply a lack of evidence that there is one. It's not a draw.

I think if someone says he/she is a Christian, then he/she has picked out a narrow band on the broad spectrum of human beliefs where one finds people who think Jesus is 1) the way to heaven or 2) at least the supreme ethical guide.  Muslims would be people who think jesus a prophet and Mohammed the final one--for the same god.