Atheists are sounding more like evangelical Christians.

[LMNO]

But if there is no valid test for the proof of God's existence, there is no evidence in either direction.

You're just choosing one absence of evidence in favor of the other.

[Thurnez Isa]

Yes but the claim of God is the claim. Like I said the default position is non belief in the claim till evidence.

It goes the other way like I said. If you said there is no God, then that claim is rejected as well.

But what is disbelief in disbelief?
So the only claim that can be considered is the affirmative claim that there is a God. Just as my leprechaun example. The leprechaun is the claim not the lack of the leprechaun.

[LMNO]

But the initial question doesn't make a claim either way.


"Is there a supernatural God?"


The question cannot be answered, because a valid test cannot be devised.  Therefore, to hold a position of either Yes or No indicates a belief without evidence.

[Thurnez Isa]

No I answered that.. leprechauns are supernatural too, as well as ghosts, mind control, ect.

Even if the test can not be devised the default position is not to believe it is truth. Not hold a position of "no it doesn't exist" but one of lack of belief in the claim of its existence.

You can compile evidence of specific claims of specific Gods and come to reasonable conclusions of their existence, or nonexistence, which of course makes the original claim less likely, though not impossible. But possibility does not mean belief.

[LMNO]

Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

[Thurnez Isa]

Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Im not afraid. I do think the question is meaningless... but that still means the claim is not to be believed until the question becomes meaningful enough to answer... Especially a claim with such implications.

[Cain]

Are we sure that Evangelists aren't sounding more like Atheists?

Their fervent belief in the existence of a God sure seems to be compensation for something.

[LMNO]

Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Im not afraid. I do think the question is meaningless... but that still means the claim is not to be believed until the question becomes meaningful enough to answer... Especially a claim with such implications.

Hmmm... I think we're stuck.  I do not see a claim, I see a question.

[Thurnez Isa]

Why are you so afraid of saying, "I don't know, the question as it stands is meaningless"?

Im not afraid. I do think the question is meaningless... but that still means the claim is not to be believed until the question becomes meaningful enough to answer... Especially a claim with such implications.

Hmmm... I think we're stuck.  I do not see a claim, I see a question.

Here

Q: Is there a supernatural God?

A: Don't know, don't know how to come to a reasonable conclusion. <--- agnostic

Q: Do you believe in a supernatural God?

A: No, cause there is no evidence to support that claim. <---- atheist


So therefore you could still take the question, be agnostic about the question, and still be atheistic about the supernatural claim.
In other words the two ideas can be inclusive and not always exclusive

Hope that clears it up

[LMNO]

I suppose in my mind, the second question demands a third question:

Q: Do you believe there is no supernatural God?

A: No, cause there is no evidence to support that claim.


To leave that third question out creates a dualistic system where "currently meaningless" (which I hold is the correct answer) does not apply.

[Kai]

That honestly is really convoluted, Thurnez. You're making atheists sound like agnostics.

[Thurnez Isa]

I suppose in my mind, the second question demands a third question:

Q: Do you believe there is no supernatural God?

A: No, cause there is no evidence to support that claim.


To leave that third question out creates a dualistic system where "currently meaningless" (which I hold is the correct answer) does not apply.

1) I agree
2) I don't think its a dual system, cause as with my leprechaun analogy the third question is meaningless in itself, and I think more stupid position on meaningless questions. What is disbelief in disbelief? So the duality is in the third question and not the answer to the second question

[Thurnez Isa]

That honestly is really convoluted, Thurnez. You're making atheists sound like agnostics.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge (minus Huxley's use of the term) Theism is belief. You could be both.
Most reasonable atheists I know admit they only have a problem with the claim of God not the first question.
In fact most people are atheistic about certain claims and agnostic about others, and sometimes both on the same claim.

[LMNO]

For me, to ask if you believe in something implies that the answer you give means the opposite is also true.

So, "I do not believe in a God" implies "I believe there is no God."

Without the third question you cannot take a third option and say, "I do not believe in a God, and I do not believe there is no God."


The third question creates a dual system, but the third answer creates a 3-value system.

[Kai]

The point I was making wasn't about the question of theistic belief, it was about a group of people who act in a religious manner about their assertions which they can't back up with evidence, including very arrogant displays of evangelical proselyzation, yet refusing to recognize how religiously dogmatic they have become.