Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

[Robert.Evans]

I believe that you're a man from the UK, but my confidence level is less than 100%. It's certainly possible that you could be a teenage girl from New Jersey. This is an example of something I believe but do not know.

This is an example of something you know, but do not know absolute. If your mind is in such a state, I say see a doctor... haha

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No you can't. If you believe there are no gods, you can't then say you don't know

Yes I can be agnostic and atheist. I am. I do not believe in gods therefore I am an Atheist. I don't claim to know for a fact that there are or are not gods therefore I am agnostic.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is an example of something you know, but do not know absolute. If your mind is in such a state, I say see a doctor... haha

I happen to like such a state.
I distrust certainty.
It's the mind killer, you know!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes I can be agnostic and atheist. I am. I do not believe in gods therefore I am an Atheist. I don't claim to know for a fact that there are or are not gods therefore I am agnostic.

Clearly it would be somewhat difficult to say you could prove there was not, so it seems a mute point which I feel is held by some as a get out clause in case evidence is found. Evidence will not be found as he is invisible. It is spiritually discerned. There is physical evidence as well, but this is nothing without what is within.
If you are claiming you are an atheist, then your mind is made up: you are saying there is no God. How then can you say, On the other hand, I don't know... haha. Make up your mind. Is there or isn't there.
If we use that logic, we can use it about anything. Life would be absurd. Atheist don't wish to be labelled just atheist as it is an absurd position. You are claiming there is no God and yet have no evidence. It is the Theist who has the evidence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I happen to like such a state.
I distrust certainty.
It's the mind killer, you know!

I agree... being sure stagnates the mind.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree... being sure stagnates the mind.

Don't get too agreeable with me.....I have a reputation for abominable views....& people might think we take warm showers together!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Clearly it would be somewhat difficult to say you could prove there was not, so it seems a mute point which I feel is held by some as a get out clause in case evidence is found. Evidence will not be found as he is invisible. It is spiritually discerned. There is physical evidence as well, but this is nothing without what is within.
If you are claiming you are an atheist, then your mind is made up: you are saying there is no God. How then can you say, On the other hand, I don't know... haha. Make up your mind. Is there or isn't there.
If we use that logic, we can use it about anything. Life would be absurd. Atheist don't wish to be labelled just atheist as it is an absurd position. You are claiming there is no God and yet have no evidence. It is the Theist who has the evidence.

I have not claimed there is no god. I have claimed I do not believe in god. Atheism is the lack of theism. I am not a theist. However that does not imply that i BELIEVE that god does not exist. I can doubt his existence while at the same time withhold belief in the opposite. For example if I am asked "do you believe in god" and I say "I'm agnostic" would be much like someone asking me "what model of car do you drive" and I said "A red one".

 

[Draka]

No you can't. If you believe there are no gods, you can't then say you don't know

Why do you not believe that there are levels of belief? One can admit that they can't know something for sure (which is an agnostic position) but hold the stance that they find it more likely that something does or does not exist and so, therefore, they find themselves leaning more towards believing or not believing without making any claims of certainty. Think of it like a percentage scale. With 50% being the wholly agnostic position of "not knowing/can't know", 0% being the wholly atheistic position, and 100% being the wholly theistic position if that makes it easier for you. Most people actually do not fall right on either the 0% or the 100% really. But somewhere on the scale in between. Whether at 25% or 75% or 60% or 35% just depending on what their personal experiences lead them to believe. Does that make any sort of sense to you?

 

[Copernicus]

Clearly it would be somewhat difficult to say you could prove there was not, so it seems a mute point which I feel is held by some as a get out clause in case evidence is found. Evidence will not be found as he is invisible. It is spiritually discerned. There is physical evidence as well, but this is nothing without what is within.
If you are claiming you are an atheist, then your mind is made up: you are saying there is no God. How then can you say, On the other hand, I don't know... haha. Make up your mind. Is there or isn't there.
If we use that logic, we can use it about anything. Life would be absurd. Atheist don't wish to be labelled just atheist as it is an absurd position. You are claiming there is no God and yet have no evidence. It is the Theist who has the evidence.

I differ from some other atheists in that I would assert the claim that God does not exist. I am firm enough on that belief to accept the label of "strong atheist". However, I would still never claim to "know" that God does not exist. And I still hold that there is a degree of uncertainty in every belief I have of the nature of reality.

What makes me an agnostic as well is that I reject the possibility of having absolute knowledge of reality. That is actually a survival trait, IMO. If we were unable to change our opinions about what is real, then we would end up compounding our mistakes, which inevitably would lead to catastrophe. So God isn't real, but my strong conviction about that is subject to change, if I came across convincing evidence that I was wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you not believe that there are levels of belief? One can admit that they can't know something for sure (which is an agnostic position) but hold the stance that they find it more likely that something does or does not exist and so, therefore, they find themselves leaning more towards believing or not believing without making any claims of certainty. Think of it like a percentage scale. With 50% being the wholly agnostic position of "not knowing/can't know", 0% being the wholly atheistic position, and 100% being the wholly theistic position if that makes it easier for you. Most people actually do not fall right on either the 0% or the 100% really. But somewhere on the scale in between. Whether at 25% or 75% or 60% or 35% just depending on what their personal experiences lead them to believe. Does that make any sort of sense to you?

This reminds me of other topics, where some posters see all things as either one thing or another, with no continuum between the extremes. I generally see everything as having components, or portions of several things, eg, an economic system which is a mix of capitalism & socialism. These very different perspectives seldom ever get resolved, except to acknowledge the disagreement.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have not claimed there is no god. I have claimed I do not believe in god. Atheism is the lack of theism. I am not a theist. However that does not imply that i BELIEVE that god does not exist. I can doubt his existence while at the same time withhold belief in the opposite. For example if I am asked "do you believe in god" and I say "I'm agnostic" would be much like someone asking me "what model of car do you drive" and I said "A red one".

To not believe in God, one would have to believe. It is not as simple as saying that you have NO belief, that would be an extension of Ignosticism, ignorant, hence no believe. You are saying that you don't believe, which must be something that you hold sufficiently strongly to say it in the first place... thus there is belief attached. If I say I can't see a table in front of me, because it is not visible to me, there is a lack of believe that it is there (if someone else is saying it is) but I would believe that statement, so belief is involved.

I think you should have the agnostic title, though really you are sure enough to say that there isn't, and are atheist, but don't like the title.

What most don't seem to understand is that there are three main titles, agnostic atheist ignostic, all of which have no believe as their definition. What is the point of three titles saying the same thing? None. So if you are sure, then you are atheist. If not, agnostic. This is extensions of what their main definitions are.

And your analogy of the car would be, I don't know

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why do you not believe that there are levels of belief? One can admit that they can't know something for sure (which is an agnostic position) but hold the stance that they find it more likely that something does or does not exist and so, therefore, they find themselves leaning more towards believing or not believing without making any claims of certainty. Think of it like a percentage scale. With 50% being the wholly agnostic position of "not knowing/can't know", 0% being the wholly atheistic position, and 100% being the wholly theistic position if that makes it easier for you. Most people actually do not fall right on either the 0% or the 100% really. But somewhere on the scale in between. Whether at 25% or 75% or 60% or 35% just depending on what their personal experiences lead them to believe. Does that make any sort of sense to you?

Yes that makes sense.
It doesn't alter the fact that if one is agnostic, they don't know, so they can't then say they are atheist, who think they know... that is why they say there is no God.
Clearly it is fine saying that one is agnostic (don't know) but think it is more likely that there is than isn't, but that does not make them also theist. A theist is one who believes there is, not one who does not know

 

[Robert.Evans]

I differ from some other atheists in that I would assert the claim that God does not exist. I am firm enough on that belief to accept the label of "strong atheist".

I congratulate you on your honest stance

However, I would still never claim to "know" that God does not exist. And I still hold that there is a degree of uncertainty in every belief I have of the nature of reality.

That is because there are two levels of 'know'... one is an absolute know, and one is a know within the mind, without physical objects to back them up. You have the second know. If not, then you would have a seriously troubled mind... haha

What makes me an agnostic as well is that I reject the possibility of having absolute knowledge of reality.

Unless a train is coming towards you, and then I bet you do

That is actually a survival trait, IMO. If we were unable to change our opinions about what is real, then we would end up compounding our mistakes, which inevitably would lead to catastrophe. So God isn't real, but my strong conviction about that is subject to change, if I came across convincing evidence that I was wrong.

Anyone could say they would change their opinion if something else happened. It alters nothing, you are atheist, not agnostic. Agnostics don't know. You know, though not absolute. The Theist knows absolute as they have the proof within.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This reminds me of other topics, where some posters see all things as either one thing or another, with no continuum between the extremes. I generally see everything as having components, or portions of several things, eg, an economic system which is a mix of capitalism & socialism. These very different perspectives seldom ever get resolved, except to acknowledge the disagreement.

What you seem to be saying is get rid of the titles.
It says the same in the OT. But title are for ease of labelling are they not?
The point is you can't believe and not believe at the same time. If one takes this approach as some are sayiing, then one would have to be atheist theist agnostic and ignostic, as we can't know there is, isn't might be, don't know for sure, and are slightly ignorant of some things. So what then is the point of the titles??

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

I fully accept evolution, and am not an atheist.

As do I.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you seem to be saying is get rid of the titles.

No, I like labeling things & people.

It says the same in the OT. But title are for ease of labelling are they not?
The point is you can't believe and not believe at the same time. If one takes this approach as some are sayiing, then one would have to be atheist theist agnostic and ignostic, as we can't know there is, isn't might be, don't know for sure, and are slightly ignorant of some things. So what then is the point of the titles??

"Atheist" & "theist" are more polar opposites, while "atheist" & "agnostic" overlap in the area of uncertainty.

 

[Valjean]

If you are claiming you are an atheist, then your mind is made up: you are saying there is no God.

STOP IT! STOP IT! STOP IT!
What is wrong with you, Robert? Are you a mental defective -- or just a troll?
How many times do we have to explain to you what atheism is? How many times do we have to explain the difference between atheism, per se, and strong atheism?
Stop making up your own definitions! Stop arguing from a definition no-one but you is using.

 

[dust1n]

No you can't. If you believe there are no gods, you can't then say you don't know

First atheism and evolution were synonymous.

Now knowing and believing are synonymous. Why even bother having two different words I wonder.

 

[Draka]

Yes that makes sense.
It doesn't alter the fact that if one is agnostic, they don't know, so they can't then say they are atheist, who think they know... that is why they say there is no God.
Clearly it is fine saying that one is agnostic (don't know) but think it is more likely that there is than isn't, but that does not make them also theist. A theist is one who believes there is, not one who does not know

No, atheists aren't saying there is no god, they are saying they have no belief in a god or gods. They personally don't believe deities exist. Taking the stance that there cannot be any such thing, that there definitively is no such thing as a deity is a different thing than just being atheist. One might say that that is more of an anti-theist or "strong atheistic" stance, but merely being atheistic is just lacking a belief in a deity, not claiming any knowledge about the existence either way, but personally not believing it is likely. It is a "likelihood" thing.

Also, a theist is one who believes more than they don't believe. Again, a "likelihood" thing. Everyone has doubts. Yes, there is this thing called "doubt". We all have it. It is what makes us human. In fact, to not have doubt, to think and declare ourselves "right", especially about such a complex and wholly unknowable matter makes one quite...what could we say?...obtuse? narcissistic? deluded? This is a subject beyond the realm of testable human knowledge. It is conjecture, it is experience, it is philosophy. To not have doubt, to not admit "I could be wrong" is to have fundamental psychological issues. I put forth that anyone claiming to be at either far range of this scale is subject to these issues. Whether they are claiming to "know" that a deity in any form does not/cannot exist or if they are claiming that one of any form in fact, without any doubt, does exist, they have issues. In all honesty, I believe everyone, rational people that is, have to admit to a little "agnosticism" on the subject because the truth of the matter is...we don't "know", we can't "know", no one "knows" and those who claim to "know" rather than "believe"...are full of it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To not believe in God, one would have to believe. It is not as simple as saying that you have NO belief, that would be an extension of Ignosticism, ignorant, hence no believe. You are saying that you don't believe, which must be something that you hold sufficiently strongly to say it in the first place... thus there is belief attached. If I say I can't see a table in front of me, because it is not visible to me, there is a lack of believe that it is there (if someone else is saying it is) but I would believe that statement, so belief is involved.

I think you should have the agnostic title, though really you are sure enough to say that there isn't, and are atheist, but don't like the title.

What most don't seem to understand is that there are three main titles, agnostic atheist ignostic, all of which have no believe as their definition. What is the point of three titles saying the same thing? None. So if you are sure, then you are atheist. If not, agnostic. This is extensions of what their main definitions are.

And your analogy of the car would be, I don't know

Iganostacism is talking about the fact they can't define god. They don't know what "god" is. Which is to some extent true for me. However you are wrong on most parts of this post.

There are not simply "three" places. There are an infinnite number of places to be along several different scales. The two primary scales would be the scale of "knowledge" or how adament you are about the claim and the second is about your "belief" of the claim.

I do not know if there is a god. I have not yet seen evidence that there is a god. I have not seen evidence that would say "there is no god". But doubt is the default position. So I have defaulted to disbelief. I do not have a belief that there are no gods as I do still hold it is possible. That is why I am an agnostic. However I am still an atheist because I do not believe in god.

The car analogy was to show you that Agnostacism and Atheism are not conflicting terms but descriptive terms that describe two different dimentions about an opinion. Belief and claims of knowledge. They are often interconnected (as they should be) but are not conflicting.