Agnosticism - An Alternative Path

It is often confused that agnostics are really atheists. I hope to clear some of the confusion with this thread. First of all, if we are taking the term literally, every single person is agnostic - that is, no one knows whether a god exists or not. That is not going to be the point of this argument. The point of this thread will be to show why I identify as an agnostic and not and atheist - and for that matter not a theist. I will also be using the pronoun "he" in a general sense. It is not meant to offend feminist sensibilities - it is simply that "he" is quicker to type than "she" or "s/he" or even 'they."

An atheist can never participate in a theological discussion other than to act as a foil to the discussion. Now, this can be a good thing as it forces a theologian to answer tough questions. However, the atheist cannot work within the framework of theology, because theology presupposes that God exists, a notion which atheists reject as either untrue or - more commonly -absurd/improbable. Similarly, a theist cannot fully contribute to a discussion of atheism because of the same presuppositions by same groups.

The agnostic, however, can fully participate and take both positions. People will say there is no middle ground - either you believe in God or you don't. This sounds a bit like the "you're with us or against us" theory. What I believe is that it is equally possible for there to be a god as for there to not be a god. I give equal credence to both positions - and that is what I believe is largely what separates agnostics from atheists and theists.

Do I have my own ideas regarding an afterlife, god, etc? Yes, of course I do - I'd argue everyone does. However, I will not reject God as non-existent or absurd unless there is conclusive proof that this is the case. The common arguments from atheism - that science disproves [creationism] or that "God exists" is an unfalsifiable claim simply do not hold water. Calling it unfalsifiable is just a way to say "we can't prove the contrary, so we'll just say the premise is illogical." Or do we really want to argue that we can only make claims about something not existing? In other words, nothing exists until we observe it through one or more of our senses?

I will also not accept God's existence as a given. Coincidences in scriptures, personal "experiences" of God, etc. do not convince me there is a god, least of all your particular god, theists. As the basic understanding of god would be a being that defies explanation and cannot be defined, the very fact that theists make positive claims about their gods tells me that something contradictory is going on here.

Many theists concern themselves with salvation- of themselves and particularly of others. They fear for the souls of those who don't turn to [their] god. Many atheists, on the other hand, view theism - and by extension, religion - as a threat to the cognitive evolution of mankind. It is a shackle, they argue, which must be thrown off in our modern age if we are to progress to our full potential.

As an agnostic, I am not concerned with either of these things. Live a good life - that is what matters. To atheists, this is, I believe, readily understandable. For theists who would argue "but you need to believe" - I direct you to your own scriptures. After you study them, answer this question: is belief in god based on what you think or what you do? Does a person who claims to believe in Jesus, but murders children really believe in Jesus?

Atheists and theists alike argue that humans will progress fully if and only if their position is accepted. I submit to the ATS population this theory: that only through agnosticism - the recognition and acceptance that we know nothing and that both positions are equally credible/absurd will we progress. It is not belief or non-belief that weighs humanity down and slows progress. It is the incessant need to argue about it.

Live in the here and now and be good. Don't question this world as being non-existent or an illusion, for even if it is an illusion, it exists so far as you are concerned and in this way has an inherent reality. Don't assume that what you can't observe doesn't exist. Be open to studying the literature of people who have claimed to experience other realms. For that matter, read what people say who claim to have been abducted by aliens.

In the infinity of existence, what is impossible?

Everything and Nothing.

Yeah that sounds good but its wrong.

I can fully understand why an atheists doesnt believe in God
Your assumption is based on a lack of common sense.
I once didnt believe in God, how can I not understand an atheist?

How can an atheists not understand a belief by others in God?

The issue you are trying to grapple is not what others believe and understand, you are trying to explain the anti view, the " You are an idiot for believing that" attitude

I know plenty of believers and non who are not antagonistic and argumentative, just so happens their are a lot of Fundy atheists and religious around here, its a conspiracy website

Religions are based on faith, faith is believing without seeing

As a theist, believing, having faith is not enough, yet it is.
James speaks about actions being as important as words, satan believes in God, doesnt make him a christian

a reply to: scorpio84
Atheist: Lacks belief in deities.
That is not a rejection of god, no more than lacking belief in faeries is. However, it is true that many atheists take it a step further, and reject the idea of divinity altogether. Which would be closer to anti-theism rather than atheism.

To me, an agnostic IS an atheist in the sense the agnostic cannot profess belief in a deity he/she doesn't know exists. Therefore, you lack belief. You're an atheist. Just not an anti-theist like myself.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Did I say anything about an inability to understand? I admit I'm a little tired right now, but I'm pretty sure the OP argues that the theist and atheist can not have a truly fair discussion with each other. I'm not sure where you got the "can't understand why so and so believes/doesn't believe x and y."

The issue you are trying to grapple is not what others believe and understand, you are trying to explain the anti view, the " You are an idiot for believing that" attitude

Come again? I'm trying to make a case for the agnostic view that debates such as whether or not a god exists is pointless.

I know plenty of believers and non who are not antagonistic and argumentative, just so happens their are a lot of Fundy atheists and religious around here, its a conspiracy website

I'll re-quote the relevant text from the OP and you can tell me where you see me making any claims that atheists/theists are inherently antagonistic. As for "argumentative" - taking part in the debate automatically makes them argumentative. Anyhow, here's the re-quote:

An atheist can never participate in a theological discussion other than to act as a foil to the discussion. Now, this can be a good thing as it forces a theologian to answer tough questions. However, the atheist cannot work within the framework of theology, because theology presupposes that God exists, a notion which atheists reject as either untrue or - more commonly -absurd/improbable. Similarly, a theist cannot fully contribute to a discussion of atheism because of the same presuppositions by same groups.

Religions are based on faith, faith is believing without seeing

Yes, I'm aware of what faith is. I'm also aware we have more than 1 - or even 5 - senses and that human experience is not limited to only those things we can sense through those 5 main senses. To say religions are based on faith is too simplistic, but as it has nothing to do with this thread, I'll leave you to your opinion.

The rest of your reply is incredibly off-topic. We aren't discussing what faith is or isn't, Satan, or anything along those lines.

a reply to: Klassified

Atheist: Lacks belief in deities.

Yes, that is what an atheist is. In other words "does not believe in deities"

However, it is true that many atheists take it a step further, and reject the idea of divinity altogether. Which would be closer to anti-theism rather than atheism.

True.

To me, an agnostic IS an atheist in the sense the agnostic cannot profess belief in a deity he/she doesn't know exists.

If you think about it, the umbrella term would properly be "agnostic." You can be a theistic agnostic or atheistic agnostic. The OP is not talking about the terms literally, but more how they are commonly used by those who identify as such and such. A couple links that I think will help you understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism are this one and this one

originally posted by: scorpio84
An atheist can never participate in a theological discussion other than to act as a foil to the discussion. Now, this can be a good thing as it forces a theologian to answer tough questions. However, the atheist cannot work within the framework of theology, because theology presupposes that God exists, a notion which atheists reject as either untrue or - more commonly -absurd/improbable. Similarly, a theist cannot fully contribute to a discussion of atheism because of the same presuppositions by same groups.

I find this to be entirely false. If the theological discussion is so vague as to not attribute any traits or attributes or actions carried out by the god in subject, then you're still only mildly correct. Because anyone, Atheist or not, can point out the pointlessness in making a claim about anything (it doesn't even have to be about god) that is entirely unfalsifiable. Essentially, the notion can be ignored because it's focus (god) can be infinitely interchangeable with anything else (Aliens, interdimensional beings, invisible magical unicorns) and all those other characters have the exact same weight in value to the supposition at hand.

Furthermore, virtually every other discussion about a god implies some sort of involvement in the path some sort of natural phenomena has/is taken/taking, or the creation of some sort of thing (life, planets, universe, etc.). These notions CAN be refuted because we actually do have evidence that all those things can form without the need for magic or intervention by an all powerful being.

Again, these aren't arguments from an Atheistic exclusive standpoint, it's just arguments from a rational standpoint that just so happen to not include god.

originally posted by: scorpio84
The agnostic, however, can fully participate and take both positions.

As can Atheists and Theists. People can still work with hypothetical situations without having some sort of mental collapse.

originally posted by: scorpio84
People will say there is no middle ground - either you believe in God or you don't.

I've never heard of anyone claiming this. I thought Agnosticism was pretty well generally accepted as a position which is essentially neutral.

originally posted by: scorpio84
However, I will not reject God as non-existent or absurd unless there is conclusive proof that this is the case.

Funny, no atheist's "Reject god" because to reject something the thing needs to actually exist in the first place. It's kind of like when Theists claim that "Atheists just hate god" or "Atheists fear god" or "Atheists are rebelling against god". No, it's just an absence of belief.

This absence of belief is generally due to the fact that we do have observable evidence of everything happening from natural sources, and we have absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. It's not a total rejection, it's just that it's irrational to even say that god might exist when everything, ever, suggests otherwise.

originally posted by: scorpio84
The common arguments from atheism - that science disproves [creationism] or that "God exists" is an unfalsifiable claim simply do not hold water. Calling it unfalsifiable is just a way to say "we can't prove the contrary, so we'll just say the premise is illogical."

No... Unfalsifiable is illogical not because we can't prove the contrary, but because the unfalsifiable claim is interchangeable with an infinite amount of other unfalsifiable details/characters. It's illogical because God is equal to magic invisible unicorns, which is equal to super advanced aliens that are outside the realm of time and space, which is equal to, so on and so on and so on. Unfalsifiable claims are at their core, totally pointless and have no weight upon any subject. It's an empty assertion.

That's why anyone that is rational (not just Atheists) give the "unfalsifiable claim" as a perfectly reasonable argument.

originally posted by: scorpio84
Or do we really want to argue that we can only make claims about something not existing? In other words, nothing exists until we observe it through one or more of our senses?

No. No one is saying either of those things using the "Unfalsifiable Claim' argument. You're simply not understanding why unfalsifiable claims are pointless.

originally posted by: scorpio84Many atheists, on the other hand, view theism - and by extension, religion - as a threat to the cognitive evolution of mankind.

No. The evolution of our cognitive abilities will keep on going, regardless of the existence of theism or not. Evolution doesn't simply reach an end state or have any mechanism which halts it.

Theism does, however, prevent mankind progressing at a social-economic level. When perceived ethical issues that stem from a religious background come up, we have to painstakingly tiptoe around them, despite their otherwise pointless origins. Homosexual Marriage would be an example of that, or women's rights to be equal to men.

originally posted by: scorpio84
Atheists and theists alike argue that humans will progress fully if and only if their position is accepted.

I don't understand where you're getting this information from, or what you mean by an Atheists interpretation of a fully progressed human is.

originally posted by: scorpio84
only through agnosticism - the recognition and acceptance that we know nothing and that both positions are equally credible/absurd will we progress.

Atheists do know that we cannot fully know anything with absolute certainty. It's why so many Atheists enjoy and follow Science so much. For science also states that there is no possible way to know anything with absolute certainty.

So I don't know what made you think Atheists think this way. The position of an Atheist generally stems from a lack of evidence, not an absolute certain claim that god does not exist, but that there is no reason to even have god on the playing field if all the evidence points elsewhere.


Sorry, but in all the threads you've made, you continue to show your ignorance about Atheism time and time again. Please contemplate the information within this post and what many others are also showing you.

a reply to: scorpio84

Well maybe I misswed your point

Sounded like you were saying only agnostics understood both sides of the issue
I think thats wrong

a reply to: Raggedyman

In many ways Agnosticism is the superior belief system to both Theism and Atheism. It is the only logical position because no one can prove or disprove the existence of God in some form. Certainly science can no more explain the existence of the universe than Theists.

The main reason I am a Theist has nothing to do with religion, but with my own personal experiences. Unlike someone who is religious I have no particular dogma to spread nor do I need the approval of others to believe what I believe. I remain open to the possibilities as my data changes throughout my life.

If I had not had my own experiences with God I would logically be an Agnostic as would anyone who thinks logically.

Great topic, OP.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Raggedyman
In many ways Agnosticism is the superior belief system to both Theism and Atheism. It is the only logical position because no one can prove or disprove the existence of God in some form.

Except for most atheists don't absolutely claim there is no existence of god. It's merely a position where everything points away from a god-like being that exists in or created the universe, so logically there's no reason to acknowledge the opposing position as being at all valid.

a reply to: Metallicus

I would argue the word superior, maybe logical, definitely not superior.

Only those with a jumping cat claim superiority around here.

I prefer not to be labeled or categorized with anyone in my beliefs. Agnostic is what I could be closest labeled to. Atheists are my fun friends to defend. All organized religious people drive me crazy.

There is one group all that seek a label/title can intermingle in though - dependent

Well I suppose you have to start by defining what you or anyone else means when they use the term GOD.

Here is an intriguing starting point from a Christian site:

carm.org...

Defining who and what God is difficult because God is--by nature--completely different from what we are.

Therefore, we can only describe Him by analogy and cite His attribute as He has revealed to us as found in the Bible. Nevertheless, the Christian God is the only supreme, eternally self-aware being, who had no beginning nor will He cease to exist, who is non-contingent, transcendent, immutable, and of whom no greater being exists. His attributes include holiness, omniscience, omnisapience, omnipotence, omnipresence, logic, righteousness, justice, mercy, grace, etc. He is revealed to us in the person of Jesus as is described in the New Testament Scriptures.

I like the first sentence but then the author goes on to anthropomorphise such a 'power'.

My working definition of 'god' is whatever it is that you have faith in at any time.

There are two general ideas of god - 1) god as the creator of creation and 2) god as the sum total of all creation seen and unseen.

Theists believe in a 'being' that is the creator (being outside of the creation), the ruler, the judge, etc, etc - all antropomophic ideas. We create an idealized human as the creator. That isn't to say that there are entities that are further evolved then we - physical and/or non-physical but not a ultimate boss.

An atheist - a (opposite of) theist - just believes there is no such supreme being (should kinda fascist don't ya think)

I have a lot of faith - not in a being - but in creation. I believe that there exists laws physical and spiritual that apply to all of us whether we believe in anything beyond us or not.

If you live within these rules - rules handed down by science and those handed down by religions of all times and trust life will flow with ease.

This idea that we are 'made in god's image' is completely illogical - it is 'we' that make 'our' gods in 'our' image.

a reply to: Ghost147

I find this to be entirely false.

This seems to be a common theme in your replies to my posts

These notions CAN be refuted because we actually do have evidence that all those things can form without the need for magic or intervention by an all powerful being.

There really is only one notion taken by the theistic point of view - that there is a conscious first cause. That has not been disproven. Again, the idea of intervention is not common to all theists.

As can Atheists and Theists. People can still work with hypothetical situations without having some sort of mental collapse.

If this is so, I have yet to see it. Even in your replies to me on the other thread you do not seem able to separate your argument from your atheism. You argue against [religion] in terms of an atheistic understanding of things, rather than in terms of a theistic understanding. When I see an atheist or theist argue from within the point of view of the opposite, then I'll take back my claim.

I've never heard of anyone claiming this. I thought Agnosticism was pretty well generally accepted as a position which is essentially neutral.

No, unfortunately, there are many who want to say that agnostics are really atheists who don't want to admit it.

Funny, no atheist's "Reject god" because to reject something the thing needs to actually exist in the first place.

I had debated about putting in "reject the notion of god" but figured I could be lazy and be understood. That was my oversight. Yet, your reply seems to state quite clearly that atheists don't reject god, because there is no god to reject. This is a claim - that no god exists- and at the heart of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

It's illogical because God is equal to magic invisible unicorns, which is equal to

Sorry, I truncated your quote. If that bothers you, I won't do it in the future. You are incorrect for two reasons:

1). a conscious, creative force (which we'll term "god") is thought of as being immaterial. Last time I checked, unicorns and aliens were thought of as being material. If you want to argue that we could swap names, sure - I'll agree - but the idea of "god" and "unicorn" are in no way similar, let alone equal

2). there is a notion that we can only have an idea of something that exists in reality. In the case of unicorns, horses and horns exist in reality. In the case of aliens, planets, transportation, life, etc. exist in reality. If the notion of god is a conscious, immaterial, creative force/being - what basis do we have in reality for those notions?

You're simply not understanding why unfalsifiable claims are pointless.

Apparently not.

Theism does, however, prevent mankind progressing at a social-economic level.

False. The attempt to force others to believe as you do or the restriction of people based on a personal moral code do. Believing in God prevents nothing. Likewise, neither does not believing in God.

I don't understand where you're getting this information from, or what you mean by an Atheists interpretation of a fully progressed human is.

Free from the burden of religion and the illusion of God.

Atheists do know that we cannot fully know anything with absolute certainty.

Yet, atheists constantly insert themselves in a discussion on theology to say "god does not exist." If you say you cannot know anything with absolute certainty, yet make a claim, then there is a contradiction.

The position of an Atheist generally stems from a lack of evidence, not an absolute certain claim that god does not exist, but that there is no reason to even have god on the playing field if all the evidence points elsewhere.

On the first point of the above quote, the position of atheism stems from disbelief in God. The thing is, when debated and shown that disbelief is as illogical as belief, atheists will switch to the agnostic position, but label it "atheist." If you see that claims for or against god are equally untenable and find the whole god vs. no god argument a moot point that doesn't further humanity's progress, you are an agnostic.

As for the second point - not a single shred of evidence points away from there being a god. Similarly, no real evidence exists to support the notion that there is a god. I find the notion that evolution backs the atheist claim to be as ridiculous as personal experience backs the theist claim.

Sorry, but in all the threads you've made, you continue to show your ignorance about Atheism time and time again. Please contemplate the information within this post and what many others are also showing you.

And I'm sorry, but I understand atheism quite well. I am not an outside participant - I was raised in an atheist household (not theist, not agnostic - atheist). The atheist position is and always has been "there is no god." While a theist will normally stick to his guns about their definitely being a god, most atheists will turn out to be agnostics who rather than saying "there is no god" should have been saying "I doubt there's a god."

Of course, some atheists will stick to their guns and say "there is no god." Those are, I think, the anti-theists.

a reply to: Metallicus

Sounds to me like you are still agnostic - just an agnostic theist. Or would you say that you have no doubt at all and know a god exists?

a reply to: Raggedyman

No, I'm saying that only agnostics will argue from both sides of the coin. If any atheist reading this would like to debate Christian theology and prove it illogical by sticking within the confines of assuming there is a god, step forward. Same would go for Islamic theology, Hindu theology, etc.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Metallicus

Sounds to me like you are still agnostic - just an agnostic theist. Or would you say that you have no doubt at all and know a god exists?

I do not actively question the existence of God, however, I am always open to new evidence one way or the other. It would be illogical to remain unchanged in the face of new evidence that can be properly vetted.

If there is no God, you have nothing to talk about. It would essentially be nothing, and we would be talking about nothing. Yet we're talking about something.

The agnostic position is one of confusion, and merely an admittance of having no clue what anyone is talking about, unclear as to what the word references. It is a lack in confidence in one's own judgement, concluded through a foundation of assumptions. It is the assumption that not only is the supernatural possible, but also the assumption that humans may have interacted with it. It is the assumption that humans may be able to converse with the divine, when no evidence has even hinted at the possibility of such beings, worlds, and feats, let alone their reality. Agnosticism is still a superstition—leaving room just in case—for a God they still think is possible. All while claiming to be rational.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
This seems to be a common theme in your replies to my posts

You keep making the same misunderstandings.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Again, the idea of intervention is not common to all theists.

Right, just the vast majority of Theists. It's why the quote your responding to has a sentence before it that states "virtually every other discussion about a god implies some sort of involvement in the path some sort of natural phenomena has/is taken/taking, or the creation of some sort of thing (life, planets, universe, etc.)."

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
If this is so, I have yet to see it. Even in your replies to me on the other thread you do not seem able to separate your argument from your atheism. You argue against [religion] in terms of an atheistic understanding of things, rather than in terms of a theistic understanding. When I see an atheist or theist argue from within the point of view of the opposite, then I'll take back my claim.

I could very well make up anything I want and suggest god really meant this when doing this action, and it would be equally valid as the opposing theistic view. Again, I could easily use hypothetical situations, but the argument at it's core is useless because it's a hypothetical situation to begin with.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
I had debated about putting in "reject the notion of god" but figured I could be lazy and be understood. That was my oversight. Yet, your reply seems to state quite clearly that atheists don't reject god, because there is no god to reject. This is a claim - that no god exists- and at the heart of the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I don't think you're reading my sentence correctly. I'm not claiming that 'no god exists' I'm saying that a person cannot express rejection from a negative. Others here have also shown that to be an illogical statement.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Sorry, I truncated your quote. If that bothers you, I won't do it in the future.

It doesn't bother me

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You are incorrect for two reasons:

1). a conscious, creative force (which we'll term "god") is thought of as being immaterial. Last time I checked, unicorns and aliens were thought of as being material. If you want to argue that we could swap names, sure - I'll agree - but the idea of "god" and "unicorn" are in no way similar, let alone equal

Again, you're misreading what I wrote, and the concept I'm trying to explain to you. I specifically wrote "magic invisible unicorns" and "aliens that are outside the realm of time and space", emphasizing that they, like your depiction of god, are immaterial. There is absolutely no distinction, then, between those things (or anything else of a similar description), and your depiction of god.

That is why an unfalsifiable claim is an empty, meaningless one.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
2). there is a notion that we can only have an idea of something that exists in reality. In the case of unicorns, horses and horns exist in reality. In the case of aliens, planets, transportation, life, etc. exist in reality. If the notion of god is a conscious, immaterial, creative force/being - what basis do we have in reality for those notions?

What basis do we have of an interdimensional realm pulling the strings in the creation and guidance of our universe? We don't. It doesn't matter how imaginary we can get with something creating and guiding our universe, they are all unfalsifiable, and therefore are all empty, meaningless claims.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
False. The attempt to force others to believe as you do or the restriction of people based on a personal moral code do. Believing in God prevents nothing. Likewise, neither does not believing in God.

You do realize you've quote mined my response twice now in this comment. Read the very next sentence when I further delve into what I mean.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Free from the burden of religion and the illusion of God.

Sorry, but I do not feel that it's necessary to erase theism in order to progress. All we need is for rationality, equality, and education to achieve progression. If you want to believe in god, go ahead. If you want to believe a sky being came down and walked on water, go ahead. If you want to believe all the negativity in humans is caused by aliens' tortured souls that were implanted into all humans, go ahead. It's when those concepts are forced onto others, and for some reason respected, that is when progression slows at a socioeconomic level.

We don't need to get rid of these ideas, we simply need to keep them at a personal level

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Yet, atheists constantly insert themselves in a discussion on theology to say "god does not exist." If you say you cannot know anything with absolute certainty, yet make a claim, then there is a contradiction.

It's like you've never read anything inside the comments that I've responded to you with. It's not that Atheists claim that god does not exist, it's a position that reasons that there is no point acknowledging an empty, baseless, unfalsifiable claim. It's a position that realizes that Unfalsifiable claims are meaningless claims. Something you have an incredibly difficult time understanding.

(funny, that very explanation is in the next quote you used of mine)

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
The thing is, when debated and shown that disbelief is as illogical as belief, atheists will switch to the agnostic position, but label it "atheist."

You do realize that you can acknowledge something cannot be disproved, yet still say it's reasonable to not acknowledge it as a valid opinion because that opinion is unfalsifiable in the first place, and you've committed no logical fallacy.

In very general terms:

Agnosticism says "anything is possible"
Atheism says "Sure, anything is possible, but there's no reason to acknowledge a position if it's neither provable or disprovable, it's just an empty position. There for we can reasonably state that it's highly unlikely for Invisible magic unicorns to exist"

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
If you see that claims for or against god are equally untenable and find the whole god vs. no god argument a moot point

Nobody is claiming that there is absolutely no possible way for a god to exist!

(continued in next post)

Atheists/theists/anti-theists:

"Just wait... You'll see."

Agnostics:

"I'll just wait and see."

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
As for the second point - not a single shred of evidence points away from there being a god.

We don't need evidence that points away from a notion that a god exists (unless of course that specific notion details an intrusion on natural matters). All we need is to know how to recognize a rational claim that holds some value. An unfalsifiable claim does not have this trait.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147I find the notion that evolution backs the atheist claim to be as ridiculous as personal experience backs the theist claim.

Evolution doesn't back anything, it's an observation of nature.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
And I'm sorry, but I understand atheism quite well.

Clearly not if you keep comparing atheism to science, or that atheism to some philosophical, or physical progression of humanity, or anything other than an absence of a belief in god. You've compared atheism to a rejection of god. You've compared atheism to a lack of believe in anything spiritual.

clearly, you have a misguided understanding of atheism at best.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
The atheist position is and always has been "there is no god."

No. The atheist position is and always will be an absence of belief in a god, not a direct claim against it.