Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

[Kenny]

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

If the second part, the underlined part, applies to you, then yes I would call you an agnostic.
Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If to claim “disbelief” means to claim to not believe, then #2 does not apply to me either because I do claim to not believe.

Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

What do you believe is known of the existence of God.

When you speak of God, I am going to assume you are referring to the God of the Bible only.
If you tell me you have a friend who is capable of preforming acts outside the laws of nature, does the impossible; but I can’t see, hear, or experience him in any way using my 5 senses because he is not of this world, I will be convinced that you are either lying or misguided and that your friend does not exist.

Again Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

And I asked you what do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Your answer didn't address your statement, nor my question regarding your statement.

So again, what do you believe is known of the existence of God?

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

[RickD]

Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena;

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

If the second part, the underlined part, applies to you, then yes I would call you an agnostic.
Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If to claim “disbelief” means to claim to not believe, then #2 does not apply to me either because I do claim to not believe.

Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

What do you believe is known of the existence of God.

When you speak of God, I am going to assume you are referring to the God of the Bible only.
If you tell me you have a friend who is capable of preforming acts outside the laws of nature, does the impossible; but I can’t see, hear, or experience him in any way using my 5 senses because he is not of this world, I will be convinced that you are either lying or misguided and that your friend does not exist.

Again Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

And I asked you what do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Your answer didn't address your statement, nor my question regarding your statement.

So again, what do you believe is known of the existence of God?

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

I guess you DON'T believe in the law of noncontradiction.

It's really telling that you are 100% sure of the truth of two statements that contradict each other.

Not to mention that your third claim, contradicts every other claim you've made regarding God.

And also, not to mention, that you are completely oblivious to what you are saying.

[Kenny]

This does not apply to me because I believe something IS known of the existence of God. Even though I don’t believe in what people call God, would you still call me Agnostic?

If the second part, the underlined part, applies to you, then yes I would call you an agnostic.
Agnostic-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If to claim “disbelief” means to claim to not believe, then #2 does not apply to me either because I do claim to not believe.

Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

What do you believe is known of the existence of God.

When you speak of God, I am going to assume you are referring to the God of the Bible only.
If you tell me you have a friend who is capable of preforming acts outside the laws of nature, does the impossible; but I can’t see, hear, or experience him in any way using my 5 senses because he is not of this world, I will be convinced that you are either lying or misguided and that your friend does not exist.

Again Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

And I asked you what do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Your answer didn't address your statement, nor my question regarding your statement.

So again, what do you believe is known of the existence of God?

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

I guess you DON'T believe in the law of noncontradiction.

It's really telling that you are 100% sure of the truth of two statements that contradict each other.

Not to mention that your third claim, contradicts every other claim you've made regarding God.

And also, not to mention, that you are completely oblivious to what you are saying.

Can you be a little more specific? What do you find contradictory and why?

[RickD]

If to claim “disbelief” means to claim to not believe, then #2 does not apply to me either because I do claim to not believe.

When you speak of God, I am going to assume you are referring to the God of the Bible only.
If you tell me you have a friend who is capable of preforming acts outside the laws of nature, does the impossible; but I can’t see, hear, or experience him in any way using my 5 senses because he is not of this world, I will be convinced that you are either lying or misguided and that your friend does not exist.

Again Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

And I asked you what do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Your answer didn't address your statement, nor my question regarding your statement.

So again, what do you believe is known of the existence of God?

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

I guess you DON'T believe in the law of noncontradiction.

It's really telling that you are 100% sure of the truth of two statements that contradict each other.

Not to mention that your third claim, contradicts every other claim you've made regarding God.

And also, not to mention, that you are completely oblivious to what you are saying.

Can you be a little more specific? What do you find contradictory and why?

Reread what you wrote.

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

You should be able to figure it out on your own.

[Kenny]

Again Kenny,

You said that you believe something IS known of the existence of God.

And I asked you what do you believe is known of the existence of God.

Your answer didn't address your statement, nor my question regarding your statement.

So again, what do you believe is known of the existence of God?

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

I guess you DON'T believe in the law of noncontradiction.

It's really telling that you are 100% sure of the truth of two statements that contradict each other.

Not to mention that your third claim, contradicts every other claim you've made regarding God.

And also, not to mention, that you are completely oblivious to what you are saying.

Can you be a little more specific? What do you find contradictory and why?

Reread what you wrote.

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

You should be able to figure it out on your own.

Perhaps you should read it again; you will see there is nothing contradictory in what I wrote

[RickD]

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

I guess you DON'T believe in the law of noncontradiction.

It's really telling that you are 100% sure of the truth of two statements that contradict each other.

Not to mention that your third claim, contradicts every other claim you've made regarding God.

And also, not to mention, that you are completely oblivious to what you are saying.

Can you be a little more specific? What do you find contradictory and why?

Reread what you wrote.

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

You should be able to figure it out on your own.

Perhaps you should read it again; you will see there is nothing contradictory in what I wrote

I read it again, and I still see glaring contradictions. I'm not sure what's worse, the contradictions, or the fact that you really don't see them.

[Kenny]

I guess you DON'T believe in the law of noncontradiction.

It's really telling that you are 100% sure of the truth of two statements that contradict each other.

Not to mention that your third claim, contradicts every other claim you've made regarding God.

And also, not to mention, that you are completely oblivious to what you are saying.

Can you be a little more specific? What do you find contradictory and why?

Reread what you wrote.

The following is what I am 100% convinced of about God.

I believe God means different things to different people.
I believe some versions of God do exist, but most don’t.
I believe all the claims people make of God are false.

Not sure if this answers your question; if not give an example of what you are talking about.

You should be able to figure it out on your own.

Perhaps you should read it again; you will see there is nothing contradictory in what I wrote

I read it again, and I still see glaring contradictions. I'm not sure what's worse, the contradictions, or the fact that you really don't see them.

I would say my inability to get a straight answer out of you is worse!

[Nils]

Nils,

Take these two statements:

1) I don't believe unicorns exist.

2) I believe unicorns don't exist.

In order for me to make either of those statements, I have to have some idea of what a unicorn is, correct?

It, depends on the context, see below.

If you had never heard of Stegosauria yesterday, how could you make the statement:
"I Nils, don't believe that Stegosauria exist"?

Ohh, I changed tense just before sending and didn’t check. Not so clever. My original statements were
1a) X didn’t believe Y exists
2b) X believed that Y don’t exist
Then it make sense saying: “If we are talking about what was the case yesterday and X is myself and Y is Stegosauria (a dinsour) then 1) is true but 2) is false because at that time I didn’t knew about Stegosauria, I found it in Wikipedia some minutes ago.”

I'm talking about atheists that claim #1, but deny #2.

These atheists obviously have an idea of what God is said to be, right?

So, for an atheist that declares:

1) I don't believe that God exists.

This is equally true:

2) I believe God doesn't exist.

Because he has an idea of who God is said to be.

You have a point if you are talking about a person that is declaring those sentences. Then it may be reasonable to assume that that person knows what she is talking about. But as I said above it depends on the context. If you asked me yesterday: Do you believe that Stegosauria exist, I may very well have answered: “"I Nils, don't believe that Stegosauria exist" because at that time I didn’t know about Stegosauria. What I mean is that if you ask me about anything that I don’t know, isn’t interested in or don’t care about I may answer in the same way: “I don’t believe that it exists (even if it may exist, I don’t bother)”. So if you talk about a person that you don't know well, then you can’t assume that she has any belief about Gods existence even if you know that she doesn't beleive there is a God.

An atheist that claims 1, yet denies 2, is trying to get out of making a claim, so he doesn't have to give reasoning for that claim.

I agree that it sometimes may be the case but I think that an atheist can deny 2 and still be intellectually honest even if I don’t recommend that position in a discussion about God. I discuss that more in my answer to Ken below.
Nils

[Nils]

An atheist may take the position that she as being an atheist don’t have do explain why she is an atheist, that the burden of proof rests only on the theist.

Which is true. Nobody has to explain what or why they believe the way they do unless they are trying to convince others to believe like them.

If there were only a few theist I would agree. For instance when discussing with persons that believe in Zeus or Odin it is reasonable to say that I don’t believe in them and I don’t have to argue, it’s up to the believers to argue for the existence. But I think it is different if you argue that no God exists because the majority of men believes in a God.

Wait a minute; Zeus and Odin are Gods that people believe in. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement?

You can’t just discard a majority view, and the burden of proof is on you as well as on the believers.

Why can’t you just discard a majority view? Unless you are trying to convince someone else, why is the burden of proof on you also? What happens if you are unable to provide sufficient evidence to make your case? Does that mean you are not allowed to believe that way anymore? What happens if you are unable to defend ANY position? Does that mean you are not allowed to believe anything? What are you saying here?

You have to answer the question why do all these people believe in God and why are they wrong.

How many people are you allowed to disagree with before you are required to justify your skepticism? A million? A billion?

That is why I think that atheist should explain why they think God(s) don’t exist.

Nils

Just because you are an atheist doesn’t mean you believe what people call God, does not exist.

As I said to Rick above, I think it is an intellectually honest position for an atheist refuse to say: “I believe that God doesn’t exist”. But if you join a discussion with theist (and that is what I’m talking about) it seems to me that it is impossible to state that you don’t have any opinion or belief about Gods existence. Also, if the theist believes in a wide spread religion it seems a bit careless to refute it without argument. The fact that lot of persons believe in it is a kind of evidence even it is far from conclusive. What to mean by a "wide spread" religion is a matter of taste but if a majority has it that is certainly enough.

This is my opinion and nothing forces you to have the same opinion.

Nils

[RickD]

Nils wrote:
You have a point if you are talking about a person that is declaring those sentences. Then it may be reasonable to assume that that person knows what she is talking about. But as I said above it depends on the context. If you asked me yesterday: Do you believe that Stegosauria exist, I may very well have answered: “"I Nils, don't believe that Stegosauria exist" because at that time I didn’t know about Stegosauria. What I mean is that if you ask me about anything that I don’t know, isn’t interested in or don’t care about I may answer in the same way: “I don’t believe that it exists (even if it may exist, I don’t bother)”. So if you talk about a person that you don't know well, then you can’t assume that she has any belief about Gods existence even if you know that she doesn't beleive there is a God.

Nils,

I'm not understanding.

If I asked you yesterday, if Stegosauria exist, would you have really answered, "I Nils, don't believe that Stegosauria exist"?

Because, if someone asked me about something existing, that I had never heard of, my response would not be, "I Rick, don't believe that "X" exist".

If you asked me about something I'd never heard of, I'd find out what you are talking about, before I said it doesn't exist. Don't you think that's a more reasonable response?

I would not say that just because I've never heard of something, that I believe it doesn't exist. To me, your answer makes no sense.

[Kenny]

Nils

Just because you are an atheist doesn’t mean you believe what people call God, does not exist.

As I said to Rick above, I think it is an intellectually honest position for an atheist refuse to say: “I believe that God doesn’t exist”. But if you join a discussion with theist (and that is what I’m talking about) it seems to me that it is impossible to state that you don’t have any opinion or belief about Gods existence.

I agree! But I’ve never heard anybody say that; have you?

Also, if the theist believes in a wide spread religion it seems a bit careless to refute it without argument.

Popularity is not an indicator of truth. So why does the size of the religion make a difference to you?

The fact that lot of persons believe in it is a kind of evidence even it is far from conclusive

When you have multiple religions that are all “wide spread”, each contradicting each other, they all can’t be right ya know, but they all can be wrong.

What to mean by a "wide spread" religion is a matter of taste but if a majority has it that is certainly enough.

One thing every religion has in common is that they are each rejected by the vast majority of people.

[RickD]

Kenny asserted without proof:
One thing every religion has in common is that they are each rejected by the vast majority of people.

That's patently false.

Depending on the poll, around 66 to 80 percent of Americans, identify as Christians.

Kenny,

Do you even think when you post, or do you just blurt out any bs that comes to mind?

[Kenny]

Kenny asserted without proof:
One thing every religion has in common is that they are each rejected by the vast majority of people.

That's patently false.

Depending on the poll, around 66 to 80 percent of Americans, identify as Christians.

Kenny,

Do you even think when you post, or do you just blurt out any bs that comes to mind?

I said PEOPLE not Americans. The vast majority of people would wide do not identify as Christian.

PS
Do you actually read what I say or do you just blurt out what ever bs that comes to mind? (LOL)

[RickD]

Kenny asserted without proof:
One thing every religion has in common is that they are each rejected by the vast majority of people.

That's patently false.

Depending on the poll, around 66 to 80 percent of Americans, identify as Christians.

Kenny,

Do you even think when you post, or do you just blurt out any bs that comes to mind?

I said PEOPLE not Americans. The vast majority of people would wide do not identify as Christian.

PS
Do you actually read what I say or do you just blurt out what ever bs that comes to mind? (LOL)

Worldwide, you say?

Ok. According to this link, people identifying with Christianity, make up approximately 33% of the world's population. And those identifying with Islam, make up approximately 24% of the world's population. So, when we add up only those two religions, that makes up approximately 57% of the world's population. And like I said, that doesn't include other religions.

With that said, your statement is still patently false. Every religion is not rejected by the vast majority of people. I just showed you where the two most popular religions worldwide, are in fact ACCEPTED by the majority of people.

So I ask again, do you even think when you post?

[Kenny]

Kenny asserted without proof:
One thing every religion has in common is that they are each rejected by the vast majority of people.

That's patently false.

Depending on the poll, around 66 to 80 percent of Americans, identify as Christians.

Kenny,

Do you even think when you post, or do you just blurt out any bs that comes to mind?

I said PEOPLE not Americans. The vast majority of people would wide do not identify as Christian.

PS
Do you actually read what I say or do you just blurt out what ever bs that comes to mind? (LOL)

Worldwide, you say?

Ok. According to this link, people identifying with Christianity, make up approximately 33% of the world's population. And those identifying with Islam, make up approximately 24% of the world's population. So, when we add up only those two religions, that makes up approximately 57% of the world's population. And like I said, that doesn't include other religions.

With that said, your statement is still patently false. Every religion is not rejected by the vast majority of people. I just showed you where the two most popular religions worldwide, are in fact ACCEPTED by the majority of people.

So I ask again, do you even think when you post?

C'mon Rick you makin' this too easy! Okay here goes....

Notice I said each religion (not theism) is rejected by the majority. So according to your figures, Christianity (the largest religion in the world) makes up 33% of the world's population. That means it is rejected by 67% of the world's population. 67>33 thus my argument stands.