Belief in God is Properly Basic.

[HexHammer]

No, you just added 'ignorant" to the set of adjectives I am using to describe you.

Oh by the way, thank you for the warm welcome you have shown a newbie.

Of cause I'm ignorant of such things, it isn't exactly common knowledge, I've been living in northern Europe we don't care much for religion, so we are ignorant of such, so please elaborate for your views.

If you can't explain your views, then your not a reasonable person.

"We" don't care for gods. Is that the Royal "we"?

The most stupid moron, even one born and living on norther Europe might know that there are a range of different beliefs about god, that do not include Jahovah.
If you had any idea of your own history you might have thought of Wotan, Odin, Thor and.or the Celtic, Roman or Greek gods.

Any reasonable intelligent person would understand that "we" would refer to my fellow countrymen but you apparently lacks basic cognitive abilities, come now, please don't embarrass yourself further.

Jehovah is Jewish and we don't have a lot of Jews here, and they usually keep their religion to themselves.

You are angry because I reveal your weaknesses, and you can handle the simple truth I bring you.

[thedoc]

You are talking rubbish. Evidence and reason are the only valuable criteria to avoid believing in lies. Proof is sometimes important; vitally so for asserting what is not obvious. Faith is empty.
Atheism is not about faith or belief in any sense. God is not established by these things and a long list of definitions of god are ridiculous, contradictory and incompatible with reality.
As an atheist I have no need to proof non-existence. That is not how it works.

Thankyou for defining yourself, now I can continue with a better understanding of where you are coming from.

[surreptitious57]

If one values faith above reason then belief in God can most certainly be justified. I myself however do not believe in God because his existence
cannot be empirically demonstrated. He may actually exist but on the balance of probabilities that is as infinitesimal as it is actually possible to
be. As his existence / non existence is beyond my influence then it matters not either way and which is why I am therefore an agnostic apatheist

[Lev Muishkin]

You are talking rubbish. Evidence and reason are the only valuable criteria to avoid believing in lies. Proof is sometimes important; vitally so for asserting what is not obvious. Faith is empty.
Atheism is not about faith or belief in any sense. God is not established by these things and a long list of definitions of god are ridiculous, contradictory and incompatible with reality.
As an atheist I have no need to proof non-existence. That is not how it works.

Thankyou for defining yourself, now I can continue with a better understanding of where you are coming from.

What about the OP?

[Lev Muishkin]

If one values faith above reason then belief in God can most certainly be justified. I myself however do not believe in God because his existence
cannot be empirically demonstrated. He may actually exist but on the balance of probabilities that is as infinitesimal as it is actually possible to
be. As his existence / non existence is beyond my influence then it matters not either way and which is why I am therefore an agnostic apatheist

That's not my thinking. For any given position the value and veracity can only be judged by the quality of the evidence and the reasoning brought to consider that position; that goes for Natural Selection, God, and the existence of Space Fairies. I do not see a reason to be agnostic about Space Fairies, so why about God?
The default position is always truth or falsehood; not maybe.
I proceed as if I have things right, and if things don't fit them I change my mind. Faith impedes that process.

In the case of God we can look at the claimed attributes of God, and compare them with experience; they do not fit, for a number of reasons.

Now the claim above is that belief in God is Properly Basic. I think this is a false claim to add to all the other claims about God people tend to make. But I was hoping that someone would come along to support the idea to see if it has any wings.


BTW. I do not see how apatheist goes with agnostic. I can see how you might regard theism with distain, or atheism, but "agnostic" is a fence sitting claim which suggest you can't know. Agnosticism IS apetheist atheism, as rational agosticism is a sub-set of atheism.

[attofishpi]

That's not my thinking. For any given position the value and veracity can only be judged by the quality of the evidence and the reasoning brought to consider that position; that goes for Natural Selection, God, and the existence of Space Fairies. I do not see a reason to be agnostic about Space Fairies, so why about God?

You expect us to consider that a comparison in the belief of a 'space fairy' to the existence of ALL reality being God\'God' should be measured equally?

[surreptitious57]

I am an agnostic atheist because although I do not believe in God as such I cannot absolutely disprove his existence. But since it matters not to me whether he exists or not anyway then. I am also an agnostic apatheist. And the reason it matters not is because either way I have no control over it so would have to accept it if it were ever conclusively demonstrated one way or the other. The reason I am an atheist rather than an agnostic
is because of the probability factor. For the probability of God existing is not the same as the probability of him not existing. And the latter is
not just merely more probable but significantly more so also and so atheism is therefore the natural default position with regard to that fact

[Lev Muishkin]

That's not my thinking. For any given position the value and veracity can only be judged by the quality of the evidence and the reasoning brought to consider that position; that goes for Natural Selection, God, and the existence of Space Fairies. I do not see a reason to be agnostic about Space Fairies, so why about God?

You expect us to consider that a comparison in the belief of a 'space fairy' to the existence of ALL reality being God\'God' should be measured equally?

Yes of course. Space Fairies are far more likely than God, so I see no reason not to treat those little devils with the same rigour of enquiry as an all powerful being.

[Lev Muishkin]

I am an agnostic atheist because although I do not believe in God I can not absolutely disprove his existence. But since it matters not to me whether he exists or not anyway then
I am also an agnostic apatheist. The reason it matters not is because either way I have no control over it so would have to accept it if it were ever conclusively demonstrated one
way or the other. And the reason I am an atheist rather than an agnostic is because of the probability factor. For the probability of God existing is not the same as the probability
of him not existing. And the latter is not just merely more probable but significantly more so also and so atheism is therefore the natural default position with regard to that fact

You are confusing yourself.
If you are an agnostic you can't make any assessment of the probability of god's existence. The point of agnosticism that the thought that god is NOT KNOWABLE. Probability does not come into it.

[attofishpi]

That's not my thinking. For any given position the value and veracity can only be judged by the quality of the evidence and the reasoning brought to consider that position; that goes for Natural Selection, God, and the existence of Space Fairies. I do not see a reason to be agnostic about Space Fairies, so why about God?

You expect us to consider that a comparison in the belief of a 'space fairy' to the existence of ALL reality being God\'God' should be measured equally?

Yes of course. Space Fairies are far more likely than God, so I see no reason not to treat those little devils with the same rigour of enquiry as an all powerful being.

Ok.
So please describe these space fairies with as much vigour as you can muster even though none of us have yet defined God\'God'...go forth and dribble your shit as it comes out of your key presses...

[surreptitious57]

Agnostic atheists do not believe in God but do not claim absolute knowledge of it
While gnostic atheists do not believe in God but do claim absolute knowledge of it
But the knowledge claim is an argument from emotion because it cannot be proved
If it could then I would be a gnostic atheist but it cannot and so I am an agnostic one

[Lev Muishkin]

Agnostic atheists do not believe in God but do not claim absolute knowledge of it
While gnostic atheists do not believe in God but do claim absolute knowledge of it
But the knowledge claim is an argument from emotion because it cannot be proved
If it could then I would be a gnostic atheist but it cannot and so I am an agnostic one

NO.
NO.
There is no knowledge claim in atheism, emotional or otherwise.

[Lev Muishkin]

You expect us to consider that a comparison in the belief of a 'space fairy' to the existence of ALL reality being God\'God' should be measured equally?

Yes of course. Space Fairies are far more likely than God, so I see no reason not to treat those little devils with the same rigour of enquiry as an all powerful being.

Ok.
So please describe these space fairies with as much vigour as you can muster even though none of us have yet defined God\'God'...go forth and dribble your shit as it comes out of your key presses...

Space Fairies are flighty beings that can travel through space, appearing as they will and whim allows them.
If they so chose they can make their selfs know to living beings, but usually they remain unseen.
They evolved on a planet far far away.
Your turn!
Now let's see your shit.

[thedoc]

No, you just added 'ignorant" to the set of adjectives I am using to describe you.

Oh by the way, thank you for the warm welcome you have shown a newbie.

So now I can add "mindless abuse" to your list of descriptive. As far as welcomes, you get what you deserve.

[Lev Muishkin]

No, you just added 'ignorant" to the set of adjectives I am using to describe you.

Oh by the way, thank you for the warm welcome you have shown a newbie.

So now I can add "mindless abuse" to your list of descriptive. As far as welcomes, you get what you deserve.

Are you HexHammer, using another name?
My comment is neither abusive and certainly not mindless; it was accurate and appropriate. had you been following his posts to me , then even you might understand.
If not, you are not really qualified to attack my response to him, which was a response to a hail of abuse from the moment I joined the Forum, none of which is deserved.
This leads me to your completely unprovoked attack.
Are you all the same here?