No need to reply unnecessary mentions.

A001:
No need to reply unnecessary mentions.

Most agnostics are ignorant of what “god” means.

Workch:
Theism is so flawed that it's more flawed than atheism.
Theism in flawed both from Philosophical and scientific standpoint. It's very flawed that it cannot prove Philosophically if their gods exist, it still cannot provide scientific evidence for its claims.
Theism is a bunch of fallacies by default.
Theism is so flawed that no sane person should be a theist, especially theism that is associated with religion. Religion is an organized fraud in its entirety.

Theism is so ridiculous that it didn't dig anything but creates ridiculous things frm thin air

That's because you were relying on others for your digging. Dig for yourself. Make your own finds.

Workch:
tyou don't have to believe gravity, it is accepted as fact because it's demonstrable.

What you would have said is that "you do not accept the existence of a god because of lack of evidence".

Nope. I don't know if a god does exist. All the human proposed gods have no evidence however there might be gods we have not conceived of.

LordReed:


I don't disbelieve that a god might exist.

I don't know if aliens exist.

So if you do not disbelieve that a god might exist and you don't believe it either, then how are you an atheist?
Agnostic atheists usually don't believe in any god but they still do not know if it exist or not.

If you don't know if aliens exist, then do you believe it does it not?

MayntheeMayn:

Since nobody has done any digging how did they come up with “god”?

Did I say nobody has done any digging? I said you should make your own individual, personal digging. And when digging, dig deep enough. You'll find.

Workch:
So if you do not disbelieve that a god might exist and you don't believe it either, then how are you an atheist?
Agnostic atheists usually don't believe in any god but they still do not know if it exist or not.

If you don't know if aliens exist, then do you believe it does it not?

Who is an atheist?

Why do I need to believe in the existence or not of aliens?

HisSplendor:

Did I say nobody has done any digging? I said you should make your own individual, personal digging. And when digging, dig deep enough. You'll find.

There’s nothing to dig except illusions.

MayntheeMayn:

There’s nothing to dig except illusions.

You're drawing conclusions within evidence.

HisSplendor:


Absolutely incorrect.

You've not been digging for thousands of years, have you? We're talking of individual digging. Stop relying on others for your finds. Talk for yourself.

I am absolutely correct. No god can be pointed out by anyone, it is all beliefs held in the mind. I don't need to have been individually digging for thousands of years, the collectively knowledge of humans has been passed down in one form or the other. Whether you like it or not we are standing on the achievements and failures of those who came before us and one glaring failure is that the gods have all remained in the heads of those who believe.

LordReed:


Nope. I don't know if a god does exist. All the human proposed gods have no evidence however there might be gods we have not conceived of.

Let me allow you understand my argument better.

My stance with respect to the existence of God has to do with evidence for or against any concept of God hence if we have a God claim, before you can outrightly validate or dismiss that God, you need an evidence for or against that claim. This is basically how science works.
Now, the Christian God for example can be easily dismissed by scientific methods, in essence, we have evidence against the Christian concept of God, which is why I reject it. But we do not have evidence against a deistic concept of god, it's why I cannot outrightly reject or accept it.

Deist and atheists are those who are on the opposing ends of this argument. Deists are suppose to provide evidence for, atheists are suppose to provide evidence against but none of them have evidence.

Why do you think science is agnostic? It's because science cannot produce evidence for or against a deistic god.

HisSplendor:

You're drawing conclusions within evidence.

Which conclusion have you drawn with evidence?

LordReed:


I am absolutely correct. No god can be pointed out by anyone, it is all beliefs held in the mind. I don't need to have been individually digging for thousands of years, the collectively knowledge of humans has been passed down in one form or the other. Whether you like it or not we are standing on the achievements and failures of those who came before us and one glaring failure is that the gods have all remained in the heads of those who believe.

He lives in a different realm. Not here. Those who dug far enough here found. He doesn't live in their heads. They found. I dug too. I found. You too should dig. You'll find. That's all.

LordReed:


Who is an atheist?

Why do I need to believe in the existence or not of aliens?

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any God.

That's the point, you do not have to believe in the existence or not of aliens. You just have to wait for evidence for to against it to come. This also applies to the concept of a god that you cannot substantiate or invalidate with evidence like a deistic god.

MayntheeMayn:

Which conclusion have you drawn with evidence?

Get evidence for your conclusions.

Workch:
Why do you think science is agnostic? It's because science cannot produce evidence for or against a deistic god.

How did science know that there is something called “god” why not “poo”, how did they arrive at that?

HisSplendor:


That's because you were relying on others for your digging. Dig for yourself. Make your own finds.

spare me all these nonsense.

I'm not here to engage religious people who are chronically ill at are making shit up

HisSplendor:


Get evidence for your conclusions.

I don’t need evidence for a negative.

He used the example of a ‘cosmic teapot’ to illustrate his point. He said that, even though it could not be refuted, no one should believe him if he claimed, without proof, that a tiny teapot was orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Boncheck, 2016).

In similar vein, Martin Burton, Director of Cochrane UK, wrote that an invisible unicorn had been grazing in his office and invited readers to prove him wrong

Workch:
spare me all these nonsense.

I'm not here to engage religious people who are chronically ill at are making shit up

That's your perspective. I'm not here to engage anyone too. Just wanted to tell you that your current assumptions are based on your lack of digging.

HisSplendor:

That's your perspective. I'm not here to engage anyone too. Just wanted to tell you that your current assumptions are based on your lack of digging.

Then dig yours, you will win a novel prize in Sweden if you can substantiate your digging. You know why you ot anyone haven't won it? Because most god claims are delusions and sane people know this

MayntheeMayn:

I don’t need evidence for a negative.

He used the example of a ‘cosmic teapot’ to illustrate his point. He said that, even though it could not be refuted, no one should believe him if he claimed, without proof, that a tiny teapot was orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Boncheck, 2016).

In similar vein, Martin Burton, Director of Cochrane UK, wrote that an invisible unicorn had been grazing in his office and invited readers to prove him wrong

That's because he's talking about something quite relational. We're talking about a different world than not visible to the naked eye. You can't reach conclusions about that world until you dig deep enough.

I'm not here for an engagement. I think I've passed my message. It's left for you to reject or accept the digging challenge.

HisSplendor:

That's because he's talking about something quite relational. We're talking about a different world than not visible to the naked eye. You can't reach conclusions about that world until you dig deep enough.

I'm not here for an engagement. I think I've passed my message. It's left for you to reject or accept the digging challenge.

How do you know that there is a different world if it is not visible to the naked eye, how did you reach the conclusion?

Workch:
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of any God.

That's the point, you do not have to believe in the existence or not of aliens. You just have to wait for evidence for to against it to come. This also applies to the concept of a god that you cannot substantiate or invalidate with evidence like a deistic god.

Good so how does that label not apply to me?

Exactly. You go a step further though and instead of waiting for evidence you are giving the god attributes. You are like a person claiming that aliens are tall and have blue eyes before seeing any evidence to that claim.

Workch:
Then dig yours, you will win a novel prize in Sweden if you can substantiate your digging. You know why you ot anyone haven't won it? Because most god claims are delusions and sane people know this

We already won something much more valuable. Something really tangible and everlasting. Who cares for a perishable prize in Sweden?

HisSplendor:

He lives in a different realm. Not here. Those who dug far enough here found. He doesn't live in their heads. They found. I dug too. I found. You too should dig. You'll find. That's all.

Where is the god then? If it is not in your head then it should be available to be found outside your head.

Workch:
Let me allow you understand my argument better.

My stance with respect to the existence of God has to do with evidence for or against any concept of God hence if we have a God claim, before you can outrightly validate or dismiss that God, you need an evidence for or against that claim. This is basically how science works.
Now, the Christian God for example can be easily dismissed by scientific methods, in essence, we have evidence against the Christian concept of God, which is why I reject it. But we do not have evidence against a deistic concept of god, it's why I cannot outrightly reject or accept it.

Deist and atheists are those who are on the opposing ends of this argument. Deists are suppose to provide evidence for, atheists are suppose to provide evidence against but none of them have evidence.

Why do you think science is agnostic? It's because science cannot produce evidence for or against a deistic god.

You are making a baseless claim and asking me to provide evidence against what is already a baseless claim.

LordReed:


Good so how does that label not apply to me?

Exactly. You go a step further though and instead of waiting for evidence you are giving the god attributes. You are like a person claiming that aliens are tall and have blue eyes before seeing any evidence to that claim.

nope, theists are like the people who try to describe an alien that they don't know exist.

For me, i dont know if aliens exist or not and I don't believe or believe it. If it does exist, I don't know the nature of it and I even think that we may never know it it exist or not and it doesn't play any significant role in my life. That's scientific.

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes/disbelieves that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe/disbelieve. It is why atheism is not scientific

MayntheeMayn:

How do you know that there is a different world if it is not visible to the naked eye, how did you reach the conclusion?

I'm not here to engage anybody but I'll briefly answer your question.

There are pointers everywhere. You've heard it yourself before that there's an invisible world. They set out the rules for exploring that world. I followed the rules, and I found. There's a rule even for conducting scientific experiments. If you don't follow the rules, you wouldn't find.

Workch:
nope, theists are like the people who try to describe an alien that they don't know exist.

For me, i dont know if aliens exist or not and I don't believe or believe it. If it does exist, I don't know the nature of it and I even think that we may never know it it exist or not and it doesn't play any significant role in my life. That's scientific.

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes/disbelieves that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe/disbelieve. It is why atheism is not scientific

What are the characteristics of these “god” that the agnostic believes can exist or not?

A deistic god is the creator, how did you arrive at that?

HisSplendor:


I'm not here to engage anybody but I'll briefly answer your question.

There are pointers everywhere. You've heard it yourself before that there's an invisible world. They set out the rules for exploring that world. I followed the rules, and I found. There's a rule even for conducting scientific experiments. If you don't follow the rules, you wouldn't find.

How do you know that there is a different world if it is not visible to the naked eye, how did you reach the conclusion?

LordReed:


You are making a baseless claim and asking me to provide evidence against what is already a baseless claim.

The claim is not baseless, it would be baseless if you know how the singularity that expanded into our current universe got there.
If you do not have answer for this, then the claim is one of the hypotheses that needs to be falsified, especially the deistic claim.

An hypothesis is never baseless until it has been falsified. A deistic concept of god is yet to be falsified unlike what you have in Christianity.

LordReed:


Where is the god then? If it is not in your head then it should be available to be found outside your head.

Yeah, it's found outside my head in His own world. He has the right to live in His own world. Doesn't He?