Wow you picked the definition which fits your argument, who would of thought.

No batair, it just concludes that both of those could exist in regards to agnosticism. (hint. not atheism)

No i fit some atheistic definition also. No problem though i dont really care what people call me and im not attached to atheism. Call me what you want and ill be sure to remind you im not an atheists when you make your rants against them to me.

LOL, forget it. I said my piece. Cannot convince people who are not honest with themselves.

I don't believe there are definitely no gods, but I don't believe that there are. It's pretty simple Gunth.

Why is everything with you about people lying? Are you suggesting that we don't know what our own position is? Like I said... The definition of atheist can be a bit ambiguous.

One thing to understand is that the word itself shouldn't even exist. We don't need words for people who don't believe in gremlins or unicorns. We don't go around calling them a-gremlinists or a-unicornists. And we shouldn't need the word atheist either. I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in gremlins. It's a little silly going around telling people they don't understand their own position, don't ya think?

Could you clarify what definition of "god" you are using?

It's not. But i am sure you are well aware how many people attack me with lies. In which case i call it out. I just can't stand people who lie about people. Doesn't matter if it is in regards to me or not, there is a lot of lying and deceiving that goes on in this forum.

Also a huge part of turning back to God is learning to be 100% honest with yourself, i don't necessarily call those people liars, as they may not even be aware of what they are doing. But those who are 100% honest can see right through those who are not. It's just how it is. That is why Jesus was able to read minds.

I am not agnostic about gunth, I am a strong agunthist, because I don't think Gunth could possibly be a real person.

haha. Touche! But I believe we already established it was the personal god that Gunth believes in.

I'd say lets go get lunch in the city but i can't honestly say i want to have lunch with you.

Gunth, do you believe that there is an even number of stars in the universe?

Why do you ask this?

Because he's an optimist.

As an illustration. So seriously, do you believe that there is an even number of stars in the universe?

Because there is no way to prove it, and the only way to believe it is with faith. Do you have faith, Gunth?

I have a little hijack, not even knowing the exact details of the discussion recently, but I wanted to comment on this:

You assume "prove" means what, exactly? Empirically only? Please prove empiricism-only epistemology, and don't use empiricism (that is circular, hence begging the question), and once you use another way, you will find that you've disproved the proposition, i.e.,

"Empiricism/the scientific method/naturalism is the only way to establish knowledge."

"X (where x is not empiricism/the scientific method/naturalism) to establish the above."

X disproves the first proposition.

In other words, your epistemological presuppositions define what you are able to call "proof". But let's posit that the God of the Bible exists. If He revealed-let's say He called out from heaven or had men write down His message-that the number of stars in the galaxy amounted to an even number-then it would be knowable as true, would it not? If we grant that God exists, and that His revelation is x, if x says there is an even number of stars in the galaxy, then this is certain knowledge for us, isn't it?

So really for the Christian that has found the person who is the Christian God to be true and has found the Bible to be His revelation, or rather that those things have been established as true, it is perfectly rational to claim to know based on that revelation. The question-or the attack from an atheist-should be, "What establishes the Christian God as true, and the Bible as true?" The answer is NOT that one proves the other, hence circular reasoning. The answer is that each is established through rational examination of reality. It is true that all knowledge is obtained through rationality (by definition), but it is not true that naturalism is the only way to prove something. All of us claim knowledge through many other legitimate means.

I think the discussion should really be about the Christian claim that God is established and the Bible is established as His word. The more I read discussions in this forum, the more I see this as where they ultimately should go. In fact, this would answer the OP-how an intelligent person can believe in God. It might be of interest that "in this day and age", with all the knowledge and technology and focus on science that we have, Christian Apologetics is notably stronger than it has ever been in history. It has experienced a resurgence with leaders like Ravi Zacharias, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Tim Keller, etc. who focus on a rational approach to believing in God, and who speak at Harvard, Yale, Microsoft, Google, United Nations, and other intellectually prestigious places, mostly in contrasting Theism to Atheism on a highly intellectual level. If you ask the question of the OP honestly, and not simply derogatorily, I suggest looking up those men I mentioned on Youtube and listening to some of those videos. It can certainly help you begin to see a different perspective. A good start is Tim Keller at Google:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ

Best,
M

I'll stick with most of the top minds in the world of science.. We don't know (and it doesn't really matter).

LOL Magenoita. Stopped reading after you said if God says there are an even number of stars that proves its true. Not worth continuing after that.

Another really good one is Ravi Zacharias speaking on Atheism here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqbFxZ-3XA4

(7 part series)

It appears you stopped reading before that, since you didn't even get that right.

These definitions completely back up why I was saying you nits should be calling yourself agnostic, not atheist. Atheism is not just a lack of belief, it is a rejection of belief. You can't go around saying "there may be a god" and still be atheist.

"The belief that there are no gods." End of game. Have a nice day, agnostics.

I think you need to look up the word "disbelief" in the dictionary.

–noun
1.
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

If we plug this into one of the definitions above:

the inability or refusal to believe or to accept the existence of a supreme being or beings as true.

@ Gunth and lew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mot7_MVlpaI

i like how the last 100 posts in this thread have 0 to do with religion and are a purely semantical argument over the root meaning of words in the English language