@powder I am glad that you raised the topic of probability. At university I found the transition from certainty to probability traumatic. Nice neat equations were fine but the uncertainty principle and wave functions I still have not come to terms with. However what got me to be on the side of probability was that my lecturer convinced me that there is a probability. of any electron that had visited my body was also going to search out the dead corpse of Marylin Monroe even if she was buried on the moon.

It is not pride one has to swallow, because I do not WANT to apologise later - although IF necessary I would do so for whatever reason , it is integrity and persistence that keeps us going. Scientists have had to get through a lot worse than the idea of god to get acceptance for their theories ,. Christians are going to keep going with their theories for a VERY long time. Perhaps it is the simplicity of the concept that keeps it going.

I do not know, that means agnostic.
Your story of a God is false means atheist.

Example:
I believe his story that a God exist. But, I do not have direct evidence to know his god exist. I never met his God.

The person is agnostic and not atheist.

@Word You just defined "believer," not agnostic. Believers have no evidence, otherwise there is no need for belief!

Most atheists don't claim they can prove your claim is false; they simply do not accept claims without supporting evidence.

@1BrentMichael belief means accept something as true. If something is present for consideration, then theres the evidence to decide if it's TRUE or not. If you hold it as true, you have a belief. If you don't, then you call it false, disbelief.

@1BrentMichael a person holding belief can be agnostic. If you hold someone elses information as true, you may not have a direct knowledge that it is true. It's like the big bang myth. You can believe in the big bang myth, but we do not have a singularity in hand as direct evidence that's what created space.

@Word Sorry, no, that's not what agnostic means. Agnostic literally means "without knowledge," and people "holding someone else's information as true" believe that person has knowledge - they are believers.

And the big bang is a theory, not a myth; only those who don't understand what a theory is would confuse the two. No one would call Christianity or Greek/Roman/Norse mythologies "theories."

@1BrentMichael if I tried to prothelize, and tell you the invisible spaghetti monster really exist. You now have knowledge of a claim. You would not have DIRECT knowledge. Agnostic does not have DIRECT knowledge. They say, when given information about a claim, "where is there pasta sauce proof of your noodleness, otherside I must be agnostic about your claim because I do not directly know if the pasta and sauce really exist.

@1BrentMichael belief is hold information as true. A person can give testimony in court and the jury can decide if they want to "believe" the testimony. Other, corroborating evidence can support or negate the testimony. Nonetheless, the testimony is a "form" of knowledge, information and evidence. That does not mean it is a "prove all".

@Word "knowledge of a claim" is not knowledge of existence. I can claim that JGFTOs exist, but you still have no knowledge. You don't know what a JGFTO is, and you have no way of testing my claim. If you accept my claim, you believe. If you don't, you're a non-believer, an agnostic atheist.

@1BrentMichael Correct as you say, belief is contingent upon acceptance of a claim to be true or not. Correct to say: your claim could be a lie and my belief of your claim to be true does not make your claim true.

@1BrentMichael Belief means accept sonething as true.

Assumption means accept something true with out proof.

It is very easy to get belief and assumption mixed up.

It could be said that people have assumptions rather than beliefs but call their assumptions a belief.

@Word "Belief means accept sonething [sic] as true." Okay, and to do so without proof is still belief.

"Assumption means accept something true with out proof." Ditto.

"It is very easy to get belief and assumption mixed up." Not really.

"It could be said that people have assumptions rather than beliefs but call their assumptions a belief." Lots of things could be said, but that doesn't make them correct. "Assumption" is something you make; "belief" is something you have internalized. The two words are related, but not identical.

The difference in "believe in" and knowledge. I can say I do not "believe in" Ford trucks. Does that mean Ford trucks do not exist? No it just means I am not interested in owning or confident in using a ford truck.

@1BrentMichael. Most atheist that understand logic wants to hold onto the label "atheist" so, they apply the definition of agnostic to the word atheist.

Consider this phrase: "I hold(belief) that the existence of gods is false".

So we ask, "where is your evidence that no gods exist".

They cannot prove no gods exist.

@Word Most atheists understand that attempts to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic are illogical. No one is expected to prove unicorns, chupacabras, Bigfoot, Nessie, leprechauns, etc. don't exist, what makes god(s) any different?

If you claim something exists, it's your job to prove it. You can say you don't believe Ford trucks exist, but all I need to do is present one truck and voila! Your skepticism is proven unwarranted. And equivocation is a fallacy; no one thinks "Oh, he's just not interested in owning or confident in using a god, but he believes they exist" when someone says they are an atheist or agnostic.

@1BrentMichael Here is a longer explination I don't want to retype, click on link and you can see how atheism is illogical and that the burden is on atheism to prove we do not exist.

"I am making this post mostly for saving a few notes."

@Word Your post saved nothing, as it says nothing.

Anything you claim exists, you must prove exists. Whether it's that you discovered a new species of fish or bird, designed a car that can run for 1000 miles on one gallon of gas, or that you can run 100 yards in under 10 seconds, those are all claims you must prove. If you don't, I have no reason to believe you. Period.

@1BrentMichael the information is about the fact people, from some cultures, have been calling themselves gods prior to cultural of modern politics calling us human.

@1BrentMichael it is simply a fact of history that still exists today, for what we are, we have been called gods for 1000s of years.

@1BrentMichael you, maybe could understand, most atheist are not taught world history in their culture. Or, like some cultures like Russia, I have heard, make up their own history and do not properly teach real history.

Egyptian is one of the earliest of people to call themselves gods.

Then maybe the Greek come along with their culture teaching and say god is about pasta in the sky with meatballs and they have no knowledge of the Egyptians calling themselves gods.

It's not such a matter of "who's right" but a matter of what the facts are. There is fact people have called themselves gods for 1000s of years, this is a fact. In viewing atheism by definition, atheism is illogical.

@Word Do you believe in a god? If so what objective evidence do you have it exist.

@Word Every theist I have ask to give me objective evidence that a god exist has failed to do so. That is why I believe in zero gods.

@Word Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. What objective evidence do they have any god or gods exist?

@xenoview history clearly has recorded that some cultures have labeled themselves as gods. I am not trying to go into teaching you a multi-year course on world history. Your culture that you come thru may not know about other cultural definitions for what a God is. The cultural definitions you have been given information on up to this point still may not have covered all cultural definitions of gods. One cultural definition labels us as gods, we exist. You culture understanding might think God can only be pasta in the sky with meatballs. The cultural definition that labels us as gods does not support nor purport that pasta in the sky with meatballs exist.

@xenoview picture of a modern secular dictionary definition. Powerful banking people are considered gods.

Famous people like Daniel Boone and Kit Carson are considered gods.

Atheism illogical, gods exist.

@Word I can call myself a rose. That doesn't make me a flower. Only dogs think people are gods.

@1BrentMichael so, you can call yourself a human but that doesn't make you a human? This illogicalness does not work. People are not calling themselves bananas or something else. Just because you think the only thing that can be labeled "god" must be non-existent, does not mean we are not gods, just as much as we label ourselves with the more modern term homo sapian.

@1BrentMichael notice in picture of secular modern dictionary. Powerful banking people are gods. Kit Carson and Daniel Boone, famous "people " are gods. People being gods is well accepted. Atheism illogical.

@1BrentMichael what does dictionary clearly say? These people are pasta in the sky with meatballs? No, the dictionary is not saying they are your definition of a non-existent God thingie

@Word You are being illogical saying people are gods.

@Word All atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Do you believe in gods?

@xenoview if I was calling people gods, implying they are pasta in the sky with meatballs, that would be illogical.

History has it well documented that we are labeled as being god. God = human = homo sapian.

Yes, illogical atheist will say "God can only be non-existent flying pasta in the sky with meatballs ". That is illogical and it is a modern invention for what a God is. By some cultural definitions and usages, we have been gods for 1000s of years prior to being called human or homo sapien.

@xenoview [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@Word I don't believe in the FSM. I see you don't get it when you are illogical about people being gods.

@Word Just because you worship someone as a god, doesn't make them a god.

@xenoview I am not particularly into "worshiping" any one. My point is is that, we for what we are are labeled as "god" just as equal as we label ourselves as human or homo sapien.

Person worship sports figures like baseball God Michael Jordan. Music God Michael Jackson.

Historical use of labeling has been reserved most often to the famous, popular, or powerful. Nonetheless, we are what a God is. There are fictional style gods, no doubt.

@xenoview just because someone is elected president does not make them president? That view is not logical. I am not saying that I am pasta in the sky with meatballs when I say we are gods. God = homo sapian. When I say God, your cultural teachings make you think pasta in the sky with meatballs. I am not saying you are pasta in the sky with meatballs, that would be illogical for you to think that I am saying you are pasta in the sky with meatballs just because I say you are a God.

@xenoview I personally do not have interest in the modern label "human", I prefer god for what we are. I can accept that human exist as a label for what we are even though I don't care for it. I am not going to try and pretend humans do not exist just because I do not like the label.

@Word "so, you can call yourself a human but that doesn't make you a human?" No, it doesn't. A parrot can be taught to say "I am human!" Are parrots human now? How about a robot programmed to say it?

You have some very odd ideas about language, and seem to have no understanding of metaphor. No one literally thinks banking executives are gods, not now and not then. People who literally believe they are gods we classify as insane.

@1BrentMichael People who literally believe they are pasta in the sky with meatballs we classify as insane.

@1BrentMichael laws for the nation of Israel prior to 2000 years ago clearly recognized their citizens as gods.

...written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods. John 10:34

@1BrentMichael the people-gods of Israel over 2000 years ago are the creators of Jesus character- Angelic lord of host Lucifer the devil.

Most like you like most Christians do not understand the theme of biblical text.

I am working on getting it explained so people can better understand. I have several post explaining things. If I were a better writer, I might could get it articulated better and faster.
"Illogical atheists guide for ending Christianity "

@Word I'm an airplane, because I say so. A great argument, by your standards. Do you believe it?

@Word "People who literally believe they are pasta in the sky with meatballs we classify as insane." On that, we agree. Same with people who literally believe they are gods.

@1BrentMichael why do you call us "people "? We are gods, not airplanes or people. You arguing is not logical. I know people is one label for us. Airplane is not.

@Word So you're not human? Okay, whatever you say. I hope they find you a comfortable rubber room.

@1BrentMichael lovely ad hominem example to add to my collection of illogical atheist sayings for not being able to logically discuss the topic.

@Word If your a god, then teleport in front of me right after you read this post.

@xenoview are you smoking crack?

@Word You said humans were gods. So you can't teleport in front of me?

@xenoview human = god = homo sapian since when have you known of any to teleport?

@Word So you believe humans are gods? That is very illogical thing to believe.

@xenoview no, gods are now called humans

@xenoview you keep talking like you think that now because great ape has evolve to where we are now as gods, that we are supposed to just be teleporting around? Sounds rather illogical of such a thought that you think because we label ourselves as gods we are supposed to evolve into pasta in the sky with meatballs.

@xenoview @word makes up his own definitions, then insists you are wrong for not accepting them.

@1BrentMichael lovely yet, empty illogical statement.

@Word Just the facts. I see you have your own definition of empty and illogical too.

@1BrentMichael you write, "@xenoview @word makes up his own definitions, then insists you are wrong for not accepting them."

You have accusation of me making up definition, but your complaint is EMPTY of any substance to verify your accusation.

@Word You are a lost cause. You are illogical when you say humans are gods.

Annoying to be sure, I'm not sure Spinoza' s idea should be translated as god since in Hebrew no such word exists and in Latin,his academic language, gods are sentient individuals in human form. I am more annoyed at "atheists" who insist the Jesus Senior is the one true god that they don't believe in.

@Buttercup I like what you say except for one comment about Spinoza's God. The Hebrew has a word for God but it is a sin speak it. That's one thing I like about the religion. Can you imagine if Christians could not speak for God? All those preachers would be considered sinners and no one would send them
any money. I didn't know about Latin. That's interesting. I guess this is why.

@think-beyond Not an expert on Hebrew but my understanding is that the written names for god are euphemisms that are descriptions of god's name not his true name which can neither be written nor spoken. Adonoi is not god's actual name but means ruler or master. "Yaweh" is a approximation of a word that can't be pronounced. I think Spinoza would think of it as like "the eternal Tao that can't be spoken" not a sin just literally impossible to say.

@think-beyond I think that calling the bible holy and the actual word of god, violates the commandment against worshiping graven images and saying it does is taking god's name in vain.

@Buttercup Okay. I didn't want to bring this into the conversation. I have had a singing career and have sung for many Jewish audiences. In my songs I had to use the substitute word, Elukeynu, never Eluheynu. Regardless, imagine if Christians were not allowed to invoke the name of Jesus or God. All those preachers who cash in on God would not exist.

No but they could be its favourite people.