Ok. What does it mean to have “positive belief” in God, as opposed to a basic belief in God?
A "positive belief" about X is a belief about some property of X. E.g. "I believe God exists" is a belief about the property of existence as it relates to God. Similarly "I believe God does not exist" is also a belief about the property of existence as it applies to God.
Compare that to "I lack belief that God exists". This is not a positive belief. It is a statement about the absence of any positive belief.
You have basically said that if one does not belief that God exists, it is sufficient to use the label “atheist”.
Correct because one cannot believe in a thing, concept, or ideaology if they are unknown to them. In the same breath said person cannot argue for or against something that is unknown to them.
Yes, but bear in mind that people who believe that God does not exist are a subset of people that do not have the belief that God exists.
Both are atheists, as long (in my view, at least) they have considered the matter of "God exists", even if they subsequently conclude that God is unknown to them.
Just because one does not give God any thought does not mean that person has no knowledge or understanding of God.
Sure. So what?
There may be many reasons why one does not give God any thought, and some of those will be the lack of knowledge and/or understanding.
Concluding that one is atheist or theist does not make one an atheist or theist.
Sure, people can be mistaken - or lie.
But usually one's conclusion on such matters comes after considering the matter. If one concludes that they lack belief that God exists, presumably they do so because they lack belief that God exists.
Usually, however, because we don't know what the person is thinking, or how they think, a good starting point is to take their word for it, until such time as they demonstrate otherwise.
The designation is already there whether you decide or not. One can however decide to move away from the designation over time. It’s not different to getting over breaking up with someone you love, and having to move on. Or when someone close to you dies. Eventually you will get over it and move on.
The label is there, sure. But the actual existence or meaningfulness of what that label references is what people consider and conclude upon. One can not simply define something into existence, for example.
If you want to get more metaphysical, and claim God is existence itself, then you get into issues of pointlessness of the label, and meaninglessness.
Your example of the break up is to beg the question of God's existence, though. A fallacious analogy.
This is why we don’t start threads, or have debates about Gliptz. We have no idea of what one is so believing or not in the Gliptz, or believing or not that it exists is never expressed.
One could start a thread, and clearly define what is meant by Gliptz at the start, so that people are on the same page from the start. Others could then chip in and disagree with that definition.
To assume that everyone has the same understanding of "God" is to just ask for trouble, imo.
OTOH God has been expressed throughout history right up to the present. Because we have some knowledge and understanding of God. We couldn’t be atheist, agnostic, or theist, if we didn’t.
But do we all have the same understanding? No.
What is it about God that makes one an atheist?
It is the lack of belief that God exists. Just as one might lack the belief that you're wearing a hat. You may be. You may not be. At least in this example I know what a hat is, and I know what it is to wear a hat. But I have no reason to believe that you either are or are not wearing one - i.e. I hold no positive belief on the matter. You could convince me one way or the other with evidence, such as a photo. But otherwise I would lack reason to hold a positive belief either way.
With God you have the added issue of what is actually being referred to, and whether that even has any meaning - or is it a case of "what happened before time began"?
Those who believe in God (or believe God exists if you want to consider them separately) must necessarily believe they have sufficient understanding of what they are referring to with the term "God". They use the term with an understanding behind it. That is not to say their understanding is accurate, but they at least believe their understanding is sufficient. Who am I to say they are right or wrong.
If one does not accept evidences for God (google evidence for God), what reasons can you give for this non acceptance?
Provide some specifics, please, if you want to examine this further.
More generally, if a piece of evidence supports both the claim and the counter-claim equally then it is of no help in moving the dial toward one or the other.
What is it about the subject matter that make an agnostic believe that God as ultimate reality cannot be known?
What do they know about God (in the first place) to make that decision?
You'd have to ask each agnostic.
Me, I do not believe the true nature of reality, whether you want to call that God or not, can be known by those within it. Imagine you have no memory and you're inside a sealed room with no windows or doors. We can guess as to what is outside, sure. But that's all we'll ever do: guess.
Metaphysics is rife with unknowable, unprovable questions. We can pick and choose whichever philosophy we want from that, but in so far as they all explain the same things, how do you know which is correct?
What do you mean by (meaningful definition)?
Does an agnostic have any idea at all about God, or even the claims made about God?
You'd have to ask each agnostic.
Are you saying an agnostic does not know what is meant by the term “God”?
They will have differing ideas as to what is meant by the term.
But they don’t leave it there.
They will still argue about God.
If one has no idea of something, what are they arguing about?
They're not really arguing about God, but rather about why some people believe and others don't.
They're also countering the otherwise unchecked assertion that God exists, and all the personal baggage and agenda that each individual might want to ascribe to that belief. E.g. in the US there is one side of the political divide that wants to assert more religion and belief into people's lives. So it surely only proper to push back, right, if you don't have that same belief, let alone the agenda and baggage that those others are trying to push upon you.
I would neither believe or lack a belief.
How could I?
What would it be based on?
Either you have belief (whatever it is you believe), or you lack belief. There is no alternative.
Because life goes on exactly the same way irregardless of whether "God" is more than just a concept or not.
To me, that makes it a meaningless concept. Maybe "useless", or "pointless" would be a better term.
It is an added complexity that we can't know is necessary or not.
So what is God to you, as opposed to what is NOT God.
"God" is a label that many people use, and many people have different ideas about, to explain the question of "why do we exist?".
I think the whole Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign has been meaningless, but they and it exists. I can give reasons as to why I come to that conclusion and even bring up points to back my conclusion. But it seems to me that folks here want to denigrate God and theists without offering up explanations. This thread is a prime example of that, as are all the threads relating to God. Why is that?
You'd have to ask them.
Maybe don't take their bait, especially as you know what it is.
So why do you engage in discussions about God?
I'm interested more in why people think the way they do.
Do you ever engage in discussions about Gliptz?
Briefly, in one thread.
