Again, you’re using a definition that I obviously, by my posts, have not been assuming.
Nobody “knows.” Therefore, we can only believe (or think, or however you like to put it). But we obviously don’t “know.”
Actually, he could have said, “I don’t know if there is or isn’t electricity but I have good reason to believe there is, so I’ll assume there is.”
Now you’re assuming I’m atheist and that, if ineed I am, you understand my reasoning behind it. Even though your assumption of my reason doesn’t follow from what I’ve been stating.
I have no reason to believe there is a giant purple gorilla following me around, and plotting my demise. The only reason I can’t notice the gorilla is because it’s insubstantial, but somehow is still perfectly capable of bringing about my demise.
Now, if I believe this is true, I will behave in such a fashion as to demonstrate I do believe this.
If I believe it’s possible, I’ll at least appear to take this possbility into consideration in my life. I’ll act in a manner in which it seems a possibility.
However, neither of these are true. I will go about the rest of my life, acting as if it could never possibly occur. Why? Because it’s practical; it’s pragmatic. Taking the gorilla into consideration or believing in it effectively does nothing at all for me in my life. It does nothing. It has no affect on me or my life.
This is why I dont’ bother with God. I don’t know that it is or isn’t there. And quite frankly, it’s pointless to take the possbility into consideration. I have no reason to believe it. And I have no reason to toy with the idea.
If I ignore a person, I have to do so actively. Even if the person isn’t around me, somewhere in the back of my mind is the knowledge of their presence. However, if I ignore something I’ve never encountered, it’s as if it’s not even existent. I can go for long periods without ever taking God into consideration. The agnostic would always have God in the back of his or her mind (at least as a possibility). The believer truly believes.
But I have no reason to do either. It’s a waste of time and energy, on something which is fundamentally irrelevant in so far as the way I live, or exist. It’s like trying to deal with the gorilla in some way. It doesn’t matter, so I can just ignore it. And by ignoring its very possbility (I have no reason to take it into consideration) I am “effectively disbelieving.”
So it’s a very practical/pragmatic approach. When I have reason to genuinely consider the possbility, or to believe, I’ll do so. Until then, it’s just a gorilla and thus, effectively nothing.
I already agreed with this. I just see it as irrelevant.
Save for the fact that you don’t “know” I’m an agnostic in denial, and thus you have no reason to believe I am. You would have to say, by your own argument, that I may or may not be an agnostic in denial.
I just explained that I’m not agnostic. That should at least give you “reasonable belief.” Unless of course, you’re just using a different definition for agnostic again. In which case, we can’t communicate anyway.