Please be serious. Your original statement made reference to intelligent creator "beings" and you know right well that you were referring to creator beings that exist outside of space/time/matter. We're not talking about life--organic material existences-- as creator or definitional gods. If that's their belief then they are not theists. They're a scaled down pantheist. Theists belief in and worship an imaginary supernatural creator god.
Did I say "outside of space/time/matter"? Obviously not, because those are falsifiable (and false, obviously).
Are you ? I'm not so sure about that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however, and although you currently state that you are without belief in gods, you do believe that gods--using the standard definition-- could possibly exist by making the statement:
You can't prove that there wasn't an intelligent being that created the universe (even if it was by accident).
This is a statement made by the typical agnostic accomodationist that we see today. I do not have to prove a negative. It's absurd and laughable to ask an atheist to prove that an unknowable unseeable thing was unavailable to not do something.
As I mentioned plenty of times: By my definition of a god, I am a gnostic atheist. By that definition, I am an agnostic atheist. I am not an "accomodationist", nor am I asking you to prove a negative. I am simply stating that it's a possibility. I am also not stating if it's true or false; I am not stating that we should devote time and resources to find out; I am not stating if we should even bother with it.
I am simply stating that it's a possibility that you cannot disprove. Does this make it a good possibility? Obviously not.
Scotsman fallacy ? Hardly !..... I may have my doubts, but have I once said that you were not an atheist ? Soft, hard, true, or otherwise ? No I haven't. I also did not say ""then lets act like proper or good or true atheists".
I agree with Joe:-- If we're going to call ourselves atheists, then lets act like atheists, and not some group of pandering and spineless accomodationists that give theists/supernaturalists the breathing room they need to promote their delusion.
As I explained earlier, the phrase "act like atheists" seems like "No true Scotsman" to me.
Look, I can't control what comes off the tips of your fingers and onto the screen.
But I can call you on it.
You may not like it, which it's obvious that you haven't,
Says you. I love a good argument. It gives me the chance to learn something new and/or confirm that my ideas are correct.
but that's the way it is around here and definitely the way it should be.
What ? do you think that all atheists here are going to agree with everything that you say and that all of your opinions are correct and valid ? You need to think again if so.
If everyone agreed with me, I would never learn anything, simply because I was either always right or nobody could confirm anything or try to find out other PoV's because there wouldn't be any.
I wouldn't for one second think that everyone here should agree with me, and I also would never think that all my opinions are correct and worth their weight in gold. Only an arrogant idiot would do that.
I've taken my fair share of corrections here, and you need to buck up and do the same thing. And also stop doing things like throwing fallacy darts at atheists who call you out on your opinions and your errors in judgment, just to try and avoid what you should obviously do.
Which is admit you're wrong.
See above and listen to your own advice.
FYI: I don't avoid admitting I'm wrong. It may take me a while to see it, due to my own ego, but when I see it, I will admit I was wrong.
Just to reiterate my point:
Because what a god is is up to personal interpretation, one can never be a gnostic atheist by every single definition of the term. To do so would be arrogant and erroneous.
By its very definition, you can't know that something exists (or doesn't) if it's not falsifiable.
That is my entire point. If you want to know whether I think that believing in something that is unfalsifiable is justified, rational, logical, et cetera, then let me save you some time - No. Believing in something that is unfalsifiable is completely absurd.
That said, the opposite is also true - believing with 100% certainty that something that is unfalsifiable does not exist is absurd.
In conclusion, I'd like to say that just because we can't know something doesn't mean we should act on it and never move forward. If we did that, we'd never have left our caves. We should assume that an unfalsifiable thing is either right or wrong (depending on the evidence for either side
and while still acknowledging that we don't know for sure) until proven otherwise.