what would it take though?

to change your mind

How many/which of the following beliefs do you believe requires one to put forward evidence to support their claim.

The flying spaghetti monster exists.
The flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
I don't know if the flying spaghetti monster exists.

Thr first one only.

But it has nothing to do with belief.

Would there be a scenario where the second would need to provide evidence to support their claim? (Let's pretend they are claiming rather than believing)

I agreed with that...

Yes

Shit...

🤔

I meant second xD

It's considered a logical impossibility to prove a negative so never. But it almost makes impossible to prove. But I repeat myself. So it's both unassailable and indefensible.

And the 3rd option is opinion so its inconsequential

The only type of thing you can prove doesn't exist are things that entail logical or physical possibilities. Like a 4 sided triangle

Yeah, I'm trying to explain that an agnostic person doesnt need to provide a rational argument for why they find theism or athiesm unconvincing.

How am I supposed to provide evidence to support my opinion that the evidence for or against the existence of God hasn't convinced me?

Literally I can't make an argument in this regard without afferming either an athiestic or theistic position.

It depends, but potentially, yes.

Actually definitely if the philosophical point is logical, then I would accept it as evidence, though logic isn't always easily defined

Athiesm is the belief that God is not real. Agnosticism is the belief either that it is unprovable that God exists.

@DJ_Anuz another option, similar to option 1 is to prove that the non existence of god is impossible

Status as an atheist requires the active declaration that 'a' God cannot exist - period. That statement can only be made with certainty.

More loosely I see it as follows

Theist = God exists
Agnostic = I don't know if God exists, or God is unprovable.
Athiest = God does not exist.

I think most atheists, would rather call themselves "theological skeptics" so they can avoid the dogma of the atheist than title

Which is essentially my point. My position was the latter. How am I supposed to provide evidence to support that claim?

Which claim do you support?

That I find neither argument for or against the existence of God to be wholy convincing.

An honest position

Essentially, he's a dirty fence sitter

D I R T Y

Yeah, fuck fence sitters!

S M E A R

They fuck themselves by sitting on the fence anyway

I mean

Those pointy ends don't just disappear

Oh wait I thought I was Tulsi for a sec

🍆

I prefer sitting on walls for that reason

Also, Legalize, I mean

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

Down with the fence sitters!