No. Atheism isn't a "belief" any more than Off is television channel. We don't watch "nothing" when the tv is off, we're just not watching tv. — 180 Proof

Outright rejection of specific theistic claims and simply-withholding belief in the divine in general aren't mutually exclusive. Believe (not (theistic claim X) ) vs not (Believe (theistic claims of class Y) ), why not both? EG: "There is no transcendent god" vs "I don't believe in any immanent god".

I don't think they're exclusive when X and Y are the same either. One way of being absent belief in X is to believe in X's negation ("not believing in X" is true when it is not assented to, and assenting to its negation is a way of not assenting to it).

I'm not exactly sure.... By "beings" I mean to denote "existence." — Frank Apisa

Fair enough. Let's try this. Of all the anythings in the universe we-all know about, whether directly or indirectly, one way of dividing them is to ask if it's man-made. I think it's pretty clear that there must be lots of things in the universe that are not man-made. Question: whatever is meant by "god," is it man-made? I wonder how you answer?

I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that — Pfhorrest

Hi Forest!

Just curious, how would you defend your belief system? For instance, which domain would you draw from ( logic/deductive or inductive reasoning, cosmology, phenomenology/consciousness, metaphysics, existentialism, cognitive science/psychology).

I would be happy to debate the EOG based upon all of the above disciplines, if you want to start a thread. Up to you. I'm just wondering how an Atheist thinks, since I'm obviously not one.

So, in effect, people who proclaim themselves atheists...do have a belief.

Just sayin'! — Frank Apisa

Likewise, people who proclaims themselves 'agnostic' ... are, in effect, atheists in practice. Just sayin'. :smirk:

The bullshit that atheism is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hair color...is just that...bullshit.

So, Frankie, what do you call it when a person knows - can demonstrate - that belief-T is false? Or simply rejects belief-T because either its claims lack sufficient evidence or it is inconsistent with demonstrably true belief-N?

Also, how do you differentiate "belief in", "belief that" & "know that"? Or do you often conflate them just because, in your incorrigibly addled, feeble mind, they're all the same "bullshit" to you? :sweat:

Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."

Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"

If I’m not an Atheist it wouldn’t matter if I thought it was reasonable or not, why would it? Anyway, my question still stands as to who gets to define Atheism then?

No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.

The alternatives being Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism. The issue is understanding the definitions of each of those and based on that deciding which one you fall under. Not having the expectation that these groups change their definition in order to oblige you.

It is not debatable at all. THEY CAN'T!

But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.

That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense.

Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as. Secondly, if I’ve done anything in this thread, it’s been ask questions. I haven’t insisted on anything. Thirdly, and this applies to everyone involved in the discussion, my main interest is determining the criteria for belief. The definition of Atheism was just an example of the possible implications of belief requiring an object. I take no issue with discussing these implications, but would first like get the issue of what constitutes belief out of the way. I think beliefs require objects. I may be wrong, I don’t know.

Hi Forest!

Just curious, how would you defend your belief system? For instance, which domain would you draw from ( logic/deductive or inductive reasoning, cosmology, phenomenology/consciousness, metaphysics, existentialism, cognitive science/psychology).

I would be happy to debate the EOG based upon all of the above disciplines, if you want to start a thread. Up to you. I'm just wondering how an Atheist thinks, since I'm obviously not one. — 3017amen

I don’t feel a need to start a thread of my own just to defend my own view, but I’m happy to explain myself if you want to start one to question it. I gave a brief summary of my view and some brief reasons for it at the end of the post you replied to, if you’d like to quote that in the OP of a new thread or something. I’ll quote it here again for ease of reference:

To cut a lot philosophical arguments short, my current position is that while it is possible that (a) very powerful, very knowledgeable, and very good being(s) could exist somewhere in the universe (but only in the universe, because physicalism; including in some layer of reality outside of what we falsely think is the universe if we are in something like a simulation, for instance), what you're talking about there now is basically an alien, and there is evidently (because Problem of Evil) no such being sufficiently powerful, knowledgeable, and good to fulfill the role of "God" here on Earth. So sure, I'm (weakly) agnostic about the generic existence of nice, smart super-aliens somewhere, but there is definitely no God in the usual sense around these parts. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough. Let's try this. Of all the anythings in the universe we-all know about, whether directly or indirectly, one way of dividing them is to ask if it's man-made. I think it's pretty clear that there must be lots of things in the universe that are not man-made. Question: whatever is meant by "god," is it man-made? I wonder how you answer? — tim wood

I answer "I think, no." But I am not sure of what you are actually asking. Would you reword it please.

The problem with this issue is that atheists are so intent on pretending that they do not possess "beliefs"
— Frank Apisa

Not necessarily. I'm an atheist and I positively affirm that I believe there are no gods, and am happy to defend that. — Pfhorrest

Good for you.

I suspect MOST (perhaps, ALL) people who use the descriptor "atheist" also "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.

I object to defining "atheism" as simply lacking a "belief" that any gods exist. That requires agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers to be included as atheists. It seems to me more sensible to define "atheist" as someone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...and possessing a "belief" that no gods exist or a "belief" that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I do not see the reason for the objection to what I suggest here.

793
So, in effect, people who proclaim themselves atheists...do have a belief.

Just sayin'!
— Frank Apisa
Likewise, people who proclaims themselves 'agnostic' ... are, in effect, atheists in practice. Just sayin'. :smirk: — 180 Proof

I'm an agnostic...and I am not an "atheist in practice."

I'd love to have you explain why you say that I am an "atheist in practice." I think it will help my argument.

The bullshit that atheism is no more a belief than "off" is a TV channel or "bald" is a hair color...is just that...bullshit.
So, Frankie, what do you call it when a person knows - can demonstrate - that belief-T is false? Or simply rejects belief-T because either its claims lack sufficient evidence or it is inconsistent with demonstrably true belief-N? — 180

I would call it "someone demonstrating that a particular "belief" is wrong."

What would you call it?

Also, how do you differentiate "belief in", "belief that" & "know that"? Or do you often conflate them just because, in your incorrigibly addled, feeble mind, they're all the same "bullshit" to you? :sweat: — 180

If you want to ask this question without the childish insults...do so. I'll respond.

Hell no...not if it impacts ME. Suppose you guys decide to define atheism as "Anyone who uses oxygen to stay alive."

Would that be reasonable in your opinion?

If not...why do you suppose it is reasonable to define it as "Anyone who does not express a belief in any gods?"
If I’m not an Atheist it wouldn’t matter if I thought it was reasonable or not, why would it? Anyway, my question still stands as to who gets to define Atheism then? — Pinprick

If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person.

No it doesn't...not when there are alternatives. ESPECIALLY when there are alternatives that make more sense.
The alternatives being Theism, Atheism, or Agnosticism. The issue is understanding the definitions of each of those and based on that deciding which one you fall under. Not having the expectation that these groups change their definition in order to oblige you. — Pinprick

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.

I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.

Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.

I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting.

But there are atheists here in this forum (which now includes you) who INSIST that anyone lacking a "belief" that any gods exist...is perforce an atheist. That includes agnostics...and all newborn babies, infants, and toddlers.

That is nonsense, Pinprick...and you should be able to see it as nonsense
Firstly, please do not assume what I identify as.. — Pinprick

Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify?

Secondly, if I’ve done anything in this thread, it’s been ask questions. I haven’t insisted on anything. Thirdly, and this applies to everyone involved in the discussion, my main interest is determining the criteria for belief. The definition of Atheism was just an example of the possible implications of belief requiring an object. I take no issue with discussing these implications, but would first like get the issue of what constitutes belief out of the way. I think beliefs require objects. I may be wrong, I don’t know. — Pinprick

As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists.

THAT is what I see as "belief" on this issue.

What do you see as unreasonable about that?

If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person. — Frank Apisa

Awesome. Under this logic I get to define what physics, biology, law, chemistry, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is as they all are applied to me. Surely you’re emotional response to this topic is making you say things you don’t mean, right? After all, Atheism could apply to me too, so I get to define it.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.

I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.

Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.

I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting. — Frank Apisa

Again with the babies... I don’t consider those incapable of forming a belief as anything. They are excluded because they cannot meet the requirements necessary to have an opinion. That is like calling rocks Atheists. Also, I am not concerned with who identifies as an Atheist, nor with the IQ level of Atheists. Couldn’t Atheists use that descriptor simply because they do not believe there are any Gods?

Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify? — Frank Apisa

Depends on how you define Atheism :lol:

As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists. — Frank Apisa

So do guesses require objects?

Pinprick
27
If it is being applied to me...I GET TO DEFINE IT. I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and if anyone is going to define atheist in a way that requires me to be an atheist, I am going to say, "Fuck you" to that person.
— Frank Apisa

Awesome. Under this logic I get to define what physics, biology, law, chemistry, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, etc. is as they all are applied to me. Surely you’re emotional response to this topic is making you say things you don’t mean, right? After all, Atheism could apply to me too, so I get to define it.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST...and the definition that requires me (and all babies, infants, and toddlers) to be considered one...is an absurdity.

I understand that atheists want agnostics and babies and infants and toddlers in your numbers. It WOULD improve the IQ level of atheism. But...it is not going to happen.

Atheists use the self-applied descriptor "atheist" because they "believe" there are no gods or because the "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Atheists want to pretend they do not do "believing"...so they have to distort the meaning of atheism to meet their pretense.

I object...and I flatly do not give a damn that you, or anyone else, objects to my objecting.
— Frank Apisa

Again with the babies... I don’t consider those incapable of forming a belief as anything. They are excluded because they cannot meet the requirements necessary to have an opinion. That is like calling rocks Atheists. Also, I am not concerned with who identifies as an Atheist, nor with the IQ level of Atheists. Couldn’t Atheists use that descriptor simply because they do not believe there are any Gods?
Fair enough. As a matter of curiosity, though, how do you identify?
— Frank Apisa
Depends on how you define Atheism :lol:
As nearly as I can determine, all "belief" (on this issue) requires is to make a blind guess that no gods exist...or make a blind guess that at least one god exists.
— Frank Apisa

So do guesses require objects? — Pinprick

Getting unwieldy here.

Let's deal with this one item at a time:

Atheists want the word "atheist" to include anyone/everyone who lacks a "belief" in any gods. That requires agnostics, babies, infants, toddlers...ALL to be considered atheists.

There is absolutely no reason to have atheist be defined that way...except that it allows atheists to claim FALSELY that they have no "beliefs." The actual reason atheists use the descriptor is NOT because of a lack of "belief", but BECAUSE of "belief." They "believe" that there are no gods...or they "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (My experience indicates that almost no one who does not possess one of those two "beliefs" uses the descriptor "atheist.")

I consider that gratuitous, self-serving description to be unacceptable.

You seem to think I am being unreasonable in that regard.

If I am correct that you think I am being unreasonable...please explain to me why you feel that way.

If I am incorrect, please correct me and explain, if you can, why you are giving me so much grief on the issue?

My position is that you are wrong about what a belief is, if, that is, you don’t think they require objects. My assumption is that when people say things like “I believe that no Gods exist” it is either 1) a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence, 2) an oxymoron, such as stating that you feel numb (numbness is defined as the absence of feeling), 3) a logical contradiction, as a belief implies possession and you cannot possess “nothing,” or 4) some other reason I might have missed.

Pinprick
28
↪Frank Apisa My position is that you are wrong about what a belief is, if, that is, you don’t think they require objects. — Pinprick

My position is that I am correct.

When discussing the question "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess.

Not sure what you mean by "requiring an object"...but if it negates that or requires that to be "incorrect"...it is wrong.

If the notion you are attempting to assert here is that X is an object and not-X is not an object (in the context of your comments)...you are wrong. Not-X is as much an object of "belief" as is X.

I notice you side-stepped the essentials of my last post, Pinprick. I wish you hadn't. I am interested in what you have to say .

Saying that a belief is a blind guess doesn’t answer the question. If X=object, then what does -X=? What part of your previous post did I sidestep?

Pinprick
29
↪Frank Apisa Saying that a belief is a blind guess doesn’t answer the question. — Pinprick

Question??? I did not see any questions (or question marks) in the post to which i was replying.

If X=object, then what does -X=? — Pinprick

Beats the piss out of me. I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object. Not-X does not equal NOTHING.

What part of your previous post did I sidestep?

The part that began with the word "Getting"...though the word, "...issue?"

I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object. — Frank Apisa

That is impossible. How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=?

BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why.

Pinprick
30
I do know that if X = object...then not-X also equals an object.
— Frank Apisa

That is impossible. — Pinprick

No...it is not impossible.

How about this: if X=nothing, then what does -X=? — Pinprick

Beats the hell out of me. But this is a digression from the the issue. ON THE QUESTION "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess.

Let's deal with that.

BTW, I stated why I thought you were incorrect and explained why. — Pinprick

Okay.

You explained: "My assumption is that when people say things like “I believe that no Gods exist” it is either 1) a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence, 2) an oxymoron, such as stating that you feel numb (numbness is defined as the absence of feeling), 3) a logical contradiction, as a belief implies possession and you cannot possess “nothing,” or 4) some other reason I might have missed."

My assumption is that that is incorrect for the reasons I have stated several times already.

No...it is not impossible — Frank Apisa

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negation

Beats the hell out of me. But this is a digression from the the issue. ON THE QUESTION "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...a "belief" is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. And actually, the majority of your posts are a digression from the OP I posited. I couldn’t care less about solving whatever beef you have with defining Atheism. I’m interested in whether or not beliefs require objects. I believe they do. The consequence of this certainly affects how Atheism is defined, but that is only a side-effect, not the actual issue at hand.

If a belief in this circumstance equates to a blind guess “belief” remains undefined in general. — Pinprick

Not sure how you can say that. On this particular issue...a "belief" is just a disguise word for a blind guess. How more particular can one get?

Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe there are no gods" is anything but a blind guess?

And to meet this arbitrary need for an object, let me restate that: Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe that the assertion 'there is at least one god'...is incorrect?"...is anything but a blind guess? (The "object" being the assertion "there is at least one god."}

Hence my question of whether or not objects are required for belief. — Pinprick

It has stopped being a question for you, P...it has become an assertion...and in my opinion, a not very satisfying assertion.

Let's bring Geraldo Rivera into this. At some point, he was going to open Al Capone's safe. You seem to be saying that a person asserting, "I 'believe' there is nothing (other than air) in that safe"...is making a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence (that is not necessarily a grammatical error); stating an oxymoron; or stating a logical contradiction?

The "belief" (or guess) "There is nothing in the safe (except air)" is as good as a guess that there are guns or money or a dead body in it.

And actually, the majority of your posts are a digression from the OP I posited. I couldn’t care less about solving whatever beef you have with defining Atheism. I’m interested in whether or not beliefs require objects. I believe they do. The consequence of this certainly affects how Atheism is defined, but that is only a side-effect, not the actual issue at hand. — Pinprick

P, the first sentence of your OP read, "In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God." How the hell can discussing the definition of atheism be a digression from it?

Not sure how you can say that. On this particular issue...a "belief" is just a disguise word for a blind guess. How more particular can one get? — Frank Apisa

Perhaps, but I’m not just talking about a belief in this particular instance. I mean belief in general; all beliefs. I want to know if the statement “all beliefs require objects” is true or false. For example, if you were to try to make the case that there are different types of beliefs; some that require objects, and some that do not, that would be a valid argument to make opposing my position, and we could discuss that. Are you wanting to say that all beliefs are blind guesses? If not, that point is irrelevant to what I’m trying to find out.

Can you give me ANY situation where the assertion, "I believe there are no gods" is anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa

Possibly, but that is an entirely different can of worms.

You seem to be saying that a person asserting, "I 'believe' there is nothing (other than air) in that safe"...is making a grammatical error, akin to using a double negative in a sentence (that is not necessarily a grammatical error); stating an oxymoron; or stating a logical contradiction? — Frank Apisa

Correct

The "belief" (or guess) "There is nothing in the safe (except air)" is as good as a guess that there are guns or money or a dead body in it. — Frank Apisa

Correct

P, the first sentence of your OP read, "In a different thread, Atheism was being defined, by some, as a belief that there is no God." How the hell can discussing the definition of atheism be a digression from it? — Frank Apisa

I was simply using that as an example. That discussion is what prompted me to start this one. Apologies for any confusion.

I answer "I think, no." But I am not sure of what you are actually asking. Would you reword it please. — Frank Apisa

If god is, in any sense whatsoever, then he is either man-made or he is not man-made. The senses available are either material and substantial in some sense, or immaterial and insubstantial. That makes four possibilities, with some examples:
1) material, not man-made: horse, mountain, water, granite
2) material, man-made: car, washing machine, book
3) not material, not man-made: ????
4) not material, man-made, ideas, anything from love and justice to seven and twelve, & etc.

I think these are exhaustive. It strikes me that energy is problematic: I place energy in 1 or 4 or both. You might be tempted to say that god goes into 3 - but the question then is, how would you know? How can anything be in 3 that is not in 4, and if in 4, then not in 3.

Perhaps, but I’m not just talking about a belief in this particular instance. I mean belief in general; all beliefs. I want to know if the statement “all beliefs require objects” is true or false. For example, if you were to try to make the case that there are different types of beliefs; some that require objects, and some that do not, that would be a valid argument to make opposing my position, and we could discuss that. Are you wanting to say that all beliefs are blind guesses? If not, that point is irrelevant to what I’m trying to find out. — Pinprick

It is my contention that EVERY use of the words "I believe..." can better be stated using "It is my opinion..." "I estimate..." "My guess is..."...or something like that.

As far as the "object" thing is concerned...I have no problem with you requiring an object...but I think not-X is as valid an object as X.

Obviously you are exploring something that does not interest me as much as it does you...so I will bow out.

Tim, I will not discuss "god" or "God."

If you want to discuss the possibility of "gods" that we can do.

As far as "gods" are concerned, my position is:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate?

Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate? — Frank Apisa

Substitute for "gods" in your sentences any of a variety of alternatives. Likely you will see faults emerge. For the purpose, absurdities work best (e.g., magic hippopotami). And there is plenty of unambiguous evidence, certainly at the least adequate as a basis for a meaningful guess.

Kant observed that the question of god - or gods if you must - was one on which men could not remain indifferent. At some point you formulate your own answer to your own question on your own terms, and you live and die with it. Your life, then, is your answer. You can call it a meaningless guess if you want to - because death means you have made some decision. Most folks try for meaning. Our effort here is to try to find the right ground from which to build up reason that can inform.

tim wood
3.9k
Is there anything about that that you see as illogical or inappropriate?
— Frank Apisa

Substitute for "gods" in your sentences any of a variety of alternatives. Likely you will see faults emerge. For the purpose, absurdities work best (e.g., magic hippopotami). And there is plenty of unambiguous evidence, certainly at the least adequate as a basis for a meaningful guess. — tim wood

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing.

Not so with gods.

Kant observed that the question of god - or gods if you must - was one on which men could not remain indifferent. At some point you formulate your own answer to your own question on your own terms, and you live and die with it. Your life, then, is your answer. You can call it a meaningless guess if you want to - because death means you have made some decision. Most folks try for meaning. Our effort here is to try to find the right ground from which to build up reason that can inform.

Then, with as much respect as possible, Kant is all wet.

Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not. Not sure what Kant's problem with that would be, but there is no way I can debate him on the point for obvious reasons.

Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa

Indeed you can, but also eventually you will die. Hence,for most folks, the self-bespoke answer.

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing. — Frank Apisa

Me too. But how would god(s) differ in this case from magic hippopotami? - a serious question, btw.

tim wood
3.9k
Without a doubt, I can remain undecided on the question of whether any gods exist or not.
— Frank Apisa
Indeed you can, but also eventually you will die. Hence,for most folks, the self-bespoke answer. — tim wood

What does that mean, Tim?

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence that the "magic hippo" of your example does not exist...and I certainly would hazard a guess on it not existing.
— Frank Apisa
Me too. But how would god(s) differ in this case from magic hippopotami? - a serious question, btw.

There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.

There is abundant unambiguous evidence against the existence of your "magic Hippopotamus."

That is a fairly significant difference...wouldn't you agree?

What does that mean, Tim? — Frank Apisa

In an existential sense, you cannot "opt out," You can decide or you can not decide, but either way it's a decision.

But, as it happens the Greeks developed something called Pyrrhonism, that seem like skepticism but isn't, after "Pyrrho, in the fourth century BCE." "These philosophers were unique in the West in consciously not developing belief about nonevident matters, pro or con. Such beliefs, they maintained, being about things nonevident, could not be substantiated, and so remained unstable and open to challenge from competing beliefs.... Beliefs about things nonevident therefore were to be avoided, they recommended, and their philosophy addressed how this was to be achieved."

I imagine a Pyrrhonist saying in response to some question of a metaphysical nature that the question was nothing to him, and he would not waste time on it. Yet even this, in a way, is a taking of a stance. Apparently, however, Pyrrhonists were not so much philosophers or interested in philosophy - indeed how could they be? - so much as establishing some boundaries in how they would live and what they would think about.

Does it seem to you you might be a latter-day religious Pyrrhonist? Although that means you might want to avoid thinking about it!

I would have simply said something I have said time and time again to people who claim Agnostics are fence sitters:

There is no fence sitting in saying "I do not know if any gods exist or not"...and there is no fence sitting in acknowledging that "any guess made is about as meaningful as a coin toss."

If the Pyrrhonists were to demand a decision other than the decision not to make an up or down decision on the issue...I would gladly flip the coin.