I do not believe gods exist…but I do not believe there are no gods.

The first part is a negative and a positive, making a negative.

The 2nd part are 2 negatives, making a positive.

Does not compute.

The two statements are inconsistent.

If you remove the words "do not" from both statements then you get:
"I believe gods exist" and "I believe there are no gods".

It is inconsistent to believe both of those things, and it it is equally inconsistent to not believe both of those things.

Wait ! ! ! It's a bait thread, he's trying to sucker you ! ! ! Go back ! ! !

I tried to resist, but I couldn't help myself.

logic is for sissies

it makes perfect sense to me, it pretty much sums up my belief

Can I join your church DJ once you establish that you are the part-time messiah?

Set!

Set!

Can you hear me?! Help!

I hear someone else calling out "come into the light...."

It sounds like Frank A.

Hi Frank... nothing else to say! Probably won't say anything but... I like the forum descriptions.

Partly. Its illogical BECAUSE its inconsistent.

Sometimes I like my chili with beans.
Sometimes I like it with cheese.
Sometimes I like it both ways.

Joe(I am not that way with gods)Nation

I don't know. You might not have thought of that yet, but admitting this is a sign of strength, not of weakness.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to tell us what you do believe instead of what you do not believe? What is it that you do believe frank?

Chai says the title does not compute.

Rosborne says the two statements are inconsistent.

Setanta may be on to something, although I honestly think of this more as pure discussion of a subtlety…than as baiting.

Djjd says it makes perfect sense…and it does.

Igm is sitting this out for the moment.

Farmerman says it is illogical because inconsistent.

Not sure what Joe Nation thinks.

Thomas says he does not know.




There is a truth in the title of this thread that is subtle…but very important to my philosophical position regarding whether gods exist or not.

But the fact that it is important to MY philosophical position is not as important as the fact that it is the essence of weak atheism.

The use of the word “believe” can lead to disorientation if you are not careful…and I want to point that out.

“I DO NOT BELIEVE GODS EXIST” (the first part of my title) merely tells you part of what I do NOT “believe” about the existence of gods. Essentially it is saying: I am not willing to express a belief that gods exist. It says absolutely nothing about what I do “believe”…or even if I “believe” anything about gods at all.

“BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE NO GODS” (the second part) also tells you part of what I do NOT “believe” about the existence of gods. Essentially it is saying: I am not willing to express a “belief that gods do not exist.” It also says absolutely nothing about what I do “believe”…or even if I “believe” anything about gods at all.

I am not willing to express a belief that gods exist.
I am not willing to express a “belief that gods do not exist.”
The two clauses do not contradict one another in any way; they are not mutually exclusive.

Weak atheists have this position as part of their personal philosophy; it is something with which most weak atheists can feel comfortable, in fact, it is something that weak atheists tout as very important to their form of atheism. They do not “believe” in gods…but they are not expressing the notion that they (actively) “believe” gods do not exist.

I think anyone who sees the title as incoherent, illogical, or inconsistent is wrong, but I would enjoy discussing it.

I do not do "believing", RL. I sometimes make guesses about stuff I do not know...or estimates or such.

On the specific question of the existence or non-existence of gods, I simply acknowledge that I do not know and have no basis for a reasonable guess.

I guess that could be seen as reasonable. Could you give us a reasonable guess for the existence of unicorns and please explain how you were able to come to this reasonable guess if you were able to.

You use that word "believe." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Incontheivable!

All due respect, but I think with this thread, Frank Apisa is engaging in yet another



Wherein he reports that his agnostic reasoning is flawless, and invites one and all to witness same.

I understand your little dance, but to be honest, you really don't believe that second statment. Yeah I know you like to think that you do but you honestly don't. I can prove it, even though I know nothing else about you. Your second statement by default would also include everything else that is mythological. However; I know you don't give everything else that same sort of neutrality.

Do you leave open the idea that there are gremlins that damage electronic equipment? Do you leave open the idea that flying pink elephants are the cause behind how air planes fly? No you don't and wouldn't. Yet you think you are being correct by saying you don't believe that no gods exist. That in some way you are remaining open to the possilility that they could so believing they don't is just beyond your rationale. Bullshit... If you honestly think that then you have to give everything else that is absurd the same open chance at validity but you don't. Or if you do then you are absurd.