14
   

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

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

And less this gets lost:

I do not believe gods exist...I also do not believe gods do not exist.

Does anyone see any contradiction or illogical element to that situation?

You mean apart from all of the people who have already pointed out how its contradictory and illogical?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
American Heritage Dictionary: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Merriam-Webster: one who believes that there is no deity

Cambridge Online Dictionary: someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

Webster’s New World Dictionary: An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

Do these definitions use the word "believe" the same way that you do?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:14 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
I do not believe gods (or any that have been articulated to date, at least) exist.... but I do not believe there are no gods.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:36 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
It's actually a thread about an atheist telling other atheists that he's not an atheist because atheists only wear top hats.


Actually the thread is about me saying "I do not have a belief that gods exist"...and "I do not have a belief that gods do not exist."

The "atheist" thing is something you guys have added because for some reason, you want to think it is illogical or contradictory to not have a belief in either direction.

No problem. I see that you have to think of the statements as contradictory or illogical to make yourselves feel better.

Sorry it is that way with you.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:37 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
It's perfectly "avoidable." Simply believe in at least on god. Pretty simple.


No need to do so, Art. The "I do not believe in at least one god" thingy is strictly an atheist mistake.

It's okay. I don't look down on your because you are mistaken.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:38 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4997403)
Frank Apisa wrote:

And less this gets lost:

I do not believe gods exist...I also do not believe gods do not exist.

Does anyone see any contradiction or illogical element to that situation?


You mean apart from all of the people who have already pointed out how its contradictory and illogical?


There is absolutely nothing contradictory or illogical about these two comments, joefromchicago. And I suspect that you know that. You are just being lovably difficult.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:39 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Do these definitions use the word "believe" the same way that you do?


Do you see any reason to suppose they do not?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 07:46 pm
@ehBeth,
Beth, by now it has to be apparent that these guys understand exactly what I am saying...and have logically and consistently said here.

They are just being difficult for whatever reasons.

I do not have a belief that gods exist.

I do not have a belief that gods do not exist.

It is entirely reasonable to state that as:

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

It makes sense...and explains why I am taking the trouble to mention it.

My first explanation post gives even more information about what I am communicating.

But, people like joefromchicago want to claim I am being illogical or inconsistent...and he wants to suggest I am not explaining myself properly.

By now, anyone who wanted to understand what I am saying has done so...anyone who wants very much to consider me illogical, inconsistent (or any of the other descriptions that have appeared) are rock solid in refusing to budge.

Beth...I simply am not willing to "believe" or "guess" or "estimate" or "suppose" gods exist...

...and I simply am not willing to "believe" or "guess" or "estimate" or "suppose" gods do not exist. Any kind of gods...any description of gods.

Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 08:30 pm
So then, you must have some idea of what a "god" may be, huh?
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 08:34 pm
@Frank Apisa,
"people like joefromchicago"

having met joe, I do not believe there are any people like him in existence.

he's a unique...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 29 May, 2012 08:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Do these definitions use the word "believe" the same way that you do?

I don't know about believe, but they certainly use the word disbelief in a way that's hostile to Frank's self-image. For example, the American Heritage defines "disbelief" as a "refusal or reluctance to believe." Consistent with what I said earlier, Frank is a (weak) atheist under their definitions of atheism and disbelief. He disbelieves in the existence of gods --- he refuses or is reluctant to believe in them. He does not deny it either, but he doesn't have to to be an atheist. (Notice the 'or' in the definition of atheism.)
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Tue 29 May, 2012 09:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Do these definitions use the word "believe" the same way that you do?


Do you see any reason to suppose they do not?

Yet more evasiveness. But I've come to expect that from you. So I'll just take that as a "yes" and move on.

We've already established that the statements "I do not believe" and "I do not have a belief" are equivalent. In fact, when asked if they were equivalent, you responded "absolutely."

So, when you cite Webster’s New World Dictionary's definition of "atheist" as "a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power," that would, according to your usage, be the equivalent of saying that an atheist is "a person who does not have a belief about the existence of any kind of god or higher power," wouldn't you agree?

Now, when you state "I do not have a belief that gods exist," how does that make you different from somebody who does not have a belief about the existence of any kind of god or higher power?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Tue 29 May, 2012 09:59 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
He does not deny it either, but he doesn't have want to to be an atheist. (Notice the 'or' in the definition of atheism.)

Fixed that for you.
Thomas
 
  2  
Tue 29 May, 2012 10:24 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
He does not deny it either, but he doesn't have want to to be an atheist. (Notice the 'or' in the definition of atheism.)

Fixed that for you.

Actually you didn't. Surprisingly, those two "to"s in my post were not a typo. My point was that Frank is an atheist even though he doesn't deny the existence of gods. The mere fact that he doesn't believe in them is sufficient. At least that's what the American Heritage Dictionary says, the first authority Frank chose to rely on.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 30 May, 2012 02:24 am
Ahhh…back again after a refreshing night’s sleep.


So, the big thing is a discussion of whether or not I am an atheist…which, of course, is a huge diversion from the subject at hand…and a diversion from the discussion (which itself was a diversion from the subject at hand) of whether or not all humans are born atheists, because that is the default position.

Nah…I am not an atheist. And the babies are not atheists either. Nope, that truly is not the way things are. Atheism truly is not the default position.

You are going to have to recruit from other places guys.

The only reason some dictionaries report that the word is used to mean “someone without a belief in gods” is because of the mistaken assertion of some debating atheists that the word derived from suffixing “a” (without) to “theist” (belief in God)…which did not happen.

Atheist came to English before theist.

But I am enjoying you folk trying to divert from the subject question that essentially asked if there was anything illogical or inconsistent with noting that I do not have a belief that gods exist…and I do not have a belief that gods do not exist.

So let’s get back to that…and then if one of you want to start a thread about whether or not I am an atheist…or whether or not all babies are atheists, you can do that.

I do not believe that gods exist (meaning, as I have said many, many times: I lack a belief that gods exist)…and I do not believe that gods do not exist (meaning I lack a belief that gods do not exist.)

Is there anything illogical or inconsistent about that?

Why are those of you still insisting that there is an inconsistency in that…still insisting it?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 30 May, 2012 03:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
What about chickens? Are they atheist?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 30 May, 2012 03:36 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
What about chickens? Are they atheist?


I don't know, Izzy--you gotta ask these other guys. They are the ones claiming membership of everyone who is not a theist. Perhaps they actually do mean, "everything" rather than everyone.

A rock, in their opinion, might be an atheist because of their default argument.
igm
 
  1  
Wed 30 May, 2012 03:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

So, the big thing is a discussion of whether or not I am an atheist…which, of course, is a huge diversion from the subject at hand…and a diversion from the discussion (which itself was a diversion from the subject at hand) of whether or not all humans are born atheists, because that is the default position.

Nah…I am not an atheist. And the babies are not atheists either. Nope, that truly is not the way things are. Atheism truly is not the default position.

You are going to have to recruit from other places guys.

The only reason some dictionaries report that the word is used to mean “someone without a belief in gods” is because of the mistaken assertion of some debating atheists that the word derived from suffixing “a” (without) to “theist” (belief in God)…which did not happen.

Atheist came to English before theist.

But I am enjoying you folk trying to divert from the subject question that essentially asked if there was anything illogical or inconsistent with noting that I do not have a belief that gods exist…and I do not have a belief that gods do not exist.

So let’s get back to that…and then if one of you want to start a thread about whether or not I am an atheist…or whether or not all babies are atheists, you can do that.

I do not believe that gods exist (meaning, as I have said many, many times: I lack a belief that gods exist)…and I do not believe that gods do not exist (meaning I lack a belief that gods do not exist.)

Is there anything illogical or inconsistent about that?

Why are those of you still insisting that there is an inconsistency in that…still insisting it?



Let me be clear Frank... you have the right to call yourself an agnostic... and we have the right to call you an atheist. We have made a well reasoned argument that you are a 'type' of atheist as was said here:

Thomas wrote:

igm wrote:
True or false: Newborn babies are Atheists by default?

Now there's an easy question. The answer is TRUE because newborn babies do not believe in god. Spcifically, newborns are weak rather than strong atheists: They lack belief in the existence of gods, but also lack belief in the non-existence of gods. Which only goes to prove that Frank is very much like a newborn. The only grown-up nuance Frank adds to a newborn's weak atheism is denial about his weak atheism.


We have argued that you are a 'weak atheist' not because we want you to be one but because you are one by definition (current use of the word not the historical etymological root); as you very well know language evolves.

So in your mind you are an agnostic because you say you are but you offer little in the way of substance when defending that position. We say that you by definition are a 'weak atheist' by default. We are merely pointing this out and not trying to change you into an atheist because you already are one... for you and us the meaning of our word 'weak atheist' is synonymous with your use of the word 'agnostic' but because you say they are not synonymous we are merely pointing out the fact that they are in the way 'you' define yourself as an agnostic.

Getting back to your topic heading, as I've you've already said you don't do believing and you don't do knowing when it comes to whether gods exist or not. Like I've said before that means you have 'no view' on the matter and therefore are a 'weak atheist'. Notice how we haven't gone off topic when we call you a 'weak atheist'?

Babies are atheists like you by default. Asking people in Times Square about it will not resolve this. Most people have never even thought about what the meaning of the word atheist is. Most people at one time thought the earth was flat because so-called educated people told them that was the case so at that time in the equivalent of Times Square they would have overwhelmingly said that the earth was flat, it's the same with babies not being atheist most would say that they weren't because they don't know what it means to say that they are by definition. By definition babies are atheists. What does this mean in practice... nothing it's just the correct term that should be applied.. no more no less... Frank everything isn't emotive we are being objective.
Setanta
 
  2  
Wed 30 May, 2012 03:58 am
The problem we have here is that Frank's position is polemical. He needs to be right, and thinks that means he needs atheists (and theists) to be wrong. A minor subset of his polemic is that atheists and theists are equal but opposing belief communities. It all begins to fall apart if Frank is obliged to acknowledge that belief and the absence or rejection of belief are not equivalent positions.

Because this is his polemic.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Wed 30 May, 2012 04:10 am
@igm,
Quote:
Let me be clear Frank... you have the right to call yourself an agnostic... and we have the right to call you an atheist. We have made a well reasoned argument that you are a 'type' of atheist as was said here:


Well, you certainly have the right to call what you have been doing here “well-reasoned arguments”…just as I have the right to suggest it has been anything but that.

I have declared that I am not an atheist…and that should be the end of it. If you want to persist in using a definition based on an error that makes me an atheist—you certainly have the right to do so, but to call it well-reasoned seems a stretch.


Quote:
Getting back to your topic heading, as I've you've already said you don't do believing and you don't do knowing when it comes to whether gods exist or not. Like I've said before that means you have 'no view' on the matter and therefore are a 'weak atheist'. Notice how we haven't gone off topic when we call you a 'weak atheist'?


Once again, you seem intent on classifying me as an atheist…rather than dealing with whether or not it is inconsistent or illogical of me to note that “I do not have a belief that gods exist” and “I do not have a belief that gods do not exist.”

Not sure what that is about, igm, but I most assuredly am NOT an atheist…and since you thinking I am has no bearing on whether it is inconsistent or illogical of me to be of the mind mentioned…why not just drop it?

Deal with whether or not it is illogical, unreasonable, or inconsistent for me to note that “I do not have a belief that gods exist” and “I do not have a belief that gods do not exist.”

Also, if you want to insist that babies are atheists because of the defective and mistaken etymological derived definition—do so. I find it laughable…and I certainly have the right to find it so.

So, igm, if it is your contention that I am being inconsistent, illogical, or unreasonable by noting that “I do not have a belief that gods exist” and “I do not have a belief that gods do not exist?” …why do you suppose it is inconsistent, illogical, or unreasonable for me to note that?

And if you do not suppose it is inconsistent, illogical or unreasonable...why not simply acknowledge that it is not?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 03:08:45