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

I'm asking a different question.

This is not a courtroom, Joe. You are not the attorney and I am not in a seat answering your questions.

You asked a question...I answered it.

Now I am asking a question.

What question would that be?

Since I do not hold any "beliefs"...

I asked you to tell me what problems you have with my answer...and why you consider the answer not to be an answer.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm happy to oblige you, Frank, although I note that you have not always extended to me the same courtesy.

In the spirit of your anticipated cooperation from now on, let me say that I identified the problems that I had with your "answer" in this post as well as in this post. I am, however, no longer asking that question. I'm asking a different question.

And now that I've taken care of that, you can address my question: Does the statement "I believe that Santa Claus does not exist" include the possibility that Santa Claus does exist?

I'm happy to oblige you, Frank, although I note that you have not always extended to me the same courtesy.

In the spirit of your anticipated cooperation from now on, let me say that I identified the problems that I had with your "answer" in this post as well as in this post. I am, however, no longer asking that question. I'm asking a different question.

And now that I've taken care of that, you can address my question: Does the statement "I believe that Santa Claus does not exist" include the possibility that Santa Claus does exist?

I do not hold any beliefs, Setanta. Take me seriously or don't. That is your choice...and your choice will not change the fact that I do not hold any beliefs.

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4998048)
Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

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?

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.


I disagree for the reasons previously stated:

igm wrote:

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.

Whatever!

I am not an atheist. If you insist on calling me an atheist despite the fact that I have told you repeatedly that I am not, I will simply respond by saying "I am not an atheist."

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...

...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've defined yourself as an agnostic.

The courtesies I have extended to you, Joe, are much greater than the ones you have extended to me. If you want to be condescending...be condescending with someone else. But do not even think about suggesting that you have been more courteous in any way to me than I have been to you.

I went to the posts you linked...and I do not see an answer to my questions. I do not know what your problem is with my answers. What problem do you have with my answer?

Sure you do, it's in your thread title. You believe that gods do not exist, and you believe that there might be gods. Your cognitive dissonance is no fault of mine, and i'm not obliged to respect it. That you want to play more word games, and to continue to be dishonest doesn't alter that that is the game you are playing.

My game was very good today...and I am looking forward to tomorrow, when I hope it is even better. I play way too much golf to have my game be in the poor shape it has been during the last two weeks.