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

@Frank Apisa,

I may be wrong, Frank, but I got the impression that you were trying to state your position in a way that no one can refute. This may not be possible. Any statement that any one makes can be refuted.

4 Replies

@wandeljw,

why can't he just be making a statement?

2 Replies

@djjd62,

Any statement that anyone makes can surely be refuted by you, djjd. Smile

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Wandel...

...actually I was simply trying to point out that a seemingly contradictory duo of statements is not contradictory at all.

It is entirely possible for a person to:

Not believe gods exist...and...

not believe gods do not exist.

I am one of those people. I honestly do not know if they exist or not...

...and I do not consider the evidence available to be to make a guess (or to express a belief) to be enough to make a meaningful guess.

There is a lot going on in this thread.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

He is actually making a statement like....

"Balls are round for tennis but not for football (USA). So I'm not prepared to discount either of the statements that "balls are round" or "balls are not round".

The fallacy of agnosticism is that the God (ball) of theists is the same as the God for atheists. Atheists simply don't play religion (tennis).

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Thanks djjd.

Your remarks here have been very welcome...and I appreciate them very much.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

He is actually making a statement like....

"Balls are round for tennis but not for football (USA). So I'm not prepared to discount either of the statement that "balls are round" or "balls are not round".

The fallacy of agnosticism is that the God (ball) of theists is the same as the God for atheists. Atheists don't play religion (tennis).

If by "he" you mean me, Frank Apisa, you are incorrect. But I doubt that you will ever truly consider that possibility.

In any case, why not deal with what I actually said, rather than what you want me to have meant.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Read you earlier post…and my reply to it.

Read my earlier post before you reply to it.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

His entire logic stream is silly. Its boiled down to

"I do not believe that A exists"
BUT
"BUT, I also believe that A really does exist"

"Therefore, I 'm not sure what the hell I believe"

and further, Since it all boils down to" belief" (with no basis of evidence or facts presented). Frank is telling us he's waay too confused to make any sense. Come to the light Frank, be an atheist, we have cookies.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is entirely possible for a person to:

Not believe gods exist...and...

not believe gods do not exist.

This is me; we describe ourselves differently, you self describe (over and over and over and over) as agnostic, and I describe myself as atheist (as I've said many times over again, that means a-theism, lacking theism.)

Some atheists go beyond that into firm belief that there are no gods, which is a belief by definition, systematic or not. I don't consider my stance weak and I don't name it weak atheism. And neither do many others who share my lack of belief.

I'm amazed I answered here as I'm long sick of these threads, which are some kind of continuous circle. I don't actually care what other people think as long as they don't force belief on me..
I'm answering since this is the first time I've notice you putting those phrasings together as your take on matters... or spirits, as the case may be.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Come to the light Frank, be an atheist, we have cookies.

That was the best laugh I had all day. Laughing

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Some atheists go beyond that into firm belief that there are no gods, which is a belief by definition, systematic or not. I don't consider my stance weak and I don't name it weak atheism. And neither do many others who share my lack of belief.

I personally believe there are no gods. I have no problem saying that. I am still open to the possibility I could be proven wrong. Sure I will even have a little disbelief for a time but I am a person who accepts the evidence if it is convincing and supports the existence. So so far since I lack this important information, I can honestly say, I believe no gods exist. It is no different with gremlins or flying pink elephants.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

It is no different with gremlins or flying pink elephants.

No, it IS different ! Theists start with the axiom that their own existence is predicated on the existence of a deity, and "evidence" to that end is staring them in the face. The key issue which distinguishes atheists from agnostics is that atheists tend to see theists as a potential social threat, even if they acknowledge that "gods" are psychological palliatives at the individual level. Atheism is by etymological definition a reaction to theism, and not merely a belief or logical stance.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
It is no different with gremlins or flying pink elephants.

No, it IS different ! Theists start with the axiom that their own existence is predicated on the existence of a deity, and "evidence" to that end is staring them in the face.

I ask, how is this evidence? People who call this evidence are making a huge assumption. So I am in no way able to call this evidence. From this premise it makes the later part of your discussion meaningless.

fresco wrote:

The key issue which distinguishes atheists from agnostics is that atheists tend to see theists as a potential social threat,

Although I think this is true, that some theists are social threats, it is not the reason why I am an atheist. I am an atheist because I don't believe a god exists. I am not rejecting to be a theist as your point implies that I would be. That I am objecting to be a theist therefore I am an atheist. That is just not the case.

fresco wrote:

even if they acknowledge that "gods" are psychological palliatives at the individual level. Atheism is by etymological definition a reaction to theism, and not merely a belief or logical stance.

I could say something similar for theists. I think many theists are theists simply because they can't understand a question in any other way. Since they can't explain something they make an assumption that a god must have been involved. So they only become a theist because they don't have any other answer.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I put the word "evidence" in inverted commas. The fact that you and I don't accept their categorization is irrelevant especially when they play "the trump cards" (1)that acceptance of their evidence is a test of "faith" and (2) our cognitive ability to "reason" is "a gift from God who made man in his image".

And you are reacting because to comment at all is a social act even if you operate on the mistaken assumption that theists operate on the same rules of evidence as yourself.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I put the word "evidence" in inverted commas. The fact that you and I don't accept their categorization is irrelevant especially when they play "the trump cards" (1)that acceptance of their evidence is a test of "faith" and (2) our cognitive ability to "reason" is "a gift from God who made man in his image".

Well to address this concept that many theists try to push, which is that god means to not provide evidence so that a follower rely on faith instead. This to me is rather silly on the part of a "god" who would push this. Not to mention that first the person need be aware of a god existing first then not seeing any supporting evidence must rely on faith instead. They contradict each other.

If a person were trying to mislead someone, this is exactly they method you would use to mislead them. Don't check the validity of what I am trying to sell to you, instead just accept what I am selling instead.

fresco wrote:

And you are reacting because to comment at all is a social act even if you operate on the mistaken assumption that theists operate on the same rules of evidence as yourself.

For any communication to work, we need to have a basis to rely on or else the conversation doesn't make any sense. I honestly don't care if a believer keeps their belief to themselves but it is rare to find a believer who does. They support those who push religious agendas either directly or indirectly. This is the social dangers where I think must request evidence on behalf of the believer that is convincing to me otherwise what they are trying to promote is not worthy of accepting.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

For any communication to work, we need to have a basis to rely on or else the conversation doesn't make any sense. I honestly don't care if a believer keeps their belief to themselves but it is rare to find a believer who does. They support those who push religious agendas either directly or indirectly. This is the social dangers where I think must request evidence on behalf of the believer that is convincing to me otherwise what they are trying to promote is not worthy of accepting

.

I agree. The reason theists do not keep beliefs to themselves is because theism is acquired through social transmission. Unlike, "pink elephants", religious belief has had a historically important social function as an authority for social behaviour. The more intellectual theists (not fundamentalist fools) will attempt to communicate with atheists on the grounds that all "knowledge" is ultimately based on axioms whose "truth" is a matter of confidence rather than proof. ( following Godel's incompleteness theorem) . However, since the majority of homo sapiens is not "intellectual", it is incumbent on us (atheists) to understand theism from the point of view of social forces rather than metalogical analysis.

0 Replies

A belief in the existence of a god does not provide any calculable knowledge. This is why the existence of a god can never be proven. But it also can not be disproven for those who hold that not all knowledge can be demonstrated by concrete facts.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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

You were right. Oh well.

0 Replies

We don't really need agnosticism as a separate entity because it can be a type of atheism or theism e.g.

1. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know whether this is actually true
2. Gnostic-Atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.
3. Agnostic-Theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true.
4. Gnostic-Theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

It makes it an adjective...

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know