andygardener Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Fine, you can simultaneously not believe something exists while at the same time believing it may exist and use one word for this. I don't believe in fairies. If I try to claim that means I'm not expressing an opinion on the existence of fairies either way then i'd expect to be called on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Fine, you can simultaneously not believe something exists while at the same time believing it may exist and use one word for this. You're starting to understand, although your example is still adding a "belief" in there after "not believing". It's much simpler than that, people can simply "not believe" without having to add anything further. They can also just be open to other beliefs. Of course, they can also believe that there is no God. They can also believe that there may be a god, that it's possible that there might be a God or gods etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 You're starting to understand, although your example is still adding a "belief" in there after "not believing". It's much simpler than that, people can simply "not believe" without having to add anything further. They can also just be open to other beliefs. Of course, they can also believe that there is no God. They can also believe that there may be a god, that it's possible that there might be a God or gods etc. No, I;m starting to despair. "I do not believe in god" "So you don't believe god exists?" "I didn't say that!" "So do you believe god exists?" "I do not!" "So on the subject of god existing or not your belief is that god does not exist?" "I have offered no opinion on the matter of god existing other than my lack of belief in gods existence and that in no way suggests I don't think god exists, I merely don't believe god exists!" "OK, good luck with that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 You were so close last time. No, I;m starting to despair. "I do not believe in god" Correct "So you don't believe god exists?" still correct "I didn't say that!" yes I did "So do you believe god exists?" "I do not" correct "So on the subject of god existing or not your belief is that god does not exist?" "I have offered no opinion on the matter of god existing other than my lack of belief in gods existence and that in no way suggests I don't think god exists, I merely don't believe god exists" correct "OK, good luck with that." Why is it hard for you to grasp this? You seem to be a minority (or singularity) in not undetstanding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 FFS it's like talking to the cat. You cannot not believe in something while at the same time holding a belief that it may be believable. You can not hold a belief either way, ie agnostic but you cannot believe god exists and does not exist simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 FFS it's like talking to the cat. You cannot not believe in something while at the same time holding a belief that it may be believable. You can not hold a belief either way, ie agnostic but you cannot believe god exists and does not exist simultaneously. Its a paradox Much like the omnipotence paradox. If God is omnipotent then God can exist and not exist at the same time, can be both good and evil at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 FFS it's like talking to the cat. You cannot not believe in something while at the same time holding a belief that it may be believable. You can not hold a belief either way, ie agnostic but you cannot believe god exists and does not exist simultaneously. I'll bet Schrodinger could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Not at all confused, there is a small subset that are unaware of belief in god(s) exists and thus are atheist without having a view on whether god(s) exist or not. Every other atheist, knowing some think god(s) exist would reply to the question "Do you believe one or more gods exist?" with a no. It is a belief that god(s) do not exist. Not a personal guarantee to mankind that god(s) don't exist, just a personal belief. Your personal beliefs appear to be at odds with those of the people who write dictionaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 You can not hold a belief either way, ie agnostic is that what you think agnostic means? you cannot believe god exists and does not exist simultaneously. of course not! Has someone suggested you can ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Fine, you can simultaneously not believe something exists while at the same time believing it may exist and use one word for this. I don't believe in fairies. If I try to claim that means I'm not expressing an opinion on the existence of fairies either way then i'd expect to be called on it. Andy you're not understanding the fact that 'belief' and 'knowledge' are not the same thing. To believe or disbelieve something says nothing about truth claims (knowledge). ---------- Post added 15-02-2013 at 06:45 ---------- I made an assumption that was reasonable to make under the circumstances, the context didn't appear to change, there was absolutley no reason to suspect it had. And yet your assumption led to grabbing hold of the wrong end of the stick by accusing me of using a narrow definition of atheism when I wasn't. You said I had taken it out of context, in the context of the definition being used in on this thread in general, and by you in a previous post specifically (which you only now appear to be suggesting may have been otherwise) it was not out of context. Had it been taken out of context then this would have changed the context of what I said and what I said would have been inapropriate, hence the question 'So that changes what I said how?' See above. Why are you changing terminology here? Do you mean the two definitions we have been referring to already? Calling me disingenuous then deliberately changing the terminology is a little bit sneaky. It's not about changing terminology, I'm simply making it clearer as to what my position is so there's less chance of misinterpretation or misrepresentation. If you'd have had the gumption to ask me directly what my position is then all this could have been avoided. I think you need to meditate a little more. Your mental state doesn't *seem to be up to the debate.* If you do mean (that's me making assumptions ) the terminology we have already been using then you are still wrong regarding the lack of belief and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise. I've already said that both implicit and explicit atheism can help to inspire. See the next comment for my explanation. I've explained it, it means lack of belief in the way a baby or an animal has a lack of belief - this is the understanding that most people outside your special atheist club seem to use, it's certainly understood as this by most people I have come across. Which is called implicit atheism and by its very nature it inspires because, by definition, it includes everything that inspires outside the realm of explicit atheism and inspiration from a theistic mindset. The only argument here is does inspiration necessarily need a cause or is it innate......in other words; is it so simply because we are human? I say both. 'We are inspired because that's how we're wired'. *That's going to be my new slogan from now on.* It will do as you seem to imply that a lack of belief means the same as not believing - they are not the same at all. Keep up Pali baby.....I've already put that one to bed when I provided you with the links to implicit and explicit atheism many posts ago.....we're way beyond that now. Why can't there be evidence that a God(s) exists? Because it's logically impossible. How do you distinguish any attempted evidence of a god claim from other plausible explanations? It's silly in the way that we are talking about the wider use of the word and in such a case using a narrow definition is, well plain silly. It's like talking about wheeled vehicles through the ages and making the claim that only motorcycles are wheeled vehicles - silly. No, only you are talking about a narrow definition. I've been talking about *both implicit and explicit atheism from when I entered this thread. If you're not sure please try asking for in allowing me to educate you as to what my position is next time. Give over, that's possibly the worst thing I've heard you say. Using such a narrow definition on a subject that has more than that narrow definition is tantamount to deliberately skewing the answers. As I said it is no different than creationists claiming only their version of creation is valid and saying 'la la la' when evidence to the contrary is put forward * So, to repeat myself once again. No, only you are talking about a narrow definition. I've been talking about *both implicit and explicit atheism from when I entered this thread. If you're not sure please try asking for in allowing me to educate you as to what my position is next time. you really aren't very good at this. The only thing I'm not very good at is looking at the world through your twisted perspective. My twisted perspective is much better. There are basic tenets in Buddhism (and Christianity) but we're talking about using a narrow definition of atheism, so a comparable comment would be saying all Buddhists believe in Bodhisattvas - which they don't. The very point is that it's a narrow definition - not the central 'tenet' - so to claim what I said is what you were saying is not true at all, it's a completely different focus. Yes, religions have certain tenets that have to be followed for a claim to be made that you are a member of that religion, atheism, not being a religion and therefore not having any tenets, only has a definition/s based on the context of what's being discussed.* Aaaaaannnnnddddd ad nauseum.....once again. No, only you are talking about a narrow definition. I've been talking about *both implicit and explicit atheism from when I entered this thread. If you're not sure please try asking for in allowing me to educate you as to what my position is next time. Well done. Why thank you. You've already stated your position - you don't believe in God, you have also said a lack a of belief can motivate you - which is how we got here. Nearly right. Hmmmm.......now let me think. We were talking about 'inspire' and somebody's changed that to 'motivate'. Deliberately changing the terminology is a little bit sneaky. Hmmm......tis isn't it. You have already made your position clear - you just seem unable to grasp other definitions that don't apply to you. I grasp them alright. That's how I know they're wrong. This is going nowhere, I'll leave you to it. Enjoy your little atheist club meeting where you can reinforce your ideals. tata And please enjoy your little buddhist club meetings where you*can reinforce your ideals. But please don't run away like a little girl, I'm just beginning to enjoy myself. Stay and play with the big boys, one of which you claimed to be a few posts ago.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.