who is taking the picture of the three men, i.e the artist?
whoever the observer is he should have his eyes blindfolded.
and you should also add a guy with an axe ready to chop the head of those who don't get it right and don't answer at all.
Deities do or do not exist?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
who is taking the picture of the three men, i.e the artist?
whoever the observer is he should have his eyes blindfolded.
and you should also add a guy with an axe ready to chop the head of those who don't get it right and don't answer at all.
lixluke,
The original intent of agnosticsm was/is "not to claim knowledge of something without showing evidence". It does not assert that existence of gods is not knowable.
I'd agree though that an agnostic theist makes no sense. One cannot claim something is true without showing evidence and at the same time assert that one should not claim to know something without showing evidence. The two terms are mutaullay exclusive.
So you are correct but for the wrong reason.
Apparently not.
The original intent of agnosticsm was/is "not to claim knowledge of something without showing evidence". It does not assert that existence of gods is not knowable.
I'd agree though that an agnostic theist makes no sense. One cannot claim something is true without showing evidence and at the same time assert that one should not claim to know something without showing evidence. The two terms are mutaullay exclusive.
So you are correct but for the wrong reason.
Most atheists in the US have to come up with a different attitude than that one, or their lives will bog down in a long series of petty fights with the neighbors.SAM said:
No doubt some atheists fit that description. Not a majority, in my experience.SAM said:
Still one of my chosen examples of the crippling effects of dogmatic theism. You would make that kind of mistake in no other arena of discussion.SAM said:
Well, there's yours and mine - they differ. Yours does not apply to me, but since none of your definitions of any relevant words apply to me, I lose nothing by remaining with the one that seems to me to fit me very well, with no problems except that people like you don't want to allow its meaning to exist.SAM said:
Apparently I and those like me are not supposed to be possible, or something - and neither are the atheistic Navajo, the atheistic Buddhist, the atheistic animist, and all the others.
Whether or not it is an opinion is irrelevant to the point: the fact that it is under discussion (opinion or not) means that "raising" the negative changes the meaning. If the existence of god(s) is in question, "believing there are no gods" and "not believing in any gods" do not mean the same thing. The illustration of this, taken from your own posting, in #49, remains - it is not that complicated. Simply examine the changes, the sleight of mind, that the source you quoted had to make, to create the illusion of logical parallel - the placement of the existential assertion in the context, outside the realm of consideration.SAM said:
Or I could say that my knowledge is founded on judgment, with consequent inevitable uncertainty. And I might point to other ways of atheistic stance - such as the Navajo religion, according to some of its believers acquainted with Western concepts of deity, or the Buddhist sects that regard deity as just another illusion.SAM said:
Or did you think that there was something universal about the Abrahamic concept of deity?
iceaura,
Surely, as far as you are concerned right now, "God does not exist".
If you require evidence to convince you of Gods' existence, and from
your perspective, none is forthcoming, then your default position has to be
"God does not exist".
jan.
Surely, as far as you are concerned right now, "God does not exist".
If you require evidence to convince you of Gods' existence, and from
your perspective, none is forthcoming, then your default position has to be
"God does not exist".
jan.
No, as far as YOU are concerned, god does exist. The default position HAS to be, "Show us the evidence of gods existence."
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
No, but if you don't have any evidence of god existing why should I believe in it ? You might as well be talking about invisible pink unicorns.
Nope, just evidence of delusion. Claims are claims, no matter if they're for gods, unicorns or things that go bump in the night.
Whether or not you should believe is irrelevant.
How is it that the atheist position is not "God does not exist" period?
Why all the categories?
jan.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Because, while there is no reason to assume God exist, it cannot logically be known whether or not God exists.
Let's do a mental experiment:
Suppose there are some people in one room. You are in the adjacent room. You can't see eachother, but you can hear them.
You hear the way they talk about you. They sound rather harsh. They demand that you should show yourself. They don't even call you by your name. They just say "Hey you, if you're there, come out, show yourself! If you don't, we'll be forced to believe you don't exist! Suit yourself!"
Would you go into the other room to meet those people?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't see the relevance of your 'experiment'.
jan,
Beyond that age most normal people are able to reason more appropriately. I can only imagine certified idiots would conclude what you are suggesting.
For children up to around 1.5 years old this tends to be their perception. When they say, drop a toy out of their sight, they are unable to comprehend that it still exists but they are unable to see it.
Beyond that age most normal people are able to reason more appropriately. I can only imagine certified idiots would conclude what you are suggesting.
signal,
Declaring you non-existent would not be rational since you represent a credible entity where there are billions of similar examples, and where your actual existence is a knowable possibility.
If however, you were a unique super being capable of creating a universe, was invisible and was everywhere and everywhen, then their choice to declare you non existent because you do not show yourself when they ask, has significant merit since none of those attributes have ever been observed/detected and there is no precedent for such things, or even a means to determine if such things could ever be possible.
If they have not seen you and you have not said anything how would they know you exist?
Declaring you non-existent would not be rational since you represent a credible entity where there are billions of similar examples, and where your actual existence is a knowable possibility.
If however, you were a unique super being capable of creating a universe, was invisible and was everywhere and everywhen, then their choice to declare you non existent because you do not show yourself when they ask, has significant merit since none of those attributes have ever been observed/detected and there is no precedent for such things, or even a means to determine if such things could ever be possible.
Suppose they have heard about you from other people or had a kind of a hunch that you might be there.
It's about how they ask.
signal,
If such things are not true and you feel motivated to defend your image then you should present yourself and explain your case, how would they know otherwise? If you have no such motivation and do not care what others think of you then again stay silent and allow others to reach whatever conclusions they wish concerning your existence.
Have these other people seen or heard you and presented some form of evidence to this group, perhaps a photograph or a video? A hunch doesn't mean very much.
Why? If they are saying unpleasant things about you which are true then it might be wise for you to stay silent and let them think you don't exist.
If such things are not true and you feel motivated to defend your image then you should present yourself and explain your case, how would they know otherwise? If you have no such motivation and do not care what others think of you then again stay silent and allow others to reach whatever conclusions they wish concerning your existence.