Deities do or do not exist?

Choose the one that most closely corresponds to your beliefs

  • I am an atheist and I believe deities do not exist

    Votes: 4 13.8%

  • I am an atheist and I believe deities may exist

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • I am an atheist and I believe deities may or may not exist

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • I am an atheist and I believe deities do exist

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • I am not an atheist

    Votes: 6 20.7%

  • Some other opinion

    Votes: 12 41.4%
  • Total voters
    29
lightgigantic said:
If you disagree, feel free to explain the practical differences between one person who does not believe water exists compared to a person who believes water does not exist.
Click to expand...
Logical fallacy, LG - more precisely this is a red herring.

Practically they are the same - as in both people will live their lives as though there is no such thing as water.
But intellectually the two positions are very different, and that is what is this thread is about - so let's stick to that, shall we.

And on the intellectual side, presumably there is a concept being considered that has been labelled "water"...

The former has concluded that they do not have evidence of this concept to be able to say whether they believe "water" exists or not. They probably have such a lack of evidence to not even say if it might exist or not.

The latter has presumably concluded that there is sufficient evidence to say that this concept just does not exist.


The question is whether one believes god exists - not merely whether one lives their life as though they exist or not. The former is an intellectual position. The latter is a practical one.

So please do not try to go further with this logical fallacy of yours.
 
James R said:
Where's the option "I do not believe that deities exist"?

Most atheists, I would say, leave open the possibility that deities might exist, while at the same time denying that there is any good evidence that they do exist. Therefore, they do not believe that deities exist, but back off from a blanket assertion that deities cannot possibly exist.
Click to expand...

So saying I believe deities do not exist is not the same as I do not believe deities exist?

Does shifting the negative from subordinate clause to main clause change its meaning?

Stupid Argument #6: The Phrase "Tom does not believe in the existence of God" does not mean "Tom believes that God does not exist."



This idiotic argument is sometimes presented by brain dead morons who don't understand basic English grammar. I really don't expect most people to know that "raising" is the technical name for the location of the negative in the first sentence, or that raising simply shifts the negative from the subordinate clause where it logically belongs to the main clause, especially when the main clause’s verb is suppose, think, believe, seem, or the like. (Here are two links from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English that explain it: Link 1, Link 2)



However, I find it impossible to believe that anyone with half a brain would use this argument. The English language is literally filled with many common examples of raising. I'll post a few for clarity:



A) "I don't believe the mail has arrived" means "I believe the mail has not arrived". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the mail arriving.



B) "I do not believe we missed the last bus" means "I believe we did not miss the last bus". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last bus.



C) "I don't think the kicker can make a 55 yard field goal" means "I think that the kicker can not make a 55 yard field goal". It does not mean that I did not think about the kicker making a field goal.



D) "I don't believe in the existence of deities" means "I believe that deities do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of deities.
Click to expand...

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm#6
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Do atheists believe that deities may exist?

Please vote according to your own personal beliefs

For all those who vote that deities may exist, please clarify which deity you believe may exist and why.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist and I do not believe that deities exist.
And I fail to see how that is an opinion.
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm#6
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Unfortunately this supposed argument is just another logical fallacy, even ignoring the language it is coloured with.

For example:
There is a person behind a wall that you can not see.
You are told he is wearing either a black hat or a white hat, but not told which.

Do you believe he is wearing a white hat?

If you don't believe he is wearing a white hat, by your "logic" you must believe he is wearing a black hat? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
:rolleyes: Unfortunately this supposed argument is just another logical fallacy, even ignoring the language it is coloured with.

For example:
There is a person behind a wall that you can not see.
You are told he is wearing either a black hat or a white hat, but not told which.

Do you believe he is wearing a white hat?

If you don't believe he is wearing a white hat, by your "logic" you must believe he is wearing a black hat? :shrug:
Click to expand...
Why would I believe the person is even there ?
 
That's part of my point.
SAM is insisting that if you don't believe the person is wearing a white hat that you must believe him to be wearing a black hat.
I am highlighting the flaw in SAM's perspective.
 
There is a person behind a wall that you can not see.
You are told he is wearing either a black hat or a white hat, but not told which.

Do you believe he is wearing a white hat?

If you don't believe he is wearing a white hat, by your "logic" you must believe he is wearing a black hat?
Click to expand...

Thats not what I am saying, but I realise now that your understanding is flawed. You seem to be under the impression that grammar and sentence construction is arbitrary. How does your logic work?
 
Sarkus said:
That's part of my point.
SAM is insisting that if you don't believe the person is wearing a white hat that you must believe him to be wearing a black hat.
I am highlighting the flaw in SAM's perspective.
Click to expand...

I know, but one could argue that once you accept that the person is there then you also accept (edit: or more accurately, you have no reason not to accept it) that he's wearing either a white hat or a black hat. That leaves only two choices.
So, in that case, if you do not believe that the person is wearing a white hat you must believe that the person wearing a black hat.
 
Enmos said:
No. My position is that due to a complete lack of evidence it is very unlikely that a god exists and that there is therefor no reason to believe that a god exists.
Click to expand...

Then it stands to reason that there must be some standard of revelation that
you would regard as evidence, while at the same time not knowing what that
standard is. Is this not a belief in that which you do not know?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Then it stands to reason that there must be some standard of revelation that
you would regard as evidence, while at the same time not knowing what that
standard is. Is this not a belief in that which you do not know?

jan.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your reasoning. God being omnipotent, omniscient, and all that stuff, I'm sure he could convince me.

By the way, I could just have said that I do not believe that a god exists. Saying I am an atheist AND I do not believe god exists is saying the same thing twice.
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
I know, but one could argue that once you accept that the person is there then you also accept (edit: or more accurately, you have no reason not to accept it) that he's wearing either a white hat or a black hat. That leaves only two choices.
So, in that case, if you do not believe that the person is wearing a white hat you must believe that the person wearing a black hat.
Click to expand...
No - to limit the options as you have done is a false dilemma fallacy, as there remains the option of not believing either option.

In this scenario I would no more believe they wear white than I would they wear black.
I.e. I would lack belief.
 
S.A.M. said:
Thats not what I am saying, but I realise now that your understanding is flawed. You seem to be under the impression that grammar and sentence construction is arbitrary. How does your logic work?
Click to expand...
That's entirely what you are saying - unless you care to clarify?
I am saying that grammar and sentence construction is vital - especially as to what the negative is attached to. It is you who seems to think that is arbitrary.
I have highlighted your logical fallacy - now if you disagree you could actually say more than "you're wrong" and explain your position.
 
Sarkus said:
No - to limit the options as you have done is a false dilemma fallacy, as there remains the option of not believing either option.

In this scenario I would no more believe they wear white than I would they wear black.
I.e. I would lack belief.
Click to expand...

Yes, but believing that the person is there and not believing the person is wearing a hat seems kind of arbitrary.
If you are gullible enough to believe that there even is a person standing behind the wall without being presented with any evidence why would you not believe that the person is wearing a hat ? It isn't consistent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top