Deities do or do not exist?

[S.A.M.]

It's a threat detection and response system.

Interesting demonstration of paranoia there.

 

[James R]

SAM:

Once again, I note that you have completely failed to address the issue you raised in order to again distract with a discussion of syntax and grammar.

It is not the grammarians who are at fault here. I'm sure they will concede the point I made to you in my previous post, even if you and your impolite friend who thinks he knows everything refuse to do so.

Meanwhile the only definitional arguments here are from atheists who are not even willing to be honest enough to say that they believe deities do not exist, while accusing others of dishonesty.

You have now avoided the direct issue twice (or is it three times).

Why don't you show a little honesty and respond to the specific points I put to you about atheist beliefs?

 

[S.A.M.]

You have now had this matter clearly and explicitly explained, with examples. It is not a grammarian's problem. It is a failure of the stubborn to avail themselves of instruction in basic logic. Existential implication changes under transferred negation. Existential implication is the central issue of this discussion.

Only if you are inserting opinion on the relevant propositions. Pragmatically [ie objectively] there is no difference in either proposition when the negative is raised.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM:

Once again, I note that you have completely failed to address the issue you raised in order to again distract with a discussion of syntax and grammar.

It is not the grammarians who are at fault here. I'm sure they will concede the point I made to you in my previous post, even if you and your impolite friend who thinks he knows everything refuse to do so.

My impolite friend? He's another atheist who considers that other peoples beliefs are not sacrosanct. Perhaps like you he imagines that people can use provocation to reflect on issues of truth and question what they believe.

You have now avoided the direct issue twice (or is it three times).

Why don't you show a little honesty and respond to the specific points I put to you about atheist beliefs?

Find me an atheist who has any doubts on teh nonexistence of any deities and I will

 

[iceaura]

Only if you are inserting opinion on the relevant propositions. Pragmatically [ie objectively] there is no difference in either proposition when the negative is raised.

That is simply false. The existential implications are quite different, depending on where the negative is located. You were handed simple examples, from the very source you quoted. This is not complicated - assuming the existence of the subject makes a big difference, especially if the existence of the subject is the matter under discussion. Hello?

You are waiting at the bus stop, because you believe you haven't missed the bus - and there is no bus.

 

[spidergoat]

Interesting demonstration of paranoia there.

We descended from small paranoid primates.

 

[S.A.M.]

That is simply false. The existential implications are quite different, depending on where the negative is located. You were handed simple examples, from the very source you quoted. This is not complicated - assuming the existence of the subject makes a big difference, especially if the existence of the subject is the matter under discussion. Hello?

You are waiting at the bus stop, because you believe you haven't missed the bus - and there is no bus.

I don't believe I have missed the bus and its a bus stop, so I can wait at the bus stop. I believe I may get the next bus, although I don't believe it will take me where I want to go. However I don't believe I should miss the bus, since even if it takes me part of the way, I believe I can get other buses to my destination, which I don't believe is only accessible by one bus.

 

[Malikaru]

deities do exist im posting here so i can PM somone.

 

[Carcano]

Do atheists believe that deities may exist?

This is a secondary question.

The primary question is...does 'spirit' exist?

 

[iceaura]

I don't believe I have missed the bus and its a bus stop, so I can wait at the bus stop.

Assuming, of course, that there is a bus.

If there is no bus, your failure to notice the implications of your language will become significant after a while.

 

[S.A.M.]

Assuming, of course, that there is a bus.

If there is no bus, your failure to notice the implications of your language will become significant after a while.

To whom? Objectively speaking if there is a bus or not, if I believe I did not miss it or I do not believe I missed it, makes no difference to the bus. Or to me. Either way, I will be waiting on a bus.

 

[Malikaru]

a spirit does exist in a sense.. it is the energy that makes up your body and the energy that remains when your body dies..

once again im trying to make 20 posts to contact somone

 

[iceaura]

Objectively speaking if there is a bus or not, if I believe I did not miss it or I do not believe I missed it, makes no difference to the bus.

The difference made to any hypothetical bus is not at issue.

The difference in meaning between what you were told and what you heard, in answer to your question about missing a bus, matters mostly to you. If you are not alert to the implications of various English phrasings, you may be waiting a long time for nothing at all.

Granted your bus informant was malicious, in taking advantage of your lack of care and wariness, but in the realm of careful discussion about existence blame for such cavalier dismissal of existential implication falls mainly on yourself.

 

[S.A.M.]

But if I believe there is no bus, or I do not believe there is a bus, I won't be waiting for any bus, real or hypothetical. Unless I know there is no bus, the odds are that at a bus stop, even if I do not get the bus I am waiting for, I can get a bus. Meanwhile, those who do not believe there is a bus will miss all buses, since they believe there is no bus.

 

[iceaura]

But if I believe there is no bus, or I do not believe there is a bus, I won't be waiting for any bus, real or hypothetical. Unless I know there is no bus, the odds are that at a bus stop, even if I do not get the bus I am waiting for, I can get a bus.

Which is one reason paying better attention to what you are told can be helpful.

And paying attention to the existential implications of shuffling negations around and specifying the subjects is one of those aspects you might want to pick up on. I went through the example you posted, back in #49. It's not rocket science.

 

[S.A.M.]

Which is one reason paying better attention to what you are told can be helpful.

I am, I just don't see how opinion can be considered superior to facts.

 

[iceaura]

I am, I just don't see how opinion can be considered superior to facts.

The existential implications of "raising" the negative, in a context of discussion involving existence, is not just an opinion - it's not a feature of the language you can unilaterally declare doesn't pertain. You only fool yourself thereby.

btw: That narrative structure is a standard trick of storytelling, hypnosis, and propaganda. The key assumption placed in the context of the debate or story is hidden from the mind's examination, and suspension of disbelief thereby created - you forget that Sheherazade is herself a fictional character.

 

[lixluke]

Stop trying to tell people what they believe, OK? Obviously it is possible that anyone may be in error, and that the unknown future may yield the unforeseen and unimagined. If these unavoidables exclude atheism, then there are no atheistic people. Then you need to invent a word to cover what "atheist" used to cover. That seems a waste of time - I'll call you theist, even though you have doubts occasionally, and you call me atheist, even though I acknowledge the obvious realities of human judgment, 'K?

I'm not telling people what to believe. I'm telling people what is required in order to be deemed atheist. Anybody that doesn't believe there is no God is not an atheist. That's like claiming I'm telling people what to believe when I say you have to believe there is a God in order to be theist.

 

[S.A.M.]

The existential implications of "raising" the negative, in a context of discussion involving existence, is not just an opinion - it's not a feature of the language you can unilaterally declare doesn't pertain. You only fool yourself thereby.

If its existence or nonexistence of God we are debating, then I fail to see how it is not an opinion. You either believe there is a bus or you don't. Thats an opinion. Are you going to stand at the bus stop or will you walk away?

 

[Sarkus]

If its existence or nonexistence of God we are debating, then I fail to see how it is not an opinion. You either believe there is a bus or you don't. Thats an opinion. Are you going to stand at the bus stop or will you walk away?

SAM - you confuse intellectual positioning with practicality.
Whether atheists actually believe in the non-existence of gods or whether they merely do not have a belief in their existence, they will lead their lives as though the gods are absent.

So yes, from a practical perspective there is no difference, neither will be "waiting for the bus" - but this debate is more than about mere practicalities but the intellectual positions that are held - i.e. why would they not be waiting.

You see the practical side and assume an intellectual position... i.e. you see them act as though god does not exist and you assume that their intellectual position must be that they believe god to not exist. This is logically fallacious of you.