You contradict yourself:
"all human claims of deities are false" - this means your claim above is false as well.
Deities do or do not exist?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You contradict yourself:
"all human claims of deities are false" - this means your claim above is false as well.
SAM,
Do I own a dog?
What you are suggesting is that you can only answer with -
1. I believe you own a dog.
2. I believe you do not own a dog.
Does it really make any sense to assert a belief of any type when you do not have adequate information?
Which means we must have -
3. I have no belief whether you have a dog or not.
Now the question, do gods exist -
1. I believe gods exist.
2. I believe gods do not exist.
In the same way as above, we must also accept that the next option be available -
3. I have no belief that gods do or do not exist.
Conclusion.
When there is inadequate information or inadequate evidence for a proposition then it makes no sense to assert a belief, for either case.
There are always 3 options in these scenarios and not the 2 that you are trying to insist.
So here is an easy question for you in the black or white style you are suggesting.
Do I own a dog?
What you are suggesting is that you can only answer with -
1. I believe you own a dog.
2. I believe you do not own a dog.
Does it really make any sense to assert a belief of any type when you do not have adequate information?
Which means we must have -
3. I have no belief whether you have a dog or not.
Now the question, do gods exist -
1. I believe gods exist.
2. I believe gods do not exist.
In the same way as above, we must also accept that the next option be available -
3. I have no belief that gods do or do not exist.
Conclusion.
When there is inadequate information or inadequate evidence for a proposition then it makes no sense to assert a belief, for either case.
There are always 3 options in these scenarios and not the 2 that you are trying to insist.
I think the actual problem with this is that those arguing for the relevance of this distinction are confused about the definition of terms when it comes to "God", which is how analogous examples with "water", "dog", "white hat" or "bus" don't work.
Implicit in believing (or not believeing) the existence (or non-existence) of X is knowing what X is like.
If we do not know what X is like, this affects everything else we might say about it, including our status of believing about it, or what we think that "X exists" and "X does not exist" imply.
Whether we say "I believe there is no water on the Moon" or "I do not believe there is water on the Moon" - there are no problems as we are confident we know what "water" is like, what its presence is like, what its absence is like.
But with "God", we don't have this sort of confidence either way, simply because we do not have direct experience of God, or have not accepted the knowledge about God as proposed by the various theistic scriptures.
How so?
If I hold that my beliefs are merely beliefs, and not something that fundamentally has to do with how things really are, I have signed my admission form to the house with white padded cells.
For people to be able to function, they need to hold that they are beyond mere opinions and beliefs.
In that case, one would have to be silent, not even saying "I have no belief that gods do or do not exist."
If it is indeed the case that there is inadequate information or inadequate evidence for a proposition,
then making any statement in relation to this inadequate information or inadequate evidence for a proposition
would convey that there actually is some kind of adequacy regarding that information or evidence.
This is the problem with making utterances: We entangle ourselves, the moment we open our mouths. On the other hand, we cannot forever be silent either.
Is it not reasonable to assume that there is some more or less direct relationship between a person's intellectual stance and the way they act?
quite right
There generally is:
Those that have the belief that god exists (single intellectual position) act as though god exists.
All others (multiple intellectual positions) act as though god does not exist.
The problem arises with this latter group when you try to assess their intellectual position from the way they act.
If intellectual position 1 leads to A, but 2, 3, 4, and 5 lead to B... then if you start from A you know it came via 1. But if you start at B it is unknown whether it came from 2, 3, 4, or 5.
Those are not the only two positions.
There is also the position
-I don't know
-what is god?
-I don't care
The first is agnostic, the second ignostic, the third apathetic. Atheists do not act as though God does not exist. Atheists act as though they believe that God does not exist.
I cannot possibly have no belief [unless I am brain dead]. I could say I don't know, in which case my belief is that I don't know.
Why be silent?
They can argue from this position equally against those who claim there is evidence, or who nonetheless believe while in acknowledgement of the lack of evidence.
Not having evidence is also different to claiming the matter to be unknowable, although both are agnostic positions.
Most agnostics might not even know or be able to explain what evidence would suffice, but know (or claim to know) that all evidence thus presented is not it.
If you don't know, how can you act as though you believe in god.
If you don't know what god is, how can you act as though you believe in god.
If you don't care, you probably don't act as though you believe in god.
The positions you mention are all positions one can take - but they do not address the fundamental issue of belief: "do you have the belief that god exists?" - i.e. they are not positions on belief but on epistemology (and the latter a position on worth).
But you still need to separate the practical position from the intellectual position - which you fail to do. You see the practical as being "acting as though they believe God does not exist" and can only see that arising from a single intellectual position (i.e. "they must therefore have the belief that God does not exist").
Yet I have shown you how this thinking of yours is logically fallacious.
But atheists do not act as though God does not exist; thats how the ignostics and apathetic act. Atheists are tormented by the theist position, they feel religion interferes in their life, they want to oppose and eliminate and challenge the theist position. They believe "THERE ARE NO GODS". An agnostic has no position, an ignostic questions the premise that God is a meaningful term and an apathetic, religious or otherwise, does not consider it to be significant.
Someone who challenges a position does not behave the same way as someone who questions it is a position that can be challenged one way or the other or as someone who thinks its an impossible question or who simply does not care. They are not all the same position.
Someone who challenges a position does not behave the same way as someone who questions it is a position that can be challenged one way or the other or as someone who thinks its an impossible question or who simply does not care. They are not all the same position.
Last edited:
You're still making the basic mistake of assuming that all atheists believe some kind of accepted canon of beliefs. And you've already been informed that the only thing atheists necessarily have in common is that they do not believe in gods. So, while some atheists may well be "tormented by the theist position" etc etc, many others are not. And that applies to all the general statements you make that try to lump all atheists into one basket.
Some do. Others simply do not believe there are gods.
You don't know what an agnostic is, either. You ought to read Huxley's original explanation of the term. And "ignostic" sounds like a clumsy term you made up.
Is there more than one definition of atheist?
Which is the same as believing there are no Gods.
Because Huxley's is the one who defines all agnostics for the rest of us?
Its a term made up by ignostics. At least, their position is distinctive from atheism and agnosticism and adds understanding instead of confusion to the discussion.
Is there more than one definition of atheist?
Which is the same as believing there are no Gods.
Because Huxley's is the one who defines all agnostics for the rest of us?
Its a term made up by ignostics. At least, their position is distinctive from atheism and agnosticism and adds understanding instead of confusion to the discussion.
Is there more than one definition of atheist?
Which is the same as believing there are no Gods.
Because Huxley's is the one who defines all agnostics for the rest of us?
Its a term made up by ignostics. At least, their position is distinctive from atheism and agnosticism and adds understanding instead of confusion to the discussion.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I'm pretty sure I do believe some things. I believe, for example, that I'll still be alive next week. But I do not believe in any supernatural things. Supernatural things do simply not exist by definition. IF god exists it must be part of nature, and I don't see any indication whatsoever of a conscious god that's a part of the natural world.
I am very aware of nature if that's what you mean, but I don't believe in the creation myth.
I AM connected to nature, I am part of it. Existence has no meaning objectively seen, but it still has meaning to me.
Obviously I can and do care for "creation" without any believe in some conscious god.
Isn't it more beautiful that life has come into existence and has made it on its own, than when it would all have been orchestrated ?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
1..
