U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you consider yourself an agnostic or atheist?
agnostic 57 36.54%
atheist 99 63.46%
Voters: 156. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-16-2014, 07:53 PM
 
354 posts, read 246,356 times
Reputation: 105

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
Atheism is NOT a generic "Non-belief" as you would pretend it is. It is very specific to theism. It is the opposite of "God exists" . . . "God does not exist."


No, that's completely wrong.

theist = god believer
a-theist = not god believer.


It's very simple, you're overcomplicating the issue. There's nothing about atheism that means no gods could exist. It is simply lacking a belief that they do. That's not to say some atheists lack belief and also claim that gods do not exist, but that's another issue entirely. To make such a claim the atheist would require proof, beyond lack of evidence.

Edit: So would you prefer I refer to myself as, "I'm not a god believer" or should I take the shortcut, "atheist"? They both mean the same thing. I'm happy to do either if it'll make you happy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-16-2014, 07:56 PM
 
354 posts, read 246,356 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Not knowing logically means not believing until we do know. This is quite simple. I accept that you have reasons for thinking that you do know. I had hoped that you would understand our reasons for not buying into them.
This is correct. It's logical to suspend belief until we do know. It's illogical to believe in something when we don't know. I don't believe Mystic understands this simple logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:04 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,255,169 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Neither should be. Atheism is NOT a generic "Non-belief" as you would pretend it is. It is very specific to theism. It is the opposite of "God exists" . . . "God does not exist." Pretending the positions are belief and non-belief is a sham. .
Mystic, there are three options, not two. You are specifically ignoring the third option, and I hesitate to assume you are deliberately creating a strawman, but I also cannot credit that someone of your intelligence and background isn't aware of it....

The three options are:
  1. I believe God exists.
  2. I believe God does not exist.
  3. I do not believe God exists.
Option 3, when coupled with the fact that we cannot prove the non-existence of god in the generic sense, and have not proved its existence, leads the the rational position of agnostic atheism, or "weak atheism".
You seem to be implying that this position somehow cannot or does not exist, but as best I can tell it is actually the most common non-theist position...


It would seem a bit odd to me that you would argue that it isn't possible, since this is precisely how we function in real life. You don't open the refrigerator every day wondering if there is an elephant in it. You don't have to actively believe that there is no elephant in there. The idea of there being an elephant in there never crosses your mind, because there is no evidence for it. If someone asserts that there is one in there, you would not believe it without some evidence. In the same way, I don't believe that there is no god, I simply disbelieve when it is asserted without evidence...


-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:17 PM
 
354 posts, read 246,356 times
Reputation: 105
Mystic, a quick and easy question for you. Do you believe things exist when you don't know if they do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:24 PM
 
40,186 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Neither should be. Atheism is NOT a generic "Non-belief" as you would pretend it is. It is very specific to theism. It is the opposite of "God exists" . . . "God does not exist." Pretending the positions are belief and non-belief is a sham. You are proselytizing by picking a definite position on the existence of God in complete ignorance. "We don't know" is the only default position that is neutral. EITHER choice is not neutral.
Belief schmelief . . . that is a red herring. Beliefs only exist within minds. They do not constitute reality. There is immense dishonesty in pretending you have NOT chosen a position about reality by framing it as a question of belief . . . but then want to call it the default position as regards reality. "We don't know" is the ONLY neutral default with regard to the issue of whether or not "God exists" as the Source of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
No, that's completely wrong.
theist = god believer
a-theist = not god believer.
Wrong. This is a sham and red herring to pretend that the default status of reality is No God. Theism is a statement about the status of reality . . . NOT a belief. Atheism is the opposite statement about the status of reality . . . not a belief. The flim flam men proselytizing atheism have couched it as a matter of belief . . . but the status of reality is NOT a matter of belief. It is a matter of reality. The status of reality is either "God exists" or "God does not exist" as the Source of reality. The old Texas sidestep and flim flam is to quibble about the status of reality and call it simply a matter of belief . . . relieving the deniers of "God exists" to pretend that they are only establishing the default as non-belief. But they equate that with meaning the default status of reality is "God does not exist." Cute flim flam and semantic terpsichory . . . but it doesn't work. The default status is "We do not know" whether or not the Source of reality is God.
Quote:
It's very simple, you're overcomplicating the issue. There's nothing about atheism that means no gods could exist.
Clever wording but wrong. The "could" has nothing to do with it. When you claim atheism as the default . . . you are trying to backdoor your way into establishing the default status of reality as "God does not exist." The belief ploy is a smokescreen.
Quote:
It is simply lacking a belief that they do. That's not to say some atheists lack belief and also claim that gods do not exist, but that's another issue entirely. To make such a claim the atheist would require proof, beyond lack of evidence.
Nonsense. The single most prevalent claim of atheists is there is no God until you show me proof of one . . . meaning the default status of reality is "God does not exist" until you prove it. Quibbling about beliefs is just shadow boxing and a smokescreen.
Quote:
Edit: So would you prefer I refer to myself as, "I'm not a god believer" or should I take the shortcut, "atheist"? They both mean the same thing. I'm happy to do either if it'll make you happy
I prefer you say "I don't know if God exists" because that is an honest statement of the situation. I couldn't care less about what you believe or don't believe. There are all sorts of beliefs about God that are irrelevant to the existence of God as the status of reality. The status is unknown and "We don't know" is the ONLY acceptable default because it presumes NEITHER status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:32 PM
 
40,186 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
Mystic, a quick and easy question for you. Do you believe things exist when you don't know if they do?
Quick answer: When it is about reality . . . it is not a relevant concern because reality EXISTS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:41 PM
 
40,186 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Mystic, there are three options, not two. You are specifically ignoring the third option, and I hesitate to assume you are deliberately creating a strawman, but I also cannot credit that someone of your intelligence and background isn't aware of it....

The three options are:
  1. I believe God exists.
  2. I believe God does not exist.
  3. I do not believe God exists.
It is NOT about beliefs. When we are talking about the default status . . . we are talking about the default status of reality . . . or you guys wouldn't keep asking for proof. That is NOT determined by belief. Either God is our extremely ubiquitous, powerful, seemingly infinite in scope reality or not. Since "We do not know" the ONLY default IS . . . wait for it . . . "We do not know." What we believe or don't believe is entirely irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 08:44 PM
 
40,186 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST View Post
This is correct. It's logical to suspend belief until we do know. It's illogical to believe in something when we don't know. I don't believe Mystic understands this simple logic.
I understand it quite well . . . but belief has nothing to do with the status of reality . . . which is what a default implies. I don't believe atheists understand this simple fact. Beliefs do NOT determine reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 10:32 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,255,169 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is NOT about beliefs. When we are talking about the default status . . . we are talking about the default status of reality . . . or you guys wouldn't keep asking for proof. That is NOT determined by belief. Either God is our extremely ubiquitous, powerful, seemingly infinite in scope reality or not. Since "We do not know" the ONLY default IS . . . wait for it . . . "We do not know." What we believe or don't believe is entirely irrelevant.
Hmm, it seems like we are looking at two different questions. One is, given a conception of a god, does it exist? This is what I was talking about.

You seem to be approaching it from a different perspective, which is not so much arguing about the existence of a god, but it taxonomy. We can agree that reality exists ( or near enough as makes no practical difference), the question then becomes should the sum total of all that is be classified as a god.

At that point the argument has ceased to be about existence at all. Non-existence is still the valid default for a thing for which we have no evidence, you have just pointed to something for which we do have evidence and claim that it is in fact God. It is not that the argument is invalid, it is that you have made the argument about taxonomy instead of existence. For a given definition of God, it is still appropriate to disbelieve when there is no evidence.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2014, 11:56 PM
 
40,186 posts, read 26,806,349 times
Reputation: 6058
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Hmm, it seems like we are looking at two different questions. One is, given a conception of a god, does it exist? This is what I was talking about.
You seem to be approaching it from a different perspective, which is not so much arguing about the existence of a god, but it taxonomy. We can agree that reality exists ( or near enough as makes no practical difference), the question then becomes should the sum total of all that is be classified as a god.
At that point the argument has ceased to be about existence at all. Non-existence is still the valid default for a thing for which we have no evidence, you have just pointed to something for which we do have evidence and claim that it is in fact God. It is not that the argument is invalid, it is that you have made the argument about taxonomy instead of existence. For a given definition of God, it is still appropriate to disbelieve when there is no evidence.
-NoCapo
You are still missing the point. Existence is a matter of fact . . . not beliefs. Atheists routinely ask for proof of God on the basis of their default which is clearly that "God does not exist" . . . or there would be no need for proof that "God does exist." Since they don't know if our very "Godlike" reality is God or not . . . their default usurps neutrality by imposing their view on reality under the pretense of non-belief. Belief has nothing to do with it whatsoever. We don't decide what is true about reality on the basis of beliefs. You are correct that ANY specific set of beliefs ABOUT God must pass muster on its own merits . . . but the default about the very existence of God remains "We don't Know."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top