Lack of Belief

[PureX]

Q: atotalstranger, do you know if gods exist?
A: No, I do not know if gods exist. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say otherwise.

Q: atotalstranger, do you believe that gods exist?
A: No, I do not believe that gods exist. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to believe in something which has no objective, rational evidence.

Q: atotalstranger, do you believe that gods don't exist?
A: No, I don't believe that, since I do not know whether they exist or not. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to make the positive statement that I believe they don't exist.

It's the second one with the whole "believe in" nonsense that is confusing me. I understand what you're trying to say, but the whole "believe in" thing is nonsensical. Why would anyone even ask you the second question when you just told them you don't know? What point is there to what you "believe" (or don't believe in) when you just stated that you don't know?

 

[PureX]

'Mutually Exclusive' means that two things are contradictory; that they are unable to be both true at the same time.

I'm saying that I'm both an atheist and agnostic - neither label alone accurately defines my position.

Humans are illogical, the terms aren't. We can be self-contradictory, but the terms remain separate. They each define a different intellectual concept.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's the second one with the whole "believe in" nonsense that is confusing me. I understand what you're trying to say, but the whole "believe in" thing is nonsensical.

Q: atotalstranger, do you believe that gods exist?
It would be intellectually dishonest of me to believe that something exists which has no objective, rational evidence.

Have a problem with it now? If so, what?

Why would anyone even ask you the second question when you just told them you don't know? What point is there to what you "believe" (or don't believe in) when you just stated that you don't know?

A) The questions are all independent of each other. It's meant to illustrate that depending on what is asked, my position is consistent and intellectually honest.

B) If you believe that god exists, but don't know, would there be any point in someone asking you the second question after asking you the first? Do you know if god exists? Do you believe god exists?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Humans are illogical, the terms aren't. We can be self-contradictory, but the terms remain separate. They each define a different intellectual concept.

Yes, I know this - that is why they are not mutually exclusive. What exactly is it that you're arguing with? Do you even know?

 

[PureX]

Q: atotalstranger, do you believe that gods exist?
It would be intellectually dishonest of me to believe that something exists which has no objective, rational evidence.

Have a problem with it now? If so, what?

One, there is objective, rational evidence. But that's a WHOLE different discussion. And two, I think you should add to this statement that it would be equally intellectually dishonest of you to deny the existence of god when you (feel that you) have no objective, rational evidence one way or another.

If you believe that god exists, but don't know, would there be any point in someone asking you the second question after asking you the first? Do you know if god exists? Do you believe god exists?

I would explain up front that I "choose to believe" that a god of my own definition exists, even though I know I can never prove it.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I know this - that is why they are not mutually exclusive. What exactly is it that you're arguing with? Do you even know?

Deceitful labeling.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Deceitful labeling.

How so? It means what it means - do you know what it means? If not, that doesn't make it deceitful.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think you should add to this statement that it would be equally intellectually dishonest of you to deny the existence of god when you (feel that you) have no objective, rational evidence one way or another.

Incorrect. I do not deny the existence of god(s) - I simply do not believe. In order to deny the existence of god(s), I would have to be willing to make the assertion that I know there are no god(s), otherwise that would be intellectually dishonest.

Additionally, objective, rational evidience is only required when somebody makes a positive statement about the existence of something. Intellectual honesty does not require me to come up with objective, rational evidence that something does not exist, when no objective, rational evidence exists for its existence in the first place.

At this point, you just keep trying to make the same argument with different wording, and it all comes down to that you are either incapable of understanding the rational logic of my position or you are being intellectually dishonest about it. Either way, we're both just wasting each other's time at this point, so we can just agree to disagree.

If you need to think that I believe something that I don't in order to sleep at night - go ahead, it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[PureX]

When this whole conversation started, you were calling yourself an atheist. Then when I backed you into the corner, you had to admit that in fact, logically, you were agnostic, but still wanted to be called an atheist, and went on to defend doing so by making the term 'atheist' include agnosticism. Which is doesn't. And we've been going round and round ever since. We humans may be self-contradictory, and so be both atheist and agnostic. But the terms were always clear, and clearly meant to imply different intellectual positions. The fact that we humans can blur the positions doesn't change the clarity of the terms. In fact, it puts the burden on ourselves to explain the apparent contradictions.

We also began this discussion, as I recall, with you asserting that there "is no objective, reasonable evidence" for the existence of god, and because of this, in honor of your intellectual honesty and all that, you must presume that god does not exist. You were using no evidence as evidence just as you were using no belief as a belief when you were trying to convolute the term "atheist".

It was these, ahhh ... less than noble intellectual tricks that I was really objecting to.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When this whole conversation started, you were calling yourself an atheist. Then when I backed you into the corner, you had to admit that in fact, logically, you were agnostic...

Incorrect. I've stated consistently, and repeatedly, in this thread, and every other thread I've ever mentioned it in on this forum, that I am both an atheist and agnostic. Now, either stop lying, or go back and read my posts before spouting off inaccuracies.

Additionally, these two things are not mutually exclusive - meaning that you can be both at the same time - which I am. You have not offered any refutation, other than vague problems with semantics - and certainly no logical refutation.

Stop repeating your lies please.

 

[Willamena]

Humans are illogical, the terms aren't. We can be self-contradictory, but the terms remain separate. They each define a different intellectual concept.

The term "mutually exclusive" as I understand it means that if one exists the other cannot. If each term describes an "intellectual concept" what makes them mutually exclusive?

 

[PureX]

Incorrect. I've stated consistently, and repeatedly, in this thread, and every other thread I've ever mentioned it in on this forum, that I am both an atheist and agnostic. Now, either stop lying, or go back and read my posts before spouting off inaccuracies.

Additionally, these two things are not mutually exclusive - meaning that you can be both at the same time - which I am. You have not offered any refutation, other than vague problems with semantics - and certainly no logical refutation.

Stop repeating your lies please.

I'm not going to bother going back and looking this stuff up. If you're so bothered, you do it. I was just reminding you of the path of the conversation, as you seemed to be under the delusion that you had me so befuddled, that I'd lost my way.

I haven't.

I respect that you are both atheist and agnostic, and I understand it, too. I don't know why you'd fight so hard to obscure the terms, though. They mean what they mean. What's the big deal?

I am a bit annoyed by your repeated claims that there is no objective, reasonable evidence for the existence of god. I suppose that's how you see it, but it's simply untrue. There is no proof, but there is evidence. Nor do I give you any credit for intellectual honesty regarding using you presumed lack of evidence as evidence for a given position. There's nothing intellectually honest in that. It's just flat out personal bias.

 

[Willamena]

I am a bit annoyed by your repeated claims that there is no objective, reasonable evidence for the existence of god. I suppose that's how you see it, but it's simply untrue. There is no proof, but there is evidence.

What truly constitutes evidence?

 

[PureX]

The term "mutually exclusive" as I understand it means that if one exists the other cannot. If each term describes an "intellectual concept" what makes them mutually exclusive?

The proposal of the concept. To propose that x exists, and to proposal that x does not exist, are mutually exclusive proposals. Likewise, to propose that we can't/don't know one way or another, is mutually exclusive from proposing that we can and do. The labels refer to people who affirm one of these given proposals. Humans, being what we are, may hold several of these positions at once, regardless of the contradiction, but the terms remain what they are, and mean what they mean. It's up to us, then, to explain the contradictions.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the fact that there is no need for a "creator" god.

 

[PureX]

What truly constitutes evidence?

Good question, for a whole other thread.

Facts, I suppose, that lead us through logic to a specific conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

Facts, I suppose, that lead us to a specific conclusion.

Then if there are no facts yet presented that have lead one to a specific conclusion about "God", isn't it reasonable to say that one is not convinced by any objective evidence (i.e. I do not believe)?

I guess I'm at a loss to understand your disagreement, also.

 

[Willamena]

There is plenty of scientific evidence to support the fact that there is no need for a "creator" god.

Now that's a loaded statement.

Whose "need"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not going to bother going back and looking this stuff up. If you're so bothered, you do it.

Yes, I always do this, in all threads I take part in, to make sure that I am staying on track, being consistent, and addressing all points of the debate. I guess not everyone can be 'bothered' to do this, even when it's been pointed out that they've made false claims. All part of intellectual honesty you see - important to some, not so much to others.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Now that's a loaded statement.

Whose "need"?

Not a "who". The Universe does not "need" a creator god. Everything happens naturally through the change of energy. That is my understanding.