Its the MUST bit I see as wooly. We were only concerned with "does" or "doesn't". Otherwise we are sort of dropping inbetween "does" or "doesnt" and therefore losing the straight clarity we were trying to maintain. The answer we keep returning to is, "don't know". Neither "believer", neither "non believer". — Anti
I'm just trying to say, as clearly and concisely as I can, we agree the answer is "not known". If we reason further and say anything more, we are assuming, whether its "does" "doesnt" matters not because we already established "dont know". Not "doesnt". :) — Anti
We agree...so far.True, same as the rest of us. — Anti
Not even close. There is absolutely no presumption that a "creator exists" in what I wrote.Already, in a slightly clever way making a presumption that "creator exists" — Anti
Sort of true as the statement is a little woolly. — Anti
True.
So it's statement 2 that "suggests" you do, or might do. — Anti
Opps, done it again. Now you assumed there isn't. So an assertion, so in error. Remember, the truth is "don't know". :) — Anti
Nobeernolife
314
Nothing whatever wrong with my reading comprehension.
— Frank Apisa
OK, boomer... — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
313
YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"
Never in million years. Make that a billion years.
— Frank Apisa
As I said, I can not help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems, so please stop trying to argue. — Nobeernolife
Antidote
83
Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? What is the impact on mankind as a whole as all those people who asserted such falseness? If there is a creator, the creator is not going to be best pleased about all that. If you were the creator, how would you feel about that?
You see, responsibility is part and parcel of your actions, so you are responsible for your part in the destruction of the faith. Imagine you convinced someone who had faith that your non sense was true, and as a result of that, they then gave up their faith. I believe it was written, "it would have been better for them if they had not been born." But, if there is a creator, it is acknowledged that such things happen (such is infinite love), and repentance and acknowledgement of such things may undo your damage, well if you were listen to the written record on faith that is.
But of course, your in a bit of a quandary now, because not only have you made an error on "creator DOES NOT exist", you have also denied the only thing that is capable of saving you - faith. Unless of course you do have faith, and the atheist stand is something else?
I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved. — Antidote
Been trying to explain exactly that to Frank Apisa for a whole string of messages now, but it is like talking to a wall.... — Nobeernolife
If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite". — Anti
Antidote
78
Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess
— Frank Apisa
If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite".
As you rightly say, we have to be careful we don't want to fall into error here.
acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess
— Frank Apisa
As stated above, unless your interpretation of "guess" is different from mine. I would say, in the absence of sufficient fact, a "guess" is offered as a "possibility". But you can clearly see, we didn't do that. We were very careful. Please do pull it to pieces if possible, it will help us all. But if you, do, please keep within the rules and within the example so we can all see, and not fall into error of clever misunderstandings or assumptions. — Antidote
Nobeernolife
307
You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do.
— Antidote
No, the burden should not be to prove a negative. How do you come up with this stuff? — Nobeernolife
I don't think it's possible to prove that there is no creator. Or god, or whatever you want to call it.
Proof either way by empirical methods is impossible, and by a priori methods is also impossible.
At least this is what I heard. Don't quote me on this, please. — god must be atheist
Nobeernolife
296
@Frank Apisa:
I can´t help you with your reading comprehension problems, sorry. — Nobeernolife
I am not "ducking" anything, and you might want to stop mind-reading. — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
294
They are NOT nonsensical.
— Frank Apisa
You saying that does not make it so. — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
293
Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable.
— Frank Apisa
Your questions are nonsensical. — Nobeernolife
TheMadFool
5.1k
Prove that they are not the same thing???
Is that what you are asking me to do?
— Frank Apisa
Yes — TheMadFool
If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief. — Pinprick
Nobeernolife
291
So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?
— Frank Apisa
I have no opinion on that, just as I have no opinion on the existence of pink walrusses on Mars.
I simply do not believe the claims made by theists.
So...just to be sure we are on the same page...tell me...do you think it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist...or do you think it is about a 50/50 proposition.
— Frank Apisa
Define "god" first, then I can try to answer.
By the way, I am not a against religion per se. I think non-political, contemplative religions can have a great merit for societies. Just to get that out of the way. — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
290
Here is my comment:
"People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa
I can not generalize about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor", since I personally know only a limited number and I have not seen a large opinion poll about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor".
I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply. — Nobeernolife
TheMadFool
5.1k
What I said was that "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist"...saree two completely different thoughts.
If you assert they say the same thing...you are wrong.
You did assert they were the same. You were wrong.
— Frank Apisa
What do you mean? Prove it to me, if you care. — TheMadFool
Nobeernolife
288
Frank Apisa:
I think we are talking past each other. — Nobeernolife
Pfhorrest
1.5k
What I actually wrote was:
— Frank Apisa
Lots of talk about what the word "god" means...but not about what the word "believe" means.
— Frank Apisa — Pfhorrest
TheMadFool
5.1k
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph...but disagree with these two sentences completely.
You haven't thought this through if you think "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist" is merely word play. They represent two completely different thoughts.
— Frank Apisa
If it's true that x doesn't think god exists it means that for x the proposition "god exists" is not true but that would mean x has to think god doesn't exist unless you're claiming atheists = agnostics. — TheMadFool
Gnostic Christian Bishop
997
The god in the story was an idiot invented by an idiot.
— Frank Apisa
Actually, the reverse is true if you reverse the Christian take of a fall to the original Jewish view of Eden being where man was elevated.
The idiot label belongs to the Christians who reversed the moral of the story. The Jewish version is quite good and elevating to the ego instead of tearing it down the way Christianity did. All while even more stupidly saying that Adam furthered god's plan. — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Nobeernolife
287
Just as a reminder to Frank Apisa et al.... I didn´t think it is necessary on a "philosophy" forum, but here we go. Disbelieving a phantastic claim is NOT the same as believing something: — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
287
People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
— Frank Apisa
No. This is old and tired talking point. Disbelieving a claim is not a belief. — Nobeernolife
Thoughts? — Gnostic Christian Bishop
Nobeernolife
285
I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain.
— TheMadFool
Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence. — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
285
True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.
— Frank Apisa
You want to bring out that old canard? That is just Russels orbiting teapot again. — Nobeernolife
Pfhorrest: In your diagram you make a distinction between "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist". This is mere wordplay. — TheMadFool