Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does? — Frank Apisa
I suspect that... — Frank Apisa
I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
767
↪Frank Apisa Is it that you simply can't or stubbornly won't answer the actual question (with a reason, or reasons, (a) thru (h)) which I've asked? — 180 Proof
CeleRate
37
Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
— Frank Apisa
Clarifying questions are great.
I suspect that...
— Frank Apisa
It may be true. It seems irrelevant if you've gone through the step of clarifying what the other party means, but okay.
I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist.
— Frank Apisa
Okay. You don't call yourself an atheist. What is the contention? Other people describe your position as that of an atheist? If you say, "well, you use that term, but I don't think it appropriately represents my position". What else is there to do? Sticks and stones will break my bones?
You raised a point that the etymology of the word atheist differed from some of the current usage with respect to lack of belief. Some people responded by pointing out that usages change over time. That premise is either true or false. Is it true that word usages change over time?
The movie Back to the Future made fun of this point when Marty Mcfly called serious matters, "heavy", and Doc responded with, "Is there a problem with Earth's gravitational pull in the future? Why is everything so heavy?" — CeleRate
CeleRate
37
Do you "believe" (guess, estimate, suppose) that no gods exist...or that it is MUCH MORE likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?
— Frank Apisa
Clarifying questions are great.
I suspect that...
— Frank Apisa
It may be true. It seems irrelevant if you've gone through the step of clarifying what the other party means, but okay.
I lack a "belief" that any gods exist...and I refuse to be described as an atheist.
— Frank Apisa
Okay. You don't call yourself an atheist. — CeleRate
What is the contention? Other people describe your position as that of an atheist? If you say, "well, you use that term, but I don't think it appropriately represents my position". What else is there to do? Sticks and stones will break my bones? — CeleRate
You raised a point that the etymology of the word atheist differed from some of the current usage with respect to lack of belief. Some people responded by pointing out that usages change over time. That premise is either true or false. Is it true that word usages change over time? — CeleRate
Is there anyone here who uses “atheist” as a descriptor or part of a descriptor…who falls outside of that parameter? I’d love to discuss the issue with anyone who does. — Frank Apisa
Bottom line…I personally have never met a person who uses the word atheist as a descriptor (or part of a descriptor) who does not either “believe” (guess, estimate, suppose) that there are no gods… — Frank Apisa
For me, the word "God" derives its meaning entirely from its lived social context. — Dawnstorm
And if you have to understand what it is that doesn't exist when you say "God doesn't exist," I can't be an atheist. — Dawnstorm
I worry that this amounts mostly to meaningless babble, but I'm not sure I can do better — Dawnstorm
Im not really sure what you mean by most of that, but it has a dismissive tone to it — DingoJones
My daily life experience back when I self-identified as an agnostic was that it was still easier to call myself an atheist, because not everyone the term "agnostic". — Dawnstorm
How about if someone says "unicorns don't exist". Would one be unable to not believe in unicorns if one understood (maybe even imagining renditions seen) what is meant by the question? Or, is there a different point I missed? — CeleRate
However, I'm not sure I understand what distinction you were alluding to in the comparison of the two propositions "God exists," and "God doesn't exist". Thanks
Options — CeleRate
thing-first concept. — Dawnstorm
word-first concept — Dawnstorm
The concept never reaches a high enough epistemic level within the confines of my world view — Dawnstorm
world views other than your own are only available via interpretation through the lense of your own, and how much - if anything - of human worldviews are human universals isn't clear — Dawnstorm
I've never come to clear understanding on this myself, so I'm really struggling to put intution into words. — Dawnstorm
I don't see why it's any easier. On the contrary. Thomas Huxley invented the term agnostic because he was tired of being mistaken for an atheist. He had to continually clarify that he had no proof that God doesn't exist. So he invented the term agnostic to make it clear that he also had no proof that God exists, so he abstained. — David Mo
So the hard atheist and the hard theist have at least a 50% chance of being correct. — Frank Apisa
CeleRate
43
So the hard atheist and the hard theist have at least a 50% chance of being correct.
— Frank Apisa
I'd like to press this line of reasoning a bit to see if there are conditions where you would differ. Is a 50% chance of being correct true of any theistic claim? — CeleRate
Would that then mean that the chances are 50/50 for the existence of Yahweh, Allah, Thor, Loki, Vishnu, Shiva, Amaterasu, etc? — CeleRate
What would be the reasoning to reject a person's claim of committing an evil act because the devil made him do it? Could you reject such a claim if it is just as likely to be true as untrue? — CeleRate
Finally, should we then treat non-theistic claims of the existence of ghosts, spirits, or other metaphysical phenomena as just as likely to exist as not exist?
for instance is, "Is there a $10 bill in this (unopened) envelope or not?"...the answer is either YES or NO. It cannot be both. — Frank Apisa
Set up the P1 and P2 that logically leads to a C of: Therefore there are no evil spirits that can influence what any human does. — Frank Apisa
Are you supposing that humans (Homo sapiens) at our stage of evolution are able to know everything about what does and what does not exist in the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa
CeleRate
45
for instance is, "Is there a $10 bill in this (unopened) envelope or not?"...the answer is either YES or NO. It cannot be both.
— Frank Apisa
A couple of comments. One, the claim of a $10 bill in an envelope can be investigated. The claim could then be "proven" true or false. Two, the claim regarding the bill is a mundane claim. The evidence confirming or disconfirming would be ordinary. — CeleRate
Set up the P1 and P2 that logically leads to a C of: Therefore there are no evil spirits that can influence what any human does.
— Frank Apisa
I agree. I don't know how to inductively or deductively establish the truth for the presence or absence of a deity. — CeleRate
Are you supposing that humans (Homo sapiens) at our stage of evolution are able to know everything about what does and what does not exist in the REALITY of existence?
— Frank Apisa
I have no issue claiming ignorance on any topic. But if ignorance about the specifics, or even the fact that we can't know anything with certainty, means that we can't know anything, or can't make reasonable inferences with respect to probability, then it seems like we have to throw our hands up and say that there's no good reason to have an opinion about any unsubstantiated claim. — CeleRate
How so? In what ways?↪180 Proof Your question was an absurdity...poorly conceived and poorly constructed. — Frank Apisa
Such as?It is a jumble...makes unwarranted assumptions with which I am not comfortable...
Thanks.I hope you enjoy the rest of your day also.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.