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

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that.

But what does that have to do with what I said?

Nothing...that's what.

I did not think it necessary to remind people of that in a Philosophy Forum...but...I guess I had to.

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.

In your diagram you make a distinction between "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist". This is mere wordplay. — TheMadFool

No, this is the crux of the whole issue. To believe to the contrary of something is also to not believe in the thing, but to suspend belief entirely is still to not believe in it, even if you’re not also believing to the contrary.

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

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:
I think we are talking past each other.

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.

Nobeernolife
288
Frank Apisa:
I think we are talking past each other. — Nobeernolife

Okay...so let's stop doing that.

We'll start over again.

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."

You took issue with that. If you still take issue with it, tell me why you do...and make your argument for why you do. I'll defend what I said, because it is true.

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

Prove that they are not the same thing???

Is that what you are asking me to do?

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
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

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?

Okay...unusual, but it could be.

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.

And if either of those are so...why do you choose to use the descriptor "atheist?"

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.

I may ponder:

If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If deities are non-physical entities then deities don't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the conclusion of deities not existing as true or in other words, I believe deities don't exist.

Someone else may ponder that God exists:

Deity exists.
If all entities existing are physical then non-physical entities don't exist.
If the deity in question is a non-physical entity then it doesn't exist.
If I hold the premises to be true then I hold the assertion of deity existing not true or in other words, I don't believe deity exists. — Happenstance

True, but can both be correct, or only one?

I am, because they mean the same thing. To believe something is just to think that it is true, nothing more. — Pfhorrest

Right, but wouldn’t you agree that not all thoughts are beliefs? If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief.

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

I think what we are missing is that beliefs imply the possession of some object. A belief is something you have. If what you “have” is nothing/an empty set then you don’t actually have anything, because there is no thing to possess.

Example:

X doesn’t have any money. This means X has money is false. But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. This sentence is nonsensical. X can’t “have” no money. Rather, X doesn’t have any money. You either have something, or you do not have something, but you can’t have nothing. Nothing/an empty set is impossible to possess, therefore it is impossible to believe that/in.

Right, but wouldn’t you agree that not all thoughts are beliefs? If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief. — Pinprick

I’d say all thoughts to the effect that something exists or not constitute beliefs. There are also thoughts that are not about what does or doesn’t exist, which are not beliefs, but we’re not talking about those here.

I’d say all thoughts to the effect that something exists or not constitute beliefs. There are also thoughts that are not about what does or doesn’t exist, which are not beliefs, but we’re not talking about those here. — Pfhorrest

Ok. What justification can you provide for excluding thoughts about existence?

Prove that they are not the same thing???

Is that what you are asking me to do? — Frank Apisa

Yes

Ok. What justification can you provide for excluding thoughts about existence? — Pinprick

Excluding them from what? I’m not excluding them from beliefs, I’m limiting beliefs to just them. I think you misread me.

I think what we are missing is that beliefs imply the possession of some object. A belief is something you have. If what you “have” is nothing/an empty set then you don’t actually have anything, because there is no thing to possess.

Example:

X doesn’t have any money. This means X has money is false. But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. This sentence is nonsensical. X can’t “have” no money. Rather, X doesn’t have any money. You either have something, or you do not have something, but you can’t have nothing. Nothing/an empty set is impos — Pinprick

I don't know how serious you are about this issue but what I'd like for you to do is distinguish between disbelief in god and belief that god doesn't exist. You seem to be claiming that the former position is atheism; for me the latter is atheism. Also, in your money example, beliefs correspond to "money" and since "god doesn't exist" is a belief, it can be possessed unlike nothing.

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

Fuck religion...and fuck atheism.

Nob...you may be a decent person. No way I can know.

But your arguments seem out of whack.

If you truly call yourself an atheist simply because you do not "believe" the claims of theists...you are a weak person. You also do not "believe" the claims of people who "believe" no gods exist, but you do not call yourself a theist.

Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable. You will be more comfortable than if you challenge that nonsense.

If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief. — Pinprick

The "thought" "no gods exist" is nothing but a blind guess about the reality . Most theists and atheists call their blind guesses..."beliefs." So in a way...the "thought" "no gods exist" IS a "belief."

TheMadFool
5.1k
Prove that they are not the same thing???

Is that what you are asking me to do?
— Frank Apisa

Yes — TheMadFool

Easy enough.

First, here are the statements: "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist,."

Let's try it the easiest way possible. I'd like to see how you react to that.

One is a statement about what John "DOES NOT think exists." It is a negative statement...telling what John does not "think."

The second is a statement about what John "DOES think does not exist."
The condition being assessed is, "god does not exist." It is a positive statement.

In the first rendition, John is negatively assessing it. He is not saying it does not exist...he is saying he does not think it exists. He MAY think it does not exist...but that is not what is being said with the thought. He may also think its opposite...he may think it exists and he may think it does not exist.

In the second rendition, John is expressly saying that he DOES think it does not exist.

The sentence structure sucks...and this can be more easily understood if it were reworded. Essentially what is being said are these two things"

1) Jack "believes" (guesses, supposes) that no gods exist.

2) Jack does not "believe" (guess, suppose) that any gods exist.

The first is like granite...it cannot logically be modified by "Jack also 'believes' the opposite (that gods do exist.)

The second does nothing of the kind. It can easily be said that Jack does not "believe" that any gods exist...AND its opposite...Jack does not "believe" that no gods exist.

He can easily do both at the same time...with the second rendition.

I do. Personally.

I do not "believe" any gods exist.

I also do not "believe" that no gods exist.

There are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them.

There also are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them either.

I do not "believe" no gods exist...AND...I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Not a play on words...or a semantic exercise. Merely stating a truth.

Define "god" first, then I can try to answer. — Nobeernolife

Have you looked into Ignoticism? That seems closer to what you are saying that atheism.

I don't know how serious you are about this issue but what I'd like for you to do is distinguish between disbelief in god and belief that god doesn't exist. You seem to be claiming that the former position is atheism; for me the latter is atheism. Also, in your money example, beliefs correspond to "money" and since "god doesn't exist" is a belief, it can be possessed unlike nothing. — TheMadFool

Disbelief that any Gods exist means that you do not possess the belief that any Gods exist. Belief that no Gods exist means you possess the belief that no Gods exist. My claim is that the latter makes no sense because that is an empty belief, because there is no object for that belief to refer to. Therefore, Atheism cannot be defined as belief that no Gods exist. A belief is an affirmation of a statement, not a negation of it. If you negate the statement, then you also negate the belief. Here is my example explained:

X doesn’t have any money. (X doesn’t have a belief in God)

This means X has money is false. (X believes in God is false).

But this doesn’t mean that X has no money. (Doesn’t imply that X believes no Gods exist)

This sentence is nonsensical.

X can’t “have” no money. (X can’t believe no Gods exist)

Rather, X doesn’t have any money. (X lacks belief that any Gods exist).

You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that. — Frank Apisa

:rofl: :up: Great!

Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable. — Frank Apisa

Your questions are nonsensical.

Have you looked into Ignoticism? That seems closer to what you are saying that atheism. — EricH

Thanks. I did not know that word. But yes, anybody who asks me about belief in god needs to define first what he/she means by god.

Nobeernolife
293
Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable.
— Frank Apisa

Your questions are nonsensical. — Nobeernolife

They are NOT nonsensical.

They show your assertions are baloney...so you have to avoid them.

If you truly use "atheist" as a descriptor...you do suppose there are no gods...or suppose it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

They are NOT nonsensical. — Frank Apisa

You saying that does not make it so.

Nobeernolife
294
They are NOT nonsensical.
— Frank Apisa

You saying that does not make it so. — Nobeernolife

The fact that is IS so...is what makes it so.

You are not ducking my questions because they are nonsensical, Nob. You are ducking them because you are afraid of them for some reason.

Wonder what that is?

You are not ducking my questions because they are nonsensical, Nob. You are ducking them because you are afraid of them for some reason.
Wonder what that is? — Frank Apisa

I am not "ducking" anything, and you might want to stop mind-reading.