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

You are ducking my questions...and attempting to "justify" ducking them by calling them nonsensical. Don't bother to justify...just duck 'em.

For anyone wondering what this bullshit between Nob and I is all about:

I originally wrote: "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."

Nob replied with: "I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply."

So to be sure I understood him/her, I asked: " 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?"

Apparently Nob realized he was in over his head, and characterized the question as "nonsensical."

Now you are up-to-date.

@Frank Apisa:
I can´t help you with your reading comprehension problems, sorry.

Nobeernolife
296
@Frank Apisa:
I can´t help you with your reading comprehension problems, sorry. — Nobeernolife

I do not have a reading comprehension problem.

Are you really going this far to justify your ducking my question?

Jeez

It is, that there is no God.

Miguelandmartin
2
It is, that there is no God. — Miguelandmartin

What is?

What is the "it?"

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

I’m asking why thoughts about existence must be beliefs. Why do those types of thoughts warrant the designation of “beliefs” when others do not?

My essential question of what the criteria is for beliefs remains unanswered as best I can tell. If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” The definition of Atheism everyone seems to be pushing is a claim that something is not true (the EOG). Therefore, that claim cannot be a belief.

Pinprick
43
My essential question of what the criteria is for beliefs remains unanswered as best I can tell. If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” The definition of Atheism everyone seems to be pushing is a claim that something is not true (the EOG). Therefore, that claim cannot be a belief. — Pinprick

Why are atheists like this? Why do they buy into their own bullshit?

Okay…let us say it is not bullshit and that an atheist is someone who “simply does not ‘believe” that at least one god exists.”

But everyone should be able to agree that there are SOME PEOPLE who “believe” there are no gods…or who “believe” it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are none.

And, with not too much trouble, we should be able to agree that MOST of those people identify themselves as “atheists.”

Now the last step is not asking for agreement with a proposition, but rather, it involves making an estimate. And as with most estimates, it will almost certainly involve a range.

Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods…

…and what percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” figure it is, at best, a 50/50 chance that at least one god exists versus no gods exist?

Any takers?

How about you, Pinprick?

If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” — Pinprick

"I think it is true that X is not true." How about that.

Why are atheists like this? Why do they buy into their own bullshit? — Frank Apisa

It's not a question of buying into anything. It is a question of not buying into some other type of bullshit.

Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods… — Frank Apisa

I'm 28 percent the former, and 59 percent the latter.

The rest of the missing percentages are due to rounding.

2k
Here is the matter upon which we need an estimate: What percentage of the people who identify as “atheist” are part of the group who “believe there are no gods” or “believe it is more likely that there are no gods…
— Frank Apisa

I'm 28 percent the former, and 59 percent the latter.

The rest of the missing percentages are due to rounding. — god must be atheist

Okay...so you are close to 100% one or the other.

I expect that EVERY person who uses atheist as his/her descriptor (or part of his/her descriptor) will be close to 100% also.

My point is that even if one uses the "an atheist is someone who lacks a "belief" in any gods"...the actual reason they use "atheist" as a descriptor...has to do with that close to 100%.

I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods. I am not part of the group who "believes there are no gods or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods." My percentage is ZERO. I do NOT use atheist.

The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT.

Okay...so you are close to 100% one or the other. — Frank Apisa

Your math is incorrect. Aside from that, my percentages change daily.

This quote is so "begging the question" or "begging the answer." I said something that is not what you stated later I said; and you took your own answer erroneously as truly what I had said.

You can convince yourself this way very easily, but your fallacious thinking and mechanism of putting together an argument is very apparent.

"I think it is true that X is not true." How about that. — god must be atheist

Ok, then belief is defined as something you either think is or isn’t true?

I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods...
The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT. — Frank Apisa

Did you just assert that your position is firmly planted on BULLSHIT?

You did say (see quote, please) that the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT,
and you did say that you lack a belief in all possible cases of gods' existence.

I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods...
The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT.
— Frank Apisa

Did you just assert that your position is firmly planted on BULLSHIT?

You did say (see quote, please) that the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT,
and you did say that you lack a belief in all possible cases of gods' existence. — god must be atheist

:rofl: :clap:

Three possibilities: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism

1. X thinks god exists = theist (neither atheist nor agnostic)

2. X doesn't think god exists = not theist (either agnostic or atheist)

3. X thinks god doesn't exist = atheist (neither theist nor agnostic)

4. X thinks god may/may not exist = agnostic (not theist and not atheist)

5. X doesn't think god may/may not exist = not agnostic (either theist or atheist)

If X adopts position 1 then he is a theist. If X adopts position 2 (doesn't think god exists) then X is either an agnostic or an atheist and if X adopts position 3 (thinks god doesn't exist) then he's an atheist. The probable reason why I called it out as "word play" is because Pfhorrest lumps both 2 and 3 under the athetist banner when it actually includes agnostics too.

Thanks.

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). — Pinprick

You mean to say that it doesn't make sense to say something like "I have NOTHING" since NOTHING is, by definition, not anything and so can't be had or possessed.

You're right but where I think you err is in conflating what to me seems like a phraseology "I have nothing" with its meaning. When someone says "I have no money" fae means fae doesn't have money and not that "no money" is "some money" and that fae possesses that amount.

Likewise, when someone believes that "no god exists" it doesn't mean that there exists such a thing as no god. All that that someone means is that god doesn't exist.

My depiction of your answer is spot on. You said you are partly "there are no gods" and partly "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...and that is what I said. You ARE close to 100% there. (You said 28% and 59% which totals 87% which is close to 100%)

THAT is the reason you use "atheist" as a descriptor.

180 Proof
821
I lack a "belief" in any gods. I also lack a "belief" that there are no gods...
The notion that the reason one uses atheist is because of the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT.
— Frank Apisa

Did you just assert that your position is firmly planted on BULLSHIT? — 180 Proof

No, I did not. Anyone who can read with comprehension would not even ask such a foolish question.

You did say (see quote, please) that the lack of belief is almost certainly BULLSHIT,

No, I did not. Anyone who can read with comprehension would not even ask such a foolish question.

TheMadFool
5.1k
↪Frank Apisa

Three possibilities: Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism

1. X thinks god exists = theist (neither atheist nor agnostic)

2. X doesn't think god exists = not theist (either agnostic or atheist)

3. X thinks god doesn't exist = atheist (neither theist nor agnostic)

4. X thinks god may/may not exist = agnostic (not theist and not atheist)

5. X doesn't think god may/may not exist = not agnostic (either theist or atheist)

If X adopts position 1 then he is a theist. If X adopts position 2 (doesn't think god exists) then X is either an agnostic or an atheist and if X adopts position 3 (thinks god doesn't exist) then he's an atheist. The probable reason why I called it out as "word play" is because Pfhorrest lumps both 2 and 3 under the athetist banner when it actually includes agnostics too. — TheMadFool

I understand. But I disagree with Pforrest on much of what he asserts...and I certainly disagree with his (and many atheists) putting agnostics in the same category as atheists. Fact is, a better case can be made that atheists are more related to theists than agnostics, because both atheists and theists do "believing" (although in opposite directions)...and agnostics, for the most part do not.

:ok:

You mean to say that it doesn't make sense to say something like "I have NOTHING" since NOTHING is, by definition, not anything and so can't be had or possessed.

You're right but where I think you err is in conflating what to me seems like a phraseology "I have nothing" with its meaning. When someone says "I have no money" fae means fae doesn't have money and not that "no money" is "some money" and that fae possesses that amount.

Likewise, when someone believes that "no god exists" it doesn't mean that there exists such a thing as no god. All that that someone means is that god doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Therefore, they do not actually believe, they just phrase it that way. Right? Also, I don’t think it’s an error to expect people to say what they mean. If “I have nothing” actually means “I don’t have anything,” then that is what should be stated. Likewise for “I believe that no Gods exist” and “I don’t believe any Gods exist.”

Therefore, they do not actually believe, they just phrase it that way. Right? Also, I don’t think it’s an error to expect people to say what they mean. If “I have nothing” actually means “I don’t have anything,” then that is what should be stated. Likewise for “I believe that no Gods exist” and “I don’t believe any Gods exist.” — Pinprick

Agreed. I think the confusion here can be chalked up to the difficulty in understanding nothing and also linguistic convenience: the ease of saying "I have nothing" instead of the longer sentence "I don't have anything" indicates, in line with your thoughts on the matter, what could be a fundamental misunderstanding of nothingness.

My essential question of what the criteria is for beliefs remains unanswered as best I can tell. If a belief is “to think something is true,” then a belief cannot be “to think something is not true.” The definition of Atheism everyone seems to be pushing is a claim that something is not true (the EOG). Therefore, that claim cannot be a belief. — Pinprick

This is a misconception. It is not to think something is TRUE or NOT. It is only to make the claim that something IS. It is like the misconception around natural selection and artificial selection when arguing with Christians: the mechanism is "selection" artificial or natural is irrelevant.

4. X thinks god may/may not exist = agnostic (not theist and not atheist) — TheMadFool

Yah, that is not what an agnostic is. Literally: No gnosis/No "knowledge of spiritual mysteries". This includes both the claims to knowledge for or against the existence of any god or gods. In other words prove your claims or shut up, as defined by the person who coined the term Thomas Huxley.

This is a misconception. It is not to think something is TRUE or NOT. It is only to make the claim that something IS. — SonOfAGun

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief? To me, saying that something “is” implies that it exists. If you mean something different than that, please explain.

:up:

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief? To me, saying that something “is” implies that it exists. If you mean something different than that, please explain. — Pinprick

Yes, truth is irrelevant to the criteria of belief. One can believe something that is objectively false if they are absent the requisite facts needed to "know", and sometimes people can even believe the opposite in spite of knowing the facts, or they can even lack the capacity to fully comprehend the facts.

Truth statement/claim: God IS not real
Truth statement/claim: God IS real

^^^They cannot both be true. Facts are required to settle the mater. Yet none that can settle the mater currently exist.

As opposed to a Claim of uncertainty for instance.

God may not be real
God may be real

Or a claim to knowledge

I don't know that god is real
I don't know that god is not real
I know that god is not real
I know that god is real

For both the knowledge claim and the truth claim, facts and reason are required to claim objective truth, because facts and reason rule the domain of objectivity.

If you stick to subjectivity anything is fine. The problem comes when you claim that you know what is true for other people as well.