Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

[CLAX1911]

Ok, I phrased that wrong. A dictionary was used here as a reference to show how the word is defined. Some people objected.

The dictionary is used to show common usage of terms.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I never claimed atheists are nihilists

What is there to get around?

I was responding to your post which said:

Not believing in gods is still not believing. However you choose to say it, it's the same thing.

I just wanted to remind you that there are some atheists who do more than simply "not believe in gods." They go that step further and acknowledge that they DO BELIEVE that gods do not exist.

There IS a difference between not believing something (that a god exists)...an believing something (that no gods exist.)

 

[Frank Apisa]

You are asserting a lack of evidence to the contrary; that gods are possible because no one has proved them impossible. That Frank, is the definition of a argument from ignorance.

"If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true. Therein lies the fallacy." "Vision and Visual Perception," By Duco A. Schreuder

You are not claiming that it hasnt been done you are claiming that it cannot be done.

How the **** do you know that it is impossible to prove that gods are impossible? Are you all knowing?

Prove that it cannot be done. Prove that gods cannot be proved as being impossible. The burden of proof is yours. Either provide proof or just admit that you do not actaully know that gods are possible; that you just really do not know one way or the other.

I am NOT making an argument from ignorance, Freedom.

I am simply calling to your attention that anything that is not established as impossible...is possible. There is plenty of evidence that is true...and all of logic shows it to be true.

It is possible that gods exist. It is also possible that no gods exist.

Just the way it is.

 

[CLAX1911]

I was responding to your post which said:



I just wanted to remind you that there are some atheists who do more than simply "not believe in gods." They go that step further and acknowledge that they DO BELIEVE that gods do not exist.

It's a redundant point. If you don't believe in gods that really says the same thing. The only distinction you are making is that you aren't agnostic. But it's still all atheism.

I understand what you are saying it's just not relevant argumentatively speaking. Unless of course the discussion is the current between atheists that are agnostic and those that aren't.

There IS a difference between not believing something (that a god exists)...an believing something (that no gods exist.)

You are welcome to explain the difference any time you wish. To me it appears you are just putting the phrase in different wording. It doesn't change the meaning.

But since this is such a very important point for you to make, I'll read further if you want to explain any nuance I'm missing.

 

[Frank Apisa]

It's a redundant point. If you don't believe in gods that really says the same thing.

It is not the same thing...and it is an essential to the difference between strong and weak atheism.

The only distinction you are making is that you aren't agnostic.

What???

But it's still all atheism.

Yeah it is. And my remark makes an appropriate statement about that statement of yours.

I understand what you are saying it's just not relevant argumentatively speaking. Unless of course the discussion is the current between atheists that are agnostic and those that aren't.

If you do not think it relevant...fine. Please accept that I DO think it relevant...so I posted it.

You are welcome to explain the difference any time you wish. To me it appears you are just putting the phrase in different wording. It doesn't change the meaning.

But since this is such a very important point for you to make, I'll read further if you want to explain any nuance I'm missing.

Clax...I am not sure what you are asking me to explain. I've already explained the (SIGNIFICANT) difference between "I do not believe any gods exist" and "I believe no gods exist." The former is not a belief...the latter IS.

This is a point that has been discussed at length here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...s-exist-and-do-not-believe-there-no-gods.html

 

[CLAX1911]

It is not the same thing...and it is an essential to the difference between strong and weak atheism.

I invite you to explain how it isn't.

What???

The only distinction you are making is that you aren't agnostic.

Yeah it is. And my remark makes an appropriate statement about that statement of yours.

How does this help make your point?

If you do not think it relevant...fine. Please accept that I DO think it relevant...so I posted it.

No, because it's irrelevant regardless of what you think.

Clax...I am not sure what you are asking me to explain. I've already explained the (SIGNIFICANT) difference between "I do not believe any gods exist" and "I believe no gods exist." The former is not a belief...the latter IS.

They are both the same. It's like me saying that I don't drink milk or that I drink no milk. It means the same exact thing.
If you believe in nothing that means you don't believe in anything. You ate just switching where the negative is but your making the same statement.

This is a point that has been discussed at length here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...s-exist-and-do-not-believe-there-no-gods.html

To wit I answered, not believing is not believing regardless of how you phrase it.

Unless you think a "no gods" is something.

 

[calamity]

The dictionary is used to show common usage of terms.

Odd then that they bother writing the pronunciation and definitions of words. :roll:

 

[CLAX1911]

Odd then that they bother writing the pronunciation and definitions of words. :roll:

why is it odd? How would you know what word goes with what definition if they didn't?

 

[CLAX1911]

It is not the same thing...and it is an essential to the difference between strong and weak atheism.



What???



Yeah it is. And my remark makes an appropriate statement about that statement of yours.





If you do not think it relevant...fine. Please accept that I DO think it relevant...so I posted it.




Clax...I am not sure what you are asking me to explain. I've already explained the (SIGNIFICANT) difference between "I do not believe any gods exist" and "I believe no gods exist." The former is not a belief...the latter IS.

This is a point that has been discussed at length here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...s-exist-and-do-not-believe-there-no-gods.html

I don't drink any milk. I drink no milk. It's different because one is drinking and the other is not drinking.

:lamo

 

[Frank Apisa]

I invite you to explain how it isn't.

So you want me to explain how "doing something" is different from "not doing something?"

Wow.

The only distinction you are making is that you aren't agnostic.

What????

How does this help make your point?

Posting the remark was the ONLY was I could make my point.

No, because it's irrelevant regardless of what you think.

It is NOT irrelevant no matter what you think.

They are both the same.

They very definitely are NOT the same.

It's like me saying that I don't drink milk or that I drink no milk. It means the same exact thing.

It is not the same as that.

If you believe in nothing that means you don't believe in anything. You ate just switching where the negative is but your making the same statement.

It is not the same as that either.

To wit I answered, not believing is not believing regardless of how you phrase it.

So you are saying that when a person says, "I BELIEVE there are no gods"...that person is not expressing a belief???

C'mon, Clax.

Unless you think a "no gods" is something.

If a person says, "I believe there are no gods"...the person IS expressing a belief.

Let me ask you this: Do you acknowledge that some atheists call themselves "strong atheists" and some call themselves "weak atheists?" (And do you know the difference between the two?)

 

[calamity]

why is it odd? How would you know what word goes with what definition if they didn't?

I was being sarcastic. Of course the dictionary shows us the commonly accepted definition of words. Saying otherwise is absurd.

 

[calamity]

dic·tion·ar·y
ˈdikSHəˌnerē/
noun
a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.
"I'll look up ‘love’ in the dictionary"
synonyms: lexicon, wordbook, word list, glossary; thesaurus
"if they don't understand what a word means, then they can look it up in the dictionary"
a reference work on a particular subject, the items of which are typically arranged in alphabetical order.
"a dictionary of quotations"
COMPUTING
a set of words or other text strings made for use in applications such as spelling checkers.
"the worm attempts to crack account passwords using a built-in dictionary"

 

[CLAX1911]

So you want me to explain how "doing something" is different from "not doing something?"

Wow.




What????




Posting the remark was the ONLY was I could make my point.





It is NOT irrelevant no matter what you think.





They very definitely are NOT the same.





It is not the same as that.






It is not the same as that either.



So you are saying that when a person says, "I BELIEVE there are no gods"...that person is not expressing a belief???

C'mon, Clax.





If a person says, "I believe there are no gods"...the person IS expressing a belief.

Let me ask you this: Do you acknowledge that some atheists call themselves "strong atheists" and some call themselves "weak atheists?" (And do you know the difference between the two?)

Okay let's try this again.

I DRINK No milk. But that's different from saying I don't drink any milk. Because well one is drinking and the other is not right?

But if you don't get this, I'll try something else. So you believe "there is no gods" correct?

So what is a "there is no gods" since thus is something you believe in? "No gods" isn't something in the language I speak. It's nothing.

 

[CLAX1911]

I was being sarcastic. Of course the dictionary shows us the commonly accepted definition of words. Saying otherwise is absurd.

That is why I didn't say otherwise.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Okay let's try this again.

I DRINK No milk. But that's different from saying I don't drink any milk. Because well one is drinking and the other is not right?

But if you don't get this, I'll try something else. So you believe "there is no gods" correct?

So what is a "there is no gods" since thus is something you believe in? "No gods" isn't something in the language I speak. It's nothing.

Forget about the milk. I do not care whether you drink it or not...but it does impact in any way on what I have been saying.

You are essentially saying that when a person says, "I BELIEVE there are no gods"...that person is not expressing a belief???

It makes no sense, Clax.

Deal with that.

And deal with the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism.

 

[CLAX1911]

Forget about the milk. I do not care whether you drink it or not...but it does impact in any way on what I have been saying.

Switch the noun and the verb out and its exactly what you are saying.

You are essentially saying that when a person says, "I BELIEVE there are no gods"...that person is not expressing a belief???

Well that would depend. Is no gods something? Or is it nothing? Just like somebody saying "I drink no milk." It's saying what they don't drink, unless there is a beverage called "no milk."

It's simple English.

It makes no sense, Clax.

I know, that's what I've been trying to tell you. Belief in no gods is the same thing is not believing in any gods. It's just two different ways of saying the same thing

Deal with that.

And deal with the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism.

Atheism is a superlative. Nobody can be "more" atheist than somebody else. Phrasing your statement awkwardly wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Switch the noun and the verb out and its exactly what you are saying.

Well that would depend. Is no gods something? Or is it nothing? Just like somebody saying "I drink no milk." It's saying what they don't drink, unless there is a beverage called "no milk."

It's simple English.

I know, that's what I've been trying to tell you. Belief in no gods is the same thing is not believing in any gods. It's just two different ways of saying the same thing

Atheism is a superlative. Nobody can be "more" atheist than somebody else. Phrasing your statement awkwardly wouldn't make a difference.

I understand you are having trouble comprehending the difference between "I believe..." and "I do not believe...," Clax. I suggest you try to approach it from the standpoint of the difference between "strong atheism" and "weak atheism."

 

[CLAX1911]

I understand you are having trouble comprehending the difference between "I believe..." and "I do not believe...,"

I love how you conveniently dropped off the rest of those statements. Seems like you're attempting to his the fact that you have eaten your foot.

I have explained this the simplest way possible and it really seemed to get under your skin.

I drink no milk, isn't a statement about drinking anything. Just like I believe in no gods isn't a statement about believing anything. I remember you winning and crying about it being different but completely and utterly failing to explain how it's different. Than you make personal attacks on me because I pointed out that there is no difference.

How petty.

Clax. I suggest you try to approach it from the standpoint of the difference between "strong atheism" and "weak atheism."

Imaginary concept. Atheism didn't exist in degrees. An agnostic person is 100% as atheist as a nihilist is.

 

[CLAX1911]

Duplicate post

 

[Manny]

Forget about the milk. I do not care whether you drink it or not...

Evidently he does not understand that if one drinks no milk, one must be drinking something else. But in the end, still drinking...

 

[Ikari]

So because a theory depicts we can't measure particles precisely, that is reason enough to get people to assume quantum fluctuations didn't need a prior event to ensure these fluctuations existence?

Can't even measure energy correctly. But yes, in fact vacuum fluctuations occur now, it's how we get the Lamb Shift. So we know that they do occur. It is possible for one to create the universe, and if one did it would look very similar to our current universe.

 

[Cephus]

Yet lacks complete definitions. Hence why I called it a lexicon. Or the layman lacks the knowledge of its more complex or esoteric meanings

Which, in either case, is still problematic. The whole purpose of language is to facilitate clear and concise communication. If you're using words incorrectly, you cannot do that.

 

[CLAX1911]

Which, in either case, is still problematic. The whole purpose of language is to facilitate clear and concise communication. If you're using words incorrectly, you cannot do that.

However if you are using words correctly but using an esoteric definition others may not understand.

 

[Cephus]

However if you are using words correctly but using an esoteric definition others may not understand.

And how do they come to that understanding? If they don't know what you're saying, no matter what excuse you give, you are not communicating clearly.

 

[CLAX1911]

And how do they come to that understanding?

Study of root language, having others explain the deeper meanings of words to them such as professors and scholars. Reading manuals and such.

If they don't know what you're saying, no matter what excuse you give, you are not communicating clearly.

not necessarily. It is the deliveror's job to judge the competency of his audience and not speak above their head. The clarity is not being muddied by the person that knows what they are talking about.