Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
What?
It's a non-belief, and for reasons I explained in my last post. To call this a belief is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.
Theology Question
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
What?
It's a non-belief, and for reasons I explained in my last post. To call this a belief is like calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
There is nothing in reality to suggest that theism is an appropriate response to reality. I'm an atheist for the same reason that I don't believe there's a dragon in my basement.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
As I've explained multiple times, atheism and theism are not equal approaches to reality. Atheism is an observation of reality without rose-tinted glasses on. We live in mechanistic, mindless universe governed by randomness and chance. There is absolutely zero evidence for theism, which means that atheism is the logical, default position to take.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You're free to call it rainbows and unicorns, but the fact remains you have no evidence you are correct. No one does either way. That's why "I don't know" is the most logical answer. You're free to say your opinion, your belief, but calling it something else to imply you are being factual is just a fancy way of lying....or fooling yourself.
Into Тhe Night
Banned Spoof Account
I don't need evidence. Atheism is the default position. The person claiming that something exists is the one who needs to provide evidence. If I tell you that I'll bet you a hundred dollars on something, you'd probably want to see the money first. Right?
I've already explained this several times. Atheism is the default position. Theism is not a logical position, and it certainly isn't equal to atheism in terms of "chances of being right." It's not a 50/50 chance of one or the other being true. Atheism really is the truth and theism is the product of highly evolved apes who want to believe in a parental figure in the sky.
It seems we're boring each other.
I do not give a rat's ass WHY you call yourself an atheist. If you are doing it just because some of the dictionaries define it as "someone without a belief in a God"...it is a punk move. I do not allow dictionaries to define me.
And no matter WHY you use atheist...my comment was that it involves "belief."
Either you "believe" there are no gods...or you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Do you deny that to be the case?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Disagreed. Agnosticism is the default position. Atheism is the opposite of theism and equally illogical.
Bullshit.
The logical default position should be, "Therefore I do not know if any gods exist or not."
That is an agnostic position...not an atheistic position.
You are not boring me...you are making me laugh.
Atheism is NOT the logical default position. The logical default position is agnosticism.
And thank you for confirming that you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
For the record from Merriam-Webster:
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Theist - a believer in theism : a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : one who believes in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Theist - a believer in theism : a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods
specifically : one who believes in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race
IBDaMann
Well-known member
No, Terry. It is the most EVASIVE answer because it has nothing to do with what you believe. If the question is what you believe, then you explain why you are convinced of what you believe. If you are not convinced of something then you obviously don't believe it.
If you "don't know" whether you believe something then you aren't yet convinced of it.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Merriam Webster correctly identifies three different actual usages, two of them being mistaken usages of course, but those erroneous usages do occur, yes.
Tinkerpeach
New member
Nobody is born with a complete knowledge of everything you know.
I don’t know how to do calculus but I believe that those problems have answers
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Correct. Proof you are saner than Sybil. Kudos, Stretch!
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Any guesses on whose sock that is? He always shows up when things get dicey.You are not boring me...you are making me laugh.
Atheism is NOT the logical default position. The logical default position is agnosticism.
And thank you for confirming that you "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
Personally, except a mods with a single alter ego account, I think anyone who uses socks are dishonest and often cowardly….or nuts:
QED
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
I have to go with America on this one. A non-belief is not really a belief. It may be incorrect to NOT believe in something but that doesn't make it a belief itself.
I do not believe in Thymorgitron. Is it because I BELIEVE there is no Thymorgitron?
The reason I made up a word there is to prove the point that "God" is not dissimilar. Someone made up God at one point and told others that God exists and enough people said "Yeah, sure" that ultimately it becomes a "thing" that we have to decide whether it exists or not. Failing to believe in this made up concept does not necessarily stand as a "belief" but rather a lack of belief.
Just like Thymorgitron. (Now that I have introduced Thymorgitron you must decide whether you believe Thymorgitron exists or doesn't exist. Prior to this point you didn't believe in Thymorgitron because it wasn't a "thing" in your sphere. Now it is. Do you only BELIEVE Thymorgitron doesn't exist?
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Actually in inferential statistics the default position is the "null hypothesis".
If I were to test for the existence of God using inference (as scientists do) I start with the null hypothesis "There is no God" and test against that. That is how drugs are tested. You start with the null hypothesis "There is no effect from this drug" and test against that.
You can either reject the null or fail to reject the null.
I see your point that "I don't know" is a good default position, but that isn't really agnosticism. Agnosticism is technically the belief that the question can NEVER be answered.
As for "default" positions, yes one can probably default to "I don't know" but being more scientific the approach of testing against the null is probably more robust.
I use it every day personally. I always take the null hypothesis that there is no invisible wall across the interstate when I drive. That is how I can keep my foot on the gas and driving at 60mph even though if I were to crash into an invisible wall I would surely be destroyed. I have take the true default position: failing to any evidence I am unable to reject the null hypothesis.
This does NOT mean I am correct. Indeed there could be a God or an invisible wall etc. and I will be disastrously wrong.. But as Bertrand Russel is apocryphally thought to have said if he found there was a god "I'm terribly sorry, but you didn't give us enough information".
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
By his own logic, if a person says “There’s nothing behind that door”, then it’s up to them to prove it just like he demands someone to prove a claim “there is something behind the door”. The logical answer is “I don’t know what’s behind that door”.
Saint Guinefort
Verified User
Let's make the example more concrete: "There is no cow behind that door".
Prior to anyone even suggesting there might be a cow behind the door, do you approach every closed door thinking: "I wonder if there is a cow behind this door"? Probably not. As such you don't believe there is a cow behind every single unopened door just waiting to be proven or disproven.
Is it merely a belief of yours that there are not cows behind every unopened door you see?
Tinkerpeach
New member
It’s the Scrodingers Cat experiment