I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe there are no gods.

At first glance, it seems as though the title is inconsistent and illogical.

But it isn't...and it accurately states my position on the question of whether a god or a creator exists.


Is there anyone here who cannot see it...who thinks the title is illogical?

It matters...and impacts on something being discussed in Calamity's thread, Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

Cool story bro.

Frank Apisa said:

At first glance, it seems as though the title is inconsistent and illogical.

But it isn't...and it accurately states my position on the question of whether a god or a creator exists.

Is there anyone here who cannot see it...who thinks the title is illogical?

Click to expand...

I still say it is just a play on words, to say you "do not believe Gods exist" and "do not believe there are no Gods" suggests simply contradiction. BTW, a translation of "do not believe there are no Gods" is "believe that there are Gods." Again, more words games to avoid that conflict. You should not be putting forth the notion of lack of belief that something exists, then turn around and claim a belief that it cannot exist.

What you should be saying is we cannot know for sure that there are or are not God or Gods, and in doing so making yourself agnostic in every practical sense. It is not about believing or not, simply saying as a conclusion that we cannot know. Or, about the realization of human limitations in the sense of proving there are or are not God or Gods.

But when you say you do not believe in one context and believe in another, you engage in the mechanisms of belief or lack of belief at the same time. It is illogical no matter how many threads we have on a contradictory statement.

You might as well say you do not believe unicorns exist, and do not believe there are not unicorns.

OrphanSlug said:

I still say it is just a play on words, to say you "do not believe Gods exist" and "do not believe there are no Gods" suggests simply contradiction. BTW, a translation of "do not believe there are no Gods" is "believe that there are Gods." Again, more words games to avoid that conflict. You should not be putting forth the notion of lack of belief that something exists, then turn around and claim a belief that it cannot exist.

What you should be saying is we cannot know for sure that there are or are not God or Gods, and in doing so making yourself agnostic in every practical sense. It is not about believing or not, simply saying as a conclusion that we cannot know. Or, about the realization of human limitations in the sense of proving there are or are not God or Gods.

But when you say you do not believe in one context and believe in another, you engage in the mechanisms of belief or lack of belief at the same time. It is illogical no matter how many threads we have on a contradictory statement.

You might as well say you do not believe unicorns exist, and do not believe there are not unicorns.

Click to expand...

It's not a play on words. It's just being accurate.

Imagine a jar full of gumballs that you have no information about.

I ask you if you believe that the number of gumballs is odd. You say "I don't believe it's odd."

I then say "Oh so you believe it's even" and you say "I don't believe it's even."

The two things being discussed (Do you believe god exists and do you believe that no gods exist) are two completely different claims.

The title just strikes me as an attempt at smartassery.

Arrogant.

roughdraft274 said:

It's not a play on words. It's just being accurate.

Imagine a jar full of gumballs that you have no information about.

I ask you if you believe that the number of gumballs is odd. You say "I don't believe it's odd."

I then say "Oh so you believe it's even" and you say "I don't believe it's even."

The two things being discussed (Do you believe god exists and do you believe that no gods exist) are two completely different claims.

Click to expand...

Yep. One can answer no to both even & odd questions without being inconsistent. Likewise, one answer no to both: Do you believe there are gods and Do you believe there are no gods?

Ikari said:

Cool story bro.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Ikari.

OrphanSlug said:

I still say it is just a play on words, to say you "do not believe Gods exist" and "do not believe there are no Gods" suggests simply contradiction. BTW, a translation of "do not believe there are no Gods" is "believe that there are Gods." Again, more words games to avoid that conflict. You should not be putting forth the notion of lack of belief that something exists, then turn around and claim a belief that it cannot exist.

What you should be saying is we cannot know for sure that there are or are not God or Gods, and in doing so making yourself agnostic in every practical sense. It is not about believing or not, simply saying as a conclusion that we cannot know. Or, about the realization of human limitations in the sense of proving there are or are not God or Gods.

But when you say you do not believe in one context and believe in another, you engage in the mechanisms of belief or lack of belief at the same time. It is illogical no matter how many threads we have on a contradictory statement.

You might as well say you do not believe unicorns exist, and do not believe there are not unicorns.

Click to expand...

It is not a play of words at all, OS...just as roughdraft mentions in his post.

Think of it this way:

There are people who "believe gods exist." I am not one of them. So the first part of the title is right on; I do not believe gods exist.

There also are people who "believe there are no gods." I am not one of them either. So the second part of the title is also right on; I do not believe there are no gods.

So the title is correct...and not a play on words: I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe there are no gods.

Luftwaffe said:

The title just strikes me as an attempt at smartassery.

Arrogant.

Click to expand...

You certainly are entitled to that opinion, Luftwaffe.

I think of it as interesting...and making a comment about the use of the word "believe."

Is anyone not thinking what I am not thinking?

Luftwaffe said:

The title just strikes me as an attempt at smartassery.

Arrogant.

Click to expand...

That's because it is.

Ikari said:

That's because it is.

Click to expand...

Jeez...some people really have a problem with having a bit of fun...with thinking about things that don't come up every day...with just examining something interesting.

Ah...what the heck. It takes all kinds.

Frank Apisa said:

At first glance, it seems as though the title is inconsistent and illogical.

But it isn't...and it accurately states my position on the question of whether a god or a creator exists.


Is there anyone here who cannot see it...who thinks the title is illogical?

It matters...and impacts on something being discussed in Calamity's thread, Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

Click to expand...

convince me that... the second part is actually true about yourself... are you using the word believe like think? "I think there are no gods, but there could be-I don't care enough" ?

unless you are changing the meaning of your words mid conversation or using definitions of the words uncharacteristically. ... the statements are contradictory...

Frank Apisa said:

At first glance, it seems as though the title is inconsistent and illogical.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

It's logically consistent and perfectly rational.

soot said:

Not at all.

It's logically consistent and perfectly rational.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Soot.

celticwar17 said:

convince me that... the second part is actually true about yourself... are you using the word believe like think? "I think there are no gods, but there could be-I don't care enough" ?

unless you are changing the meaning of your words mid conversation or using definitions of the words uncharacteristically. ... the statements are contradictory...

Click to expand...

There are people who "believe gods exist." I am not one of them. So the first part of the title is right on; I do not believe gods exist.

There also are people who "believe there are no gods." I am not one of them either. So the second part of the title is also right on; I do not believe there are no gods.

So the title is correct...and not a play on words: I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe there are no gods.

Is it just me having a déjà vu here? :mrgreen:

Frank Apisa said:

There are people who "believe gods exist." I am not one of them. So the first part of the title is right on; I do not believe gods exist.

There also are people who "believe there are no gods." I am not one of them either. So the second part of the title is also right on; I do not believe there are no gods.

So the title is correct...and not a play on words: I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe there are no gods.

Click to expand...

You still did not explain how...I don't think you actually do not believe there are no gods.

Frank Apisa said:

Thank you, Soot.

Click to expand...

And just for the record, I'm not of a like mind and just blowing smoke up your ass.

I'm a Catholic and I think you're wrong, but I don't think your position is either illogical or irrational.

celticwar17 said:

You still did not explain how...I don't think you actually do not believe there are no gods.

Click to expand...

I absolutely, positively, without any doubt, on my honor, with a cherry on top...

...am not possessed of a belief or guess that there are no gods.

There well may be gods...and I think the notion of a god or a creator is no more extraordinary a possibility than that this thing we call the universe suddenly popped out of nothingness in a Big Bang.

If you are willing to pay for the polygraph and can set an appointment up close to me...I will be glad to submit to a polygraph assessment of my veracity on this.

Oh, by the way...I absolutely, positively, without any doubt, on my honor, with a cherry on top...

...am not possessed of a belief or guess that there are gods either.

There well may be no gods...and it may be that what we call the universe did just come into existence via the Big Bang...with no creator of any kind involved.

If you pay for it, the polygraph expert can ask me about that also.

soot said:

And just for the record, I'm not of a like mind and just blowing smoke up your ass.

I'm a Catholic and I think you're wrong, but I don't think your position is either illogical or irrational.

Click to expand...

Okay...I get that.

As an aside...something I am very proud of:

Back in the mid-1950's while serving in the Strategic Air Command in the UK...several of us had a chance to visit Rome with the base Catholic chaplain, Father Kevin J. Heyburn...and I got to serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. We also attended a general audience with Pius XII at Castel Gandaofo, the papal summer residence.

Frank Apisa said:

It is not a play of words at all, OS...just as roughdraft mentions in his post.

Think of it this way:

There are people who "believe gods exist." I am not one of them. So the first part of the title is right on; I do not believe gods exist.

There also are people who "believe there are no gods." I am not one of them either. So the second part of the title is also right on; I do not believe there are no gods.

So the title is correct...and not a play on words: I do not believe gods exist…and I do not believe there are no gods.

Click to expand...

Then the only way for the condition to be possible (despite roughdraft's comments about gumballs... as in right in front of you that you can see subject to different standards than the idea of God or Gods) is if you are changing the definition of God or Gods. As in, your conversation in that other thread about God or Gods being apart of nature and not in some supernatural state. I presented alternatives to that thinking in that thread as well.

If apart of nature in the context you were explaining it, then God or Gods would be in a condition of knowledge and not necessarily condition of existence in our confines of that term. Only then could you not believe God or Gods exist *and* not believe there are no Gods. The exist part becomes the hinge.

I'm sorry, it still comes down to a clever use of words in a certain context to make a point about something else. You are also still qualifying God or Gods in terms other than our assumptions of God or Gods to date. Since all of those assumptions are based on systems of belief throughout the ages, then all you did is change the assumptions with a new system of belief to make something natural.

My question to you then, is what do you think you have solved?

Remember you are in the Philosophy section, and subject to that academia's type of challenges. If you agree that the entire purpose of Philosophy is to ask the *right questions* in evaluating our take on existence, as a means to use reason and expression to obtain new conclusions... then we are waiting to see that real conclusion from you. Based on this idea of believing what is seemingly two conditions that without context are in direct contradiction.

Besides all of that, Philosophy is not really about new beliefs anyway. At least not to terminate at something with more similarity to systems of belief (religion) over systems of process (science and academia.) Rationality is supposed to trump mythology and tradition, what should not happen is new mythology to trump historical mythology. My concern is you are trying to do just that.

Frank Apisa said:

Okay...I get that.

As an aside...something I am very proud of:

Back in the mid-1950's while serving in the Strategic Air Command in the UK...several of us had a chance to visit Rome with the base Catholic chaplain, Father Kevin J. Heyburn...and I got to serve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. We also attended a general audience with Pius XII at Castel Gandaofo, the papal summer residence.

Click to expand...

Very cool.

When I was in the service I was not a very good Catholic.

I never made it as far as Rome, but I spent a couple weeks at Livorno in the Pisa area.

I spent most of the time drunk and was taken in to custody by Italian police (never charged though, just hassled and released) for playing Frisbee on the big lawns surrounding the Leaning Tower.

Good times.

OrphanSlug said:

Then the only way for the condition to be possible (despite roughdraft's comments about gumballs... as in right in front of you that you can see subject to different standards than the idea of God or Gods) is if you are changing the definition of God or Gods. As in, your conversation in that other thread about God or Gods being apart of nature and not in some supernatural state. I presented alternatives to that thinking in that thread as well.

If apart of nature in the context you were explaining it, then God or Gods would be in a condition of knowledge and not necessarily condition of existence in our confines of that term. Only then could you not believe God or Gods exist *and* not believe there are no Gods. The exist part becomes the hinge.

I'm sorry, it still comes down to a clever use of words in a certain context to make a point about something else. You are also still qualifying God or Gods in terms other than our assumptions of God or Gods to date. Since all of those assumptions are based on systems of belief throughout the ages, then all you did is change the assumptions with a new system of belief to make something natural.

My question to you then, is what do you think you have solved?

Click to expand...

I do not think I have "solved" anything. I posted a thread that sets out my position on the existence of a god or creator...and I did it in a way that shows what, at first sight, seems like a contradiction.

But there is NO contradiction...as some people are able to see.

You have not been able to see it yet.

Okay...that happens.

Remember you are in the Philosophy section, and subject to that academia's type of challenges. If you agree that the entire purpose of Philosophy is to ask the *right questions* in evaluating our take on existence, as a means to use reason and expression to obtain new conclusions... then we are waiting to see that real conclusion from you. Based on this idea of believing what is seemingly two conditions that without context are in direct contradiction.

Click to expand...

There absolutely is NO contradiction at all.

If you would just read what I have written in explanation...you would see that.

Besides all of that, Philosophy is not really about new beliefs anyway. At least not to terminate at something with more similarity to systems of belief (religion) over systems of process (science and academia.) Rationality is supposed to trump mythology and tradition, what should not happen is new mythology to trump historical mythology. My concern is you are trying to do just that.

Click to expand...

I have no idea of what you are saying (or trying to say) here.

soot said:

Very cool.

When I was in the service I was not a very good Catholic.

I never made it as far as Rome, but I spent a couple weeks at Livorno in the Pisa area.

I spent most of the time drunk and was taken in to custody by Italian police (never charged though, just hassled and released) for playing Frisbee on the big lawns surrounding the Leaning Tower.

Good times.

Click to expand...

My father used to tell me that The Tower has been in the family since it was built.