[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

[Cephus]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You just stated that you believe in an agnostic viewpoint! Now you deny it???

There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

You keep telling yourself that. It just makes you doubly delusional.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

He is bringing up the concept of belief in something that does not yet exist. A vain attempt to compare it to the existence of a god, gods, or spirits. He is trying to make the case that not believing in germs means there is no belief at all. He is wrong. Before the concept of germs came along, people believe spirits, a god, or gods caused disease.

So lack of belief in one thing is still a belief. It's just a belief in something else.

Germs aren't a concept. No one had observed them and seen what they actually do.

 

[devildavid]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

WRONG. Atheism is the belief that no god, gods, or spirits exist.

WRONG. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

A loaded question. The answer is no. They believe in something else.

If I had said “as the cause of disease,” you would be correct. But I didn’t. So you aren’t. They didn’t have a belief one way or the other about the existence of micro-organisms.

You therefore believe in something else.

I am a better bowler than my brother. Did you believe that was true yesterday? No. Neither did you believe my brother is a better bowler, nor did you believe we are equal. There was nothing you believed instead. The concept had never occurred to you and you had no alternative belief.

“I don’t know” or “I never thought about it” are options.

Yes you do. You believe in something else.

Oh? Everybody in the U.S. has a belief about the greatest Soviet era poet? And about who is the greatest of all time: Ray Reardon, Steve Davis, or Ronnie O’Sullivan? The vast majority of Americans have no beliefs at all on either of those topics because they can’t name any Soviet poets, and they’ve never heard of Reardon, Davis, or O’Sullivan, and there is nothing to believe instead (Personally, i believe it is Ахматова and O’Sullivan, though I could be convinced otherwise)

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Why do believers in imaginary beings insist that non-believers suffer from the same delusions, only in reverse? I guess misery really does love company.

Your assumption, or claim, is that the God of the Bible and the divine Jesus Christ are imaginary beings.

What concrete, objective evidence do your assumptions stand on, or are your assumptions only unsubstantiated opinions?

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Calling something private does not protect it from demands of evidence. If it is private, then keep it to yourself. Once you share your claim, any "demand" of evidence is reasonable.

No, it is not reasonable to demand the impossible.

 

[PoS]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Your assumption, or claim, is that the God of the Bible and the divine Jesus Christ are imaginary beings.

What concrete, objective evidence do your assumptions stand on, or are your assumptions only unsubstantiated opinions?

Since there is no evidence for their existence, then they must therefore be imaginary. Quite simple, really.

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

...And no, there is no intuition of a Godhead. There is a natural tendency to anthropomorphize concepts and to assign supposed causes to things we don’t understand, though.

We're okay, you and I, except in that last remark. All you can reasonably say is that you, pinqy, have no intuition of God. You can't tell me I have no intuition of God, and therefore you cannot, reasonably, assert "no, there is no intuition of a Godhead."

Unless you can define and objectively show that an independently existing godhead exists, the best you can do is say you believe that such a thing exists.

As for me saying there is no intuition towards s godhead, would you also say it cannot be claimed there is no intuition towards fairies? Or towards any particular named god?

I can't "define and objectively show" that I dreamed last night that my old girlfriend Emily and I were preparing dinner," but I know I had that dream.
My intuition of God is private personal knowledge, and your demand for scientific proof is out of line.

Which is why I made sure to say “independently existing.” If someone labels their feelings and impressions and personifies it a a “god,” well, those feelings and emotions exist, but that god concept is not one of independent existence.


I did not “demand scientific proof.” And it was the general use of “you.” If one claims that something has an independent existence, one can personally believe it to be true, but cannot claim it is objectively true without objective evidence.

At the same time, you cannot say it is private and personal and also say that everyone has it.
Many many people have had direct personal experiences with what they believed to be a god or other supernatural being. It happens all the time. Those experiences..the feelings...are all real. But that does not mean their interpretation is correct. Perhaps it is, perhaps not. But you cannot claim that your personal private knowledge is factually true outside of your own perceptions: you have no way of knowing that.

You're contaminating our exchange with atheist.materialist Playbook talking points and muddying the waters. Let's start again.

pinqy: There is no intuition of a Godhead.

Angel: I have an intuition of Godhead, and I infer from this that everyone who believes in Godhead has, or is capable of having, an intuition of Godhead.

pinqy:"Unless you can define and objectively show that an independently existing godhead exists, the best you can do is say you believe that such a thing exists."

[See, here is where you start going to the Playbook and become unresponsive.]

Angel: The intuition of Godhead, like the content of the dream I had last night, is private personal knowledge, and as such is not the sort of thing science can access. Your demands are non sequiturs. What's more, of course I can "say it is private and personal and also say that everyone has it." That's the basis of all our dealings with other minds.

 

[Idiometer]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

No, that would be a compositional error fallacy.


Circular Argument Fallacy. I am not interested in your religious fundamentalism.


Continued Circular Argument Fallacy... You are practicing religion because you are making an initial circular argument and making other arguments based on that initial circular argument.


Inversion Fallacy.

You make no sense at all. What circle? What inversion? You are trying to sound like a deep thinker or philosopher, but you're spewing nonsense.

You seem to like big words, but you are clueless about their meanings and how to use them. Here are two you should look into: cognitive dissonance. That seems to be your malady.

Bottom line of this issue: atheists do not believe. Period.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You make no sense at all. What circle? What inversion? You are trying to sound like a deep thinker or philosopher, but you're spewing nonsense.

You seem to like big words, but you are clueless about their meanings and how to use them. Here are two you should look into: cognitive dissonance. That seems to be your malady.

Bottom line of this issue: atheists do not believe. Period.

He makes up his own definitions of the big words so coherency is the last thing that you can expect from him.

 

[Idiometer]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

WRONG. Atheism is the belief that no god, gods, or spirits exist.

WRONG. Atheism is lack of belief. Atheists prefer knowledge. Humans do not yet posess the knowledge to either prove or disprove the existence of a creator for our universe, but we do know enough to negate the myths of creation that fill the treasured and sacred texts of earth's religions. Therefore, we do not believe in your god ar anyone else's.

Believers want to insist that atheists are just like them, in that we have a belief system that tells us whether or not there's a god. That simply is not the case. Sorry, but I'm just not like you. I take nothing on faith.

 

[Idiometer]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Your assumption, or claim, is that the God of the Bible and the divine Jesus Christ are imaginary beings.

What concrete, objective evidence do your assumptions stand on, or are your assumptions only unsubstantiated opinions?

Can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the believer. My lack of belief is based on all of the advances in human knowledge that negate the creation stories in the sacred texts of earth's religions.

Belief is a comfort because it gives us all the answers to unanswerable questions about out place in the world and in the universe. Most people prefer that. I understand I'm in the minority. I prefer the questions.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You make no sense at all. What circle?

You are trying to prove that god(s) do not exist. That is a fallacy.

What inversion?

You are trying to project your issues onto me as if they were my issues. That is a fallacy.

You are trying to sound like a deep thinker or philosopher, but you're spewing nonsense.

If you don't understand, ask, and I will clarify.

You seem to like big words, but you are clueless about their meanings and how to use them.

How do you know that I don't understand what "big words" mean if you don't even understand them? -- I understand the words that I use. If you need clarification, just ask.

Here are two you should look into: cognitive dissonance. That seems to be your malady.

If you don't understand what I am saying, ask for clarification.

Bottom line of this issue: atheists do not believe. Period.

Isn't the bolded your belief?

If not, then define the word belief for me...

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the believer. My lack of belief is based on all of the advances in human knowledge that negate the creation stories in the sacred texts of earth's religions.

Belief is a comfort because it gives us all the answers to unanswerable questions about out place in the world and in the universe. Most people prefer that. I understand I'm in the minority. I prefer the questions.

I'm not trying to have a negative proven. I'm just inquiring about concrete reasons for your claim about "imaginary beings" (God, the divine Jesus Christ). If a person makes such a claim they should provide the evidence to back up that claim. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, not on the believer. Otherwise you just have an opinion. If you have more then I'd like to see it.

 

[Logicman]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Since there is no evidence for their existence, then they must therefore be imaginary. Quite simple, really.

There's no legitimate foundation for a lot of things, including your disbelief and DENIAL of evidences.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

There's no legitimate foundation for a lot of things, including your disbelief and DENIAL of evidences.

Apparently, many people who claim to be relgious are mixing up the concepts of 'evidence' and 'claims'.

 

[pinqy]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You're contaminating our exchange with atheist.materialist Playbook talking points and muddying the waters. Let's start again.

pinqy: There is no intuition of a Godhead.

Angel: I have an intuition of Godhead, and I infer from this that everyone who believes in Godhead has, or is capable of having, an intuition of Godhead.

Intuition is a perception without reasoning.
Godhead is an term used in different ways by different religions, so it’s not precisely clear what you mean by the term.
I have assumed, and will continue to assume barring clarification, that you mean what you believe to be the essence of whatever you think a god is.

I have no reason to doubt that you have such a perception. But neither of us has reason to think your perception is accurate or that your interpretation of what you call a godhead is correct. You cannot confirm or test the truth of your feelings.

pinqy:"Unless you can define and objectively show that an independently existing godhead exists, the best you can do is say you believe that such a thing exists."

[See, here is where you start going to the Playbook and become unresponsive.]

My thoughts and arguments are my own. I’m not sure what you think is “unresponsive.”

 

[Angel]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Intuition is a perception without reasoning.

No intuition is not perception. It's insight and belief.
Kindly read the opening passage of the Stanford entry to get some sense of the meaning of intuition I rely on.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/

Godhead is an term used in different ways by different religions, so it’s not precisely clear what you mean by the term.
I have assumed, and will continue to assume barring clarification, that you mean what you believe to be the essence of whatever you think a god is.

I use the term "Godhead" to mean Divine Reality or Ultimate Spiritual Reality in order to distinguish it from particular religious conceptions of what that Divine Reality is all about.

I have no reason to doubt that you have such a perception. But neither of us has reason to think your perception is accurate or that your interpretation of what you call a godhead is correct. You cannot confirm or test the truth of your feelings.

My thoughts and arguments are my own. I’m not sure what you think is “unresponsive.”

I have an intuition (insight) and infer and extrapolate from that intuition.
You lack that intuition and infer and extrapolate from the absence of that intuition.

I no more have to demonstrate to you than you have to demonstrate to me this intuition of lack of intuition, nor could either of us do so.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You keep telling yourself that. It just makes you doubly delusional.

Fine. If you want to say you believe in two incompatible beliefs at the same time, who am I to stop you?

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

If I had said “as the cause of disease,” you would be correct. But I didn’t. So you aren’t. They didn’t have a belief one way or the other about the existence of micro-organisms.

Correct. They had a belief about a god, gods, or spirits that caused disease instead.

I am a better bowler than my brother. Did you believe that was true yesterday? No. Neither did you believe my brother is a better bowler, nor did you believe we are equal. There was nothing you believed instead. The concept had never occurred to you and you had no alternative belief.

I believe you are manufacturing this story. Neither do I care. Whether you or your brother (if you even have one) is a better bowler is irrelevant. The existence of a god, gods, or spirits is not a description of a bowling skill.

“I don’t know” or “I never thought about it” are options.

But you HAVE thought about it. That's why you have the belief you have. You even answer my questions on the subject. That means you thought about it.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Your assumption, or claim, is that the God of the Bible and the divine Jesus Christ are imaginary beings.

What concrete, objective evidence do your assumptions stand on, or are your assumptions only unsubstantiated opinions?

The existence of the Bible itself. Life itself. The Earth itself. The fact that prayers have been 'answered'. The numbers of people that believe the same thing.

Similarly, the concrete, objective evidence that the assumptions of atheism stand up on is Life itself, the Earth itself, the numbers of people that believe in the same thing, etc.

I think you will find that supporting evidence doesn't really mean anything. That's why science doesn't use it.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Since there is no evidence for their existence, then they must therefore be imaginary. Quite simple, really.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

You make no sense at all. What circle? What inversion? You are trying to sound like a deep thinker or philosopher, but you're spewing nonsense.

You seem to like big words, but you are clueless about their meanings and how to use them. Here are two you should look into: cognitive dissonance. That seems to be your malady.

Bottom line of this issue: atheists do not believe. Period.

Yes they do. Atheists believe that no god, gods, or spirits exist.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

WRONG. Atheism is lack of belief.

WRONG. Atheism is the belief that no god, gods, or spirits exist.

Atheists prefer knowledge.

So does the Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindi, and any other religion. Knowledge is not exclusively owned by atheists.

Humans do not yet posess the knowledge to either prove or disprove the existence of a creator for our universe,

I will call this argument 1).

but we do know enough to negate the myths of creation that fill the treasured and sacred texts of earth's religions.

I will call this argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox.

Therefore, we do not believe in your god ar anyone else's.

I know that. You believe no god, gods, or spirits exist.

Believers want to insist that atheists are just like them, in that we have a belief system that tells us whether or not there's a god.

You do. You just stated it.

That simply is not the case.

It is. You are attempting to argue both sides of your paradox. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

Sorry, but I'm just not like you.

True. You believe no god, gods, or spirits exist. I do.

I take nothing on faith.

But you do. You believe no god, gods, or spirits exist. That is a statement based on a circular argument, or an argument of faith. It is not possible to prove whether any god, gods, or spirits exist, and it is not possible to prove no god, gods, or spirits exist. Either statement remains a circular argument...and a religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the believer. My lack of belief is based on all of the advances in human knowledge that negate the creation stories in the sacred texts of earth's religions.

Belief is a comfort because it gives us all the answers to unanswerable questions about out place in the world and in the universe. Most people prefer that. I understand I'm in the minority. I prefer the questions.

Void argument fallacy. Can you give an example of such a negation?