Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Pogo]

How is it any different to say God doesn't exist.

You asked and Chat GPT writes better than I do. so:

How is not believing in x different than saying x does not exist?

"Not believing in x" and "saying x does not exist" can have different implications depending on the context, particularly in philosophical and epistemological discussions.

1. Not believing in x: This typically refers to a lack of acceptance or conviction in the existence or truth of x. It suggests a stance of skepticism or agnosticism where one may withhold judgment due to insufficient evidence, lack of convincing arguments, or personal doubts. Not believing in x doesn't necessarily assert that x definitively does not exist; rather, it expresses a state of non-acceptance or non-belief based on current information or reasoning.
2. Saying x does not exist: This statement asserts a more definitive position that x absolutely does not exist. It implies a stronger claim than simply not believing in x—it suggests a positive belief in the non-existence of x. This could be based on reasons such as contradictory evidence, logical arguments against the existence of x, or a specific philosophical stance (e.g., logical positivism or strong atheism).

Differences:​

• Certainty: Saying "x does not exist" implies a higher degree of certainty or conviction compared to simply not believing in x. The former suggests a positive assertion, while the latter indicates a position of doubt or skepticism.
• Scope: Not believing in x leaves open the possibility that x might exist under different circumstances or with further evidence, whereas saying x does not exist closes the door on the possibility of x's existence altogether.
• Philosophical stance: The choice between these statements often reflects broader philosophical positions. "Not believing in x" aligns with positions like agnosticism or weak atheism, which don't assert the non-existence of x but rather withhold belief due to lack of evidence. "Saying x does not exist" aligns with positions like strong atheism or certain forms of skepticism that actively deny the existence of x based on reasoned arguments or principles.

In summary, the difference lies in the assertiveness of the statement and the degree of certainty about the non-existence of x. "Not believing in x" suggests a withholding of belief, while "saying x does not exist" asserts a positive belief in the non-existence of x. These distinctions are crucial in discussions about belief, knowledge, and the philosophy of existence.



That said, this has been a very enjoyable change from the usual crew, but maybe take a look at how you define Shiva and how you know of it.
How would you convince any of us who know the word god, but put it in the same category as Leprchauns that we should care about your god rather than just the idea of gods and beliefs.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, lets recentre this and start again, keeping it simple.

If an entity is unknowable and can not be rationalized, does it exist?

Probably not, but I don't know. Why do you ask?

 

[PureX]

Nice try but even ChatGPT knows better. This is a primary part of your problem, insistence on your own personal definitions that are not in fact accepted.

Is not accepting the same as rejecting?

Not necessarily. While they may seem similar, there's a nuanced difference between not accepting something and rejecting it.

• Not accepting typically implies a neutral stance or withholding a decision. It could mean that a decision hasn't been made yet or that further consideration is needed before reaching a conclusion.
• Rejecting, on the other hand, usually implies a more definitive action of refusing or declining something. It often indicates a clear decision against accepting whatever is being offered or proposed.

In summary, not accepting something doesn't automatically mean rejecting it outright. It could imply a temporary stance or a need for more information or time, whereas rejecting implies a firm decision against acceptance.

If one labels themselves an atheist, they are not undecided. Their rejection of the theist proposition IS A REJECTION, as clearly indicated by the fact that they label themselves an atheist. If they were merely undecided, they would have labeled themselves undecided.

What's happening here is that people that are calling themselves atheists and that are flat out rejecting the theist proposition are being dishonest about it, and claiming that they are not rejecting it, but that they are only "not accepting" it.

They are lying. And it's evident that they are lying by how they label themselves and by everything else they say on the subject.

So the question becomes ... why are they lying? Why has this lie become so commonplace among so many self-proclaimed atheists? Perhaps you'll enlighten me.

 

[ratiocinator]

How is it any different to say God doesn't exist.

Being unknowable is not the same as non-existence.

What is it with some theists that they can't seem to even imagine the atheist point of view? If I said something like "A theist believes the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His noodly appendages) is unknowable and cannot be rationalized.", would that make some sort of sense to you, or would you think I was talking ballcocks?

 

[GoodAttention]

You asked and Chat GPT writes better than I do. so:

How is not believing in x different than saying x does not exist?

"Not believing in x" and "saying x does not exist" can have different implications depending on the context, particularly in philosophical and epistemological discussions.

1. Not believing in x: This typically refers to a lack of acceptance or conviction in the existence or truth of x. It suggests a stance of skepticism or agnosticism where one may withhold judgment due to insufficient evidence, lack of convincing arguments, or personal doubts. Not believing in x doesn't necessarily assert that x definitively does not exist; rather, it expresses a state of non-acceptance or non-belief based on current information or reasoning.
2. Saying x does not exist: This statement asserts a more definitive position that x absolutely does not exist. It implies a stronger claim than simply not believing in x—it suggests a positive belief in the non-existence of x. This could be based on reasons such as contradictory evidence, logical arguments against the existence of x, or a specific philosophical stance (e.g., logical positivism or strong atheism).

Differences:​

• Certainty: Saying "x does not exist" implies a higher degree of certainty or conviction compared to simply not believing in x. The former suggests a positive assertion, while the latter indicates a position of doubt or skepticism.
• Scope: Not believing in x leaves open the possibility that x might exist under different circumstances or with further evidence, whereas saying x does not exist closes the door on the possibility of x's existence altogether.
• Philosophical stance: The choice between these statements often reflects broader philosophical positions. "Not believing in x" aligns with positions like agnosticism or weak atheism, which don't assert the non-existence of x but rather withhold belief due to lack of evidence. "Saying x does not exist" aligns with positions like strong atheism or certain forms of skepticism that actively deny the existence of x based on reasoned arguments or principles.

In summary, the difference lies in the assertiveness of the statement and the degree of certainty about the non-existence of x. "Not believing in x" suggests a withholding of belief, while "saying x does not exist" asserts a positive belief in the non-existence of x. These distinctions are crucial in discussions about belief, knowledge, and the philosophy of existence.



That said, this has been a very enjoyable change from the usual crew, but maybe take a look at how you define Shiva and how you know of it.
How would you convince any of us who know the word god, but put it in the same category as Leprchauns that we should care about your god rather than just the idea of gods and beliefs.

I see this as an exercise in language, not a debate about God.

I propose a belief that a subject cannot be realized and is unknowable. Is this equivalent to "does not exist?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well that is quite convinient………

My suggestion for the origin of the universe (all physical reality including space and time) is that the universe had a cause, a speceless, timeless, immaterial, personal and intelligent cause, that I happen to call God, but you can call it however you whant…………..why is this alternative not a serious suggestioni ?.............or is it another case of “it´s true because I say so)

What you're describing is a non-existent thing. Something that doesn't exist in space, doesn't exist in time, and is not material, is a description of something that doesn't exist.

So you've posited something that doesn't exist, as the cause of the universe.

 

[leroy]

No. Not accepting your claim is not an alternative claim.
Why is this so hard to understand?

Granted, I understand and grant your claim,………….however it is a straw man

However Claiming that a specific alternative is not the best…. Is a knowledge claim that requires a burden ….which is my actual claim that you keep refusing to address

 

[GoodAttention]

Being unknowable is not the same as non-existence.

What is it with some theists that they can't seem to even imagine the atheist point of view? If I said something like "A theist believes the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be His noodly appendages) is unknowable and cannot be rationalized.", would that make some sort of sense to you, or would you think I was talking ballcocks?

Makes perfect sense to me, so what is the inherent difference between you and me?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If one labels themselves an atheist, they are not undecided. Their rejection of the theist proposition IS A REJECTION, as clearly indicated by the fact that they label themselves an atheist. If they were merely undecided, they would have labeled themselves undecided.

What's happening here is that people that are calling themselves atheists and that are flat out rejecting the theist proposition are being dishonest about it, and claiming that they are not rejecting it, but that they are only "not accepting" it.

They are lying. And it's evident that they are lying by how they label themselves and by everything else they say on the subject.

So the question becomes ... why are they lying? What has this lie become so commonplace among self-proclaimed atheists? Perhaps you'll tell me.

I love being accused of lying about what I don't believe. Thanks! That's just awesome.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why do you keep trying to insist that what we think about gravity must effect gravity if we stop thinking it?

Err... because you keep effectively claim it: you said "perception is conception and conception is imaginary", hence our perception of gravity is conception of gravity and conception of gravity is imaginary. If all we have is perception and that is effectively imaginary, then there should be no limit to what was can ignore and hence escape from.

Either you have to admit to the objective reality of the effect we call gravity, or you should be able to ignore it.

 

[GoodAttention]

Probably not, but I don't know. Why do you ask?

I didn't ask you but thanks for your input.

 

[Pogo]

If one labels themselves an atheist, they are not undecided. Their rejection of the theist proposition IS A REJECTION, as clearly indicated by the fact that they label themselves an atheist. If they were merely undecided, they would have labeled themselves undecided.

What's happening here is that people that are calling themselves atheists and that are flat out rejecting the theist proposition are being dishonest about it, and claiming that they are not rejecting it, but that they are only "not accepting" it.

They are lying. And it's evident that they are lying by how they label themselves and by everything else they say on the subject.

So the question becomes ... why are they lying? Why has this lie become so commonplace among so many self-proclaimed atheists? Perhaps you'll enlighten me.

Buy a clue, learn the English language, as was already gone over here this morning, a-theist does not mean anti-theist.

 

[PureX]

What you're describing is a non-existent thing. Something that doesn't exist in space, doesn't exist in time, and is not material, is a description of something that doesn't exist.

So you've posited something that doesn't exist, as the cause of the universe.

By Jove, I think he's starting to get it!

Yes, the proposition is that God TRANSCENDS the limitations of existence (space, time, matter, etc.). Which would be quite logical if God were being proposed as the SOURCE of existence. Which it is. In fact, this makes more logical sense than proposing that the existence that we experience in every way as finite, and evolving, is actually eternal (infinite and perpetual), or that existence somehow managed to enable itself into being.

Just sayin'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By Jove, I think he's starting to get it!

Yes, the proposition is that God TRANSCENDS the limitations of existence (space, time, matter, etc.). Which would be quite logical if God were being proposed as the SOURCE of existence. Which it is. In fact, this makes more logical sense than proposing that the existence that we experience in every way as finite, and evolving, is actually eternal (infinite and perpetual), or that existence someone managed to enable itself into being.

Just sayin'.

Which makes no sense. As I just pointed out. You didn't address a word I said.

 

[ratiocinator]

If one labels themselves an atheist, they are not undecided. Their rejection of the theist proposition IS A REJECTION, as clearly indicated by the fact that they label themselves an atheist.

It's a rejection of the case put forward by theists as to why we should take the idea of 'God' at all seriously. Hence, we don't take it seriously. That doesn't rule out future evidence or reasoning that might make the idea make more sense. Nor does it rule out the possibility of some 'God' that is simply inaccessible via either reasoning or evidence - but that would mean, by definition, there would be no reason to take the idea seriously and the rational response would still be to not believe it.

This is basically exactly how every reasonable person approaches non-theist claims too.

 

[Pogo]

I see this as an exercise in language, not a debate about God.

I propose a belief that a subject cannot be realized and is unknowable. Is this equivalent to "does not exist?"

yes it is an exercise in language ie, logic and philosophy, I used x because that is generally what is used for the undefined.
This proposal you have now is different in that is a positive belief in a negative. it is equivalent to believe it does not exist which is different than lack of belief regarding existence.

The problem seems to be that theists seem to want atheists to make statements about this undefined. (I would say entity, but even that is too strong) without anything to go on.
We can't answer @leroy's better or worse, or @PureX 's whatever argument. Does what exist?

Hopefully this makes sense.

 

[PureX]

I love being accused of lying about what I don't believe. Thanks! That's just awesome.

Are you calling yourself an atheist and then pretending that you're undecided? If so, which one of these are you lying about? Being an atheist or being undecided? If not, then my post was not about you. There are atheists that are honest about the fact that they adhere to the idea that no gods exist. And they do not pretend to be undecided about it. There are also a lot of people that are undecided, and therefor do not presume that any gods exist, or that they don't exist. But those people don't label themselves atheists because, ... well ... why would they? They aren't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I propose a belief that a subject cannot be realized and is unknowable. Is this equivalent to "does not exist?"

No, if it is unknown, then it is not know whether it exists or doesn't exist.

 

[PureX]

Which makes no sense. As I just pointed out. You didn't address a word I said.

And you didn't actually read a word I posted. So we're even, I guess.

 

[ratiocinator]

I propose a belief that a subject cannot be realized and is unknowable. Is this equivalent to "does not exist?"

Why would it be? Or, perhaps more to the point, why do you seem to so desperately want it to be?