If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

[FunctionalAtheist]

Thank you for the response.
I would like to hear these claims you've heard with no evidence.

Amongst the 1000s? I recommend you read. But quite frankly I prefer you say what you really mean?

I can only presume you do not actually expect me to enumerate every claim I've ever heard in my life that has no evidence? Aren't you the one that said none have any evidence? Shouldn't you be able to enumerate them all? Haven't you considered every one?

If you strive to communicate in an open and honest way, I'm trying to do the the same.

 

[Cobol]

Funny how sometimes when something's moving it seems to be standing still, while at other times things are standing still and seem to be moving: like when the room is spinning . . .

Your humor is obscure.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Pffft, I don't trust myself with the buttons we already have.

So true! It would take only a single persons to mess up any meaning in ratings. Maybe just enumerate ratings as a total, and be able ot look at a break down. That way if you gave an unlike, it would increase ratings, but if you were interested and looked you could see the breakdown of like v unlike etc.

Hmmmm, ya know, a Hot-Head DIR might not be a bad idea.

HEHEHE! Especially if you could just move my posts or quotes there instead of hitting me with a warningj.

 

[arthra]

If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

So Pudding... The Shahada begins with "There is no god..." You are a quarter way there! The rest of it goes: "... but God"

لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh
There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.[1][2][3][4]

Shahada - Wikipedia

For myself it means there could be many ideas about god but only a few approach a pure concept of God.

"To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 46)

 

[Cobol]

I can only presume you do not actually expect me to enumerate every claim I've ever heard in my life that has no evidence?

No, of course i don't expect you to enumerate every claim, and i have considered everyone I've heard. I'm just wanting to hear the best claim you've heard that can't be dis proven.

 

[Willamena]

Why wouldn't this mind come forward?

Because no one is psychic?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

No, of course i don't expect you to enumerate every claim, and i have considered everyone I've heard. I'm just wanting to hear the best claim you've heard that can't be dis proven.

Ok! Can I respectfully ask you to send me a PM betwen now and morning and I'lll give you my best! My caregiver duties are calling me!

 

[LuisDantas]

If you diisregard any deitiy, you have to disregard all deities equally.

Uh, no you do not. Deities are simply not objectively real nor well-defined anywhere near enough for that to be true.

Quite on the contrary.

There is the same amount of evidence for any deity claim. None

Deities just aren't supposed to work with evidence in the same way that scientific observations are. They are explicitly of another nature. I am not sure it makes any sense to even mention them in any phrase with the word "evidence".

I'm an anti theist, so I'm convinced already that no deities exist.

Good for you, but that is really fairly unrelated.

Whether you are convinced that there are no deities and that it is not advisable for anyone to believe in their existence (which is also my stance, for what it is worth) say nothing whatsover about whether those deities actually exist.

In any case, existence has never been a particularly natural, useful or necessary attribute for any deity, even in extreme circunstances. Their role is not to exist, despite some popular yet IMO misguided opinions, but rather to inspire.

Of course, lots of people mishandle the concept in various, interesting ways. But to claim that there is no evidence therefore people should accept that they do not exist is really pointless.

 

[whirlingmerc]

If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

The claim is self defeating.

 

[ArtieE]

If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

X = I don't believe gods exist
Y = I don't believe gods don't exist

You can say both X and Y at the same time if you simply haven't decided what to believe.

 

[Jumi]

Some gods might actually exist or more usually be part of ones upbringing so that one believes them as a starting point or have an appeal through writings or a person to convert to that belief. To an unbeliever, it makes sense that they all require the same amount of proof to believe.

 

[Falvlun]

X = I don't believe gods exist
Y = I don't believe gods don't exist

You can say both X and Y at the same time if you simply haven't decided what to believe.

Yup. And to take it further towards Pudding's question, you can believe that one god for sure doesn't exist, while still holding X and Y.

 

[ArtieE]

Yup. And to take it further towards Pudding's question, you can believe that one god for sure doesn't exist, while still holding X and Y.

Pudding's question was "If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?" I interpret that to mean "If a person has an absence of belief that gods exist, he must also believe no gods exist?" since Pudding's English isn't the best. I answered that question.

 

[Falvlun]

Pudding's question was "If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?" I interpret that to mean "If a person has an absence of belief that gods exist, he must also believe no gods exist?" since Pudding's English isn't the best. I answered that question.

I think I was thinking of his other thread like this. Sorry! It isn't easy to parse these things even when you're a native English speaker so I definitely give Pudding credit for his attempts!

 

[Pudding]

Hi, Pudding.

Unfortunately, I fear that this thread's OP is difficult to parse.




I take it that by


* If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

You mean something close to

" If a person does not believe that there is at least one god, does that mean that that person must also believe that there are no gods at all?"

and that by

* Not necessarily, he can turns out to be absence the belief no god exist.

You mean "Not necessarily, he (or she) may turn out not to believe that there are no gods".


The actual answer will be very dependent on who is being asked, so I chose "Other".

Thanks for some advice to correct the question.

Absence here means the non-existence of, without, don't have.


* If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

means

If a person don't have the belief at least one god exist, does that mean that that person must also believe that there are no god exist?


* Not necessarily, he can turns out to be absence the belief no god exist.

more correctly means

Not necessarily, it may turns out that that person don't have the belief that no god exist.

 

[Cobol]

Uh, no you do not. Deities are simply not objectively real nor well-defined anywhere near enough for that to be true.

Quite on the contrary.



Deities just aren't supposed to work with evidence in the same way that scientific observations are. They are explicitly of another nature. I am not sure it makes any sense to even mention them in any phrase with the word "evidence".



Good for you, but that is really fairly unrelated.

Whether you are convinced that there are no deities and that it is not advisable for anyone to believe in their existence (which is also my stance, for what it is worth) say nothing whatsover about whether those deities actually exist.

In any case, existence has never been a particularly natural, useful or necessary attribute for any deity, even in extreme circunstances. Their role is not to exist, despite some popular yet IMO misguided opinions, but rather to inspire.

Of course, lots of people mishandle the concept in various, interesting ways. But to claim that there is no evidence therefore people should accept that they do not exist is really pointless.

Thank you for sharing, for i acknowledge your statements, they have been heard and considered.

 

[leibowde84]

If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

No, one can certainly be witholding belief either way due to lack of evidence.

 

[Kapalika]

If you diisregard any deitiy, you have to disregard all deities equally.

Why?

 

[Cobol]

Why?

I do not claim to know everyone’s reasons for rejecting the existence of thousands of gods. let’s say a believer rejects other gods not because they’re absurd or due to lack of evidence, but because they believe the existence of their God rules out the existence of other gods. An example would be If the God of classical Christianity exists, then by definition Allah can’t exist. There can’t be two all-powerful gods in the same universe, as they would limit each other’s power.
So if that is why the believer rejects other gods, then this doesn’t help explain why he should reject his own god. If the believer rejects other gods because they are creatures of ridiculous ancient mythologies and because there is no good evidence for their existence, then this should help them see why they should reject their own god, who is also a product of ridiculous mythology for whom there is no good evidence.

Let’s say someone argued that because science can’t explain the undersea bloop detected in 1997, it was probably caused by the supernatural action of Rongomai, an ancient polynesian whale god. Would someone of a different faith take this seriously? Of course not. Someone of a different faith will quite happily argue that because science can’t totally explain consciousness, it was probably caused by the supernatural creator god.

The double standards of the believer can be even more striking in reality than in the above hypothetical example. If someone claims they don't believe in magic, and yet they believe in the supernatural creation by a divine being, an event which is literally magic, even according to 99% of theologians!

 

[Milton Platt]

If a person absence the belief at least one god exist, he must also believe no god exist?

Your English needs help, because your second choice seems nonsensical. But to answer your question (I think).....Not having a belief in a god is not the same as believing there are no gods. One can lead to the other, however.