Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Willamena]

2. I don't believe that gods exist and I believe that gods don't exist.

Tautology.

 

[Willamena]

Does your 'fence sitter' possess a belief in deities?

You mean possess a belief in the existence of deities?

What difference could there possibly be?

 

[Willamena]

Wow! Can't say you've hit the nail on the head, or even glanced at it! As an atheist, I'd leave the box alone and ignore it if it were not my box. If it were my box, or I was asked what might be inside the box, I'd....wait for it...open the box and take a look.

Now the theist position seems to be, yes we open the box an even though we can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste, I KNOW FOR A FACT god is in the seemingly empty box.

Who is being dishonest?

Not the person with no box.

 

[Willamena]

This is 2017.

...Where Donald Trump tells us what we must believe.

 

[Willamena]

He is saying that knowledge is a particular type of belief, and the only thing that distinguishes knowledge from mere belief are factors which are not based on that individuals perspective. (I disagree). But if he is correct, then a person cannot claim to believe something unless they think rightly, or wrongly that it is knowledge. Hence, he objects to the validity of you saying that a person can believe something without also believing that it is true and justifiably so. He is thus saying either a person believes something and consequently believes it to be knowledge or a person does not really believe at all.

The reasoning behind JTF is this: everything is a belief, it's just that some beliefs happen to be true. Let's examine that, if we might, and based on justification we may realise some things we thought were true don't happen to be true.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Not the person with no box.

And who has no box?

 

[Willamena]

And who has no box?

The person ignorant of gods.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

The person ignorant of gods.

Ah, I presume that would be me!

 

[Curious George]

The reasoning behind JTF is this: everything is a belief, it's just that some beliefs happen to be true. Let's examine that, if we might, and based on justification we may realise some things we thought were true don't happen to be true.

Interesting I would have said that everything is a belief and some happen to be true and of those that happen to be true some happen to be well justified. That we hold a belief that is poorly justified does not mean we do not hold it and realize the justification is wanting.

 

[Blackdog22]

The person ignorant of gods.

Ahh, so the box itself is God! So then this entire time we were supposed to discuss what is INSIDE of God!!! Lets restart the thread guys.

Ill also be the first to answer. Its gummy bears and no, I don't have to look and see this... I mean, come on, its just gummy bears. Prove me wrong fools!

 

[Willamena]

Interesting I would have said that everything is a belief and some happen to be true and of those that happen to be true some happen to be well justified. That we hold a belief that is poorly justified does not mean we do not hold it and realize the justification is wanting.

Yes. Justification isn't an accident, though; having the truth value is. Truth is the happenstance.

Things are justified in the context of all the learning and reasoning that came before, from the time we began learning. On the other hand, things are true despite us.

 

[Willamena]

Ahh, so the box itself is God! So then this entire time we were supposed to discuss what is INSIDE of God!!! Lets restart the thread guys.

Ill also be the first to answer. Its gummy bears and no, I don't have to look and see this... I mean, come on, its just gummy bears. Prove me wrong fools!

"God" exists only in the context of a concept; that's why, to many religions, God is "unnamed," or ineffable. To hold that concept "God" as real one-and-only God is to create an idol.*

To open the box at all is to draw out an idol.
*(I use "God" in quotes to indicate the context of thought.)

But that's neither here nor there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Interesting I would have said that everything is a belief and some happen to be true and of those that happen to be true some happen to be well justified. That we hold a belief that is poorly justified does not mean we do not hold it and realize the justification is wanting.

The concept of partial knowledge is useful when considering justified belief. Justified belief is not always an is or isn't proposition. Consider a weather forecast. If it rained 85 of the last 100 times that a particular cloud pattern appeared, we might say that there is an 85% chance of rain when we see it again.

And if we get another 85 rainfalls following the next 100 appearances of this cloud pattern, we have confirmed that we have useful albeit partial knowledge.

Technically, if we embrace the concept of philosophical doubt, by which I mean doubt that is understood but not felt, all knowledge beyond "I think therefore I am" becomes partial knowledge, and even that has come under fire: Is Your 'Self' Just an Illusion?

Still, we can ignore very small degrees of doubt and claim certitude above a certain degree of confidence.

 

[ArtieE]

Tautology.

Are you OK Willa? Personally I don't believe gods exist. I don't believe gods don't exist either. I just haven't decided so I believe neither. According to you I don't exist yet here I am...

 

[Falvlun]

Are you OK Willa? Personally I don't believe gods don exist. I don't believe gods don't exist either. I just haven't decided so I believe neither. According to you I don't exist yet here I am...

Saying "I believe gods don't exist" and "I don't believe gods exist" is a tautology. This is what you changed 2 into.

Look at it like this:

I believe X.
I don't believe not-X.

You can't believe something (X) AND its opposite (not-X), so adding the "I don't believe not-X" doesn't add any information to "I believe X".

This is different from what you are saying here: I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. This is position 3.

I don't believe X.
I don't believe not-X.

See the difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Someone doesn't understand analogies and illustrative examples I see.

I nominate this for most ironic post of the week.

 

[ArtieE]

He is saying that knowledge is a particular type of belief, and the only thing that distinguishes knowledge from mere belief are factors which are not based on that individuals perspective. (I disagree).

A person can say "I believe god exists" and another person can say "I know god exists because He talks to me every day". Does the second person have belief or knowledge? I haven't answered the rest haven't yet figured out what it means.

 

[ArtieE]

What difference could there possibly be?

The same difference as if I said "I believe in you" or "I believe in your existence".

 

[ArtieE]

The reasoning behind JTF is this: everything is a belief, it's just that some beliefs happen to be true.

What does it mean that a belief is true? Does it mean that what is believed is actually true? How would you determine that?

 

[ArtieE]

Saying "I believe gods don't exist" and "I don't believe gods exist" is a tautology.

It can't be since I can say "I don't believe gods exist and at the same time I don't believe gods don't exist."

This is different from what you are saying here: I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist. This is position 3.

I don't believe X.
I don't believe not-X.

See the difference?

We aren't talking about X and not-X. We are talking about X (belief god exists), not-X (no belief god exists), Y (belief god doesn't exist), not-Y (no belief god doesn't exist). I am not required to be X or Y. So I say I don't believe god exists (not-X) and I don't believe god doesn't exist (not-Y).