What do you mean, “beliefs are absolute?” I’m sincerely curious. Do you mean “intractable?”
I do believe there are no gods, but I’m open to having my mind changed given new evidence. My beliefs have changed many times in my life as I’ve been given additional data. Happens all the time.
Actually, I am. I’m aware of what I mean when I say things. You are clearly interpreting what I’m saying in a different way than I intend (which, you know, happens - it’s all part of the imperfection of human communication), but I know what I mean when I say things.
I see that we’re at an impasse. I’m ok with agreeing to disagree.
You obviously understood what I meant. You aren’t saying it because others aren’t going to understand what you’re talking about. What you are saying to people when you say you don’t believe in God, is that you are without belief in God, whether or not that was your intent.
You say it’s the same thing but you said earlier there is a mild distinction. What do you think that distinction is?
I never asked if you considered it a real possibility, I asked if you’d considered it. In other words, you’ve thought about it long enough to think, bah… rubbish! (Or whatever). To me, that’s a rejection, albeit a quick one.
Probably as briefly as you considered theism, yes. It’s on my “rejected propositions” list. I believe there are no elves.
Well, I was raised a mormon, but I remember being pretty young when I thought “this is silly.” I was pretty much agnostic up until about four years ago (in the sense that I didn’t think you could know one way or the other, so why make a claim?), although I suppose I’ve been moving toward atheism for quite some time now.
I mean, I’m still pretty much agnostic in the true sense of the word because I don’t think we can know for sure given the current body of evidence, but I tend to believe there are no gods, so there it is.
Yet you go on to debate with DtC? How about responding to post #238 in full instead of where I just said “No, you’re not.”?
Of course not. What a colossal waste of time that would be. I said it to reinforce the fact that I don’t think there’s any practical difference between the two phrases.
It’s starting to occur to me that there must be a semantic difference with the word “believe.”
It was my intent. I am without belief in god. I believe there’s no god.
The distinction is in the phrasing of the same idea. It’s a distinction without difference (third time’s a charm).
DtC isn’t telling me what I think or what I mean.
I’d like to respond to your comments, but I’m getting a funny vibe from you that mostly makes me want to disengage, that’s all (and yet, here I am talking to you again. We humans are a funny lot).
Everyone gets that you don’t think there’s a difference. I don’t see what you think is a waste of time. I’m telling you that I’ve been in enough of these discussions that people see a difference between the two phrases and it’s why anyone bothered making the phrases weak and strong atheism.
Wow, you just aren’t getting it. The difference is between “I don’t believe” and “I believe there isn’t.” Get it yet? Damn!
They are not equal statements.
And I already explained to you that I did no such thing. Nice try.
Yeah, here you are. So how about responding to the post I asked you to so we might get somewhere?
Oops. I meant not absolute. Never mind.
I get it. It’s not all that hard, unless you want to be difficult about it. Lack of belief is not the same as disbelief, it simply isn’t, regardless of whether someone insists that it is.
Hmmm… Let’s see what happens when I use your strategy. This should prove devastating:
Wow, you just aren’t getting it. Saying you don’t believe something results in having a point of view (which some might call, you know, a belief) that is opposite of believing that particular something. Get it yet? Damn!
I bet you’re totally convinced now, huh?
Wait, are you trying to tell me that what you said has a different meaning to me than what you intended? How strange! What are the odds of that happening, huh?
See a few posts above (or, if you like, a few pages back). How many times am I expected to repeat the same things over and over?
I was telling you nothing about this conversation is about a semantic difference with the word “believe.” Why do you keep pretending my point is something other than what I actually said?
And no, saying you don’t believe something means that you don’t accept something as true, not that you think it necessarily must not be true.
I didn’t ask you to repeat anything; I asked you to respond to a particular post. You claimed it’s because you want to agree to disagree but you’ve then engaged DtC and every one of my later posts. Why not just respond in full to the post I asked you to? I’d really like to know if you believe that I believe you are not wearing white socks.
Well, this might be another disagreement on our part. I think “believe” has to do with what your point of view is, including the net result of what you don’t believe. In other words, believing isn’t only active, but also passive. Lack of belief has direct implications on what you do believe.
I wasn’t aware I was doing that.
If you tell me you don’t believe I’m wearing white socks, it sure sounds to me like you believe I’m not.
This might just be the silliest debate in which I’ve ever participated. I understand the perceived difference is important to you, but I’m not entirely clear why (partly clear, but not entirely).
No, not the opposite. Not believing is not the same thing as disbelieving. It is possible to have no belief at all about two diametrically opposed propositions.
Explain this in regards to me not having a belief that you are wearing white socks. Does this lack of belief mean I believe you are not wearing white socks?
Yeah, I don’t get that if you’ve considered those propositions. What would you call that? All I can think of is “I don’t know” which, when it comes to the god proposition, sounds like agnosticism.
That’s what I said in that same post.
So you think I believe you are not wearing white socks because I am without a belief that you are? Just answer so I can be clear on this.
A person can have no particular belief about god at all, which would include not believing he exists as well as not believing he doesn’t.
No one who claims to know god exists can provide any evidence for it, so I’m not sure that “I don’t know” is a fair characterization. At any rate, agnosticism is the idea that the existence of god is unknowable, not that a particular person does or does not know.
Only if that person has never thought about it.
I understand that. I was just saying that what you’re describing *sounds most like *agnosticism.
It almost sounds like “lack of belief” here means “indifference” or “no opinion” to some people but their words belie that idea.