Fact David, why don't you suck my balls?

[Krazeh]

It's your logic that fails, because it's the same thing as "i don't believe in god", especially since you say that there's no action in not believing in god.

So if there's no action, you can only believe or not, but there's no special section of it.

Having a belief in the existence of god is a different thing to having a belief in the non-existence of god. Not believing in the existence of god doesn't necessarily mean that you also don't believe in the non-existence of god as there are plenty of atheists out there who don't believe in the existence of god but actively believe in the non-existence of god.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It's all about Scouses delusional "I haz no belief" bullcrap. As i said earlier, semantics over wording to distance self from religion further, due to own insecurity.

This kind of reaction to a simple thing of "believing there's no god and not believing in god is pretty much the same deal" shows only that.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Having a belief in the existence of god is a different thing to having a belief in the non-existence of god. Not believing in the existence of god doesn't necessarily mean that you also don't believe in the non-existence of god as there are plenty of atheists out there who don't believe in the existence of god but actively believe in the non-existence of god.

True, but there's no special seperation between not believing in god and not believing in the existence of god, or the non-existance of god.

If you don't believe in the existance of god, you don't believe in god and vise versa. Why this is so hard to accept is beyond me, just some zealotty weirdo stuff.

 

[Scouse]

If you don't believe in the existance of god, you don't believe in god and vise versa. Why this is so hard to accept is beyond me, just some zealotty weirdo stuff.

It would be. Thank god I never said anything of the sort, eh?

This kind of reaction to a simple thing of "believing there's no god and not believing in god is pretty much the same deal" shows only that.

I disagree with you on this. It's also a different argument. One in which I say you are wrong.

Why don't you just say you don't accept my argument and leave it at that?


Personally, I'd rather never talk to you about religion ever again. So if you could kindly avoid posting or replying to any posts I make involving religion when I'm talking to other people that'd be great. We're never going to agree - and there is no point to us arguing about it.

Continuing to follow me from thread to thread, jumping on every word I say when I'm talking to other people about religion, derailing threads - it's a sign of mental illness...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Personally, I'd rather never talk to you about religion ever again. So if you could kindly avoid posting or replying to any posts I make involving religion when I'm talking to other people that'd be great. We're never going to agree - and there is no point to us arguing about it.

Continuing to follow me from thread to thread, jumping on every word I say when I'm talking to other people about religion, derailing threads - it's a sign of mental illness...

One point, which encompasses both of your little tidbits there; you're not special.

No, you're not special in the sense that i'm not going to avoid posting to your stuff on a general forum, as much as i won't avoid posting to other peoples. Especially since i discuss the matter and don't just post pointless insults as you tend to do.

And no, you're neither special in the sense that i'm supposedly stalking you.

If you wish to stop answering me, fine, go right ahead. You will notice that by not engaging in a discussion, you will get a lot less replies. I wont ofcourse just shut up if i find something you say to be stupid, or agreeing with it, but you again don't have to answer.

To put it in terms you can understand;

I'm not performing the action of stalking you.

Why don't you just say you don't accept my argument and leave it at that?

Then do so.

It would be. Thank god I never said anything of the sort, eh?

You actually made a huge post aabout explaining the difference, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

 

[Scouse]

Wow. In, what, fifteen years (?) of BW/FH - I've never put anyone on "ignore" before

 

[Wij]

Get a room guys

 

[Krazeh]

This kind of reaction to a simple thing of "believing there's no god and not believing in god is pretty much the same deal" shows only that.

What? Pointing out that you're mistaken in stating the two statements are the same thing?

True, but there's no special seperation between not believing in god and not believing in the existence of god, or the non-existance of god.

No, the separation isn't special but it's still there. Belief in the existence of god and belief in the non-existence of god are two separate entities. You can believe one or the other or neither.

If you don't believe in the existance of god, you don't believe in god and vise versa. Why this is so hard to accept is beyond me, just some zealotty weirdo stuff.

Who's finding it hard to accept? I don't see anyone disagreeing that not believing in the existence of god means that you don't believe in god. Or that believing in the existence of god means you believe in god.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's what i'm on about Krazeh, Scouse made a huge post about just that.

He made a big ass post about how he's not believing in the non-existance of god, and now says it's the same as not believing in god(which he admits to).

In short as f*ck terms;

If there's no action of not believing in god, how can there be an action of believing god doesn't exist?

(FYI; interesting to see if Scouse knows the meaning of ignore and doesn't take potshots at me, probably not)

 

[Krazeh]

That's what i'm on about Krazeh, Scouse made a huge post about just that.

He made a big ass post about how he's not believing in the non-existance of god, and now says it's the same as not believing in god(which he admits to).

Except that's not what he's said.

In short as f*ck terms;

If there's no action of not believing in god, how can there be an action of believing god doesn't exist?

Because a belief in the existence of god (or a belief in god) is different to a belief in the non-existence of god (or a belief that god doesn't exist). If you don't hold the first belief, i.e. haven't taken the action of believing in god, you can still hold the belief, i.e. take the action of believing that god doesn't exist. This is why you have atheists who will state that god definitely doesn't exist, because they have taken the action of believing that god doesn't exist. You can however not hold either belief which is what Scouse is saying, he neither believes in the existence or non-existence of god, he simply lacks any belief either way.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's the thing though, he can't say he doesn't believe in god if he doesn't hold the belief that it's true. If you don't believe either way, you don't agree to either side, which means you're agnostic.

Or maybe it does, depending on the definition of active belief, in which case there's a lot of people who believe in god(s), who don't actively do so(i for one).

So let's clear that; in which context is the "actively" in this discussion?

 

[Scouse]

Except that's not what he's said.

...what Scouse is saying, he neither believes in the existence or non-existence of god, he simply lacks any belief either way.

Aye

And on balance of probabilities I deny the existence of any deity.

 

[Krazeh]

That's the thing though, he can't say he doesn't believe in god if he doesn't hold the belief that it's true. If you don't believe either way, you don't agree to either side, which means you're agnostic.

Agnosticism is a statement on the veracity of the claims. If you take the position that you can't know whether or not god exists then you're agnostic. If you don't believe in god then you're atheist, regardless of whether you hold the belief that he doesn't exist or not. The fact that I don't believe in the non-existence of god isn't a statement that I don't believe we can know whether or not god exists, it's simply a statement that at this time there is insufficient evidence to make the definitive statement that god doesn't exist.

Or maybe it does, depending on the definition of active belief, in which case there's a lot of people who believe in god(s), who don't actively do so(i for one).

So let's clear that; in which context is the "actively" in this discussion?

If you can make the statement that you believe in something, whether it be the existence or non-existence of god, then you are actively believing.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you can make the statement that you believe in something, whether it be the existence or non-existence of god, then you are actively believing.

This is the kind of faffery that i mentioned before, that is just nitpicking, semantics, and pointless.

You simply can't say "i don't believe in god" and then claim you don't hold the belief that god doesn't exist, because that is as much of a belief(be it based on evidence or there lack of) as saying "i believe in god."

It's just a wordplay to try and make more of a cap in between, and to distance self from religion in fear that it's somehow infectious.

"Do you think a god exists?" is a yes or no question, you either think so, don't, or can't decide. Thinking that the word belief has any bearing on it, is mental.

Especially if you use different rules for people who can say they don't actively believe in a deity, but think there is one and for people who say they don't actively believe there is no god, yet think there isn't one.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Or better yet, in simpler terms;

What's the f*cking difference..really?

 

[Krazeh]

You simply can't say "i don't believe in god" and then claim you don't hold the belief that god doesn't exist, because that is as much of a belief(be it based on evidence or there lack of) as saying "i believe in god."

Err what? What is as much of a belief as saying 'I believe in god'?

It's just a wordplay to try and make more of a cap in between, and to distance self from religion in fear that it's somehow infectious.

It's got nothing to do with distancing self from religion in fear, and everything to do with setting out what I do or don't believe.

"Do you think a god exists?" is a yes or no question, you either think so, don't, or can't decide. Thinking that the word belief has any bearing on it, is mental.

Especially if you use different rules for people who can say they don't actively believe in a deity, but think there is one and for people who say they don't actively believe there is no god, yet think there isn't one.

Who's using different rules?

Or better yet, in simpler terms;

What's the f*cking difference..really?

It's the difference which has been pointed out to you several times already. But you seem to have some difficulty in grasping the concept of not believing in something so I don't think you'd understand the difference regardless of how many times it's stated.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You are. If you can say i don't believe in god, yet say you don't actively believe there's no god, you can also say you believe in god and say you don't activeyl believe in god.

And yes, it's pointless distancing, especially if it's used in Scouses context of making others be less. Or mental as he would say. If you don't believe in god, just say so and stop the faffing about. It's a simple matter of yes or no.

There's no god, there is a god. End. Of.

Agnostics can be on the fence, as happily as they ever are

 

[old.Tohtori]

In essense;

I don't mind people not believing in god, i don't mind about anything really, but if someone claims that they're somehow special in a faffery nitpickery and then use that claim to lay blame/insults on others, it has to be called out as hypocritical f*ckwittery.

 

[Scouse]

Krazeh - I wouldn't bother m8 - he cannnot accept that there is more to the argument because it would undermine his own position.

Religious people start saying "it's just semantics" (I think Toht has already rolled that one out) in an effort to deflect their inability/unwillingness to grasp it. Which is funny when semantics means:

se·man·tics
  noun
a. the study of meaning

It's funny following an argument when you can't see half of it (even if you already know what's going on)

 

[old.Tohtori]

(FYI; interesting to see if Scouse knows the meaning of ignore and doesn't take potshots at me, probably not)

Yeah...

 

[caLLous]

Jeeez Toht, give it up. You say it's "nitpicking, semantics, and pointless" but it really isn't - there is a very massive difference between "believing that something doesn't exist" and "not believing that something does exist". I speak fairly excellent French (quiet, Wazz ) but I wouldn't dream of picking an argument with an actual French person over the semantics of their language. Just accept that there is a difference and move on with your life.

The trouble with you and Scouse is that you both (mostly you) always have to have the last word - even though Scouse has been the bigger man in the past and walked away. And it looks like he actually has ignored you, even though he is probably reading your posts anyway but just choosing not to reply (I know I would).

 

[old.Tohtori]

Saying there's a massive difference doesn't make it so, show the difference and i'd be inclined to accept it. As it is, there hasn't been any differences, just faffery over the word.

Especially since it means f*ck all in the end.

Looking forward to an explanation of the difference in either A: the wording in any meaningful way B: the end result, or 3: both.

 

[caLLous]

At least 2 different people have explained the difference. There's only so many different ways to say it. :\

 

[old.Tohtori]

All they've explained is the word belief having some kind of massive difference in the matter, which it by definition, doesn't.

There just can't be that big of a dfference in saying Scouse doesn't believe in god, or saying he believes there's no god. The end result is the exact same thing.

Oh and on the matter of "just walk away", why don't we all just sit here and go "Mhm, yes, that's your opinion, no comment." Whoopie, what a discussion that would be

How about the masters of the english languaage explain the actual difference, instead of going on about how massive the difference is.

See the difference in those two?

 

[caLLous]

*sigh* It really isn't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

*sigh* then explain it.

Not how big the difference is, or how there ISw a difference, but WHAT the difference is.

Saying "there's no action" is not reason enough, THAT is semantics, what is the actual difference in the end result, or meaning. the point of it being an action or not only applies to actions, believing is not an action, it's part of a person, it's no more active then not believing.

 

[Genedril]

How about:

I DO believe in a higher power (a) - I DO believe there is NO higher power (b).

(a) and/or (b) != I DO NOT believe in a higher power (c).

Both (a) and (b) require belief/faith in either existence or non-existence.
While (c) merely requires a lack of belief/faith.

{edit} My maths is GCSE standard and I've not used it for longer than I learned it. I think that ' - ' ment opposite back in the day though?

 

[Scouse]

*sigh* It really isn't.

Don't be drawn in m8. Toht has a belief system and despite being given a lot of evidence and reasoned argument (I've resorted to a mathematical breakdown of belief on one occasion) - he's ignored it. Which is what believing is - the action of ignoring evidence to the contrary.

I've come to the conclusion that the only reasonable course of action is to ignore him. But now I get loads of "ignored member has posted content" defacing freddyshouse



Edit: Lol! Genedril. Nice! As I said - I did that but I took about a page to do it (your maths is much more succinct) - he'll ignore your logic though - remember, he's a believer...

 

[Krazeh]

You are. If you can say i don't believe in god, yet say you don't actively believe there's no god, you can also say you believe in god and say you don't activeyl believe in god.

As far as i'm concerned god could exist, neither I nor anyone else has sufficient evidence to prove that he doesn't. However there is also no evidence to prove that he does exists. I therefore don't believe in god, but as I know that there is insufficient evidence to prove he doesn't exist and that he could in fact exist but be hiding I can't logically believe that he doesn't exist. I can't not believe he exists because of lack of evidence but then use the lack of evidence as a basis to believe he doesn't exist. I think it's highly improbable that god does exist and that's the basis on which I live my life but I don't hold the belief that he either exists or doesn't exist.

Not believing in god doesn't require you to believe in the opposite statement. Believing in god however does require you to believe in that statement so no you can't say you believe in god but that you don't actively believe in god. They are the same statement.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The above post by Scouse is the problem you see, it's an attitude problem of not explaining it, but referring to insults and cop-outs.

Genedril, there's no problem in understanding how they are different, but what the difference is. Been trying to say that for a long time. It seems to me it's just a fear(or other suitable word) to get near the word belief, which seems silly.

Isn't the end result still the same?

If you could provide another example of the same situation, without pointless terms like belief/faith(which are at best just made up to categorise), it would help in explaining it.

As far as i'm concerned god could exist, neither I nor anyone else has sufficient evidence to prove that he doesn't. However there is also no evidence to prove that he does exists. I therefore don't believe in god, but as I know that there is insufficient evidence to prove he doesn't exist and that he could in fact exist but be hiding I can't logically believe that he doesn't exist. I can't not believe he exists because of lack of evidence but then use the lack of evidence as a basis to believe he doesn't exist. I think it's highly improbable that god does exist and that's the basis on which I live my life but I don't hold the belief that he either exists or doesn't exist.

Surely that's just not knowing, or is there a difference in that? Aka, agnostic. It's neither denying it, or confirming it.

Could also ask; why does it have to be this complicated, what's the purpose of it?