Fandom Forums - View Single Post - 0-)0=-0
Thread: 0-)0=-0
View Single Post
Old 08-10-2010, 08:35 PM   #5
Deos Fortioribus Adesse
Miburo's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Valhalla
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 34,399
Thanked 17,679 Times in 5,440 Posts
Miburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond reputeMiburo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 0-)0=-0

Originally Posted by Fayrra View Post
I don't think it's semantics. Whether you apply terms like Theism or Gnosticism or not, the concept of having to either believe in a god or not is still there. Or are we talking about a different kind of semantics here?

It's impossible to be somewhere in between, because even if you're unsure whether or not God exists, you're either going to be believing in him or not. Believing in something requires a mind-set, not believing doesn't. A good analogy that Krpi once said (the basic analogy is his; it's not word for word, though):

It's like deciding whether you're going to go into a restaurant later for dinner, and if so, which restaurant you will choose. Even if you're unsure which restaurant to go into, or whether or not you're going to even go to a restaurant at all, you're still going to be either inside or outside of a restaurant. Period.

I'm sure you know, but the restaurants represent religion.

You can't not have an active belief in god and not not believe in him at the same time. The former implies you don't believe while the latter implies you do. Both of which completely contradict each other. It's pure logic, right? Where's the semantics, here?
If this is what you meant when you posted this stuff:

Originally Posted by Fayrra View Post
And, the fact that not not believing is the exact same thing as believing (automatically making you a theist). Two negatives equal a positive, fucking morons.
then okay. That works just fine. The thing you just posted above is a good argument. The original argument was correct too, but I wouldn't consider it a well-worded argument. Uh, at all. =p

What you just posted is what you should use when debating. That works.

It also has to do with being negative and positive claims as well. If I make the claim that God doesn't exist, I don't have to prove it, because, how could I if the negative ended up being true? If God really doesn't exist, how could I prove such a thing? There would always be loop holes for theists to pray upon.

If I say that he never had it, and then we checked him and he didn't have it, is that really proof that he didn't have it at one point? Truth is, it's not, it just means he doesn't have it on him anymore.

Logically, you never really have to prove negative claims when reagarding beliefs, only positive ones. That's what I think, anyway. What about you? lol, not like I have to ask.
I personally think it's best to just not make any claim of non-existence. It's just a fuckload easier that way. I just say "I don't believe in any God, because no one has presented any reason why I logically should." I don't need to even state that there is no god. Just that there isn't any reason to believe that there is one. Avoids the whole mess completely.

Which I think is the best thing to do when debating this particular topic, if you're just going for the kill right away. Make them focus solely on proving their claims of existence, and just point out the flaws in their arguments.

Well, I think the smartest Agnostic would be me or you, the kind who realize what Agnosticism really is: what you know. I mean, sure, what you know does in fact affect what you believe. However, just because we don't believe in God, doesn't mean we know for sure whether he exists or not. I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in God, but I don't know whether he exists for sure or not, and I'm sure you're the same. I think when applying the concept of the term properly, anyone who's even remotely logical would be an agnostic. But instead somehow people want to stay in some kind of fucking hidden interstice where they can say they aren't believers but aren't non-believers either, which doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.

And don't get me wrong, I get the point of your post, and that was to say that I left out the part about the default stance. I'm just trying to discuss some of the other things I think about it with you, you sexy bitch.
See, I just hate the whole concept of agnosticism. I refuse to use the term to describe myself. I don't think the topic of god's existence is special. It's just like anything else. I don't believe in magical dragons. That doesn't mean I know for a fact magical dragons don't exist. Any stupid made up thing could exist. We don't have a special term we use when talking about goddamn made up magical shit though. I'm not a agnostic amagicalshitist. I don't believe in made up magical shit. And it should be a given that I knew it could exist, and if a magical dragon flew up to me and said "sup" I'd reconsider my stance. No one should have to specify the fact that they're not irrational morons when stating their disbelief in something.

I don't believe in any God. I'm an atheist. Of course if someone proved God's existence, I'd reconsider my stance. Just like I would with any other stance of mine if new evidence was presented that contradicted it. And of course there is an inherent level of doubt present in regards to god's non-existence. Just like there is an inherent level of doubt in all of knowledge. We could be wrong about literally anything. Don't see the need to specify that with anything else. The belief in god isn't any different, because it's not a magical topic deserving it's own special rules and shit.

Using the term "agnostic atheist" to me is like saying "Not a completely fucking retarded atheist." Should I really have to put that in there? I dunno. I personally don't think it's necessary. = )
Miburo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Miburo For This Useful Post:
ACt (08-12-2010), Scientia (08-10-2010)