Neither a theist nor an atheist.

[George S]

Look, it's not that I believe in God, I just don't not believe in God.

That is weak atheism.

I don't believe in any theos (god with a name and god-properties). I have diligently searched about 50 years now.
I don't believe there can be no god.
I do believe that no one can know about the supernatural. All we have access to is the natural. If natural laws could be suspended locally it is not repeatable in any testable experiment. For example, prayer studies show that prayer is not effective. (Although those who knew they were being prayed-for did less well than those who were not and also worse than those who didn't know. [The psychology is that if you know you are being prayed-for you must be serious, and the body reacts accordingly.])

Neither you nor I nor anyone can know the negative. That is, the statement that there is no god is strong atheism. Weak atheists just don't know. Why? No credible evidence.

 

[Wiploc]

Look, it's not that I believe in God, I just don't not believe in God.

That is weak atheism.

No, it's gibberish. For any given proposition, you either believe it or you don't.

 

[Philos]

That is weak atheism.

No, it's gibberish. For any given proposition, you either believe it or you don't.

Wiploc,

I'm not convinced that the world of contingencies applies to propositional logic.

Alex.

 

[steve_bnk]

My view is that atheism is just the flip side of theism.


A theist declares a god exists and demands to know what you believe. If you engage you are then drawn into a duality and are defined by the theist.


True intellectual freedom begins with'neither an atheist nor a theist be'.


Reject the question itself. I reject both atheism and theism as equally absurd arguments. What has to be resisted is the encroachment of religion into science and other public aspects of society like education ad the legal system.


If you mean Buddha's middle way it doesnot apply. The middle way is a moral code. If you take Buddhism as religion it is a religious code. No sex outside of marriage. No intoxicating substances. Honesty in speech an action. And so on.


The middle way has a lot in common withthe Christian moralities of ordinary social behavior.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look, it's not that I believe in God, I just don't not believe in God.

What is with the singular term and the capitalization? Even if there is god(s), doesn't have to be a personal one that would care about capitalization.

 

[The Paul]

That is weak atheism.

No, it's gibberish. For any given proposition, you either believe it or you don't.

It's not just gibberish. It's gibberish that people expect to receive praise for spouting.

 

[George S]

No, it's gibberish. For any given proposition, you either believe it or you don't.

It's not just gibberish. It's gibberish that people expect to receive praise for spouting.

Self contradictory perhaps. It can be interpreted as non-belief in god and it is not final. Or Grandi series-like belief and non-belief alternate quite quickly, quickly enough that the writer of the first half and second half had different states of mind.

I'm pushing to recover, aren't I.

 

[tupac chopra]

you are demanding a yes or no answer to a question that doesn't have a yes or no answer.
the concept of God like the concept of ni--er is too poorly defined

if I asked you whether black people exist then the answer would be yes or no.

the false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.

The middle path, on the other hand, is cooperation vs competition.

Actually, the question of whether or not God exists is a yes or no question. He's either a real being or he's not. .

Only if you're reacting against some stupid judeo christian model.
I like Joseph Campbells idea that all concepts of god are metaphors. The whole idea of god being a person is just a metaphor.
Once you rally against that idea you give some credence to the whole stupid idea.
Forget the stupid christians jews and moslems..what the fuck would they know about god? they are idiots, they think god is a person.

IMHO we should or could stop letting christians jews and moslems define the rules.

Why should we let them define the categories and then react against that??

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should we let them define the categories and then react against that??

Well, whatever your definition of what collection of powers and intentions would qualify as a 'god,' it either exists solely as one or more thoughts in human brains, or it exists independently of the humans thinking about it, right?
How's this: DO you believe that god*& would continue to exist if all humanity perished?

If the answer to that is not either yes or no, what else is there?





*plural or singular
&for whatever definition you would use this label to identify

 

[The Paul]

Look, it's not that I believe in God, I just don't not believe in God.

What is with the singular term and the capitalization? Even if there is god(s), doesn't have to be a personal one that would care about capitalization.

Eh... I was using "God" like a name/title and writing in English.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What is with the singular term and the capitalization? Even if there is god(s), doesn't have to be a personal one that would care about capitalization.

Eh... I was using "God" like a name/title and writing in English.

Oh.
I thought you were tugging no one in particular's leg, in that for all his denials, he capitalizes and singularizes 'God,' probably because that's how he was raised by society to use it.

 

[The Paul]

Actually, the question of whether or not God exists is a yes or no question. He's either a real being or he's not. .

Only if you're reacting against some stupid judeo christian model.
I like Joseph Campbells idea that all concepts of god are metaphors. The whole idea of god being a person is just a metaphor.
Once you rally against that idea you give some credence to the whole stupid idea.
Forget the stupid christians jews and moslems..what the fuck would they know about god? they are idiots, they think god is a person.

IMHO we should or could stop letting christians jews and moslems define the rules.

Why should we let them define the categories and then react against that??

It seems like some people have a really hard time coming to terms with the fact they don't believe in God. They seem to know and understand they don't believe in God, but they haven't really figured out that's not a deficiency. They've been trained to hold to that "Everyone needs to have faith in something" kind of bullshit, and they've got the label that says "God" on it, but no God to stick it on and they think they've got to find something to put that label on, because everyone needs something to act as their god.

No. They really don't.

If you don't want to swallow the Judeo-Christian-Muslim bullshit, then don't swallow it. If you don't believe in God then don't believe in God. You don't need to pretend "God" actually refers to some real thing. The idea that you need to believe in some kind of god even if its not really a god is as much a lie as any particular god is.

 

[George S]

I can believe in an imaginary being. Can I not? If not, then just who answers the questions you ask of yourself.

You are. And being human are self-aware. Thou Art.

At least I suppose so. Unless you are a computer, in which case the pronoun shifts to "it."

Judeo-Christian ethic is all about sin and DNA. Apparently sin is transmitted down genetic lines just as genes are. A gene for sin, imagine that! Let us imagine, further, a female born without any of the many genes for sin. She has a sinless son! Jesus! You believe that my father's sin is my sin? You believe my mother's sin is my sin, too? Is that not the very definition of prejudice? Pre-judgement based on factors attributable to chance, not choice.