Atheism & Theism...A Common Denominator

God is a word, which cannot be spoken, only heard.

-- attributed to ibid.

Psychosis is a delusion, which starts with the mistaken conclusion that one is important, to the world, rather than in the world. This leads to incorrect thinking or consideration of one's real place in the world. Psychosis ensues if the person is not disabused of their impressions of self-import.

-- attributed to some shrink or other.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
The common denominator for theism and atheism is not knowing if God exists. Neither one has any hard evidence to support their claim. Atheists because of the lack of evidence state their opinion and it is no different for the theist. If there was all kinds of evidence then there would be no theists or atheists.

Therefore any atheist cannot totally refute a god nor can a theist ignore the possibility a god doesn't exist.

For those who claim to know, they simply do not believe. If you don't know then you either believe or don't. I think the only reason theism is the norm is because there are more who believe. Other than that I see little reason for so much animosity between the two. When both sides argue they argue with no evidence or assuredness. Kind of pointless.

The most devoted believer or atheist on this forum doesn't know for sure if they are correct. Yes my religious friends, even you cannot support God with evidence just as I cannot support His absence. It's a draw. I'd pay to hear an evangelist say that.
Click to expand...
The OP is linguistically flawed.
1. A belief is a claim of knowledge. You are separating one claiming to believe, and one claming to know.

2. There is no such thing as:
"Neither one has any hard evidence" period.
Linguistically, all that means is:
"Neither one has any hard evidence that I personally accept".

3. There is the claim about ignoring the possibility that gods don't exist. There is no such thing as ignoring a possibility or not ignoring a possibility. It is linguistically irrelevant. If one believes 1000% that God exists, then he must switch to atheism if some form of justification compels them to do so. If one believes 1000% God does not exist, then he must switch to theism if some form of justification compels them to do so.

4. Fortunately, the OP has placed the proper linguistic connotations on the terms.
Thesim - God exists.
Atheism - God does not exist.
Undecided - Neither atheism or theism.
 
lixluke said:
1. A belief is a claim of knowledge. You are separating one claiming to believe, and one claming to know.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There is a distinct difference between a claim of belief and one of knowledge.

Despite that error, oddly enough, with the rest of your post I mostly agree.
 
glaucon said:
Incorrect. There is a distinct difference between a claim of belief and one of knowledge.

Despite that error, oddly enough, with the rest of your post I mostly agree.
Click to expand...
We've established in a different thread that all claims of knowledge are a belief. If one linguistically states "X is definitely true" (or "I know X is true"), it means he believes that X is true. If one linguistically states "I believe X is true", it is possible that he means he is undecided, but tends to lean towards the position that X is true. Or he may mean that he beleives X is true.

Because of the way language is used, thought becomes distorted leading to the misconception between what is said, and what is meant. There is a clear difference between the statement "I believe" and being in actual state of belief. Yet people think they are one and the same.

When somebody states "I believe", he usually (not always), is not in a state of belief, but in a state of indecision whilst leaning towards a particular position. When somebody states "I know", he is always in a state of belief on a position. A state of belief is a conclusion about a particuilar matter. Unless the individual is in a state of conclusion on the matter, he doesn't possess a belief.
 
Last edited:
lixluke said:

When somebody states "I believe", he usually (not always), is not in a state of belief, but in a state of indecision whilst leaning towards a particular position. When somebody states "I know", he is always in a state of belief on a position.
Click to expand...

I believe I know or ..... I am not in a state of belief about being in a state of belief.

I know I believe or..... I am in a state of belief about not being in a state of belief.

Philosophic doubletalk means squat to me. Of course I have a built in disdain for religious philosohers so I'm biased. Let me substitute your definitions into simple phrases.

I know this or I always believe this but then I'm not in a state of belief but of indecision. Huh?

God knows what I do every minute or God is in a state of believing He knows what I do every moment.

So if God believes He knows what I do every minute then God is in a state of indecision about being in a state of belief or not knowing what I do every minute.

Oldest trick in the book. Christ almighty, the limits someone will go to just to make their delusions seem real. It boggles the mind.
 
lixluke said:
We've established in a different thread that all claims of knowledge are a belief.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I've never encountered this philosophical breakthrough in all my years..
You should notify one of the top philosophical journals.

lixluke said:
...
If one linguistically states "X is definitely true" (or "I know X is true"), it means he believes that X is true. If one linguistically states "I believe X is true", it is possible that he means he is undecided, but tends to lean towards the position that X is true. Or he may mean that he beleives X is true.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.
See my last post.

lixluke said:
Because of the way language is used, thought becomes distorted leading to the misconception between what is said, and what is meant. There is a clear difference between the statement "I believe" and being in actual state of belief. Yet people think they are one and the same.
Click to expand...


Now with this, I agree fully.
Thus, the distinction between the state of belief, and the state of knowledge (and claims to each).

lixluke said:
When somebody states "I believe", he usually (not always), is not in a state of belief, but in a state of indecision whilst leaning towards a particular position.
Click to expand...


Agreed.

lixluke said:
...
When somebody states "I know", he is always in a state of belief on a position.
...
Click to expand...


Incorrect. All indecision has been removed.

lixluke said:
A state of belief is a conclusion about a particuilar matter.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is an inconclusive position about a particular matter (as you yourself have pointed out above).

lixluke said:
Unless the individual is in a state of conclusion on the matter, he doesn't possess a belief.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
Translated: when one asserts knowledge, one doesn't possess a belief.
 
glaucon said:
Interesting. I've never encountered this philosophical breakthrough in all my years..
You should notify one of the top philosophical journals.
Click to expand...

Un/not in a state of belief but of indecision while leaning towards a particular position/able!!!:D

What if he has?
 
Lori_7 said:
you just choose not to believe me. what i'm saying is that it is not my responsibility to establish a relationship between god and you. that's your responsibility, and you shun it on purpose.
Click to expand...


No. It is god's responsibility.


Lori_7 said:
i'm not lying and i have my relationship with god. where does that leave you?
Click to expand...


You have a relationship with something you choose to call god.
What does calling it god mean?
 
Lori_7 said:
my relationship with god isn't hurting you or anyone else. you don't want to believe i have it, don't. you don't want to have one yourself, don't.
Click to expand...


If you are actually having the experiences you report, calling it god & assuming it is benevolent & reliable could hurt yourself & others.
 
glaucon said:
Tnerb?? I thought you were banned??



Translation: I cannot make any sense of what you wrote here.
Click to expand...


Un/not in a state of belief but of indecision while leaning towards a particular position/able!!!.....The word unbelievable written according to the definitions of lixluke
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
Un/not in a state of belief but of indecision while leaning towards a particular position/able!!!.....The word unbelievable written according to the definitions of lixluke
Click to expand...

Ah. So in other words, nonsense.

It's really pretty simple, even semiotically:

unbelievable = non-believable = known
 
S.A.M. said:
This is hardly rocket science. Every experience unless put into an artificial model and "standardised" is unique to the individual.

Imagine you me and (Q) walking down a street and running into Brad Pitt

Lori: My panties just hit the ground!
Me: Damn, thats one skinny pale kid. Eww
(Q): Why are you lying, I don't feel anything! [I'm assuming Q doesn't find Pitt arousing or skanky]
Click to expand...


Each of you has good evidence that Brad Pitt exists tho.
 
Lori_7 said:
if you mean god's spoken word, what he has shown me and the ways in which he has developed me, the things he's taught me, are all congruous with scripture.

BUT, i would not have an understanding of scripture without his interpretation and guidance throughout my experience.
Click to expand...


You do not understand scripture.
 
lixluke said:
We've established in a different thread that all claims of knowledge are a belief.
Click to expand...
Lol! What you mean is that you have stated in another thread that all claims of knowledge are a belief.

And is this going to be yet another thread hijacked by your "knowledge / belief" rantings? I do hope not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top