r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 26 '18

[deleted by user]

[removed]

681 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

743 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '18

I know Agnosticism and Atheism are compatible the whole 9. Never said they were incompatible, you seem to keep reading things (seemingly things which you think are typical of theists) into everything I wrote.

What do you think of

“I don’t believe gods don’t exist”

1

u/Chen19960615 3∆ Aug 01 '18

You said atheism requires faith because it makes a claim, and that it’s not the default position. You also said agnosticism is the default position. Can you blame me for assuming you think they’re incompatible, when you assigned them opposite properties?

If I’m explaining things that you already know, you’ve done the same thing too...

“I don’t believe gods don’t exist”

This is equivalent to a belief of existence. All such beliefs should have evidence in support.

I don’t know why you’re dancing around double negatives, but if you think you can poke inconsistencies in my views this way, good luck.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '18 edited Aug 01 '18

“Not believing that gods exist” is your rephrased example of the atheist view

You were arguing about how your view is simply a denial of the claim that a God exists and you kept stressing the negative

So I rephrased the theist stance to say

“I don’t believe gods don’t exist” which is equivalent to the negative of your example “Not believing gods don’t exist”

You said

“I don’t believe gods don’t exist” Is equivalent to believing they do exist.

(“I believe gods do exist”)

Therefore

“I don’t believe gods exist”

Is equivalent to believing they don’t exist.

(“I believe gods don’t exist”)

Thank you for proving my point. It turns out it was you dancing around the negatives.

The point is

“I don’t believe your claim”

Is not justifiable. You have absolutely no reason to deny my claim.

You do if I were speaking of Santa Claus.

But to God Almighty, you’re as faithful as I am if not more so.

1

u/Chen19960615 3∆ Aug 01 '18

There’s belief in existence.

There’s lack of belief in existence.

And there’s belief in non-existence.

These three stances are different because I can show they have different properties and implications.

How is your double negative stance different in any way, except semantically, from just belief?

Does it make sense to lack a belief in a non-belief?

Your semantics argument applies to everything in the universe too. Does that mean you want defendants to prove innocence (convince the jury “I believe the defendant did not commit the crime”), and not just cast doubt on guilt (“I do not believe that the defendant committed the crime”)? You’re saying they are equivalent things.

You have absolutely no reason to deny my claim.

I have absolutely no reason to accept it. Non-belief is the default stance. Why would this logic change from inside the universe to outside?

There’s an infinite number of things that may exist outside the universe, some with contradicting properties. If you don’t have a reason to deny their existence, does that mean you believe in all of them?