Neutral Position

[Quietus]

from page 2 of Lost Tomb of Christ: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=80832&page=2

Wigferth,

Your reference point then is everything already exists?

Your reference point is 1 or a positive claim for everything at the time you were born! Pixies, God, Leprechauns, Xenu, Gargoyles, Gorgons, Goblins, Spirits, Nymphs etc. all exist?

The reference point really is 0 (no outside knowledge), which is neutral. It only appears as a negative stance if your reference point is 1, which means everything exists and you have to prove it does not exist.

In short, before you can claim Pixies exists, your previous position would be neutral or 0. Now if you say Pixies do not exist, you are only rejecting the positive claim and your neutral starting position do not change (and that is not really negative).

Hence:

Neutral reference (0) ---> Positive claim (1)

Not

Positive reference (1) ---> Negative claim (0)
Leprechauns exist by default (1) ---> Leprechauns do not exist (0)

No, 0 is I don't know

Yes, I don't know about "God", hence I reject it which is your Positive claim. The position is unchanged, which is neutral.

Let me try to explain again.

I can make four statements about the existance of God:

1: I believe in the existance of God.

2: I do not believe in the existance of God.

3. I believe in no-existance of God.

4: I do not believe in the non-existance of God.

Now, theists believe 1, atheists believe 3 and agnostics believe 2 and 4.

Where 1 and 3 are positivistic, or to put it another way where 1 is positive and 3 is negative 2 and 4 are neutral, because they reject the positivistic stance of either 1 or 3.

"I do not believe in God" does not mean the same thing as "I believe in the non existance of God." because the first can indicate rejection of the belief without adherence to the opposite belief.

If you start at Zero (0) and you make a claim you add +1. I reject your claim, hence, I remain at Zero (0). Neutral.

Now if you lose your faith, you will withdraw the +1 and return back to Zero (0) which was the starting point.

0, no outside knowledge cannot be "it does not exist" because that means until you see something it definately doesn't exist, which is clearly absurd. It would mean, for example, that until you meet me I do not exist, except that I do. Now you could argue epistomological reletivism which would say exactly that but that requires that NOTHING exists which you do not experience. If you wish to hold that view then there is no point continuing this disscussion. However, I would ask how you will find your house the next time you leave it, as it will cease to exist as soon as it passes from your sight.

Neutral/Atheist do not make the claim AND definition. Neutral/Atheists reject the Positive (theistic) claim. If you were to say Leprechauns exists. I will reject it and remain neutral likewise.

It doesn't make sense to say "oh, qgasldkiqkdsl doesn't exist, definition of qgasldkiqkdsl, I don't know"

In any case at this particular point we are argueing theology and your thesis was that atheism is the same as agnostism. It is not because an atheist believes in the non-existance of God, where an agnostic simply does not believe, in either the existance or non existance of God.

So both an atheist and a theist hold a belief, therefore in relation to agnostics they are both +1, in order to differentiate between them we call atheism negative (-1) but only in relation to theism. You can reverse the polarity and the essential arguement remains unchanged, merely the bias.

0 = Neutral, (ideal starting point).
+1 = Positive claim

The starting position should be 0:

0 Neutral (no claims) ---> +1 Positive claim (God Exists)

Like I said, your starting position is already +1.

+1 Positive claim (God exists ---> -1 "Negative claim" (rejection) = 0

There is no negative claim. You are starting off on +1 which is means everything exists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are still working from a fallacy.

Atheists don't say "I don't believe in God" they say "I believe in the non-existance of God, or to quote myself:

I can make four statements about the existance of God:

1: I believe in the existance of God.

2: I do not believe in the existance of God.

3. I believe in no-existance of God.

4: I do not believe in the non-existance of God.

Now, theists believe 1, atheists believe 3 and agnostics believe 2 and 4.

Where 1 and 3 are positivistic, or to put it another way where 1 is positive and 3 is negative 2 and 4 are neutral, because they reject the positivistic stance of either 1 or 3.

Lets examine this in greater detail. 1 is a positive claim, 2 is a rejection of that claim, 0. 3 is a positive claim, 4 is a rejection of that claim.

2 and four can mean the same thing, no belief, while 1 and 3 are diametrically opposed positive statements.

Lets try a different wording.

1. There is a God.

3. There is NO God.

Yes, I don't know about "God", hence I reject it which is your Positive claim. The position is unchanged, which is neutral.

If you do not know then you cannot reject or affirm my statement. If you reject my claim as unprovable then you are refusing to make a decision because you should also reject the opposite claim, which also requires knowledge.

However, if you reject my claim and affirm the opposite you are claiming knowledge yourself, i.e. "God does not exist" which is a positive statement, so then we both are making diametrically opposed positive statements, therefore we are both one point away from 0.

If you start at Zero (0) and you make a claim you add +1. I reject your claim, hence, I remain at Zero (0). Neutral

If you reject my claim, or more accurately, refuse to accept it, you remain at zero, however if you make the opposite claim you move one point further away from zero, to -1.

Since belief both are belief and neither is a non-belief.

If I lose my faith I might return to 0 but more likely in losing my faith I will move from 0, non-belief, to a positive belief in the non-existance of God.

Your original point remains bankrupt, athiesm is a positive belief in the non-existance of God, otherwise we would not have agnostism.

I know they are not the same thing because I have been both, and agnostism was a state of not holding beliefs while when I was an atheist I was quite certain God did not exist.

If you wish to continue this debate address the claim, "I believe in the non existance of God." In the same way as you address the claim "I believe in the existance of God." They are both statements of belief and are identical in all save the belief they hold.

[Caius]

There is no neutral position.

Everything you say have a second significate

[Quietus]

You are still working from a fallacy.

Atheists don't say "I don't believe in God" they say "I believe in the non-existance of God, or to quote myself:

Lets examine this in greater detail. 1 is a positive claim, 2 is a rejection of that claim, 0. 3 is a positive claim, 4 is a rejection of that claim.

2 and four can mean the same thing, no belief, while 1 and 3 are diametrically opposed positive statements.

Lets try a different wording.

1. There is a God.

3. There is NO God.

1) There is a God = Positive Claim
2) Rejection of the Positive claim = Neutral
3) Rejection of the Positive claim = Neutral
4) There is a God = Positive Claim

The positive claim always comes first.

If you do not know then you cannot reject or affirm my statement. If you reject my claim as unprovable then you are refusing to make a decision because you should also reject the opposite claim, which also requires (knowledge.

However, if you reject my claim and affirm the opposite you are claiming knowledge yourself, i.e. "God does not exist" which is a positive statement, so then we both are making diametrically opposed positive statements, therefore we are both one point away from 0.

1) There's no proof that god exist. I do not know god, but I know you do not know god either which lead to...

2) you defining god WITHOUT any knowledge. Which is impossible. Define, say a dozen things other than god without any knowledge.

If you reject my claim, or more accurately, refuse to accept it, you remain at zero, however if you make the opposite claim you move one point further away from zero, to -1.

So, -1, 0, +1

Where 0=Agnostic is the starting point. You were born agnostic? "Dododo may or may not exist, I don't know what dododo is".

0 = Neutral (starting point)
+1 = God Exists
-1 = God does not exist (rejection).

(0) + (+1 ) + (-1) = 0 = Neutral.

The problem is you're using a Positive claim (+1) as the zero starting point. God exists at default 0. I make a "negative claim" to make it -1. How can I make a negative claim without any positive claim first?

Since belief both are belief and neither is a non-belief.

If I lose my faith I might return to 0 but more likely in losing my faith I will move from 0, non-belief, to a positive belief in the non-existance of God.

You move two points from +1 to -1 just by losing faith. Before you had faith, you only moved +1 point to the right.

It is more like withdrawing +1 hence reverting back to 0 neutral position.

Your original point remains bankrupt, athiesm is a positive belief in the non-existance of God, otherwise we would not have agnostism.

It is a rejection of the positive claim. Without any theists, there would be no atheists.

I know they are not the same thing because I have been both, and agnostism was a state of not holding beliefs while when I was an atheist I was quite certain God did not exist.

You can't really be agnostic or atheist without any claim.

If you wish to continue this debate address the claim, "I believe in the non existance of God."

I will address it (see below). But again, you want the default existence of "God" as the starting point.

I have no concept of god, so how can define and say 'it does not exist'?
'God does not exist' is a rejection of 'God exists', not the other way around.

In the same way as you address the claim "I believe in the existance of God."

+1 + -1 = 0

They are both statements of belief and are identical in all save the belief they hold.

1) Can you name anything that doesn't exist? According to you, you can't. If not, there's nothing that doesn't exist.

2) The non-existence of God comes from you and theists doing the impossible. Defining something without any knowledge.

Can a totally blind guy define color? Deaf guy define sound? Impossible.

If you can define God without any knowledge, define 100 things that exists (other than God) without any knowledge. For example, define the following (the letters are just placeholders):

1) lkqoaihdf
2) oqoignoi
3 izkldmaloioa
4) kmaopelkmamd
5) aogmeogmllag

So, is it possible?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

1) There is a God = Positive Claim
2) Rejection of the Positive claim = Neutral
3) Rejection of the Positive claim = Neutral
4) There is a God = Positive Claim

The positive claim always comes first.

No, becuase 4 does not affirm the existance of God, merely rejection of non-existance. 2 Does not affirm the non-existance, merely the rejection of existance. Niether makes a claim, it merely rejects the opposite claim. Only 1 and 3 make claims

1) There's no proof that god exist. I do not know god, but I know you do not know god either which lead to...

By the same token you do not know God does not exist.

2) you defining god WITHOUT any knowledge. Which is impossible. Define, say a dozen things other than god without any knowledge.

No, I'm not defining God without knowledge. I believe God exists I have a Bible etc to indicate this (lets not get into the veracity of the evidence, as it is pointless), prior to knowing about God I had no opinion, 0, once given the idea "God" I can decide to believe in it or not, or sit on the fence. I have three options.

So, -1, 0, +1

No, -1 is only minus -1 in relation to one, in reality both choices represent different +1's. However, in order to express their diametrical opposition one must be -1.

Where 0=Agnostic is the starting point. You were born agnostic? "Dododo may or may not exist, I don't know what dododo is".

0 = Neutral (starting point)
+1 = God Exists
-1 = God does not exist (rejection).

You assume that I decided God existed before I decided he didn't. I began with the opposite belief. It actually looks like this:

0 = No Claim
+1 = God exists.
+1 = God does not exist.

(0) + (+1 ) + (-1) = 0 = Neutral.

Both claims are plus one, you can make "God exists" -1 and the effect remains the same.

The problem is you're using a Positive claim (+1) as the zero starting point. God exists at default 0. I make a "negative claim" to make it -1. How can I make a negative claim without any positive claim first?

No, you are assuming God does not exist, which is a positive claim, expressed as -1 in relation to the opposite claim.

You move two points from +1 to -1 just by losing faith. Before you had faith, you only moved +1 point to the right.

Prior to losing faith I held a belief. In losing faith I would lose that belief, 0, but I might well also adopt the opposite belief, a new +1 but -1 in relation to my original belief.

It is a rejection of the positive claim. Without any theists, there would be no atheists.

an atheist does not merely reject God, that is what an agnostic does, he also declares that there is no posibility of the existance of God.

You can't really be agnostic or atheist without any claim.

True agnosticism is not making either claim.

I will address it (see below). But again, you want the default existence of "God" as the starting point.

Not really, I merely lack a word for "not-God" in this context.

I have no concept of god, so how can define and say 'it does not exist'?
'God does not exist' is a rejection of 'God exists', not the other way around.

+1 + -1 = 0

We are talking about holding beliefs, not the nature of the Universe. Our debate here requires the existance of God because atheists know about God.

1) Can you name anything that doesn't exist? According to you, you can't. If not, there's nothing that doesn't exist.

You are the one who refuses to accept that non-existance is possible. You cannot specify what does not exist, which is why lack of knowledge is zero. Once you have a concept you can decide whether it exists or not. In either case you will come to a conclusion you did not hold before.

2) The non-existence of God comes from you and theists doing the impossible. Defining something without any knowledge.

I do not define God, merely state his existance, that does not require definition.

Can a totally blind guy define color? Deaf guy define sound? Impossible.

Can a blind man tell you when he does not see blue?

If you can define God without any knowledge, define 100 things that exists (other than God) without any knowledge. For example, define the following (the letters are just placeholders):

1) lkqoaihdf
2) oqoignoi
3 izkldmaloioa
4) kmaopelkmamd
5) aogmeogmllag

So, is it possible?

I cannot state the existance or non existance of any of these, I make no decision. However, in giving voice to them you have created them. The concept of these quantities now exists, however their actual existance is an enigma.

[Quietus]

No, becuase 4 does not affirm the existance of God, merely rejection of non-existance. 2 Does not affirm the non-existance, merely the rejection of existance. Niether makes a claim, it merely rejects the opposite claim. Only 1 and 3 make claims

Gah. Wordplays do not change the claims and rejections. As I've said, the positive claims and definitions comes first, then rejection or acceptance next.

If you say 'dogs exists, here is a dog by the way', can I reject you?
0 + 1 and no rejection = +1

By the same token you do not know God does not exist.

You describing God is akin to a blind guy describing 'color'. In each case neither will ever get close to the truth.

No, I'm not defining God without knowledge. I believe God exists I have a Bible etc to indicate this (lets not get into the veracity of the evidence, as it is pointless), prior to knowing about God I had no opinion, 0, once given the idea "God" I can decide to believe in it or not, or sit on the fence. I have three options.

The only thing I will modify is that agnostics which say either 0 or +1. The but there's still only two positions.

No, -1 is only minus -1 in relation to one, in reality both choices represent different +1's. However, in order to express their diametrical opposition one must be -1.

Yes, 0 + 1 + -1 = 0.

You assume that I decided God existed before I decided he didn't. I began with the opposite belief. It actually looks like this:

0 = No Claim
+1 = God exists.
+1 = God does not exist.

How can they be both positive? +God + -God = 0 = Neutral.

Both claims are plus one, you can make "God exists" -1 and the effect remains the same.

One is +God, the other is -God to cancel the other.

No, you are assuming God does not exist, which is a positive claim, expressed as -1 in relation to the opposite claim.

You made the claim first right? I reject it.

If I were to claim Leprechauns exists, I have to define what Leprechauns are, hence the positive claim comes first, not the rejection.

Prior to losing faith I held a belief. In losing faith I would lose that belief, 0, but I might well also adopt the opposite belief, a new +1 but -1 in relation to my original belief.

But the starting point is 0. You gained faith (+1). You lost your faith (-1). 0 + 1 -1 = 0 (which was the original starting point).

an atheist does not merely reject God, that is what an agnostic does, he also declares that there is no posibility of the existance of God.

If it is really possible to define/describe something that exist without any knowledge or proof, then demonstrate it 100 times over. Define something that exists that noone earth has no knowledge of (other than God of course).

True agnosticism is not making either claim.

Ok, thinking it many times over. Agnostics say either 0 or +1.

Not really, I merely lack a word for "not-God" in this context.

You are using your positive claim (+1) as the zero starting point is what I meant. And I'm the one making the initial "negative claim" that god does not exist.

We are talking about holding beliefs, not the nature of the Universe. Our debate here requires the existance of God because atheists know about God.

I already said, I have no knowledge and neither do you too. Hence the rejection.

You are the one who refuses to accept that non-existance is possible. You cannot specify what does not exist, which is why lack of knowledge is zero. Once you have a concept you can decide whether it exists or not. In either case you will come to a conclusion you did not hold before.

So, can you name anything that does not exist at all? If you can't then to you, everything exists.

I do not define God, merely state his existance, that does not require definition.

Existence of what again? Without a definition, God is just a word made up of three letters.

Can a blind man tell you when he does not see blue?

Whatever he says cannot be blue.

I cannot state the existance or non existance of any of these, I make no decision. However, in giving voice to them you have created them. The concept of these quantities now exists, however their actual existance is an enigma.

Right! You can't define anything without any knowledge. So how did people defined god as 'the creator of the universe', for example, without any knowledge? Whereas you've demonstrated, it is impossible to do so.

[Kralizec]

Quietus, are you arguing it's impossible to "know" hypothetical constructs without believing in them?

[ajaxfetish]

Personally, I think Philipvs' logic makes a lot more sense. I have a great deal of respect for agnosticism. Atheism makes absolute claims about unprovable things, so requires a level of faith, just as belief in God does. Of course their are significant differences between theism and atheism. Theism is belief in something that cannot be proved; atheism is belief in the nonexistence of something that cannot be disproved. Since God's existence cannot be disproved, from a scientific perspective he/it is irrelevant.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gah. Wordplays do not change the claims and rejections. As I've said, the positive claims and definitions comes first, then rejection or acceptance next.

It is not word play, read it again and take it litterally. I can make the same statements about non-existance belief as existance belief, therefore the nature of the belief held is the same, only the content is different.

You describing God is akin to a blind guy describing 'color'. In each case neither will ever get close to the truth.

Exactly my point. The blind man doesn't reject colour though, not can he affirm it. Colour may just be a joke invented by we seeing people.


Lets try this:

1. Dog is black.

2. Dog is not black.

3. Dog is white.

4. Dog is not white.

Now apply that to the existance of God. From a belief standpoint we are talking about exactly the same thing. The actual existance of God is a ye/no answer but that is not up for debate.

[BDC]

Exactly my point. The blind man doesn't reject colour though, not can he affirm it. Colour may just be a joke invented by we seeing people.

You could prove it mathematically though. Wave theory, and so on. Photoreceptors.

So it's not really an analogy.

But it made me giggle. "Yeah don't eat that! It's red! *quiet giggle* "

[Redleg]

The atheist claim of non-existance of god is not a neutral postion. Any arguement that claims atheistism is a nuetral claim is false. Atheistism takes a negative postion on the existance of god.

Theist is a postive claim
Agnostic is a nuetral claim
Atheist is a negative claim.

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla logic is more sound and has more logical base then Quietus postion. It seems to me that Quietus has misread what the initial premise of the arguement is and went off on a tangent to prove that points 2 and 3 were rejections of a postive claim.

2 and 3 are statements of belief - not a rejection of a postive claim. To reject the postive claim the statement would have to state.

"There is no proof of God's existance." That is a rejection of a postive claim