I don't believe there is a god vs I believe there is no god
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
In most discussions here on Sciforums, I'm inclined to treat them as more-or-less synonymous.
It's true that there is a big logical difference between
1. Not believing in X
2. Believing in not-X
The difference there is that a rock doesn't believe in X, but that doesn't mean that it believes that X is false. Rocks don't have any beliefs at all.
But if somebody is actually saying "I don't believe in the existence of X', then that does seem to typically imply that they simultaneously believe in the nonexistence of X.
In a few cases somebody may be pretty-much neutral about whether or not X exists. So 'I don't believe in the existence of X' would be more consistent with 'I don't have a clue whether or not X exists' than a statement of belief in X's non-existence would be.
I interpret 'atheism' as an ontological position, a view about the existence of something. ('God' in this case.) As I would define it, 'atheism' is the negative view about God's existence.
I'm not sure that I would define somebody an 'atheist' who considers Gods existence and God's nonexistence as being equally likely. An atheist leans towards affirming the non-existence side, a theist leans towards favoring the existence side.
Of course, I'm not entirely convinced that anyone can really live their life in a 50-50 religious manner. There seems to be kind of an existential imperative in religion to choose one way or another.
As for me, I'm not 100% convinced that God doesn't exist. (I don't even know what the word 'God' means, so how could I?) But in my day-to-day life, I operate on the assumption that God doesn't exist. I have as little interest in finding the Christian God as most Christians have in converting to the worship of Vishnu. I just shrug at the idea.
So I can say with quite a bit of certainty that I don't believe in God, and I also say rather less forcefully that I believe that God doesn't exist. That second belief is more of an existential default, a working-assumption. But it does make me a 'weak atheist', as I would define it. I typically refer to myself as an 'agnostic', since that word better captures my thinking. But in real life, I'm both.
Last edited:
I understand that you have not gazed upon anything, heard anything, or read anything, and as a result you do not believe because you don't know anything.
This matches my idea:
''The only other excuse is ignorance. Then ''non-belief'' is nothing
but an expession of ''i don't know anything about the subject''.''
Next!
jan.
Wrong.
You see: we're back to your inability to understand non-belief.
Pathetic fail. You can't (or won't) understand so you ascribe ignorance in order to maintain your position.
Dywyddyr,
Why?
I hope to see you object when atheists assert that we are born atheists.
Aside from that, your come back is kinda rap with a capital C.
Say what you like.
You lose.
Bye.
jan.
Why?
I hope to see you object when atheists assert that we are born atheists.
Aside from that, your come back is kinda rap with a capital C.
Say what you like.
You lose.
Bye.
jan.
Oh boy, you're really dumb today.
You're wrong because you are incorrect on the declaration you made.
Since we are not born with a belief in deities (so far as we can ascertain) then babies would be atheist by definition.
Dywyddyr,
Why is the declaration wrong?
And you believe that?
jaln.
Why is the declaration wrong?
And you believe that?
jaln.
Boy, you're really pushing out the stupid boat today. You declared (on zero evidence) I hadn't done something. I have. That's what makes you wrong. Couldn't you work that out?
I see you haven't learned to read yet.
I'll spell it out:
1) So far as we can tell babies do not believe in god.
2) Not believing in god makes one an atheist.
3) Therefore, by not believing in god, babies are, by definition, atheist.
Dywyddyr,
What other alternative was there?
1) It's clear that you don't know whether or not babies believe in God.
2) Same as above.
3) Same as above
I guess you don't actually know whether or not babies believe in God.
jan.
What other alternative was there?
1) It's clear that you don't know whether or not babies believe in God.
2) Same as above.
3) Same as above
I guess you don't actually know whether or not babies believe in God.
jan.
Actually, small children have a natural affinty for stories, such as fables, where animals talk and where the cause and effect of science can break down; dragons can breath fire. This suggest an instinctive connection to the imagination that show up early but disappears as it is censored by inductions within cuture. If a small child had an imaginary friend this is cute up to a certain age. But after that steps will be take to avoid a social stigma. Children love Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny even before they can talk. But after enough peer pressure this needs to be repressed and made fun of.
Even if you assume religion is all imagination, the imagination is active in children very early and gradually changes with culture. The atheist lost their imagination due to cultural induction. This makes them gumpy.
Without the imagination to help relate, it might be similar to someone who is colored blind and then trying to prove to them a rainbow has more colors than shades of gray. Don't expect the colored blind to understand. Rather they will deny a ranibow has any colors, beyond gray, since their eyes are not able to see such things. Both are being true to themselves.
Humans are the only species of animals that practice the behavior called religion. However, not all humans practice this behavior. Animals don't practice religion and atheist don't practice religion. These appear to have more in common than humans who practice this behavior. This could explain the animal standard of behavior in science, which will allow anything animal and beastil but needs to exclude a uniquely human behavior.
Even if you assume religion is all imagination, the imagination is active in children very early and gradually changes with culture. The atheist lost their imagination due to cultural induction. This makes them gumpy.
Without the imagination to help relate, it might be similar to someone who is colored blind and then trying to prove to them a rainbow has more colors than shades of gray. Don't expect the colored blind to understand. Rather they will deny a ranibow has any colors, beyond gray, since their eyes are not able to see such things. Both are being true to themselves.
Humans are the only species of animals that practice the behavior called religion. However, not all humans practice this behavior. Animals don't practice religion and atheist don't practice religion. These appear to have more in common than humans who practice this behavior. This could explain the animal standard of behavior in science, which will allow anything animal and beastil but needs to exclude a uniquely human behavior.
Last edited:
No, the entity that is addressed for wishes and hopes just changes.
Atheists have imagination. But they realize it's fiction.
Many animals have ritualistic behavior. Can we really say they aren't praying to a god in their own image?
Wrong.
Also wrong.
And once more you trot out this ridiculous claim.
Please stop doing so, it's inane and banal.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Rocks and clouds don't believe in God. So are they atheists? I don't think so.
It seems to me that in order to be an atheist, one has to possess some sort of (negative) opinion about the existence of God. (Which in turn implies at least some understanding of what the word 'God' means.)
Not by any definition that I accept.
Babies aren't atheists because they don't have any beliefs about God's existence at all, one way or the other.
I don't think that I'd call a baby an agnostic either. Agnosticism isn't just lack of knowledge. Sand dunes and sea shells don't have any knowledge. Agnosticism's more than that, it's a view about whether suitable knowledge exists or is possible for humans to acquire.
They don't hold any beliefs, they aren't capable of doing so. Are they vegetarian too, since they don't eat meat?.
Then you go against the definition.
How's it working out having your own personal definition for words?
Um,
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheist
Atheism = without (NOT against) god(s).
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
"Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist."
Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64
-------------------------
"Atheism. Disbelief in the existence of any GODS or of God. This may take the form of (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of THEISM, (b) skepticism about all religious claims, or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, or irrational, or meaningless."
The Penguin Dictionary of Religions pp. 53-4
--------------------------
"Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied."
The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76
___________________________
"According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence "God exists" expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious..."
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Paul Edwards ed., 1st ed. vol.I , p. 175
Last edited:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Another speculative God-thread.
Me: God is there....
You: God is not there...
Me: yes he is!...
You: No he isn't!!...
Me: How do you know?...
You: How do you know??....
Me: because I have faith...
You: Faith in what?...
Me: Faith in God...
You: Your stupid...
Me: Dont judge my faith...
You: Shut up!....
Me: Fuck you!!...
You: Fuck you too!
This is how wars start.
Me: God is there....
You: God is not there...
Me: yes he is!...
You: No he isn't!!...
Me: How do you know?...
You: How do you know??....
Me: because I have faith...
You: Faith in what?...
Me: Faith in God...
You: Your stupid...
Me: Dont judge my faith...
You: Shut up!....
Me: Fuck you!!...
You: Fuck you too!
This is how wars start.