If I was in your class I would ask to switch to someone who can grasp the difference that everyone else also seems capable of grasping.I don't know what else to say. If I were your composition professor and you submitted a paper with that sentence, I would send it back for correction. If it was the basis of your argument, I would point out that your argument stands unsupported.
God is mostly held as an unscientific notion. But just because something is unscientific does not mean that it does not exist.This appears to be a position crafted by non-scientists.
We can ignore their assertions all we want. But as soon as we wish to make a positive assertion of them being wrong we have to support that assertion of ours.Every scientist knows that one of the basic rules of the Scientific Method is that it is never necessary to prove a negative. If the supernaturalists can provide no evidence to support their claim (only the tortilla, out of millions fried every year, with a scorch mark said to be the image of a biblical figure of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it), then we are not only welcome, but urged to ignore their assertions.
Which speaks to non-belief - the not making any positive assertions - which is one of the interpretations of the "I do not believe that X does..."And of course, let's never forget another cornerstone of the Scientific Method, the Rule of Laplace: extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.
Your disrespectful language earns you no favour, FR. You may not agree with those who hold theistic beliefs but please do not belittle them.Atheism is simply the rational response to the unsubstantiated, extraordinary claims of the theists: absolutely no respect!Again, this passage could not have been written by a scientist. It is not necessary to prove a negative. The burden of proof falls on the looney-bird religionist with his worthless degree from Ambassador College to provide the evidence to support his preposterous assertions.
It earns respect from anyone willing to expand their horizons and trying to appreciate how others might think, and what philosophies others might hold. Furthermore, through Popper's notions of Fallibilism it is brought up-to-date as a modern perspective on... what was it again... oh, yes... the Scientific Method.Obviously yet another wacky offshoot of philosophy that earns no respect from us scientists.
Indeed - and an atheist who believes that God does not exist is making as much a positive assertion as the theist who claims that God does exist.Indeed. The need for evidence falls on the one who makes a positive assertion.
No - it is not unnecessary - they are making a positive claim. They are saying that they believe that God does not exist. The same way that I can claim that I believe that my television is not currently switched on. Only I am sure I can provide more evidence to support my claim.This is unnecessary. Until a theist finally walks into the academy with evidence of the existence of supernatural creatures and events, the only statement we have to make is: "Your hypothesis will not be tested until you provide supporting evidence. Since your hypothesis is remarkable, your evidence had also better be remarkable. Don't bother saving that tortilla."
So what? Is atheism restricted to scientists? And since the matter of God's existence is accepted by most as being unscientific in nature, what does being a scientist have to do with it, other than informing the position that one might take: either making a positive claim of existence, a positive claim of non-existence, or no positive claim at all?The "strong atheists" who are quoted here are obviously not scientists.
Proof has very little to do with belief. Throughout this you are hung up on the notion of proof, and the scientific method, yet we are talking about belief (or not), and in a matter that is unscientific in nature.They don't seem to understand that there is no requirement to disprove an assertion that is presented without evidence.
Well sure, if we want to spend the time to play that game.
- The word "universe" means "everything that exists."
- If God has the abilities required to create a universe, then he must surely exist.
- If God exists, then he is part of the universe.
- Then God must have created himself.
- This is an obvious fallacy.
- Therefore the premise that God created the universe is false.
And in this it's almost certainly easier for us all to simply agree to disagree with you.I see the strong and weak atheists having an interesting discussion, but it doesn't clear the air on the original question about the various ways to express the atheist position.
This was an interesting post to compose. Nonetheless, I find nothing related to our original argument: Is there a difference in meaning (rather than subtext) between the statements "I believe that God does not exist" and "God does not exist"?
Because if you do not know something, there are various possible reasons, including:Substitute "know" for "believe":
a: I do not know that god exists
b: I know that god does not exist
These are obviously different statements. Why does changing "know" to "believe" make them equivalent?
You're welcome to choose a teacher you find easier to understand. But be careful that in the process you don't always choose teachers with whom you agree. You learn less that way.If I was in your class I would ask to switch to someone who can grasp the difference that everyone else also seems capable of grasping.
Ever since macrocosmology (the study of universe and the space-time continuum, as opposed to microcosmology with its quarks and leptons), the origin of the universe and/or the space-time continuum has become an important issue. A large fraction of the human race (probably the majority) answer this question by saying "God made it," and going back to their religious wars. If "God made it" is sincerely presented as an answer to a scientific question, then we must be allowed to analyze it as a scientific answer.God is mostly held as an unscientific notion.
Poor combination of words. Matter and energy exist, but it isn't the matter and energy that are scientific; it's the way we study them.But just because something is unscientific does not mean that it does not exist.
You guys are still looking for ways to ignore the scientific method. It is not necessary to prove a negative. We do not have to support our finding that God does not exist, when the religious idiots cannot provide any evidence that he does.We can ignore their assertions all we want. But as soon as we wish to make a positive assertion of them being wrong we have to support that assertion of ours.
Again, your grasp of semantics is a little weak. Have you ever taken an upper-level philosophy class?And therein lies the difference of "I do not believe that X does..." (no positive assertion) and "I believe that X does not..." (positive assertion, an explicit denial). Which speaks to non-belief - the not making any positive assertions - which is one of the interpretations of the "I do not believe that X does..." Yes, another interpretation, given the ambiguity, is that it is identical in meaning to "I believe that X does not...", but the ambiguity allows for the interpretation that we see and that you clearly seem unable to.
I think people who are so poorly raised and so poorly educated, that they still believe in fairy tales as adults, deserve as much disrespect as they receive.Your disrespectful language earns you no favour, FR. You may not agree with those who hold theistic beliefs but please do not belittle them.
Instant??? My parents taught me that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Wizard of Oz and God were imaginary creatures when I was seven: 65 years ago.Give it respect or don't, FR. That's your prerogative. But your instant disdain is telling.
Again, your grasp of the scientific method is pitiful. I suppose out in daily life it doesn't matter (assuming that you're not a scientist, a quite reasonable assumption), but when you log onto a site that specializes in science, you really should be familiar with it so you don't embarrass yourself.Indeed - and an atheist who believes that God does not exist is making as much a positive assertion as the theist who claims that God does exist.
Your comments would be perfectly reasonable, except for the fact that you are posting them on an internet forum that is about science.So what? Is atheism restricted to scientists? And since the matter of God's existence is accepted by most as being unscientific in nature, what does being a scientist have to do with it, other than informing the position that one might take: either making a positive claim of existence, a positive claim of non-existence, or no positive claim at all? Proof has very little to do with belief. Throughout this you are hung up on the notion of proof, and the scientific method, yet we are talking about belief (or not), and in a matter that is unscientific in nature.
This isn't a university so we don't give grades. You can be as wrong as you want. What bothers me is that you will probably pass this bullshit on to your children, and we'll have more generations of religiously-inspired warfare.And in this it's almost certainly easier for us all to simply agree to disagree with you.
When it comes to matters of opinion, sure. When the teacher outright claims them to be wrong and can not seem to grasp why the pupil - and all the other pupils - disagree with him... that's a different matter.You're welcome to choose a teacher you find easier to understand. But be careful that in the process you don't always choose teachers with whom you agree. You learn less that way.
We do analyse it - and very quickly dismiss it as an unscientific answer involving an unscientific notion. That doesn't mean that it is not correct, however. Science can only examine scientific matters. Specific claims of God's abilities can be assessed using science, and there are varieties of god that can be studied scientifically (Greek pantheon on Mt. Olympus etc). So we have to examine what properties of God are being claimed, but God's existence itself is unscientific if God is deemed akin to "the original cause".Ever since macrocosmology (the study of universe and the space-time continuum, as opposed to microcosmology with its quarks and leptons), the origin of the universe and/or the space-time continuum has become an important issue. A large fraction of the human race (probably the majority) answer this question by saying "God made it," and going back to their religious wars. If "God made it" is sincerely presented as an answer to a scientific question, then we must be allowed to analyze it as a scientific answer.
No, it's a very precise combination of words with exactly the meaning I intended. Had I meant something different I would have written something different. So I'll say it again: being unscientific does not mean that something does (or did) not exist.Poor combination of words. Matter and energy exist, but it isn't the matter and energy that are scientific; it's the way we study them.
There may be specific claims we can test, and the rational conclusion may be to conclude that there is no reason to accept them existing, but one can not... simply can not... use science to determine anything that happens before or outside (if either word is meaningful in context) the closed nature of the universe (that science has as a rather fundamental assumption).If gods and all the other preposterous creatures and phenomena in the world's holy books exist, then we can use science to study them.
One does not need respectable evidence to verify their existence before one can use science to study them, there need only be hypotheses from which their existence can be established. The way that was done for any number of hypothesised phenomena.But given the fact that there is no respectable evidence to verify their existence (again, no one respects that scorched tortilla), then we have no grounds for using science to study them.
And if the scientific method can not be applied, from the outset, in any meaningful way to determine their existence, they are deemed unscientific. Are you struggling with this notion?In other words, it is not the space-time continuum and the gods that are or are not scientific. It is the way we study them.
No, it is you who doesn't understand that there are some notions that are simply outside the purview of the scientific method.You guys are still looking for ways to ignore the scientific method.
Agreed. Noone disputes that. It is you who is confusing the positive claim of non-existence with a negative. The former requires support whereas the latter does not.It is not necessary to prove a negative.
Again with your disrespect. It is pathetic, FR. You clearly do not agree with their position (and nor do I) but there is no excuse for your language.We do not have to support our finding that God does not exist, when the religious idiots cannot provide any evidence that he does.
My grasp of semantics is just fine, thanks. You're the one seeming to have the difficulty here.Again, your grasp of semantics is a little weak. Have you ever taken an upper-level philosophy class?
If theism was linked to low IQ and poor standard of education, with only a few exceptions, your discourteous position might be understandable. But it hasn't been shown to be as far as I am aware - other than perhaps for American Protestantism (or so the wiki article suggests).I think people who are so poorly raised and so poorly educated, that they still believe in fairy tales as adults, deserve as much disrespect as they receive.
Oh, I don't doubt that your disrespect of theism and your ridicule of theists is well ingrained, but unfortunately your age holds no currency in the accuracy of what you say.Instant??? My parents taught me that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Wizard of Oz and God were imaginary creatures when I was seven: 65 years ago.
I find that humourous, as it is actually your grasp that seems poor. Not so much in what the method is, but in what it is and is not capable of, and where it is applicable or not. In fact, I'm going to laugh again. Excuse me.Again, your grasp of the scientific method is pitiful.
Oh, there goes my rib cage again.I suppose out in daily life it doesn't matter (assuming that you're not a scientist, a quite reasonable assumption), but when you log onto a site that specializes in science, you really should be familiar with it so you don't embarrass yourself.
No, this is a LINGUISTICS thread. The difference between "believing in not-X" and "not believing in X". You have managed to sidetrack the issue to one of God, which is merely the X in those sentences, and science's stance on God, which is frankly irrelevant to the issue.Your comments would be perfectly reasonable, except for the fact that you are posting them on an internet forum that is about science.
Yes, 'cos I'm indulged in warfare at the moment, obviously.This isn't a university so we don't give grades. You can be as wrong as you want. What bothers me is that you will probably pass this bullshit on to your children, and we'll have more generations of religiously-inspired warfare.
And if you do not believe something, there are various possible reasons, including:Because if you do not know something, there are various possible reasons, including:
a: You're not familiar with the subject matter
b: You're familiar with it but you don't know enough about it to take a position
c: You're familiar with it and you find that even the experts in the discipline are not in agreement on this particular point.
But if you know something (or at least claim to), you are familiar with the subject matter (or again, at least claim to) and are qualified to speak on it.
No, because you guys are still arguing over semantics. It's as though you don't really want to understand why so many highly educated people are convinced (by reviewing all relevant evidence and applying the scientific method to it--or more precisely to the absence of such evidence) that you are wrong about the existence of supernatural creatures and other phenomena. So instead of arguing over that, you argue about our words.Does that not help you understand?
Congratulations, FR, on completely sidetracking the thread to one of religion rather than language.
For the record, no-one here (from what I can tell) believes in the existence of God, fairies, Santa or the celestial teapot. It is not a question of whether it is rational to believe or not, on what science can or can not do, but one of the difference in meaning of two sentences.
Ignore what the subject of belief is for just a second, or preferably for the rest of this thread. Forget trying to explain to people what you think science is or isn't, and what you think scientists should or should not believe (which is a matter for the philosophy thread, not linguistics). I don't agree with your views on such matters, given what you have posted here, but I also recognise that it is irrelevant to the question asked.
So, for Pete's sake, get back on topic.
You say we are arguing over semantics... well dur! This is the linguistics thread, and semantics is, as I'm sure someone as well educated (or so you would have us believe) as you, and moderator of the linguistics thread, will know, the branch of linguistics associated with meaning.
And what was the question asked in this thread? Oh, yes, what is the difference [in meaning] between the two sentences.
So excuse us if we ignore your fanciful wander into irrelevancy, no matter how much I agree or disagree with your view of science, and request that you stick to the topic?
Is that too much to ask?
Given that you think we're just arguing semantics, do you now, after all your irrelevant vitriol aimed at theists, feel/agree that there is a difference between the two statements, given the plethora examples provided to you?
Or shall we agree to disagree?
Then I apologize for that. But as I've said several times, I'm completely exhausted by the semantic argument. I simply don't see the difference that you see. I don't know what else to say about it.Congratulations, FR, on completely sidetracking the thread to one of religion rather than language.
As I said above, I don't see the difference.Given that you think we're just arguing semantics, do you now, after all your irrelevant vitriol aimed at theists, feel/agree that there is a difference between the two statements, given the plethora examples provided to you? Or shall we agree to disagree?
.Then I apologize for that. But as I've said several times, I'm completely exhausted by the semantic argument. I simply don't see the difference that you see. I don't know what else to say about it.
I'm not a professor of English or literature, so if I happen to be wrong, the impact will be just about zero. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
I actually am an editor, but the kind of material I have to edit these days is technical writing, predominantly written by people for whom English is a challenge. I can assure you that these nuances never come up in my daily life; a more typical problem is wondering why a sentence has no verb.As I said above, I don't see the difference.
If the people with whom you customarily communicate do see it, then you're doing just fine and what I think doesn't matter.
No. Why can't he be undecided?Do you think a person must believe 1 or the other, that a god exists or that no god exists?
So if a person doesn't believe that God does exist, and doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, what's left...?No. Why can't he be undecided?
I would call that an oxymoron. Not to believe that God exists is equivalent to believing that he does not; by the same token not believing that God does not exist is equivalent to believing that he does. It is logically impossible to believe that God both does and does not exist at the same time.So if a person doesn't believe that God does exist, and doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, what's left...?
If a person is undecided, then he has no belief on the subject. The most coherent thing we could say about him is that he is undecided, that he needs more evidence, that he is waiting for a sign from God, etc.If a person is undecided, is it not true that "he does not believe that God exists"? Just as much as it is true that "he does not believe that God does not exist"?
Not to believe that God exists is equivalent to believing that he does not; by the same token not believing that God does not exist is equivalent to believing that he does.
The contradictions run deep in this one...If a person is undecided, then he has no belief on the subject.