Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hiiri]

I'm just not quite comfortable calling it a god in and of itself

I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.

THERE! You're an atheist, get over it.

You quoted out of context.

I don't believe that any god exists, because he hasn't shown himself to anyone.
I don't believe he *doesn't* exist, because I haven't been shown decisive proof on that either.

That is the quote with the other bits. I don't believe that he exists, or that he doesn't, because there is no solid evidence either way.

I did not. What you put on top of "I don't believe any god exists" is irrelevant. As long as you don't live by the assumption that a personal god is looking out for you, you're an atheist.

You can claim all sorts of things, but these claims have no bearing on your atheism. You can claim there absolutely are no gods, this has little to do with your atheism. You can be unsure whether or not there really are any gods, this has nothing to do with your atheism. You can claim you're a socialist or a libertarian, this has nothing to do with your atheism. You can claim you're a liberal or a conservative, this has nothing to do with your atheism. You can claim you're blonde or brunette, this has nothing to do with your atheism.

You can claim there is a God, who loves you and follows you through your life, now you're no longer an atheist.

[lemon10]

Your first and second statement are mutually exclusive super, the first one explicitly says you are an atheist, while the second one explicitly says you aren't an atheist.
Either A or B is true, but not both (I suppose they could be both untrue, like if you believed in the greek pantheon (since you said that you don't believe that he exists (aka using the singular and not plural), but that's rather unlikely).

[penguinofhonor]

This thread is getting worryingly semantic.

[Bauglir]

No, he was very careful not to say both, "I believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist".

And, Hiiri, let me reiterate that we're going to have problems when people are trying to correct others about what they do or do not believe. Just a friendly reminder, well in advance of when it might be actually necessary to keep the thread civil.

[penguinofhonor]

And, Hiiri, let me reiterate that we're going to have problems when people are trying to correct others about what they do or do not believe. Just a friendly reminder, well in advance of when it might be actually necessary to keep the thread civil.

Everyone heed this. If I weren't about to fall asleep I'd type something up myself.

Let's just say there's a difference between helping someone learn and grow with their beliefs, and telling them what they are regardless of how they feel about themselves.

[lemon10]

No, he was very careful not to say both, "I believe God exists" and "I believe God does not exist".

And, Hiiri, let me reiterate that we're going to have problems when people are trying to correct others about what they do or do not believe. Just a friendly reminder, well in advance of when it might be actually necessary to keep the thread civil.

No, he said "I don't believe god exists" and "I don't don't believe god exists" , its slightly different from what he actually said, but its exactly the same meaning.
In English, double negatives are usually mutually exclusive, as they are in this case.

If I said "I believe I ate that pie on the desk", and also said "I don't believe I ate that pie on the desk", one of the statements is wrong, no matter which one I actually believe.
E: To make it more similar to what he said, its like saying "I don't think A is true", and "I don't not think A is true". One says that he thinks A is wrong, the other says that he doesn't think A is wrong, which basically means he either thinks its correct, or he has no opinion/knowledge of it.

This thread is getting worryingly semantic.

Yeah.
I think its because the past 10 pages have been about the definition of atheism and philosophical concepts where definition is very important.

[Osmosis Jones]

Technically, Supercharazad is a weak, or negative, atheist; he doesn't have faith in a particular deity.
This is distinct from strong, or positive, atheism, where one actively believes there is no such deity.

A rock or a baby or a perfectly reasoned agnostic is a weak atheist. Richard Dawkins is a strong atheist. Active disbelief is a subset of atheism, not a core tenet!

So, to reiterate, technically speaking, Supercharazad IS an atheist. However, because people associate atheism with people like Dawkins, they assume that all atheists are strong atheists. Which leads to hilarity when agnostics (such as Supercharazad) are described as atheist. Correct, but easy to misinterpret.

Also, apparently, my mind can spell atheism correctly, but misspells atheist as athiest :/

[Graknorke]

This is distinct from strong, or positive, atheism, where one actively believes there is no such deity.

Isn't that anti-theism then? The belief that there is no deity, rather than a lack of belief that there is one. Of course, you'd have to be an atheist to be an anti-theist as well, seeing as it would be hard to say that there aren't any gods, but you believe in one.

[Osmosis Jones]

Umm, not exactly. Antitheists are people directly opposed to religion or the belief in gods, beyond just not believing it themselves. For example, you may not believe in a god (actively believing it doesn't exist, specifically), but still have absolutely no problem with someone believing. By contrast, for antitheism... think militant atheism; not only don't you believe, you think no one else should either.

The a- prefix in atheism basically means without, or lacking, as opposed (ironically) to anti-, which basically means against.

That said, anti-theists are a subset of strong atheists. They can't be misotheists according to wikipedia (TIL that the term is misotheist, not maltheist, for the "there is a god, but he's a prick, so screw him" viewpoint) or weak atheist, as by definition they think that the very act of believing that a god does exist is a bad thing.

[Supercharazad]

I'll put the way I think this way:


There might be a god.

Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god exists, so I don't believe that god exists.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god *does not* exist, so I don't believe that he doesn't exist.

I don't believe that he exists or that he doesn't exist, simply that there's a possibility of it being either way.


Here's an analogy:

I am playing a game of poker with you. You say you have four aces and grin at me.

I don't believe that you have four aces, because you haven't shown me any proof
I don't believe that you lack four aces, because you haven't shown my any proof of that either

When you show me your hand, you might either have four aces or not, but until I've seen your hand, I can't be sure either way.

[Antioch]

I'll put the way I think this way:


There might be a god.

Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god exists, so I don't believe that god exists.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god *does not* exist, so I don't believe that he doesn't exist.

I don't believe that he exists or that he doesn't exist, simply that there's a possibility of it being either way.

how can the non-existence of god even be proven in the case he does not exist?

[Graknorke]

Here's an analogy:

I am playing a game of poker with you. You say you have four aces and grin at me.

I don't believe that you have four aces, because you haven't shown me any proof
I don't believe that you lack four aces, because you haven't shown my any proof of that either

When you show me your hand, you might either have four aces or not, but until I've seen your hand, I can't be sure either way.

But in that analogy, while you can't get definite evidence, you can consider my intent. Well, firstly, it's quite improbable to have me have my hypothetical four aces anyway, not impossible, just not very likely. With intent, it would probably benefit me a lot more to be lying than to be telling the truth, seeing as, if I WERE telling the truth, it would either have you bet with a straight flush and win the bet without any fear of being wrong, or have you fold and cease betting when I would have otherwise had the best hand, which would decrease my winnings.
On the other hand, lying could have benefits if I had a better hand; in convincing you to make a higher bet on your hand, thinking it will win; or a lower hand by convincing you to fold and leave me with the best hand.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'll put the way I think this way:


There might be a god.

Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god exists, so I don't believe that god exists.
Nobody has given me ANY solid evidence that god *does not* exist, so I don't believe that he doesn't exist.

I don't believe that he exists or that he doesn't exist, simply that there's a possibility of it being either way.


Here's an analogy:

I am playing a game of poker with you. You say you have four aces and grin at me.

I don't believe that you have four aces, because you haven't shown me any proof
I don't believe that you lack four aces, because you haven't shown my any proof of that either

When you show me your hand, you might either have four aces or not, but until I've seen your hand, I can't be sure either way.

Alright, let's do it your way.

If you can see the deck, you can look for aces there. If the deck has no aces, and you have no aces, then it stands to reason through inference that I do in fact have all the aces.

Similarly, we cannot observe god (or so most theists would conveniently say), but we can observe the universe around us, and so far there has been no evidence of a god or its influence, and so we can reasonably infer that there isn't a god because if there was there would be something we could use to indirectly infer its presence.

The only way that a god could exist and not leave something from which we could infer its existence is if it had no contact with our reality, and if something has no contact with reality then it is for all intents and purposes nonexistent anyway.

[Osmosis Jones]

-

Yup. You're a weak agnostic (almost text-book in fact), which is a subset of weak atheist.

The great thing about religion debates is that all the possible options have been hashed out and labelled a long time ago

[Phmcw]

But you know what four aces are. The god question is more like "I have the ultimate hand that beat all hands". What are you talking about? A royal flush? Something that beat a royal flush? A gun?

Is it your belief that there is a god out there, that is consistent with the definition of a god as set forth by the Christian, Abrahamic, or Islamic faiths? If not, explain why. If so, explain why.

Still too vague, they don't agree at all on the nature of god. All revealed religion have the weakness that they are regional thing, though, which make no sense at all, and for me is sufficient to dismiss them.