Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isDarth-CaedusI wouldn't say so -- there is evidence and reasoning for both sides. But you are right; both theism and atheism requires a certain amount of faith, just one more than the other. :P
can Atheists criticize Christians for believing in God out of blind faith?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isMetalGear_NintyI wouldn't say so -- there is evidence and reasoning for both sides. But you are right; both theism and atheism requires a certain amount of faith, just one more than the other. :P indeed, atheism does require a bit more faith than theism :P
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isNTWrightfanI wouldn't say so -- there is evidence and reasoning for both sides. But you are right; both theism and atheism requires a certain amount of faith, just one more than the other. :P indeed, atheism does require a bit more faith than theism :P
Â
This is one point that I have never seen a creationist like yourself elaborate upon. Even if you throw the Judeo-Christian God out of the window and stick to a God that simply put the universe into motion, the chances of a God like being existing are still 50/50.Â
How could even pure Atheism, which is based on science the occasional leaps of faith, be more faith based than Christianity, which is based PURELY on faith?Â
Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.MetalGear_Ninty
Indeed.
Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic.Â
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isNTWrightfanI wouldn't say so -- there is evidence and reasoning for both sides. But you are right; both theism and atheism requires a certain amount of faith, just one more than the other. :P indeed, atheism does require a bit more faith than theism :P Nah. :P The belief in an abstact/hypothesised entity requires a lot more faith than the lack of belief in one.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.Termite551
Indeed.
Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic.Â
I just don't see how 'believing that God does not exist' and 'not believing in God' aren't really the same thing. I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in place It seems to me, that 'weak atheism' is a position people adopt to make them stronger in debates, when in reality such a distinction does not exist.This is one point that I have never seen a creationist like yourself elaborate upon. Even if you throw the Judeo-Christian God out of the window and stick to a God that simply put the universe into motion, the chances of a God like being existing are still 50/50. Termite551
not really, the chances of God existing as the unmoved mover are a lot closer to 1/1 than 50/50. Here is a very simple proof of that statement
1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Really nothing more than a reaffirmation of the first principle of metaphysics, being never comes from nonbeing, unless you believe in Magic. and we all know that atheism and magic dont exactly make best of friends now do they? :P
2: The material and temporal world began to exist. This is of course necessary because if there is an infinite regress into the past then we should not be here right now because in order for any moment to arrive, the moment before that must arrive, and since for any moment to arrive there must be an infinite amount of moments which must be traversed, we should not be here right now, but that is absurd
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause. This cause, being the cause of all spacetime must be itself immaterial and timeless. But we know with a fair bit of certainty that there are only 2 objects which can possibly exist timelessly and immaterially, and they are abstract objects (like numbers) and disembodied minds. Since abstract objects do not cause anything, the cause must be a disembodied mind
so right, the odds of the "unmoved mover" existing are pretty darn close to 1/1
How could even pure Atheism, which is based on science the occasional leaps of faith, be more faith based than Christianity, which is based PURELY on faith? Termite551Simple, Christianity is not in the least based on blind faith. There is an incredible amount of historical evidence corroborating the resurrection including: The empty tomb of Christ, The appearance to James the brother of Christ, the Appearance to the twelve disciples, the appearance to Paul of Tarsus, the appearance to the 500 bretheren, and the necessity of explaining the origin of the Christian faith.
[QUOTE="Termite551"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]
Â
I wrote a rather long reply to this, but I think the answer to your post is much simpler than the thing that I initally wrote up.
I am an atheistically leaning agnostic. I recognize the fact that God could indeed exist. I am fully aware that if you remove all of the Christian values and interventionsim, the chances of a God setting off the spark of the universe are probably around 50/50. However, as already stated, there is no evidence for God existing. There is also no evidence AGAINST there being a God, but it is silly to think that lack of evidence that something does not exist constitues evidence that it does.Â
Â
I see it as taking a larger leap of faith to believe in the existance of God, especially the Judeo-Christian God, for whom the 'evidence' consists purely of things such as the Bible, than to believe that there is no God, based on the lack of concrete evidence that he exists.Â
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.MetalGear_Ninty
Indeed.
Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic.Â
I just don't see how 'believing that God does not exist' and 'not believing in God' aren't really the same thing. I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in place It seems to me, that 'weak atheism' is a position people adopt to make them stronger in debates, when in reality such a distinction does not exist.Â
I wrote a rather long reply to this, but I think the answer to your post is much simpler than the thing that I initally wrote up.
I am an atheistically leaning agnostic. I recognize the fact that God could indeed exist. I am fully aware that if you remove all of the Christian values and interventionsim, the chances of a God setting off the spark of the universe are probably around 50/50. However, as already stated, there is no evidence for God existing. There is also no evidence AGAINST there being a God, but it is silly to think that lack of evidence that something does not exist constitues evidence that it does.Â
[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there ishtekemeraldI dont see how you can call athiests blind for not wasting their life to something that has never been one shred of evidence that proves it exists. good point. however, i also don't see why a lot of these intelligent beings (or so most atheists claim to be) would waste their precious time trying to tell the believers to disbelieve in their god(s) because they're wasting their lives on something that has never been one shred of evidence of existence. it's just the same. believers believe in a god. atheists believe in no god. it's just a private BELIEF. seriously, why bother with someone else's private stuff? :D
[QUOTE="Termite551"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Meh, 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' are terms which I don't really like, and would just avoid using altogether.MetalGear_Ninty
Indeed.
Saying 'strong atheism' and 'weak atheism' is like saying 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. If you see the strong atheist as the person who is SURE there is no God, and the weak atheist as the one who is leaning towards there being no God, then you would be better off calling the 'strong atheist' an atheist, and the 'weak atheist' a defacto atheist or atheistically leaning agnostic.Â
I just don't see how 'believing that God does not exist' and 'not believing in God' aren't really the same thing. I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in place It seems to me, that 'weak atheism' is a position people adopt to make them stronger in debates, when in reality such a distinction does not exist.Â
I replace belief with a lack of it.Â
You don't need to replace belief with belief, just like you don't need to replace water with water once you drink from a water-filled cup. You can put other things in there too ya know. I could put juice, soda, wine, beer, etc. Since all of those are liquids that fit into that cup, I can put any one of them in. Or, I could simply not put anything in there and be happy with it.Â
Â
I hope that made sense.Â
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in placeDeeJayInphinityWhy does that have to be the case? Why does the statement "not believing in God" have to be accompanied by the other statement "believing that God does not exist"? They're not the same, there is a vast difference between the two.
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
Why does that have to be the case? Why does the statement "not believing in God" have to be accompanied by the other statement "believing that God does not exist"? They're not the same, there is a vast difference between the two.[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in placeMetalGear_Ninty
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
Special pleading. This is the exception, huh? Just as in babies, one does not have to follow the other. Believing that god does not exist implies knowledge. Not believing in him does not imply knowledge.Why does that have to be the case? Why does the statement "not believing in God" have to be accompanied by the other statement "believing that God does not exist"? They're not the same, there is a vast difference between the two.[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in placeMetalGear_Ninty
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
No, that is merely an interpretive assumption regarding how it is that people express their beliefs or lack there of.
Take me for example, I don't have any beliefs that I currently know of since when I discarded my original beliefs a few years ago, and I maintain that it's possible that I will believe in something at some point, but I still regard it as highly unlikely. By your standards, it would mean that I believe in everything and nothing, since I am apparently supposed to have something there to fill in an apparent gap.
But in this case, you're basically just misconstruing the idea that someone doesn't have a reason to believe in something, and making it as though they have a reason to believe that this something doesn't exist. It's not the same thing. Not believing in god essentially means that you don't have a reason to believe in him, which would imply that you accept the possibility, but you don't accept it as truth since you haven't found any reason to do so.
Believing there is no god, on the other hand, implies that you have a certain reason to assert that this being does not exist, and it entails that you pretty much deny even the possibility, given its strict wording. There is a difference, and it's not the same process.
Why does that have to be the case? Why does the statement "not believing in God" have to be accompanied by the other statement "believing that God does not exist"? They're not the same, there is a vast difference between the two.DeeJayInphinity
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
Special pleading. This is the exception, huh? Just as in babies, one does not have to follow the other. Believing that god does not exist implies knowledge. Not believing in him does not imply knowledge. Believing he does not exist does nor imply knowledge, as it is only a belief.Why does that have to be the case? Why does the statement "not believing in God" have to be accompanied by the other statement "believing that God does not exist"? They're not the same, there is a vast difference between the two.[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] I see the proposed distinction, but I just can't see how you come to the second conclusion whilst avoiding the first one. Surely, if you lack a belief, another belief must therefore be in placeMetalGear_Ninty
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
Not in this case though...[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Aren't you a little worried that in the defence of Christianity you are arguing that being wrong isn't so bad after all? :?NTWrightfanno not at all, I'm just trying to open up a new front. I believe that there is a fair bit of evidence for the existence of God, but Atheists seem to think that we have some sort of obligation to not believe something if it has no evidence or has contradictory evidence. Well... I wouldn't say you're obliged to... but if you want to be taken seriously as a rational person, you probably should.
Why does that have to be the case? Why does the statement "not believing in God" have to be accompanied by the other statement "believing that God does not exist"? They're not the same, there is a vast difference between the two.DeeJayInphinity
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
No, that is merely an interpretive assumption regarding how it is that people express their beliefs or lack there of.
Take me for example, I don't have any beliefs that I currently know of since when I discarded my original beliefs a few years ago, and I maintain that it's possible that I will believe in something at some point, but I still regard it as highly unlikely. By your standards, it would mean that I believe in everything and nothing, since I am apparently supposed to have something there to fill in an apparent gap.
But in this case, you're basically just misconstruing the idea that someone doesn't have a reason to believe in something, and making it as though they have a reason to believe that this something doesn't exist. It's not the same thing. Not believing in god essentially means that you don't have a reason to believe in him, which would imply that you accept the possibility, but you don't accept it as truth since you haven't found any reason to do so.
Believing there is no god, on the other hand, implies that you have a certain reason to assert that this being does not exist, and it entails that you pretty much deny even the possibility, given its strict wording. There is a difference, and it's not the same process.
Since when did belief equate to certainty, or 'denying possibility'. So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' The fact that there is no evidence, would be your reason to believe that it did not exist. You have a definton of God, you don't believe that it exists, thus you must believe it not to exist. Believing doesn't mean you have evidence or certainty, but it is what you believe to be true.So for how long has God existed?This is of course necessary because if there is an infinite regress into the past then we should not be here right now because in order for any moment to arrive, the moment before that must arrive, and since for any moment to arrive there must be an infinite amount of moments which must be traversed, we should not be here right now, but that is absurd.
NTWrightfan
This is of course necessary because if there is an infinite regress into the past then we should not be here right now because in order for any moment to arrive, the moment before that must arrive, and since for any moment to arrive there must be an infinite amount of moments which must be traversed, we should not be here right now, but that is absurd.
So for how long has God existed? God exists timelessly mein Freund.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' Funky_LlamaWell, it can't be proven that they don't exist, because it's a universal negative... But we're not talking about proof, we're talking about belief. This is something you would generally believe to be true.
This is of course necessary because if there is an infinite regress into the past then we should not be here right now because in order for any moment to arrive, the moment before that must arrive, and since for any moment to arrive there must be an infinite amount of moments which must be traversed, we should not be here right now, but that is absurd.
So for how long has God existed? God exists timelessly mein Freund. So for an infinite amount of time?[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' MetalGear_NintyWell, it can't be proven that they don't exist, because it's a universal negative... But we're not talking about proof, we're talking about belief. This is something you would generally believe to be true.As regards flying spaghetti monsters, I'd say I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe that they don't exist; I believe that they almost certainly don't exist.
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]So for how long has God existed?Funky_LlamaGod exists timelessly mein Freund. So for an infinite amount of time? no, timelessly. as in, he existed "before" time existed.
[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Â
No, not really.
If you don't believe in God, surely you believe him not to exist. Excluding babies, young children and such, if you do not believe in God, it is likely you derive this from some sort of reasoning, thus for you not to believe in God, you must have some sort of belief in his existence/non-existence.
In all most all cases: I do not believe X exists = I believe that X does not exist.
I contend that people in this forum like to label themselves as 'weak atheists' if that truly means anything at all.
Your lack of belief is an active process, but you're trying to deny it.
MetalGear_Ninty
No, that is merely an interpretive assumption regarding how it is that people express their beliefs or lack there of.
Take me for example, I don't have any beliefs that I currently know of since when I discarded my original beliefs a few years ago, and I maintain that it's possible that I will believe in something at some point, but I still regard it as highly unlikely. By your standards, it would mean that I believe in everything and nothing, since I am apparently supposed to have something there to fill in an apparent gap.
But in this case, you're basically just misconstruing the idea that someone doesn't have a reason to believe in something, and making it as though they have a reason to believe that this something doesn't exist. It's not the same thing. Not believing in god essentially means that you don't have a reason to believe in him, which would imply that you accept the possibility, but you don't accept it as truth since you haven't found any reason to do so.
Believing there is no god, on the other hand, implies that you have a certain reason to assert that this being does not exist, and it entails that you pretty much deny even the possibility, given its strict wording. There is a difference, and it's not the same process.
Since when did belief equate to certainty, or 'denying possibility'. So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' The fact that there is no evidence, would be your reason to believe that it did not exist. You have a definton of God, you don't believe that it exists, thus you must believe it not to exist. Believing doesn't mean you have evidence or certainty, but it is what you believe to be true.The reasons derived from believing are essentially what imply that certainty or denying/accepting a possibility is entailed.
And actually yes, it would be false, because I'd would say that evidence is interpretive enough to the point where I could say that the fact that pirates exist is evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists. People interpret what they perceive to be evidence in many different ways, hence you've got people saying that the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator, yet you have people saying that the world is so ****ed up to the point where no God would want to create such a place, and other such related examples regarding the world in general. But whatever the case may be, I simply don't take a stance on it, while only saying what I think to be likely of it, which is probably fallible. Hence I don't have beliefs either way, at least as far as I know, since I don't claim to know everything about me, so there's probably plenty of stuff that I don't know about myself, some of which may entail beliefs.
The reason why I don't even bother with having beliefs is because they are derived from human-perceived definitions which may very well vary from person to person, so there's nothing to say that my interpretation and definition of God is the one true God, and that it would effectively mean that I ought to say that it does or does not exist. I may have my views on the subject, but I don't see the point in taking them so far as to say that I believe or don't believe in one way another. And I just flat out don't care since I don't see how it would have any immediate bearing on my life. And as far as I'm concerned, you would need some sort of degree of certainty in order to maintain a belief, otherwise the conviction of such a stance would be so strong as to say that you can even believe in something by very definition of the word.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] God exists timelessly mein Freund. NTWrightfanSo for an infinite amount of time? no, timelessly. as in, he existed "before" time existed. And there's your problem: as part of the argument you made, you assume that time always exists in the 'infinite number of moments' bit.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]Since when did belief equate to certainty, or 'denying possibility'. So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' The fact that there is no evidence, would be your reason to believe that it did not exist. You have a definton of God, you don't believe that it exists, thus you must believe it not to exist. Believing doesn't mean you have evidence or certainty, but it is what you believe to be true.Â
No, that is merely an interpretive assumption regarding how it is that people express their beliefs or lack there of.
Take me for example, I don't have any beliefs that I currently know of since when I discarded my original beliefs a few years ago, and I maintain that it's possible that I will believe in something at some point, but I still regard it as highly unlikely. By your standards, it would mean that I believe in everything and nothing, since I am apparently supposed to have something there to fill in an apparent gap.
But in this case, you're basically just misconstruing the idea that someone doesn't have a reason to believe in something, and making it as though they have a reason to believe that this something doesn't exist. It's not the same thing. Not believing in god essentially means that you don't have a reason to believe in him, which would imply that you accept the possibility, but you don't accept it as truth since you haven't found any reason to do so.
Believing there is no god, on the other hand, implies that you have a certain reason to assert that this being does not exist, and it entails that you pretty much deny even the possibility, given its strict wording. There is a difference, and it's not the same process.
Blood-Scribe
The reasons derived from believing are essentially what imply that certainty or denying/accepting a possibility is entailed.
And actually yes, it would be false, because I'd would say that evidence is interpretive enough to the point where I could say that the fact that pirates exist is evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists. People interpret what they perceive to be evidence in many different ways, hence you've got people saying that the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator, yet you have people saying that the world is so ****ed up to the point where no God would want to create such a place, and other such related examples regarding the world in general. But whatever the case may be, I simply don't take a stance on it, while only saying what I think to be likely of it, which is probably fallible. Hence I don't have beliefs either way, at least as far as I know, since I don't claim to know everything about me, so there's probably plenty of stuff that I don't know about myself, some of which may entail beliefs.
The reason why I don't even bother with having beliefs is because they are derived from human-perceived definitions which may very well vary from person to person, so there's nothing to say that my interpretation and definition of God is the one true God, and that it would effectively mean that I ought to say that it does or does not exist. I may have my views on the subject, but I don't see the point in taking them so far as to say that I believe or don't believe in one way another. And I just flat out don't care since I don't see how it would have any immediate bearing on my life. And as far as I'm concerned, you would need some sort of degree of certainty in order to maintain a belief, otherwise the conviction of such a stance would be so strong as to say that you can even believe in something by very definition of the word.
I personally admit that my perceptions can't be accurate, but act under the assumption that they are because if I'm wrong, I'm nothing lost. :PI personally admit that my perceptions can't be accurate, but act under the assumption that they are because if I'm wrong, I'm nothing lost. :PFunky_Llama
No, if you're wrong, it means that you're a lying, blasphemous, adulterous, murderous thief. Don't make me bust out some scripture on your ass.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]Since when did belief equate to certainty, or 'denying possibility'. So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' The fact that there is no evidence, would be your reason to believe that it did not exist. You have a definton of God, you don't believe that it exists, thus you must believe it not to exist. Believing doesn't mean you have evidence or certainty, but it is what you believe to be true.No, that is merely an interpretive assumption regarding how it is that people express their beliefs or lack there of.
Take me for example, I don't have any beliefs that I currently know of since when I discarded my original beliefs a few years ago, and I maintain that it's possible that I will believe in something at some point, but I still regard it as highly unlikely. By your standards, it would mean that I believe in everything and nothing, since I am apparently supposed to have something there to fill in an apparent gap.
But in this case, you're basically just misconstruing the idea that someone doesn't have a reason to believe in something, and making it as though they have a reason to believe that this something doesn't exist. It's not the same thing. Not believing in god essentially means that you don't have a reason to believe in him, which would imply that you accept the possibility, but you don't accept it as truth since you haven't found any reason to do so.
Believing there is no god, on the other hand, implies that you have a certain reason to assert that this being does not exist, and it entails that you pretty much deny even the possibility, given its strict wording. There is a difference, and it's not the same process.
Blood-Scribe
The reasons derived from believing are essentially what imply that certainty or denying/accepting a possibility is entailed.
And actually yes, it would be false, because I'd would say that evidence is interpretive enough to the point where I could say that the fact that pirates exist is evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists. People interpret what they perceive to be evidence in many different ways, hence you've got people saying that the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator, yet you have people saying that the world is so ****ed up to the point where no God would want to create such a place, and other such related examples regarding the world in general. But whatever the case may be, I simply don't take a stance on it, while only saying what I think to be likely of it, which is probably fallible. Hence I don't have beliefs either way, at least as far as I know, since I don't claim to know everything about me, so there's probably plenty of stuff that I don't know about myself, some of which may entail beliefs.
The reason why I don't even bother with having beliefs is because they are derived from human-perceived definitions which may very well vary from person to person, so there's nothing to say that my interpretation and definition of God is the one true God, and that it would effectively mean that I ought to say that it does or does not exist. I may have my views on the subject, but I don't see the point in taking them so far as to say that I believe or don't believe in one way another. And I just flat out don't care since I don't see how it would have any immediate bearing on my life. And as far as I'm concerned, you would need some sort of degree of certainty in order to maintain a belief, otherwise the conviction of such a stance would be so strong as to say that you can even believe in something by very definition of the word.
Yeah, but you're a radical sceptic, so I suppose you'd be apprehensive to assert any form of belief. I disagree with you that belief implies certainty; 'I believe that I am going to have a nice weekend' is not the same as 'I'm pretty certain I'm going to have a nice weekend'.I recognise the distinction between the two supposed types of atheism, but I reject it. I just think it is a device used in debates alleviates one of the debaters from any sense of uncertainty or confusion. The truth is, is that we all have beliefs; you believe that when you are sitting on that chair, that it isn't going to break. :P
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]So for an infinite amount of time?Funky_Llamano, timelessly. as in, he existed "before" time existed. And there's your problem: as part of the argument you made, you assume that time always exists in the 'infinite number of moments' bit. it would have to exist in the infinite number of moments in order to be uncaused.
[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Since when did belief equate to certainty, or 'denying possibility'. So by your logic, it would be false if I said about you: 'You believe that flying spaghetti monsters don't exist' The fact that there is no evidence, would be your reason to believe that it did not exist. You have a definton of God, you don't believe that it exists, thus you must believe it not to exist. Believing doesn't mean you have evidence or certainty, but it is what you believe to be true.MetalGear_Ninty
Â
The reasons derived from believing are essentially what imply that certainty or denying/accepting a possibility is entailed.
And actually yes, it would be false, because I'd would say that evidence is interpretive enough to the point where I could say that the fact that pirates exist is evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists. People interpret what they perceive to be evidence in many different ways, hence you've got people saying that the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator, yet you have people saying that the world is so ****ed up to the point where no God would want to create such a place, and other such related examples regarding the world in general. But whatever the case may be, I simply don't take a stance on it, while only saying what I think to be likely of it, which is probably fallible. Hence I don't have beliefs either way, at least as far as I know, since I don't claim to know everything about me, so there's probably plenty of stuff that I don't know about myself, some of which may entail beliefs.
The reason why I don't even bother with having beliefs is because they are derived from human-perceived definitions which may very well vary from person to person, so there's nothing to say that my interpretation and definition of God is the one true God, and that it would effectively mean that I ought to say that it does or does not exist. I may have my views on the subject, but I don't see the point in taking them so far as to say that I believe or don't believe in one way another. And I just flat out don't care since I don't see how it would have any immediate bearing on my life. And as far as I'm concerned, you would need some sort of degree of certainty in order to maintain a belief, otherwise the conviction of such a stance would be so strong as to say that you can even believe in something by very definition of the word.
Yeah, but you're a radical sceptic, so I suppose you'd be apprehensive to assert any form of belief. I disagree with you that belief implies certainty; 'I believe that I am going to have a nice weekend' is not the same as 'I'm pretty certain I'm going to have a nice weekend'.I recognise the distinction between the two supposed types of atheism, but I reject it. I just think it is a device used in debates alleviates one of the debaters from any sense of uncertainty or confusion. The truth is, is that we all have beliefs; you believe that when you are sitting on that chair, that it isn't going to break. :P
So then how can you prove to me that your assumed truth of beliefs can be applicable for everyone? That's more of an assumption. And I've had a chair break under my ass before.
[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] no, timelessly. as in, he existed "before" time existed. NTWrightfanAnd there's your problem: as part of the argument you made, you assume that time always exists in the 'infinite number of moments' bit. it would have to exist in the infinite number of moments in order to be uncaused.But of course, we know that time is not infinite. It is local to our universe. Which rips a great big hole in your argument.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]Yeah, but you're a radical sceptic, so I suppose you'd be apprehensive to assert any form of belief. I disagree with you that belief implies certainty; 'I believe that I am going to have a nice weekend' is not the same as 'I'm pretty certain I'm going to have a nice weekend'.The reasons derived from believing are essentially what imply that certainty or denying/accepting a possibility is entailed.
And actually yes, it would be false, because I'd would say that evidence is interpretive enough to the point where I could say that the fact that pirates exist is evidence that the flying spaghetti monster exists. People interpret what they perceive to be evidence in many different ways, hence you've got people saying that the world is too perfect for there not to be a creator, yet you have people saying that the world is so ****ed up to the point where no God would want to create such a place, and other such related examples regarding the world in general. But whatever the case may be, I simply don't take a stance on it, while only saying what I think to be likely of it, which is probably fallible. Hence I don't have beliefs either way, at least as far as I know, since I don't claim to know everything about me, so there's probably plenty of stuff that I don't know about myself, some of which may entail beliefs.
The reason why I don't even bother with having beliefs is because they are derived from human-perceived definitions which may very well vary from person to person, so there's nothing to say that my interpretation and definition of God is the one true God, and that it would effectively mean that I ought to say that it does or does not exist. I may have my views on the subject, but I don't see the point in taking them so far as to say that I believe or don't believe in one way another. And I just flat out don't care since I don't see how it would have any immediate bearing on my life. And as far as I'm concerned, you would need some sort of degree of certainty in order to maintain a belief, otherwise the conviction of such a stance would be so strong as to say that you can even believe in something by very definition of the word.
Blood-Scribe
I recognise the distinction between the two supposed types of atheism, but I reject it. I just think it is a device used in debates alleviates one of the debaters from any sense of uncertainty or confusion. The truth is, is that we all have beliefs; you believe that when you are sitting on that chair, that it isn't going to break. :P
So then how can you prove to me that your assumed truth of beliefs can be applicable for everyone? That's more of an assumption. And I've had a chair break under my ass before.
I did start of my statement before by saying: 'In almost all cases'[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And there's your problem: as part of the argument you made, you assume that time always exists in the 'infinite number of moments' bit.Funky_Llamait would have to exist in the infinite number of moments in order to be uncaused.But of course, we know that time is not infinite. It is local to our universe. Which rips a great big hole in your argument. no actually it provides warrant for the Kalam argument. The universe is spacetime and its contents. if the past is not eternal, then the universe must have a cause outside of itself. Since material can only exist and stand in causal relationships within spacetime, it follows that the cause of the universe must be timeless and immaterial. There are only 2 objects which can exist timelessly and immaterially, and they are disembodied minds, and abstract objects. Since abstract objects do not actually cause anything, it therefore follows that the cause of the universe is a disembodied mind.
I find it saddening that people don't even know what 'atheism' is. Many tend to attach ideologies or belief systems to it, while the only thing that atheists share is their absence of belief in deities. MindFreezethis dogma of yours is really only limited to the new Atheists of the very late 90s and 2000s. any dictionary of philosophy will tell you that Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. If you want to stay safe and not make any claims to knowledge, then you will have to call yourself an agnostic.
[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Yeah, but you're a radical sceptic, so I suppose you'd be apprehensive to assert any form of belief. I disagree with you that belief implies certainty; 'I believe that I am going to have a nice weekend' is not the same as 'I'm pretty certain I'm going to have a nice weekend'.Â
I recognise the distinction between the two supposed types of atheism, but I reject it. I just think it is a device used in debates alleviates one of the debaters from any sense of uncertainty or confusion. The truth is, is that we all have beliefs; you believe that when you are sitting on that chair, that it isn't going to break. :P
MetalGear_Ninty
So then how can you prove to me that your assumed truth of beliefs can be applicable for everyone? That's more of an assumption. And I've had a chair break under my ass before.
I did start of my statement before by saying: 'In almost all cases'Still an assumption.
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]I did start of my statement before by saying: 'In almost all cases'So then how can you prove to me that your assumed truth of beliefs can be applicable for everyone? That's more of an assumption. And I've had a chair break under my ass before.
Blood-Scribe
Still an assumption.
No it isn't.
[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] If you want to stay safe and not make any claims to knowledge, then you will have to call yourself an agnostic. _Tobli_
 This is incorrect.
Agnostic atheism
Weak atheism
Â
oh wow, wikipedia, the most reliable scholarly source :roll: they're just forms of agnosticism.[QUOTE="_Tobli_"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] If you want to stay safe and not make any claims to knowledge, then you will have to call yourself an agnostic. NTWrightfan
 This is incorrect.
Agnostic atheism
Weak atheism
Â
oh wow, wikipedia, the most reliable scholarly source :roll: they're just forms of agnosticism. So, just to be clear, any points or sources that contain data you don't like are to be dismissed out of hand, right?Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isDarth-CaedusYes... just as sane people "blindly" believe that there is no Tooth Fairy.
oh wow, wikipedia, the most reliable scholarly source. they're just forms of agnosticism. NTWrightfan
Wikipedia has a little something called [citation needed]. Which makes it reliable enough for this sort of thing.Â
Â
How is weak atheism a form of agnosticism?
Â
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment