Fed up of non believers

[mjw47]

A lack of belief in God is not a belief that God doesn't exist, or do you think not collecting stamps is a hobby?

 

jb

 

Your analogy doesn't make much sense does it? Stamp collecting is a hobby, it doesn't take any belief, simply the decision to do it or not do it.

 

We are talking about believing, or alternatively not believing, in the existence of a deity.

 

This involves some thought process to take place. After which a decision has to be reached.

 

Do I, or do I not, believe in a God(s)?

 

Should the conclusion reached be, 'No I do not believe in God' then I do not think it unreasonable to infer from that if asked the question 'Do you believe in God?' The answer would be 'No I do not.'

 

Yes, I do get the distinction in your point, in fact what is then being said is ' I don't know either way, there could be , on the other hand there may not be. Which is of course the agnostic viewpoint.

 

Which is still a belief, except instead of believing yes or no, it is a belief that you do not know either way, and will probably never know.

 

However, what was said in my post which you quoted was 'To deny or disbelieve in the existence of God.' That is a definite viewpoint being expressed, not ' well on the one hand, then again on the other' type of view.

Edited March 12, 2014 by mjw47

[ivanava]

 

 

Should the conclusion reached be, 'No I do not believe in God' then I do not think it unreasonable to infer from that if asked the question 'Do you believe in God?' The answer would be 'No I do not.'

 

Yes, I do get the distinction in your point, in fact what is then being said is ' I don't know either way, there could be , on the other hand there may not be. Which is of course the agnostic viewpoint.

 

Which is still a belief, except instead of believing yes or no, it is a belief that you do not know either way, and will probably never know.

 

However, what was said in my post which you quoted was 'To deny or disbelieve in the existence of God.' That is a definite viewpoint being expressed, not ' well on the one hand, then again on the other' type of view.

 

Surely you know if you believe in God or Not. You either believe or you don't believe. You can believe or not believe without knowing. I believe you have a chicken on your head, but I don't know that you have a chicken on your head so I could be wrong to believe that you do. I could also not believe that you have chicken on your head, but I don't know that you don't so I could also be wrong. You seam to be confusing believing with knowing.

[barleycorn]

Your analogy doesn't make much sense does it? Stamp collecting is a hobby, it doesn't take any belief, simply the decision to do it or not do it.

It's an analogy*, and a quite well known one at that. If lacking a belief in God is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The problem with defining atheism as believing there is no God is that it excludes those who simply lack belief. Defining atheism as a lack of belief in God is far more simple and elegant as it also encompasses all those who actively believe there is no God as a sub-group as anyone who believes there is no God must also lack belief in God.

 

We are talking about believing, or alternatively not believing, in the existence of a deity.

This involves some thought process to take place. After which a decision has to be reached.

No thought process is required to lack belief in God. It is the default status of every human ever born. We even only need the word atheist because theists keep insisting their god is real.

I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullpoo” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Do I, or do I not, believe in a God(s)?

 

Should the conclusion reached be, 'No I do not believe in God' then I do not think it unreasonable to infer from that if asked the question 'Do you believe in God?' The answer would be 'No I do not.'

The response should be 'what do you mean when you say God', but I won't derail this thread.

 

jb

 

* the actual original is 'Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby' but it works just as well in comparing by analogy a belief and a hobby.

[mjw47]

It's an analogy*, and a quite well known one at that. If lacking a belief in God is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

The problem with defining atheism as believing there is no God is that it excludes those who simply lack belief. Defining atheism as a lack of belief in God is far more simple and elegant as it also encompasses all those who actively believe there is no God as a sub-group as anyone who believes there is no God must also lack belief in God.

 

 

No thought process is required to lack belief in God. It is the default status of every human ever born. We even only need the word atheist because theists keep insisting their god is real.

 

 

The response should be 'what do you mean when you say God', but I won't derail this thread.

 

jb

 

* the actual original is 'Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby' but it works just as well in comparing by analogy a belief and a hobby.

 

Don't worry about derailing the thread mate, that ship has sailed.

 

Atheism is obviously not a religion can't remember anyone claiming it was, you need some form of deity to be a religion.

 

Waits for someone to leap in with a Godless religion.

 

What I would say is that it is a belief though. Even if a negative belief ' I do not believe that that is true.'

 

I'm going on the definition of belief as 'Feeling that something is true without the proof which would make it a fact.'

[Cyclone]

To clarify (for my own mind) the argument now being discussed is that a lack of belief is not the same as a positive belief in the opposite.

 

And stamp collecting was the analogy of choice.

 

If I tell you I can run a 10s 100 metres, you only really have 2 options though, believe me, or not believe me. There is no possibility of not believing me but also not believing that I can't.

 

So how is it with the existence of god that you think you can not believe without believing the opposite, in what is a binary question?

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2014 at 15:05 ----------

 

 

I'm going on the definition of belief as 'Feeling that something is true without the proof which would make it a fact.'

 

You still can't grasp that negatives cannot be proven.

[Waldo]

In that case I guess I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

 

It's a binary choice as far as I can see, be rational or be irrational. Like belief/non belief, there is no middle ground.

 

I'm probably not explaining myself very clearly, which doesn't help.

 

It's a complex area and I'm trying to address several issues pertaining to (what I see as) the limitations and short-comings of rationality, or seeing the world through a rational 'lens'.

 

It's frustrating me. I kinda know what I'm trying to say, but struggling to find the words to express it. Maybe the following with be useful.

 

Situation 1:

I'm looking out my window, and can see the sky, some houses, life is happening. I don't need to think about or rationalise it. I simply experience it directly (not through any lens).

 

Situation 2:

I have a CCTV system setup outside my house. It feeds A/V to a monitor in a window-less room in my basement. I sit inside this room and just watch the monitor. I'm having the experience of seeing something, but I'm not really experiencing life. I'm seeing an approximation of life. A low-resolution copy (relative to the real thing).

 

It seems to me, that most of us are in situation 2, most of the time. We see life filtered through our internal mental constructs and systems of categorisation and labels; which are all rendered in the English language (for us). This is what I mean when I'm saying our attention is locked in our heads (conceptualising everything); rather than a non-conceptual awareness and feeling of being alive.

 

Maybe that doesn't make any sense; but, maybe that's because it isn't a thing we can make sense of. It's not something we can grasp.

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2014 at 15:29 ----------

 

If I tell you I can run a 10s 100 metres, you only really have 2 options though, believe me, or not believe me. There is no possibility of not believing me but also not believing that I can't.

 

I think there are at least 3 reactions, after being told...

 

1. To consider the matter, and conclude it is a true proposition.

2. To consider the matter, and conclude it is a false proposition.

3. To not consider the matter.

 

It could also be that the proposition makes no sense to a person. What if you told someone in a coma for example?

[barleycorn]

To clarify (for my own mind) the argument now being discussed is that a lack of belief is not the same as a positive belief in the opposite.

 

And stamp collecting was the analogy of choice.

 

If I tell you I can run a 10s 100 metres, you only really have 2 options though, believe me, or not believe me. There is no possibility of not believing me but also not believing that I can't.

 

So how is it with the existence of god that you think you can not believe without believing the opposite, in what is a binary question?

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2014 at 15:05 ----------

 

 

You still can't grasp that negatives cannot be proven.

 

That is not really a similar analogy. My analogy highlights the absurdity of the argument 'lack of X is an X' by comparing it to 'lack of Y is a Y' .

If I asked you if lacking a hobby is a hobby or if not kicking a cat is animal abuse you'd probably enquire as to whether I had stopped taking my meds. So why, when it is applied to atheism is the response that lacking a belief must be a belief?

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2014 at 16:01 ----------

 

Don't worry about derailing the thread mate, that ship has sailed.

 

Atheism is obviously not a religion can't remember anyone claiming it was, you need some form of deity to be a religion.

 

Waits for someone to leap in with a Godless religion.

It's a common argument in the interwebs from theists that atheism is a religion. The analogy used to counter it can also be extended to that of belief, which is what I have done.

What I would say is that it is a belief though. Even if a negative belief ' I do not believe that that is true.'

Something that is absent cannot be present. A belief cannot be both absent and present at the same time, therefore an absence of belief cannot be a belief.

I'm going on the definition of belief as 'Feeling that something is true without the proof which would make it a fact.'

There are different types of belief, those which are justifiable and those which require faith.

For example, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow is a justifiable belief as I have plausible evidence that it will do so. I believe that the sun is pushed across the sky by a giant invisible dung beetle however is a unjustifiable belief which requires faith.

Which is all moot as the definition of a belief has no bearing on whether it is present or not.

 

jb

[Waldo]

There are different types of belief, those which are justifiable and those which require faith.

For example, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow is a justifiable belief as I have plausible evidence that it will do so. I believe that the sun is pushed across the sky by a giant invisible dung beetle however is a unjustifiable belief which requires faith.

Which is all moot as the definition of a belief has no bearing on whether it is present or not.

 

jb

 

A flea is in a test tube. The test tube is painted black and nothing can penetrate from the outside to the inside of this test tube.

 

Is it justifiable or unjustifiable for the flea to believe there is something outside the test tube? What about nothing outside the test tube?

[barleycorn]

A flea is in a test tube. The test tube is painted black and nothing can penetrate from the outside to the inside of this test tube.

 

Is it justifiable or unjustifiable for the flea to believe there is something outside the test tube? What about nothing outside the test tube?

 

Depends if it remembers its life prior to its imprisonment.

 

jb

[Waldo]

Depends if it remembers its life prior to its imprisonment.

 

jb

 

If we assume it has no previous knowledge of the outside.

 

Later on (after addressing the initial inquiry re: the flea's speculation as to the nature of the outside of the test tube), we could introduce the idea of the flea having a dream. It doesn't know if the dream reflects reality though, but it sure was an interesting experience. So much so, that the flea is starting to wonder if it's life experience right now, is any more real than his dream. How would our flea know?