Fed up of non believers

[dosxuk]

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?

 

There are three options though:

1) I believe you can run 100m in 10s

2) I believe you can't run 100m in 10s

3) I'm not sure either way

 

Admittedly 10s is a bit extreme and few would ever choose anything but option 2. However, if you had said 12s, that would be a different matter entirely and all three options would become likely answers.

[ivanava]

There are three options though:

1) I believe you can run 100m in 10s

2) I believe you can't run 100m in 10s

3) I'm not sure either way

 

Admittedly 10s is a bit extreme and few would ever choose anything but option 2. However, if you had said 12s, that would be a different matter entirely and all three options would become likely answers.

 

Which means you don't believe that he can run 100m in 10s.

[Waldo]

Which means you don't believe that he can run 100m in 10s.

 

It (option 3) also means he doesn't believe he can't do 100m in 10s.

[ivanava]

It (option 3) also means he doesn't believe he can't do 100m in 10s.

 

Yes, but I believe that even though he said I'm not sure, subconsciously he meant no I don't believe you. He was just being polite.

 

I can't see how anyone could not form an opinion one way or the other, even though they may be unwilling to express that opinion.

[Ryedo40]

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

 

Thing with atheism is there are many facets of atheism and different expressions of it. So you can't just pick one(in this case strong atheism) and say that's atheism - while ignoring the rest of the taxonomy.

 

Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods is the root of all the facets of atheism. Expressions of that, or communicating that, are secondary. When someone says "I believe that God does not exist", it's just an expression of absence of belief.

 

Think about it this way: I'm walking along minding my own business - all thoughts or beliefs concerning god or no god just aren't there. God, just like countless other things that may or may not exist, just doesn't exist to me(I have no knowledge or awareness of it): I don't hold the belief that God exists.

 

Someone then comes along and says "do you believe in god?" I've now got to find a way to communicate and express my state of being: which has the absence of belief in God or gods.

 

Atheism defined as absence of belief acts as an umbrella term for all the different facets and expressions of atheism; that goes whether it's weak atheism, strong atheism, positive atheism, agnosticism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism - or a lack, without, disbelieve, don't believe, or I believe god doesn't exist.

 

Atheism isn't a belief: it is an absence of.

[dosxuk]

Which means you don't believe that he can run 100m in 10s.

 

Indeed.

 

But it also means you're open to the option of him being able to do it, which option two doesn't, but itself is actually an answer to a different question - "do you believe I can't run 100m in 10s?".

 

The "I don't know" answer is actually answering no to the original question, but (and here's the relevant part), when people chose option three and answer "no, I don't believe in the existence of God", many people think you're actually choosing option two and answering a different question.

[ivanava]

Indeed.

 

But it also means you're open to the option of him being able to do it, which option two doesn't, but itself is actually an answer to a different question - "do you believe I can't run 100m in 10s?".

 

The "I don't know" answer is actually answering no to the original question, but (and here's the relevant part), when people chose option three and answer "no, I don't believe in the existence of God", many people think you're actually choosing option two and answering a different question.

 

If I don't believe you have a blue jumper on right now, it doesn't mean that I am not open to the idea that you do have a blue jumpers on or that I would be unwilling to change by belief.

 

I am open to the idea that cyclone can run 100m's in 10 seconds, but for now I don't believe that he can, I am however willing to change my belief if he can demonstrate this athletic feat.

[dosxuk]

If I don't believe you have a blue jumper on right now, it doesn't mean that I am not open to the idea that you do have a blue jumpers on or that I would be unwilling to change by belief.

 

I am open to the idea that cyclone can run 100m's in 10 seconds, but for now I don't believe that he can, I am however willing to change my belief if he can demonstrate this athletic feat.

 

But if you say you don't believe in the existence of God, many people will claim you actually mean you believe God doesn't exist.

 

Near enough everyone agrees that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God, yet some people still continue to say they can't be an atheist because they don't believe he doesn't exist either.

[mjw47]

 

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

 

 

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

 

Yes I can.

 

My suggestion about vacuums was just that, a suggestion, and if you look back you will see that I asked purely out of curiosity.

 

It means nothing regarding the proof or otherwise of Gods existence that you can't prove a negative.

 

Just because you can't prove something doesn't mean the opposite has to be the case.

Neither does it mean that the conflicting claim is true. It simply means that nothing can be proven either way.

[Waldo]

People are using analogies and comparing to things that are testable and knowable. It is possible to test and know if someone can do 100m in 10s or is wearing a blue jumper.

 

However, going back to the flea in test tube analogy. It is not possible for our flea to know what is beyond the test tube, if anything, nor is it possible to know the nature of the whatever it is that may or may not exist outside the test tube.

 

If we liken 'outside the test tube' to 'god', what does this say about any theological position we may hold?

 

To my mind, there are 3 broad categories.

 

1. Flea is not considering or even aware of the issue.

2. Flee thinks there is something beyond.

3. Flee things there is nothing beyond.

 

To my mind, I think 2 and 3 are essentially the same, that is, they are both baseless guesses.

 

This all of course, assumes god to be comparable to 'outside of the test tube', i.e. referring to something that is entirely unknowable and undefinable (to even call it 'something' is misleading).