Now, let's talk evidence for God.

[Darat]

...snip...

As Hans said "All else is semantics."

 

[cj.23]

No, that was my point: It is not interesting. However, your entire line of argument relies on some specific interpretation of words like "atheist" and "belief". This may be an interesting discussion, if we are discussing semantics, but AFAIK, we are discussing religion.

I find it interesting -- I am greatly interested in the X Club and TH Huxley in particular, who is something of a hero of mine. You may of course not find it interesting, but if you wish to assert i am misapplying the term agnostic as you did I would have expected you to defend that assertion, or apologise.

My line of argument is that the original statement by Rand "The 'well even atheists have beliefs' meme is such a dumb canard. It really doesn't warrant debate." makes no sense, and is blatantly false. I have never denied that non-theists lack belief in god: I merely hold that non-theists possess beliefs. All human being possess beliefs. Pixy then seemed ot be claiming that this was not so, which appered to me, and appears to me completely untrue. We then got in ot a discussion of beliefs more generally -- which I have tried to move to another thread to avoid deraililing yrreg's thread further.

I have no objection to Rand's sentiment that the use of "atheits have beliefs" as an apologetic argument is flawed. I just objected to his wording, and felt the implications were well worth discussing. I still hold that a belief there is no god is by definition a belief.

The fact is that, regardless of what you decide to call it, the position of most non-theists is lack of a positive beleif in any god.

Hans

Agreed.

cj x

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

As Hans said "All else is semantics."

Isn't that the point of the R&P forum?

 

[cj.23]

For all paractical purposes, the world acts as if it exists.

Agreed, which is why I make the basic a priori assumption in all my communications that we share an objective universe which we mutually experience. My point was simple: noone investigates and critiques all their beliefs: because many of their beliefs are not even conscious. When I was working in psychology of religion our research director would have shot us if we made a claim about someones self reported belief - we would instead talk about peoples "perceptions of their belief". I'm not sure we have to go that far in a non-academic context like this thread though.

I agree that we probably all take something at face value sometimes, but "checking out" a fact needs not entail doing all the research personally. For that purpose we have various levels of authorities and various systems of peer review. Or, as some put it: "Normally reliable sources".

Hans

Yes: we accept arguments from authority, and subscribe to culturally hegemonic sets of beliefs. That si what I said. Nothing wrong in that -- it is perfectly normal and sane. We critique and apply scepticism where we see anomalies or problems, not wholesale - but we have to be aware that our choice of where to investiage is determined by our existing belief stuctures, so our quest for truth is at least partially self referential.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

I think we are, again stumbling on the word 'belief'. That word has more than one meaning.

When a theist says: "I believe in God", it means something quite differently from a person (possibly the same theist) saying something like: "I believe we'll have turkey for Xmas".

I'm not sure. In my case it means i have a provisional belief in the God hypothesis -- I suspect many believers would be similar, while to others it is an experiential thing and they could no more doubt the existence of God than the existence of themselves.

In the second instance, the meaning is :"I consider it very likely".

In the same way, when I say "I believe in evolution", the meaning is: "I hold it extremely probable that evolution is true".

That sounds like what I mean when I say I believe in God: I have a high confidence in the result, but do not believe it is certain. I can see that many intelligent and well informed people might choose to disagree based upon the same evidence.

In the same way, for an atheist to say: "I believe in no god", the meaning is (except maybe for the rare dogmatic atheist): "I lack positive belief in god".

I hang out on the Dawkins forum - things are perhaps a little different there, and positive atheism (Dawkins scale 7 ) is not unknown, and I suspect a very large number of self avowed atheist would be unhappy with the formulation "I lack positive belief in god" and would call it half-assed agnosticism. It works for me though, an dif we get in to the semantics game of "what is agnostic?" "what is atheist?" we can play for months, as i have seen repeatedly over there...

All else is semantics.

Hans

Quite probably... I might start a thread on faith sometime. Not today as I have been quite busy in various discussions. Hans apologies if I came over as combative - I am not, I just find I like to actually explore issues sceptically and fully.

There does appear to be a slight suspicion of people with minority beliefs here, that suspicion being we are all "dyed in the wool faithhead" woo peddling apologists out for your souls and who could not reason their way out a paper bag. Maybe I'm imagining it though!

cj x

 

[GeeMack]

I have been thinking about this for a while since reading a 1991 piece by the parapsychologist Richard Broughton, in which he says he does not have a belief in psi - because a belief is something that is held without evidence. I just don't think that the possession or otherwise of evidence makes the slightest difference: he holds a belief in psi, just as atheist almost by definition hold a belief in "no God".

And you can keep on thinking that as long as it makes you comfortable, but you'll still be wrong. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of mental flaw in the god believers which makes them incapable of understanding the simple concept that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. Maybe it's some kind of mental flaw that makes them incapable of understanding the nuances of language. Maybe it's some kind of defense mechanism that makes them project their sense of belief onto other people in order to feel less silly for maintaining such an irrational, indefensible position themselves.

As skeptigirl has said many times, gods, in their truest, most real sense, are figments of the human imagination. There is massive evidence showing that gods, like dreams, exist only within the minds of the faithful. Like dreams, no two people's perception of gods is exactly the same. The existence of gods is not supported by the fact that so many people believe they exist, as the fact that so many people experience dreams doesn't support the realness of the stuff in those dreams. There is no evidence that would demonstrate the actual events, objects, or experiences in dreams exist in real time, in real life, in conjunction with the dream. As there is no evidence that any gods exist, or ever have existed, outside the minds and imaginations of those who seem to perceive them as real.

So, cj.23, although you generally appear much more sane, intelligent, and rational than our friend yrreg here, you're just plain wrong about your understanding of who does and does not believe. (Or you're being intentionally dishonest with your quibbling with the semantics, but you'll get the benefit of the doubt here.) And you're just as wrong about the realness of your gods as DOC and Radrook and the others who believe their gods are some kind of genuine, tangible entities.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I find it interesting -- I am greatly interested in the X Club and TH Huxley in particular, who is something of a hero of mine. You may of course not find it interesting, but if you wish to assert i am misapplying the term agnostic as you did I would have expected you to defend that assertion, or apologise.

My point was that the application of -isms is largely irrelevant. Apologize? Well sure: If I have inadvertently in any way insulted you, I apologize. If I should ever want to insult you, I will be quite open about it.

My line of argument is that the original statement by Rand "The 'well even atheists have beliefs' meme is such a dumb canard. It really doesn't warrant debate." makes no sense, and is blatantly false.

Ehr, OK. I don't see what is wrong with it. I'm sure you'll see atheists knock on wood, etc.

Let me tell you about one of my more famous compatriots, Niels Bohr: A reporter had been interviewing him, and as they took leave of each other, outside Bohr's villa in Copenhagen, the reporter noticed a horsheshoe nailed over the front door. "But professor Bohr," he said, "surely a scientist like yourself does not believe in such stuff?"

Said Bohr: "Of course not! ... But they tell me it works even if you don't believe in it."

I have never denied that non-theists lack belief in god: I merely hold that non-theists possess beliefs. All human being possess beliefs.

Excuse me, didn't you just say, above, that it was blatantly false? What is (apart from some semantic detail) the difference between Randi's "silly, blatantly false canard", and what you just said???

Pixy then seemed ot be claiming that this was not so, which appered to me, and appears to me completely untrue. We then got in ot a discussion of beliefs more generally -- which I have tried to move to another thread to avoid deraililing yrreg's thread further.

Not to worry, yrreg is not in the habit of participating in debates anyway, so whatever debate may spin from a thread of his can only be a nadvantage.

I have no objection to Rand's sentiment that the use of "atheits have beliefs" as an apologetic argument is flawed. I just objected to his wording, and felt the implications were well worth discussing. I still hold that a belief there is no god is by definition a belief.

It is not a belief in the way that a belief in God is a belief. It is a belief in the working assumption way.

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

Then they are an agnostic.

Wrong.

An atheist must not believe in Gods, which is a positive belief.

Wrong, and also wrong.

Gnosticism is a statement as to whether God can be known.
Theism is a statement as to whether God exists.

Thus, one can be an agnostic atheist (simply lacking in belief) or a gnostic atheist (believing that no God exists).

If you want to argue the fine details of philosophy and religion, you can't just fall back on whatever definition of a term suits your needs at this moment. Precision is everything.

Agreed, the belief that Gods do not exist is a positive claim.

And one that most atheists do not hold.

Yes. Beliefs do not have to be active to be beliefs. It is still a belief.

Now you're making nonsense of your own position. Just for starters, this would require that everyone holds an infinite number of beliefs.

You're not talking about beliefs at all; you're talking about propostions. I do not hold a belief that I will not fly up through the ceiling today, and a belief that I will not fly up through the ceiling tomorrow morning, and a belief that I will not fly up through the ceiling lunchtime Thurday. However, when any of these are phrased as propositions, I can conclude that the proposition is most likely false based on prior experience (i.e. evidence) and logic.

Yes: you believe them.

I accept them. I do not believe in them. You only need to believe in things absent or contrary to evidence.

That belief is provisional, based upon evidence, but it still a belief!

We're back to the land of infinite beliefs again.

I have facts, which can be checked at any time. I have logic, immutable. And I have theories, which I can test against the facts using logic.

Which of these, exactly, do I believe? And what does it mean to believe in that?

You appear to hold a definition of belief at contrary to that employed by a) popular usage b) psychology and c) philosophy??? The category belief to you appears to be entirely restricted to unevidenced claims - it;s a rather idiosyncratic usage, which bears no relation to how belief is common employed. Maybe put it in quote marks?

Does a computer believe that 1+1=2?

With reference to my statement "Objective truth is independent of the ability of any given individual to make a case for that belief."? No idea, what is your issue with the claim?

I fail to see the relevance.

My point was to clarify that an appeal to evidential based reasoning does not in fact constitute correctness: it's a major problem with say debates for example.

What are you talking about?

My wider point was the epistemological limitations derived from our developmental evolutionary psych based brains in assessing truth. I'm not really sure how to reply to "so?"

What limitations?

How so? The url appears correct, and I generally find this to be the right place. Can you explain. I am afraid you appear a little confused -- I was looking for the JREF forum, is that not where i am?

The whole point of this forum is to help people discard, as you so fancifully put it, "a hegemonic construction of reality, at a societal/cultural level".

If you say the Sun comes up in the East, here, you can be assured that you will be told that no, it is the Earth that is rotating.

Those parts of the Scientific discourse which are hegemonic in our society of course - the actual content will vary widely, but there is in the uK for example a broad based acceptance of evolution, most people know a little physcis and biology from school, and there is a cultural perception that there was a Big Bang and stars are a long way away.

All of which are correct, of course.

So, to pursue the question to another level, what's this nonsense about "Those parts of the Scientific discourse which are hegemonic in our society"?

How can simple and reasonably accurate statements be described as "hegemonic"?

Then can you explain to me how you managed to critique the belief that there was a universe external to your mind, that is how you refuted radical solipsism and moved beyond "cogito ergo sum"?

There is no refutation to solipsism, only a recognition of its futility. One must make an assumption as to the nature of reality to make any progress at all.

I'll note, also, that one does not have to believe that this assumption is true. One can even believe it to be false - or have no opinion either way. It's a question of simple utility.

How you establised that mathematics in some way models reality?

By not being dead.

How you know you are you, rather than somone else dreaming?

The question is not even meaningful.

have you ever investigated critically the claim George Washington was first President of the USA (not te Continental Congress note?)

Not in great depth, but yes.

have you established why the sky is blue, and the night sky black rather than as we migt expect white?

Rayleigh scattering and Olbers' Paradox.

Look face it, we all accept claims all the time without aving time to check them out.

No.

It's a survival sort cut. We would never function otherwise. To claim otherwise is ridicolous...

I don't care what you find ridiculous. I always evaluate claims. Some are trivial, and can be reasonably accepted based on existing evidence. Others are absurd, and can similarly be rejected.

How do you survive, if you believe everything you are told?

Yes, so you hold a belief because the evidence of your experience counts against it, fair enough.

No. I only thought up that proposition as an example. Prior to that, I neither believed it nor disbelieved it; I had never even considered it.

So you admit we hold all kind of unverified beliefs?

No.

My belief in the Big Bang is unverified by me - I have never grabbed the equipment to personally survey the CMBR, and it could all be photoshopped.

I don't believe in the Big Bang.

I have never testedmy theories on the causes of inflation in the frist quarter of the 13th century in England. And so forth... Often, my scientific knowledge, whcih I think is reasonably fair, is derived from arguments from authority.

You do realise that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, yes?

I accept this -- I do not have time to verify every claim, to examine all the evidence.

No-one can examine all the evidence. All we ask is that you examine some of the evidence.

In the areas of religion and parapsychology I happen to have a couple of decades of academic research

Well, there's your problem.

so I speak with a little more conviction, but like you I accept my beliefs are provisional and subject to new evidence. Importantly, I also believe that on many issues based on the evidence currently available intelligent people who are fully familar with the data can draw conflicting opinions.

"Many" issues? Like... what? The best wine to go with swordfish steaks? Or the utter failure of parapsychological research?

 

[cj.23]

And you can keep on thinking that as long as it makes you comfortable, but you'll still be wrong. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of mental flaw in the god believers which makes them incapable of understanding the simple concept that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Is lack of belief in the USA, the moon, or green cheese not a belief either then? I think this arises from a simple misunderstanding of the onus of proof in debate -- a belief of any sort can be a positive belief, if it makes an assertion. I believe there are no farnably-gringle-cats posting on this forum. The fact there is no such entity as a farnably-gringle-cat in no way invalidates my belief - it remains a belief claim.

BTW, suggesting god believers are mentally flawed is really just an ad hominem. If you can provide evidence for this belief why not start a new thread? I'm always happy to discuss this stuff!

But let me run with your suggestion, and refute it. I have no way of knowing if Assertion A is true or not. I choose to disbelieve Assertion A. I am therefore making a positive claim. This is basic logic???

Maybe it's some kind of mental flaw that makes them incapable of understanding the nuances of language.

Do I appear to not understand language?

Maybe it's some kind of defense mechanism that makes them project their sense of belief onto other people in order to feel less silly for maintaining such an irrational, indefensible position themselves.

Belief in God is by definition not irrational. Nor is belief in "No God". Nor is any conclusion. Rationality is a property of an argument used to arrive at a conclusion, not a property of the conclusion in itself. Example: All boobles are wotsits. All wotsits are snoodles. Therefore, all boobles are member sof the set snoodle. My conclusion is nonsense - but the argument is completely rational.

Secondly, what possible evolutionary purpose would imposing the perception of a contrary belief, where belief is a category of "things held to be true" on those of a differing ideology hold? I'm genuinely curious. It strikes me as inherently unlikely. Claiming "all atheists believe X", a patent fallacy except in terms of those beliefs which are central to the definition of atheist- sure...

As skeptigirl has said many times, gods, in their truest, most real sense, are figments of the human imagination.

The Argument from Skeptigirl? I'm puzzled as to what "truest, real sense" means. All perceptions of gods by humans are human perceptions, sure. That in no way establishes they exist only in the humanimagination - there is a huge leap of faith here! Can you provide evidence for this assertion? Ther emay or may not be plate balancing gnomes on a planet in the Magellanic Clouds somewhere. The fact I have only just concieved of the notion in no way makes the existence fo these entities more or less likely than before anyone had concieved of them a few seconds ago. Human perceptions of ultimate reality are lamost certainly (some models of observer created universe in cosmology excepted) irrelevant to the actual existence of hypothetical entities?

There is massive evidence showing that gods, like dreams, exist only within the minds of the faithful.

Where? Show me the empirical evidence.

Like dreams, no two people's perception of gods is exactly the same.

Like dreams, no two people's perception of Margaret Thatcher are exactly the same. She still exists.

The existence of gods is not supported by the fact that so many people believe they exist, as the fact that so many people experience dreams doesn't support the realness of the stuff in those dreams.

Agred the argument from popularity of a belief is a nonsense. It's nice we agree on something.

There is no evidence that would demonstrate the actual events, objects, or experiences in dreams exist in real time, in real life, in conjunction with the dream.

Look, do you really want a technical scientific discussion on the interface of dreaming and reality? I can provide one if you want, but for now i'll let it pass as irrelevant as this is an analogy...

As there is no evidence that any gods exist, or ever have existed, outside the minds and imaginations of those who seem to perceive them as real.

There is plenty of evidence which can be used to argue for the existence of Gods! There is no proof, or compelling evidence.

So, cj.23, although you generally appear much more sane, intelligent, and rational than our friend yrreg here, you're just plain wrong about your understanding of who does and does not believe. (Or you're being intentionally dishonest with your quibbling with the semantics, but you'll get the benefit of the doubt here.) And you're just as wrong about the realness of your gods as DOC and Radrook and the others who believe their gods are some kind of genuine, tangible entities.

Thanks for the compliment. I think I have argued my case reasonably here, maybe you can see now where i am coming from? I really don't give a hoot what you believe about ultimate reality -- I'm not out to convert people ot my way of thinking about God or whatever -- but I do think the claim "there is no God" is not a belief is essentially flawed. Nice discussing it anyway!

cj x

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*When I was working in psychology of religion our research director would have shot us if we made a claim about someones self reported belief - we would instead talk about peoples "perceptions of their belief". I'm not sure we have to go that far in a non-academic context like this thread though.

No, that is, IMHO, absurd. It is fair to discuss that our picture of the world depends on our perception, but that our beliefs may, academically, be different from our perceptions of them is uninteresting, since our only reference to anybody's beliefs IS their perception of them. All else is unknowable.

*snip*We critique and apply scepticism where we see anomalies or problems, not wholesale - but we have to be aware that our choice of where to investiage is determined by our existing belief stuctures, so our quest for truth is at least partially self referential.

I think this is the difference between the believer mindset and the skeptic mindset. The skeptic does not restrict his/her skepticism to observed anomalies (although this will serve in the case of most religions). The skeptic default position will always be: "held as true, pending contrary evidence".

(Notice that I don't give a damn about any semantic differences between 'sceptic' and 'skeptic')

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I notice that solipsism seems to keep popping up, so allow me to (re)post:


MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.
2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).
3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.
4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".
5) Observe.
You will soon have tangible evidence for the following:
a) You exist physically.
b) At least one other entity exists physically.
c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.
d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

Is lack of belief in the USA, the moon, or green cheese not a belief either then?

Is not collecting stamps a hobby?

I think this arises from a simple misunderstanding of the onus of proof in debate -- a belief of any sort can be a positive belief, if it makes an assertion.

And none of your above examples make assertions.

I believe there are no farnably-gringle-cats posting on this forum. The fact there is no such entity as a farnably-gringle-cat in no way invalidates my belief - it remains a belief claim.

Which has no bearing on your earlier examples, which are not claims of any sort.

BTW, suggesting god believers are mentally flawed is really just an ad hominem. If you can provide evidence for this belief why not start a new thread? I'm always happy to discuss this stuff!

"Mentally flawed" is perhaps harsh, but there is substantial evidence that there are specific locations in the brain responsible for religious experience.

Belief in God is by definition not irrational. Nor is belief in "No God". Nor is any conclusion. Rationality is a property of an argument used to arrive at a conclusion, not a property of the conclusion in itself. Example: All boobles are wotsits. All wotsits are snoodles. Therefore, all boobles are member sof the set snoodle. My conclusion is nonsense - but the argument is completely rational.

No, wrong yet again.

Asserting the existence of a hypothetical God given certain hypothetical conditions may or may not be rational depending on the specifics of those conditions. So if you are happy to accept your God as imaginary, there's no problem. I have a number of imaginary Gods that don't exist that I don't believe in. I name my computers after them.

But claiming that your God exists relative to the Universe in which we exist is at best unsupported by evidence. The only rational way around that is Deism, but there you fracture the meaning of the word "exist".

Secondly, what possible evolutionary purpose would imposing the perception of a contrary belief, where belief is a category of "things held to be true" on those of a differing ideology hold?

The human brain is an inference engine. It picks up facts from everywhere it can and attempts to infer patterns. It does this very, very aggressively, so much so that we as a species are infamous for finding patterns where none exist.

Hence superstition, pareidolia, our innate incompetence at statistical analysis, and hundreds of other related problems.

It would seem that it is evolutionary advantageous to overshoot and make the occasional incorrect inference rather than to undershoot and miss a critical and correct one.

I'm genuinely curious. It strikes me as inherently unlikely. Claiming "all atheists believe X", a patent fallacy except in terms of those beliefs which are central to the definition of atheist- sure...

There is no such belief.

 

[cj.23]

My point was that the application of -isms is largely irrelevant. Apologize? Well sure: If I have inadvertently in any way insulted you, I apologize. If I should ever want to insult you, I will be quite open about it.

Thanks Hans -- I was only stung by the suggestion I would deliberately misrepresent others beliefs. Agnostics are a wide set, with many varying belief patterns - and you can call me a tedious old **** or whatver you want any time, it is probably warranted!

Let me tell you about one of my more famous compatriots, Niels Bohr: A reporter had been interviewing him, and as they took leave of each other, outside Bohr's villa in Copenhagen, the reporter noticed a horsheshoe nailed over the front door. "But professor Bohr," he said, "surely a scientist like yourself does not believe in such stuff?"
Said Bohr: "Of course not! ... But they tell me it works even if you don't believe in it."

A fellow Dane? I have been in England since school age.

[quote ="William Shakepseare"]
HAMLET
149 Ay, marry, why was he sent into England? First Clown
150 Why, because he was mad: he shall recover his
151 wits there; or, if he do not, it's no great matter
152 there. [/quote]

Excuse me, didn't you just say, above, that it was blatantly false? What is (apart from some semantic detail) the difference between Randi's "silly, blatantly false canard", and what you just said???

It was Randfan, not Randi - but let me reprise what I said "I have never denied that non-theists lack belief in god: I merely hold that non-theists possess beliefs. All human being possess beliefs." Non-theists lack belief in a god sure: atheists make a positive claim "ther eis no God", which constitutes a belief. I have very few beliefs about P450 enzymes, because i am woefully ignorant of them -- but if I say they do not exist (and i don't) I make a positive claim. Those on the forum who have never heard of a P450 enzyme before held no beliefs: now they must have one, no maytter how provisional. I do agree much of this is semantics, but a belief makes a claim. Non-belief makes no claim. "I do not know if there is such a thing as Gods" is not holding a belief on Gods. "I believe there is no Gods" is a positive claim???

Not to worry, yrreg is not in the habit of participating in debates anyway, so whatever debate may spin from a thread of his can only be a nadvantage.

Not met the gentleman before this thread. I must admit I have been so busy replying to my critics I have not been following properly, I'll have to go back and read the rest!

It is not a belief in the way that a belief in God is a belief. It is a belief in the working assumption way.

Isn't most religious believers belief in God a working assumption though? Mine is!

Hey I need to go out and do some shopping - more later...

cj x

Hans[/quote]

 

[Freethinker]

Is lack of belief in the USA, the moon, or green cheese not a belief either then? I think this arises from a simple misunderstanding of the onus of proof in debate -- a belief of any sort can be a positive belief, if it makes an assertion.

So you think everyone has a belief about all things that don't exist? That's similar to making the claim that when I go to the grocery, I make a conscious decision not to purchase every item in the store except the ones that are in my cart.

 

[cj.23]

So you think everyone has a belief about all things that don't exist? That's similar to making the claim that when I go to the grocery, I make a conscious decision not to purchase every item in the store except the ones that are in my cart.

Hey Freethinker, no, that is not the claim I'm making - bah I need to go out, so I will keep this simple, as i think people are just mistaking what I am arguing --

Person 1. I believe in bigfoot.
Person 2. I do not know if bigfoot exists or not.
Person 3. I do not believe in bigfoot.

Persons 1 & 3 hold beliefs about bigfoot. Person 2 does not.

Person 1. I'm a theist, I believe in God
Person 2. I'm agnostic, I do not know if God exists or not.
Person 3. I am atheist, I do not believe in God.

Persons 1 & 3 hold beliefs about God. Person 2 does not.

The belief in no god (person 3) in no ways constitutes as I have bizarrely have seen argued by Christian apologists that person 3 must accept the existence of God to not believe in them. That is insane. Perhaps people are confused and think that is what I am arguing?

Person 3 does however hold beliefs on the God issue -- not an absence of beliefs, which would be person 2.

Does this clarify to everyone my thinking here, and original objection to Randfans statement?

cj x

 

[cj.23]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130398 btw is my actual thread on my vague thoughts on a model of how beliefs might work. Any criticism welcome. I'll reply to everyone else on my return...

cj x

 

[GeeMack]

But let me run with your suggestion, and refute it. I have no way of knowing if Assertion A is true or not. I choose to disbelieve Assertion A. I am therefore making a positive claim. This is basic logic???

I have no way of knowing if Assertion A is true or not. I do not choose to take a position of belief on the matter of Assertion A. No claim made here regarding the truth value of Assertion A. No belief expressed. And as long as you continue to think there is, you'll be wrong.

There is a difference between "I do not believe gods exist," and "I believe gods do not exist." The fact that you, cj.23, and so many other god believers simply can't (or dishonestly refuse to) understand the difference, even after it has been explained time and again, is what supports my conjecture that the faithful have some kind of mental deficiency. This is just one consideration of the cause. It might be a language comprehension problem. It might be an inability to focus. There are obviously other possibilities. No ad hominem here at all.

 

[cj.23]

I have no way of knowing if Assertion A is true or not. I do not choose to take a position of belief on the matter of Assertion A. No claim made here regarding the truth value of Assertion A. No belief expressed. And as long as you continue to think there is, you'll be wrong.

Yes, that is (in popular usage) agnosticism. It s value 2 on my examples above.

There is a difference between "I do not believe gods exist," and "I believe gods do not exist."

There is indeed.
"I do not believe gods exist," is entirely compatible with "I do not believe that gods do not exist" - it is a textbook example of agnosticism. I never said agnostics held positive beliefs???

cj x

 

[MRC_Hans]

A fellow Dane? I have been in England since school age.

Kan du så stadig dansk?

All human being possess beliefs." Non-theists lack belief in a god sure: atheists make a positive claim "ther eis no God", which constitutes a belief.

I realize that this is your position, but I am telling you that you are wrong. As I say, there may be dogmatic atheists, for whom their atheism is aking to a religious conviction, but they are not the norm.

Yrreg falls in the exact same trap when demanding that atheists define the god they disbelieve in. The reply is simply any god at all. As Freethinker says: Which groceries didn't you buy when you just shopped?

Or, the oft used "is not collecting stamps a hobby?".

I have very few beliefs about P450 enzymes, because i am woefully ignorant of them -- but if I say they do not exist (and i don't) I make a positive claim.

That does not make it a belief. What you do is (rationally or not) is to reject the evidence that exists for them. In the same way, by not believing in gods, I reject (rationally or not) what evidence exists for the existence of gods.

Those on the forum who have never heard of a P450 enzyme before held no beliefs: now they must have one, no maytter how provisional. I do agree much of this is semantics, but a belief makes a claim. Non-belief makes no claim. "I do not know if there is such a thing as Gods" is not holding a belief on Gods. "I believe there is no Gods" is a positive claim???

Being a positive claim does not make it a Belief (the capital is intentional).

Isn't most religious believers belief in God a working assumption though? Mine is!

I think that is true for most believers. Although those do not generally partake in discussions like these.

But the fact that your religion may be a working assumption does not make my lack of religion a belief.

Hans

 

[Freethinker]

Person 1. I believe in bigfoot.
Person 2. I do not know if bigfoot exists or not.
Person 3. I do not believe in bigfoot.

Persons 1 & 3 hold beliefs about bigfoot. Person 2 does not.

Person 1. I'm a theist, I believe in God
Person 2. I'm agnostic, I do not know if God exists or not.
Person 3. I am atheist, I do not believe in God.

Persons 1 & 3 hold beliefs about God. Person 2 does not.

I'll use my own beliefs as an example:

I believe that Yahweh, the god described in the Old Testament is made up. I base this on the contents of the bible and my experience with the real world. I've made a conscious decision that he is bunk. That does not make me an atheist.

I don't even know all of the Roman gods. As an example, I Googled "obscure Roman gods" and found "Paventia". Never heard of her. I have never had any thoughts about this particular god until this moment. I have made no evaluation of her existence or lack thereof, but lacking any evidence, I choose to dismiss her. That does not make me an atheist.

I have no belief in any god. That makes me an atheist.

I also believe that since I have never seen evidence that any god exists, that it is unlikely that any of the gods posited by humans exist. That also makes me an atheist.

The last two both qualify me as an atheist, but they are different. The first is a subset of the second.