Athiests start religious wars, too!

[tsig]

However he was not Catholic he was Georgian Orthodox

Splitters!

 

[tsig]

As someone has stated here, communism is, itself, a belief system, one that saw religion as competitors.

The usual bait and switch here is to equate belief with non-belief then claim both are faith so it takes faith to be an atheist, therefore god. It annoys them when no one will take the bait.

 

[MG1962]

Splitters!

LOL - I honestly don't know much about the Eastern Orthodox religions. They may even pre-date the Catholics

 

[dc1971]

Uh... no. Since God's non-existence is not provable, an atheist does not know, he can only believe. And if he doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, he's not an atheist.

Atheists are more prone to say that there is no proof of a God rather than say they don't believe in God.

 

[Croydon Bob]

Are you honestly going to try to tell me what I believe about religion?

I'll ignore your pathetic attempts at insulting me. No I'm not going to try and tell you what you believe about religion. Why would you introduce that ridiculous accusation? I asked you a question, you have failed to reply in any reasonable way.

From this thread alone, ignoring all the stupidity that you post across the rest of this forum, I can honestly tell:

1. That you have no idea what agnosticism and atheism are.
2. That even when it is explained to you, you disregard and stick to a faith-based fantasy of what agnosticism and atheism are.

Combined with your refusal to answer a simple and honest question, it is therefore very clear that you are a believer of some sort and not a skeptic.

You have totally derailed this thread away from the original OP by repeatedly posting nonsense in it.

 

[Chris L]

It doesn't? What's the difference between belief and knowledge, then?

Please, tell me: What rational rule may I apply, to separate what I believe from what I know?

Knowledge requires evidence and can be falsified. Belief, not so much.

 

[Croydon Bob]

Knowledge requires evidence and can be falsified. Belief, not so much.

Yes.

And I think it goes a bit beyond some of the previous comments on this. Even if one valid meaning of "belief" is "an understanding that is based on evidence", I still find it better not to use the word.

If I say I believe in Evolution then the loony thinks that this is equal to their belief in Creationism. I find it preferable to say that I don't "believe" in Evolution, that I accept it based on the evidence, that I think that it is the correct explanation, etc.

 

[tsig]

LOL - I honestly don't know much about the Eastern Orthodox religions. They may even pre-date the Catholics

According to the RCC the EO split from them, of course according to the EO the RCC split from them. You choose your side, you accept their truth.

In point of fact it makes no difference to the validity of the belief if atheists started every war there ever was.

 

[RandFan]

Umm really?

Soooo no one in the Soviet Union during Stalins time was ever persecuted for holding religious beliefs?

There is nothing inherent to atheism that would dictate persecution. That is the result of in-group out-group thinking. Which is also a basis for much of religious atrocity. The difference is that theism actually calls for murdering infidels and punishing people for blasphemy.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Belz...]

The usual bait and switch here is to equate belief with non-belief then claim both are faith so it takes faith to be an atheist, therefore god. It annoys them when no one will take the bait.

All it serves to show is how little they know about atheism.

 

[Belz...]

Yes.

And I think it goes a bit beyond some of the previous comments on this. Even if one valid meaning of "belief" is "an understanding that is based on evidence", I still find it better not to use the word.

If I say I believe in Evolution then the loony thinks that this is equal to their belief in Creationism. I find it preferable to say that I don't "believe" in Evolution, that I accept it based on the evidence, that I think that it is the correct explanation, etc.

Hummm...

Could we say that Knowledge exists in the presence of evidence, Belief despite lack of evidence, and Faith in spite of evidence ? That might be a way to distinguish them, and it would make belief somewhat more... useful.

 

[3point14]

Uh... no. Since God's non-existence is not provable, an atheist does not know, he can only believe. And if he doesn't believe that God doesn't exist, he's not an atheist.

By this game of semantics, I only believe the world exists. I don't know it because I can't prove it.

 

[RandFan]

Null hypothesis.

Why is it that some people just can't figure out that belief isn't binary.

Bob: Do you believe in A?
Tim: No.
Bob: Then you believe in not A.
Tim: No. I hold the null hypothesis. I believe in neither.

While it's true that either A or not A is true that doesn't necessitate that a person must believe in one or the other.

Look into it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll ignore your pathetic attempts at insulting me.

A reminder, for those watching:

What makes you think I'm religious?

Your astonishing ignorance.

And now you're objecting to me insulting you? That's rather bold of you.

No I'm not going to try and tell you what you believe about religion.

But you just did. You told me that I'm religious, even though I've never said whether or not I am.

 

[RandFan]

Also:

While it's true that either A or not A is true that doesn't necessitate that a person must believe in one or the other.

In this video Noel Plum explains why we can also believe in a probabilistic statement when it comes to the existence of god.



Bob: Do you believe in god?
Tim: I believe there is a low probability that god exists.

 

[Hawk one]

As someone has stated here, communism is, itself, a belief system, one that saw religion as competitors.

Of course, considering what the Soviet ruling class* - the nomenklatura - actually did with their country, one can hardly claim they believed in communism as described by Marx either. Behind the pretty propaganda, there really was only one thing those guys believed in, and that was grabbing all the power (with the perks that entailed) for themselves. If they thought they could retain power more easily by co-operating with the church, they would. If they thought they could opress the church without consequences, they would.

I believe someone once said that the problem with Western people is that they think in terms of left and right when it comes to totalitarianism. And frankly, this is wrong. No matter what shape totalitarian dictatorship takes, it's simply on a different line altogether, whether the propaganda is based on leftwing or rightwing values.

*the very fact that Soviet had a ruling class that clearly seeked to remain so permanently is of course a slap in the face of what Marx himself was talking about.

 

[NoahFence]

Why is it that some people just can't figure out that belief isn't binary.

Bob: Do you believe in A?
Tim: No.
Bob: Then you believe in not A.
Tim: No. I hold the null hypothesis. I believe in neither.

While it's true that either A or not A is true that doesn't necessitate that a person must believe in one or the other.

Look into it.

My favorite is:

Bob: I'm not voting for A
Tim: Why do you love B so much

 

[ehcks]

Why is it that some people just can't figure out that belief isn't binary.

Bob: Do you believe in A?
Tim: No.
Bob: Then you believe in not A.
Tim: No. I hold the null hypothesis. I believe in neither.

While it's true that either A or not A is true that doesn't necessitate that a person must believe in one or the other.

Look into it.

Indeed.

Also, is answering the question "Do you believe in my god?" with the question "What's a god?" a belief that your god does not exist?

 

[Fredrik]

For Ziggurat and The Central Scrutinizer:

First of all, Scrut, the dictionary definition you linked to doesn't say anything about knowing that there's no god. The dictionary's definition is different from yours. Your definition isn't useful, since there are no atheists according to that your definition.

The definitions that I've seen a number of times in this forum go like this:

* A theist is someone who believes that at least one god exists.
* An atheist is someone who lacks the belief that at least one god exists.
* An agnostic is somene who believes that it's impossible to know anything about gods.

People who post such definitions are often quick to point out that this definition of atheist doesn't require an atheist to believe that there's no god. It's sufficient to not have the belief that there's a god. So if Alice has no opinion and Bob believes that there's no god, they are both atheists. Every baby is an atheist.

Of course, this isn't how most people use these words. Everyone seems to think that the definitions go like this:

* A theist is someone who believes that at least one god exists.
* An atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist.
* An agnostic is somene who hasn't decided what be believe.

This raises an interesting question. Isn't a language defined by how people use the words, and if so, doesn't this mean that these definitions can't be considered wrong?

 

[RandFan]

This raises an interesting question. Isn't a language defined by how people use the words, and if so, doesn't this mean that these definitions can't be considered wrong?

Good post.

Semantic arguments are often pointless. It's not about the words. It's about the ideas in people's heads. Words are simply the tools to convey those ideas. They are not laws of physics. Once you understand that it is possible to hold the null hypothesis or that it's possible to hold a probabilistic belief then it's rather disingenuous to assert that an atheist must be one who believes there is no god.