Atheism, Is not believing in gods a belief or not?

[calamity]

What we can say...and what you are refusing to acknowledge...is that we do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and it is POSSIBLE that no gods are involved...and it is ALSO POSSIBLE that at least one god is involved.

...whatever the true nature of that god happens to be, since the descriptions man has attributed to god(s) are not consistent with observable reality (you need to add).

I say that when you add in the ambiguity, I can easily say that this unknown entity you allude to would not be god(s), as man currently defines him. Now, could the definition be revised to match this new version of god, one that you have not at all defined and only threw up on the wall in hopes that it would stick? Perhaps. But, then that is a whole other conversation.

Until I see a description of god, one which is accepted as the new definition for it and is consistent with observed reality, I will say god(s) do not exist. They are a figment of our imagination.

Stick with your position if you must...for whatever comfort it give you. But if you are going to suggest logic or reason is involved...the only position that logic and reason will get to is: We do not know if gods exist or not...and it is possible they do...just as it is possible they do not.

The definition of words matter, and the description given for the word god(s) have been etched in stone. You can't arbitrarily dismiss that definition of the word and all the descriptions of the gods we have to date while still insisting that gods may exist. You're basically saying, "I agree that the word god(s) does not properly define them, but that is irrelevant because gods may still exist or not."

I don't buy that argument. You have not told us what exists, just that it maybe does.

 

[Frank Apisa]

...whatever the true nature of that god happens to be, since the descriptions man has attributed to god(s) are not consistent with observable reality (you need to add).

I say that when you add in the ambiguity, I can easily say that this unknown entity you allude to would not be god(s), as man currently defines him. Now, could the definition be revised to match this new version of god, one that you have not at all defined and only threw up on the wall in hopes that it would stick? Perhaps. But, then that is a whole other conversation.

Until I see a description of god, one which is accepted as the new definition for it and is consistent with observed reality, I will say god(s) do not exist. They are a figment of our imagination.



The definition of words matter, and the description given for the word god(s) have been etched in stone. You can't arbitrarily dismiss that definition of the word and all the descriptions of the gods we have to date while still insisting that gods may exist. You're basically saying, "I agree that the word god(s) does not properly define them, but that is irrelevant because gods may still exist or not."

I don't buy that argument. You have not told us what exists, just that it maybe does.

There is a POSSIBILITY that gods exist...just as there is the POSSIBILITY that gods do not exist.

There is a POSSIBILITY that sentient life exists on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...just as there is the POSSIBILITY that no sentient life exists on any of those planets.

It is not that difficult a concept. Sorry you are having so much trouble with it.

Perhaps "trouble with difficult concepts" is why you are not explaining why you identify as (an) agnostic...although you not only assert there are no gods...you actually assert the existence of gods is an impossibility.

 

[calamity]

There is a POSSIBILITY that gods exist...just as there is the POSSIBILITY that gods do not exist.

There is a POSSIBILITY that sentient life exists on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...just as there is the POSSIBILITY that no sentient life exists on any of those planets.

It is not that difficult a concept. Sorry you are having so much trouble with it.

Perhaps "trouble with difficult concepts" is why you are not explaining why you identify as (an) agnostic...although you not only assert there are no gods...you actually assert the existence of gods is an impossibility.

I'm agnostic in that I do not know if there is or is not an entity or energy field out there which lies beneath all existence. There very well could be, or not. I do know however that this entity is nothing at all like the things humans have described and defined as gods.

Not hard.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I'm agnostic in that I do not know if there is or is not an entity or energy field out there which lies beneath all existence. There very well could be, or not. I do know however that this entity is nothing at all like the things humans have described and defined as gods.

Not hard.

Not logical either.

If you are asserting there are no gods...if you are asserting the existence of gods is not even possible...

...you are FAR from being of the mind that you do not know on the question.

You ARE asserting there are no gods; you ARE asserting it is not even possible for gods to exist.

You are not agnostic...nor are you an agnostic.

"Agnostic" can cover all sorts of things...including agnostic atheism and agnostic theism...but the assertions you make take you outside the realm of agnostic.

You seem like a decent person, Calamity, and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, with as much respect as can be shown in something like this, I also want to share with you that I consider your use of agnostic as a descriptor to be a huge, unnecessary insult to agnosticism.

 

[William Rea]

Nobody is arguing with that.

BUT SOME ATHEISTS DO HAVE A "BELIEF" THAT NO GODS EXIST...which in my opinion is the reverse side of the coin of "I believe there is a god."

SOME!

Several here in this forum...and lots, lots more on the outside.

How many Frank? Quantify it, demonstrate that you are not simply attacking a minority position.

 

[calamity]

Not logical either.

If you are asserting there are no gods...if you are asserting the existence of gods is not even possible...

...you are FAR from being of the mind that you do not know on the question.

You ARE asserting there are no gods; you ARE asserting it is not even possible for gods to exist.

No, I am asserting exactly the same thing you are--that the silly gods which resemble the characters in a bad movie, the gods which man has thus far put on the table, do not exist. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are not agnostic...nor are you an agnostic.

"Agnostic" can cover all sorts of things...including agnostic atheism and agnostic theism...but the assertions you make take you outside the realm of agnostic.

You seem like a decent person, Calamity, and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. But, with as much respect as can be shown in something like this, I also want to share with you that I consider your use of agnostic as a descriptor to be a huge, unnecessary insult to agnosticism.

Where we differ is that the thing about which I am agnostic is something I do not define as a god. You do.

 

[mbig]

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering, atheists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

You have a premise error.
The case for a god/against atheism (or at least agnosticism) Necessarily contains one.

Pozessed
"Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering"​

There is also "No evidence" the universe/s had ANY "engineering".
Your position is the religious one, Assuming an "engineeer"/God/ID.
Logic error #1 in this debate and for eons.

There was "no evidence" to suggest what caused Lightning, Fire, or Fertility 20,000 years ago, so they, Like YOU, said "goddidit" aka "God of the Gaps", etc, Until we DID understand.
Tens of thousands of 'gods' have gone by the wayside who were created with your "it must be god" 'logic'.
Not understanding/Not understanding Yet, is Not a reason to assume a god.
All gods WE Created this way that we have a verdict on have been proven false.
Assuming an "engineer" is Not logical.
We just Don't know/don't know Yet.

 

[Frank Apisa]

How many Frank? Quantify it, demonstrate that you are not simply attacking a minority position.

Several...right here in DP...and just about every atheist I know on the outside of the debate forums.

If you want an exact number...first I want an exact number of the atheists in world. Otherwise...let's the both of us go with approximations.

 

[Frank Apisa]

No, I am asserting exactly the same thing you are--that the silly gods which resemble the characters in a bad movie, the gods which man has thus far put on the table, do not exist. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no way we are "exactly the same" on this issue.

Where we differ is that the thing about which I am agnostic is something I do not define as a god. You do.

Like I said!

 

[William Rea]

Several...right here in DP...and just about every atheist I know on the outside of the debate forums.

If you want an exact number...first I want an exact number of the atheists in world. Otherwise...let's the both of us go with approximations.

Frank, I'm not making a positive assertion about what I believe that atheists believe. It is you that is doing so and, it is up to you to show that this is a widely held belief. To do that you must surely know how many or, are you guessing?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, I'm not making a positive assertion about what I believe that atheists believe. It is you that is doing so and, it is up to you to show that this is a widely held belief. To do that you must surely know how many or, are you guessing?

Okay...so quote where I said it was a widely held belief...and I will gladly support what I actually wrote. I certainly am not going to support your characterization of what I wrote.

 

[William Rea]

Okay...so quote where I said it was a widely held belief...and I will gladly support what I actually wrote. I certainly am not going to support your characterization of what I wrote.

Here's one example Frank

...But for people who use the label "atheist"...they have to understand that they cannot simply say "it is a rejection of a claim" because MANY atheists DO make a counter claim.

Here's another...

Actually...for MANY ATHEISTS...it IS a belief (or guess) that there are no gods.

I have actually heard atheists assert: I BELIEVE there are no gods!

Those atheists, whether you want to acknowledge it or not...ARE stating a belief.

That is one of the reasons I suggest doing away with the labels...and simply stating a position.

If your position is: I have no belief that there is a god...then you are NOT stating a belief. You are stating that you lack a belief in a particular thing. It does NOT infer that you DO HAVE A BELIEF in its opposite. It does NOT infer that you have a belief in no god...just that you do not have a belief in a god.

But to suggest that atheism is not about belief...just because you and some others do not engage in it...is disingenuous, because MANY atheists do indeed have a BELIEF that there are no gods.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Not as frustrating as someone who suggests there is no reason to ponder speculative possibilities. Developing theories about speculative possibilities is the foundation of science and education. The utter truth is you are carelessly ignoring a first step of scientific theory when you suggest things like "pondering something that potentially exists is irrelevant because it is not yet proven to exist".
I don't consider those thoughts to be logical, I don't consider those thoughts to be consistent, and if a person saying such things claims that they appreciate science, I don't think they are being completely honest either. Hence that person is worth ignoring.

It would be a waste of time considering every thing that humans imagined. But go ahead and research the absurd if it makes you feel better. No one is stopping you ffs.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Here's one example Frank



Here's another...

Many do.


Here are three...just among the few people who post here in Debate Politics:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/churc...eligion-w-1586-2242-a-120.html#post1064850522

I finally see the difference in our arguments. It's very subtle: You believe atheism is not believing in a God. I view atheism as believing there is no God. In my definition, it is an active belief. The belief of a negative. In your definition, it's the absence of a belief.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...created-w-1581-1781-a-213.html#post1065101796

There are no gods. No human that ever claimed that any god exists was ever able to prove their claim.

There are no gods.

Deal with it.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/244286-does-god-exist-6.html#post1065447015


There is no god. (TheDemSocialist)

Among my atheistic friends on the outside, there is: Bernie L.; Jonathan J. ; Bob C; Jane ?; Maryanne C...and a host of others.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I do not do "believing"...because whenever "I take the case to be true" or "regard something to be true" or "guess something to be true" or "suppose something to be true" or "estimate something to be true" or "calculate something to be true"...

...I say that I take it to be true, regard it to be true, guess it to be true, suppose it to be true, estimate it to be true, or calculate it to be true.

I do not disguise how I feel using the word "believe."

Now most of the time it wouldn't matter...but in discussions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...I regard it to be very important, because saying "I believe there is a god" or "I believe there are no gods" is simply not the same as "I blindly guess there is a god" or "I blindly guess there are no gods."

I guess; estimate; suppose; regard; calculate...as much as everyone else...but I do not disguise what I am doing by using the word "believe."

I am going to assume that is okay...that I am not violating some law.




Thank you for this information, Freedom, but I would rather stick with what I am doing. I do not do "believing." I would prefer to be more exact in my wording.

Lol no one is making you use the word believe. I am not accusing you of having the equivalent of a religious belief. You dont have to fear the word believe as if you use the word believe you will have lost all credibility. I do find it amusing from a psychological point of view. Are there other words that you have trained yourself not to use?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Lol no one is making you use the word believe.

I know that. And they would not succeed if they did.

I am not accusing you of having the equivalent of a religious belief.

I didn't think you were...which I would not see as an "accusation" in any case. I think you are asserting that I am not correct when I say I do not do "believing."

You are incorrect. I DO NOT do "believing."

You dont have to fear the word believe as if you use the word believe you will have lost all credibility.

I don't. In fact, I do not fear it at all. I just want to use "guess" when I am guessing; "suppose" when I am supposing; "estimating" when I am estimating."

What problem do you have with that?

I do find it amusing from a psychological point of view.

Good. If it amuses you...you laugh...and laughter is a health food of sorts.

Are there other words that you have trained yourself not to use?

I've trained myself to use words carefully. As a "for instance" (since I expect you will ask for one) I do not use swearing, cursing, blaspheming, using profanity, being vulgar interchangeably. They have their own special meaning...and I try to use them properly.

Are we good?

 

[Ikari]

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering, atheists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

Actually vacuum fluctuations do account for such.

What do you have now?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I know that. And they would not succeed if they did.



I didn't think you were...which I would not see as an "accusation" in any case. I think you are asserting that I am not correct when I say I do not do "believing."

You are incorrect. I DO NOT do "believing."

I am not asserting that you are incorrect about how you believe. My point is you cannot avoid believing something is correct if you have come to a conclusion. For you to assert that you do no believing you had to come to the conclusion that you do no believing which is something that you do indeed believe.

I don't. In fact, I do not fear it at all. I just want to use "guess" when I am guessing; "suppose" when I am supposing; "estimating" when I am estimating."

What problem do you have with that?

I have heard you try to compare atheists to theists asserting that both are beliefs. You desperately do not want to be in their company since in your opinion to just believe something without what you feel is a valid logical proof is beneath such a astute person as yourself.

At any rate when you are guessing that doesnt dictate that everyone else should be guessing. It is no wonder you start getting testy when people dont agree with.

Q'Im guessing that I should jump off a cliff ?'

A1' Yea I am guessing that you should/not'.
A2' I am sure that you should jump off a bridge!'
A3' What bridge?'

Answer 1 would go along with what you just said.

Good. If it amuses you...you laugh...and laughter is a health food of sorts.

Do you believe me when I say that I am not your Dad?

I've trained myself to use words carefully. As a "for instance" (since I expect you will ask for one) I do not use swearing, cursing, blaspheming, using profanity, being vulgar interchangeably. They have their own special meaning...and I try to use them properly.

The question was rhetorical.

Are we good?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I am not asserting that you are incorrect about how you believe. My point is you cannot avoid believing something is correct if you have come to a conclusion. For you to assert that you do no believing you had to come to the conclusion that you do no believing which is something that you do indeed believe.

No, I do not "believe" it...I know for a fact.

I have heard you try to compare atheists to theists asserting that both are beliefs. You desperately do not want to be in their company since in your opinion to just believe something without what you feel is a valid logical proof is beneath such a astute person as yourself.

That is simply nutty. Some of my best friends are atheists...and most of my relatives are theists.

If people want to "believe"...let 'em. I don't do it.

At any rate when you are guessing that doesnt dictate that everyone else should be guessing. It is no wonder you start getting testy when people dont agree with.

I get testy???

Q'Im guessing that I should jump off a cliff ?'

A1' Yea I am guessing that you should/not'.
A2' I am sure that you should jump off a bridge!'
A3' What bridge?'

Answer 1 would go along with what you just said.

That does not make enough sense to comment on, but I laughed so hard, I had to include it.

Do you believe me when I say that I am not your Dad?

No. I know you are not my Dad. My Dad has been dead for a long time. I am 79...remember.

The question was rhetorical.

The question was absurd...but I don't mind it.

Are we good?

From my perspective we are.

 

[Pozessed]

You have a premise error.
The case for a god/against atheism (or at least agnosticism) Necessarily contains one.

Pozessed
"Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering"​

There is also "No evidence" the universe/s had ANY "engineering".
Your position is the religious one, Assuming an "engineeer"/God/ID.
Logic error #1 in this debate and for eons.

There was "no evidence" to suggest what caused Lightning, Fire, or Fertility 20,000 years ago, so they, Like YOU, said "goddidit" aka "God of the Gaps", etc, Until we DID understand.
Tens of thousands of 'gods' have gone by the wayside who were created with your "it must be god" 'logic'.
Not understanding/Not understanding Yet, is Not a reason to assume a god.
All gods WE Created this way that we have a verdict on have been proven false.
Assuming an "engineer" is Not logical.
We just Don't know/don't know Yet.

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created with or without any engineering, atheists and theists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

Sorry, forgot to make it all inclusive.

 

[Cephus]

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created with or without any engineering, atheists and theists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

Sorry, forgot to make it all inclusive.

Except that every shred of evidence that we have points to no creator. We know the Big Bang happened. There is no question whatsoever. No creator necessary. No faith necessary. And for the religious, apparently no intelligence necessary either, but no surprise there.

 

[Pozessed]

Actually vacuum fluctuations do account for such.

What do you have now?

Vacuum fluctuations account for how this part of the universe may have come to exist. It does not account for what came before the fluctuations nor the origin of our universe. If anything vacuum fluctuations strengthen the logical evidence supporting there is more to this universe than what exists on this side of the big bangs expansion.

Which IMO suggests that a force from outside of our known universe is projected into this one by an unknown source. That to me does not discount a possibility that these fluctuations themselves, or the events that allow them to exist, may be engineered.

 

[Pozessed]

Except that every shred of evidence that we have points to no creator. We know the Big Bang happened. There is no question whatsoever. No creator necessary. No faith necessary. And for the religious, apparently no intelligence necessary either, but no surprise there.

What irrefutable evidence do you have that suggests the big bang/quantum fluctuations were not engineered?
I don't have evidence that supports either position. You must if you aren't relying on faith.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

No, I do not "believe" it...I know for a fact.

You know for a fact? That is a pretty bold claim. I assume you are referring to that if its isnt impossible then its possible that is your only fact, right?

Would you agree with this statement? At least one god that a human has described may be possible (as far as I know), but I have no way knowing that gods are actually possible.

If you disagree; why?

I suspect that you are asserting that you know gods are possible without any real meaning. You have said as much. You have only inferred logic but no actual evidence. You dont want to appear illogical so you maintain that gods are possible. But you know as well as I do that the probability is on par with any other made up character from some story. In other words there is just as much a possibility of there being gods as there is of the Smurffs being real living beings.

But if there was some observable falsifiable evidence that suggests that Smurffs are possible, then the possibility would have meaning. But you dont have that you have only what you infer from simplistic logic. And even that isnt enough to definitively KNOW that something is possible if it hasnt been proven impossible. Perhaps as of yet something hasnt been proven impossible. But if there is a possibility that it can be proven impossible then it is possible that it is something impossible just as much as its possible. Then what you know is that you dont have enough information in your opinion to know one way or the other.

It is impossible for you to know that something is possible while having no actual knowledge. You are relying on the lack of evidence for gods to claim to "KNOW" that gods are possible. You are making a argument from ignorance.

We dont know that gods are impossible; so I know gods are possible! That is what you keep telling me. And is why I keep confusing you with being theist, since they make the same exact claim.


You are also shifting the burden of proof another mainstay of theists. You "know" that gods are possible. ANd to sway you to not believe that you know, you want someone to prove that gods are impossible. You have directly asked that question in this thread.

That is simply nutty. Some of my best friends are atheists...and most of my relatives are theists.

If people want to "believe"...let 'em. I don't do it.



I get testy???

lol

That does not make enough sense to comment on, but I laughed so hard, I had to include it.

Then it is no wonder that you cannot grasp the simple concepts that I have been telling you.

No. I know you are not my Dad. My Dad has been dead for a long time. I am 79...remember.

Ok. But why should I believe you?

But see from your point of knowledge you cannot know my age (no matter what you assume or even if I told you; I could lie) it is possible that I am old enough to be your father.
And unless you have had paternity test done you have to take it on faith that the man you knew as your dad was actually your biological dad. Without the actual evidence you have to believe that he is was your dad and base it on faith. So without all the facts it is possible that I am your father. Of course that possibility is meaningless, because we BOTH BELIEVE that I am not your father. And even if you had a test done you would have to believe the results are correct before you could know the outcome is correct.

The question was absurd...but I don't mind it.

You should have noticed that it didnt actually illicit a answer.

From my perspective we are.

Of course we are. I mean we are just having a conversation. But I would suggest that despite that you believe that you are but, you are not being as logical as you think and that you should study logic a little more.

 

[mbig]

You have a premise error.
The case for a god/against atheism (or at least agnosticism) Necessarily contains one.

Pozessed
"Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created without any engineering"​

There is also "No evidence" the universe/s had ANY "engineering".
Your position is the Religious one, Assuming an "engineeer"/God/ID.
Logic error #1 in this debate and for eons.

There was "no evidence" to suggest what caused Lightning, Fire, or Fertility 20,000 years ago, so they, Like YOU, said "goddidit" aka "God of the Gaps", etc, Until we DID understand.
Tens of thousands of 'gods' have gone by the wayside who were created with your "it must be god" 'logic'.
Not understanding/Not understanding Yet, is Not a reason to assume a god.
All gods WE Created this way that we have a verdict on have been proven false.
Assuming an "engineer" is Not logical.
We just Don't know/don't know Yet.

Considering there is no evidence to suggest that universes can be created with or without any engineering, atheists and theists lean more towards faith than belief. Which is still a belief, only a belief with no evidence as the definition of faith clarifies.

Sorry, forgot to make it all inclusive.

Incorrect and a Mischaracterization/Non-answer of my post.
There is NO "faith" required to say what I TWICE specifically elucidated
"We don't know/We Don't know yet", is NOT "belief" or Faith".
It's a Fact of the matter, and the only answer to an 'insufficient data' problem.

Worse, and more Disingenuously, you did so despite my explanation/elaboration of Bogus past Assumptions (like Yours) of "engineering"/ID/god/s in re All the other Failed attempts to invoke 'him' (an "engineer"), in LIEU of actual [as yet unknown] answers, that All later proved to have Natural explanations.