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

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I am NOT making an argument from ignorance, Freedom.

I am simply calling to your attention that anything that is not established as impossible...is possible. There is plenty of evidence that is true...and all of logic shows it to be true.

It is possible that gods exist. It is also possible that no gods exist.

Just the way it is.

Yes you can look at it that way. The problem is that it is actually meaningless. You dont actually know if gods are actually possible. You are just necessitating what you believe to be a logical stance on gods. You still dont actually know if gods are actually possible and not just fantasy. You dont know if gods are impossible. All you have is a basic bit of logic that seems good enough for you. It is good in a naive childish like way. Such logic helps people hold on to the possibility of things that are complete fantasy.

When there is a plane crash the family use your logic that it is possible that their loved ones are still alive even if the plane was vaporized. Its false hope. With gods though they would need to be able to do things that are impossible. One could move the goal posts and just say its beyond our knowledge right now. And then go on about CERN being shown to primitive early humans. But CERN is a physical object that we made. Gods (as the stories go) does not need physical objects to do these wondrous things that the story tellers make up. No sir, gods do it by their own will. As in they are outside of causation or more to the point they are causation. So the stories are really about causation and the primitives that thought up gods, named causation gods, not knowing what causation was. Which fits into the what caused the universe, what caused life, etc.

 

[Cally]

"A"-prefix in Greek meaning "no" is cut and dry. There is no need for ridiculous and time-consuming semantics. A "weak atheist" is an agnostic. That word literally means "no knowledge." Technically, that is my own stance. Logically, I have deduced that the odds of god(s) existing is next to nil. However, there is a remote possibility that I could be wrong. Thus, I am an agnostic. Not a weak atheist.. that terminology is meaningless.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yes you can look at it that way. The problem is that it is actually meaningless. You dont actually know if gods are actually possible. You are just necessitating what you believe to be a logical stance on gods. You still dont actually know if gods are actually possible and not just fantasy. You dont know if gods are impossible. All you have is a basic bit of logic that seems good enough for you. It is good in a naive childish like way. Such logic helps people hold on to the possibility of things that are complete fantasy.

When there is a plane crash the family use your logic that it is possible that their loved ones are still alive even if the plane was vaporized. Its false hope. With gods though they would need to be able to do things that are impossible. One could move the goal posts and just say its beyond our knowledge right now. And then go on about CERN being shown to primitive early humans. But CERN is a physical object that we made. Gods (as the stories go) does not need physical objects to do these wondrous things that the story tellers make up. No sir, gods do it by their own will. As in they are outside of causation or more to the point they are causation. So the stories are really about causation and the primitives that thought up gods, named causation gods, not knowing what causation was. Which fits into the what caused the universe, what caused life, etc.

Freedom...you have a problem with logic...and with the English language.

You are confusing "what is possible" with "what is."

If you toss a coin into the air (and it does not land on its side) it will either land on heads or on tails. It is possible when you throw the coin...that it will land on heads; it is also possible that it will land on tails.

It is possible a god exists...it is also possible there are no gods.

It is possible there are sentient beings living on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...it is also possible that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets.

Work it out...or get help working it out.

 

[Frank Apisa]

"A"-prefix in Greek meaning "no" is cut and dry. There is no need for ridiculous and time-consuming semantics. A "weak atheist" is an agnostic. That word literally means "no knowledge." Technically, that is my own stance. Logically, I have deduced that the odds of god(s) existing is next to nil. However, there is a remote possibility that I could be wrong. Thus, I am an agnostic. Not a weak atheist.. that terminology is meaningless.

And you are the determinant for the world about what is or is not meaningful?

The opinions of those people who consider it very meaningful...just do not count?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Freedom...you have a problem with logic...and with the English language.

You are confusing "what is possible" with "what is."

If you toss a coin into the air (and it does not land on its side) it will either land on heads or on tails. It is possible when you throw the coin...that it will land on heads; it is also possible that it will land on tails.

It is possible a god exists...it is also possible there are no gods.

It is possible there are sentient beings living on one of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol...it is also possible that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets.

Work it out...or get help working it out.

Lol I am not confused between "what is possible" and "what is." I just find that the truth of the matter is more important than your what if's. If you want to give credence to every imagined thing that comes your way, have at it. Personally I dont believe that such irrational things could be possible in the real world. If someone proves me wrong then I would gladly change my position to meet that new information. Until then fantasies are just fantasies with no real possibilities. But I would imagine at your age leaving a possiblity for a god makes logical sense to you.

 

[Cally]

And you are the determinant for the world about what is or is not meaningful?

The opinions of those people who consider it very meaningful...just do not count?

I don't give a monkey's left nut about someone else's opinion. What I posted is what the words actually mean. People want to debate semantics-- well, there you are. Clear as the sun on Mercury.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Lol I am not confused between "what is possible" and "what is." I just find that the truth of the matter is more important than your what if's. If you want to give credence to every imagined thing that comes your way, have at it. Personally I dont believe that such irrational things could be possible in the real world. If someone proves me wrong then I would gladly change my position to meet that new information. Until then fantasies are just fantasies with no real possibilities. But I would imagine at your age leaving a possiblity for a god makes logical sense to you.

Yeah...the POSSIBILITY of a god does make logical sense to me. The POSSIBILITY that no gods exist also makes logical sense to me...as both should to anyone with any sense of logic.

 

[calamity]

Yeah...the POSSIBILITY of a god does make logical sense to me. The POSSIBILITY that no gods exist also makes logical sense to me...as both should to anyone with any sense of logic.

Do you believe it is possible that the characters in Steven King's novels exist, say the clown in It? How about the characters in Homer's Illiad? Is it possible that Medusa exists?

Why the hell does everyone treat the made up stories of these gods differently?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Do you believe it is possible that the characters in Steven King's novels exist, say the clown in It? How about the characters in Homer's Illiad? Is it possible that Medusa exists?

Why the hell does everyone treat the made up stories of these gods differently?

You are being so illogical here, Calamity...I am embarrassed for you.

There is the POSSIBILITY there are gods...just as there is the POSSIBILITY there are no gods.

Sorry you are unable to acknowledge that fact. You ought to think about the fact that you are not able to do so...in the same light as you do the people who insist there is a GOD.

By the way, I guess I should have mentioned this earlier...but I do not do "believing."

 

[Pozessed]

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

Believe is synonymous with trust, accept, admit, conclude. So if people show that they conclude/trust there is no god(s) they are showing a belief that there is no god.

 

[calamity]

You are being so illogical here, Calamity...I am embarrassed for you.

There is the POSSIBILITY there are gods...just as there is the POSSIBILITY there are no gods.

Sorry you are unable to acknowledge that fact. You ought to think about the fact that you are not able to do so...in the same light as you do the people who insist there is a GOD.

By the way, I guess I should have mentioned this earlier...but I do not do "believing."

So, would you also say there is the POSSIBILITY there are evil clowns who don't age living in the sewers...just as there is the POSSIBILITY there are no evil clowns who don't age living in the sewers?

Probably not. Correct?

Why do people treat stories of gods differently?

 

[calamity]

Believe is synonymous with trust, accept, admit, conclude. So if people show that they conclude/trust there is no god(s) they are showing a belief that there is no god.

I probably agree with this. If you do not believe gods exist. It really is pretty close to saying you believe gods do not exist. In fact, the more I think about it, the less separation I see between the two.

 

[Frank Apisa]

So, would you also say there is the POSSIBILITY there are evil clowns who don't age living in the sewers...just as there is the POSSIBILITY there are no evil clowns who don't age living in the sewers?

Probably not. Correct?

Why do people treat stories of gods differently?

We do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence, Calamity. We do not even know if what we humans call "the universe" is all that IS...or ever has been. Gods...or a god...may or may not exist. Either is POSSIBLE.

The best guess that can be made about your clowns is that they are something you invented in order to justify your being unwilling to acknowledge that a god may exist.

No problem.

But to anyone with an open mind...you are being as close-minded as someone who insists there is a god.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I probably agree with this. If you do not believe gods exist. It really is pretty close to saying you believe gods do not exist. In fact, the more I think about it, the less separation I see between the two.

The difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe there are no gods" is enormous.

One is a statement about what a belief; the other a statement about a lack of belief.

There are atheists here in the forum who argue the significant difference between the two.

 

[calamity]

We do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence, Calamity. We do not even know if what we humans call "the universe" is all that IS...or ever has been. Gods...or a god...may or may not exist. Either is POSSIBLE.

The best guess that can be made about your clowns is that they are something you invented in order to justify your being unwilling to acknowledge that a god may exist.

No problem.

But to anyone with an open mind...you are being as close-minded as someone who insists there is a god.

No. The clown was invented by an author, just like god was. Why should we treat the two fictional characters differently?

 

[Frank Apisa]

No. The clown was invented by an author, just like god was. Why should we treat the two fictional characters differently?

As I said earlier, Calamity, you are being so illogical here, I am embarrassed for you.

 

[calamity]

The difference between "I do not believe gods exist" and "I believe there are no gods" is enormous.

One is a statement about what a belief; the other a statement about a lack of belief.

There are atheists here in the forum who argue the significant difference between the two.

I do not believe the earth is flat. I believe the earth is not flat. Very subtle difference between the two. But, for argument sake, both are a belief. Stating the lack of belief in x is a belief nonetheless, if you really think about it.

 

[calamity]

As I said earlier, Calamity, you are being so illogical here, I am embarrassed for you.

Why do you treat the characters in two books of fiction differently? You need to answer that.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I do not believe the earth is flat. I believe the earth is not flat. Very subtle difference between the two.

The statement "I do not believe the earth is flat"...it telling us what you do not believe. I tells us nothing about what you "believe."
It is not subtle at all...it is semantically exact.

But, for argument sake, both are a belief.

One is stating a "belief." The other is stating a lack of belief.

Stating the lack of belief in x is a belief nonetheless, if you really think about it.

If you really think about it...you would not come to that conclusion.

You are making the mistake of supposing that "I do not believe 'X'" is the same as "I believe 'not X'."

That simply is not so.

I do not believe there is a creator god.

I ALSO DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS NO CREATOR GOD.

I just do not know...and I do not do "believing" in either direction.

The fact that I do not believe there IS A CREATOR GOD...is not in any way equivalent to saying "I believe there is no creator god"...no matter how much you want it to be.

I do NOT believe in either direction is a totally acceptable stance...and on the question of whether a god exists or not...is the most logic way to deal with the topic.

That is...IF YOU REALLY WANT TO THINK ABOUT IT.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Why do you treat the characters in two books of fiction differently? You need to answer that.

When I am talking about the POSSIBILITY of a god...I am not talking about a character from a book...whether fiction or not.

If you are stuck on the god of the Bible...that is your problem.

I am not.

The question actually being asked is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence? (Is a god involved or not?)

The only reasonable way that question can be answered is, "I do not know."

I acknowledge that does not stop stone-headed people from insisting they know the answer is "Yes there is" or "No, it is not even possible."

 

[free_think]

Do you believe it is possible that the characters in Steven King's novels exist, say the clown in It? How about the characters in Homer's Illiad? Is it possible that Medusa exists?

Why the hell does everyone treat the made up stories of these gods differently?

This is the crux of the matter perhaps, and the reason I see a problem with Frank's argument.

Though he may be technically correct in a sense, the implication of the assertion is that belief in superstition is equal to disbelief in superstition.

It is true that we can't %100 disprove any sort of wild non falsifiable thesis. However, that fact doesn't put the idea of asserting said thesis to be true on equal footing with the idea of denying it. If we accept such a postulation, all of logic breaks down because we can't discount any given fantasy as false on the grounds of lack of evidence. We can make no rational assumptions, which is the only thing we can do when faced with a non falsifiable thesis.

And of course, the reason the specific fantasy of an Abrahamic God is treated differently than other fantasies is because billions of people profess to believe it. Even though the idea itself is on no stronger footing than a belief in Zeus, or Poseidon.

Another way we could look at it is using Dakwins' scale.

What Frank seems to be saying is that someone who is a 7 on this scale, is essentially making a currently unprovable reality claim in the same way someone who is a 1 is. While that may be true, it doesn't suggest the rational default position to be a 4.

 

[ttwtt78640]

When I am talking about the POSSIBILITY of a god...I am not talking about a character from a book...whether fiction or not.

If you are stuck on the god of the Bible...that is your problem.

I am not.

The question actually being asked is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence? (Is a god involved or not?)

The only reasonable way that question can be answered is, "I do not know."

I acknowledge that does not stop stone-headed people from insisting they know the answer is "Yes there is" or "No, it is not even possible."

As to that (bolded above) assertion, you may not be yet most are. Agnosticism is not accepting a specific god, as described in religious text(s), without physical (scientific?) proof while atheism is not accepting the existence of (the possibility of?) any god(s). IMHO, agnosticism is (logical?) skepticism while atheism is a (firm?) belief.

 

[free_think]

In a way, the word "atheist" is confusing. Dawkins's scale can help us define it better, but still the existence of the word at all leads some credence to the idea of theism. As though it's an idea worth countering directly

People aren't tempted to call themselves Aastrologers for instance, or Atea-potists in the analogy of Russell's Tea Pot.

I prefer the word "Rationalist". To me it's much more clear.

 

[Frank Apisa]

As to that (bolded above) assertion, you may not be yet most are. Agnosticism is not accepting a specific god, as described in religious text(s), without physical (scientific?) proof while atheism is not accepting the existence of the possibility of any god(s). IMHO, agnosticism is (logical?) skepticism while atheism is a (firm?) belief.

I want to agree with you on this, tt...

...but many atheists insist they are not doing "believing"...and I accept it.

Many atheists seem to be agnostics who will not accept the designation "agnostic." Kind of a play on what Madalyn Murray O'hair used to say about agnostics being atheists without the guts to use the word "atheist" as a descriptor. Maybe they are atheists without the guts to use the word "agnostic" as a descriptor.

 

[calamity]

When I am talking about the POSSIBILITY of a god...I am not talking about a character from a book...whether fiction or not.

If you are stuck on the god of the Bible...that is your problem.

I am not.

The question actually being asked is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence? (Is a god involved or not?)

The only reasonable way that question can be answered is, "I do not know."

I acknowledge that does not stop stone-headed people from insisting they know the answer is "Yes there is" or "No, it is not even possible."

When I think of gods, I most definitely think of characters in books and oral myths. Why would anyone think different? There is no science of gods or other evidence to suggest gods are not simply fictional characters in made up stories.