"I just believe in one fewer god than you do"

[CaptainCourtesy]

You are making a positive assertion which lacks falsifiability, the burden of proof is squarely on you.

You are making a claim which is inherently impossible to completely disprove, however, all known methods of direct and indirect empirical observation have failed to provide a single scrap of evidence for the claim that there is a god so the only logical default position is that it does not exist just as the logical default position is that an invisible dragon which breathes heatless and lives in my garage does not exist.






All known direct and indirect methods of empirical observation have brought forth no evidence for the existence of god, that means that given all current knowledge we can safely assume that it does not exist until new evidence is brought forward.
.

One more time with feeling. All your are demonstrating is that both positions are UNproven. You are free to believe what you want as am I, but you can not demonstrate any falseness in my position, nor I yours. Further, as I have been telling you, there is an asymmetrical burden of proof on YOU. And lastly, I am not trying to prove the existence of GOd; you seem to be trying to prove the lack of existence. Therefore, the burden of proof is ONLY on you, though that burden is less substantial, as only you are trying to prove a position.

 

[digsbe]

That seems to be a common misconception among theists, actually. Absence of belief =/= belief in absence, otherwise each and every one of us would have an infinite number of beliefs - as there are an infinite number of things in which we do not believe in.

So then atheists believe there could be a God? Does that make all atheists agnostic? I don't believe on can "lack" a belief in God or about God. Once exposed to the concept of God, one forms a belief. Actually, even agnostics don't lack a belief. They believe that we can't know. "Lacking" a belief is a negative statement, believing in something is a positive. Do atheists not affirm that they believe that there is no God?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You can not completely disprove a negative if the positive assertion lacks falsifiability which is what the article is saying, however, using inductive logic we can safely assume that there is no god due to the fact that all known methods of direct and indirect emprical observation have failed to provide one scrap of evidence for its existence.

Once you use the phrase "safely assume" you are outside the realm of "proof" and inside the realm of assumptions. You have just demonstrated one reason why you cannot make a proof out of your position.

 

[Redress]

So then atheists believe there could be a God? Does that make all atheists agnostic? I don't believe on can "lack" a belief in God or about God. Once exposed to the concept of God, one forms a belief. Actually, even agnostics don't lack a belief. They believe that we can't know. "Lacking" a belief is a negative statement, believing in something is a positive. Do atheists not affirm that they believe that there is no God?

AS an atheist, I do not believe in god because I have no reason to. It's actually kinda subtle, but it's not really agnosticism, but it's not hardcore atheism either, where I think "there is no god and any one who believes in it believe in magic dragons".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So then atheists believe there could be a God? Does that make all atheists agnostic? I don't believe on can "lack" a belief in God or about God. Once exposed to the concept of God, one forms a belief. Actually, even agnostics don't lack a belief. They believe that we can't know. "Lacking" a belief is a negative statement, believing in something is a positive. Do atheists not affirm that they believe that there is no God?

There are actually a couple of kinds of atheists. There are implicit atheists...their position is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. Explicit atheists do not believe that there are deities, consciously. Agnostics have different levels of belief, from being doubtful, to claiming that it is unknowable.

 

[iangb]

So then atheists believe there could be a God? Does that make all atheists agnostic? I don't believe on can "lack" a belief in God or about God. Once exposed to the concept of God, one forms a belief. Actually, even agnostics don't lack a belief. They believe that we can't know. "Lacking" a belief is a negative statement, believing in something is a positive. Do atheists not affirm that they believe that there is no God?

This is where it gets sticky, because there is a culture (in the US, it seems) of misusing the correct terms. To explain them here:

There are two different dichotomies concerned here, 'theism' and 'gnosticism'.

Theism = "I believe in a God"
Atheism = "I have no belief in a God"

Gnosticism = "I am confident in my beliefs"
Agnosticism = "...but I'm not sure"

So we have four possible combinations overall.

Agnostic atheism: "I don't believe in God, but I might be wrong" (That's me, incidentally)
Gnostic atheism: "I don't believe in God, and I feel justified in this" (In other words, "I believe that belief in God is wrong")
Agnostic theism: "I believe in God, but totally without evidence" (the cynic in me would add "I was born into faith and haven't really thought about it", the anti-cynic in me would add "I think belief in God makes me a better person, regardless of whether it's true or not")
Gnostic theism: "I believe in God because I have evidence which (to me, at least) complels belief" (Note that people have different standards of 'evidence', as this thread indicates)

Pick your own!

 

[digsbe]

AS an atheist, I do not believe in god because I have no reason to. It's actually kinda subtle, but it's not really agnosticism, but it's not hardcore atheism either, where I think "there is no god and any one who believes in it believe in magic dragons".

This I can understand. My point is in regards to people claiming they are atheist because they lack a belief in God. It seems to me that you are more irreligious than you are atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong. But are you saying that you believe that there is most likely no God and that you don't believe in any of the world's religions/spiritual philosophies? The main point I am trying to make is that people do hold a belief about God, and that we can't "lack" a believe about God unless we are totally oblivious to the concept.

This is where it gets sticky.

There are two types of things concerned here, 'theism' and 'gnosticism'.

Theism = "I believe in a God"
Atheism = "I have no belief in a God"

Gnosticism = "I am confident in my beliefs"
Agnosticism = "...but I'm not sure"

So we have four possible combinations here.

Agnostic atheism: "I don't believe in God, but I might be wrong" (That's me, incidentally)
Gnostic atheism: "I don't believe in God, and I feel justified in this" (In other words, "I believe that belief in God is wrong")
Agnostic theism: "I believe in God, but totally without evidence" (the cynic in me would add "I was born into faith and haven't really thought about it", the anti-cynic in me would add "I think belief in God makes me a better person, regardless of whether it's true or not")
Gnostic theism: "I believe in God because I have evidence which (to me, at least) complels belief" (Note that people have different standards of 'evidence', as this thread indicates)

I can agree with this. But then how can someone in any of those categories lack a belief in God? It seems everyone in those four categories have a belief about something. It's just the agnostics on either side believe that they could be wrong or that we can't know completely for sure. In any of them can one lack a belief in God? I understand what you are saying and I believe it makes logical sense, but the terminology of "lacking" a belief seems illogical to me.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

How can one "lack" a belief in God?

I do not have the belief that a god exists, therefore I lack that belief.

The burden of proof is upon both theists and atheists.

Only if atheists claim that there is no god.

Do I "lack" a belief in naturalism?

You tell me.

 

[Redress]

This is where it gets sticky, because there is a culture (in the US, it seems) of misusing the correct terms. To explain them here:

There are two different dichotomies concerned here, 'theism' and 'gnosticism'.

Theism = "I believe in a God"
Atheism = "I have no belief in a God"

Gnosticism = "I am confident in my beliefs"
Agnosticism = "...but I'm not sure"

So we have four possible combinations overall.

Agnostic atheism: "I don't believe in God, but I might be wrong" (That's me, incidentally)
Gnostic atheism: "I don't believe in God, and I feel justified in this" (In other words, "I believe that belief in God is wrong")
Agnostic theism: "I believe in God, but totally without evidence" (the cynic in me would add "I was born into faith and haven't really thought about it", the anti-cynic in me would add "I think belief in God makes me a better person, regardless of whether it's true or not")
Gnostic theism: "I believe in God because I have evidence which (to me, at least) complels belief" (Note that people have different standards of 'evidence', as this thread indicates)

Pick your own!

Think of this as a graph though, with a vertical and horizontal axis, and people fall somewhere on that plane.

 

[iangb]

Think of this as a graph though, with a vertical and horizontal axis, and people fall somewhere on that plane.

Indeed. To use an inappropriate metaphor, it's more of a Kinsey Scale than a dichotomy.

 

[Redress]

This I can understand. My point is in regards to people claiming they are atheist because they lack a belief in God. It seems to me that you are more irreligious than you are atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong. But are you saying that you believe that there is most likely no God and that you don't believe in any of the world's religions/spiritual philosophies? The main point I am trying to make is that people do hold a belief about God, and that we can't "lack" a believe about God unless we are totally oblivious to the concept.

I believe there is no evidence of the existence of a god. Without some positive evidence, there is no reason to put any kind of emotional investment into religion.

Note that this is how I feel. I do not mean the above as some type of indictment of people who do believe. I think we have to much of that.

 

[digsbe]

I do not have the belief that a god exists, therefore I lack that belief.

So then do you believe that God does not exist?

Only if atheists claim that there is no god.

I can agree with that.

You tell me.

I believe that my belief in regards to naturalism is that it is false. I have a belief about naturalism, and my belief that it is false does not mean that I "lack" a belief in it.

I believe there is no evidence of the existence of a god. Without some positive evidence, there is no reason to put any kind of emotional investment into religion.

Note that this is how I feel. I do not mean the above as some type of indictment of people who do believe. I think we have to much of that.

I can understand that. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[iangb]

I can agree with this. But then how can someone in any of those categories lack a belief in God? It seems everyone in those four categories have a belief about something. It's just the agnostics on either side believe that they could be wrong or that we can't know completely for sure. In any of them can one lack a belief in God? I understand what you are saying and I believe it makes logical sense, but the terminology of "lacking" a belief seems illogical to me.

Check out 'agnostic atheist'. No belief, and no belief that this is the right position to take. It's as neutral as you can get.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I believe there is no evidence of the existence of a god. Without some positive evidence, there is no reason to put any kind of emotional investment into religion.

Note that this is how I feel. I do not mean the above as some type of indictment of people who do believe. I think we have to much of that.

Do you think that atheism and faith... not faith in God, but faith as an individual concept, are mutally exclusive?

 

[Redress]

Do you think that atheism and faith... not faith in God, but faith as an individual concept, are mutally exclusive?

I am not sure I follow the question CC.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

So then do you believe that God does not exist?

It's possible that God might exist, but saying something is possible just means it has a probability > 0 not that it is likely. I do not hold a conviction that God does not exist. In short, no.

I believe that my belief in regards to naturalism is that it is false. I have a belief about naturalism, and my belief that it is false does not mean that I "lack" a belief in it.

I agree. Though I guess one could say that it depends on whether the "a" in "I lack a belief in it" means "one" or "any".

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I am not sure I follow the question CC.

Faith is usually associated with religion and belief in God. However, faith can also be associated with emotion. What I am wondering is how an atheist would define faith outside a typical religious definition.

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

Do you think that atheism and faith... not faith in God, but faith as an individual concept, are mutally exclusive?

Of course.
Faith might mean "belief in things without logical evidence", or "trust in something" like that the sun will rise tomorrow, or something else, but besides "faith" as in "faith in God" I haven't seen any other definition that precludes an atheist from having faith in something.

 

[Chappy]

The Jews were the first atheists in the sense that they denied the divinity of everyone else's gods but their own. As you say, mbig, you deny the divinity of just one more purported god. I agree.

 

[digsbe]

The Jews were the first atheists in the sense that they denied the divinity of everyone else's gods but their own. As you say, mbig, you deny the divinity of just one more purported god. I agree.

The Jews were the first monotheists, in that they believe their God is the only true God and all else are false. They weren't atheists.

 

[Redress]

Faith is usually associated with religion and belief in God. However, faith can also be associated with emotion. What I am wondering is how an atheist would define faith outside a typical religious definition.

You mean belief in nonreligious things with no evidence to support them? Can you supply an example or two?

 

[iangb]

You mean belief in nonreligious things with no evidence to support them? Can you supply an example or two?

...that reality as you percieve it is not artificially generated by Hugo Weaving?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You mean belief in nonreligious things with no evidence to support them? Can you supply an example or two?

Kinda what Anarcho-fascist said. Faith that the sun will rise, faith that your friend will not betray you, things like that. How does that fit into your view of atheism?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Of course.
Faith might mean "belief in things without logical evidence", or "trust in something" like that the sun will rise tomorrow, or something else, but besides "faith" as in "faith in God" I haven't seen any other definition that precludes an atheist from having faith in something.

Cool... good response. I was curious.

 

[Redress]

Kinda what Anarcho-fascist said. Faith that the sun will rise, faith that your friend will not betray you, things like that. How does that fit into your view of atheism?

Believing the sun will rise tomorrow is based on something more than faith. We have a whole branch of science that looks at how things like that work.

Believing a friend will not betray you is based on your knowledge of the person. You are working from evidence. It is admittedly incomplete, but it is not a data vacuum.

You could get into some very metaphysical crap here, how can you know anything really exists kinda thing, but we base such belief on the evidence of our senses. if we start to doubt our data collection ability(senses), then anything or nothing can be true, which is not a useful assumption.