Do you really not see that there is no difference, other than cultural bias, to make a differentiation between working under the assumption that there are no invisible cars and the assumption that there is no God? There is no reason for people to tell you they work under the assumption there are no invisible cars, because no one thinks they exist. The reason people tell you they work under the assumption that there is no God, is because there are people that think God exists. But just because someone else believes something, does not change what the default position is, or change what label you apply to the person not holding the belief. My level of certainty regarding the existence of invisible cars and God is equivalent. I don’t go around denying invisible cars, because there is no need to. But I do talk about my thoughts on God when a thread like this opens up and someone makes an assertion that not believing in God is somehow different than not believing in any other thing for which there is no evidence.
There is no more difference between the two statements than there is saying “I believe there are no invisible cars” and “I have no belief in invisible cars”.
Atheists reject the notion of god existing. How do you put gradiations on, does not exist? I think god semi-does not exist is absurd. There is no god. How does that statement get worked into hard, semi-hard or soft atheism?
It is not a belief system.
Here you’re using the same word, “guess”, for belief based on an absolutely staggering amount of evidence and for belief in spite of the same evidence. A more common word for the former is “knowledge”. Since you’re such a stickler for semantics I’d say that’s a way more important distinction than the tiny philosophical distinction you’re going on and on about.
No.
I have no idea why you keep phrasing it this ghodforsaken and twisted way, but let me re-phrase it properly: “Second, those who feel that there is no evidence that points to gods.”
The default position is “no gods”, the same way the default position is “no Easter Bunny” or “no invisible dragon in my garage”. If you propose that there is a god, then you are obligated to give me reason to consider your proposal-I am under no obligation whatsoever to refute, or even waste my valuable time considering, your unsubstantiated claim.
Hey, I am happy you came along…becasue I have been asked by several people to talk about the “evidence.”
Some say there is absolutely “no evidence” that there are no gods…and some, like you, seem to think there is a “staggering amount of evidence.”
Do you mind stating some of the staggering amount of evidence that there are no gods.
Thanks in advance for your help.
And I agree. In a purely technical linguistic sense I think you are 100%correct. The problem is that in the real world where the language has to apply, people, unlike babies or rocks, have taken information in and processed it and come out on either one side of the line or the other. They either believe in gods or do not believe in gods. (Leaving the stronger affirmative position, “they believe there is no god” aside).
For someone to have an opinion on whether he believes or not believes in the presence of gods, he has to first be aware of the concept of “god”, does he not? This is a paraphrase of a question I asked you earlier. I don’t see how a baby cold have gone through that calculation. This is what I meant when I said I think you’re using two definitions.
Definition 1 is purely technical. The prefix “a” means without, so atheism means without gods.
Definition 2 is the one we use when talking about atheism as a particular sentient person’s beleief system. It means that a person has evaluated the two options and come down on the non-god side.
In daily life, saying the someone is an atheist is not simply a statement that he holds to no gods. That would be true of a rock or a severely mentally retarded person who cannot digest concepts. It says that he has evaluated the two options and come down on one side. It actually gives him credit for having understood and weighed the two options. It is a conscious decision. One he deserves credit for.
As I started off in this thread with you, I see your point and I think you are technically correct. But when you leave the focused world of a linguistics classroom and enter society, to say that a baby is an “atheist” goes too far. It makes exactly as much sense as referring to a rock as being atheistic. Again, technically correct. But a useless nonsensical statement when we take into account what the word means in daily discussion. (I hope you see no snark in that. I mean it quite academically.)
And this is where I think you unconscious motivation may come in. This is what I meant by using two definitions and then conflating them.
You’re right, But I don’t think that matters much. The fact of the matter is that there either is a god or there isn’t. No one, in my estimation, can know with 100% certainty (regarding theism broadly) if they are correct. But we weigh the evidence and our experiences and come down on one side of the atheist/theist divide.
What you seem to be doing consistently is trying to use examples that are not toggled, and I think that’s why we’ll never probably see eye to eye on this. I see theism/atheism as a coin which has two sides. And one side has to be up. The point of the computer analogy was to explore the concepts of ability and potentiality. I think a person, in order to be either a theist or an atheist, must have the ability to grasp abstract concepts and weigh them. A baby, like our computer sans OS, has the potential to become either an atheist or theist, but they as of yet do not have the ability. Similarly, the computer sans OS, does not have the ability to run either software, but it has the potential to run either in the future. So, it is meaningless to insist that the computer is one or the other prior to it having the ability to run software.
How about this classification:
- I think/believe/know there is an X and work under that assumption
- I do not think/believe/know there is an X and work under that assumption
- The existence of X can not be known
- It can be actively shown that there can not be an X
99% of atheists fit 2. Some people fit 3, and agnostic vs atheist seems to be a useful distinction between these two positions.
A very small number of people believe in 4. They do not have dates on Valentines day.
So your separation criteria is to ask “do you say you have no belief in God or a belief in no God?” ? I thought it was implied I was looking for a practical difference between the two that manifests in some way other than looking solely at the definition.
Because of the population of theists and agnostics who think they can get high and mighty whenever an atheist says he believes there is no God and accuse him of having blind faith just like fanatical believers. Let me state for a third time that this distinction between belief statements doesn’t happen with any other nonsensical statement about reality. Can you at least acknowledge and agree with that?
This would be a valid point if “belief” actually was the hard line position it is so often described as when atheists affirm a positive belief. But actually being a best guess, an atheist can easily give reasons for his nonbelief position, including, IMO a lack of evidence from the theistic side.
I would strongly suspect that the phrase “do not believe there are no gods” has no real connection to reality. It is a logically valid phrase obtained by negating everything but cannot possibly describe an actual position in your mind. After all, do you not believe in the nonexistence of the invisible cars?
Does that mean you can not be sure of your belief in your God until you know of all the other possible Gods that other people worship? Until you know about them you have not made a conscious decision that they are less true than your God.
I wouldn’t know where to start, but why don’t you tell me why yourself don’t believe there are any gods. Did you just flip a coin, or did you base your so called guess on something?
I see a tremendous difference, Dan…and I am astonished that you do not.
This has absolutely nothing to do with “cultural bias.” “Invisible cars” “giant pink rabbits” “CPA’s working on of on the moons of Saturn” “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” or any of that sort of thing. These things are just ploys used by atheists who cannot wrap their minds around the notion that we do not know the nature of the Reality of existence.
They want to suggest that there are no gods involved in it…and one of the devices they use to mock people who simply acknowledge they do not know and do not want to guess…is to posit “Invisible cars” “giant pink rabbits” “CPA’s working on of on the moons of Saturn” “Flying Spaghetti Monsters” and that sort of thing.
Insofar as anyone claims gods are impossible…they are being as ridiculous as people who claim gods are a necessity.
But atheists do not want to perceive themselves as being as ridiculous as the theists they scorn…so they go the invisible cars route and get all exercised and indignant when people like me laugh at ‘em.
What can I tell you?
We’ll continue to talk and you can continue to hate me…and maybe someway we will work it out.
I do not know if there are gods or not. I see absolutely no evidence that they are necessary to explain anything…and I see absolutely no evidence that the existence of gods is an impossibility. Nearly as I can tell…the best, most ethical way I can transmit that condition to others is to say that I am agnostic on the question. Obviously, you do not.
And you seem to think I am beyond contempt for thinking what I think.
Like I said: What can I tell ya?
If you are asking me why I wrote: “If a person says, “I do not believe there are gods” (which I often say)”…
…the reason I say “I do not believe there are gods” is because I am not willing to make a wild, blind, baseless guess that there are gods.
I also say, “I do not believe there are no gods” for that same reason.
No coin flipping…no guessing.
But since you are suggesting that you know of a staggering amount of evidence that there are no gods…why not just present some.
Keep in mind that there are atheists here who suggest there is NO evidence whatsoever that there are no gods. They base everything on the single fact that there is NO evidence there are gods.
So let’s here your staggering amount of evidence…or at least some of it.
I’m not sure I get your question. Maybe the confusion has to do with theism and religion. The way I see it, the first step is to theism. After having arrived there, one may take the additional step of looking at different flavors of gods. But it is not a necessary step. Does that help, or did I not understand your question?
Every god that was posited and seemed unfalsifiable at the time, but was later proven false.
Every claim about the world that no one knew the answer to at the time, but was later discovered by science.
Every prediction about the future who’s due date arrived and it didn’t come through.
Thousands and thousands of claims, and not one of them substantiated.
No, none of them are 100% incontrovertible proof positive that no gods are possible. Maybe claim number 10,001 will be the one that turn out to hold water. But that doesn’t mean you completely disregard it when you take a position. If you’re pressed to pick a side you would come down on the side of “there is no god” not at random, but because the evidence seems to indicate pretty clearly that they’re just pulling things out of their ass. It’s still evidence, and it’s more than just a “single fact”.
That’s only the first step to you because of your cultural bias. The first step could just as well be to animism, or to thinking that man is God, or that the earth is conscious entity, or that we are all part of a computer simulation, or an infinite number of other things.
We do not know the nature of reality or existence. Not sure what that has to do with God though. There is no reason to think that the mechanism by which the universe was created has any God-like properties. Now if you just want to say that the word God is the same as the word meaning the the mechanism by which the universe was created, you are certainly free to do so; but redefining words makes it difficult to communicate with other people.
If all you want to say is that we don’t know how the universe was created, just say it. I think most people agree.
Five minute edit window? Damn nazi mods!
Fake fake edit: Say I flip a coin 10,000 times and it comes up heads 10,000 times. One person says “the next flip will come up heads” and the other says “the next flip will come up tails”. Are both sides basically just guessing? Technically it’s true, but I’m sure you can appreciate that’s pretty misleading. Certainly a lot more so than the whole “don’t not believe there isn’t not a lack of god” thing.
No, no, no, Gustav…you misunderstood what I was asking for.
I was asking for the some of the staggering amount of evidence that there are no gods.
Not a one of these things is evidence that there are no gods.
“100% incontrovertible proof” that no gods are possible???
They are not even evidence that there are no gods.
They do not even go to the question of “are there no gods.”
This is all a variation on the theme, “There is no evidence that gods exist…and no necessity for them to exist to explain anything.”
That is not evidence they do not exist.
If this is the best that you can come up with, Gustav, I think I will stick with the guy who said there is absolutely no evidence that there are no gods.
I thought of a little speech to give in response to this so what the hell, I’ll go ahead and put it out there.
I think I am far more aware than the average person about how we actually don’t know (and possibly can’t know) the true nature of reality (if that is even a coherent idea). I have given a fair amount of thought to ideas such as the brain-in-a-vat, a solipsistic reality, ancestor simulations, or even that reality is nothing but systems of math.
But regardless of any interesting hypothesis about the nature of the universe, I still say I don’t believe in gods and will even go as far as to say I believe there are no gods. And frankly, I don’t see why this should be a big deal in any way. Am I somehow shutting off possible explanations of the universe by self-identifying as an atheist? I don’t see how. It is one thing to think of crazy metaphysical reasons for the universe’s existence, but when you ask for my best guess, I’ll give it to you, which is that there is no intelligent being suspiciously like humans that lords over the universe.
So maybe you want to think of yourself as even more open minded than me by refusing to even speculate on the possibility of the existence of gods. That’s fine. But there’s no need to set yourself against people like me who actually make a statement about our belief because we are actually in the same crowd. In other words, your statements that portray atheists as rigid believers who just can’t realize the might be wrong are bull. Most of us are just as open minded as you, with the only difference being that we are grounded enough in the reality we can observe that we realize discussion about the infinite other possibilities or explanations, while possibly fun, is for all practical purposes talking about fantasy and fiction.