As to “believe in”, I don’t use the phrase, because I’m not sure what people are meaning by it. I’ve seen “hold to exist in an absence of evidence”, “hold to exist as a result of personal experience”, “presume exist”, “put one’s trust in”, “hold to be capable of something”, and “follow or serve”, off the top of my head. I also find that it’s often tangled up in a monotheistic presumption that anyone who has an opinion that a certain god likely exists is religiously defined by whether or not they’re in service to that particular god (because it’s presumed to be the only game in town or something).
I get the impression that a lot of atheists who ask the question are doing it in terms of “hold to exist in an absence of evidence” and a lot of Christians who ask the question are using it to mean some combination of “put one’s trust in” and “follow or serve”; I can’t answer either of those questions, because they’re founded on axioms I don’t share.
My typical response to “Do you believe in god?” is either “Which one?” or some variant on newcomb being’s premarital sex question.
The answer to this is that people who believe in God want to believe in a perfect god, otherwise there is no reson for him to exist. Conversely, some people who are atheists may not believe in God simply because they are “angry” at God for a variety of reasons.
On boths sides this is because believer or atheist, both sides essentially have closed minds.
It makes you wonder, how can we quantify our beliefs? Or, if we can ascertain a number that represents how likely we perceive it is that God exists, can we qualify that number into a descriptive position on theism?
Seems we have a lot of faulty logic and inappropriate corellations here.
Believing in God consists of belief in an intangible, like, say, ghosts or other spirits, or psychic powers, or witchcrasft spells or magic. Believing in premarital sex is verifyable, tangible. This is the difference between believing an intangible exists vs. believing something verifyable either exists, has merit or is trusted.
When most people talk about believing in God they are talking about having faith in the reality of an intangible. I believe in God (and Senator Dodd), I believe in ghosts, I believe in magic, etc.
This is different than believing in as having trust in, like I believe in my government (although some may argue our government is an intangible… hmmm, should have used a better example), or I believe in my elected officials (better).
Surely everyone whose needles are not exactly at 0 or 100% are a since they are saying they don’t know for certain? Or are agnostics those who place their needles exactly at 50%? Am I a believer or an agnostic when I guess that a seven-sided dice would show an odd number, or that Chelsea will win the Premiership, or that a fixed-rate mortgage will ultimately save me money, or that the defendant is guilty?
ie. your Belief-O-Meter needle, like mine, does not actually touch 0%.
Which, even then, might be a simulation. We can never be sure, no matter what is set forth as evidence.
I’m saying you couldn’t, if they were clever enough.
All we can say is that we strongly believe this or that (and thus ascribe a high probability), or that heck, I dunno, I guess this or that is true (thus expressing that the needle just nudges past 50%) - indeed, this is the entire foundation of the multi-trillion dollar worldwide gambling industry: if a bookie or casino ascribes odds that are actually less than the ‘real’ probability, it might lose a fortune.
Just to guard against equivocation, let’s steer clear of any hint of epistemic bias: let’s not say that it has anything to do with knowlege. It’s because I have experienced him (and Him) immediately, but I have experienced you only mediately — through this message board.
It is the difference between an intellectual acknowledgment and a heartfelt conviction. Consider, for example, the recent Great Debates thread in which even if God’s existence were proved incontrovertibly to the satisfaction of the OP, his reaction would be “meh”. Just because something exists does not mean that it is something of value, let alone that it is worthy of worship. What matters is the essence of God — that which makes Him uniquely Him. Those who value the aesthetic that He values are one with Him.
You may be both. If you don’t believe God exists, you may call yourself an atheist. If you don’t believe it’s possible to know whether or not God exists, you may call yourself an agnostic. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists, and just plain agnostics.
In the context of a perfect God vs an imperfect God, essentially yes. By this I simply mean for those that seem to have strong opinions in the matter, it seems to be all or nothing, for both theists and atheists.
I would say that the exception would fall under the catagory of agnostics.
First I strongly disagree that a “real” atheist vs a “real” christian would ever agree that there is a possibilty that their point of view may be wrong. In this case I am referring to people that would be considered experts or learned on either side of the coin. If you were to ask, I believe you will find that both believe that they are 100% right, usually to the point that they consider even the possibility of the opposite side to be ridiculous or insulting. I have seen this many times from my own personal experience from dealing with BOTH sides.
That is where an agnostic would come in, those that have doubt. A person is essentially only agnostic, atheist, or theistic; not more than one.
Having said that, it is certainly possible for the average person to have some level of doubt. If it is a passing thing then they would remain on their side. If it is not, then that would make them an agnostic by definition. Unfortunately, the reality is that I don’t think it is possible to put a pecentage of belief level on an individual, as there is no way to calculate such a thing, making the pecentage argument specious.
There really no way to have a scale to declare someone a theist or an atheist, so we do need to just generalize a little. In your example tom is clearly an agnostic, but in the case of Dick, I would still have to say that he is an agnostic as he accepts the possiblity of God. Bob is my where I feel the arguement is specious as I don’t know what 90/10 really means. He probably is a theist unless he is always doubtful, in which case he is agnostic.
I think that in reality the line is much easier to draw. As you basically will fall into one of these 3 catagories. It is the agnostic which allows your lines to be crossed fairly easily.
I think that these 2 statements show 2 of my points clearly
First that both atheists and theists are pretty strong in their beliefs, even if it may not seem like it at first. Attack their beliefs or opinions and see how strong it can be. SenientMeat is clearly an atheist, and it would be pretty near impossible to convince him otherwise. A “true christian” would be just as hard to convince of the opposite.
Second this shows my point on the speciousness of the pecentage scale. If you are pretty sure that god exists then you would be a “theist” (christian or otherwise) or if you think that God probably doesn’t exist then you are an atheist. If you are not sure, then you are an agnostic.
I like this “perfect god” vs “imperfect god” thread.
I would be curious to hear more opinions on that. As I have stated, it is my belief that no one speaks of an imperfect God as both theists(christians, jews and muslims) and atheists both tend to be all or nothing.
I would also like to hear what “believing in God” means to someone who believes that God exists, but doesn’t believe in him. Do you mean you don’t believe in what he stand for, and if so what does God stand for?
I think that these 2 statements show 2 of my points clearly
First that both atheists and theists are pretty strong in their beliefs, even if it may not seem like it at first. Attack their beliefs or opinions and see how strong it can be. SenientMeat is clearly an atheist, and it would be pretty near impossible to convince him otherwise. A “true christian” would be just as hard to convince of the opposite.
Second this shows my point on the speciousness of the pecentage scale. If you are pretty sure that god exists then you would be a “theist” (christian or otherwise) or if you think that God probably doesn’t exist then you are an atheist. If you are not sure, then you are an agnostic.
So basically to both of you , you are saying that believing in God means worshiping God?
I dare say to most people believing in god simply means that they believe he exists and that to them to imply anything else is semantics.
It is like the agument that if someone says they believe in Gods existence, they have to believe in the devils existance as well. Somehow the argument being that one can’t exist without the other. Who made this rule.
Same applies to your theory. Just because a person says they believe in God doesn’t mean that they have to worship him, follow a particular set of beliefs, or anything else.
If that is the case then what are the rules that they now must follow? Who determined those rules?
That is why I say both statements mean the same thing
Try talking to some polytheists; most of the ones I know are well aware of the limitations of their gods and the fact that they are often bloody obnoxious. If you don’t have any handy polytheists to talk to, look at the mythologies themselves – the flinging of Hephaestus from Olympos for trying to settle an argument between His parents, the personal squabbling around Troy, Set’s murder of His brother Asar in a fit of jealousy, the particular clever stupidities of Coyote . . . .
If you think of God as the Bile tells Moses,“I am what is”…All of existance… Substitute the word existance, for the word God. And not think of God as "a "being, but being, then You can decide since all exist “in” God. You can(as a drop of water is part of the ocean so everything is a part of God). To me it is a matter of semantics.
I think I’d give you a “No, not quite” to your first impression of what was said. “Believe in” in the theistic usage means, in essence, assume the “child” role in a parent/child relationship, considered transactionally. It can be a very mature and caring child, but that role nonetheless. It has elements of, and may in individuals focus on any one of, storgic love, agapetic love, erotic love, philial love, fear, awe, worship, respect, trust, loyalty, and that odd emotion for which there’s no common name that comprises the sense of being an enthusiastic participant following a charismatic leader in a common cause.
What “most people” do is not determined by the sample of your friends, family and acquaintances or by mine; I made it clear that I was speaking of how most active theists regard the term vs. how most atheists, agnostics, and “nominal theists” use it, with no intent to set one usage as “better than,” or more commonly used than, the other.
