Imagine we have a 1ft x 1ft box in the middle of the room and we can’t see what’s in it. You then tell me that a watch is in there. Then another person tells me that a watch isn’t there. When you ask me if I believe a watch is in it I respond, “No. I have no reason to believe that.” When the other person asks me if I believe a watch isn’t in the box, I answer, “No. I have no reason to believe that.”

Now, to say that I do not accept your claims that a watch is in the box doesn’t mean that I have a belief that a watch isn’t there and vice versa.

to put it simply: I have no reason to think one way or another about unfalsifiable, unevidenced claims. Now, I definitely have a specific belief and claim regarding the Christian god: It doesn’t exist. But I don’t discount the possibility that some other, as of yet unknown or undescribed, deity.

Just to say I agree that atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief and the rest is wordplay. By the way it appears the great stamp collecting quotation was by a Max Beran in The Independent:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20051116/ai_n15835834

Regards,

Gavin Orland

Just to say I agree that atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief and the rest is wordplay. By the way it appears the great stamp collecting quotation was by a Max Beran in The Independent:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20051116/ai_n15835834

Regards,

Gavin Orland

–

Millions of superstitions and imaginary beings have been subscribed to over the course of our civilization. Someone who does not believe in these things does not, by virtue of just NOT being a believer, hold a set of beliefs.

This is to say that belief is a positive act — a stretch of sorts above and beyond what can be proven and agreed upon by most everyone. You “believe” in God. You “believe” in yourself. They are convictions that cannot be solidly supported through conventional means. Once they can be, they’re no longer beliefs. At that point they become facts. You don’t believe facts; you accept them.

As such, atheism isn’t a belief precisely because it’s the lack of one. My favorite illustrative quote on the matter is, “If atheism is a belief, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.” This is a good analogy because hobbies are active as well. Either you actively have a hobby, or you don’t. It would be silly to call someone sitting on the couch doing nothing a (non)-butterfly-catcher.

Beliefs are the same, and that’s why atheism isn’t one.

–

Millions of superstitions and imaginary beings have been subscribed to over the course of our civilization. Someone who does not believe in these things does not, by virtue of just NOT being a believer, hold a set of beliefs.

This is to say that belief is a positive act — a stretch of sorts above and beyond what can be proven and agreed upon by most everyone. You “believe” in God. You “believe” in yourself. They are convictions that cannot be solidly supported through conventional means. Once they can be, they’re no longer beliefs. At that point they become facts. You don’t believe facts; you accept them.

As such, atheism isn’t a belief precisely because it’s the lack of one. My favorite illustrative quote on the matter is, “If atheism is a belief, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.” This is a good analogy because hobbies are active as well. Either you actively have a hobby, or you don’t. It would be silly to call someone sitting on the couch doing nothing a (non)-butterfly-catcher.

Beliefs are the same, and that’s why atheism isn’t one.

Sources of most of the problems, from my brief 5 minute analysis:

1. Subjectivism in disguise of objectivism. I’m at fault for this one as well. I rely on definitions of terminology without saying what they are to me.

2. Confusion of the following terms: Religion, Theism, Belief, Belief system, Atheism, Agnosticism, Knowledge, Proof, Science. Maybe I missed a few. I would create a baseline of terminology had I thought there’s a slight chance everyone here will agree on the terms.

3. Meta – “Belief in Atheism” is one example that comes to mind. Enough said.

Good night, and Flying Spaghetti Monster bless,

– Arik

Sources of most of the problems, from my brief 5 minute analysis:

1. Subjectivism in disguise of objectivism. I’m at fault for this one as well. I rely on definitions of terminology without saying what they are to me.

2. Confusion of the following terms: Religion, Theism, Belief, Belief system, Atheism, Agnosticism, Knowledge, Proof, Science. Maybe I missed a few. I would create a baseline of terminology had I thought there’s a slight chance everyone here will agree on the terms.

3. Meta – “Belief in Atheism” is one example that comes to mind. Enough said.

Good night, and Flying Spaghetti Monster bless,

– Arik

atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

agnosticism: (religious sense) the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately suceptible to rigorous proof.

These are the definitions (of course there are variations of each of these in different dictionaries, but I think that I’ve given the standard definitions here). Where things went astray (in my opinion) is when people wanted to choose their own meanings for these words. One of the keys to effective communication is to use standard definitions of words. That was my only point in any of this.

Interestingly, I think that MOST people fit the definition of agnosticism given above. I include in this group those who are VERY religious and those who are not at all religious. Agnosticism is separate from both religion and atheism. One can believe that God exists and be agnostic. One can believe that there is no God and be agnostic. Fun with semantics. (Don’t get me started.)

atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

agnosticism: (religious sense) the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately suceptible to rigorous proof.

These are the definitions (of course there are variations of each of these in different dictionaries, but I think that I’ve given the standard definitions here). Where things went astray (in my opinion) is when people wanted to choose their own meanings for these words. One of the keys to effective communication is to use standard definitions of words. That was my only point in any of this.

Interestingly, I think that MOST people fit the definition of agnosticism given above. I include in this group those who are VERY religious and those who are not at all religious. Agnosticism is separate from both religion and atheism. One can believe that God exists and be agnostic. One can believe that there is no God and be agnostic. Fun with semantics. (Don’t get me started.)

The point of the piece was to distinguish between a Christian believing in God, and an atheist “believing” in atheism. That’s all. I went through gyrations to try and give some support to the notion of atheism not being a belief at all, but instead the lack of one — therefore clearly distinguishing it from a Christian belief in God.

So while it is semantics, it’s not for the sake of it. It was to address a very real issue, i.e. Christians equating the belief in God to the lack of belief in Harry Potter magic. They are not the same. One is an active, highly specific belief, while the other is the default state of “lack of belief” that exists for ALL things without supporting evidence.

The point of the piece was to distinguish between a Christian believing in God, and an atheist “believing” in atheism. That’s all. I went through gyrations to try and give some support to the notion of atheism not being a belief at all, but instead the lack of one — therefore clearly distinguishing it from a Christian belief in God.

So while it is semantics, it’s not for the sake of it. It was to address a very real issue, i.e. Christians equating the belief in God to the lack of belief in Harry Potter magic. They are not the same. One is an active, highly specific belief, while the other is the default state of “lack of belief” that exists for ALL things without supporting evidence.

What available “models”? Please explain to what phenomenon you refer. I am aware of no phenomenon and have been presented with no data to substantiate any model or phenomenon.

I agree that agnosticism is a valid POSITION. No one has any direct, verifiable knowledge. But I also recognize that everyone is an atheist about someone else’s theism.

What available “models”? Please explain to what phenomenon you refer. I am aware of no phenomenon and have been presented with no data to substantiate any model or phenomenon.

I agree that agnosticism is a valid POSITION. No one has any direct, verifiable knowledge. But I also recognize that everyone is an atheist about someone else’s theism.

>> they have such a taboo against not knowing … their heads will explode Sheesh, im not sure what church you attended as a child, but i highly suggest finding a different one.

>> gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Seriously? How? What leads to this assumption? The universe came into being from a single point, therefore God must not exist. Evolution took millions of years to get us to where we are, therefore God must not exist. Arent these conclusions a bit of a leap?

Here’s a philisophical question: Is science replacing God, or is science showing us how God designed it? This may be a deep thought for some, but i believe that most will understand. This is why i believe that comparing science to religion is faulty, because science cannot answer that question. If someone disassembled a car, they could say that the car works using “natural” laws of physics. This is a true statement. Or it can be taken to another level and say that it works so well to accomplish a purpose that there must have been a designer. The universe works very very well. Is it by design, or just a random fluke?

By the way, we are seriously “out of scope” on this blog. I think the main idea was to determine if atheism was a belief or not.

–Brett

>> they have such a taboo against not knowing … their heads will explode Sheesh, im not sure what church you attended as a child, but i highly suggest finding a different one.

>> gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Seriously? How? What leads to this assumption? The universe came into being from a single point, therefore God must not exist. Evolution took millions of years to get us to where we are, therefore God must not exist. Arent these conclusions a bit of a leap?

Here’s a philisophical question: Is science replacing God, or is science showing us how God designed it? This may be a deep thought for some, but i believe that most will understand. This is why i believe that comparing science to religion is faulty, because science cannot answer that question. If someone disassembled a car, they could say that the car works using “natural” laws of physics. This is a true statement. Or it can be taken to another level and say that it works so well to accomplish a purpose that there must have been a designer. The universe works very very well. Is it by design, or just a random fluke?

By the way, we are seriously “out of scope” on this blog. I think the main idea was to determine if atheism was a belief or not.

–Brett

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

“Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists.”

This may be a problem for you, but not for an atheist. Putting aside the issues with your interpretation of the Big Bang, I prefer not to know than to make up an answer in order to delude myself, or others, into thinking that I know.

No, I don’t know why the Big Bang occurred. It’s possible there is no “why”. But you don’t know either. The only difference is that I can say “I don’t know” and get on with my life, and not feel inclined to make up an answer. Believers in God cannot stand not knowing. So they make up this being, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, because they feel that if they don’t come up with an answer for everything, their heads will explode, or something. And they have such a taboo against not knowing that they make a virtue out of believing in the universe-creator fairy. Which, by the way, gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Believing was much simpler in the good old days when nobody knew any better. Then you could cheerfully say things like “And God created the fish and the birds”, and who would argue with that? But now God has been pushed back into hiding behind the Big Bang, and who knows what will be left of Him in a hundred years.

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

“Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists.”

This may be a problem for you, but not for an atheist. Putting aside the issues with your interpretation of the Big Bang, I prefer not to know than to make up an answer in order to delude myself, or others, into thinking that I know.

No, I don’t know why the Big Bang occurred. It’s possible there is no “why”. But you don’t know either. The only difference is that I can say “I don’t know” and get on with my life, and not feel inclined to make up an answer. Believers in God cannot stand not knowing. So they make up this being, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, because they feel that if they don’t come up with an answer for everything, their heads will explode, or something. And they have such a taboo against not knowing that they make a virtue out of believing in the universe-creator fairy. Which, by the way, gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Believing was much simpler in the good old days when nobody knew any better. Then you could cheerfully say things like “And God created the fish and the birds”, and who would argue with that? But now God has been pushed back into hiding behind the Big Bang, and who knows what will be left of Him in a hundred years.

>> First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself. >Yes it is

When i wrote that, i was referring to the scientific sense. A good scientist will never consider the “lack of something” as meaning “something”. There is no actual scientific evidence that the human consciousness even exists, yet most people will agree that it does. Science, by its nature, always proves positives and it can only do that with positive evidences.

>> If you have a model of something that would produce evidence Im sorry, im not sure exactly what model you are referring to that would produce evidence that God exists or doesnt exist? Is this a scientific model? For it to be a scientific model then it would have to be falsifiable. How do you falsify God? Scientifically speaking: If He doesnt exist, then there is no way to falsify it and if He does exist as omnipotent then there would also be no way to falsify it. To do that, you would have to create an environment that could shield against absolutely everything (including God) and the only way to do that would be to know absolutely everything that it would need to shield against and how to do it.

>> more than a small amount of it is fraudulent You are right. There are many people out there who live lives as liberal Christians. They tend to push their views onto others and make claims that cannot be justified. When asked for reasoning they usually start reciting scripture as opposed to a rationalized response. For some reason, whenever CNN (insert TV station here) does a story about Christians these people seem to be picked for the interviews. Even though they do not represent the majority, they do make for entertaining TV. These are also the people who tend to “make up” evidences are view a frog sneezing as a “miracle from God”. They are also the ones that say the bible is accurate because the bible says its accurate. I can assure you that they are the minority. I could go on for pages explaining both biblical and secular documents that show the bible (or at least the New Testament) as being relatively historically accurate. The key there is that i use secular documents (both Roman and Jewish government) that historians agree upon.

–Brett

>> First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself. >Yes it is

When i wrote that, i was referring to the scientific sense. A good scientist will never consider the “lack of something” as meaning “something”. There is no actual scientific evidence that the human consciousness even exists, yet most people will agree that it does. Science, by its nature, always proves positives and it can only do that with positive evidences.

>> If you have a model of something that would produce evidence Im sorry, im not sure exactly what model you are referring to that would produce evidence that God exists or doesnt exist? Is this a scientific model? For it to be a scientific model then it would have to be falsifiable. How do you falsify God? Scientifically speaking: If He doesnt exist, then there is no way to falsify it and if He does exist as omnipotent then there would also be no way to falsify it. To do that, you would have to create an environment that could shield against absolutely everything (including God) and the only way to do that would be to know absolutely everything that it would need to shield against and how to do it.

>> more than a small amount of it is fraudulent You are right. There are many people out there who live lives as liberal Christians. They tend to push their views onto others and make claims that cannot be justified. When asked for reasoning they usually start reciting scripture as opposed to a rationalized response. For some reason, whenever CNN (insert TV station here) does a story about Christians these people seem to be picked for the interviews. Even though they do not represent the majority, they do make for entertaining TV. These are also the people who tend to “make up” evidences are view a frog sneezing as a “miracle from God”. They are also the ones that say the bible is accurate because the bible says its accurate. I can assure you that they are the minority. I could go on for pages explaining both biblical and secular documents that show the bible (or at least the New Testament) as being relatively historically accurate. The key there is that i use secular documents (both Roman and Jewish government) that historians agree upon.

–Brett