My point is... if believing in god is a belief, and not believing in god is a belief, I don't see how anyone could possibly NOT have a "belief"... and something that can never be false, likewise can never be true. If everything is a belief, then belief itself is a useless term that should never be applied.
Shakey: Bardock thinks this might be what you are talking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, atheism is a necessary, not a sufficient condition of super-geniusness.
😎
Originally posted by King Kandy
My point is... if believing in god is a belief, and not believing in god is a belief, I don't see how anyone could possibly NOT have a "belief"... and something that can never be false, likewise can never be true. If everything is a belief, then belief itself is a useless term that should never be applied.
I think everyone agrees with you, I just don't see the point of it in the first place. I don't get what it adds, like, if this were an argument, there would be a "B" point after "Atheism is a belief"
Originally posted by inimalist
Shakey: Bardock thinks this might be what you are talking about?
😆 Bardock is permanently on my ignore list.
The question "Is there a God or not" cannot be answered. Therefore to ask the question is a waist of time. Any answer to that question would only be personal, and based on personal belief. The question cannot be falsified, therefore it should be ignored.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 Bardock is permanently on my ignore list.The question "Is there a God or not" cannot be answered. Therefore to ask the question is a waist of time. Any answer to that question would only be personal, and based on personal belief. The question cannot be falsified, therefore it should be ignored.
Just trying to help you, bro.
Originally posted by King Kandy
My point is... if believing in god is a belief, and not believing in god is a belief, I don't see how anyone could possibly NOT have a "belief"... and something that can never be false, likewise can never be true. If everything is a belief, then belief itself is a useless term that should never be applied.
Belief is not directly connected to true or false. A belief can be true or false, but just because something is a belief does not mean it is true or false.
It seems to me, that you are using the word belief in the same way a fundamentalist Christian would use the word theory. In other words, you are trying to attach falsehood to the word belief in the same way fundamentalist Christians do to the word theory.
A theory is just a theory in the same way a belief is just a belief. That is not to say that a theory is the same thing as a belief. They both have their own definition, and can both be true or false.
WHAT IS FALSIFIABILITY?
In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted scientific proof. For example, if a scientist asks, “Does God exist?” then this can never be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I singled out atheism because regions tend to hold up faith as a good things while atheists tend to condemn it. Consequently not being able to form an argument that doesn't rely on supposition would hit atheism harder than religion.
There are different kinds of faith. Atheists generally only condemn the blind kind. Believing that the earth is round requires faith, for example, but it is not blind. There is some form of justification for the belief. With blind faith, there is no justification other than the faith itself. Any worldview requires some degree of faith, but that's the difference.
So I'd disagree that it would hit atheism harder. It just hits the stereotyped version of atheism harder.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's right. I've never refered to any of my kids as Christian.I agree with Dawkins when he says "A child can't be a Catholic or a Muslim anymore than they can be a Democrat or a Republican.". They just lack the proper cognition to think like that.
Yet what your parents are is the single biggest determining factor in what you will be. Oppositional anecdotes can of course be found, but I'm talking statistically.
I've actually only seen one baptism as an atheist. It was honestly a bit disturbing how much it seemed like a cultish indoctrination. The wording of the ceremony tried to ensure, multiple times, that the baby would be raised strictly Catholic. A handy tool for religions to continue their numbers, but hardly fair to the kid.
But if you try to let your kids decide for themselves (or will when they're of age), really and truly, then good for you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Belief is not directly connected to true or false. A belief can be true or false, but just because something is a belief does not mean it is true or false.It seems to me, that you are using the word belief in the same way a fundamentalist Christian would use the word theory. In other words, you are trying to attach falsehood to the word belief in the same way fundamentalist Christians do to the word theory.
A theory is just a theory in the same way a belief is just a belief. That is not to say that a theory is the same thing as a belief. They both have their own definition, and can both be true or false.
If everything in the universe was blue, then "blue" would have no meaning and would likely not even be a word. Likewise, if everything we discuss is a belief, then "belief" is a useless word.
Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are basically saying that the word "belief" really has no bearing on anything of consequence we were talking about. Why, then, are you so dead set on using it? Clearly it doesn't add a valuable definition, since anything we talked about would fall under it.If everything in the universe was blue, then "blue" would have no meaning and would likely not even be a word. Likewise, if everything we discuss is a belief, then "belief" is a useless word.
What? 😆 You are not making any sense.
What I am saying is that an atheist cannot answer the question “Does God exist?” any better then can a theist. Both answers are just beliefs, and have nothing to do with fact (truth).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? 😆 You are not making any sense.What I am saying is that an atheist cannot answer the question “Does God exist?” any better then can a theist. Both answers are just beliefs, and have nothing to do with fact (truth).
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, that's really not true, at all.If I say to you "I live with a unicorn", you aren't going to believe it right? Not unless I prove it. By default, the position is to not believe.
If you say to me that you live with a unicorn, I would nether believe of disbelieve. I would ask you "what are you talking about?". I wouldn't have enough information to believe or not.
If you told me that unicorns are real, then I would look into my own mind ask myself what do I believe about unicorns. In this case I would say, I do not believe in unicorns. But if someone said to me that Blix-blox are real, I wouldn't know what to believe. I wouldn't disbelieve by default. There are many things in the universe that I do not know about and a Blix-blox might be one of them.
To not believe by default, can be foolish. For example, the idea that the laws of physics are universal is something that is believed, with no real proof. We cannot go to the other side of the universe and check. If we do not believe by default, then we could not have science.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you say to me that you live with a unicorn, I would nether believe of disbelieve. I would ask you "what are you talking about?". I wouldn't have enough information to believe or not.If you told me that unicorns are real, then I would look into my own mind ask myself what do I believe about unicorns. In this case I would say, I do not believe in unicorns. But if someone said to me that Blix-blox are real, I wouldn't know what to believe. I wouldn't disbelieve by default. There are many things in the universe that I do not know about and a Blix-blox might be one of them.
To not believe by default, can be foolish. For example, the idea that the laws of physics are universal is something that is believed, with no real proof. We cannot go to the other side of the universe and check. If we do not believe by default, then we could not have science.
Originally posted by King Kandy
You're just being obstinate now. You do not believe in unicorns, and I doubt you would give it serious consideration just because I said they were real. The idea that someone making a claim doesn't need to prove it goes against all formal logic and scientific method. You are just stubborn and won't admit you're wrong.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that the burden of proof was placed on the person who is not making the claim. What I said is that there is no proof in the argument of "Does god exist?". Therefore, it is a useless augment, and should be ignored.
Nether Atheists or Theists can claim superiority in this argument. It comes down to belief.
Also, do you always view people who disagree with you as obstinate? I have never been obstinate in our conversation. To make that claim is to move the conversation from the topic to a personal attack. Is that what you are doing?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😆 Bardock is permanently on my ignore list.The question "Is there a God or not" cannot be answered. Therefore to ask the question is a waist of time. Any answer to that question would only be personal, and based on personal belief. The question cannot be falsified, therefore it should be ignored.
depending on which attributes one gives to God, it is certainly falsifiable.
If a component of "God" is answering prayer, that is testable. However, if we are talking about a God that does not interact with the universe then sure, it cannot be falsified, but I think the existance of such a being is moot anyways
also, Bardock was just trying to help
Originally posted by inimalist
depending on which attributes one gives to God, it is certainly falsifiable.If a component of "God" is answering prayer, that is testable. However, if we are talking about a God that does not interact with the universe then sure, it cannot be falsified, but I think the existance of such a being is moot anyways
also, Bardock was just trying to help
If you brake the idea of a god down to humans belief about god's attributes, then it is falsifiable. However, you are only disproving humans belief about god's attributes.
It is irrelevant if god is moot. That is not the point of atheism. If it was, I would have to agree with you.
I'm sure that Bardock appreciates your advocacy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you brake the idea of a god down to humans belief about god's attributes, then it is falsifiable. However, you are only disproving humans belief about god's attributes.It is irrelevant if god is moot. That is not the point of atheism. If it was, I would have to agree with you.
I'm sure that Bardock appreciates your advocacy.
??
as someone who isn't an atheist, don't you think the majority of us here, who are atheists, might have a better understanding of what the "point" of atheism is?
This is essentially the same debate I was having with 753. Not believing in "God" is not the same as saying "I, a priori, will not believe in anything you want to call God."
You can probably assume that most people came into atheism through the rejection of the idea of a God that interferes with the universe and created things. Redefining God so that it fits your purpose is intellectually sloppy, and you have reduced the significance of what God is anyways (to the point where even using the same term is very misleading).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if an atheist believed in a nothing god, would he become a theist?
I don't pretend to tell people what boxes they fit into, but I would probably see it that way.