Lack of Belief

[Kilgore Trout]

My first problem with this is that I don't understand what it means to "believe in" something. We believe something, or we don't believe it. I don't know what "believing in something" means.

Erm, okay - Atheist = absence of belief that there are god(s)

Secondly, the criteria at hand is not the belief, or disbelief "in" god/s, it believing that god/s exist or do not exist. The belief is not relative to the idea of god, it's relative to the actual existence of the god/s we idealize. The idea of god clearly exists. That's not the question. The question is does the idea we have of god have any actual correspondence in reality? Does our "god" exist?

Okay - Atheist = absence of belief that there are god(s)

So an atheist isn't someone who "lacks a belief in god", whatever that even means. An atheist is someone who believes that our idea of god has no actual correspondence in reality. Like the unicorn, it is a mythical ideal, only.

No problem - Atheist = absence of belief that there are god(s)

 

[Caladan]

This is simply circular reasoning. if you know something is true, your belief is shattered, and for a moment you know it, perhaps experience it.

 

[Willamena]

This is simply circular reasoning. if you know something is true, your belief is shattered, and for a moment you know it, perhaps experience it.

Then (assuming this is in response to my post) this is to say that "to believe" is not the assignment of truth, per the OP, and that you have some other way of defining it.

 

[Caladan]

Then (assuming this is in response to my post) this is to say that "to believe" is not the assignment of truth, per the OP, and that you have some other way of defining it.

Not really. I stand by my first post: lack of belief is freedom. I guess we are just beating around the bush, because you believe you are right, and I dont like to be goverend by beliefs.

 

[PureX]

Erm, okay - Atheist = absence of belief that there are god(s)



Okay - Atheist = absence of belief that there are god(s)



No problem - Atheist = absence of belief that there are god(s)

An absence of belief is not a belief. You are insisting on using a self-contradictory term, just to win a pointless argument. An absence of belief is an absence of belief. It is not a belief that there are no gods. One is the absence of belief, and the other is a belief. Clearly, an atheist is the latter. The former is ... nothing. Because no belief is being proposed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An absence of belief is not a belief. You are insisting on using a self-contradictory term, just to win a pointless argument. An absence of belief is an absence of belief. It is not a belief that there are no gods. One is the absence of belief, and the other is a belief. Clearly, an atheist is the latter. The former is ... nothing. Because no belief is being proposed.

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to lie and say that I believe that there are no god(s) - this simply is not true. I don't believe that there are god(s). I don't know whether there are any, but there is no good reason for me to believe that there. This makes me an atheist and an agnostic. This is simply the truth - believe it or not.

 

[sandandfoam]

I dont like to be goverend by beliefs.

Whatever one chooses to call them, everyone - and science - has to rely on unobservable, theoretical constructs in order to explain what is observed.
What would you have us call these unobserved theoretical constructs if not beliefs?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Whatever one chooses to call them, everyone - and science - has to rely on unobservable, theoretical constructs in order to explain what is observed.
What would you have us call these unobserved theoretical constructs if not beliefs?

Hypotheses. Of course, a hypothesis isn't assumed true until tested.

 

[PureX]

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to lie and say that I believe that there are no god(s) - this simply is not true. I don't believe that there are god(s). I don't know whether there are any, but there is no good reason for me to believe that there. This makes me an atheist and an agnostic. This is simply the truth - believe it or not.

I'm not trying to make you say anything. You don't know for sure, but you have chosen to believe that there are no gods. What's wrong with just saying that? And having said it, why not label it correctly; you are an agnostic leaning toward being an atheist?

All I was doing is trying to keep us honest and accurate about the terms we're using.

 

[Caladan]

Whatever one chooses to call them, everyone - and science - has to rely on unobservable, theoretical constructs in order to explain what is observed.
What would you have us call these unobserved theoretical constructs if not beliefs?

Theories for example, and as we all know, theories are ever changing. further more there is a difference between scientific 'beliefs' and for example beliefs in demons and angels.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not trying to make you say anything. You don't know for sure, but you have chosen to believe that there are no gods. What's wrong with just saying that? And having said it, why not label it correctly; you are an agnostic leaning toward being an atheist?

All I was doing is trying to keep us honest and accurate about the terms we're using.

Because it's not honest. It's also inaccurate, and I like to be both as honest and precise as possible in my use of language.

I don't know whether you are not capable of seeing the difference between 'I don't believe that x exists' and 'I believe that x doesn't exist', or whether you're being intellectually dishonest, but there is a meaningful logical difference between the two statements. The first one applies to me in regards to god(s), the second one doesn't. This is both honest and accurate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And having said it, why not label it correctly; you are an agnostic leaning toward being an atheist?

Because this is not true. As I've already said more than once, I am both an atheist and an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive and describe two completely different things.

This is also both honest and accurate.

 

[sandandfoam]

Hypotheses. Of course, a hypothesis isn't assumed true until tested.

And many cannot be tested. I suggest that if we operate as if a given hypothesis is true, then to all intents we are believing in something.
My point being that whatever label/word/tag we put on it, it is not possible for humans to operate without 'belief'.
Caladan said -

if you know something is true, your belief is shattered

I dont like to be goverend by beliefs.

All human knowledge, including science, rests on assumptions that we do not know to be true. These assumptions make sense in the light of current knowledge, but they are not facts.

 

[Storm]

Whatever one chooses to call them, everyone - and science - has to rely on unobservable, theoretical constructs in order to explain what is observed.
What would you have us call these unobserved theoretical constructs if not beliefs?

I ususally go with "philosophical assumptions."

Hypotheses. Of course, a hypothesis isn't assumed true until tested.

I think Stephen's point is that we all have core beliefs that are unprovable. We need them to function. There's a more specific term for this than mine, but I can't recall it. It comes from mathematics, I believe.... :help:

Theories for example, and as we all know, theories are ever changing. further more there is a difference between scientific 'beliefs' and for example beliefs in demons and angels.

Granted, but there is no qualitative difference between the belief that God exists or does not, for instance. Neither position is scientific.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And many cannot be tested. I suggest that if we operate as if a given hypothesis is true, then to all intents we are believing in something.
My point being that whatever label/word/tag we put on it, it is not possible for humans to operate without 'belief'.

The scientific method has nothing meaningful to say about something which is not testable.

 

[PureX]

Because it's not honest. It's also inaccurate, and I like to be both as honest and precise as possible in my use of language.

I don't know whether you are not capable of seeing the difference between 'I don't believe that x exists' and 'I believe that x doesn't exist', or whether you're being intellectually dishonest, but there is a meaningful logical difference between the two statements. The first one applies to me in regards to god(s), the second one doesn't. This is both honest and accurate.

Let's see:

"I do not believe that x exists"

"I believe that x does not exist"

Given the fact that x must either exist, or not exist, when you claim that you do not believe that x exists we are forced to assume that you believe that x does not exist, because that is the only alternative to x existing. If you are claiming not to know if x exists or not, then why didn't you simply say "I don't know if x exists or not"?

 

[sandandfoam]

I think Stephen's point is that we all have core beliefs that are unprovable. We need them to function.

You made my point more clearly than I did. Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Let's see:

"I do not believe that x exists"

"I believe that x does not exist"

Given the fact that x must either exist, or not exist, when you claim that you do not believe that x exists we are forced to assume that you believe that x does not exist, because that is the only alternative to x existing. If you are claiming not to know if x exists or not, then why didn't you simply say "I don't know if x exists or not"?

Q: atotalstranger, do you know if gods exist?
A: No, I do not know if gods exist. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to say otherwise.

Q: atotalstranger, do you believe that gods exist?
A: No, I do not believe that gods exist. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to believe in something which has no objective, rational evidence.

Q: atotalstranger, do you believe that gods don't exist?
A: No, I don't believe that, since I do not know whether they exist or not. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to make the positive statement that I believe they don't exist.

 

[PureX]

Because this is not true. As I've already said more than once, I am both an atheist and an agnostic. The terms are not mutually exclusive and describe two completely different things.

This is also both honest and accurate.

The terms are mutually exclusive, as one labels the belief that gods do not exist, while the other labels the belief that we can't or don't know if gods exist. I understand that we humans can hold to multiple and contradictory beliefs simultaneously. And I'm not arguing with that. But the TERMS we are using ARE mutually exclusive. If we are going to wear more then one label at a time, we need to explain this, or we will be misleading people. One label alone does not accurately define your position.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The terms are mutually exclusive, as one labels the belief that gods do not exist, while the other labels the belief that we can't or don't know if gods exist. I understand that we humans can hold to multiple and contradictory beliefs simultaneously. And I'm not arguing with that. But the TERMS we are using ARE mutually exclusive. If we are going to wear more then one label at a time, we need to explain this, or we will be misleading people. One label alone does not accurately define your position.

'Mutually Exclusive' means that two things are contradictory; that they are unable to be both true at the same time.

I'm saying that I'm both an atheist and agnostic - neither label alone accurately defines my position.