Religions

[Diageo]

I don't like bacon.

 

I dislike bacon.

 

 

Those are two different statements.

 

And completely irrelevant.

 

The equivalent is:

 

I just don't have a cat (I lack ownership of a cat).

I don't have a cat (I actively think about not having a cat).

 

The difference is thinking about it.

[MoogleViper]

And completely irrelevant.

 

The equivalent is:

 

I just don't have a cat (I lack ownership of a cat).

I don't have a cat (I actively think about not having a cat).

 

The difference is thinking about it.

 

No it isn't.

 

I don't believe in God. (I haven't encountered enough evidence to make me believe in God)

I believe there is no God. (God doesn't exist)

 

One is absolute. On is the lack of a positive, the other is a negative.

[Rummy]

But in both cases you're saying you don't believe in god. It's not like the former statement is agnosticism because you're still actually stipulating that you don't believe in god.

 

For me, the former is a null value. The latter is not. It isn't quite as straightforward as that(and null values are often tricky by their own nature) but I don't think it's equatable. A lack of belief is not the same as believing the opposite.

 

So if you just don't believe in god and someone asks you if you believe in god and you say no, then are you actively not believing in god?

 

Well no, that seems passive. They ask me, I guess I don't. What if they ask me 'Do you disbelieve in God?' - also no. I neither believe, nor disbelieve. I don't spend my time thinking about how god doesn't exist - I don't ACTIVELY believe god doesn't exist. It's just completely null to me. Doesn't even come up, my belief/disbelief doesn't even exist. It's irrelevant, it's null. I lack belief, and disbelief also.

 

(ftr, this is a hypothetical 'I')

 

No it isn't.

 

I don't believe in God. (I haven't encountered enough evidence to make me believe in God)

I believe there is no God. (God doesn't exist)

 

One is absolute. On is the lack of a positive, the other is a negative.

 

That's actually well better done than I did. A lack of a positive is not a negative. That's what I'm trying to say.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Rummy
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

No it isn't.

 

I don't believe in God. (I haven't encountered enough evidence to make me believe in God)

I believe there is no God. (God doesn't exist)

 

One is absolute. On is the lack of a positive, the other is a negative.

 

What you put in brackets though is your own take and not definitively implied by the sentence that precedes it.

 

For instance, I could quite truthfully state that I don't believe in God. However, in my case this isn't because I haven't encountered enough evidence. I could even follow up by stating the second sentence without contradicting myself, illustrating that the sentences don't necessarily imply what you suggest.

[Diageo]

No it isn't.

 

I don't believe in God. (I haven't encountered enough evidence to make me believe in God)

I believe there is no God. (God doesn't exist)

 

One is absolute. On is the lack of a positive, the other is a negative.

 

But then it's about evidence. One is I haven't encountered enough evidence, and the other is I have encountered enough evidence. But still, both of those people are atheist, from Rummy's original argument of 'without god'.

 

It is true that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, most people should know that. However I don't see how this recent semantic tangent is important to the conversation.

[MoogleViper]

What you put in brackets though is your own take and not definitively implied by the sentence that precedes it.

 

Obviously. Language isn't perfect, and you're not always going to unequivocally convey the full meaning with a simple sentence. The point is not about what the sentences mean, more about the differences in the viewpoints.

 

But still, both of those people are atheist, from Rummy's original argument of 'without god'.

 

But only one is agnostic.

 

It is true that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, most people should know that. However I don't see how this recent semantic tangent is important to the conversation.

 

Because there are many that don't, and will say absolutely that there is no God, and not see the hypocrisy of their words.

[Sheikah]

 

But only one is agnostic.

 

Actually both "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" are atheistic. Agnostic would be "I'm not sure if god exists," or similar.

[MoogleViper]

Actually both "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" are atheistic. Agnostic would be "I'm not sure if god exists," or similar.

 

"I'm not sure if God exists" and "I don't believe in God" are not mutually exclusive.

[Diageo]

But only one is agnostic.

 

Because there are many that don't, and will say absolutely that there is no God, and not see the hypocrisy of their words.

 

And no, both are atheists. Both are without god and both are without belief.

 

Additionally, while absence of evidence of god doesn't prove god exists, those who describe god to be real have some of their points proven wrong and therefore losing credibility and making it evidence he doesn't exist.

 

"I'm not sure if God exists" and "I don't believe in God" are not mutually exclusive.

 

I'm not sure if God exists is the same as I'm not sure if I believe in God.

[Sheikah]

"I'm not sure if God exists" and "I don't believe in God" are not mutually exclusive.

 

Yes they are.

 

In one you are clearly stating you are not sure if god exists. In the other you are stating you have zero belief in god. As illustrated by "don't believe". Do not believe. As in belief, there is none of it. None. Which would extend even to his existence.

[Diageo]

"I don't believe in God" means "I don't believe God exists". It's not like when you don't believe in someone where you don't believe they can do something. "I don't believe in God" is a shorter way of saying "I don't believe God exists".

[Sheikah]

Yeah exactly. They are two very different sentences.

[MoogleViper]

Yes they are.

 

In one you are clearly stating you are not sure if god exists. In the other you are stating you have zero belief in god. As illustrated by "don't believe". Do not believe. As in belief, there is none of it. None. Which would extend even to his existence.

 

So if you're an agnostic, and somebody asks "Do you believe in God?" how do you respond?

[Sheikah]

So if you're an agnostic, and somebody asks "Do you believe in God?" how do you respond?

 

If you're agnostic you would say "I'm not sure (or "don't know") if god exists."

 

If you're atheist you could say either of the other two previous sentences. Either "I don't believe in god" or "I believe god doesn't exist." Or even simply "no."

[Diageo]

I agree with Sheikah wholeheartedly.

[MoogleViper]

If you're agnostic you would say "I'm not sure (or "don't know") if god exists."

 

But that's not what they asked. The fact is, if you're not sure if God exists, then you don't believe in God.

[Diageo]

OK it's clear we've reached an obstacle because anything else said at this point would be repeating. I'm pretty sure what I've said earlier could be put after your post and it would still work.

 

What do you believe in god if not his existence?

[Sheikah]

But that's not what they asked. The fact is, if you're not sure if God exists, then you don't believe in God.

 

It is what they asked. They asked if you believe in god, and you said "I don't know." How is that not a valid answer? Since when must all questions be answered yes or no?

[Iun]

@Sheikah

 

So what you are saying, is that we can overcome an emotional and ingrained fear of monsters in the cupboard, but not an emotional response to two ladies eating bearded clams wanting to get married?

 

That just makes no sense whatsoever to me. If it makes sense to you, fair enough.

[Sheikah]

@Sheikah

 

So what you are saying, is that we can overcome an emotional and ingrained fear of monsters in the cupboard, but not an emotional response to two ladies eating bearded clams wanting to get married?

 

That just makes no sense whatsoever to me. If it makes sense to you, fair enough.

No I'm not saying that. In fact that is a very bad example and you know it.

 

Some emotions change as you grow up (such as fears). You fear these things originally through lack of understanding and discard these fears when you do understand.

 

Contrast this to a homophobe. There is no element of non-understanding in this case. People may understand that homosexuals feel for each other but as part of their mindset they don't like it. You don't even have to be religious to feel this way, so it's not a case of telling people that religion is wrong so they suddenly overcome a prejudice. Rather people probably use religion to condemn it to add strength to their viewpoint.

[Agent Gibbs]

Contrast this to a homophobe. There is no element of non-understanding in this case. People may understand that homosexuals feel for each other but as part of their mindset they don't like it. You don't even have to be religious to feel this way, so it's not a case of telling people that religion is wrong so they suddenly overcome a prejudice. Rather people probably use religion to condemn it to add strength to their viewpoint.

 

exactly! a lot of it is people who are homophobic are unsure of their own sexuality/feelings and it scares them Or they just don't like the physical act of copulation between same sex couples, because they aren't homosexual, and they can't make the exception that others can do it if they don't want to.

The dress it up as religious beliefs etc but in reality the only reason the believe that bit of their religion is because it affirms their own prejudices

 

I've yet to find a person who blindly believes their religion that homosexuality is wrong and then personally doesn't see a problem with it

 

EDIT: you know through out this discussion i've just had one thing going through my mind, that our intolerance of intolerant people is amusing, it reminds me of that bit in Austin Powers 3 where Michael Cain is saying how has two things he hates, intolerant people and the dutch

Edited March 1, 2013 by Agent Gibbs

[Mr_Odwin]

I came across this recently (probably on a trawl through the atheism subreddit - gotta stay informed!):

 

 

It goes with what @Rummy and @MoogleViper have been saying.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Thank you, @Mr_Odwin, I was about to make that distinction. (A)theism and (a)gnosticism are two completely separate aspects of belief; one is what you believe, the other is how strongly you believe.

 

Regarding the difference between "no belief in god" and "belief in no god", however, I don't view it as a question of gnosticism or agnosticism; I see it merely as the difference between actively and passively not believing something, regardless of the strength of that belief. "No belief" is the passive state we all initially have towards anything and everything we haven't yet thought of; it's simply logical that we cannot have a belief regarding an idea that does not yet exist in our minds. Then once the idea of something enters our minds and we consider it (and reject it), it becomes the active "belief in no X" - which can still be perfectly agnostic.

[Rummy]

It's all quite interesting, but I feel bad for derailing the thread. I can see the points made by others, but I'll leave it here.

 

What I would like to ask, bringing it a bit back round, what ARE people's opinions on the non-theistic 'religions' like Buddhism and Taoism? They're the ones I'd quite to learn a bit more about and probably appeal to me more due to their lack of God. Hinduism interests/appeals to me despite being a thiestic religion, I'm not sure if that's just because of my background or what though.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I believe I've covered my stance on belief in supernatural stuff. As for philosophy, I don't like following rigid sets of dictated ideas. I recognise the good stuff in plenty of religions and philosophies, but I'm not afraid to criticise or reject the parts of them that I don't agree with.