Dropping the gloves, no holding back...

[The Voice of Reason]

I'll try not to take that personally.

Mea culpa - I was actually referring to a kouple of the new members, if you get my drift...

TVOR

 

[Pah]

How can you claim there is no God? How can you claim there is?

You either believe it or you don't, to claim to know for certain is foolishness, no matter which camp you sit in.

I make the claim for my personal belief, only my belief, that there is no God. Not just from the logical inconsistencies associated with the God of the Bible but with evidence (subject to criteria of truth) that shows God is a product of man created with support from more than one scholastic discipline. I can not argue with conviction against other manifestations of diety specific to that diety, but the foundational explainations for it's creation would seem to apply as well.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...How is it possible to believe that god exists, but have no belief in him/she/them/it?...

I went through a stage when I would accept that God existed and created stuff but that He had not been active in peoples' lives since. Is this what you mean?

Original Freak, am I understanding you right that some people would have classified me during that time as a Atheist because I had no 'God belief' but not a 'Strong Atheist'?

I realize labels are tricky because people use them differently, but I would think most people would have dropped me in the 'Deist' slot since an Atheist believes that God does not exist at all.

 

[Yerda]

To me, there is absolutely no difference in "having no god belief" and "declaring that god does not exist".

You've no belief in my sister. Would you assert that my sister does not exist?

 

[Original Freak]

You know that a generalization about Christianity based on Fundamentalists' (or Evangelicals') views is unfair. I would not wish my belief system to be judged by some of the posts put forth by others on this site.

I'm going to make multiple posts here to answer individuals so bear with me.

That's why I said in a previous post that each god has to be taken on an individual basis. From there if your belief isn't a fundamental belief it cannot truly be proved or disproved or tested in anyway. At the same time I can't disprove there is a giant magical purple invisable dragon sitting on your head that only true believers can see. I know he's magical because it's both purple and invisable at the same time...but I'm willing to assert there is no giant magical purple invisable dragon on your head.

 

[Original Freak]

This whole idea seems extremely redundant to me. How is it possible to believe that god exists, but have no belief in him/she/them/it? To me, there is absolutely no difference in "having no god belief" and "declaring that god does not exist". Obviously, if you have no belief in god, you don't believe it exists!

It's more semantics than anything. Sort of the picky dotting the i's and crossing the 't's. Basically one is saying "I don't believe in the claim you've made." The other is actually claiming something in "God does not exist."

 

[Original Freak]

I went through a stage when I would accept that God existed and created stuff but that He had not been active in peoples' lives since. Is this what you mean?

Original Freak, am I understanding you right that some people would have classified me during that time as a Atheist because I had no 'God belief' but not a 'Strong Atheist'?

no you wouldn't have been an atheist because

I would accept that God existed

. In my previous posts I tried to state things a bit clearer. It boils down to one not believing in a claim and the other making an actual claim.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's more semantics than anything. Sort of the picky dotting the i's and crossing the 't's.

No, it is not. I do not believe in God(s) because I see no evidence which I feel warrants such a belief. But I also recognize that this stance depends wholly on my philosophical bias concerning what constitutes compelling evidence. Atheism works rather well as the consequence of a presumption, but not as dogmatic assertion. That you insist on viewing agnosticism, 'weak' atheism, and 'strong' atheism, as successive points on a curve is, in my opinion, symptomatic of a very fundamental error. It might help to set aside the Diety issue, and spend some time considering (a) what constitutes 'knowing', (b) what methods are valid for acquiring 'knowledge', and what is the sufficient criteria for validating knowledge.

 

[Original Freak]

First, I never said anything about a 'weak' atheism. I also never came up with the term 'strong' atheist. It's something I've heard numerious times labeling people willing to make the positive claim. I've already stated a couple times that when it comes to views on god that are not fundamentialist views there truly can be no proof or disproof. It's really only when the views are locked in and there is no leway. When every single word of the bible is 100% correct it is only a matter of disproving a single part of it before the entire system of belief can come into question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's really only when ...

Have you ever heard of the "No true Scottsman" fallacy?

 

[Kirkaiya]

While I think Deut. is ultimately correct from a logical standpoint, in that I don't believe we can disprove the existance of a god, it is also true that we cannot disprove the existance of any other imaginary, non-disprovable entity (by definition).

That is, I can speculate on possible invisible rock-eating monsters living in Central Park that cannot be detected by humans - in which case, by definition, I've stated that we can't disprove their existance. While not circular logic, making up imaginary creatures, defining them as non-disprovable, and then claiming we can't dismiss their existance seems absurd also.

If God is truly defined as being indetectable by humans, and therefore not a part of this physical universe (assuming we can ultimately detect anything that *is* a part of it), then god becomes irrelevant anyway - he has no means to apply leverage.

 

[Tawn]

Agree totally with Kirkaiya..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If God is truly defined as being indetectable by humans, and therefore not a part of this physical universe (assuming we can ultimately detect anything that *is* a part of it), then god becomes irrelevant anyway - he has no means to apply leverage.

That is simply inaccurate: you confuse an inability to detect {X} with an inability on the part of {X} .

 

[Alexander]

Clarification please. I note the capital "God". Is the atheism discussed here anti-personificational or creative force?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Clarification please. I note the capital "God". Is the atheism discussed here anti-personificational or creative force?

I, for one, haven't a clue.

 

[Kirkaiya]

That is simply inaccurate: you confuse an inability to detect {X} with an inability on the part of {X} .

I think it is not inaccurate - if some entity has the ability to cause changes in our physical universe, then those changes would be detectable in theory, since they would have no clear observable cause.

Either god can effect change in our universe - which we would be able to detect - or he/it is completely undetectable and therefore cannot logically cause changes in the physical universe.

In any case - i think it's a moot point, given that humans made the up the idea of God, and then claim that, because he is non-disprovable, he might exist.

yes, and there really might be invisible rock-eating monsters in central park :jiggy:

 

[Faust]

Since I have no formal training in logic this explanation may be inadequate, but I'm willing to try.So I will put this forward as my reason for not believing in God/s.

Not having an explanation for something is not justification for making an assertion that can't be proved or disproved as the explanation. So based on this lack of justification (other than simply to fill in the blank) I personally have no belief in God/s. I don't believe in filling in the blank.
Does that make any sense to anybody.
Deut. maybe you could help me out with a better way to formulate this?
Faust.

 

[Yerda]

Not having an explanation for something is not justification for making an assertion that can't be proved or disproved as the explanation.

I remember trying to convince kbc_1963 of this. With no luck.

So based on this lack of justification (other than simply to fill in the blank) I personally have no belief in God/s. I don't believe in filling in the blank.
Does that make any sense to anybody.

Makes sense to me.