How is not believing in god different than believing there is no god?

[1137]

Both the ignostic and the atheist have supplied 'god' with a meaning in order to use the word in their sentences.

Quite possibly.

 

[leibowde84]

Agnostic doesn't imply a lack of the belief, all it says about belief is that either way requires blind belief.

Take a minute to look at how the word is defined. "... a person who claims NEITHER faith NOR disbelief in God."

Agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
   
   

 

[leibowde84]

Quite possibly.

Why would acknowledging the existance or a word or idea say anything about the existance of God in reality?

 

[leibowde84]

What I was trying to convey was not to get hung up on semantics when someone is just trying to declare they don't acknowledge God. Are we really mincing words on this?

Most people don't actually believe God doesn't exist. They simply have no reason to believe, as we do, that He does. Huge difference, yes, but how they express it shouldn't necessarily be argued unless you have a specific reason to think they do believe in something, just not your version or some other variation of the supernatural you might recognize.

The word believe is simply misused here. It'd be easier if people of non-belief simply avoided the word when describing their own position. (for example, I have no reason to believe as you believe, or I have no evidence in God, therefore I do not think he exists)

Your issue seems to be the assumption made in your last sentence. The more reasonable stance wouldbe "I have no evidence in God, therefore I do not have an opinion on the subject."

 

[Willamena]

Quite possibly.

"Possibly?" The alternative is that they are accomplished at gibberish.

 

[1137]

Take a minute to look at how the word is defined. "... a person who claims NEITHER faith NOR disbelief in God."

Agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
   

How about using the whole definition instead of cherry picking, especially since you included it? Since there's zero knowledge (to be) had leaning either way is a lack of faith.

 

[1137]

"Possibly?" The alternative is that they are accomplished at gibberish.

Not necessarily. They aren't saying anything about god except that the term is meaningless and vague. Take the circle-square. You can't imagine it or draw it or even discuss it because it is nonsensical. This puts no meaning in the concept except that there's none to be had.

 

[Willamena]

Not necessarily. They aren't saying anything about god except that the term is meaningless and vague. Take the circle-square. You can't imagine it or draw it or even discuss it because it is nonsensical. This puts no meaning in the concept except that there's none to be had.

How do you figure that the term is meaningless and vague for them?

 

[leibowde84]

How about using the whole definition instead of cherry picking, especially since you included it? Since there's zero knowledge (to be) had leaning either way is a lack of faith.

I agree, and I never said otherwise. But, a "lack of faith" does not mean that one believes that God does not exist. They just haven't been convinced by the evidence either way. So, I guess I still don't get your point.

 

[leibowde84]

Agnostic doesn't imply a lack of the belief, all it says about belief is that either way requires blind belief.

Do I need to include the definition of the term again? I'm happy to do it, but it certainly indicates a lack of belief. An agnostic is one who LACKS BELIEF because they feel that deciding either way requires blind faith. In other words, we don't have enough information to make an educated decision.

 

[viole]

Not sure what to make of this.

Nothing. i think I had too many of those things that they usually offer at said cocktail parties, lol.

On second thought, almost nothing. My point was, and is, that it does not make sense to be agnostic about God if we believe that it makes no sense in being agnostic of other things (no matter how weird) that have the same objective evidence as God's of existing.

But if you think that it is honorable to hold an agnostic position towards things like blue fairies, Xenu or the invisible ghost of Napoleon wandering about, then I have nothing to object.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

Do I need to include the definition of the term again? I'm happy to do it, but it certainly indicates a lack of belief. An agnostic is one who LACKS BELIEF because they feel that deciding either way requires blind faith. In other words, we don't have enough information to make an educated decision.

The belief of the agnostic is that no knowledge is or can be had about the nature of god, therefore making leaning either way blind faith.

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing. i think I had too many of those things that they usually offer at said cocktail parties, lol.

On second thought, almost nothing. My point was, and is, that it does not make sense to be agnostic about God if we believe that it makes no sense in being agnostic of other things (no matter how weird) that have the same objective evidence as God's of existing.

But if you think that it is honorable to hold an agnostic position towards things like blue fairies, Xenu or the invisible ghost of Napoleon wandering about, then I have nothing to object.

Ciao

- viole

I am actually a believer and a Christian, so I can't really speak to the validity of the agnostic positions. That being said, I do think that the aspect of faith in religious beliefs is too often thought of as knowledge. This scares me because it assumes that one has found the "truth" or an answer to something that may or may not be answerable yet. If we stop looking for alternative explanations because of faith, we all lose.

 

[leibowde84]

The belief of the agnostic is that no knowledge is or can be had about the nature of god, therefore making leaning either way blind faith.

Wrong again. That is not the belief of the agnostic, as they only must believe that we can't YET show objectively whether God exists or doesn't so it is imprudent to choose YET. "Yet" is the most important part, as it allows for future progress.

 

[leibowde84]

The belief of the agnostic is that no knowledge is or can be had about the nature of god, therefore making leaning either way blind faith.

But, the definition of the term "agnostic" was not at issue in your initial thread. You were asking whether non-belief was the same as a negative belief, which is not the case. One can lack belief and lack negative belief at the same time. This person would be properly classified as "undecided."

 

[viole]

I am actually a believer and a Christian, so I can't really speak to the validity of the agnostic positions. That being said, I do think that the aspect of faith in religious beliefs is too often thought of as knowledge. This scares me because it assumes that one has found the "truth" or an answer to something that may or may not be answerable yet. If we stop looking for alternative explanations because of faith, we all lose.

We all lose? I don't want to downplay the importance of Christianity in our culture, but I can confidently say it is basically extinct where I live., especially when we compare it with the position it held few centuries ago.

And even the vestigial rests of Christianity are not necessarily opposed to new discoveries that might contradict a literal reading of the Bible (with a few not statistically significant exceptions). Of course, I restrict myself to Europe. I mean, if you can hold a Christian position while accepting that a fish belongs to the family album, then everything goes.

I am not even sure that people like the Archibishop of Cantembury believes in God. I have doubts about the pope, too.

I personally think that Christians today consider the belief in X more important than the actual existence of X. Belief, the last bastion against moral anarchy, nihilism and absurdism.

Who knows, maybe they are right. What would happen if tomorrow everybody stopped believing that the misery they live today will not be vindicated in the afterlife? Probably chaos, that would cost more suffering than persisting in promulgating a possible lie.

It is not a trivial moral dilemma, whose solution will probably take time. Like the one we had in Europe, at least in the north.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

We all lose? I don't want to downplay the importance of Christianity in our culture, but I can confidently say it is basically extinct where I live., especially when we compare it with the position it held few centuries ago.

And even the vestigial rests of Christianity are not necessarily opposed to new discoveries that might contradict a literal reading of the Bible (with a few not statistically significant exceptions). Of course, I restrict myself to Europe.

I am not even sure that people like the Archibishop of Cantembury believes in God. I have doubts about the pope, too.

I personally think that Christians today consider the belief in X more important than the actual existence of X. Belief, the last bastion against moral anarchy, nihilism and absurdism.

Who knows, maybe they are right. What would happen if tomorrow everybody stopped believing that the misery they live today will not be vindicated in the afterlife? Probably chaos, that would cost more suffering than persisting in promulgating a possible lie.

It is not a trivial moral dilemma, whose solution will probably take time. Like the one we had in Europe, at least in the north.

Ciao

- viole

Here in the States there are still plenty of people who believe in the supernatural. And, I thought you would agree that if we all just settle on the supernatural as the cause for everything, we will stop looking for what could be the natural cause, and we all lose. But, I think you are wrong about the Pope.

 

[viole]

Here in the States there are still plenty of people who believe in the supernatural. And, I thought you would agree that if we all just settle on the supernatural as the cause for everything, we will stop looking for what could be the natural cause, and we all lose. But, I think you are wrong about the Pope.

i am optimistic.

After all, we managed to replace supernatural explanations with natural ones, and not the other way round, when belief in the supernatural was much more present.

But I have a question for you. Do you think that there are areas of the existing that are impervious towards a completely naturalistic explanation? If no, what makes you believe in God, if He is Himself not naturally explainable?

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

i am optimistic.

After all, we managed to replace supernatural explanations with natural ones, and not the other way round, when belief in the supernatural was much more present.

But I have a question for you. Do you think that there are areas of the existing that are impervious towards a completely naturalistic explanation? If no, what makes you believe in God, if He is Himself not naturally explainable?

Ciao

- viole

My own faith is supported by my personal experience and the immense value it lends to my life. I was brought up in a mixed Jewish/Catholic household and went to both Hebrew School on the weekends and Catholic school during the week. When I got to eighth grade I chose to be confirmed and baptized. At that time, I had no idea what to think, but when I became a philosophy major in college, I began to question everything, and I saw immense value in the process. I guess my faith is only this ...

1. There seems to be a guiding/loving force in the universe that knows I exist and is intent on helping me (whether that is a part of my own mind masked by the idea of God, I can't say).
2. I believe that Jesus was divine. That being said, my reasoning for thinking so was the ridiculously progressive nature of what was taught in his name ... compassion, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc. For this reason, he is a legend (remember, "heroes live forever, but legends never die"), so I feel as if I can speak directly to him through prayer.
3. I understand my own limitations in understanding and those of our current natural understanding of the world. But, I do not believe it appropriate to attribute anything in the natural world to the supernatural necessarily, or to assume anything until we find out different. My faith is my own and it gives me strength ... but it's nobody's business, and my beliefs should not be considered when interacting others.

We must live for each other here on earth, because that is all that we KNOW to exist and depend on us. When faith gets in the way of mutual respect, argumentation, progress of thought or personal rights, it should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

 

[Willamena]

Someone ignorant of god does not posit god. The person who claims to not believe in god posits god's negation, and that can be asserted or not. The person ignorant of god doesn't have that luxury.