Lack of belief in gods.

[Thief]

I do not believe in God.....because of a book

 

[Thief]

but I do believe in God

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why does it seem important to some to view a lack of belief in gods as a belief itself?

It is most important to the atheist, to realize their own belief. We cannot question beliefs we don't acknowledge having, blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

 

[Thief]

It is most important to the atheist, to realize their own belief. We cannot question beliefs we don't acknowledge having, blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

????..... a blind man would not know if he is blind?

 

[jonathan180iq]

When someone says you have not seen what you have seen, then THAT is an insult.

This only explains why the experiencer might take offense at the notion that their experience was something other than what they thought - but they still must defend the assertion that their claim of extraordinary happenings was, in fact, extraordinary.

This is true of anything at all - Religious belief, alien abduction stories, Loch Ness Monsters, hidden codes in ancient manuscripts, anti-gravity devices, perpetual motion machines, psychic abilities - and even Scientific discoveries. Everything! The burden of proof will forever rest on the claimant - that is how it works. There is no skirting of this issue in logical debate or conversation. The reason that these debates persist is because most Theists fail to take ownership of the realities of logical discussion. (That is not an insult. It is an observation of these persistent cyclical conversations)

For me there are two reasons. The first is that they are identical positions, they imply the same things, with the exception of true agnosticism. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend the two are not the same, and it's absurdity is easily illustrated by a theist taking the position "I lack belief that there are no gods." There's no room for dishonesty in philosophy.

It is very simple - Until someone introduces the idea of any variable, in this case we're talking about God - but it could be anything at all, we ALL lack belief in that variable.

• For example, do you believe in the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma? (I imagine not, since I just made him up.)
• Now that the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma has been introduced as a concept, do you accept, reject, or withhold judgement on his existence? (you're doing one of those - be honest)
• What would it take for you to accept the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma as an actual being?
• (The answer to that last question is the answer to all of the debates that this forum has ever had about belief in gods, or anything else for that matter. Since I made the original claim about the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma, I bear the burden of proof regarding his existence. Since we're talking about honesty, I must take ownership of that fact. I made the claim, therefore I bear the burden. I would imagine that everyone in this thread would agree with me. What would be intellectually dishonest is for me to equate your disbelief with my belief - and somehow attempt to shift the burden of proof onto you... It would be ridiculous for me to ask you to prove that SSoM doesn't exist, don't you think?)

Feel free to replace the "god" variable in this example with anything else you can imagine, to test it's accuracy and truthfulness. You'll not find an example where it doesn't work out.

Not until Theists come to terms with their burden in these conversations can we begin to have more productive discussions.

 

[Thief]

This only explains why the experiencer might take offense at the notion that their experience was something other than what they thought - but they still must defend the assertion that their claim of extraordinary happenings was, in fact, extraordinary.

This is true of anything at all - Religious belief, alien abduction stories, Loch Ness Monsters, hidden codes in ancient manuscripts, anti-gravity devices, perpetual motion machines, psychic abilities - and even Scientific discoveries. Everything! The burden of proof will forever rest on the claimant - that is how it works. There is no skirting of this issue in logical debate or conversation. The reason that these debates persist is because most Theists fail to take ownership of the realities of logical discussion. (That is not an insult. It is an observation of these persistent cyclical conversations)



It is very simple - Until someone introduces the idea of any variable, in this case we're talking about God - but it could be anything at all, we ALL lack belief in that variable.

• For example, do you believe in the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma? (I imagine not, since I just made him up.)
• Now that the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma has been introduced as a concept, do you accept, reject, or withhold judgement on his existence? (you're doing one of those - be honest)
• What would it take for you to accept the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma as an actual being?
• (The answer to that last question is the answer to all of the debates that this forum has ever had about belief in gods, or anything else for that matter. Since I made the original claim about the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma, I bear the burden of proof regarding his existence. Since we're talking about honesty, I must take ownership of that fact. I made the claim, therefore I bear the burden. I would imagine that everyone in this thread would agree with me. What would be intellectually dishonest is for me to equate your disbelief with my belief - and somehow attempt to shift the burden of proof onto you... It would be ridiculous for me to ask you to prove that SSoM doesn't exist, don't you think?)

Feel free to replace the "god" variable in this example with anything else you can imagine, to test it's accuracy and truthfulness. You'll not find an example where it doesn't work out.

Not until Theists come to terms with their burden in these conversations can we begin to have more productive discussions.

a unique experience not dealt unto you leaves you out of the loop

too bad you didn't get the memo

 

[jonathan180iq]

a unique experience not dealt unto you leaves you out of the loop

too bad you didn't get the memo

A perfect example of avoidance by a Theist.

Instead of dealing with anything of substance, you retreat with what you think is a clever retort, saying essentially:

"God doesn't love you as much. Sorry, Charlie."

Would it mean anything at all to you if I said "Too bad the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma is keeping you blinded from logic. You may never receive his sandy enlightenment."?

 

[Thief]

A perfect example of avoidance by a Theist.

Instead of dealing with anything of substance, you retreat with what you think is a clever retort, saying essentially:

"God doesn't love you as much. Sorry, Charlie."

Would it mean anything at all to you if I said "Too bad the Sacred Sandman of Montezuma is keeping you blinded from logic. You may never receive his sandy enlightenment."?

spirit is not of substance

but if you want to say you ARE substance......
that is temporary

then you are dust

unless you survive your last breath...

and what are you avoiding?
a face to Face with God and heaven?

won't take your chances?
prefer the sure end in a grave?

 

[jonathan180iq]

spirit is not of substance

but if you want to say you ARE substance......
that is temporary

then you are dust

unless you survive your last breath...

and what are you avoiding?
a face to Face with God and heaven?

won't take your chances?
prefer the sure end in a grave?

Case and point.

 

[Thief]

Case and point.

that does not remove my previous post nor does it make a response

 

[LuisDantas]

It is most important to the atheist

Is it? I don't think so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hello Jeremiah, interesting question.

The lack of belief in gods is the belief that no gods exist or that none probably do.

One has to either believe that no gods exist or admit that at least one god might exist.

Hi, Reggie.

While that does seem to be reasonable on paper, it is a bit misleading.

In practice, "god" is just too vague, too arbitrary an idea, and too dependent on personal interpretation.

There is literally no way to tell in advance whether any specific person's take on the idea of deity will demand a clear stance in the belief/disbelief axis.

Then again, it is entirely possible, even expected, that for many or most people it does not even make much of a practical difference either way. Apatheism and ignosticism are real.

 

[leibowde84]

My lack of belief in Santa Clause is adequately captured in the idea that he is not real. I actually believe that.

So, you both lack belief in Santa Clause AND you also believe (and know, I would argue) that Santa Clause does not exist.

When it comes to God, there are plenty of people who lack belief in God, but do not believe that God does not exist.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is most important to the atheist, to realize their own belief.

Atheists do not have a belief. I do not hold a belief about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny because I know they are not real. If you believe that a god does exist, then you have a belief. If you do not accept the existence of a god, you are not saying you believe but rather that you hold none.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheists do not have a belief. I do not hold a belief about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny because I know they are not real. If you believe that a god does exist, then you have a belief. If you do not accept the existence of a god, you are not saying you believe but rather that you hold none.

That sounds a lot like us a-materialists. I make no claim, I have no belief, I simply lack the belief in any materialistic explanations for reality until sufficient evidence emerges.

 

[viole]

Why does it seem important to some to view a lack of belief in gods as a belief itself?

What they mean is: it might be silly to believe in things without evidence, but you are no better than us.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

So, you both lack belief in Santa Clause AND you also believe (and know, I would argue) that Santa Clause does not exist.

When it comes to God, there are plenty of people who lack belief in God, but do not believe that God does not exist.

That's your interpretation of what I said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I make no claim, I have no belief, I simply lack the belief in any materialistic explanations for reality until sufficient evidence emerges.

It's not a belief to say the world is governed by natural laws, and did have natural material origins. We have many laws and theories that provide mountains of evidence for this. We don't have to believe electricity and gravity govern the universe, because we have evidence of this. We don't believe these things because we know them, much like how we know time and space are one in the same and that all matter is energy. We do not need a supernatural explanation for any of these.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why does it seem important to some to view a lack of belief in gods as a belief itself?

Because some theists get frustrated by getting "I'm not convinced" in response to their arguments and think that if they can find some way to attack their opponent's position, it will score points for their own.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I love it when atheists present themselves as brain dead on the matter.