"Lack of belief"

[allfoak]

Just keep sending this god around to every laboratory and research institution you can think of until all reasonable doubt has been removed.

If that were even possible then God would not be God.

 

[ArtieE]

If that were even possible then God would not be God.

LOL have you forgotten that supposedly for God everything is possible?

 

[allfoak]

LOL have you forgotten that supposedly for God everything is possible?

God does not fit in our pocket to be carried from lab to lab.
But, God is being tested everyday in labs all over the world.
The more we learn about ourselves the more we learn about God.
We just don't see it that way.
Like the atheists say, doesn't change the fact that it is true.
We come to know God by coming to know ourselves, it's that simple.

 

[ArtieE]

God does not fit in our pocket to be carried from lab to lab.

God can just show up looking like a human or whatever he wants as long as he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is.

 

[Augustus]

I can understand the concept of the Christian God but I still have an absence of belief in the existence of the Christian God. How do you explain that?

Read the quote from the article.

You don't have an absence of belief, you have a belief. Perhaps you believe that God doesn't exist, perhaps you believe it is uncertain, unlikely or unknowable, what you have though is a belief, not the absence of a belief.

"I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception"

 

[allfoak]

God can just show up looking like a human or whatever he wants as long as he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is.

That is my point.
It is through ourselves that we come to know God.
In other words.
God is already here.
So perhaps you can take yourself to the lab?
My laboratory is my own mind..

 

[Willamena]

God can just show up looking like a human or whatever he wants as long as he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is.

He shows up, looking like a human, everyday.

 

[ArtieE]

You don't have an absence of belief, you have a belief. Perhaps you believe that God doesn't exist, perhaps you believe it is uncertain, unlikely or unknowable, what you have though is a belief, not the absence of a belief.

ROTFL I have an absence of belief in the existence of God, I have never said I have an absence of all beliefs.

 

[allfoak]

He shows up, looking like a human, everyday.

Yup.
God is both ugly and beautiful.

 

[Augustus]

ROTFL I have an absence of belief in the existence of God, I have never said I have an absence of all beliefs.

You appear to be using language in a very strange way. We don't say: I Iack belief in the world being flat; There's Dave, he lacks belief that Spain is the capital of Jupiter etc.

We have a statement "God exists", you do not lack belief as regards this statement. This is my point.

 

[ArtieE]

We have a statement "God exists", you do not lack belief as regards this statement. This is my point.

What is "you do not lack belief as regards this statement" supposed to mean?

 

[Augustus]

What is "you do not lack belief as regards this statement" supposed to mean?

You have a belief regarding the statement "God exists" (true/false/probable/unlikely/etc.)

 

[ArtieE]

You have a belief regarding the statement "God exists" (true/false/probable/unlikely/etc.)

I have an absence of belief in the existence of God. I'm not a theist. Of course I can have all kinds of other beliefs. I can have every belief under the sun except the belief that gods exist.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Augustus,

You don't have an absence of belief, you have a belief. Perhaps you believe that God doesn't exist, perhaps you believe it is uncertain, unlikely or unknowable, what you have though is a belief, not the absence of a belief.

"I deny that a man makes no affirmation in so far as he has a perception"

Here's why it's important to technically distinguish the difference between disbelief and belief concerning a deity or deities.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

Yes, you could take the exact same negative stance as a-theism and call yourself an a-naturalist, a-materialist, a skeptic of spontaneous universe creating mechanisms.

And then you could argue that you make no positive assertion, all the burden of proof is on the other side! (And of course meanwhile the obvious alternative is true by default!)

But theists don't do this, because we are willing and able to defend our beliefs on their own merits, we have no need to shirk the burden of proof, or delude ourselves into thinking we don't have a belief at all. (talking as an ex-atheist also)

I had blind faith, faith which did not recognize itself.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, you could take the exact same negative stance a-theism and call yourself an a-naturalist, a-materialist

No you couldn't, not if you knew the English language. The prefix a- just means "not, without". An "anaturalist" would just be any person who is not a naturalist and an "amaterialist" any person who is not a materialist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No you couldn't, not if you knew the English language. The prefix a- just means "not, without". An "anaturalist" would just be any person who is not a naturalist and an "amaterialist" any person who is not a materialist.

Exactly, as an a-naturalist for example, I simply lack belief in naturalism, I lack belief in evolution, or life itself, or any natural origin of the universe

None of this says anything about any belief in intelligent design, and you would be unfairly jumping to conclusions if you thought it did right?

 

[Kartari]

Hi Guy,

Yes, you could take the exact same negative stance as a-theism and call yourself an a-naturalist, a-materialist, a skeptic of spontaneous universe creating mechanisms.

And then you could argue that you make no positive assertion, all the burden of proof is on the other side! (And of course meanwhile the obvious alternative is true by default!)

But theists don't do this, because we are willing and able to defend our beliefs on their own merits, we have no need to shirk the burden of proof, or delude ourselves into thinking we don't have a belief at all. (talking as an ex-atheist also)

I had blind faith, faith which did not recognize itself.

Alas, atheism is in fact a negative claim, and therefore bears no burden of proof. Theism bears it. This is not a cop out, as you seem to be implying. Please see my linked post in my previous response to Augustus for a more complete explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi Guy,



Alas, atheism is in fact a negative claim, and therefore bears no burden of proof. Theism bears it. This is not a cop out, as you seem to be implying. Please see my linked post in my previous response to Augustus for a more complete explanation.

so is a-naturalism, and as an a-naturalist, I make no positive claim.

I simply lack belief in evolution, natural origins of life or the universe. The burden of proof is entirely on the other side

(and the obvious alternative remains true by default meanwhile)

see? works both ways just as well does it not?

 

[Augustus]

Here's why it's important to technically distinguish the difference between disbelief and belief concerning a deity or deities.

Disbelief is a belief, the belief that something is not true.

I have an absence of belief in the existence of God. I'm not a theist. Of course I can have all kinds of other beliefs. I can have every belief under the sun except the belief that gods exist.

Yes, I understand what you are trying to say, I just think it is a strange and misleading way to use language.

You are discussing the truth of the statement "God exists". You are saying you "lack belief" that this statement is true. Really you hold the belief that this statement is false/unproven/unknowable/etc.

To describe the presence of one belief as actually being the absence of an incompatible belief seems bizarre.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree. Can't really be bothered with this thread any more.