To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

I agree that in casual conversation, there's no need to distinguish between the two points. But when you're trying to imply that the fact that I don't believe in a god is somehow "the same as faith" because I simply "have faith" that there is no god, then I feel obligated to explain why that's not the case.

The difficulty is that in choosing to believe that God does not exist, based on no evidence, you have committed an act of faith. It's the same as choosing that God does exist, having no evidence or proof, is likewise an act of faith.

The phony excuse that you simply don't believe that God exists because you have no reason to believe that God exists does not excuse your choosing to believe that God does not exist, because you had a more reasonable option, which was to admit that you simply don't know. The fact that you ignored this option, and deliberately chose to believe that God does not exist, based on nothing, is an act of faith.

 

[darkendless]

"Non-belief", like non-existence, is an irrational category. It's an attempt at labeling nothing, as though it were something.

Yes.

But often i see non-belief compared to belief as if they were polar opposites. Non-belief is not the polar opposite of belief and does not therefore require any kind of belief.

 

[Commoner]

Actually, this is wrong. The only possible choices are existence, non-existence, or "I don't know". To believe that God does not exist is the same as not believing that God does exist because they both place God in the non-existent category. Your only other option, and the only logical option to choose when you have no evidence either way, is to admit that you simply don't know.

I don't know, but I also don't believe it.

I should have really said that I don't make the claim that I know, that I have some proof, that there is no god. I don't believe it just as must as I don't believe in gremlins. But I can't really claim that nowhere, at no time, did a gremlin exist.

So I don't feel the need (usually) to go around saying "I know there are no gremlins" or "I believe there are no gremlins", I will on occasion (usually only if asked) say: "I don't believe in gremlins". It doesn't require any faith not believing in gremlins.

 

[Commoner]

The difficulty is that in choosing to believe that God does not exist, based on no evidence, you have committed an act of faith. It's the same as choosing that God does exist, having no evidence or proof, is likewise an act of faith.

The phony excuse that you simply don't believe that God exists because you have no reason to believe that God exists does not excuse your choosing to believe that God does not exist, because you had a more reasonable option, which was to admit that you simply don't know. The fact that you ignored this option, and deliberately chose to believe that God does not exist, based on nothing, is an act of faith.

Do you take it on faith that Ugothoplkoty does not exist?

 

[Madhuri]

All good points raised here. Based on my observations though I think that many atheists do have faith that God does not exist. This is sometimes exposed when they say something like 'God does not exist' hehe. It's kind of like how I might say that I do not believe in the Devil. I have faith that Satan does not exist. I have no problem saying that.

 

[PureX]

Really, tell me, where should I search to "disprove" unicorns? How do you know where they are supposed to exist?

According to the story, they were supposed to exist on the Earth, before a great flood. And since no remains of them have been found on the Earth, it is likely that they never existed.

"God" is pretty much specified (at least by the major religions). If you have another idea of god, you can make your own definition, but it still has to be defined somehow. Otherwises, God exists and Ugibothu and Jolighuma also exist, so does Kookoofila. (can't tell you anything about who/what they really are, but I can feel them. So can others, they just call them by different names).

"God" means different things to different people. And yet we all manage to agree somewhat that "God" is some sort of deity. It's a dynamic concept, and so can't be "nailed down" to a single definition. And the same goes with how God "exists" (which might tell us how or where to look). As a result, we are not able to search as we would for a more specific object. This is why these analogies with more specific objects are somewhat disingenuous.

We don't just "believe" things exist unless we actually have some evidence for them (well, we might do so for the more trivial things).

Most people have "evidence" of the existence of God. And that's why they believe in it.

 

[PureX]

Yes.

But often i see non-belief compared to belief as if they were polar opposites. Non-belief is not the polar opposite of belief and does not therefore require any kind of belief.

"Non-belief" is simply bad terminology. It should be avoided because it's confusing and misleading.

 

[rageoftyrael]

no, i don't think most people have any evidence for god. most of those people believed in the first place, and attributed things that happened to them to god. believe me, i know what i'm talking about. i've had plenty of people tell me about narrow escapes, etc. that they attribute to god. they are christians, and they didn't become christians because of these things. when i point out that this is most likely just coincidence, they tend to get retardedly emotional. "you mean when my mom almost died, and then miraculously survived, that god didn't do that?" sob.... yeah, i think the doctor did that, but ignorance will prevail.

 

[PureX]

I don't know, but I also don't believe it.

The first is an observation. The second is a decision based on faith.

I should have really said that I don't make the claim that I know, that I have some proof, that there is no god. I don't believe it just as must as I don't believe in gremlins. But I can't really claim that nowhere, at no time, did a gremlin exist.

And we would all assume you are both confused, and hedging. *smile*

It's OK to admit that you don't know. Just as it's OK to choose to believe that God does not exist. There's no need for the subterfuge. We humans do and believe most of what we do and believe based on faith rather than on any actual knowledge. There is no shame in this. It's a part of the human condition.

So I don't feel the need (usually) to go around saying "I know there are no gremlins" or "I believe there are no gremlins", I will on occasion (usually only if asked) say: "I don't believe in gremlins". It doesn't require any faith not believing in gremlins.

Yeah, be we aren't talking about gremlins. And gremlins are a poor analogy for what we are talking about.

 

[rageoftyrael]

i agree pure-x. there is either believing or not believing. there however is no third category. saying you don't know has nothing to do with your belief. i don't know. but i don't believe either. you know what agnostic means right? you may notice in my religion i put agnostic atheist. it means i don't believe in a god/gods, but i don't know. i used to think that there was a third category, but there really isn't. most people just can't make the connection between what they actually feel and what they are saying.

 

[PureX]

Do you take it on faith that Ugothoplkoty does not exist?

That's an irrational question.

 

[rageoftyrael]

let's word this differently. i choose not to believe in something, because there is not, and never has been, as far as i know, any evidence for a god. this does not take faith. it takes common sense. understand the difference?

faith is believing in something without evidence, right? well, i don't believe in something, because there is no evidence. think about it, pretty big difference.

 

[PureX]

no, i don't think most people have any evidence for god. most of those people believed in the first place, and attributed things that happened to them to god. believe me, i know what i'm talking about. i've had plenty of people tell me about narrow escapes, etc. that they attribute to god. they are christians, and they didn't become christians because of these things. when i point out that this is most likely just coincidence, they tend to get retardedly emotional. "you mean when my mom almost died, and then miraculously survived, that god didn't do that?" sob.... yeah, i think the doctor did that, but ignorance will prevail.

The thing is, those people you were talking to probably believed that "God" sent the doctor. But whatever.

It's easy to belittle the beliefs of others, because most people aren't very good at articulating or defending their beliefs. And we humans are given to "magical thinking", which tends to make us irrational. But that still doesn't always make us wrong. And it still doesn't make religion a bad thing.

The truth is that you can't deny their "miraculous God" any more than they can prove it. So why do you want to go around attacking their faith? What harm is their faith doing to you?

 

[Commoner]

According to the story, they were supposed to exist on the Earth, before a great flood. And since no remains of them have been found on the Earth, it is likely that they never existed.

Ehm, really, so no objective evidence = does not exist. That's so strange coming from you. Are you feeling alright?

There's more than one story surrounding unicorns, why did you pick that one? You see, unicorns mean different things to different people. And yet we all manage to agree somewhat that a "unicorn" is some sort of a "magical horsy thingy". It's a dynamic concept, and so can't be "nailed down" to a single definition. And the same goes with how unicorns "exist" (which might tell us how or where to look). As a result, we are not able to search as we would for a more specific object. This is why these analogies with more specific objects are somewhat disingenuous.

"God" means different things to different people. And yet we all manage to agree somewhat that "God" is some sort of deity. It's a dynamic concept, and so can't be "nailed down" to a single definition. And the same goes with how God "exists" (which might tell us how or where to look). As a result, we are not able to search as we would for a more specific object. This is why these analogies with more specific objects are somewhat disingenuous. Most people have "evidence" of the existence of God. And that's why they believe in it.

Most people believe in god because they have been told by other people (mostly parents) that such a thing exists.

 

[Commoner]

That's an irrational question.

What do you mean? Ugothoplkoty spoke to me yesterday. He's an invisible pink unicorn. Don't you believe me?

 

[PureX]

let's word this differently. i choose not to believe in something, because there is not, and never has been, as far as i know, any evidence for a god. this does not take faith. it takes common sense. understand the difference?

faith is believing in something without evidence, right? well, i don't believe in something, because there is no evidence. think about it, pretty big difference.

You have two problems, here. One is that you're choosing to draw a conclusion (that God does not exist) when you have no evidence to base that choice upon. Therefor, you are basing it on faith. Choosing to believe something without evidence is an act of faith.

Secondly, there IS evidence for the existence of God, but you have chosen not to accept it as such. And that's OK, but we both know that you COULD be wrong about that. So that when you say "there is no evidence" you are really only posing an opinion, there.

Nothing wrong with opinions. We all got 'em. But it's important to remember that this is what they are.

 

[Commoner]

The first is an observation. The second is a decision based on faith.

It's OK to admit that you don't know. Just as it's OK to choose to believe that God does not exist. There's no need for the subterfuge. We humans do and believe most of what we do and believe based on faith rather than on any actual knowledge. There is no shame in this. It's a part of the human condition.
Yeah, be we aren't talking about gremlins. And gremlins are a poor analogy for what we are talking about.

The faith you're talking about is not the same faith that I'm talking about.

If you wan't to argue that we take everything on faith, that's your ok. I don't agree with you, but ok. But that's not the same faith that we associate with religion. I don't have "religious faith" that I'm sitting on a chair right now. It would be even more absurd to say that I have "faith" that I'm not sitting on a pile of knives.

We might as well be talking about gremlins. You have not given a definition of god so my god is a gremlin. Sorry.

 

[PureX]

Ehm, really, so no objective evidence = does not exist. That's so strange coming from you. Are you feeling alright?

Not when we're talking about an actual 'object'.

There's more than one story surrounding unicorns, why did you pick that one?

To be honest, it's the only one I recall.

You see, unicorns mean different things to different people. And yet we all manage to agree somewhat that a "unicorn" is some sort of a "magical horsy thingy".

The really BIG flaw in these analogies is that there are not millions of people spanning many centuries who believe that unicorn ever existed, or still exist. And what's the use of these poor analogies, anyway, when we have the real subject right here at hand?

Most people believe in god because they have been told by other people (mostly parents) that such a thing exists.

Then why do they continue to believe in God, but not in Santa Claus, fairies, leprechauns or unicorns, which they were also told by their parents, exist?

 

[PureX]

What do you mean? Ugothoplkoty spoke to me yesterday. He's an invisible pink unicorn. Don't you believe me?

If he spoke to YOU, why were you asking ME the question?

 

[Commoner]

The really BIG flaw in these analogies is that there are not millions of people spanning many centuries who believe that unicorn ever existed, or still exist.

Are you kidding me. Millions of people have and still do believe in things like unicorns and deamons and ghosts and witches. Pick your myth. I think I quoted it in this thread that cca. 40% of americans believe that houses can be haunted by ghosts.

Then why do they continue to believe in God, but not in Santa Claus, fairies, leprechauns or unicorns, which they were also told by their parents, exist?

Because it's a more convincing idea and nobody actually told them (eventually) that god does not exist. Just as Big-foot and the lock ness monster are more convincing that pixies (I guess). You know how many gods have been forgotten already?