Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[TGS]

Mmmm, not sure that atheists can get away quite so easily. By the Principle of the Excluded Middle every proposition is true, or its negation is. Thus, it is either true that there is* a god or it is true that there is not a god. So, isn't not believing there is a god equivalent to believing there isn't a god?


*Replace the verb ad libitum

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

Mmmm, not sure that atheists can get away quite so easily. By the Principle of the Excluded Middle every proposition is true, or its negation is. Thus, it is either true that there is* a god or it is true that there is not a god. So, isn't not believing there is a god equivalent to believing there isn't a god?

I don't believe it is equivalent, no.

Believing that there isn't a god is a positive act - it is a matter of faith, in fact.

Not believing that there is a god is simply a matter of saying "nobody has presenting me with any evidence to support the view that there is a god, so I have no reason to believe in god". There's no faith involved, but simply a lack of a reason to have faith (which is a different thing entirely).

So I would say that they are different.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by TGS

Mmmm, not sure that atheists can get away quite so easily. By the Principle of the Excluded Middle every proposition is true, or its negation is. Thus, it is either true that there is* a god or it is true that there is not a god. So, isn't not believing there is a god equivalent to believing there isn't a god?


*Replace the verb ad libitum

What of someone unconsciously atheist like an infant? Does their atheism really equate to a belief that there is no god?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

What of someone unconsciously atheist like an infant? Does their atheism really equate to a belief that there is no god?

No, I don't think so, since the infant may have no belief whatsoever in relation to god. That seems to be different from the case in which someone has contemplated the proposition, "there is a god", and concluded that the proposition is not true. For someone who knows the meaning of the proposition there seem to be only three possibilities in relation to it; it is true, it is false or...don't know. The first would be a theist, the second would be an atheist and I'm not sure what to make of the third, since I expect someone who claimed they did not know would actually behave as though they thought the proposition to be true or to be false.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't believe it is equivalent, no.

Believing that there isn't a god is a positive act - it is a matter of faith, in fact.

Not believing that there is a god is simply a matter of saying "nobody has presenting me with any evidence to support the view that there is a god, so I have no reason to believe in god". There's no faith involved, but simply a lack of a reason to have faith (which is a different thing entirely).

So I would say that they are different.

I have no reason to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and as a consequence I believe there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. How is that different from having no reason to believe in god and, as a consequence, not believing in god?. I'm not seeing how the consequence doesn't follow.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

I have no reason to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and as a consequence I believe there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. How is that different from having no reason to believe in god and, as a consequence, not believing in god?. I'm not seeing how the consequence doesn't follow.

It's the difference between saying "I think fairies are a load of superstitious claptrap and, as a rational person, I don't believe in them" and "nobody has presented me with any evidence to support the existance of fairies, therefore I have no reason to believe in them". The first is an active act of "non-belief", the second is simply not having any reason to believe.

I think myself that these are entirely different viewpoints.

[darknessangel]

I live by the words of the prophet George Carlin:

Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!

GJMS

[neilmarr]

***Have you looked at the quiz referenced? It's really quite fascinating! ***

Agreed, Harry. I did take a hit because the question about Peter Sutcliffe was ambiguous. (I covered the murders and his trial, by the way and interviewed the family and friends of victims as well has his own family and friends [with the exception of wife, Sonia].)

I took the question to mean: Did Sutcliffe, as a demanted beliver, feel that his actions were justified?

Certainly he did. Certainly I do not. But I answered 'yes, he was justified.' But he was justified only in the same way as a virgin-sacrificing potty sect or a manic suicide bomber in a packed McDonalds might be ... only according to his/her own insane delusions.

Cheers. Neil

[Wordcrasher]

Originally Posted by darknessangel

I live by the words of the prophet George Carlin:



GJMS

One of my favorites too !

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I took the question to mean: Did Sutcliffe, as a demanted beliver, feel that his actions were justified?

That was how I interpreted it too.
The evolution question seemed ambiguous to me too - I thought one negative result is enough to disprove a theory; so if evolution is wrong in some details, I assumed it would be invalid generally.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by TGS

No, I don't think so, since the infant may have no belief whatsoever in relation to god. That seems to be different from the case in which someone has contemplated the proposition, "there is a god", and concluded that the proposition is not true. For someone who knows the meaning of the proposition there seem to be only three possibilities in relation to it; it is true, it is false or...don't know. The first would be a theist, the second would be an atheist and I'm not sure what to make of the third, since I expect someone who claimed they did not know would actually behave as though they thought the proposition to be true or to be false.

I disagree. The atheist does not state it is false, they simply reject the assertion due to lack of evidence. Sure someone who claims "there is definitely no god" is taking a belief position but that is not atheism.

I'm an atheist, I can't state that there is definitely no god. I just accept that it is highly unlikely given the lack of evidence so I reject the assertion and await further input.

As someone probably said; Calling atheism a belief is like calling "not stamp collecting" a hobby.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

I'm an atheist, I can't state that there is definitely no god. I just accept that it is highly unlikely given the lack of evidence so I reject the assertion and await further input.

But do you live you life as though there isn't a god or as though there is? If it's the former then, for all practical purposes, you are asserting that there isn't a god, (with, of course, the proviso, that you may turn out to be wrong. In that sense your "knowledge" that there isn't a god is contingent, just like all other empirical knowledge).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I took the question to mean: Did Sutcliffe, as a demanted beliver, feel that his actions were justified?

Certainly he did. Certainly I do not. But I answered 'yes, he was justified.' But he was justified only in the same way as a virgin-sacrificing potty sect or a manic suicide bomber in a packed McDonalds might be ... only according to his/her own insane delusions.

Cheers. Neil

That was exactly the way that I interpreted the question too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

But do you live you life as though there isn't a god or as though there is? If it's the former then, for all practical purposes, you are asserting that there isn't a god, (with, of course, the proviso, that you may turn out to be wrong. In that sense your "knowledge" that there isn't a god is contingent, just like all other empirical knowledge).

You are conflating religious beliefs with morals. That's very much a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. The Greek philosphers taught how to live a good life, but in their minds it had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. One can wish to live a good life (or otherwise of course) entirely without believing in supernatural beings, or in an afterlife. And conversely, there are many religions whose gods have not the slightest interest in imposing moral standards upon humanity.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

I have no reason to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and as a consequence I believe there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden. How is that different from having no reason to believe in god and, as a consequence, not believing in god?. I'm not seeing how the consequence doesn't follow.

Someone tells me there a a pile of free money on the other side of the door I am about to open. I don't believe that simply because it was told to me, neither do I disbelieve it. I simply suspend judgment until I have evidence one way or the other. I am an afreemoneyist until I have a reason to believe. To heck with the law of the excluded middle. Life is not so cut and dried.