Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

You are still pulling your judgment from nothing, which I'm really failing to understand. I agree there is a significant lack of proof in the existence of God, there is also a significant lack of proof in the nonexistence of God. Without any proof one way or another how can anyone say anything other than "I don't know if there is a supernatural being or not"?

That is all that is required to say "I don't believe in God" and "I don't believe in a lack of God". The lack of proof in both directions is sufficient for a lack of belief in both directions.

 

[Joey D]

That is all that is required to say "I don't believe in God" and "I don't believe in a lack of God". The lack of proof in both directions is sufficient for a lack of belief in both directions.

Then why criticize someone who does believe in God? If lack of proof either way can make you take the path the says "I don't believe in God" wouldn't it be just as easy to take the path that says "I believe in God"?

 

[Danoff]

Then why criticize someone who does believe in God? If lack of proof either way can make you take the path the says "I don't believe in God" wouldn't it be just as easy to take the path that says "I believe in God"?

A lack of proof is sufficient for lack of belief. Proof/faith is required for belief.

The standard required for a lack of belief is quite literally nothing. The standard required for affirmative belief is quite literally everything. I would also criticize someone who says they affirmatively believe that God does not exist.

 

[Joey D]

A lack of proof is sufficient for lack of belief. Proof/faith is required for belief.

Once again you are still subscribing to the belief that God does not exist. You are putting your faith into whatever evidence you have to say that there is no God.

 

[mindwise]

Joey D
It still requires faith. To sit here and say "I don't believe in God" takes a huge amount of faith on anyone's part because you are essentially looking at an issue and making a decision based on zero information. Say it however you want you are still putting your faith into the idea that "God does not exist".[/b]

I don't understand why you mention that, it makes perfect sense to me.

The claim made is the biggest possible, the information for the claim is (in my case) zero and the result is that i am an atheist.

If fact, i bet you don't believe the Qur'an for the exact same reason.
Would you say you need a huge amount of faith to discard all other religions?

There is zero information for an unlimited amount of things, and the healthy position is to reject those things until sufficient information is available, the reason is in my sig.

 

[Danoff]

Once again you are still subscribing to the belief that God does not exist. You are putting your faith into whatever evidence you have to say that there is no God.

No.... man... I thought you were almost there!!!!


I am not putting my faith in anything. I'm choosing not to put my faith in anything. You seem to think that there is no in-between. That if don't believe in God, you're certain there is no God. Or that if you're not certain there is no God, that you must believe in God. Neither of those is the case.

It is possible to not believe in God and also not believe in a lack of God. All that is required for that position is a lack of faith in any direction.

 

[Joey D]

Would you say you need a huge amount of faith to discard all other religions?

Yes you need a pretty good chunk of faith to say all religions are wrong, just as you need a pretty good chunk of faith to say your religion is right.

 

[Famine]

Once again you are still subscribing to the belief that God does not exist.

No, he's not...

I don't believe God doesn't exist - because I need proof to believe something doesn't exist.

You're still mixing up not believing that something exists with believing that something doesn't exist.

Dan says he'd need proof in order to believe either that God does or does not exist. Since he has no proof, he cannot believe either, so he doesn't believe that God exists.

 

[Joey D]

Since I'm obviously not going to change the way you view things and you aren't going to convince me otherwise, perhaps it's best we just drop it so this doesn't go on for pages and pages with the same thing being said over and over again. I'm man enough to throw in the towel and go onto other things.

 

[mindwise]

Once again you are still subscribing to the belief that God does not exist. You are putting your faith into whatever evidence you have to say that there is no God.

Joey, i think you are confusing two separate issues.
as pointed out the rejection of claim does not imply making a claim of the opposite

The issue at hand is the rejection of a claim (god exists), and that claim is rejected by atheists, by dismissal of the evidence that is brought in favor of the claim (by the ones making the claim.).

Claiming "god does not exist" is a separate claim altogether, and making that claim would require "faith" as you say.
But atheists (rather skeptics) would say that making that claim requires omniscience, not faith.
"we" deem Faith to be useless, like superstition.

"whatever evidence you have to say that there is no God."
Well, you need to understand that any idea/definition of a god is always presented to atheists, and that often includes properties of such a being.
Atheists don't come with claims about god, we react to claims made by believers.
At that point, logic could deem the properties mutually exclusive and then that god can be deemed to be impossible.
That does not need faith, as it is backed by a tremendous amount of knowledge available to us via the framework of science.

Yes you need a pretty good chunk of faith to say all religions are wrong, just as you need a pretty good chunk of faith to say your religion is right.

Religions are based on the existence of God, a god that intervenes in the world and created the universe, who can break the laws of physics at his will etc etc..
That is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for such a being existing is anything but convincing.

To say it with a metaphor.
It takes knowledge to believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow, it takes faith to believe it won't.

 

[breakpoint]

No.

 

[Famine]

Since I'm obviously not going to change the way you view things and you aren't going to convince me otherwise, perhaps it's best we just drop it so this doesn't go on for pages and pages with the same thing being said over and over again. I'm man enough to throw in the towel and go onto other things.

Dan summed it up here:

I need proof that God doesn't exist to say that I believe God doesn't exist. Lacking that proof, I must say I do not believe that God doesn't exist.

I also need proof that God does exist to say that I believe God exists. Lacking that proof, I must say that I do not believe that God exists.

 

[Denur]

There is a first time for everything and one among them is responding in this thread. No, I do not believe in God. I like the concept of an omni-potent and an omni-whatever, but to me it is no more than a very old idea to explain all that cannot be explained.

He does move in misterious ways, doesn't He?! There is one thing I do believe in, and that is that there is a lot we do either not know yet, or do not understand. There may be a Force in the Universe we'll never comprehend or even notice, something like the Q-Continuum, or whatever you'd like to call it.

I respect people who dare look beyond what is proven. I do hardly respect people who let themselves being lead by sillyness or dogma in general (some call it religion), especially when they try to enforce their dogma onto me.

O, please let me explain "silly". I'm talking about those people who know for a fact that every word in the Old Testament is true. That the Earth is just a few thousand years old and ideas like that.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"Religion" is a group noun, encompassing all religious views. Meaning they can't make any laws regarding any religion or lack thereof. Placing the word "god" into any Federal literature or product in any context is an obvious contradiction of the Amendment.

In the wording "an establishment of religion" it is clearly demanding the other definition. Which is:

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

That's because you apparently don't understand the First Amendment.

It's not the place of the Federal government to say there is - or is not - a god. They should offer no opinion on the matter.

I understand it perfectly.
Your understanding, which I pointed out earlier, while it sounds and is logical,
does not take into account, the "intent"of the authors. Their attitudes, writings, beliefs, practices, etc.
Thats also why I said:

You cannot apply a contemporary interpretation to a 200+ year old document.

and

The First Amendmend was added to the Constitution, in fact and truth, as a"wall of seperation between the Federal government and the individual Christian religions", because several States already had official sponsored and endorsed variations of the Christian religion. Therefore the Federal government could not allow itself to become entangled in favoritism toward any of them.
That power was left unto the states, by the Constitution, to exercise as they so desired.

 

[Famine]

In the wording "an establishment of religion" it is clearly demanding the other definition.

I like the juxtaposition of this and:

You cannot apply a contemporary interpretation to a 200+ year old document.

It doesn't say which religion. It doesn't say "of a religion". It says "of religion". Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

The First Amendmend was added to the Constitution, in fact and truth, as a"wall of seperation between the Federal government and the individual Christian religions", because several States already had official sponsored and endorsed variations of the Christian religion. Therefore the Federal government could not allow itself to become entangled in favoritism toward any of them.

So in your opinion, these intelligent, enlightened men decided that the Federal government couldn't become entangled in favouritism towards any sect of Christianity, but forgot all about all the other religions? Or did they decide that other religions would never make it to their fledgling greatest nation on Earth?

Personally, I think the only way to tell is to read what they wrote about it. And they wrote that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Not religions, or a religion, or Christianity. Religion.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I like the juxtaposition of this and:



It doesn't say which religion. It doesn't say "of a religion". It says "of religion". Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

It doesn't have to, "an establishment" says it.
The whole clause is singular and specific as to which religion.
Like I keep saying, any religion will violate, but you have to specify one.
You can't get around it.

So in your opinion, these intelligent, enlightened men decided that the Federal government couldn't become entangled in favouritism towards any sect of Christianity, but forgot all about all the other religions? Or did they decide that other religions would never make it to their fledgling greatest nation on Earth?

Personally, I think the only way to tell is to read what they wrote about it. And they wrote that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Not religions, or a religion, or Christianity. Religion.

The reference is to why they did it. Its obvious they had to use "religion" so any religion would violate.

 

[Famine]

It doesn't have to, "an establishment" says it.
The whole clause is singular and specific as to which religion.
Like I keep saying, any religion will violate, but you have to specify one.
You can't get around it.

But that's the point - it doesn't need to specify a religion, it just has to refer to "religion". Let's follow that through to the part below:

The reference is to why they did it. Its obvious they had to use "religion" so any religion would violate.

Yes. Any religion at all - including none. Or some. Some religion is still religion. No religion is still religion (in the same sense that zero is a number).

According to your interpretation, the Federal government could put "THERE IS NO GOD" on money. After all "no god" could mean Buddhism, or Raelism, or Scientology or even Atheism. These are religions without a god or, in the last case, no religion at all. And since they're religions (or not a religion at all), rather than a specific one, your interpretation permits this - yet I seriously doubt you'd accept the situation.

The reality is that the Federal government cannot put "THERE IS NO GOD" on money or indeed anything else - and nor should they. They should instead remain silent on the issue of religion because of the First Amendment.

 

[Danoff]

Since I'm obviously not going to change the way you view things and you aren't going to convince me otherwise, perhaps it's best we just drop it so this doesn't go on for pages and pages with the same thing being said over and over again. I'm man enough to throw in the towel and go onto other things.

...except you didn't. Saying "you aren't going to convince me otherwise" isn't throwing in the towel.

And this isn't a matter of opinion. This isn't a situation where we just agree to disagree about subjective interpretations. You're insisting that if I say "I don't believe in God", that I'm saying something about what I do believe in - which I am quite simply not.

There is absolutely no way that you're correct about my beliefs. I'm trying to help you see that so that you can save yourself the mistake of claiming that "atheists have faith" in the future - because I promise you you will hear much the same.

I want you to answer two questions for me:

- Do you believe that I have a sock puppet on my hand right now?

- Do you believe that I do not have a sock puppet on my hand right now?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

...except you didn't. Saying "you aren't going to convince me otherwise" isn't throwing in the towel.

And this isn't a matter of opinion. This isn't a situation where we just agree to disagree about subjective interpretations. You're insisting that if I say "I don't believe in God", that I'm saying something about what I do believe in - which I am quite simply not.

There is absolutely no way that you're correct about my beliefs. I'm trying to help you see that so that you can save yourself the mistake of claiming that "atheists have faith" in the future - because I promise you you will hear much the same.

I want you to answer two questions for me:

- Do you believe that I have a sock puppet on my hand right now?

- Do you believe that I do not have a sock puppet on my hand right now?

Are you trying to say: You cannot conclude from your observation thus far,
That there is a GOD, or that there isn't a GOD.

 

[Danoff]

Are you trying to say: You cannot conclude from your observation thus far,
That there is a GOD, or that there isn't a GOD.

I'm saying that without proof, I can't believe in God or believe in a lack of God.

Which of those two positions my observations lead me to conclude is more likely is another point.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But that's the point - it doesn't need to specify a religion, it just has to refer to "religion". Let's follow that through to the part below:



Yes. Any religion at all - including none. Or some. Some religion is still religion. No religion is still religion (in the same sense that zero is a number)..

According to your interpretation, the Federal government could put "THERE IS NO GOD" on money. After all "no god" could mean Buddhism, or Raelism, or Scientology or even Atheism. These are religions without a god or, in the last case, no religion at all. And since they're religions (or not a religion at all), rather than a specific one, your interpretation permits this - yet I seriously doubt you'd accept the situation.

Like I told you and Duke, what any of us like, accept or prefer is irrelevant to whether or not a law is unconstitutional. While what you are suggesting is in direct oppositon to the Heritage of the Nation and beliefs of the Framers (as compared to whats on their now) in my estimation, if there was no other tangible partiality,(respecting) it would not be unconstitutional.

As I already pointed out, in reality they (The Government) don't really believe whats on there now.

The reality is that the Federal government cannot put "THERE IS NO GOD" on money or indeed anything else - and nor should they. They should instead remain silent on the issue of religion because of the First Amendment.

We've already covered all the other territory at least once.


Edit:

I'm saying that without proof, I can't believe in God or believe in a lack of God.

Which of those two positions my observations lead me to conclude is more likely is another point.

What would you consider proof?

 

[Duke]

I still disagree, you still have to believe there isn't a supernatural being since there isn't any evidence out there that suggests the existence or nonresistance of that entity.

Once again prove to me there is no supernatural being, or at least show me some very strong evidence that puts the non-belief of God on the same level as the sun coming up tomorrow. The same can be said to any religious person out there, just prove to me that your God exists.

What you're missing here is that it is a logical impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist.

I have seen a repeated pattern of the sun rising at a given time, at a given compass bearing, for a given date. This pattern has been repeated approximately 16,200 times in a row during my lifetime. The observed pattern allows me to confidently predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it does not mean that I believe (strictly speaking) that it will.

People may use "believe" as verbal shorthand for such a thought, but it does not require faith - belief or assumption beyond what evidence can show.

I do not have to believe that there is NOT a supernatural being just because I do not believe there IS one. I have seen no evidence that allows or compels me to predict the existence of a god or gods, therefore I do not believe there is one. But because I cannot due to the logical impossibility involved, I have seen no evidence to prove that there is NOT a god, therefore I cannot "believe" that there is not a god.

However, as I said earlier, that just lumps god in with an infinite variety of other things that can't be proved not to exist.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What you're missing here is that it is a logical impossibility to prove that something doesn't exist.

I have seen a repeated pattern of the sun rising at a given time, at a given compass bearing, for a given date. This pattern has been repeated approximately 16,200 times in a row during my lifetime. The observed pattern allows me to confidently predict that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it does not mean that I believe (strictly speaking) that it will.

People may use "believe" as verbal shorthand for such a thought, but it does not require faith - belief or assumption beyond what evidence can show.

I do not have to believe that there is NOT a supernatural being just because I do not believe there IS one. I have seen no evidence that allows or compels me to predict the existence of a god or gods, therefore I do not believe there is one. But because I cannot due to the logical impossibility involved, I have seen no evidence to prove that there is NOT a god, therefore I cannot "believe" that there is not a god.

However, as I said earlier, that just lumps god in with an infinite variety of other things that can't be proved not to exist.

So in reality, your a Skeptic, not an Atheist.
As is Danoff, and in so much as I can determine thus far, Famine as well.

Skeptic : a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

(Theol.) A person who doubts the existence and perfections of God, or the truth of revelation; one who disbelieves the divine origin of the Christian religion.

Of or pertaining to a sceptic or skepticism; characterized by skepticism; hesitating to admit the certainly of doctrines or principles; doubting of everything.

 

[mindwise]

So in reality, your a Skeptic, not an Atheist.
As is Danoff.

Atheism addresses belief in god specifically, it is a position.
theist = someone who believes in (a personal/specific) God.
atheist = someone without that belief.

being without belief in god is the very definition of atheism.
Danoff and Duke (and i) are all without theism, and thus atheists.

Skepticism is a more general method of discarding (usually wild) claims without 'sufficient' evidence, but skepticism is not limited to the question of the existence of god(s), think of things like the monster of Loch Ness, ghosts reincarnation etc.

Being a skeptic does not exclude being an atheist too. It may even be fair to claim (most) skeptics are atheists.

There are atheists who will make the claim no god(s) exist.
I think Danoff would argue (like i would) that those atheists are not skeptics, because they make that claim in the absence of evidence in favor of the claim.

Sometimes though, gods will described with particular properties, and then there can be evidence that would deem such properties impossible.
Then even skeptics could say that either that particular god cannot exist, or the attributes are wrong.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Atheism addresses belief in god specifically, it is a position.
theist = someone who believes in (a personal/specific) God.
atheist = someone without that belief.

being without belief in god is the very definition of atheism.
Danoff and Duke (and i) are all without theism, and thus atheists.

Skeptisism is a more general method of discarding (usually wild) claims without 'sufficient' evidence, but skepticism is not limited to the question of the existence of god(s), think of things like the monster of Loch Ness, ghosts reincarnation etc.

Being a skeptic does not exclude being an atheist too. It may even be fair to claim (most) skeptics are atheists.

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Based on their own statements, they are more in the "Skeptic " category than "Atheist" category. The latter is more inclined to have decided "to employ belief" as opposed to "doubts or unsurety".

 

[mindwise]

Hi SCJ,

I had not quite finished yet, sorry for that.
Please reread and re-evaluate

not that it matters much because:

Atheist: a person who denies OR disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

What's your point?

disbelief

Noun
1. disbelief - doubt about the truth of something
incredulity, mental rejection, skepticism
doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, incertitude, uncertainty - the state of being unsure of something


2. disbelief - a rejection of belief
unbelief
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
scepticism, skepticism, agnosticism - the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge
atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Hi SCJ,

I had not quite finished yet, sorry for that.
Please reread and re-evaluate

not that it matters much because:



disbelief

Noun
1. disbelief - doubt about the truth of something
incredulity, mental rejection, skepticism
doubt, doubtfulness, dubiety, dubiousness, incertitude, uncertainty - the state of being unsure of something


2. disbelief - a rejection of belief
unbelief
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
scepticism, skepticism, agnosticism - the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge
atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Likewise, Greetings to you as well

I just added this above:
Based on their own statements, they are more in the "Skeptic " category than "Atheist" category. The latter is more inclined to have decided "to employ belief" as opposed to "doubts or unsurety".

 

[mindwise]

Likewise, Greetings to you as well

I just added this above:
Based on their own statements, they are more in the "Skeptic " category than "Atheist" category. The latter is more inclined to have decided "to employ belief" as opposed to "doubts or unsurety".

Alright, i maintain the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
I think that the term 'atheist' inclines more to 'believing the opposite' to you
I wonder why

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Alright, i maintain the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
I think that the term 'atheist' inclines more to 'believing the opposite' to you

As to that, I would willingly agree its a foregone conclusion.

I wonder why

As to this, tis one of the Great mysteries of the Universe, and into which will require some extensive delving.

 

[Duke]

So in reality, your a Skeptic, not an Atheist.
As is Danoff, and in so much as I can determine thus far, Famine as well.

Skeptic : a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

No. I am not undecided about what is true - I think it is true that there is no god. All of my investigation has pointed me to predict that there is no god, and therefore I am an atheist.

However, I am also logical. I understand that since I cannot prove there is no god - because logically you can never prove that anything doesn't exist, I will not assert that there is no god. I will also not assert that there are no Keebler Elves or Cthulu or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Sbnqweifbislke. I also cannot prove those deities do not exist. That does not compel me to believe they do exist, either.

I suppose you see this as a chink in my armor, or a weakness in my position, but it is a logical necessity. If I saw incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, that could not be explained by any other means, I would then recognize that god exists.

However, due to 16,201 days' worth of living on this planet, observing natural phenomena and studying, I feel I can predict with the same degree of certainty that I predict the sun will rise tomorrow that there is no god.

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

That's your definition, not mine.

The prefix "a-" just means "non-", as in non-theist. Again, as we're discussing with Joey, that does not necessarily imply a believing that something doesn't exist, as separate from not believing something does exist.

Someone who is amoral may not have morals, but he does not necessarily believe that morals don't exist.