Do you believe in God?

[phonyk]

Ultimately the question of belief or unbelief is a redundant one. The only logical approach to any problem is to make a judgement based on the available evidence. Anything else is at best assumption, and at worst outright fantasy.

So the gun analogy, you would be best off avoiding statements of belief at all. The logical position is merely to say that based on the available evidence there is insufficient data to be able to make any kind of prediction as to whether the gun will fire or not. Of course, that may not be the case - for instance in a game of russian roulette with one round in the gun, you could say that there is a one in six chance of the gun firing. Statistically if you had to make a prediction then you would have to predict that the gun will not fire. But of course that prediction is not a prediction that the gun absolutely will not fire, rather that the likelihood is that it won't. Or if you know that all six chambers hold a bullet, you would say that there is a statistical probability that the gun will fire, though there is still a possibility that the gun may jam, or that the bullet will fail to go off. Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes.

To try and pin someone down to making a prediction 100% either way is just a trick; something I see Religionists doing all the time. A trick of the mind to try and get the atheist to admit to there being some kind of possibility that they could be 'wrong', while not really understanding that only an irrational person would ever completely rule out the possibility that they may be wrong. This is because the Religionist wants to equate the Atheist's position as one of a kind of negative 'faith' with all the familiar characteristics of a religion (or a general belief in the supernatural, etc). Atheists, on the whole, are simply rational people who have looked at the evidence and come to the logical conclusion that the existence of a God (as in the kind of personal deity who interacts with the world in which we live) is very very unlikely, due to a lack of evidence. But that doesn't preclude the possibility of fresh evidence arising in the future, and this is the fundamental difference - the atheist, with a scientific approach, will naturally factor any fresh evidence into their opinion, and change it accordingly. The religious person by contrast will not accept evidence, nor revise their understanding of the universe based on any kind of observation. It is not a question of belief, it is a question of probability. Is there a God? Very very unlikely based on the evidence. So what is the rational, logical position? that no such being exists.

 

[Danoff]

The religious person by contrast will not accept evidence, nor revise their understanding of the universe based on any kind of observation.

I enjoyed your post, but I'm going to pick on this statement.

Religious people will tell you until they are blue in the face that they don't need evidence, that faith is all that one needs to know God - and that God wouldn't have it any other way.... right up until they think they have evidence of God. Once they perceive evidence they abandon all of that stuff and point to the evidence. I think deep down they all desperately want (and know they need) objective evidence as validation. I fully agree with you that they won't accept evidence if it contradicts them. But they will accept almost any evidence that they think supports them. Higgs Boson being inappropriately named the "God Particle" created a mistaken storm of "haha! we have evidence of God!" It was as though droves of religious people finally got a win - until it was explained that they were mistaken.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I enjoyed your post, but I'm going to pick on this statement.

Religious people will tell you until they are blue in the face that they don't need evidence, that faith is all that one needs to know God - and that God wouldn't have it any other way.... right up until they think they have evidence of God. Once they perceive evidence they abandon all of that stuff and point to the evidence. I think deep down they all desperately want (and know they need) objective evidence as validation. I fully agree with you that they won't accept evidence if it contradicts them. But they will accept almost any evidence that they think supports them. Higgs Boson being inappropriately named the "God Particle" created a mistaken storm of "haha! we have evidence of God!" It was as though droves of religious people finally got a win - until it was explained that they were mistaken.

SCJ is a perfect example of this, stating that there can't be evidence of god, then changing the definitions of words to desperately try and make it look as if there is evidence.

 

[phonyk]

You're absolutely right. And I did think about mentioning the Higgs as an example of how science and religion differ - because Higgs predicted his boson before it was proven to exist, and in some respects some people would equate a 'belief' in the Higgs Boson with the kind of religious faith held by followers of religion. And yet it eloquently demonstrates the fundamental difference; the boson was predicted by the Standard Model because something bearing those characteristics logically had to be there in order for the things we already knew about to exist. There was a Higgs Boson shaped hole in our understanding. So first it was predicted by Higgs, and then after years of experimenting it was finally detected, right where it should have been.

There is no God shaped hole in our understanding of the universe. Instead, it's the shape of the concept of God which must instead be twisted and shaped to fit in the gaps as best it can. Gaps which are getting smaller by the day. To the point where a significant number of believers have reduced the capability and the role of God to an almost meaningless and redundant role. A God who can't be prayed to, who can't be seen or felt, with whom there can be no kind of communion. A God who could really be considered little more than a basic natural force with no real will or consciousness of its own. But even then it's not an answer; the existence of any kind of complex creator God actually reduces our understanding of the Universe, rather than expands it. The Universe exists (to the best of our understanding, of course), and so we need to understand where it comes from. If the Universe comes from God, then we need to understand where the God comes from. It merely pushes back the question of where things came from. It is not, in itself, an explanation. And of course it's at this point that a religionist abandons the pretense of having a rational conversation, smiles smugly and tells you simply that God is special and impossible to understand and can't be described by any kind of science. Despite the fact that the whole concept of organised religion is centered around the notion of having an extremely detailed understanding of what God is, what it thinks, what it expects people to do, and even what its personality is like. So science can't understand God, but the clergy can.

Convenient..

 

[Duke]

In your world the obvious answer should be "no belief".

In mine, if there were millions of people who testified that it exists.
I would recognize that for what it is. Evidence for existence.

100 million people telling me that they "feel" or "believe" that the gun is loaded - even though nobody has ever verifiably seen someone put bullets in or take them out - has exactly zero effect on whether the gun will fire when I pull the trigger.

 

[Scaff]

Looks like SJC was right all along.

Fox news have stated that its a verifiable fact that both Jesus and Santa exist.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-jesus-and-santa-claus-are-white-9001041.html


....oh and they are both white (verifiable fact everyone).

 

[doctorrg]

Your "for all intents and purposes" makes this a statement I can agree with. But philosophically if you have to add it, you don't know, and you're an atheist. It is impossible to know (strictly, without qualifier) almost anything about the universe, or even whether the universe exists.

I completely agree that there's no such thing as ultimate, TRUE, knowledge, as far as our understanding of reality is concerned. Yet, I only went out of my way to clarify and add "for all intents and purposes", because I wanted to exactly avoid misunderstanding between what we consider knowledge and true knowledge. Personally, I'd rather use knowledge in its more common sense, and specify TRUE when used to refer to this illusive true knowledge, which is only really useful as an abstract concept to refer to something we know to be unattainable.

Does that still make me an atheist? I know Dawkins would want to classify me as such, but am I really?

In the strictest sense you can't even know that 1+1=2.

When it comes to 1+1=2, I'm an atheist. I don't believe it is true.

1+1=2 only is meaningful in a very strict sense. To me, it makes no sense unless the context, including all terminology, is well-defined. Within a well-defined context, the statement is either true, false, or the statement itself is incomprehensible. Either way, I will know what is the case. If the context is not well-defined, I have no position, and I find myself unable to proclaim any lack in belief. If you simply meant to illustrate that there is no assertion of knowledge concerning that statement, then I'd agree, but, at least to me, that does not mean I don't believe it is true (or false for that matter), not even on a technicality. The only thing it means is that I do not know anything about that statement, there's no place here anywhere for the word "believe".

Does that still make me an atheist?

Is there a God [(as in the kind of personal deity who interacts with the world in which we live)]? Very very unlikely based on the evidence. So what is the rational, logical position? that no such being exists.

But what if it were true what Famine has raised in a different post a little earlier, that "the deity that came to be described in the Bible may exist but in a form different to the one described", what if that form, in fact, is nothing that could still be called a deity? What if all these were nothing but rationalizations in order to describe something that can't really be described? Would it even be rational to consider probabilities, or to form any knowledge about it? I mean, before we really understand what exactly it is we are talking about? If we even can. Most of the time I hear God I honestly don't know what is even meant. Are we maybe asking the wrong question to start with? Maybe instead of asking whether or not God exists, should we instead be asking what God is? And if God really is different things to different people, surely, there can't be a single right answer to the question as to whether or not God exists, or?

What then would that mean with respect to being a theist, or an atheist? Would it even make sense to be either? Or wouldn't it be more rational to realize that you simply can't, and never will, know whether or not God exists? Unless, of course, we fully understand what exactly God is, but how rational an idea is it really to think we actually can?

As a side note, I'm not arguing with what you've said, it's more of a follow-on thought directed towards a more general audience.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Looks like SJC was right all along.

Fox news have stated that its a verifiable fact that both Jesus and Santa exist.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-jesus-and-santa-claus-are-white-9001041.html


....oh and they are both white (verifiable fact everyone).

I was expecting much worse from Fox News, this is far less crazy than their usual nonsense, I'm disappointed

 

[Danoff]

I completely agree that there's no such thing as ultimate, TRUE, knowledge, as far as our understanding of reality is concerned. Yet, I only went out of my way to clarify and add "for all intents and purposes", because I wanted to exactly avoid misunderstanding between what we consider knowledge and true knowledge. Personally, I'd rather use knowledge in its more common sense, and specify TRUE when used to refer to this illusive true knowledge, which is only really useful as an abstract concept to refer to something we know to be unattainable.

Does that still make me an atheist? I know Dawkins would want to classify me as such, but am I really?

I think so. The true religious believer knows for certain that God exists. To one who has faith, god is TRUE knowledge. If one is questioning God's existence, one is an agnostic, and, as I mentioned before, agnostics go to hell.

 

[Pupik]

John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me."

...is your opinion.

Well, if you're willing to believe that, then fine. But I think he wasn't just middle management - after all, God didn't have a stellar track record; just look at Lot's wife and Job, for example. Yahweh didn't want to wind up as another Tiamat. And he had non-divine competition from the east like Buddha, Lao Tzu, and even that Confucius fellow was getting support. Paganism was also touted as being really cool and local, because you could do it yourself. God had to do something fast, so he created Jesus as middle management, so that shareholders wouldn't bolt for the nearest deity-come-lately; whispers that being over 3700 years old is going to slacken your pace and response to market demands somewhat. And I think Jesus looks pretty close to infallible (and quite sharp) in a suit. He could even rock the jeans with a blue blazer fashion and not look silly.

Wow, what a vehicle of life he was; water into wine, feeding the masses, riding an ass like nobody's business! People liked washing his feet, following him; darn if this wasn't the best customer service rep, ever. He was employee of the month for at least three years. Then came that incident at the wall, where he knocked over some money-changing tables, and uh...really? Come on...You don't mess with someone else's stack! That's serious market volatility.

So Pontius Pilate got kind of ticked, and got frustrated. He tried scroll-writing, messengers, and even getting the local king involved. But to no avail. He made some calls, and threatened to get back to Pagan roots - after all, it's local and green. Judaism kind of went though a bad unemployment spell where they exported their labor to Egypt, and later refused to work for seven days a week (citing things like "we can't use your electricity") and the market tanked. Pilate even bunched up a few folks, and they were getting upset with God's style of management. God held a meeting with the board of trustees, and weighed in on a few things: the water walking incident, stopping storms which He created, and healing others...the last was tough to swallow, because He decided on healthcare, not Jesus.

So the decision was made to fire Jesus, but God never fires people to let them just go wander off and found a new religion or jump to an existing one. No, he had make him wait three days to join a new cult, since it was in the employee contract. It's kind of unclear if the firing of Jesus helped out. After all, the temple was demolished again, lots of letter-writing ensued, so the power went off for about 600 years due to rolling blackouts, so it's unclear whether's God's new management style worked, even if two billion adherents and couple of lousy musical acts still praise him.

 

[doctorrg]

I think so. The true religious believer knows for certain that God exists. To one who has faith, god is TRUE knowledge. If one is questioning God's existence, one is an agnostic, and, as I mentioned before, agnostics go to hell.

I've heard it's better company.

 

[dxld]

Thru Christ I learned how to Believe in God.. Thru Christ I followed the rules of God, through Christ I learned of groups of people who followed his rules, of both the Christians and the Jews, I even learned about Islam and Buddhism thru Christ. I learned of the flaws in those religions, and I also saw the flaws in Some Christian Churches. I went so far as to studying Jewish Martial Arts because of the Jews. At the Same time I listened to Adam Sandlers Music and watched his Funny Movies, and I started to see a pattern... Crazy stuff Like All 3 Stooges, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock were Jewish....

Then I learned the benefits of eating Kosher Food, refraining from eating Pork.( Pork is high in Sodium and Fat. )Im Filipino Not Jewish, so culturally I will still eat Pork from time to time, just not as much.

Everything in life to me, I started noticing this amazing, strange and sometimes humorous pattern... My savior is a Jewish Carpenter.

Thru All this I learned not only to believe in God but to Love God...

 

[Scaff]

Pork is high in Sodium and Fat.

No its not.

Bacon and ham can be high in fat and sodium, but they are pork products.

Pork itself (depending on the cut) is neither high in sodium or fat.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I haven't seen any atheists in this discussion make claims that weren't "consistent with the position taken," namely atheism. You're making a classic theist mistake here; when somebody says they don't believe that your god exists, you twist that around in your head to be a positive claim of non-existence. It's not. If you can finally grasp that, we just might make a little progress in this discussion..

Its no mistake.
You cannot make statements of belief, and then claim you have no belief.
"when somebody says they don't believe that your god exists"
That is a statement of established "belief", indicating incorporation of belief in non-existence.
Otherwise, there is no logical or rational basis for it.
My head has nothing to do with that.
And as I have already pointed out, unless you likewise have a basis of belief for it, which only resides, in the only opposite option, which is belief in non existence, the statement is completely illegitimate, as far as "no belief".
When the statements come into alignment with "no belief", I won't have any problem with it.
If you can finally grasp that, we just might make a little progress in this discussion.

There are no "sides" when talking about scientific inquiry. No matter what you're talking about, be it god or any other idea, the objective evidence points one way or the other. If evidence seems to be supporting multiple conflicting theories at once, then you have bad theories that need to be refined. But in the end, the evidence only points one way. There are no sides, just the truth..

Oh boy, I like that last part.
As I pointed out, science has no evidence either way, so in reality, the playing field is wide open to objective examination.

This is exactly what I was referring to above, the classic theist mistake of treating atheists as nontheists. Famine said:

You then represent that as:

Yes, without the "as described in the Bible" bit, Famine words would have been self-contradictory. Problem is, he did say that bit. It was just convenient for you to ignore it, so that you could build yet another strawman. You're quite talented at that.

Pointing out the fallacies of your argument does not take one out of "alignment" with the atheist position.

There is no misrepresentation, just alluding to legitimate realities.

Quite true, there is a similar lack of objective evidence for both theism and nontheism. Which is why it's important to recognize the true stance of atheists. We aren't making a positive claim one way or the other about god's existence. You are arguing against us as if we are, but that's your problem. Atheism is the position of "neutrality." That being said.

Sorry to interupt, but neutrality is of "no belief".

That's not quite true. When it comes to questions such as the existence of god, where neither side is supported by conclusive objective evidence, the rational thing to do is to favor the one which makes the fewest assumptions (Occam's Razor). Because nontheism makes far fewer assumptions than theism, a rational-minded atheist would likely view it as "weightier," while recognizing that both still could be true.

Again thats a position of "no belief".

With that in mind, you should now be able to figure out the answer to this:

Just because neither side is conclusive, doesn't mean they are "absolutely balanced." One side is asking us to accept a lot of unsubstantiated claims, while the other side is asking us to accept virtually none.

First I have to commend you on providing a rational explanation, as opposed to just a denial.
What you are saying is true, except I still do not see the unbalance of the two, with regaurd to forming a belief from either side, since Famine and others have alluded to objective evidence as basis for belief.
In that respect there is none on either side, so as I inquired, how are you forming belief in the absense of.

I am an atheist -- I don't accept positive claims of god's existence, nor of god's nonexistence. I think it more likely that he/she/it does not exist, but I remain forever willing to accept whichever side is more rationally tenable. As far as I can tell from their posts here, everyone else you are arguing against is in the same boat as me. The sooner you can understand the true stance of the atheist, the sooner we can stop going in these pointless circles.

Oh wow. A person who knows their position and can state it accordingly.
The key word you have used is "I think".
That is consistent with the factual reality of "no belief".
It indicates and implies the process of evaluation is open and on-going.
And that being the case, I can agree that your statement is in alignment with a position of "no belief".

Just to elaborate a little more on this, your post is also more consistent with your position of "no belief".
A person in belief, has taken more of a resolute position, and is under the influence to some degree of conclusive self assurance.
Therefore they are much more inclined to vehemenetly defend that position as a result.
A person in "no belief" has not entered into that stage, and is not under that influence as a result.
Your comments are more consistent with that.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of going in circles, you have (of course) ignored this post entirely. Touring Mars quite handily pointed out the self-contradiction present in your own words. You've employed your now-typical tactic of refusing to acknowledge or respond to his rebuttal.

This is a big reason why we can't get anywhere in this thread. You make a claim, someone rebuts it, and you run away, finding some strawman to focus on instead. This goes on a couple more times, until you finally loop back around and go through the same arguments again. Which are rebutted again. Which you ignore again. And around and around we go.

For discussions to move ahead, people need to be willing to resolve inconsistencies when they are pointed out. If someone points out a flaw in your argument that you can't defend, don't run away from it - acknowledge that you're wrong and adjust your view accordingly. If you can defend it, then do so with a direct response that clears up the inconsistencies. Ignoring it, then looping back to it down the road, is pointless, and it's intellectual cowardice.

Oh man, just when we were starting to hit it off so good.
Actually you are right on one thing.
I missed something TM said that we just touched on.
Sorry if it appears I might be running away but actually I am having to skip around due to time constraints.
Unfortunately, the thread can move on quite a bit sometimes and I get behind.
I don't mind answering anything, but I don't like having to waste time answering the same question repeatedly.
Sometimes I may have a tendency to skip something that appears to be just another reiteration.
At any rate, I really like to respond to everything, but some can take much longer to respond to than others.

 

[Famine]

That entire post could have been summed up with "Atheists have no belief in deities".

Which is what several of us have been trying to get across to you for many, many days.

 

[phonyk]

At the Same time I listened to Adam Sandlers Music and watched his Funny Movies, and I started to see a pattern... Crazy stuff Like All 3 Stooges, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock were Jewish....

I sort of have trouble deciphering the tone of your posts here so if it's some kind of elaborate trolling joke, then just ignore my response. But as a lifelong and committed Trekkie I couldn't possibly let such comments pass unchallenged. Of course, I'd love to hear why you think that Kirk and Spock are Jewish, but I can't imagine you saying anything that's going to convince me.

For starters, Spock isn't even human, he's a Vulcan. Which is not to say that a Vulcan couldn't convert to Judaism, but it seems completely out of character for him. Vulcans are characterised in Star Trek as having their own spiritual training which is a kind of blend of far eastern mysticism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Spock uses meditation, and introspective mind techniques in order to suppress his emotions and increase his ability to focus on logic and science. None of which seems to have any real relation to Judaism.

In fact, you've missed a character off there, because the three characters of Spock, Kirk, and McCoy all go together to create the archetypal Freudian Trio - the id, the ego, and the superego. Or, to put it more basically, the heart, the head, and the mediator. Spock is cold, calculating logic. McCoy is impulsive, always leaning towards the traditional values of the human spirit, with a deep set of ethics and morals. While Kirk is the decision maker who sits between them and weighs up the merits of each position, while also reconciling each to his ultimate decision.

I'm extremely skeptical of any religious reading of Star Trek, especially those series' and movies produced directly by Gene Roddenberry. Roddenberry himself was absolutely an atheist, and the subject of religion is dealt with repeatedly and consistently throughout the Original Series (TOS) and The Next Generation (TNG) - every time religion is depicted it is portrayed as a destructive and manipulative force from which the crew of the Enterprise are able to free people. See Pickard's impassioned speech about ridding themselves of superstition and religion being an achievement for the human race. There is a central theme whereby in the future, the human race has abandoned religion and superstition, and it is implied that this abandonment was a central part of humanity achieving the utopia depicted in the 24th Century.

I see no evidence whatsoever to assume that Kirk and Spock were meant to be Jewish. It would be completely at odds with the feelings of the man who created the characters, and these two religious characters would be completely out of place in a future where there is demonstrably no religion.

This did seem to change somewhat after Roddenberry's death which I think is why in DS9, Voyager, and most explicitly Enterprise, the position on religion seems to shift towards one of acceptance. The typical apologist stance which does not agree with a belief in deities, but seems something inherently virtuous in those people who do. Which is a bit of a contradictory position, but there you go. But as I say, of all characters, these two are probably the least likely in all of Trek canon to be religious.

 

[Bopop4]

I Of course, I'd love to hear why you think that Kirk and Spock are Jewish,

Because they are?

(Real life.)

 

[Denur]

@SuperCobraJet Is it really so hard to understand the difference between the passive "I don't believe in God" and the active "I believe God does not exist"? The former comes from "I have no reason to believe", while the latter from "I have reason to not believe".

 

[phonyk]

Because they are?

(Real life.)

Ah, I see what you've done there. But Kirk and Spock aren't real people. The actors who play them are Jewish. Well, Leonard Nimoy is a practicing Jew, but is Shatner? His parents were Jewish and he was raised Jewish, but I'm not sure he actually practices Judaism.

 

[Danoff]

Again thats a position of "no belief".

Yup, also it's what all of us have been saying - atheists do not believe in a supreme being, and atheists do not believe in the lack of a supreme being. The second statement being an entirely separate thought from the first.

You claimed that "no belief" was impossible. It was shown that you were wrong, and you've been running away from that statement ever since. You should turn around and face that statement head on and apologize for being wrong. You claimed that atheism was a belief in the lack of a god. You have also been shown that this is wrong, and have been trying to wiggle out of it ever since. You should face that statement head on and admit that you misunderstood atheism. You claimed that one cannot live without belief. It has been shown to you exactly how one does this - and that you yourself even function this way in many everyday scenarios. You should face that statement head on and apologize for being wrong.

Again, you have conceded these points, you were wrong, and you should own up to it so that we can move on to other parts of this discussion. Whether or not atheists believe (they don't or they aren't atheists) is not the only thing to discuss in this thread.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That entire post could have been summed up with "Atheists have no belief in deities".

Which is what several of us have been trying to get across to you for many, many days.

Not exactly.
The obvious implication in your statement is, your "no belief' is predicated on belief they do not exist.
For that to be legitimately not the case, you would have to also have "no belief" in non existence, as well.

Which brings us back to a true "no belief" position of, "Deities may or maynot exist."

Thats the hang-up in the last several pages.

So what do you say?

@SuperCobraJet Is it really so hard to understand the difference between the passive "I don't believe in God" and the active "I believe God does not exist"? The former comes from "I have no reason to believe", while the latter from "I have reason to not believe".

Yes and no.
The statement, "I don't believe in God", is not passive, but resolute, firm and conclusive.
The statement, "I don't think God exists", is passive, or truly undetermined.

 

[Danoff]

The statement, "I don't believe in God", is not passive, but resolute, firm and conclusive.

Yes but... it does not contradict the statement "I don't believe that no god exists". It is not a statement of belief of the converse, or any other statement of belief. You're misusing "belief" again, pull out your decoder ring.

 

[Dennisch]

I think this thread has reached a new low.

We have someone failing to understand anything he is being told, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

And we have someone who sees Jew in everything.

 

[Denur]

Not exactly.
The obvious implication in your statement is, your "no belief' is predicated on belief they do not exist.
For that to be legitimately not the case, you would have to also have "no belief" in non existence, as well.

Which brings us back to a true "no belief" position of, "Deities may or maynot exist."

Thats the hang-up in the last several pages.

So what do you say?



Yes and no.
The statement, "I don't believe in God", is not passive, but resolute, firm and conclusive.
The statement, "I don't think God exists", is passive, or truly undetermined.

You're starting to remind me of Kelly Bundy, and not for her good looks.

 

[Famine]

Not exactly.
The obvious implication in your statement is, your "no belief' is predicated on belief they do not exist.

Nontheism is the belief in the nonexistence of deities.
Atheism is no belief in deities.

For that to be legitimately not the case, you would have to also have "no belief" in non existence, as well.

Which brings us back to a true "no belief" position of, "Deities may or maynot exist."

Yes. That's what atheism is! How many more times?

 

[Ranman20]

Even I believe in God, but SCJ is just getting annoying.

 

[huskeR32]

Its no mistake.
You cannot make statements of belief, and then claim you have no belief.

I didn't.

"when somebody says they don't believe that your god exists"
That is a statement of established "belief", indicating incorporation of belief in non-existence.

It isn't.

Otherwise, there is no logical or rational basis for it.
My head has nothing to do with that.
And as I have already pointed out, unless you likewise have a basis of belief for it, which only resides, in the only opposite option, which is belief in non existence, the statement is completely illegitimate, as far as "no belief".
When the statements come into alignment with "no belief", I won't have any problem with it.
If you can finally grasp that, we just might make a little progress in this discussion.

This part made my head hurt. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I think you're suggesting that when I say I don't believe in your god, I necessarily must believe the opposite to be true? Rubbish.

The biggest flaw with that is that there is no single opposing position to take. To wit:

-I don't believe in your god, nor do I believe in the deity of any other religion
-A Hindu does not believe in your god, but may instead believe that Lord Vishnu is the Parabrahman
-A Sikh does not believe in your god, but instead believes in Ik Onkar (the One Supreme Reality)

So when you claim that my atheist position of not believing in your god is necessarily a positive claim that no god exists, you're ignoring many other possibilities.

If we follow your logic here, your non-belief in Ik Onkar as the only true reality means that you're actually stating that no gods exist at all, therefore you can't believe in your own god.

Oh boy, I like that last part.
As I pointed out, science has no evidence either way, so in reality, the playing field is wide open to objective examination.

I didn't say that I knew for sure what the truth was, I simply stated that there is only one truth. Therefore this:

That is a statement of belief, based on one side of Scientific criteria.

Is a nonsensical statement.

Sorry to interupt, but neutrality is of "no belief".

Exactly. Nothing I have said has contradicted that.

Again thats a position of "no belief".

Again, exactly. I wasn't stating a positive belief in anything. I was simply pointing out that one can rationally consider one idea to be more likely to be true than another, without positively holding either to be true.

First I have to commend you on providing a rational explanation, as opposed to just a denial.
What you are saying is true, except I still do not see the unbalance of the two, with regaurd to forming a belief from either side, since Famine and others have alluded to objective evidence as basis for belief.
In that respect there is none on either side, so as I inquired, how are you forming belief in the absense of.

That's not a belief that I hold, so your question is irrelevant.

Oh wow. A person who knows their position and can state it accordingly.

So much irony here.

 

[dxld]

No its not.

Bacon and ham can be high in fat and sodium, but they are pork products.

Pork itself (depending on the cut) is neither high in sodium or fat.

Well those other cuts don't taste that good....roasted rotisery pork like how the Hawaiians and Filipinos cook it is fatty, especially the skin.

 

[dxld]

I sort of have trouble deciphering the tone of your posts here so if it's some kind of elaborate trolling joke, then just ignore my response. But as a lifelong and committed Trekkie I couldn't possibly let such comments pass unchallenged. Of course, I'd love to hear why you think that Kirk and Spock are Jewish, but I can't imagine you saying anything that's going to convince me.

For starters, Spock isn't even human, he's a Vulcan. Which is not to say that a Vulcan couldn't convert to Judaism, but it seems completely out of character for him. Vulcans are characterised in Star Trek as having their own spiritual training which is a kind of blend of far eastern mysticism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Spock uses meditation, and introspective mind techniques in order to suppress his emotions and increase his ability to focus on logic and science. None of which seems to have any real relation to Judaism.
.......

I see no evidence whatsoever to assume that Kirk and Spock were meant to be Jewish. It would be completely at odds with the feelings of the man who created the characters, and these two religious characters would be completely out of place in a future where there is demonstrably no religion.
b

The Live Long and Prosper Hand gesture that Spock uses is based on a Jewish hand gesture, the Original was with two hands.

 

[Scaff]

Well those other cuts don't taste that good....roasted rotisery pork like how the Hawaiians and Filipinos cook it is fatty, especially the skin.

That still doesn't make pork unhealthy it makes a choice of how to cook pork unhealthy.

You could batter and deep fry all your vegetables, doesn't mean that generally vegetables are unhealthy, just the ones you cook.

The bronze age avoidance of pork also had far more to do with avoiding parasites than it does fat.