Do you believe in God?

[dxld]

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.

Like JEWelry and the music group Jimmy Eat World....

 

[Mark T]

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

I've read a few theories on why pork is banned in some religions. One is that pork has a very close resemblance to human meat, not just in taste and texture but also in the smell that is produced when the skin is burnt with a naked flame. Also, it has been noted that pigs have a very high intelligence and this may have been recognised. I guess as humans we generally don't like to eat things which are either pleasant to look at or intelligent.

Also, I remember reading that the cry emitted from a pig that is being killed is meant to be horrendous. Apparently it's a sound that you won't forget once you hear it.

I wonder how religious folk get on when parts of a pig are used in the human body?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

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.

Then, as I said from the begining, God may or may not exist, is your position.

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.

Incredible.
Have you read any of the last several pages?
I never claimed any such thing.
My claim was and still is, you cannot be, "in belief" and then claim you have "no belief".
And vise-versa.
Yes, thats impossible and still is.
If you are in "no belief", then your statements of position need to be consistent and in alignment with that position.
As far as operative action, they are likewise impossible, without the engagement of "belief".
Thats just common "fact of reality" knowledge.

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.

Apparently, you went of course, by my logical interpretation of a claim that clearly implies a position of belief.
See below.

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 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.

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.

Almost.
The testimony declares the gun is loaded and will fire when the trigger is pulled.
But, being a unique, special type of gun, the gun only fires once, for one pull of the trigger by each individual.
They have already pulled the trigger, so now, it is left up to the indivduals that have not done so, to give it a go.

Obviously, thats all subjective mind you, but evidence, nonetheless.

 

[GTP_Ingram]

Obviously, thats all subjective mind you, but evidence, nonetheless.

Well... Not really. It's more of an en masse allegation than evidence.

 

[Touring Mars]

To be fair, @SuperCobraJet, you haven't made your position at all clear over the last couple of weeks.

As myself and others have pointed out in recent posts, many things you have said about belief are completely wrong. Your insistence that belief is unavoidable, universal and that everything is based on belief is provably false. Also, amongst other things, you've drawn a distinction between 'unbelief' and 'no belief', but you have also said that 'unbelief' does not exist - and your position on 'no belief' is confusing to say the least.

You are trying to shift the blame for your own misunderstandings onto others, when it appears that the only thing you are really having a problem with is the inconsistency of your own arguments. You just said "My claim was and still is, you cannot be, "in belief" and then claim you have "no belief"." And...? No-one is disagreeing with you on this point. Atheists, by definition, do not operate from a position of 'in belief', so what's the problem? Of course, the problem is that your view that belief is unavoidable and that eveything is predicated on belief, makes the 'no belief' position impossible or at the very least inconsistent with your view that everything is predicated on belief.

It has been firmly established that there are very many instances where belief is not applicable, and there are obviously instances where one can hold a position of 'no belief'. If you disagree with this point, you need to explain why in great detail. As such, if the no belief position is real and it exists (which, by the way, it does), then you've got a major problem with your view that everything is predicted on belief (which implies that everyone is constantly in a state of 'in belief') and that it is not possible to be in a state of 'in belief' and 'no belief' simultaneously. Since these are your views/statements/claims, it's incumbent upon you to explain how you may reconcile your views in the presence of contradictory facts, like the fact that it is possible to hold a position of no belief.

Does it not then occur to you that your views/statements on belief might just be source of the problem?

 

[Danoff]

Then, as I said from the begining, God may or may not exist, is your position.

I have agreed with you on this every single time you stated it. I do not believe in God.

You claimed that "no belief" was impossible.... You claimed that atheism was a belief in the lack of a god.... You claimed that one cannot live without belief.

Incredible.
Have you read any of the last several pages?
I never claimed any such thing.

Either way is pure "belief".
...
Belief is universal though.
...
See above.

Actually, there is no such thing as unbelief.
You either believe that something is true, or you have to believe it is false.

This has been thoroughly demonstrated as false. Atheists exist in a state of "no belief" (in this quote, you use unbelief to mean no belief). There is nothing about the Atheist viewpoint that contradicts this.

I do not believe in God.

 

[dylansan]

Here Danoff, this quote is more to the point.

There is no escape from belief.
You have to "believe" you are living without belief, just to entertain it as a personal operating system.

 

[dxld]

?....the cry emitted from a pig that is being killed is meant to be horrendous. Apparently it's a sound that you won't forget once you hear it.
I wonder how religious folk get on when parts of a pig are used in the human body?

I remember when I was a 6 year old kid and my dad took me to a farm house to kill a pig for some Filipino celebration. The farmers put this pig in some tumbling contraption, it was not a grinder, but I saw and heard the pig squealing to its ultimate death, and it was indeed horrifying. The next day we took the pig whole and stuck a pole through it's ass and through it's whole body and out the mouth. Took that pig on a stick over an open fire and roasted it for several hours.
I will never forget the sound of that dying pig, but as we had the pig as our meal, the experience did not bother me afterwards.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I have agreed with you on this every single time you stated it. I do not believe in God.

Great, but see everything listed below.

This has been thoroughly demonstrated as false. Atheists exist in a state of "no belief" (in this quote, you use unbelief to mean no belief). There is nothing about the Atheist viewpoint that contradicts this.

I already explained that a few pages back.
"Unbelief", and "no belief" are two different terms.

I do not believe in God.

Obviously, you do not realize it, but your statement, which has led to several pages now, infers, implies, and indicates a position of "belief".

If, your going to insist on stating it that way, you should qualify it with, "no belief in non existence as well'.

The qualifier cancels that, and makes clear a position of, "no belief".

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.

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.

 

[homeforsummer]

your statement, which has led to several pages now, infers, implies, and indicates a position of "belief".

It doesn't. It is the exact opposite. You do not understand the meaning of words.

 

[Touring Mars]

your statement, which has led to several pages now, infers, implies, and indicates a position of "belief".

If, your going to insist on stating it that way, you should qualify it with, "no belief in non existence as well'.

The qualifier cancels that, and makes clear a position of, "no belief".

It's perfectly clear enough already.

No belief in God means no belief in God, no matter how many pointless qualifiers you insist on adding.

I do not believe in God.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in no God.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in no God and I do not believe in fairies.
I do not believe in God and I do not believe in no God and I do not believe in fairies and I do not believe in no fairies.
etc. etc. etc.

The above statements are all as meaningful as each other - the 'qualifiers' are unnecessary.

Either way, your statement that the phrase "I do not believe in God" indicates a position of belief is idiotic.

 

[Danoff]

Obviously, you do not realize it, but your statement, which has led to several pages now, infers, implies, and indicates a position of "belief".

Nope, it is quite clearly, and concisely a statement about what I do NOT believe. Use the decoder ring.

 

[huskeR32]

Obviously, you do not realize it, but your statement, which has led to several pages now, infers, implies, and indicates a position of "belief".

Remember this?

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.

You're doing it again.

If, your going to insist on stating it that way, you should qualify it with, "no belief in non existence as well'.

The qualifier cancels that, and makes clear a position of, "no belief".

We aren't required to overstate our position just because you insist on reading more into it than we intend to communicate.

 

[Dennisch]

And over and over and over and over....


Normally this kind of offtopic nonsense would have been shot down pages ago. The man doesn't want to see it or learn anything. Let's give up and move on.

 

[dxld]

Unbelief and no belief are two different terms?????? Who in the world would use the term unbelief???? This simple concept is being nuked beyond all recognition. Belief is not a math problem or some misunderstanding of a dictionary definition.

 

[LeMansAid]

And over and over and over and over....


Normally this kind of offtopic nonsense would have been shot down pages ago. The man doesn't want to see it or learn anything. Let's give up and move on.

I was playing the offtopic line in my head as well. Then I realised that considering the title of this thread, a conversation about belief and God is about as on topic as it can get, unfortunately.

Though while I'm here....

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.

The word atheist describes what someone is not..... a theist. (space bar has never been so important)

There's nothing to say that an atheist cannot also be an anti-theist, but also there's nothing to suggest that they are an anti-theist. It's actually been quite a process to jettison the automatic associations that I'd made, and there is a lot of incorrect information out there:

merrium-webster.com - the doctrine that there is no deity. (anti-theism)

dictionary.reference.com - the doctrine or belief that there is no god. (anti-theism)

oxforddictionaries.com gets it right though - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Danoff]

There's nothing to say that an atheist cannot also be an anti-theist, but also there's nothing to suggest that they are an anti-theist.

Sloppy on my part. "Atheism does not indicate a belief in the lack of a supreme being" is the message I was trying to convey.

 

[LeMansAid]

Sloppy on my part. "Atheism does not indicate a belief in the lack of a supreme being" is the message I was trying to convey.

It happens, and it's kind of inevitable since you've been constantly bogged down trying to explain basic principals ad nauseam.

New thread title: Do you believe in semantics?
- Atheism doesn't indicate a belief in the lack of a supreme being
- Atheism does indicate a lack of the belief in a supreme being

 

[dxld]

Do you believe in God? the answers should yes, no, maybe. Then you can expalin why or why not?

All this is being complicated by Un-belief, anti-belief, non-belief, proto-belief, meta-belief, quantum-belief, neo- belief,anti-theism, non-theism, hyper-theism, ultra-theism, negative-theism.

It's like turning the art of Love and Sex into a series of mechanical steps.

I won't be surprised if some "quantum-non-theist-nerd" will try to argue about the differences of anti-love and-non-love, especially the anti-love of theism.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

To be fair, @SuperCobraJet, you haven't made your position at all clear over the last couple of weeks.

As myself and others have pointed out in recent posts, many things you have said about belief are completely wrong. Your insistence that belief is unavoidable, universal and that everything is based on belief is provably false. Also, amongst other things, you've drawn a distinction between 'unbelief' and 'no belief', but you have also said that 'unbelief' does not exist - and your position on 'no belief' is confusing to say the least.

You are trying to shift the blame for your own misunderstandings onto others, when it appears that the only thing you are really having a problem with is the inconsistency of your own arguments. You just said "My claim was and still is, you cannot be, "in belief" and then claim you have "no belief"." And...? No-one is disagreeing with you on this point. Atheists, by definition, do not operate from a position of 'in belief', so what's the problem? Of course, the problem is that your view that belief is unavoidable and that eveything is predicated on belief, makes the 'no belief' position impossible or at the very least inconsistent with your view that everything is predicated on belief.

It has been firmly established that there are very many instances where belief is not applicable, and there are obviously instances where one can hold a position of 'no belief'. If you disagree with this point, you need to explain why in great detail. As such, if the no belief position is real and it exists (which, by the way, it does), then you've got a major problem with your view that everything is predicted on belief (which implies that everyone is constantly in a state of 'in belief') and that it is not possible to be in a state of 'in belief' and 'no belief' simultaneously. Since these are your views/statements/claims, it's incumbent upon you to explain how you may reconcile your views in the presence of contradictory facts, like the fact that it is possible to hold a position of no belief.

This is all just more accusatory denial, and no explanation.

Already been through all of this repeatedly.

A position can be taken from "belief" or "no belief".

Operative actions are always taken from "belief".

Now, if you can, you explain, "in reality" how that is not true.

Does it not then occur to you that your views/statements on belief might just be source of the problem?

It does not occur, because my beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I'm in belief brother, no doubt about it.
I'm trying to determine from a reality standpoint, whether you, as well as some others here, as far as God position, are in "no belief", or are you actually in "belief".

You don't see the implication, so let me ask you this:

What is the basis or reason for your, "I do not believe in God" position?

Nope, it is quite clearly, and concisely a statement about what I do NOT believe. Use the decoder ring.

I did.
But you don't like what it says.

Do you believe in God? the answers should yes, no, maybe. Then you can expalin why or why not?
All this is being complicated by Un-belief, anti-belief, non-belief, proto-belief, meta-belief, quantum-belief, neo- belief,anti-theism, non-theism, hyper-theism, ultra-theism, negative-theism.
It's like turning the art of Love and Sex into a series of mechanical steps.
I won't be surprised if some "quantum-non-theist-nerd" will try to argue about the differences of anti-love and-non-love, especially the anti-love of theism.
!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, the art of dissection is rarely a pleasant exercise.

 

[Famine]

my beliefs are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Oh, sweet Enola Gay.

You'll never see the irony of what you posted, but everyone else will get such a laugh from that.

I'm trying to determine from a reality standpoint, whether you, as well as some others here, as far as God position, are in "no belief", or are you actually in "belief".

Easy.

Christian theists believe in the existence of God. God exists and they believe this with all their might.
Christian nontheists believe in the non-existence of God. God doesn't exist and they believe this with all their might.
Atheists do not believe in the existence of God. A god might exist but they have no belief in it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Easy.
Atheists do not believe in the existence of God. A god might exist but they have no belief in it.

OK, then I would ask you the same question, I asked Danoff,
what is the reason or basis for your position?

 

[Famine]

I have no belief in any deities.

 

[Touring Mars]

Operative actions are always taken from "belief".

Now, if you can, you explain, "in reality" how that is not true.

"Operative actions" meaning what exactly? Taking action? Doing something?

If the act of believing something is an operative action, then by definition not believing something is not an operative action... no belief is the default position.

But anyway, it's already been explained using two very clear 'real' scenarios. Danoff used a loaded gun scenario, and I gave you the analogy of whether or not you would bet your life savings on the toss of a coin.

Regarding the coin toss gamble, what do you "believe" will happen, and what "operative action" will you take based on your beliefs? I don't "believe" the coin will land heads face up nor do I "believe" the coin will land tails face up either. It's a fact that both outcomes are equally likely, and therefore I do no apply belief at all... when it comes to the possible outcome of the coin landing on heads, I'm in a position of no belief. Same applies to tails. As such, because I am in a position of no belief, I would not bet my life savings on it. My 'operative action', therefore, is to do nothing/not place the bet.

How about you? What do you believe the outcome to be, and will you act according to your belief?

If anything, 'operative actions' (i.e. stuff you actually do) should never be predicated on belief.

What is the basis or reason for your, "I do not believe in God" position?

I have no reason to believe in God and no belief is the default position.

 

[Famine]

I have no reason to believe in God and no belief is the default position.

Crikey, imagine if it wasn't. Imagine if you literally believed any old tosh told to you simply because you were told it. You'd go insane.

 

[Spurgy 777]

OK, then I would ask you the same question, I asked Danoff,
what is the reason or basis for your position?

A severe lack of evidence for the existence of a god means that there's no reason to even entertain the idea. Although even if there was evidence, I still wouldn't believe as I'll explain below.

I don't get how you can't understand how people live without belief, seeing as no rational person can ever say they believe anything, using the actual definition of belief. Because to know something is 100% true you would have to know everything else with 100% certainty, and you could argue that nothing can know everything because how do you know that there is something you don't know you don't know? You don't, or do you? Who knows?

 

[Furinkazen]

I do not believe in a god myself, so I have a belief. I believe in what I think. A belief is something you think of. I know someone who isn't religious who thinks its rubbish who says "I have a belief, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!"

 

[BionicDerp]

@SuperCobraJet - please answer this:

Being taught abiogenesis at the start of the school year and a little evolution at the end seems far fetched.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I do not believe in a god myself, so I have a belief. I believe in what I think. A belief is something you think of. I know someone who isn't religious who thinks its rubbish who says "I have a belief, I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!"

Oh dear Furi, that's the colloquial definition, the actual definition and the one we're talking about is the "to accept something is true, or definitely correct, etc". I hope you don't think that everything you think is true, because I could prove that wrong in 8 words

 

[phonyk]

Crikey, imagine if it wasn't. Imagine if you literally believed any old tosh told to you simply because you were told it. You'd go insane.

This is basically how the internet functions, isn't it?