Do you believe in God?

[Dan]

Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods! Haven't people already explained this to you?!

 

[Furinkazen]

Because if one thinks an idea/proposition/statement is 100%, it is a belief. Famine (and other atheists) are convinced 100% that there is no god. That means it's a belief of theirs.

Please educate me. What does belief mean in English?

Not if we are talking in context about the belief of a spiritual being or deity.

Also, without trawling through the masses of comments (inbetween the finger pointing) - you say that


"What will it take to convince you that the Arabic equivalent does not necessarily involve a deity?"

If you are not believeing in a deity or figure, what are you believing? Be it Allah, or a Prophet - they all represent a deity of some kind. A figurehead of worship.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Because if one thinks an idea/proposition/statement is 100%, it is a belief. Famine (and other atheists) are convinced 100% that there is no god. That means it's a belief of theirs.

Please educate me. What does belief mean in English?

Atheists don't believe there is no god, they just don't believe there is one, is that so hard to understand? Your definition of belief is right pretty much (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief), is it so hard for you to imagine someone who doesn't think anything is 100% certain?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@BHXxRacer, what does ديني this mean?

How would you translate it to English? This isn't a trick question, I'm being entirely genuine.

 

[Furinkazen]

@BHXxRacer, what does ديني this mean?

How would you translate it to English? This isn't a trick question, I'm being entirely genuine.

Religious, spiritual according to my translator.

 

[Liquid]

Because if one thinks an idea/proposition/statement is 100%, it is a belief. Famine (and other atheists) are convinced 100% that there is no god. That means it's a belief of theirs.

Wrong. We atheists, with the lack of evidence supporting the existence of gods, do not have any beliefs in gods. Do not misunderstand; we do not believe that there is no god, because we cannot conclusively prove this either way. It is a non-falsifiable point, as is the belief that there is a god.

Evidence. That is what we need. Give us scientific, verifiable evidence of the existence of god or gods and we would happily accept such an eventuality. Can you do that? Can you prove that god exists? Until you or anyone else can prove that god exists, we are without belief in god*.

*Without = a | Belief in god = theism

Atheism.

 

[Dotini]

To their credit, many people have a credo, a code, or a philosophy, that they try to live by. To my mind, these are somewhat like "religion lite", although not exactly the same thing.

 

[dylansan]

Because if one thinks an idea/proposition/statement is 100%, it is a belief. Famine (and other atheists) are convinced 100% that there is no god. That means it's a belief of theirs.

No, if Famine was 100% convinced there were no gods, he would be a nontheist. A nontheist has a belief that there is no god. An atheist has no belief that there is a god. A subtle difference but an important one. One that has been explained over and over, but which you have managed to avoid learning.

Just look at the grammar. No belief in god. NO BELIEF is right there in plain sight, you don't even have to reorder it. It's literally a lack of belief.

Many atheists, presumably Famine included, would accept that a God exists if irrefutable evidence were presented demonstrating it's existence. Therefore he is not "100% convinced that there is no god. He is not a nontheist (and neither am I), but an atheist.

 

[Dotini]

I am persuaded there is NO personal god. But there might be an impersonal one.

I have no formal religion, but I do try to practice a consistent system of behavior which might be termed a code of conduct, ethics, or behavior.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god or gods! Haven't people already explained this to you?!

Atheists don't believe there is no god, they just don't believe there is one, is that so hard to understand? Your definition of belief is right pretty much (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief), is it so hard for you to imagine someone who doesn't think anything is 100% certain?

BINGO!

So you're saying that atheists don't think the existence of a deity is 100% certain? That contradicts how @teneighty one defines it IIRC.

He said if you're not 100% sure, you're agnostic not an atheist. Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Bat country.

If you are not believeing in a deity or figure, what are you believing? Be it Allah, or a Prophet - they all represent a deity of some kind. A figurehead of worship.

My belief is that it's irrelevant for an adult whether or not a deity exists.

@BHXxRacer, what does ديني this mean?

How would you translate it to English? This isn't a trick question, I'm being entirely genuine.

ديني is دين(religion) with a ي

the ي means possession of the word before it , or it can transform the word into an adjective.

Telephone = telephone
Telephony= my telephone in Arabic. The y being the ي

That's "possession of". So the first definition is "my religion" if it was spoken about yourself.


The second definition, while technically possible, isn't Arabic and incorrect*. It would mean religious, but it's nonsense to use ديني to describe a religious person because like I said everyone is. The correct Arabic word for religious is متدين.

* You can invent such words in Arabic, but they're illegal. Such as Assholism. You know what it refers to, but it's not English. Get it?

False. Us atheists, with the lack of evidence supporting the existence of gods, do not have beliefs in gods. We do not believe that there is no god, because we cannot conclusively prove this either way.

Evidence. That is what we need. Give us scientific, verifiable evidence of the existence of god or gods and we would happily accept such an eventuality. Can you do that?

So you're a skeptical, not a believer that there is no god. Right?

No, if Famine was 100% convinced there were no gods, he would be a nontheist. A nontheist has a belief that there is no god. An atheist has no belief that there is a god. A subtle difference but an important one. One that has been explained over and over, but which you have managed to avoid learning.

Just look at the grammar. No belief in god. NO BELIEF is right there in plain sight, you don't even have to reorder it. It's literally a lack of belief.

Many atheists, presumably Famine included, would accept that a God exists if irrefutable evidence were presented demonstrating it's existence. Therefore he is not "100% convinced that there is no god. He is not a nontheist (and neither am I), but an atheist.

Ohhhh the arrogance. Accept a god exists if there' irrefutable evidence? As opposed to continue in denial if he/she/it stared you in the eye?

So if you're not convinced 100% there is no god, that makes you agnostic.

 

[Furinkazen]

I am persuaded there is NO personal god. But there might be an impersonal one.

I have no formal religion, but I do try to practice a consistent system of behavior which might be termed a code.

The most die hard could use this to argue that a behaviour that could be termed a code (force of habit) is technically a belief in that you have a reasoning for it... but only die hards would...

EDIT: Ok, if it is irrelevant then why believe in it?

 

[Liquid]

Ohhhh the arrogance.

Irony.

Accept a god exists if there' irrefutable evidence?

This is what any rational atheist would do.

As opposed to continue in denial if he/she/it stared you in the eye?

This is what a non-theist would do. Do you see the difference?

And do you have evidence for the existence of god?

 

[BHRxRacer]

The most die hard could use this to argue that a behaviour that could be termed a code (force of habit) is technically a belief in that you have a reasoning for it... but only die hards would...

EDIT: Ok, if it is irrelevant then why believe in it?

Me? I don't. Did I say I do?

 

[Imari]

Because if one thinks an idea/proposition/statement is 100%, it is a belief. Famine (and other atheists) are convinced 100% that there is no god. That means it's a belief of theirs.

You couldn't be more wrong, and this is why you continue to struggle with the idea of atheism.

Atheists have not seen anything that would convince them that a god or gods exist. If God were to turn up tomorrow, with attendant demonstrations that he really was God, all atheists would shrug and say "Well, fancy that. There is a God. Cool. That's nice to know."

Non-theists would continue to refuse to believe in God despite him standing right in front of them.

The atheist position tends to be summarised as "I don't believe in god or gods", and that's not accurate. It's "I haven't been shown adequate evidence of the existence of a god or gods, and so until the time that evidence appears I'm going to default to the assumption that there is not a god or gods. I am aware that this is an assumption and am willing to change my mind as the situation warrants."

An agnostic is someone who believes that the truth of whether there is a god or gods can never be known. This is distinct from an atheist who is willing to accept evidence if and when it appears. Be very careful about labelling atheists as agnostics, because they're very, very different.

 

[BHRxRacer]

This is what a non-theist would do.

What kind of person would refuse to believe something staring him in the face? This isn't the Matrix, there IS a spoon.

An agnostic is someone who believes that the truth of whether there is a god or gods can never be known. is not present yet

I think this is your problem. I fixed it.

What you describe as an Atheist, is actually agnostic. What you describe as a nontheist, is actually atheist.

 

[Liquid]

What kind of person would refuse to believe something staring him in the face?

Try looking at creationism and creationists. Or anything from the Abrahamic religions which has been proven to be false.

What you describe as an Atheist, is actually agnostic. What you describe as a nontheist, is actually atheist.

Go back and read the last 3-4 pages. You are wrong.

And if you can, supply evidence for the existence of god.

 

[BHRxRacer]

And if you can, supply evidence for the existence of god.

What is it with you and this question? I already answered before. I don't have proof god exists, nobody does. What's your point????

 

[Liquid]

What is it with you and this question? I already answered before. I don't have proof god exists, nobody does. What's your point????

1) Because you have such an issue with the difference between atheism and nontheism. If you, or anyone, could prove that god exists, the number of atheists would fall to 0 immediately.

2) As a personal preference, I'd like evidence for a being, and an allegedly omniscient and omnipresent being at that, whose name has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths and some of the worst crimes, atrocities and genocides in all of human history and whose name continues to unjustly dictate politics in several sovereign nations and sub-national legislatures.

 

[BHRxRacer]

1) Because you have such an issue with the difference between atheism and nontheism. If you, or anyone, could prove that god exists, the number of atheists would fall to 0 immediately.

2) As a personal preference, I'd like evidence for a being, and an allegedly omniscient and omnipresent being at that, whose name has been responsible for millions and millions of deaths and some of the worst crimes, atrocities and genocides in all of human history and whose name continues to unjustly dictate politics in several sovereign nations and sub-national legislatures.

Thanks for #2, I can now ignore your posts without feeling guilty. Now excuse me while I go commit murder in your name and tell the police you told me to do it. I'm sure you're willing to take the blame

 

[dylansan]

Thanks for #2, I can now ignore your posts without feeling guilty. Now excuse me while I go commit murder in your name and tell the police you told me to do it. I'm sure you're willing to take the blame

I think I speak for everyone when I say, what? Can you explain how Liquid's post in any way encourages violence at all? Read it again, as I really don't think you got it.

 

[Liquid]

Thanks for #2, I can now ignore your posts without feeling guilty. Now excuse me while I go commit murder in your name and tell the police you told me to do it. I'm sure you're willing to take the blame

Coupled with what @dylansan just said, this is some ridiculous nonsense that doesn't even make sense in the absurd world you've created; you've just conceded a premeditation in that quote so bluffing your way out with some ridiculous notion that I've told you to go out and murder people would be easily disproven.

However, you are heartily excused from this thread.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I think I speak for everyone when I say, what? Can you explain how Liquid's post in any way encourages violence at all? Read it again, as I really don't think you got it.

Read what I said again. I don't think you got it. I'm tired of explaining things between the lines in my posts.

 

[Imari]

I think this is your problem. I fixed it.

What you describe as an Atheist, is actually agnostic. What you describe as a nontheist, is actually atheist.

You did not fix it. What I wrote originally is correct.

There are three distinct concepts. They are not the same. You can fiddle around with which name goes with which group if you must, but there are at least three and these are the names most commonly assigned to them.

An atheist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, but accepts that there could be such evidence. Were it to be presented to them, they would revise their opinion (and be somewhat embarrassed, probably).

An agnostic does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist even if a god or gods were to exist. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

A non-theist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist because there is no god or gods. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

Atheists are a very particular case, a group of people who have come to an opinion based on current facts but who are willing to accept that they could be wrong given the right evidence. They do not appreciate when you continually attempt to lump them in with groups of people who have made up their minds already and will not alter their opinion no matter what facts are presented to them. Which is what non-theists, agnostics, and theists are.

This is why atheists are so different to every other group, because they are the ones who are by default admitting that they don't know what's going on because they don't have enough evidence yet.

 

[dylansan]

I'm tired of explaining things between the lines in my posts.

Considering no one can understand most of your posts, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain between the lines, for the sake of discussion.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You did not fix it. What I wrote originally is correct.

There are three distinct concepts. They are not the same. You can fiddle around with which name goes with which group if you must, but there are at least three and these are the names most commonly assigned to them.

An atheist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, but accepts that there could be such evidence. Were it to be presented to them, they would revise their opinion (and be somewhat embarrassed, probably).

An agnostic does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist even if a god or gods were to exist. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

A non-theist does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist because there is no god or gods. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

Atheists are a very particular case, a group of people who have come to an opinion based on current facts but who are willing to accept that they could be wrong given the right evidence. They do not appreciate when you continually attempt to lump them in with groups of people who have made up their minds already and will not alter their opinion no matter what facts are presented to them. Which is what non-theists, agnostics, and theists are.

This is why atheists are so different to every other group, because they are the ones who are by default admitting that they don't know what's going on because they don't have enough evidence yet.

Three distinct concepts. No fourth? No theism?


Here's what the 3 really are, rather than what's commonly used in the 21st century:

Atheist: does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist because there is no god or gods. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

Agnostic: does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, but accepts that there could be such evidence. Were it to be presented to them, they would revise their opinion (and be somewhat embarrassed, probably).

Theist: One that believes in a god or gods, on the basis of blind faith basically.

Considering no one can understand most of your posts, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain between the lines, for the sake of discussion.

You'd be surprised. There's always at least one member that understands a post of mine. Probably one that's not taking this seriously or emotionally, or isn't about to lose his marbles because his whole life is a lie.

If you insist, I'll explain. He blamed the millions of people died in the name of god on god(as if he believes there is one, which is ironic). That's wrong, it's to be blamed on the humans that did the killing. Not god. With his logic, I can go kill somebody now and say Liquid from GTP told me to. Which would be a lie, same as the people killing in god's name. However given that he accepts the blame on god with religious people, he should accept the blame for my lie as well.

 

[Imari]

Here's what the 3 really are, rather than what's commonly used in the 21st century:

Oh lordy. "Here's what words you use really mean, instead of what everyone thinks they've meant for the last hundred years or so."

Whatever, let's go with your naming then. I'm going to dub them BHR/Atheist, BHR/Agnostic and BHR/Theist for clarity and so that they don't get mixed up with what other English speakers mean when they misuse these words.

Atheist: does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, and believes that no such evidence can or will exist because there is no god or gods. Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it.

Agnostic: does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods, but accepts that there could be such evidence. Were it to be presented to them, they would revise their opinion (and be somewhat embarrassed, probably).

Theist: One that believes in a god or gods, on the basis of blind faith basically.

Fine.

Given the above, where does Imari/Non-theist fit in? They're similar to a BHR/Atheist, but their rationale is not that no gods exist, they are willing to accept that gods may indeed exist. They arrive at their belief because they believe that it is not possible to know whether or not a god or gods exist.

What's that called in BHR/English? Then maybe we can start having an actual conversation using words that you understand.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Oh lordy. "Here's what words you use really mean, instead of what everyone thinks they've meant for the last hundred years or so."

Whatever, let's go with your naming then. I'm going to dub them BHR/Atheist, BHR/Agnostic and BHR/Theist for clarity and so that they don't get mixed up with what other English speakers mean when they misuse these words.



Fine.

Given the above, where does Imari/Non-theist fit in? They're similar to a BHR/Atheist, but their rationale is not that no gods exist, they are willing to accept that gods may indeed exist. They arrive at their belief because they believe that it is not possible to know whether or not a god or gods exist.

What's that called in BHR/English? Then maybe we can start having an actual conversation using words that you understand.

The kind of people that wouldn't believe god exists if they saw him/her/it with their own eyes? What you described as non-theists? They are called BHR/Craziests.

What now?

 

[Imari]

The kind of people that wouldn't believe god exists if they saw him/her/it with their own eyes? What you described as non-theists? They are called BHR/Craziests.

What now?

Not good enough. BHR/Atheists also wouldn't believe god existed if they saw it with their own eyes. I want a way to distinguish between BHR/Atheist and Imari/Non-theist.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Not good enough. BHR/Atheists also wouldn't believe god existed if they saw it with their own eyes. I want a way to distinguish between BHR/Atheist and Imari/Non-theist.

There isn't any, that's the point I've been trying to make for BHR/god knows how many pages now.

edit-

Seriously, I just copy pasted your Imari/nontheist and put it in BHR/Atheist. How can you expect a difference?

 

[Imari]

There isn't any, that's the point I've been trying to make for BHR/god knows how many pages now.

But there is. One believes that no gods exist, the other is willing to concede that they may but believes that it is impossible to know if they exist or not.

That's the difference. If I can write it down, there's a difference.

That one believes no gods exist and the other one doesn't necessarily is a large enough reason to have different names. I don't see how you can lump two groups together when there's a gap that large between their philosophies.