Do you believe in God?

[BHRxRacer]

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.

I don't think you paid attention.

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. - You


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. - Me

Show me the difference.

 

[jtv90069]

I don't think you paid attention.

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.

Atheist: does not recognise any current evidence as proof of god or gods

Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable.

Fixed, kind of. How words are used can change the meaning to a degree. You are not 100% wrong in your definitions but you aren't right either. Some people can define themselves as all three, and some will argue that they are mutually exclusive. Same thing with your definition of Religion, the context of the usage of the word can change it's meaning. A religious person does not need to be of a religion, and can perform an act religiously which has nothing to do with their religiousness or religiosity or their chosen (or lack of) religion.
English is a lovely language.

 

[dylansan]

I don't think you paid attention.

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. - You


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. - Me

Show me the difference.

The difference is that your second definition is completely wrong, as has been pointed out many many times. Just because you continue to define it that way doesn't make it true. For someone trying to paint atheists as stubborn you come off quite stubborn yourself.

 

[Imari]

I don't think you paid attention.

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. - You


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. - Me

Show me the difference.

You're right, I'm getting confused by your redefinitions. Let me spell it out for myself and I'll see if I can get it right and figure out which one you're missing, because you are missing one.

Imari/Atheist = BHR/Agnostic
Imari/Non-theist = BHR/Atheist
Imari/Agnostic = BHR/??

So yes, I got confused. I'm trying to take the language I've spoken for 30 years and translate it into BHRese, and I messed up. My bad.

What we want is the BHR/ word for Imari/Agnostic.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Fixed, kind of. How words are used can change the meaning to a degree. You are not 100% wrong in your definitions but you aren't right either. Some people can define themselves as all three, and some will argue that they are mutually exclusive. Same thing with your definition of Religion, the context of the usage of the word can change it's meaning. A religious person does not need to be of a religion, and can perform an act religiously which has nothing to do with their religiousness or religiosity or their chosen (or lack of) religion.
English is a lovely language.

Isn't it? and to make matters worse, English(language, not the people) often adopts words from other language and change the definition.

It's mainly my issue here. The names, or terms you guys are using to describe your beliefs. Just because it's common to use a word for a certain meaning, does not mean it's correct or exclusive to that meaning. I'd let you get away with it if you can at least use the deal with it argument. Like, "OH it's how people are using that word now, most people know what we mean so deal with it". What I can't accept is @Famine using specifically instead of commonly when defining such words.

The difference is that your second definition is completely wrong, as has been pointed out many many times. Just because you continue to define it that way doesn't make it true. For someone trying to paint atheists as stubborn you come off quite stubborn yourself.

You're pretty backwards, my friend. The definitions are not different, they are literally word for word equal. What's different is the term itself, not the definition. Keep up.

You're right, I'm getting confused by your redefinitions. Let me spell it out for myself and I'll see if I can get it right and figure out which one you're missing, because you are missing one.

Imari/Atheist = BHR/Agnostic
Imari/Non-theist = BHR/Atheist
Imari/Agnostic = BHR/??

So yes, I got confused. I'm trying to take the language I've spoken for 30 years and translate it into BHRese, and I messed up. My bad.

What we want is the BHR/ word for Imari/Agnostic.

Thanks for your effort. There isn't one, because it doesn't really make sense. It's practically equal to Imari/Atheist.

This is from your post.

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.

So basically, neither recognize any current evidence etc. Both would deny the existence of god even if it slapped them in the face. What's the difference again? Both Imari/agnostic and Imari/non-theist are BHR/Atheist.

 

[dylansan]

I supposed I was confused by the fact that we're apparently now speaking several different languages with different definitions. Do you mind if we speak English now? Because in English the definitions are clear:

Non-theist: One who is certain that no gods exist.

Atheist: One who, on the subject of gods, has no belief. No valid evidence (valid being a very important word) has been presented thus far for the existence or non-existence, and so a belief has not been established.

Agnostic: You got this one right basically. One who believes no knowledge of gods can ever be obtained.

You keep saying atheists don't recognize current evidence but what you may fail to realize is that, from an atheist's point of view, there is no evidence. There is stuff that theists claim is evidence, but then it's easy to claim, isn't it? There is a method to determine whether evidence is valid or not. That method happens to be the scientific method. So far, no presented evidence has survived the scrutiny of science and thus no one who values facts has yet any reason to believe they are true.


BHR, do you think there is a pink teapot orbiting the Earth? Do you believe it's there? Do you believe it's not there? Or do you not have belief either way?


Edit: You're right that not everyone uses words the same way, and that often multiple definitions are used for the same word. However, this does not mean that those using these different definitions are right to do so. Accepting these different uses as equally valid is exactly why the word 'literally' literally doesn't mean anything anymore.

 

[Imari]

So basically, neither recognize any current evidence etc. Both would deny the existence of god even if it slapped them in the face. What's the difference again? Both Imari/agnostic and Imari/non-theist are BHR/Atheist.

The difference is the reasoning behind their beliefs. Just as the many different churches that make up Christianity all believe in more or less the same God, they are different in the way the arrived at that belief, and in what it means.

An Imari/Agnostic is willing to concede that gods may exist. An Imari/Non-theist is adamant that they do not. This leads to some fairly marked differences in the way they relate to other people, and in what they're willing to accept.

For example, an Imari/Agnostic might accept the Christian story of creation (the whole God made the Earth in seven days thing) with the proviso that there could never be any solid evidence of this that would betray God's existence. Which is fine, there's no evidence so far and it seems fairly unlikely that any evidence validating that particular story is going to turn up any time soon.

An Imari/Non-theist would refuse to believe any of it, because accepting any little bit would mean admitting that God exists in some fashion.

There's a bunch of situations that the two groups will react differently to, which is why it's sensible to define them separately. The point of creating labels for groups is as a mental shortcut to generalise people who will behave in similar ways. Imari/Agnostics and Imari/Non-theists are in some ways similar, but in other ways they are very different. Catholics and Protestants are in many ways very similar as well, but there's very good reasons for defining them separately (and they also get very cross if you label them as something they're not). This probably applies to any major religion that is divided into groups.

Imari/Agnostics and Imari/Non-theists are different enough that for a thread like this it's worthwhile giving both groups separate labels. If you want to say that both groups respond in the same way to a situation you're proposing, then you take the extra 3 seconds and type the names of both instead of trying to bundle both groups into one label. It ensures clear and accurate communication, in a topic that it's far too easy to misunderstand as it is.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Because in English the definitions are clear:

Actually they're not. That's the problem.

Non-theist: One who is certain that no gods exist.

Atheist, but ok let's go with it.

Atheist: One who, on the subject of gods, has no belief. No valid evidence (valid being a very important word) has been presented thus far for the existence or non-existence, and so a belief has not been established.

Having no belief is a belief itself.


Unless one doesn't have a sound brain. We're just going in circles here.

Agnostic: You got this one right basically. One who believes no knowledge of gods can ever be obtained.

Actually no, Agnostics believe evidence MAY or MAY NOT be obtained. If you believe it can never be obtained, you're an atheist(or what you call non-theist I suppose).

You keep saying atheists don't recognize current evidence but what you may fail to realize is that, from an atheist's point of view, there is no evidence.

Not recognizing evidence = Refuting theists' claims(what they call evidence) = There is no evidence

Same thing my dear.

There is stuff that theists claim is evidence, but then it's easy to claim, isn't it? There is a method to determine whether evidence is valid or not. That method happens to be the scientific method. So far, no presented evidence has survived the scrutiny of science and thus no one who values facts has yet any reason to believe they are true.

I never said there's any evidence available. There are claims, when a claim has no scientific basis, it's not evidence.

BHR, do you think there is a pink teapot orbiting the Earth? Do you believe it's there? Do you believe it's not there? Or do you not have belief either way?

I do have a belief that maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Edit: You're right that not everyone uses words the same way, and that often multiple definitions are used for the same word. However, this does not mean that those using these different definitions are right to do so. Accepting these different uses as equally valid is exactly why the word 'literally' literally doesn't mean anything anymore.

But you're wrong, the word literally does have a meaning. Half the planet just happens not to know what it means. They made it up their own definition for it (much like you did with the whole atheist/non-theist bit).

An Imari/Agnostic is willing to concede that gods may exist. An Imari/Non-theist is adamant that they do not. This leads to some fairly marked differences in the way they relate to other people, and in what they're willing to accept.

Let's stop there before we continue on.

If Imari/agnostic is willing to concede that god(s) may exist, then the last part of your definition shouldn't be there.

"willing to concede that gods may exist" and "Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it." are mutually exclusive. Which one of them describes Imari/Agnostic? You must choose.

 

[LeMansAid]

@BHRxRacer It's about active vs inactive. A theist actively believes, a non-theist actively disbelieves, while an atheist is inactive.

I can see how people from cultures where belief and religion tend to be thought of as present from point of birth rather than present from point of choice could view an atheist as having actively taken a step though. Could this be playing a role in the disconnect at all?

 

[BHRxRacer]

@BHRxRacer It's about active vs inactive. A theist actively believes, a non-theist actively disbelieves, while an atheist is inactive.

I can see how people from cultures where belief and religion tend to be thought of as present from point of birth rather than present from point of choice could view an atheist as having actively taken a step though. Could this be playing a role in the disconnect at all?

It doesn't play a role.

Define "active" and "inactive" because as far as I can read from your opinion, atheists' inactivity is a form of activity.


Still waiting for a response from @dylansan

 

[dylansan]

It doesn't play a role.

Define "active" and "inactive" because as far as I can read from your opinion, atheists' inactivity is a form of activity.


Still waiting for a response from @dylansan

You continue to "correct" my definitions despite the fact that your definitions are incorrect. There's not much more I can do, and it's late anyway. Since @Famine seems to share my viewpoint, perhaps he can disect your arguments, as he's pretty good at making convincing arguments. Unless he's gotten bored of this discussion, which is understandable.

 

[Joel]

Atheism is a belief in the sense that bald is a hair colour.

It doesn't play a role.

Define "active" and "inactive" because as far as I can read from your opinion, atheists' inactivity is a form of activity.

Active: "I believe god does exist". "I believe god does not exist".
Inactive: "I do not have a belief in a god".

I don't live my life as if there is a God, but I don't wake up in the morning and think of how sure I am that God doesn't exist. I don't follow Formula 1. That doesn't mean I've actively chosen to not have a favourite driver. That's really the best analogy I can come up with, to an outsider the various religions of the world are akin to teams in a sports league I don't follow or care about. I don't actively choose to not have a favourite F1 driver, I just don't follow it and lack a rooting interest. I don't live my life as a "Non-F1 fan".

 

[BHRxRacer]

You continue to "correct" my definitions despite the fact that your definitions are incorrect. There's not much more I can do, and it's late anyway. Since @Famine seems to share my viewpoint, perhaps he can disect your arguments, as he's pretty good at making convincing arguments. Unless he's gotten bored of this discussion, which is understandable.

I didn't correct anything you said. I corrected things you misquoted, and pointed out flaws in your logic.

Care to follow up on this:

dylansan said
BHR, do you think there is a pink teapot orbiting the Earth? Do you believe it's there? Do you believe it's not there? Or do you not have belief either way?

I do have a belief that maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

??

Active: "I believe god does exist". "I believe god does not exist".
Inactive: "I do not have a belief in a god".

If by belief you mean 100% belief then in that case:

Inactive= Agnostic
Active "I believe god does exist" = Theist
Active "I believe god does not exist" = Atheist.

 

[dylansan]

I do have a belief that maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

That's not a belief. Those are the only two possible options. There is, or there isn't. You haven't made any choice or decision, and you aren't "convinced" of any particular truth. In fact, you're simply following logic, a system which inherently doesn't require belief. Something incapable of belief could determine that a teapot either is or isn't orbiting earth.

Here's something to ponder: Before I asked that question, did you have a belief about the teapot?

 

[Imari]

Let's stop there before we continue on.

If Imari/agnostic is willing to concede that god(s) may exist, then the last part of your definition shouldn't be there.

"willing to concede that gods may exist" and "Were such evidence to be presented to them, they would deny it." are mutually exclusive. Which one of them describes Imari/Agnostic? You must choose.

No, they are not. They believe that gods may exist. They believe that evidence cannot.

From a scientific view, it's a slightly ass-backwards sort of concept, but you're not dealing with people who necessarily subscribe to a scientific worldview. An omnipotent being could conceivably make sure that no evidence of himself ever reached lesser beings, and so it's at least internally logically consistent.

Because they believe that evidence of a god or gods cannot exist, they would deny any evidence of such gods as false.

The same thing can be seen with Russell's Teapot. Suppose one were to suggest that it was possible that there was a teapot there, but that we could never really know (for whatever crazy, illogical idea they want). Any evidence that you were to provide them of a teapot would be dismissed as a hoax, or a conspiracy, or whatever. They might accept that there could be a teapot there, but you couldn't provide them with information about it because you would be breaking their worldview. They could be floating in space in front of it, and they'd probably be speculating that they were in the Matrix or some such bollocks to explain why there wasn't really a teapot.

Or they could just change their mind, but then they wouldn't be an Imari/Agnostic. They'd be Imari/Atheist, because they'd be open to changing their mind when presented with appropriate evidence.

 

[Scaff]

/facepalm
"No belief in god/s" is a belief itself.

No its not.

Let me rephrase then. There aren't any half-accurate English-Arabic citations online. I know that because pretty much everything members here cited are incredibly inaccurate and when I try to cite something myself, I find nothing but forum posts or inaccurate blogs/websites.

That nothing you can find agrees with you doesn't automatically mean that all those sources are wrong, it could mean that you are wrong.

Yes. The word is دين pronounced deen/dean. Feel free to suggest a different word.

You mean the one that every source says relates to a deity?

Are they also all wrong?

If your devotion to your children dictates your world views or your practices, then you have a religion. That's what I'm saying.

And in doing so (unless the children are deities) you would be incorrect.

You asked to validate who my friend is, which is worse.

"So we simply have to take your word on his qualifications do we?" - You

Which is not you and I fail to see how its worse.

I've also not asked you to validate who your friend is, I've asked you to validate his claims and what qualifies him to make them, which is a rather different thing. For example if he is a published author then that should be rather easy, as his published work will do the job quite well.

Yes you did. You asked me to define religion full stop. That implies, you want to know what I think is religion (regardless of the language).

Did I use a word in an other language that English?

No.

That however doesn't change the fact that every source available that I have found for the Arabic also includes a deity, if you have one that differs then please supply it, explaining why all the others are incorrect.

Did you not read the post? Google translate won't help you, and professional translators in the field are often incompetent. Unless you know a professional, and you're certain he's competent, and ask for his help, you really have no means.

Do you know one?

Yes.

I work for a large multi-national company, we have a number of offices in the Middle East, including one in Dubai that also runs all our training in the Middle East (in both English and Arabic - hence the professional translation services). I mentor the training manager in that office and have a conference call weekly with him.

Would you like to see pictures of the view from the office? Would you like the address of the office? Would you like to see the view from the Window of my preferred hotel when I travel to the office? Would you like to know the name of the bar I visit when out their? Would you like me to supply visa scans to a nominated member of staff to show the last time I visited?

That's not nice of you giving threats like that.

A reminder of the AUP is not a threat, and based on your track record its a reminder you need.

I'm making the claim that all of us are religious by my definition, you implied that I'm religious by your definition. In other words, you implied that I believe in a deity. Did you not?
An implication you made. I have no idea if you are religious or not, but based on your own (claimed) definition you are.

See the arguments with famine about metal soundness.

All of which is unsurprisingly uncited.

In mainstream English yes. That's why I asked if he meant commenly or specifically. Commonly, religion implies a belief in a deity. I'm fully aware of that. Technically though, as far as I gather from the etymology of the word religion in English (coincidentally the Arabic equivalent as well), and even the Wikipedia definition, Religion doesn't necessarily involve a deity.

Yes it does, and you have yet to provide a single source that states otherwise.

What will it take to convince you that the Arabic equivalent does not necessarily involve a deity? Dude, send me your address in a private message and I'll ship you the book as soon as I find a copy. From there, you are free to hand it to competent professionals to translate it for you.

edit


@Scaff

الدِين أو الدِيانة, من دان خضع وذل ودان بكذا فهي ديانة وهو دين، وتديّن به فهو متديّن, إذا أطلق يراد به: ما يتديّن به البشر، ويدين به من اعتقاد وسلوك؛ بمعنى آخر، هو طاعة المرء والتزامه لما يعتنقه من فكر ومبادئ.
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/دين_(معتقد)#.D8.AA.D8.B9.D8.B1.D9.8A.D9.81_.D8.A7.D9.84.D8.AF.D9.8A.D9.86
From wikipedia arabic.

Translate that.

Why do I need a hard copy, provide me with the author and title that will be more than enough for me to provide to our translation team.

I will also ask let them loose on the Arabic Wiki, we will see how many references to God and/or deities it contains.

 

[DQuaN]

Are you guys still going with this? It's a lost cause, put him on your ignore list and move on.

@BHRxRacer your preconceptions are wrong, your understanding of the meanings of words are wrong, your understanding of atheism/nontheism/agnosticism is wrong.

Just stop. Perhaps you are hindered by translations in Arabic having different meanings. In fact, I'm sure that is what is going on. Stop telling English people what English words mean. YOU'RE WRONG!

Instead of arguing with everything everyone says, perhaps try reading it, understanding it, and learning from it. 💡

 

[dddsprayshop]

Are you guys still going with this? It's a lost cause

Instead of arguing with everything everyone says, perhaps try reading it, understanding it, and learning from it. 💡

yes, this is a lost cause.
The postings that are dominating this topic, have nothing to do with an answer to the original title of this topic.

But the last line you use. You did read those postings?
"Learning" is of the table and "understanding" is questionable.
It is more: Can you accept points that other people make?
If i have to accept a god or that i believe or that my believe is a religion, then i need the same from the other person.
If both party's do not accept or understand from each other, it is war.
Debating and discussion is the same as war.
Peace is accomplished by giving and taking by both party's.
War, when no party accepts the points from the other party.
Win, when one party stops or accepts loss or is overly dominated in that "war".

There will never be a winner in this discussion, never ever.
Only a "god" can end this.

 

[DQuaN]

Lucky I'm here then.

 

[Imari]

There will never be a winner in this discussion, never ever.

There isn't supposed to be a winner in discussions. The desired outcome is the sharing of knowledge and opinion, and the hope that maybe some people could learn a little from it.

I don't see how anyone could "win" a discussion. At best, one could teach others something that they didn't know, or help them view some aspect of thought more clearly. Hardly "winning". If anything, the winners are the people who come away with new knowledge and new ways of thinking, they're the ones getting the most out of the discussion.

 

[dddsprayshop]

There isn't supposed to be a winner in discussions. The desired outcome is the sharing of knowledge and opinion, and the hope that maybe some people could learn a little from it.

I don't see how anyone could "win" a discussion. At best, one could teach others something that they didn't know, or help them view some aspect of thought more clearly. Hardly "winning". If anything, the winners are the people who come away with new knowledge and new ways of thinking, they're the ones getting the most out of the discussion.

You pull that one a bit out of context.( understatement)
I refer to the discussion between the two dominating group/persons here.
There is hardly any understanding.

I understand points that people make, i accept the person that he/she defends his/her point, but i don't feel forced to share the same conviction.
What is happening here, is acceptence by force.Resulting in no acceptence at all.
Deviating from the real facts, and you do the same, you don't mention that, so you pulled my post out of context.
If you want me to participate, discuss the main fact, the discussion between the two dominating parties.

For the second part of your post i agree.I learned more about the meaning of atheïst etc.etc.
So i win knowledge, but only for this part of my life, a forum topic.
I'm not convinced to change my thinking about this question of the main topic.

 

[Dotini]

A funny story of an actor making fun of atheists.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/...secretly-know-god-exists-and-is-judging-them/

 

[Jet Badger]

That reminded me - I need to rave. Rave in the name of God.

Fire up that 90s acid techno!

 

[Famine]

A funny story of an actor making fun of atheists.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/...secretly-know-god-exists-and-is-judging-them/

He's right you know. Atheists are so angry that we murder other people by the boatload.

 

[Dotini]

I'm not so sure most atheists are really angry about anything in particular. If anything, the atheist ought to be carrying less emotional baggage than the believer.

In ultra-secular Seattle, most atheists I know are more irate about potholes than the goings on at the Mars Hill Church.

 

[GBO Possum]

He's right you know. Atheists are so angry that we murder other people by the boatload.

And blow ourselves up next to people we don't like.

 

[dddsprayshop]

He's right you know. Atheists are so angry that we murder other people by the boatload.

I guess, your line is sarcasm.

And for mr. Sorbo, do not judge them or you will be judged by you own god.
What goes around, comes around.

I'm still not convinced to share a "god" believe. Just words, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not so sure most atheists are really angry about anything in particular. If anything, the atheist ought to be carrying less emotional baggage than the believer.

In ultra-secular Seattle, most atheists I know are more irate about potholes than the goings on at the Mars Hill Church.

Don't be fooled. Replace "atheïst" with "people" in that "mr.Sorbo article".
People can get angry when other people force their thoughts on them.
It's just politics.

 

[Dotini]

And for mr. Sorbo, "do not judge them or you will be judged by you own god" (Matthew 7:2).
What goes around, comes around. (Galations 6:7 "Reap what you sow", Matthew 26:52 "Live by the sword, die by the sword")

I'm still not convinced to share a "god" believe. Just words, nothing more, nothing less.

Here, let me fix this for you.

 

[Lizard]

This question has been on my mind for a week.

To the Christians out there explain the story of Jesus.

I mean from my point of view the story goes.
God creates Jesus and declares him his son giving him powers to perform miracles etc.
God lets Jesus do his work for him whilst watching him etc.
God then brutally kills him to forgive our sins. I don't get this part. Why did Jesus have to die for this? Surely God could just say you are forgiven? It makes the entire story sound like a game of The Sims. Jesus is God's little play thing which he then kills in a horrid fashion for what appears to be entertainment.

Now all that has died down I ask this again.

 

[Dotini]

Now all that has died down I ask this again.

I'm no Christian. But if I were, I'd say your version of the story is theologically debatable and anyway entirely peripheral. The primary significance of the story of Jesus is resurrection and life after death.