Irony . . .

[luns101]

This is a concept believers cannot contemplate, but no it is not. I don't believe in anything. It isn't a belief. I don't believe nothing exists. I just don't believe. Why can a lack of belief not exist as a concept? My analogy still stands.

By believers I'm assuming you mean Christians (or other sects of theists). I don't think it's something that we can't contemplate. It's just that we disagree with the definition.

Atheists tend to define it as the non-belief in God. People like myself (Christians) would say it is the belief that there is no God. I really don't understand how people can say "I have a non-belief". Those positions are beliefs. Everyone takes a position on God - people don't take non-positions.

We've all argued the Iraq War here numerous times. People don't go around saying, "I have a non-belief that the war is good." They usually say "I believe that the war is wrong." Then they state their reasons for that. When we all discussed whether private gun ownership is helpful to society, people didn't say "I have a non-belief that gun ownership is good". They would say, "I believe gun ownership is harmful and not effective." Then they would back up their points for why they believed that. Think of all the times we've argued about Bush's policies here. People don't say, "I have a non-belief that Bush is a good president." They say, "I believe Bush's policies suck and are bad!"

Anyway, I know you'll disagree with me (what a surprise, right ). So here's what the dictionaries say:

"Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience" - Oxford Concise Dictionary

"the service and worship of God or the supernatural" and then later...
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." - Merriam Webster Online

"any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy." - Webster's New World Dictionary

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." and then again later...
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" - FreeDictionary.com

So I think both sides can take from that what they want. My personal belief (no pun intended) is that atheists don't want to acknowledge that they believe there is no God in positive terms because then they would be put in the position of having to defend it as a competing religion to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.

[Napoleon Ier]

the ever-prolific luns makes an excellent and almost pedagogic point.

[beezer]

Hey Guiscard if you want to pin luns down you can always say that he has a blind faith in the Cubs. No matter how many times I've tried to convince him to change his loyalty he continues to believe they will win someday!

[Napoleon Ier]

What in the name of hell are the cubs?

[luns101]

Hey Guiscard if you want to pin luns down you can always say that he has a blind faith in the Cubs. No matter how many times I've tried to convince him to change his loyalty he continues to believe they will win someday!

Shutup beezer. I'm sick of the Leon Durham jokes.

[Jehan]

is saying i dont believe in God, equivalent to saying i believe God doesn't exist, is all of this just word games or is there some substance in the meaning.

[hecter]

luns, the examples you gave are all opposites, the flip side of the coin, so to speak. What you're saying is that all theists are on one side, and all atheists are on another. What guiscard is saying is that atheists are a different "coin" altogether. Also, you're right that we don't say we have a "non-belief" in the fact that the Iraq war is good, but we DO say "I don't believe that the Iraq war is good." and "I don't believe in God.", just like we say "I don't have a religion.", not "I have a non-religion."

You quoted the definition of religion in your post:
"Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience" - Oxford Concise Dictionary
Atheists do not recognize said entity, so how can they be defined as a religion along with those that do?

[luns101]

luns, the examples you gave are all opposites, the flip side of the coin, so to speak. What you're saying is that all theists are on one side, and all atheists are on another. What guiscard is saying is that atheists are a different "coin" altogether.

Yes, and my position is that atheists are no different than any other human being on the planet. A rejection in the belief in God is still an attempt to make sense and understand the world through naturalistic, evolutionary, or some other man-made set of beliefs.

Also, you're right that we don't say we have a "non-belief" in the fact that the Iraq war is good, but we DO say "I don't believe that the Iraq war is good." and "I don't believe in God.", just like we say "I don't have a religion.", not "I have a non-religion."

Of course. I could say that I don't believe abortion is morally right. I am positively affirming my belief that I think allowing an unborn child the right to life in the same sentence. Just because I use the words "don't" or "doesn't" has no effect on the fact that I'm affirming my belief that there is an opposing view that I believe is true/correct. Whenever you say you don't believe in one thing you are, at the same time, affirming that you do believe something else is true/correct in its' place.

Saying you don't believe in God affirms that you do believe something else explains the origin of the universe. It would be incorrect to say that you don't have a religion because you do believe in some world view which explains your existence and live accordingly. Atheists consistently tell me that Christians aren't exclusively moral. They tell me that they live according the good principles that are inherent in every man. They are positively stated. Here's just one example of that. (Keep in mind I don't agree with the author...just pointing out the fact that he believes atheistic principles should be clearly stated). I have yet to hear an atheist tell me that they don't believe in any moral standard whatsoever. It's either a different set of principles or a different justification for the same morals I believe in.

You quoted the definition of religion in your post:
"Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience" - Oxford Concise Dictionary
Atheists do not recognize said entity, so how can they be defined as a religion along with those that do?

This is why I said both sides could take from the definitions what they wanted. I gave the other side of it as well...remember?

So I think both sides can take from that what they want.

[got tonkaed]

I think part of the problem might be that people dont tend to look at these things on a spectrum and tend to look at them more as absolutes. We cant necessarily say the same things about all Christians or all Muslims or all Pagans or all Atheists, since we are talking about pretty widely diffused concepts.

The notion of a supreme being is something that given our common culture (at least from my perspective) everyone in this world has to account for. People can choose to believe in a number of different things, or to not believe in it, but all of these things do symbolize at least in some way, a belief or choice.

However it gets trickier from here. I do not believe that belief is really being constituted the same way between believers and non believers, or even between the same person at different points in time. In an earlier point of my life, when i was a religious person, frequently issues of doctrine and practice came up, because in many cases i was looking for guidance. A lot of these things made me question my beliefs and other things made me reaffirm them. Belief was at this point a very strong word for me. In my long falling away process, belief might have been just as important, because i was attempting to account for different things and see what i believed held up.

However know, i think it would be faulty for someone to claim that i was being as religious or believing in my non belief as much as a believer. Though i do still frequently look at some religious news or activities and try to make sense of it, i dont hold it up against a my lack of belief. I dont sit here every day and wonder, am i believing in the right thing? In short i dont face the same questioning and reaffiriming as an atheist that i did as a believer.

I think this is similar with how religious groups are. Some people have a geniune liking for religious groups or for activity that is deemed religious, mostly because of postivie experiences. Those are the type of groups which try to emulate the church experience, because there are many positive elements of churches that arent necessarily religious. Others who dont have that kind of tie wont do the same thing. Its similar to the notion that some Christians say they are Christians but dont have an active church life. Some of you may not identify them as true christians, but since thats how they identify themselves, thats how it works.

A lot of these things cant be boiled down to what an individual does, and probably cant be qualified as an absolute.

[Guiscard]

This is a concept believers cannot contemplate, but no it is not. I don't believe in anything. It isn't a belief. I don't believe nothing exists. I just don't believe. Why can a lack of belief not exist as a concept? My analogy still stands.

By believers I'm assuming you mean Christians (or other sects of theists). I don't think it's something that we can't contemplate. It's just that we disagree with the definition.

Atheists tend to define it as the non-belief in God. People like myself (Christians) would say it is the belief that there is no God. I really don't understand how people can say "I have a non-belief". Those positions are beliefs. Everyone takes a position on God - people don't take non-positions.

We've all argued the Iraq War here numerous times. People don't go around saying, "I have a non-belief that the war is good." They usually say "I believe that the war is wrong." Then they state their reasons for that. When we all discussed whether private gun ownership is helpful to society, people didn't say "I have a non-belief that gun ownership is good". They would say, "I believe gun ownership is harmful and not effective." Then they would back up their points for why they believed that. Think of all the times we've argued about Bush's policies here. People don't say, "I have a non-belief that Bush is a good president." They say, "I believe Bush's policies suck and are bad!"

Anyway, I know you'll disagree with me (what a surprise, right ). So here's what the dictionaries say:

"Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience" - Oxford Concise Dictionary

"the service and worship of God or the supernatural" and then later...
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." - Merriam Webster Online

"any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy." - Webster's New World Dictionary

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." and then again later...
"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion" - FreeDictionary.com

So I think both sides can take from that what they want. My personal belief (no pun intended) is that atheists don't want to acknowledge that they believe there is no God in positive terms because then they would be put in the position of having to defend it as a competing religion to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.

It really isn't the same thing as arguing over gun control or Iraq. In that instance we're both making value judgments or choices about an issue. To say you had a lack of belief there would be a different case entirely. Atheism is different. It is a nothing or something argument. No-one has dealt with the analogy of the teapot yet...

I have three plates. On two I place two teapots, and on the third there is nothing. Does the lack of a teapot on the third mean it fits any of the definitions of a teapot? Is it a non-Teapot?

No. It is a lack of something. And that is what Atheism is.

[Backglass]

Yes, my post over-simplified.

My point is that the belief in nothing is still a belief

This is a concept believers cannot contemplate, but no it is not. I don't believe in anything. It isn't a belief. I don't believe nothing exists. I just don't believe. Why can a lack of belief not exist as a concept? My analogy still stands.

And to that I say "Amen".

[Snorri1234]

Really, religion isn't the same as a belief system anyway. I hope we can all agree that at least atheist's aren't religious.

[Napoleon Ier]

The teapot analogy is flawed on ridiculous amounts of levels. I expected better from Guiscard.
The non-existance of a teapot doesn't matter, it is your belief that there is none that does.
That belief is an assertion, based on reason/faith/gut instinct/what you will, that there is nothing on the plate.
Not believing anything about that plate is agnosticism.

[Guiscard]

The teapot analogy is flawed on ridiculous amounts of levels. I expected better from Guiscard.
The non-existance of a teapot doesn't matter, it is your belief that there is none that does.
That belief is an assertion, based on reason/faith/gut instinct/what you will, that there is nothing on the plate.
Not believing anything about that plate is agnosticism.

You've really not got the hang of Agnosticism, have you.

Just get a dictionary.

Here is the Cambridge dictionary for example.

It means you neither deny or ascertain that God exists. You believe it can never be proved. That God is not knowable. If I didn't believe that we could ever ascertain whether or not a mechanism to pour tea exists, and make no judgment based on that, then I would be agnostic.

[Guiscard]

And another:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Agnostic

[CrazyAnglican]

It really isn't the same thing as arguing over gun control or Iraq. In that instance we're both making value judgments or choices about an issue. To say you had a lack of belief there would be a different case entirely. Atheism is different. It is a nothing or something argument. No-one has dealt with the analogy of the teapot yet...

I have three plates. On two I place two teapots, and on the third there is nothing. Does the lack of a teapot on the third mean it fits any of the definitions of a teapot? Is it a non-Teapot?

No. It is a lack of something. And that is what Atheism is.

I'll take a stab at this one. Guiscard the problem with your analogy IMO is that it compares a teapot (a concrete thing that can be weighed, seen, and measured) with belief (an abstract that cannot be weighed or measured in any appreciable way). To extend your analogy in what I see to be a more accurate way, I'd counter with this.

I have a teapot; it's sitting atop a china cabinet in my dining room. You have a choice to believe that I'm telling the truth and that in some sense that teapot is there and perhaps to go on and guess its size, color, usefulness, etc. (the theist option), to believe that I'm lying, deluded, stupid, or outright crazy and there is no teapot there (the atheist position), or to believe that whether it is there or not is ultimately unknowable because you don't know where CA lives. (the agnostic position).
Whichever option you take you have still taken a stance on the existence of that teapot. It makes no sense to say "I'm different from everyone else because I don't think there is a teapot". Sure you have a differing opinion, but you cannot escape that it is an opinion about the existence of the teapot. It's also worth mentioning that none of these opinions have any relevance to the actual fact of the teapot's existence. It either is or isn't there, and nothing will change that one way or the other.

[Minister Masket]

I'll take a stab at this one. Guiscard the problem with your analogy IMO is that it compares a teapot (a concrete thing that can be weighed, seen, and measured) with belief (an abstract that cannot be weighed or measured in any appreciable way). To extend your analogy in what I see to be a more accurate way, I'd counter with this.

He's got a knife! Now I know why they call him crazy!
RUN!

[CrazyAnglican]

I'll take a stab at this one. Guiscard the problem with your analogy IMO is that it compares a teapot (a concrete thing that can be weighed, seen, and measured) with belief (an abstract that cannot be weighed or measured in any appreciable way). To extend your analogy in what I see to be a more accurate way, I'd counter with this.

He's got a knife! Now I know why they call him crazy!
RUN!

Aw, c'mon now. I was acquitted all three times

[peanutsdad]

the store is probably run by a catholic and they put it in the middle of all the religious books to punish and annoy the atheist....


PD

[Backglass]

the store is probably run by a catholic and they put it in the middle of all the religious books to punish and annoy the atheist....


PD

Except that true Atheists don't browse the religious section of book stores.

[jay_a2j]

Yes, my post over-simplified.

My point is that the belief in nothing is still a belief

This is a concept believers cannot contemplate, but no it is not. I don't believe in anything. It isn't a belief. I don't believe nothing exists. I just don't believe. Why can a lack of belief not exist as a concept? My analogy still stands.

If you believe that when you die, you simply lie in the ground and are eaten by worms, THAT is a belief.

[luns101]

It really isn't the same thing as arguing over gun control or Iraq. In that instance we're both making value judgments or choices about an issue. To say you had a lack of belief there would be a different case entirely. Atheism is different. It is a nothing or something argument. No-one has dealt with the analogy of the teapot yet...

I have three plates. On two I place two teapots, and on the third there is nothing. Does the lack of a teapot on the third mean it fits any of the definitions of a teapot? Is it a non-Teapot?

No. It is a lack of something. And that is what Atheism is.

Well it looks like CrazyAnglican beat me to the point since I went out for poker night with the guys after writing my last post. We're talking about belief. I don't know if you saw my post to hecter, but beliefs are stated positively. Even when stated as "I don't believe in such-and-such" you still substitute something that you positively will believe in it's place.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that if there is indeed this lack of belief then that puts the atheist in a position of being a powerless individual. If only they could muster the power of belief in God...but alas, it's not to be since they lack the ability to believe in God. I hardly doubt that atheists are powerless, helpless people.

I would submit that atheists willfully reject the belief in God. To say that they simply lack belief makes them look deprived of the ability to choose. Every one of us willfully accepts certain beliefs, and by the same token, willfully rejects others. So I think once again we disagree on the definitions/terms of this discussion. I look at an atheists choice as a willful choice to reject the belief in God. I look at Christians (or whatever believers in other theistic religions) as people who willfully accept the belief in God.

As I've said before...I think the reason atheists call it a "non-belief" or "lack of belief" is because that excuses them from defending atheism as a competing religious belief. It also eases peoples' consciences from having to defend the decision to reject God.

[luns101]

Except that true Atheists don't browse the religious section of book stores.

No, but they do ride magnificent motorcycles through the Empire state on their way to work.

[Backglass]

If you believe that when you die, you simply lie in the ground and are eaten by worms, THAT is a belief.

If you want to take your usual "dictionary.com" approach, I suppose. This also makes flushing the toilet a "belief" as I "believe" my waste is going to the septic tank. I don't actually see it going there, so I must believe it to be so. Is my crap a religion now? A belief system?

I also believe that you will die of lung cancer as you cannot quit smoking. Is "Jay's Death Watch" a religion as well because of my "beliefs"?

[flashleg8]

It really isn't the same thing as arguing over gun control or Iraq. In that instance we're both making value judgments or choices about an issue. To say you had a lack of belief there would be a different case entirely. Atheism is different. It is a nothing or something argument. No-one has dealt with the analogy of the teapot yet...

I have three plates. On two I place two teapots, and on the third there is nothing. Does the lack of a teapot on the third mean it fits any of the definitions of a teapot? Is it a non-Teapot?

No. It is a lack of something. And that is what Atheism is.

I'll take a stab at this one. Guiscard the problem with your analogy IMO is that it compares a teapot (a concrete thing that can be weighed, seen, and measured) with belief (an abstract that cannot be weighed or measured in any appreciable way). To extend your analogy in what I see to be a more accurate way, I'd counter with this.

I have a teapot; it's sitting atop a china cabinet in my dining room. You have a choice to believe that I'm telling the truth and that in some sense that teapot is there and perhaps to go on and guess its size, color, usefulness, etc. (the theist option), to believe that I'm lying, deluded, stupid, or outright crazy and there is no teapot there (the atheist position), or to believe that whether it is there or not is ultimately unknowable because you don't know where CA lives. (the agnostic position).
Whichever option you take you have still taken a stance on the existence of that teapot. It makes no sense to say "I'm different from everyone else because I don't think there is a teapot". Sure you have a differing opinion, but you cannot escape that it is an opinion about the existence of the teapot. It's also worth mentioning that none of these opinions have any relevance to the actual fact of the teapot's existence. It either is or isn't there, and nothing will change that one way or the other.

I'm liking this tea pot example - keep it going!

For the sake of argument I'm using the crazyanglican refinement of teapot existence (as opposed to the orthodox guiscard model).

What was my position before I read this thread?

I did not know of the asserted existence of the tea pot in CrazyAnglicans dining room. I had no chance to form an opinion on its size shape form, its existence or fabrication.

Therefor I was an atheist with respect to teapots. I had no belief. The non existence of belief.


Next you'll be telling me you've got a "coffee maker" too!