religion help: Are there any atheists here? - Help.com

had to be forced with a gun to me head like?

interesting question, all that religion is, by definition, is the path you choose in life to help you through it (more or less) so one can argue that atheism is a religion

I’m not an atheist but I think those who are have already made that choice. No amount of force can change what a person believes.

and yes I am an atheist

Natty wrote:
ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!

Dude, that is what we’re doing, just not in the manner you expected I think.

of course there are. Atheists are everywhere

I did, atheism :D

let’s see, its atheist and what the other one?

just like catholics, people from every other belief and religion

If I absolutely had to choose a religion, I’d probably go Rastafari. But then I’d have to quit drinking.

But I don’t see that happening. I’m quite content with my atheism.

*and people

taoist, now that’s a great religion

hell yeah, there’s my answer taoism, lol (no, really)

lol, you’re funny

Well there’s an interesting question. Buddism probably, I wouldn’t mind chilling in the mountains and leading a real simple life, I dunno if I could do that now, but you know if I’d been exsposed to it earlier….or oh oh! Hinduism, their stories always fascinated me when I was a kid!

look up the definition, then get back to me, know what you are talking about if you are going to say something

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, this is from dictionary.com an atheist has all of these

Taoism gets you into the same trouble as Buddhism, since you’ve got religious (or theistic) versions of both, along with the more reasonable philosophical versions.

Theism - With Belief
Atheism - Without Belief
Gnostic - With Knowledge
Agnostic - Without Knowledge

I’ve never met an atheist who wasn’t also an agnostic, though they could exist in principle. But there are plenty of gnostic theistic sects in addition to the normal agnostic ones.

can’t i just be here and not have a label

GiggiDyGiGgiDy wrote:
can’t i just be here and not have a label

Isn’t that kind of like asking if you can avoid having a description?

religion…. that means just a bunch of customs to me. If I had to be in a “religion”, I would want to be in one that believed in a God who loved me. I am religious by definition… I go to church, but that is much different that what I have with God.

I’m an Atheist. BUT if I HAVE to choose, am I allowed to make up my own religion?

You can make up what ever you want. I know that there are many beliefs out there. I know I can’t talk anyone into believing what I believe because it is there choice. However it doesn’t make any sense at all for everyone to be right.

lismarie wrote:
You can make up what ever you want. I know that there are many beliefs out there. I know I can’t talk anyone into believing what I believe because it is there choice. However it doesn’t make any sense at all for everyone to be right.

Why doesn’t it make sense? Especially when it comes to religion, people are going to believe what they want. You can think about it as everyone’s view on religion being correct for themselves or the only other way to see it is that no one is right, I myself prefer the former.

welll… I believe in God and you don’t… We can’t both be right.. We can’t both be wrong

Why is it called ‘God’? That’s such a strange name. GOD *thinking face*

Thus why I find it safe to say that it’s right for people to believe in whatever they want to believe in. It’s a personal choice, in whose eyes but your own does it matter if it’s right or wrong?

I see your point. Since you don’t believe the way I do it doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, but yes to me it matters

by the way just because it matters to me doesn’t mean that I’m knocking you in anyway. I appreciate your heart felt honesty.

Oh I didn’t take it the wrong way trust me I enjoy talking to people about religion. It amazes me when people are passionate and firmly believe in a higher power. It’s not for me, but people who truly believe…that kind of faith, floors me. Anyways I’d like to know what it is you believe in exactly, just a strong relationship with God?

Just something to ponder on… why call you red_ sky??? I want to call you AWESOME. Just because I called you something different doesn’t change who you are…. on the other hand if I believed that you always wanted to be a rockstar doesn’t mean that you always wanted to be a rockstar. I guess I am saying that just because I call God a name doesn’t change who He is. On the flip side I can’t make up who God is. by the way.. I was typing this before your last reply. I will tell you what i believe.

Yes. I believe in a strong relationship with God. I believe that He created everything. There are a lot of mysteries that I will never understand in this lifetime. I believe that when God created us, He saw that it was good. I believe that He still loves us no matter what we have done. I believe man chose to disobey Him. I believe He wants us to be ‘good’ because if not it leads to bad things. I believe because man disobeyed it created ’sin.’ I also believe that God is holy and what kind of God would he be if he didn’t deal with sin. I mean if someone kills someone there is a penalty. I believe in Jesus who hung out with sinners and was hated by religious people. I believe that Jesus is God and He died because there had to be a penalty for sin. He made a way so that He suffered the consequences. I believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven. I believe God lives in me. That is a HUGE chunk of what I believe. I also believe that He did all of this for EVERYONE.

Most of all I believe that I am a sinner saved by the grace of God and not because of anything that I have done. It really has been a joy talking to you… my sleep is all messed up. I was on here last night because my heart has been broken. I didn’t know that it would take me here. I was just being sarcastic with myself. I used a different account. I am gonna get off of here.. any last quick thoughts?

Yeah, I’ve got plenty of thoughts. And lots of questions, sleep though, I’ll send you a shout out and you can answer me when you have time.

oh ok… how does that work??? a shout out??

haha look at the upper right hand corner of you screen. there’s a little icon that say shout out, I’ll send one now. and when you want to reply just click on my name, and start typing me a message!

oh okay… i see it. Last night I used an old email address that doesn’t work so when I tried to log on it wouldn’t let me. So tonight I used my email that works… when I log on i’m guessing it will probably take me to that same page.. thanks!
good night. GET SOME REST… I’m used to going to bed at 9.

Goonight!

Buddhism or Hinduism. Leaning more towards Buddhism. But Hindu mythology is fun like Greek and Norse ones. Not boring like the Bible, Koran etc.

I am athiest, I think the whole point of being athiest is the fact that you don’t want a religion and that you don’t have to choose, I wouldn’t pick any of them, they all have huge faults and most contradict themselves if you look back far enough.

Ghost80 wrote:
Buddhism or Hinduism. Leaning more towards Buddhism. But Hindu mythology is fun like Greek and Norse ones. Not boring like the Bible, Koran etc.

I don’t want to belong to a group, people always let me down, always have, always will. I believe in Jesus Christ, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:9 Just like I have faith in myself to get me out of bed every morning I have faith in Jesus Christ to get me through everyday. I have joy, I have faith, I have everything I need through him:). As an atheist I had NOTHING, no HOPE, no FAITH, no FUTURE, just a whole lot of doubt, anger, confusion and ridiculous little practices to keep me busy.

I’m not into the whole “belief” thing, so I can’t be an atheist. I’m an agnostic.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
I’m not into the whole “belief” thing, so I can’t be an atheist. I’m an agnostic.

Er, what? “Do you believe in a god (or gods)?” is a binary question. Either you do believe (theism) or you don’t believe (atheism). You seem to be answering the different, but related, question, “Do you know if there is a god (or gods)?” Thats the one you get to answer with ‘Yes, I know’ (gnosticism) or ‘No, I don’t know’ (agnosticism).

Its the difference between ‘not believing that leprechauns exist’ and ‘believing that leprechauns do not exist’. The former lacks a belief in the existence of leprechauns and the latter has a belief concerning their nonexistence.

Um… no. I’m not sure where you’re getting your facts, but here, let me show you what I mean.

Gnostic- I believe there is a god/gods/goddess.

Atheist- I believe there is no god, nor any other form of deity.

Ignostic- The concept of gods and religion makes no sense, so I have no involvement.

Agnostic- I have no beliefs. I go by proof and proof alone. If there’s no proof, I go by evidence. If there’s no evidence, then I may have an opinion, but it’s nothing more than what I would consider most likely; certainly not a belief.

And this is all simply in regards to religion. I, however, am the only philosophical agnostic I’ve ever met. As a philosophical agnostic, I don’t have any beliefs about anything. Everything is questioned until it’s been proven.

Agnostics know that there is currently no way to know for certain which, if any, religion is correct. There may never be a way to know. Thus, we don’t cast a vote in the issue.

Xeno, you seem to be confused.

Gnosis - Direct experiential knowledge of the divine.
Theism - Belief in the existence of the divine.

Mr. Huxley coined the word agnostic as a parodistic rebuttal to the Gnostic sects that were popular in his time, so the meaning out to be clear enough.

The definition of atheism you’re using is commonly referred to as strong or positive atheism and is more precisely worded as ‘I do not believe there is a god, and I strongly suspect that there is not any form of deity.’ As contrasted with weak or negative atheism which is a simple lack of belief in divinity (and the position likely to be held by an individual who has never been exposed to any form of theism, like Tarzan).

So, I’m an agnostic, in that I have no direct knowledge of the divine, and a positive atheist, in that I have no belief in existence of the divine and that my appraisal of the evidence leads me to hypothesize that no such entities could exist. In addition, I am also an anti-theist, in that I think that most organized religion is vile.

If you think you can do a thing or think you can’t do a thing, you’re right:). Soul:) LMFAO:)!

You can twist the language, but you can’t change it quite as easily. Fun, though, that Gnosis rhymes with psychosis.

To answer the question, if I had to join a religion here are some possibilities…
- Judaism - I don’t believe any of it and the religious part of it is very disturbing but think about all the contacts you would have. All the rich doctors and lawyers who I would have a kinship with

Seriously though, here are the ones I would consider:
Church of the Subgenius - Because I am a subgenius and I am willing to accept Bob Dobs into my life, quit my job, and take back the slack!

Church of Satan: Its constituents are just about 100% atheist. Some believe in magic, others don’t. All the principles of satanism are pretty cool though.

Buddhism - Not the real kind. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism etc can be taken literally or as philosophies but all claim that you don’t need dogma, or to believe in any specific deity.

Hellenism - I would put out offerings out to the gods of ancient greece and have fun in the various festivals year round. I think the morals that hellenism aspires to are very dignified too, mainly the use of moderation. Even if I don’t believe in these gods literally, I think symbolically a devotion to these gods could enhance one’s life.

as an atheist I am a bit of a pan-theist too, that is I may use the word God interchangably with the word Universe, or refer to the laws which govern the universe as god.

Oh I forgot the Church of the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Reformed Church of the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster. I would get to dress as a pirate. Also I would be blessed by His many noodly Appendages.

Well, the last post was 4 days ago, but I will answer in a way.

I will rebel and choose not to join any. :) I classify myself as atheist simply because it is the simplest term the average person can understand. As this post shows, you go to far into any religion, or even religious based words/phrases, everyone gets a little confused. I personally have no idea the difference between the words. But I can explain my beliefs in my own way.

I don’t know if there is a god or not. I do not care to find out. If anyone I don’t know well enough to go into a long discussion/explanation asks I will simply say I don’t believe.

I don’t see the point in me spending my life trying to find out what will happen after I die when I can just wait and see. And I have no problem waiting. I have enough stress with the world right now, I don’t know if I can handle dealing with the God question in any depth.

I lived in a religious community for about 2 years, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. I have a lot of respect for religious people, even if I do not share their beliefs (and I mean no offense to anyone by any of this)
If you can manage to stay strong in your beliefs with so much doubt in the world, and being attacked day and night by people who don’t think you can be happy the way you are, then you deserve an applaud, and a spot in any heaven you happen to believe in.

To answer a question a lot of religious people have asked me, how can I possibly be a moral and good person with no God to guide me (or any other atheist). My parents raised me right. I know right from wrong and I have a strong moral compass.

Not believing in a god doesn’t make you an Atheist, catty. Atheists believe, with the same amount of faith as any theist, that there IS NO god. You, on the other hand, describe yourself as an agnostic, that is, “you don’t know, and don’t care”. No real point to this response, I suppose, just thought I’d clarify some terms. Thanks for your time.

Strong and weak Atheism are both forms of belief. The form of having no belief is agnosticism.

And no, they don’t. However, when people decide to take them on, they may as well have the one that suits them best, lest they receive confused reactions from people who think they’re something they’re not. If you tell everyone you’re a Satanist when you’re really a Wiccan, because you think they’re the same thing, people will only know what you claim to be, not who you really are.

There is no proof that there is a god, so to think there is, would require faith. Thus, it is a belief.
There is no proof that there is no god, so think there is not, would require faith. Thus, it is a belief.

An agnostic goes by proof and proof alone. There is no proof, so they don’t care. There’s no belief either way, because both sides require belief, and there is no proof in belief. Thus, an agnostic is the one with a lack of belief, as they do not take sides on an issue where both sides require beliefs.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
There is no proof that there is a god, so to think there is, would require faith. Thus, it is a belief.
There is no proof that there is no god, so think there is not, would require faith. Thus, it is a belief.

An agnostic goes by proof and proof alone. There is no proof, so they don’t care. There’s no belief either way, because both sides require belief, and there is no proof in belief. Thus, an agnostic is the one with a lack of belief, as they do not take sides on an issue where both sides require beliefs.

My understanding of it is an agnostic believes that it can never be known whether or not there is a god, and an atheist believes that there is no god. By those terms it is possible to be both, just as it is possible to be an agnostic and a theist (A theist believing that there is a god). The difference between believing and knowing is one of certainty.

As the term has come to be used nowadays however, agnostic has come to mean someone who is not sure or thinks the probabilities are equal. I would say that the type of god that religion describes is about as probable as a teacup orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. It is possible, hard to prove or disprove, but highly unlikely.

And in case anyone is going to call me on this, I am using an example that Dawkins quotes in “the God Delusion”, as he is much better at explaining these things than I, though I already happen to stand pretty much where he does on the issue.

Like I said before, when you get to the terms of religion, the definitions can get as confusing as the differences between the religions themselves. Perhaps agnostic is the more correct term, but many people do not know what it means (the lay-man) and if I am trying to avoid a religious conversation, it is easier to say I’m atheist and hope they settle for that, than to try and explain the difference between atheist and agnostic. Especially since every person seems to have a different legitimate definition that contradicts the others (kind of how every religions claim to be the only truth).

Simple vs. Politically correct…
I’m southern, so therefore I’m lazy. I’ll go for simple. :)

Xeno is taking a proscriptive stance on the language, which is his prerogative. But most of the non-theist community, at least judging from the brights movement, the out campaign, and similar structures, appears to disagree with his formation of the terms.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
There is no proof that there is a god, so to think there is, would require faith. Thus, it is a belief.
There is no proof that there is no god, so think there is not, would require faith. Thus, it is a belief.

A few question for you, Xeno.
I take it from you statement up there ^ that you lay equal odds on either possibility. Am I interpreting you correctly?
If so, would you propose the same even odds on the existence of leprechauns? There is no proof that there are, or have been, leprechauns and there is no proof that there haven’t been leprechauns.
Do you recognize a difference between ‘believing that something does not exist’ and ‘not believing that something does exist’?
What do you think would or could constitute ‘proof’ of the non-existence of god?

I’m particularly interested in Xeno’s answers, and the answers of those who share his position, but I’m certainly not opposed to reading other people’s responses to them.

I am not a normal agnostic, mind you. To be honest, I left this explanation out simply because I’ve gotten sick of doing it, but no worries, I can do it once more. I am what I call a philosophical agnostic. I don’t have ANY faith, or ANY belief. I place equal possibility and impossibility on each and every issue and/or claim that has not or can not be proven. Of course, I have my own opinions on each issue, but they tend to oppose themselves. For example, I would like nothing more than for there to be a god, but it just doesn’t seem very likely to me, no matter which religion we’re talking about. Same goes for leprechauns, really.

As for this line:

Alexaxas wrote:
Do you recognize a difference between ‘believing that something does not exist’ and ‘not believing that something does exist’?

I seriously hope that was a joke. Moving on.

I honestly don’t care what the proof was, I’d accept it if it were, in fact, proof. I can’t tell you what the proof would be, because the story seems specifically designed to make proof impossible. However, I can tell you what is NOT acceptable to me as proof.
The Bible, or any holy book. I’ve read them all, many more than once. The same can be said for the Dan Brown books, and Harry Potter. They’re all interesting stories, written with… varying degrees of talent and forethought, and
of course, it would be wonderful if they were true. Of course, once again, the same can be said of the Dan Brown books and Harry Potter.
Artifacts, or anything “from the time of ‘insert messiah here’”. There are simply too many forgeries out there, and even if it were from the time of your chosen prophet, all it would prove is that that time period existed, nothing more.
Rainbows, clouds, butterflies, babies, and other so-called ‘miracles’. I know, they’re cool to look at, right? They’re some of the most inexplicable things in the universe! Oh, wait, no they’re not. They’re exceedingly simple to explain, and the explanation isn’t “God did it”. Now, who knows, right? MAYBE god did do it, but, if it were him, he did it through natural means, and thus, id wasn’t a miracle, as miracles are a bit more unexplainable that that. Maybe go look for Maria in a tortilla.
There’s more, of course, but I figure I’ll get more than enough of people’s drama for just writing this much. You see why I avoid these things, now? Sigh. Disclaimer time:

You know, I really just try to stay out of these issues. YES, I have my opinions, but I never state them as more than just that, OPINIONS. I am not trying to convert anyone, nor disprove any faith. I have nothing against anyone due to their religion, in fact most of my closest friends are religious. Most of the people I’ve dated have been religious, and that’s saying something. All I’m saying here, is that this is just MY position. No need to get pissy over it, even though, if memory serves, someone is going to anyway. With that, I’m out.

Yours, as always,
The philosophical agnostic Xeno Dragon.

Unfortunately, this being the internet and all, you’re probably right that someone is going to going to get their feathers ruffled. Hopefully they won’t detract to much from the rest of this.

I guess I need to clarify a couple of my questions.
I was serious when I asked if you recognized a difference between the two claims. To rephrase, do you recognize the difference between a negative belief and the lack of a positive belief?
Second, about my question regarding ‘proof’ of non-existence of deities. I feel like I need to apologize here. I don’t know you, I don’t know your background, andI don’t know your education, so I came at this question sidelong (trying to avoid one specific misinterpretation that really irks me) and apparently muddled it badly in the process. Ultimately the question was about falsifiability. Myself, I can’t think of an observation that would even theoretically, let alone practically, falsify the ‘god hypothesis’ which leads me to discount it as a useful idea. But, since that could be a fault in my imagination, I’m always curious to learn if someone else has conceived of such an observation. You seem to agree with me here, but neglect the implication.

I join you in your rejection of the ‘proof’ so often offered by theists, but it raises another point that I neglected before. Do you recognize that ‘positive proof’ does not exist? Leaving aside low-level pure mathematics (though even that is still founded on postulates), there is no airtight case in favor of anything. Even my dear Snell’s Law, with its literally constant cascade of evidence, could be dashed to bits if one were to discover a material that did not refract all wavelengths in the same direction.

If I might ask another question or three, I could use some clarification on your ‘philosophical agnosticism’.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
… I am what I call a philosophical agnostic. I don’t have ANY faith, or ANY belief. I place equal possibility and impossibility on each and every issue and/or claim that has not or can not be proven… I would like nothing more than for there to be a god, but it just doesn’t seem very likely to me…

(Please, forgive the ellipses. I thought this would be neater than three quote blocks.)
It seems to me that there is a contradiction in you thoughts here. You “place equal possibility and impossibility on each and every issue and/or claim that has not or can not be proven” but god “doesn’t seem very likely” to you. Have I misunderstood you? Are you, perhaps, asserting a ‘philosophical’ position and a separate ‘personal’ position?

You asked, probably rhetorically, if I could see why you avoid ‘these things’. But, honestly, I can’t. I’ve always had a soft spot for Socratic discourse. I don’t know any better way to understand alternate points of view, and to refine and polish my own views, than through open question and discussion.

Again, I apologize if I’ve misinterpreted or misrepresented any of your points, that’s why I’m asking so many questions, please simply correct me if I have.

Long windedly,
Al

A belief is a belief. If you believe that not believing in god is a negative thing, and an Atheist believes it’s a negative thing to believe in god, who has the negative belief? A belief is a belief, and a lack of belief is a lack of belief. That’s all there is to it.

As I said, the story behind the religion is written in such a way, and tells such a story that it becomes nearly impossible to falsify any part of it. After all, there’s nothing to test, is there? If you were a scientist, and I told you that there was a new element that was invisible, intangible, and all-powerful, and that it existed everywhere, but the only way to know for sure that it existed was to believe that it did, and convince others that it did, until you died… you’d probably tell me to get the hell out of your office. That’s the paradox. Science works on a different plane that religion. Religion can’t wok if examined by science, and science can be twisted by religion into “God did it” simply by saying those three words. If one day, everyone on Earth saw a vision of something everyone agreed was god, I would still question it, as it COULD still be questioned, just as everything can be. But, it would certainly shift my opinions a bit. I’d think it far more possible that there could be a god. And now I feel like I’m babbling. Moving on.

I’m more than aware that most of what we consider to have been proven is, in all actuality, still a theory, and that even the so-called “Laws” of science could be shattered at any moment by a new discovery. But on that point, who cares? That’s the point of science, it’s full of people who can say, “Holy sh*t, we’ve been wrong this whole time, and now we know the truth. Awesome!” instead of freaking out and denying it. Religion can’t do that, it seems.
As for the rest, you’re absolutely right. One scrap of evidence COULD pull down the entire fabric of scientific thought. But until then, it’s just another theory. It’s possible, but not proven.

I get this one a lot as well, no worries. I know that it seems like I contradict myself, but that’s because our language puts very little emphasis on the difference between a belief and an opinion. I am of the opinion that there most likely is no form of conscious deity in existence, but I do not believe that there is no god. Likewise, I am of the opinion that it would be great if there were a godlike presence out there, but that does not mean I believe there is.

I avoid debates because, as you said yourself, it’s the Internet, and with so many morons that have access to it, there’s bound to be one that decides I’m the Antichrist for thinking this way. Trust me, I’ve been called The Devil sixteen times in my life, and counting. I’ve done them so many times, and it’s so rare that I wind up with anyone who can even remotely understand, much less accept where I’m coming from. I’ve studied religion my whole life, mostly on my own, simply because it doesn’t make any sense. All of these religions claiming they have the one true answer, and yet none of them agree. All these religions claiming that they are the holy, righteous ones, and yet they’re all fighting. I didn’t get it, so I did my research. I became even more confused as I tried multiple religions and found nothing much new in any of them. Then I began talking about it online, trying to explain my position and, in a way, hoping to find someone who had done the same. Hoping they could save me some time, and show me what they had learned. But most people aren’t agnostic in any form, and many of those who say they are aren’t really sure of what that means. No surprise, of course, as even the dictionaries have fourteen definitions, all of which are different forms of the same thing.
I do enjoy an intelligent discussion, especially on religion, as I consider it a sort of pet project, but after so many disappointments and arguments, I’ve become quite bitter and thus go on a premature defensive when the spinner lands on the subject of religious debate.

No need for apologies. Although… having seen this happen before, do you mind if we stop talking in big, long, multi-question paragraphs? It’s much easier to writes one question-one answer replies on here, lest we start writing novellas back and forth.

Pardon the typos. I’m human, after all.

I think, therefore I’m dangerous. I like that one better.

Gotcha. I’ll be watching part 2 of 9 of AMV Hell IV.

There’s a movie out there called “Teapot Atheism” which explains that rather well.

If only everyone could learn to be so accepting.

On a completely unrelated thought, maybe you should invite Silverwings. *shifty eyes*

Hm. I wonder why….

Lol.

Ya know, Xeno, I get the impression that we agree on the vast majority of this. Seems like we’re stuck on semantics.
When I said ‘negative belief’ I didn’t mean it in the ‘bad, immoral, or unhappy’ sense, I meant ‘belief that not X’ as opposed to ‘belief that X’. That is, the difference between ‘belief that there is no god’ and simply never having heard of gods (by virtue of being completely isolated from humans for one’s entire life).
I take it you’re using ‘belief’ and ‘opinion’ to distinguish between ‘religious beliefs’ (no evidence required) in gods, etc. and ‘practical beliefs’ (developed from experience) in gravity, ballistics, and the like.

Am I getting close?

Closer with every word, but we’re still not quite on the same page. Thanks for putting forth the effort to understand, though.

There is a difference between what you call “negative” and “positive” beliefs, but they both require the same amount of faith, and so, while different, they are similar in that aspect.
However, the belief in a god and simply never having heard of one is NOT the same as belief and disbelief. Firstly, I doubt that anyone HASN’T heard of any religion at this point. If they hadn’t, they’d have their own made up. I’d be willing to bet that more than 99% of the planet not only has their own religion, but is also aware of at least fifteen others. Honestly, look at just the Christians. How many ways have they found to advertise their god? Books, billboards, pamphlets, radio, tv, bumper stickers, signs on the side of the road, missionaries, sky writers, the internet, propaganda-style movies, and more. In this country it’s even worse, as there are advertisements for god in the morning Pledge at school, and more every time they look at a piece of money. People with crosses around their necks, everywhere you look. It’s impossible to be even slightly educated about history without knowing about religion. And that’s just Christianity! But I think maybe I went on a tangent.
Anyway, no. While belief and disbelief are similar, in that they both require faith, belief and having never been exposed to something, are entirely different things, regardless of how rare the latter is.

Beliefs, as I’ve said, are just that: beliefs. Opinions, are just that, opinions. I have opinions, but no beliefs. Beliefs are not just religious, they apply to everything from religion to “did we really land on the moon?” to “are leprechauns real?”. Now, opinions are different in one key aspect. They can apply to all the same things beliefs can apply to, but they aren’t quite as… forceful. Opinions can change quickly and is always fluid. A belief, on the other hand, is far more rigid and unwilling to change. Beliefs are based in faith, of which I have none, opinions are based on ‘observations thus far’, of which I have plenty. In fact, for sake of ease, we could stop calling them opinions and move to observations, if you like.

Ok. I think I get where the communication snag is here.

When I, and a good many others, use the word ‘belief’ there are two distinct major definitions. The first is the one you are applying, i.e. ‘a conviction, strongly held, without evidence and resistant to change’. The other is much more like what you are calling ‘opinion’, that is ‘a mental acceptance of the validity of something, based on experience or observation’.
The second is one I tend to use much more frequently as in the statement, “I believe that if I hold a rubber ball out at arms length and let it go, it will fall to the ground it in less than a quarter second.” I am perfectly willing to concede that any number of rather unlikely events could occur that would show me to be wrong (an object might intercede, the local gravitational field might be affected by a black hole whizzing through the solar system, etc.). But, I find that doing anything at all is immensely hampered if I have to amend all of my actions and statements with such disclaimers. So for practical reasons, the disclaimer is left unspoken.
As far as I know, my friends and colleagues all use the same two-fold definition (though I admit, I haven’t bothered to call them and confirm this today). I was thrown by your use of ‘opinion’, because to my ear ‘opinions’ are nothing more than personalized ‘beliefs’ of either form. My American Heritage Dictionary (Third Edition, 1992 if anyone’s checking) seems to agree with me, “1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.”

I have to assume that the idea of an English word with multiple definitions isn’t new to you (I’m certain you’re aware of the irritation caused lately by the difference between the lay and technical uses of the word ‘theory’) and I rather suspect that you were previously aware of the several uses of the word ‘belief’ as I’ve outline here. So, is there a particular reason you are so set against using the conventional definitions?

Hmm, I thought I did a good job keeping my last message short and now this one has ballooned on me. I will try to better next time.

Ken wrote:
Nihilism anyone? lol.
Whats that one famous quote?
Something like “I know nothing therefore I know all”.
or am I thinking of “I think because I am, I am because I think”?
eh, who knows.

Perhaps you were thinking of an ancient greek Skeptic, I think he was known as Gorgias, who would proclaim “All I know is that I know nothing.”

Like Pascal, he was skeptical of even his senses. Pascal was even skeptical of his own thought processes, and invented a hypothetical demon with the power to convince us that 1 + 1 = 2 when in fact it equals 3.

Now, Xeno, I would like to say to you that I believe that I went down a similar path, though I wasn’t raised in a religious community, and probably did not study religions in the same depth that you did. I did not read the bible cover to cover, but I read certain parts of it pretty well. I missed the appendix that says “just kidding” and the disclaimer at the beginning that says “All characters within are fictional and any similarity to actual people living or dead is purely coincidental.”

Anyway, I think one important issue is the language you use and some ambiguities in what you have said, or misunderstandings of what some of us have said. An earlier example was as Alexaxis pointed out the difference between an affirmative belief, and a negative one. Another point I would like to bring up which is directly related is the one of faith.

You say that a belief or lack of one (negative belief) both require faith. I would seriously question that. Faith as I have come to understand it means you accept something as true (an affirmative belief) even though you have no evidence to support it. An example of this would be belief in fairies, gnomes, and elves. There are not enough people seeing these things and reporting them to consider them credible. There is no evidence to believe that they are anything more than folklore. Belief in elves would require faith because of the lack of evidence. A lack of belief in something for which there is no evidence is not faith, it is reasoning, that most likely the reason for there being no evidence of something (of human imagination)* is because it does not exist.

* I say of human imagination because there was a time when there was no evidence of black holes, but idea of a black hole never even came into being until astronomers observed inexplicable phenomena to do with light and hypothesized a reason for it.

I doubt anyone will raise a stink at this point. Our discussion has become far to technical at this point. ;p

Indeed I am aware of the difficulty of this language and it’s ambiguity on occasion. This is precisely why I avoid the common words, as they lead to confusion. Beliefs are treated as laws, even though they are less than a hypothesis, but opinions are just conjecture, just basic ideas used to function in everyday life. They are treated as they are, like less than a hypothesis. That is the difference between the two, belief and opinion. They ARE similar, but the way we react to them is the easiest way to find the difference. One is seen as solid, the other fluid.

betta wrote:
Faith as I have come to understand it means you accept something as true (an affirmative belief) even though you have no evidence to support it.

Gnostics believe that there is a god, even though there is no evidence to support it.
Atheists believe there is no god, even though there is no evidence to support it.
I neither believe nor disbelieve in either of these. People say agnostics sit on the fence whilst Atheists and Gnostics argue on either side, but that’s not entirely accurate. Atheists and Gnostics are indeed arguing, but agnostics are waiting for/looking for proof that there’s even a fence to argue over. Show me that there’s something to take sides on, and I’ll pick one, in other words.

betta wrote:
* I say of human imagination because there was a time when there was no evidence of black holes, but idea of a black hole never even came into being until astronomers observed inexplicable phenomena to do with light and hypothesized a reason for it.

Way off topic, but I can’t restrain myself when you brush so close to my field. ‘Black Holes’ were conceived of as a consequence of general relativity and have only been very, very recently observed via gravitational lensing and disturbances affecting stellar bodies.

Oh, and you’re thinking of Rene Descartes, not Blaise Pascal, specifically his ‘Meditations’.

Xeno Dragon wrote:
Gnostics believe that there is a god, even though there is no evidence to support it.
Atheists believe there is no god, even though there is no evidence to support it.

I would argue, as Betta and many others have, that a complete and total lack of evidence in favor of an assertion does, in fact, constitute evidence against that assertion. Particularly for claims that are wildly incongruous with perceived reality. Positive claims always bear the burden of proof. I’ll dust off my favorite Penn Gillette quote again, because I think it might be elucidating in this case (and because it always makes me laugh):

“You can’t prove that there isn’t an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word ‘elephant’ includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?”

As far as “something to take sides on”, either we live in a universe without a god or we live in a universe with a god. Those two basic potential universes would be quite distinct from one another. You are absolutely free to take the position that it’s a purely academic question, and go about your life paying no mind to it outside of direct discussion. ‘God’ has never, to my recollection, been even a remote factor in my decision making processes. But that doesn’t stop me from having, as you say, an opinion on the matter.

As it stands, it appears to me that the evidence is firmly arrayed against the possibility of a deity. If the sky were to crack open tomorrow and reveal an enormous anthropomorphic face, of course, I would be among the first to admit that the evidence was shifting (though it would take me some time to rule out hallucinations). Perhaps you would label me an ‘agnostic’ then, but I’ll stick to ’strong atheism’.

Evidence is not proof. There is evidence for both sides, but neither has proof.

“Something to take sides on”, yes, I know, I’ve considered this. Either the moon is made of cheese, or it’s not. But what if it’s made of jell-o? See, the issue isn’t just “god or no god?” It’s “no god or WHICH god?” There are thousands of them out there, and I don’t feel like taking sides until there’s some overpowering REASON to do so.

I don’t deny that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea of any deity, but, as the thing we call god, real or not, is quite ambiguous, for all we know, the evidence could be staring us in the face, and we just don’t get it. Now, this sounds as foolish to me as most others, but you can’t argue it. The fact that we, as humans, cannot test this thing, we cannot know anything about it. We can assume, and we can believe, but we can’t know. At least not yet. See, this is why I became agnostic, as opposed to Atheistic. I argued with plenty, and I found that both sides were using the same logic.
“There is a god.”
“How do you know? There’s no proof, so there must not be!”

“There is no god.”
“How do you know? There’s no proof, so there must be!”

Or, one of my favorite quotes by a comedian I’m rather fond of:

“Dear me, this acid seem to be melting this child’s face!”
“No! It’s CHEESE! CHEESE is making that happen!”
“But… I don’t see any cheese…”
“You can’t prove it’s not cheese, so that means it’s CHEEESSE!”

Religion rejects everything that science comes up with, and has for centuries.
Science does the same to religion, and has for centuries.

See, they just don’t mix. Science is science, and faith is cheese… er, faith. Neither can work unless they reject each other. I just don’t see the logic in denying or accepting either exclusively. Of course, to make it even more complex, science is just the study of what we can experience. But we can’t experience any of these holy goings-on. So, even if they ARE real, how are we to know? Also… the idea that there is no god still revolves around faith. Like it or not, there is faith in believing that something’s not there, when there’s no way to test it to know for sure. So now that’s not even science. So we have yet another religion, (albeit an unorganized one) claiming to know the truth on conjecture alone. I don’t want to be a part of that. Yes, it makes more sense than most of the others, yes, it’s likely the truth. But can you prove it, or is it just another religion?

So now we have a scientific religion. Wonderful. How the hell am I to argue with that? All the blind faith of religion combined with the ability to make evidence look like proof from science. But it still doesn’t make any sense to believe in something when your mind works the way mind does. I don’t understand blind faith. I never have. And that’s a prerequisite for all religions, even Atheism. Deny it all you want, but believing that there’s no god, because there’s no proof requires the same amount of faith as believing in a god, even though there’s no proof. I don’t care who believes what, but I’m content to avoid belief altogether until someone starts speaking a language that doesn’t involve believing what others tell me.

And I just got off work, and it’s 2 in the morning, so forgive me if I’ve started rambling and babbling. Which I’m sure I did. Ask me in the morning. One at a time. Please?

Yours, as always,
A bamboozled Xeno Dragon

See, I like to think of myself as a logical person, and there’s just no logic behind that… logic.

If I ask you, “Do you like any kind of ice cream?” responding with, “I can’t answer that because you didn’t ask me about each flavor of ice cream separately,” is ridiculous. The question of flavors of ice cream, or gods, is a sub-question. So, in turn, if I ask, “Do you think that a god exists?” you can answer, “No,” “Yes,” or, “Yes, I think Thor exists.” Specifying your deity provides more detail, but doesn’t make you answer substantially different from any other variation on the affirmative response. Responses to the question that don’t include a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (at least parenthetically) are dodging. Even saying, “I don’t know,” and nothing more, is a dodge because of course you don’t ‘know’. Without having sampled the entire palate of possible flavors of ice cream, you can’t ‘know’ what your favorite flavor is. Using a rigerous definition it is literally impossible to find positive proof of anything.

‘Believing’ that there’s no car coming, when you cross the street, because you see no evidence is an act of total faith, by your reasoning.

That’s precisely why scientists, barring mathematicians, don’t speak of ‘proof’.

If you can find a non-religious argument where a dearth if evidence is taken as favorable evidence, I would really like to hear it. And I think that’s rather the point of both your joke and mine.

And don’t get me started on that whole non-overlapping magisteria nonsense.

Sorry for the double post, but another thought occurred to me.

If we’re giving equal probability to the question of gods or no gods, how do we divide that up?

Let’s assume 9,999 possible gods and 1 basic ‘no god’.
Do we treat ‘no god’ exactly like any individual god and assign all 10,000 options an equal 0.0001?
Do we give half the board to ‘no god’ (effectively making it into a separate vote against each god) and split the other half up between our 9,999 potentials?
Or do we call Vegas?

How do we determine a method to compute our odds?

I don’t think any gods exist. But then, I don’t think any don’t exist. Unless, of course, they’ve been proven to be false. The problem with comparing this to ice cream is that that’s opinion, and the question of god is about belief. Back to square one, eh? See, you KNOW which flavors you like and don’t like. I KNOW which gods I’d prefer over others. But therein lies the whole point of opinion vs. belief. You KNOW your opinions and preferences, because they’re facts that you can test. Your beliefs, well… you’d have to tell me. All I know about belief is that I don’t have the ability nor the inclination to believe in anything, period. I need proof. And if there’s no proof, then I’m not taking sides, and in my humble opinion, to do so is the most arrogant kind of behavior I can come up with, having just woken up five minutes ago. XP

Yes, believing that there’s no car coming, and stepping into the road without making sure is an act of faith. However, you COULD do some more tests. Left, right, left, and keep looking as you cross. Hooray for safety!

See, I never really got into math. It doesn’t make sense. And even when the math works, the logic tends not to, especially in the higher forms of it. I’ll give you an example. Have you ever heard of a Möbius Strip? It’s a twisted little piece of paper that, TECHNICALLY only has one side. The math works, but it could never exist in a three-dimensional universe. So, even if math somehow concluded that any particular god or goddess was true or false, How would we know that, even though the math works, it was fact in our reality?

Again, math. I don’t need to divide things up and put them on ‘teams’. (God A, God B, And God C.) It’s far more complex than that. However, from what I’ve come to understand about this whole headache that is the subject of religion, is that the only way to find out, at least in the minds of the people with religion,(G?f) is to kill a lot of people who don’t agree with you. (GAf-GBf-GCf=A-B-C) And thanks but no thanks, even by association, I’d rather not be involved in that kind of barbarism and ignorance. It’s a cosmic penis-measuring contest, and I’d rather not stoop to that level. Granted, some religions do this more than others, (GC) but in the end, more people have been killed in the name of a god than for any other reason. Of course, that’s just people, right? No proof that god told them to do it, and yet, no evidence of punishment for it, so where does that leave our equation? If GC tells people to kill the followers of GA (GAf), then all the GCfs have an advantage over the GAfs. But how does that factor in? DO they get +5 armor or something? Hell, I play World of Warcraft and I can’t figure this crap out. I think we need a 40K nerd to handle this one.

And with that, I think I’ve gone entirely off the deep end… Just cut out that last part, it made sense when I was writing it, but half of it got cut out.

I think I’ve got some idea what’s going on at the end there, but not enough to make a positive id. So I’ll leave it alone as you suggest.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that math “doesn’t make sense”. In my experience, mathematics is the only thing that routinely does make sense. And the higher levels are considerably more elegant, in my opinion, than the building blocks.

If you’re referring to a möbius strip as constructed from a segment of plane, then of course you’re right about not being able to find or construct one in a universe with more than two dimensions. But that’s only because you’re starting from a plane; a two dimensional abstraction; a model used as an analytical tool for simple systems. If I start with a strip of ordinary three dimensional (for simplicities sake) paper, I can very easily make a solid with only two faces. I could even use a piece of strip steel, twisted and welded together, to make the same shape and very obviously show the thin face. Obviously, these things exist in our universe. There’s no contradiction. If you can find a real case where mathematics and the universe are in direct conflict, you could become the most famous mathematician in history.

Crossing the street, I was using my sense of sight and looking both ways to determine that there was no evidence of an oncoming car. But we’ve stated several times that ‘evidence != proof’ and also that ‘!evidence != proof’. So we can’t have ‘proof’ that there’s no silent, invisible car with bad brakes bearing down on us. We can’t KNOW that it’s safe to cross, no matter what evidence is or isn’t present.

Under this very strict definition of ‘know’ that we’ve been using, you can’t actually ‘know’ what your favorite flavor of ice cream is. You can have an ‘opinion’ regarding your favorite flavor, but it is not possible for us to measure and compare your neurological response to every single possible flavor of ice cream. With our narrow definition, anything less than the body of all possible data on your response to ice cream leaves us without sufficient cause to ‘know’ your favorite flavor with any certainty.

Personally, I think that any scientist who utters the phrase, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” really needs to clarify their position because absence of evidence is actually very strong evidence of absence. If your theory says that X emits neutrons, but your neutron detector isn’t picking up anything from it, it is far more likely that X is not actually radiating any neutrons than it is that X is actually emitting the newly discovered ‘invisible neutrons’ (which are, of course, exactly like neutrons except that they’re undetectable).

The point of the mathematics statement was simply to bring up the fact that, even though it makes sense on paper, it may not be practical in reality. Just like the concept of a god. Truth be told, I didn’t convey that properly. My mistake. Other than that, I don’t want to start arguing about math, as I don’t much care for that subject, so I’ll just leave the rest of that for another time, or Shouts, if you care to follow up in that.

You’re right, in that we can’t have proof of everything in this world. I’ve been informed of that every time I try to explain this to someone, and every time, I realize that should have put that part in the explanation I at first neglected to put at all in this discussion.

EVERYTHING is taken on faith by the average person. From god to gravity. Nothing is proven, and even if you’ve been told something’s been proven, you’re merely taking it on faith that they’re telling the truth. I question everything. I take NOTHING at face value. Does this mean I’m constantly paranoid that gravity will stop working? No. Does this mean that I argue about the infinite possibilities of every little thing? No. What it means is that I simply don’t care about certain things. Call me apathetic, because you are too, at least about some things.
How can someone care about the environment, the economy, politics, religion, art, philosophy, music, food, their job, their love life, their friends, their family, their pet, foreign affairs, their favorite website, what time their favorite show comes on, what time it is, whether or not they left the stove on, what to do about that leaky tap, how soon they’ll be able to get drunk again, how soon they’ll be able to get off again, and care about starving little children in the far-off land of Bzangletwat, as well as caring if there’s an invisible car coming down the road. I’m not apathetic about most things. But somethings I simply don’t give a sh*t about. This all falls into a probability game, not a faith game. I don’t worry about everything because, like it or not, I still have bills to pay, and debating the possibility, however unlikely, that any particular thing could happen at any particular time simply isn’t practical.
For example, no, gravity hasn’t been proven. One day, it could just switch off, and we could all go hurtling into Venus. But at that point, we’d have bigger things to worry about. Like how to breathe acid. The reason I leave this part out is that I’m sick of finding new ways to explain it, as I detest repeating myself. The bottom line, however, is that the things most people take on faith because they’re too busy living their lives to worry about them, I simply don’t give a sh*t about, because I’m too busy living my life to care about them either.

This is where it gets tricky. We’re about to delve into the ambiguities and double-meanings of the English language, as well as delve into semantics. Rather than keep re-defining language in the middle of these epic posts, let’s just keep it to one-question, one answer replies. (Excepting, of course, questions that go together, lest neither be answered properly.) I’m not trying to be a d*****, here, I just really don’t have the time anymore.

The real danger in humanities imminent, gravityless jaunt to Venus isn’t learning how to breathe acid, it’s learning how to breathe acid so soon after learning how to breathe in a vacuum.

Anyway, I doubt we’re going to make anymore progress in either direction here.

Why did I pluralize humanity when I wanted to make it possessive? Why am I on the internet before I’ve had my coffee?

Lol, no worries. I’m only really on right when I wake up and right after eleven hours of work. So I’m pretty out of it most of the time, too.

If you think of anything else, feel free to bring it up. I rather enjoyed this so far.

Yeah, it was fun. Seems like we agree on the practical aspects anyways.

@Xeno: You say you don’t think any gods exist, but you state you don’t have any beliefe either way.

Yes, science is a faith. It is not blind faith, as religion is. Blind faith is putting your faith in something despite any evidence in its favor. While an absolute probability cannot be made for the god hypothesis, an abstract probability can be made by humans based on the amount of supporting evidence, and what we might expect the universe to be like if there were a god.

You can go into the realm of solipsism and continue to say “Yeah, but what if the world were made by a god who didn’t want us to believe in him?” or other absurd questions, but that is a road that leads to nowhere.

For the sake of debate, I think a few assumptions need to be made. By assumptions I mean things that can’t be proven, but we assume as part of our nature, and always have. These assumptions are like first principles, in fact first principles should be included in them eg. “A is A”.

The assumptions that I think we need to make here are that the universe does have order to it. It is governed by laws or rules. The universe does make sense. Precedent is reasonable to base our expectations on, and it is reasonable to base probability on. For example every time I drop something it falls downward, so I can generally assume that this can be expected in the future.

I personally can say that I believe very strongly that there is no god (except in the pantheist sense where the word is a substitution for the word universe), because there is not a shred of evidence to convince me that there is a god, or because the evidence in favor is extremely flimsy. In general it is not reasonable to believe something exists just because it could. There needs to be some evidence in its favor.

Now that I have come on to evidence, Xeno, I would like to addresse something. You state that you do not hold belief either way because there is no proof. If there were absolute proof one way or the other, you would not believe, you would know. Belief is when you make a judgement in the absence of absolute proof. Ever notice how in courts of law they say proven beyond a reasonable doubt? This is because there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything, but the jury is expected to make a judgement about whether or not any doubts about guilt of someone are reasonable. For example, if 20 witnesses all saw the same crime committed by the same person, that person’s finger prints are on the murder weapon, and the accused has left behind DNA evidence, along with all sorts of other evidence, which all in combination leave it completely unreasonable to believe anything other explanation, the accused can be said to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Betta… PLEASE ask one at a time, or at least short questions. I really don’t have time to respond like I have been, and it’s wearing me out. I’ll read the whole thing when I get home, but that’s at… 1:15 am.

No rush.

I don’t really see a question in there, but it is late, and I am tired. Also, I’m listening to a remix of Country Roads for some reason. So I may have missed it.

Anyway… you have most of it nailed. I don’t hold belief either way. I would not be believing if it were proven, because I would know. This fit’s well with me, because I don’t do the whole belief thing. Ever. But, if someone proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain god is or is not real, I would accept it, after scrutinization, of course.

I’m sure I missed something…
What was it?

Nevermind. It seems the difference only lies in how you define belief. To me that would mean to be fairly certain of something. I am fairly certain that god (as depicted in any religion) does not exist, but I can’t know for sure.

A belief is when you accept something as though it were a fact, even though there’s no proof to support it.

Ah, but what is it when you accept something as though it were fact because the evidence strongly supports it, even though there’s no proof?

If you only accept something as fact if it has absolute proof, you’ve gone well past skepticism and into a branch of epistemology I whose name I forget at the moment.

Odd semi-coincidence, someone on my WASTE hub just linked this to me:

http://ideas.4brad.com/what-differenc…

Any thoughts Xeno?

Xeno Dragon wrote:
A belief is when you accept something as though it were a fact, even though there’s no proof to support it.

you talk about proof as though it were scalar like evidence. Proof is either there or it isn’t, and there is no absolute proof of anything. Evidence is scalar. There is evidence which greatly reduces the leap of faith required to believe that vitamin C is good for you. Whether or not something is proven or not is a judgement call that varies from person to person but it is based on the evidence.

Alexaxas wrote:
Ah, but what is it when you accept something as though it were fact because the evidence strongly supports it, even though there’s no proof?

quote]

A belief with some evidence to support it.

Alexaxas wrote:

If you only accept something as fact if it has absolute proof, you’ve gone well past skepticism and into a branch of epistemology I whose name I forget at the moment.

I’m a realist who refuses to, as well as cannot take anything at face value simply because someone says so. Proof is proof, and there is no substitute. Just because you all don’t agree/understand, doesn’t change that. I’ve explained it, and if you don’t like it, deal. I don’t try to change you, so cut it out. I’m bored of this.

Alexaxas wrote:
Odd semi-coincidence, someone on my WASTE hub just linked this to me:

http://ideas.4brad.com/what-differenc…

Any thoughts Xeno?

I stopped reading here: “The difference is the atheist says she’s an atheist, while the agnostic says she’s an agnostic”

For the simple fact that that’s like saying the only difference between a Pagan and a Wiccan is the name they choose to go by. It’s ignorance, refusal to educate oneself, it’s disrespectful steriotyping, and moreover, it’s perpetuating the all of the above in others, instead of educating them, or inspiring them to pick up a book and actually learn something. I didn’t spend this much of my life learning about religions and sects and cults and mythologies, and jealous messiahs simply to bow down to “brad” who happens to think a few talks with someone qualifies him to label everyone to his liking.

betta wrote:
[quote Xeno Dragon]A belief is when you accept something as though it were a fact, even though there’s no proof to support it.

you talk about proof as though it were scalar like evidence. Proof is either there or it isn’t, and there is no absolute proof of anything. Evidence is scalar. There is evidence which greatly reduces the leap of faith required to believe that vitamin C is good for you. Whether or not something is proven or not is a judgement call that varies from person to person but it is based on the evidence.

Interesting opinion. Prove it.

I’m getting sick of the coding errors of this site.

Well, it’s the paragraphs after the one line you quote that were interesting:

“In other words, the difference is only about what they say and not about what they do. I challenge proclaimed agnostics to describe how their life is different from those who say there’s no god, or the even more common “areligious” who simply say they have no religion…. Agnostics imagine that atheists say they are “certain” and thus are fools, but the truth is just about every atheist I have ever seen would say that, should God appear before them, miracles a-blazing, they would of course respond to evidence and change their minds. They just don’t think it’s likely enough to make it worth worrying about. It may be that agnostics do indeed worry about this more than atheists do, which in a way is a difference of behaviour, but a minor one. Atheists by and large admit, in the extreme, that the agnostic is technically right that we can’t know for certain, and agnostics, in spite of the claim of uncertainty, live their lives exactly as atheists do, presuming there is no god. Agnostics think the concept of “doubt of certainty” is important. Atheists acknowledge and even agree with it, but find it unproductive…. Agnostics that I’ve met don’t tend to pray “just in case” following Pascal’s Wager.”

I’m not trying to ‘change’ you or anyone else; not any more than simple conversation changes anyone, at least.

“In other words, the difference is only about what they say and not about what they do. I challenge proclaimed agnostics to describe how their life is different from those who say there’s no god, or the even more common “areligious” who simply say they have no religion….”
It’s a matter of belief/disbelief vs the lack of belief entirely. Who cares about what people DO in this issue? “Well, I’m an Atheist, and I floss on Tuesdays, and he’s an agnostic, and he chews tabacky.” What kind of answer is it that would clear this up for Almighty “brad”? What people DO has nothing to do with this topic. What, baybis and old people both crap their pants, drool, are bald, and have no teeth or muscular control, so they’re the EXACT same thing, now? NO BRAINIAC, the world is not as simple as you’d like to hope.

“Agnostics imagine that atheists say they are “certain” and thus are fools,”
Way to steriotype, brad. Exactly how many of us did you poll for that statement of innaccuracy?

“but the truth is just about every atheist I have ever seen would say that, should God appear before them, miracles a-blazing, they would of course respond to evidence and change their minds.”
No sh*t, because it’s a BELIEF! If Cthulu came over and butt raped you with his tentacles of doom, I think you’d drop whatever beliefs you had too, chief.

“They just don’t think it’s likely enough to make it worth worrying about.”
Then they AREN’T an Atheist. They’re apathetic.

“It may be that agnostics do indeed worry about this more than atheists do,”
“Worry about” or “learn about”?

“which in a way is a difference of behaviour, but a minor one.”
Minor like the ground hum that is your brainwave pattern. Go read a book, you might actually learn something.

“Atheists by and large admit, in the extreme, that the agnostic is technically right that we can’t know for certain,”
And yet, you still don’t get it, do you?

“and agnostics, in spite of the claim of uncertainty, live their lives exactly as atheists do, presuming there is no god.”
WRONG ANSWER!

“Agnostics think the concept of “doubt of certainty” is important.”
Are you typing with your left testicle, brad, or do you actually thing you’re onto something?

“Atheists acknowledge and even agree with it,”
Hooray for steriotyping. Again.

“but find it unproductive…. Agnostics that I’ve met don’t tend to pray “just in case” following Pascal’s Wager.”
Could you maybe THINK before you post things?

“I’m not trying to ‘change’ you or anyone else;”
No, just insult people by trying to put two massivly diverse groups of people into tiny little boxes your equally tiny brain can comprehend with it’s laughable grasp of this issue.

“not any more than simple conversation changes anyone, at least.”
“Simple” being the key word, here.

*Sigh*

Whatever works for you. I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

Not the sae thing. That’s a question of language, not of belief. Our language calls that color “blue”. That is the name we’ve assigned to the color the sky happens to be. Now, if someone is blind, they might have a question of belief in that… but I have perfect vision, so I don’t.

We can measure them. We can sense them. We can cause them. We can also see them, under the correct circumstanses.

I think xeno believes in what he wants to believe, it changes based on what he knows and everyone believes in something or someone. A part of being human is to believe because we really never know what is going to happen.

True. As I’ve said millions of times, nearly NOTHING can be proven. Unless I have experienced it, I do not take claims at face value. Of course, there is a realm of apathy. SOmethings I simply don’t give a sh*t about.

You know, any mental process can be challenged if one doesn’t want to accept it, or cannot understand it. Notice that I’m not challenging any of your beliefs, preconceptions, or decisions about how you see the world. Might I ask why every post I state my position on turns into this examination, and still NO ONE seems to understand, “I have no beliefs nor disbeliefs; I go by proof, and there isn’t any.”?

If I were to go this deeply into religion with anyone who claimed one, I’d be banned for harrassment. Now, I understand that, as my position is not a religious one, I am not protected by the rules they are, and yet, it seems to me that everyone is trying to force me to call my position a religion. If you win, you’re in violation of the TOS/TOU, all of you. I have no problem explaining my stance on things, but I would say that I’ve been more than tollerant up until now, repeating myself in each of the hundreds of posts that have gone this route, and never dissecting anyone in return, only to have people scratch there heads and wonder how they can try to twist the language to make me wrong. Look over all of my other posts before asking me questions I’ve already answered, they aren’t hard to find.

I come on religion posts because I have gone far out of my way in life to learn as much as possible about every walk of the subject, and I figure I may have something to offer, but I’m sick of people trying to convert me or change me because they’re too ignorant to, too simple to, or simply because they REFUSE to understand such a simple sentence. “I have no beliefs nor disbeliefs; I go by proof, and there isn’t any.”

People try to force their own beliefs on me, trying to tell me that I MUST believe in something, or that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to be who I am. Well, I’m sorry to burst your delicate little bubble, but simply because you spent half your childhood inhaling spraypaint, and now you lack the mental ability to comprehend what I’m telling you, it doesn’t change the fact that THAT’S THE WAY IT IS. Do not tell me tat I believe when I have told you I do not. Do not tell me I disbelieve when I have told you I do not. If you can’t understand that there is more to the world that black and white, THEN I will talk to you. Until then, all of you, stop eating paint. It’s bad for what’s left of your brains.

Xeno are you trying to say you just haven’t found any sensible reason for “sticking” with any belief or disbelief ?