To believe or not to believe, that is my question

Remove all ads!

OK, first up is an apology to all the athiests on the boards. I tend to use the word believe in order to wind you all up.


Anyway, everytime anybody mentions athieism on the boards, it decends into a debate on the meaning of belief.
What I don't get is this: if you believe that there is no God, why is a bad thing if somebody says that you hold this belief? Nobody is saying that you secretly believe in God, in fact, they say just the opposite!
At the end of the day, there is no evidence either way to say if God exists or not so it does all come down to belief.
Why do so many people seem to have a problem with this?

 

I think I can sum it up by looking at the following statements:

1. I do not believe in God/gods.
2. I believe that there is no God/gods.

The statements do not mean the same thing.

EDIT: Now, whether or not this semantic point is worth someone getting upset over is another point entirely. I certainly wouldn't have a problem using either term to describe my beliefs, although I think the former is the more accurate description.

 

It's a bit like having a drug addict say to you, "Hey, you drink soda every day. We're not so far apart."

Or a depraved pervert saying, "Hey, you're a fetishist too. Your fetish is beautiful women / handsome men."

If you think of yourself as an unbeliever and a believer basically says to you, "No, you're a believer too. You just believe in a different thing. You're not so different from me," it can be pretty annoying.

That said, I think of myself more as an agnostic than an atheist.

 

OY!! I AM a depraved pervert!

But how is saying that you don't believe in God different to saying 'I believe that there is no God'? I thought it was the same thing

 

"I believe there is no God," to me, means you actively believe a particular claim about how the universe works.

"I don't believe there is a God," to me, sounds more like you've heard people claim there is a God, but thought to yourself, "Nope, I don't buy that, doesn't seem plausible." It's more like you don't really even have to consider God in your explanation of the world, you've started your reasoning at a different place.

Maybe the difference is in the level of conviction or interest, or in how much your take on this particular issue actually affects your life or how much your world view is based on it, or something. I'm having trouble putting my finger on it myself. I know there is a difference, it's just hard to explain.

 

Belief and faith are often tied together for the religious. You have a belief in something that you do not know exists, but rather have faith that it exists. Such a system of beliefs is fundamental for a religious person.

Lack of belief does not imply any belief system. In fact, it is the anti-thesis to faith. I choose not to believe in God -- as such, I do not have any belief system and do not want to live by faith. I have a system of values and ethics I use in my life, but those are not a system of beliefs (for many, values and ethics come from their religious beliefs).

By attributing a belief system to an athiest it gives the religious person the 'self-given right' to question the belief system of the athiest (much like they question the belief system of another religion), and subsequently prove the athiest wrong. Yet, there really is nothing to question, athiesm is not a religion or religious belief -- the religious person must prove their own beliefs correct if they wish to prove me wrong.

I think it's really a question of attitude. Most religious people are not very willing to admit they could be wrong, so the idea someone else completely and totally questions the core religious belief is offensive. By grouping those people in a 'religion of non-belief' it becomes convenient in the mind of some religious people to classify athiesm in the same light as Jim Jones of the People's Temple, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, or even Charles Manson and his followers. [I'm not exaggerating here -- I've been on both sides of religious fanaticism.]

 

well, i know there is no god.

just like there are no unicorns, hobbits and dragons.

when i say know, i mean not that i have never myself seen it, seen pictures(or photographies?) of it or heard any reasonable arguments for their existance, thus finding it very, very unlikely that they exist


EDIT: not trying to debate the existance of god, or unicorns

 

There is a difference between "I don't believe in gods" and "I believe there are no gods." One is a negative statement, saying X isn't true (in this case, one's belief in gods), but anything else may be. The other is a positive statement, saying Y is true (and thus anything contradictory is false).

It's like the difference between "I'm not 6 feet tall" and "I'm 5'10" tall". One is simply more specific than the other.

As for people getting offended, it's stupid, because it is a belief, and it's a belief based completely on faith, just faith in their own reason and intellect instead of something else.

The analogy with fetish statements is false, because one does meet the definition of fetish, and the other doesn't, while both atheism and religion meet the definition of belief. Likewise with the 'addict' statement.

The fact of the matter is that atheists believe there is no god.

Now, whether or not statements like Balle's are true or not entirely depends on your definition of 'knowledge'. As Balle pointed out, the definition used there refers to the availability of proof and, from extrapolation, probably refers to a degree of certainty. Balle is very certain that there is no god, thus the statement "I know there is no god." In this situation, 'knowledge' is a specific sub-set of belief, and thus Balle does believe there is no god, and believe certainly enough to say "know".

Other's, however, take 'knowledge' as either confirmed information (i.e. it has been proven) or absolute truth (which is, of course, impossible to confirm). That's when we get into trouble.

 

I think NOG just validated my comments. The statement "athiests believe there is no God" is a weak attempt to turn athiesm into a religion. It is not. The statement if "I do not believe in God" is not a belief system, it is simply a statement.

Once again, the definition of belief is not all inclusive -- either you believe in something or you do not. "Belief of non-belief" is a circular argument than has no logical basis.

BTA: Good statement. I would add that the insistance to turn a lack of belief into a belief system is as insulting to the athiest as the lack of belief (and often contempt) the athiest has is to a religious person.

 

So, it is insulting for people to say that 'You believe there is no God' but it's ok for atheists to say that religious people are irrational?

 

Both are insulting.

However, the former is false while the latter is true.

Faith, by very definition, either is or appears irrational.

 

Is it true that if an atheist sneezes near you, you have to say 'Nothing happens when you die' instead of 'bless you'?

 

Therein lies the rub Silvery. The athiest, by definition, has stated "I've seen your faith and beliefs and believe them to be utter nonsense" by simply claiming to be an athiest. My family is offended by my non-belief in a religion I was raised in -- to them I have basically said that I believe their religion was founded on lies (I've never actually said that ... well perhaps on the boards somewhere). They like to say things like "he's lost my way" or "he's given in to temptation" or some other rot.

I think any time someone challenges another's core religious beliefs there is insult (usually unintentional). Whether it is non-belief or interpreting the same scriptures differently there will be conflict.

As far as sneezing, you should say "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim bus stop F'tang F'tang Olé Biscuitbarrel."

 

Nah, atheists just tend to preach enough everyone else thinks it must be a religion

Reminiscent of:

Spoiler

The irony is that atheists and theists can often view each other as 'the enemy' Like the blood war but less scaley and winged.

 

My position is that, saying "I dont believe in X" means you that you have no faith in it, you lack faith, whatever. It implies the LACK of belief in X, NOT the belief in Y. I dont believe in X is not equivalent to I believe in Y.

Frankly Silvery, I get offended when you post stuff like you did in the other thread about atheism, because you know it makes us angry (because its false) but you do it anyway. On some boards that would be called trolling.

 

Yes darling, but it's just the same as people saying that God isn't real, cannot be real and the bible is a fairy story.

 

Not really.

You posted an off topic reply in the thread on how atheists view death, to p*** atheists off.

When us atheists post replies to religious threads, we express our views, but we dont purposefully try to irritate people.

 

Actually, to begin with, it wasn't intended to upset anyone. It just worked out that way after a while as the atheists were posting things knowing they would upset the religious.

Anyway, this isn't a thread for silly arguments sweetie so let's crack on

 

T2, it is nothing of the kind. Many atheists flat out say that they believe there is no god. Yes, that is a system of belief about the nature of the world, and may be classified as a religious belief, depending on your definition of religion, but it is also a flat and plain statement of one's beliefs, intended to be nothing more than that.

Belief in the non-existence of a creator god implies belief that the universe was formed through natural processes, as anything other than that would be some kind of creator 'god' or another. Thus, the statement "I do not believe in God" implies a general set of beliefs just as much as "I do believe in God" does, simply different beliefs.

Not really. Irrational means it contradicts rationality. I prefer non-rational, meaning it works outside of the realm of rationality. It is not logical, but that doesn't mean it's illogical.

I think this very much depends on what you mean by the statement. Some simply mean they see no evidence and no reason to believe anything in particular, which is a lack of faith, yes. Others mean they specifically believe in a lack of X, which is a matter of faith.

All in all, any statement in belief in X, whether X is the presence of something or the absences of something, is a statement of belief (and probably one of faith). Saying you don't believe in X is a wider statement, which may (and often does) mean specific belief in the lack of X, but not necessarily.