"I do not believe a God exists" vs "I believe a God does not exist." See the difference? One is "I don't know whether this is true", the other is "I know this isn't true."
What. Belief =/= knowledge.
I believe my room has no people in it now, because I'm in my dorm's lobby and I have no roommates.
I don't know this to be true. I may have forgotten to lock the bathroom door I share with my suitemate and he could be stealing all my stuff. Someone could have just kicked my door down. Maybe it's all a dream and I'm actually in my room now. etc etc
EDIT: Hey Argus, I appreciate the childish attempt to impugn my character, that's real cool and civil. Have you considered not trolling my thread? That would be a cool thing to consider, but I don't think you're the considerate type.
"I do not believe a God exists" vs "I believe a God does not exist." See the difference? One is "I don't know whether this is true", the other is "I know this isn't true."
What. Belief =/= knowledge.
I believe my room has no people in it now, because I'm in my dorm's lobby and I have no roommates.
I don't know this to be true. I may have forgotten to lock the bathroom door I share with my suitemate and he could be stealing all my stuff. Someone could have just kicked my door down. Maybe it's all a dream and I'm actually in my room now. etc etc
EDIT: Hey Argus, I appreciate the childish attempt to impugn my character, that's real cool and civil. Have you considered not trolling my thread? That would be a cool thing to consider, but I don't think you're the considerate type.
If that's your standard of what knowledge is, how many things do you know? Anything at all?
The more important point re: "strong vs weak" atheism isn't "believe vs know", it's where you put the negative in the sentence "I do ____ believe/know/am reasonably sure God does ____ exist", in my opinion.
I know I exist, I know some stuff about math and logic...
I'm happy to use "know" as a casual shorthand for high levels of certainty.
I'm with Loren. Strong/weak atheism was invented by atheists who couldn't enunciate why saying "I don't believe in deities" was not a religion and is a reasonable rational claim.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The more important point re: "strong vs weak" atheism isn't "believe vs know", it's where you put the negative in the sentence "I do ____ believe/know/am reasonably sure God does ____ exist", in my opinion.
It's true, those things are different. But you're wrong if you think that said difference is illuminating in the context of a "third way" between atheism and agnosticism. Consider the following:
1) "I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim"
-versus-
2) "I believe Obama isn't a Muslim."
If I agreed to the first, but absolutely refused to agree with the second, then that would imply that I thought things were really up in the air: like, he totally could be, or maybe he isn't, but for whatever reasons I just can't settle on one or the other.
As it turns out we already have a word for that, and it's "agnostic."
I know I exist, I know some stuff about math and logic...
I'm happy to use "know" as a casual shorthand for high levels of certainty.
I'm with Loren. Strong/weak atheism was invented by atheists who couldn't enunciate why saying "I don't believe in deities" was not a religion and is a reasonable rational claim.
I think it's more the types who are uncomfortable saying that they believe gods don't exist.
Over at the atheist forums, there's a group of people who claim not to believe anything at all. As in, "beliefs? We don't do that sort of thing here."
Loren Michael on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The more important point re: "strong vs weak" atheism isn't "believe vs know", it's where you put the negative in the sentence "I do ____ believe/know/am reasonably sure God does ____ exist", in my opinion.
It's true, those things are different. But you're wrong if you think that said difference is illuminating in the context of a "third way" between atheism and agnosticism. Consider the following:
1) "I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim"
-versus-
2) "I believe Obama isn't a Muslim."
If I agreed to the first, but absolutely refused to agree with the second, then that would imply that I thought things were really up in the air: like, he totally could be, or maybe he isn't, but for whatever reasons I just can't settle on one or the other.
As it turns out we already have a word for that, and it's "agnostic."
I know I exist, I know some stuff about math and logic...
I'm happy to use "know" as a casual shorthand for high levels of certainty.
I'm with Loren. Strong/weak atheism was invented by atheists who couldn't enunciate why saying "I don't believe in deities" was not a religion and is a reasonable rational claim.
I'm not so sure about that. Weak atheism kind of propagates in otherwise religious communities and circumstances- it's the classic "nominally Christian, but not really a praying man" type of individual. Strong atheism tends to be more predominant in heavily secular and/or irreligious communities. There's a pretty big difference between someone saying, "I don't have faith in God" and saying "faith in God is an error in reasoning."
I know I exist, I know some stuff about math and logic...
I'm happy to use "know" as a casual shorthand for high levels of certainty.
I'm with Loren. Strong/weak atheism was invented by atheists who couldn't enunciate why saying "I don't believe in deities" was not a religion and is a reasonable rational claim.
I'm not so sure about that. Weak atheism kind of propagates in otherwise religious communities and circumstances- it's the classic "nominally Christian, but not really a praying man" type of individual. Strong atheism tends to be more predominant in heavily secular and/or irreligious communities. There's a pretty big difference between someone saying, "I don't have faith in God" and saying "faith in God is an error in reasoning."
I'm not sure what you mean by faith here. Does that mean belief? And is the difference in the rhetorical impact of the phrase, or is there an actual difference in the meaning between the two phrases? It could be that people believe one way but are reluctant to unpad the words they use to describe their set of beliefs.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ugh, I'd rather make believe in the sky-cake than do long division as a form of worship. I agree with you, I just really hate doing math.
I spent an hour explaining to a guy why he needs calculus in his life. He's a mormon. It was hysterical.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Saying "God does not exist" is not religion. It is reason.
The two are mutually exclusive concepts.
Holy cow is this ever an incredibly arrogant and smug thing to say.
You've got a hell of a worldview, fella!
Pony is completely correct.
You should have said "The likelihood of god existing is vanishingly small."
Yeah, there's basically a bunch of different ways of saying "I have valid reasons for not believing in God" without sounding like a smug, self-absorbed know-it-all.
Not to derail the thread or anything, but the other thread has reminded me: Is this a religious thread? Should it be locked after ten pages?
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Not to derail the thread or anything, but the other thread has reminded me: Is this a religious thread? Should it be locked after ten pages?
to claim such would be to claim that atheism or agnosticism are religions or are in some way related to religion, which they sorta aren't especially when they're being compared to each other.
Pony on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Yeah, there's basically a bunch of different ways of saying "I have valid reasons for not believing in God" without sounding like a smug, self-absorbed know-it-all.
But the point is not that he alone has valid reasons for not believing in god. The point is that those reasons which he cites are essentially public: they count as reasons for all rational persons. If all he was saying was that there were reasons for him alone to not believe in god, then there wouldn't be much point in posting it on a message board.
In any case, what he said is not just a paraphrased version of what you said, and hence you have not provided a polite version of what he said. You have provided something entirely different. It may be the case that what he said has no polite paraphrase--I don't think so--in which case you might object to it on those grounds. But it's still important to keep straight what was actually said, which is that there are considerations against believing in god which count as reasons to all rational persons.
Yeah, there's basically a bunch of different ways of saying "I have valid reasons for not believing in God" without sounding like a smug, self-absorbed know-it-all.
But the point is not that he alone has valid reasons for not believing in god. The point is that those reasons which he cites are essentially public: they count as reasons for all rational persons. If all he was saying was that there were reasons for him alone to not believe in god, then there wouldn't be much point in posting it on a message board.
In any case, what he said is not just a paraphrase of what you said, and hence you have not provided a polite version of what he said. You have provided something entirely different. It may be the case that what he said has no polite paraphrase--I don't think so--in which case you might object to it on those grounds. But it's still important to keep straight what was actually said, which is that there are considerations against believing in god which count as reasons to all rational persons.
I guess!
He still phrased it in a needlessly antagonistic and arrogant (and factually incorrect!) way.
It is pretty common shorthand to take anything with no proof and say it doesn't exist. For instance, saying that unicorns don't exist is typically considered factually correct (to virtually anyone I can think of, anyway), even though, again, the correct statement is "The probability of unicorns existing is vanishingly small".
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't actually know of string theory's existence well enough to either believe or disbelieve in it.
Both of which would be retarded perspectives, since we have no evidence either way for it that isn't dealt with equally well by competing hypotheses (which is what it should be called: the string hypothesis). An example would be loop quantum gravity, for those interested.
Stating that a god exists when there is no proof of such an existence is often considered unreasonable.
To you, is it reasonable to believe in Odin? In Shiva? In Gilgamesh?
This has nothing to do with facts or reason as an objective measure, my good sir.
What you are doing is an appeal to common emotion.
No, I'm appealing to reason. I asked if you felt it was reasonable to believe in those gods. If so, then that would end it, as you would also feel it reasonable to believe in other gods. If it is not reasonable to believe in those gods, it WOULD be reasonable to apply that same logic to all gods.
What was it Dawkins said? We all know what it's like to be atheists by virtue of not believing in Thor or Zeus, atheists just take it one step further than most.
override367 on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
What was it Dawkins said? We all know what it's like to be atheists by virtue of not believing in Thor or Zeus, atheists just take it one step further than most.
That was Stephen H. Roberts, who said it originally "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The more important point re: "strong vs weak" atheism isn't "believe vs know", it's where you put the negative in the sentence "I do ____ believe/know/am reasonably sure God does ____ exist", in my opinion.
It's true, those things are different. But you're wrong if you think that said difference is illuminating in the context of a "third way" between atheism and agnosticism. Consider the following:
1) "I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim"
-versus-
2) "I believe Obama isn't a Muslim."
If I agreed to the first, but absolutely refused to agree with the second, then that would imply that I thought things were really up in the air: like, he totally could be, or maybe he isn't, but for whatever reasons I just can't settle on one or the other.
As it turns out we already have a word for that, and it's "agnostic."
Enh, not really. In either case the use of the word "believe" leaves it up in the air politically speaking.
Interviewer: "Is Obama a Muslim?"
Rebublican Congressman: "I don't believe he is."
Daily Kos: "WTF!!"
Interviewer: "Is Obama a Muslim?"
Republican Congressman: "I believe he isn't."
Daily Kos: "WTF!!"
I don't think there's really any difference between the two phrasings, and you can make either one sound "better" than the other depending on the tone you use.
Likewise, there really is no difference between saying "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist". They are semantically identical statements.
The first sentence's main verb is negative, which implies inaction and indecisiveness, and the second sentence's main verb is positive, which gives it more finality.
But that's just tone. Anybody that says these two sentences is saying the same thing.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The first sentence's main verb is negative, which implies inaction and indecisiveness, and the second sentence's main verb is positive, which gives it more finality.
But that's just tone. Anybody that says these two sentences is saying the same thing.
The first sentence's main verb is negative, which implies inaction and indecisiveness, and the second sentence's main verb is positive, which gives it more finality.
But that's just tone. Anybody that says these two sentences is saying the same thing.
English is not maths.
Also, what the philosopher-king MrMr said.
When a politician is speaking, the usage of either of these sentences is critical for getting into the constituents' subconscious. When a politician is being quoted in law, it doesn't matter.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't actually know of string theory's existence well enough to either believe or disbelieve in it.
Both of which would be retarded perspectives, since we have no evidence either way for it that isn't dealt with equally well by competing hypotheses (which is what it should be called: the string hypothesis). An example would be loop quantum gravity, for those interested.
Hang on, let me make up some "God Loves Global Lorentz Invariance" protest signs...
I get where people are coming from with the whole "Science/Math is a Religion" angle, but it seems incredibly stupid to me. Science and math get religionized when people treat them as mystical black boxes from whence emerge iPhones and trips to the moon. It's like saying that areospace engineering is a religion because, duh, cargo cults. With the exception of people too wrapped up in untestable hypotheses to back down without loss of face, science and math aren't religions for the people actually engaged in knowing shit about them.
CptHamilton on
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I get where people are coming from with the whole "Science/Math is a Religion" angle, but it seems incredibly stupid to me.
I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't actually know of string theory's existence well enough to either believe or disbelieve in it.
Both of which would be retarded perspectives, since we have no evidence either way for it that isn't dealt with equally well by competing hypotheses (which is what it should be called: the string hypothesis). An example would be loop quantum gravity, for those interested.
Hang on, let me make up some "God Loves Global Lorentz Invariance" protest signs...
I get where people are coming from with the whole "Science/Math is a Religion" angle, but it seems incredibly stupid to me. Science and math get religionized when people treat them as mystical black boxes from whence emerge iPhones and trips to the moon. It's like saying that areospace engineering is a religion because, duh, cargo cults. With the exception of people too wrapped up in untestable hypotheses to back down without loss of face, science and math aren't religions for the people actually engaged in knowing shit about them.
The string hypothesis is hardly untestable, just not testable at current limits of instrumentation, for its current predictions. It is hardly a fully explored hypothesis, so people are constantly formulating it's various ramifications to try and find a large enough effect that it can explain conclusively that other hypotheses cannot. The same goes for other theories.
As far as I know, no one refuses to admit defeat when the evidence goes against them. The point is, no evidence has gone against anyone.
Posts
What. Belief =/= knowledge.
I believe my room has no people in it now, because I'm in my dorm's lobby and I have no roommates.
I don't know this to be true. I may have forgotten to lock the bathroom door I share with my suitemate and he could be stealing all my stuff. Someone could have just kicked my door down. Maybe it's all a dream and I'm actually in my room now. etc etc
EDIT: Hey Argus, I appreciate the childish attempt to impugn my character, that's real cool and civil. Have you considered not trolling my thread? That would be a cool thing to consider, but I don't think you're the considerate type.
If that's your standard of what knowledge is, how many things do you know? Anything at all?
The more important point re: "strong vs weak" atheism isn't "believe vs know", it's where you put the negative in the sentence "I do ____ believe/know/am reasonably sure God does ____ exist", in my opinion.
I'm happy to use "know" as a casual shorthand for high levels of certainty.
I'm with Loren. Strong/weak atheism was invented by atheists who couldn't enunciate why saying "I don't believe in deities" was not a religion and is a reasonable rational claim.
It's true, those things are different. But you're wrong if you think that said difference is illuminating in the context of a "third way" between atheism and agnosticism. Consider the following:
1) "I don't believe that Obama is a Muslim"
-versus-
2) "I believe Obama isn't a Muslim."
If I agreed to the first, but absolutely refused to agree with the second, then that would imply that I thought things were really up in the air: like, he totally could be, or maybe he isn't, but for whatever reasons I just can't settle on one or the other.
As it turns out we already have a word for that, and it's "agnostic."
I think it's more the types who are uncomfortable saying that they believe gods don't exist.
Over at the atheist forums, there's a group of people who claim not to believe anything at all. As in, "beliefs? We don't do that sort of thing here."
I'm pretty sure he's not.
The strong/weak atheism distinction being bunk is a long running point of contention, in this thread and in general.
Personally, I think it cuts as much ice as a soap hacksaw, it's as useful as a chocolate kettle, it's... like school in July... NO CLASS.
No, wait, that's not one.
I'm not so sure about that. Weak atheism kind of propagates in otherwise religious communities and circumstances- it's the classic "nominally Christian, but not really a praying man" type of individual. Strong atheism tends to be more predominant in heavily secular and/or irreligious communities. There's a pretty big difference between someone saying, "I don't have faith in God" and saying "faith in God is an error in reasoning."
I'm not sure what you mean by faith here. Does that mean belief? And is the difference in the rhetorical impact of the phrase, or is there an actual difference in the meaning between the two phrases? It could be that people believe one way but are reluctant to unpad the words they use to describe their set of beliefs.
The two are mutually exclusive concepts.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Ugh, I'd rather make believe in the sky-cake than do long division as a form of worship. I agree with you, I just really hate doing math.
I spent an hour explaining to a guy why he needs calculus in his life. He's a mormon. It was hysterical.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Holy cow is this ever an incredibly arrogant and smug thing to say.
You've got a hell of a worldview, fella!
You should have said "The likelihood of god existing is vanishingly small."
Yeah, there's basically a bunch of different ways of saying "I have valid reasons for not believing in God" without sounding like a smug, self-absorbed know-it-all.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That reminds me? Are you a mod? Should you be ....locked after 10 pages?
to claim such would be to claim that atheism or agnosticism are religions or are in some way related to religion, which they sorta aren't especially when they're being compared to each other.
But the point is not that he alone has valid reasons for not believing in god. The point is that those reasons which he cites are essentially public: they count as reasons for all rational persons. If all he was saying was that there were reasons for him alone to not believe in god, then there wouldn't be much point in posting it on a message board.
In any case, what he said is not just a paraphrased version of what you said, and hence you have not provided a polite version of what he said. You have provided something entirely different. It may be the case that what he said has no polite paraphrase--I don't think so--in which case you might object to it on those grounds. But it's still important to keep straight what was actually said, which is that there are considerations against believing in god which count as reasons to all rational persons.
I guess!
He still phrased it in a needlessly antagonistic and arrogant (and factually incorrect!) way.
It is pretty common shorthand to take anything with no proof and say it doesn't exist. For instance, saying that unicorns don't exist is typically considered factually correct (to virtually anyone I can think of, anyway), even though, again, the correct statement is "The probability of unicorns existing is vanishingly small".
Like, I could get all pedantic and explain to you why that's wrong, but it really should be obvious to rational people who understand how like
you know
words work
To you, is it reasonable to believe in Odin? In Shiva? In Gilgamesh?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This has nothing to do with facts or reason as an objective measure, my good sir.
What you are doing is an appeal to common emotion.
Somehow I doubt this is going to turn into a subtle and well-formed critique of the particular aspects and motivation of string theory.
Both of which would be retarded perspectives, since we have no evidence either way for it that isn't dealt with equally well by competing hypotheses (which is what it should be called: the string hypothesis). An example would be loop quantum gravity, for those interested.
That was Stephen H. Roberts, who said it originally "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Which is pretty much the same sentiment.
Enh, not really. In either case the use of the word "believe" leaves it up in the air politically speaking.
Interviewer: "Is Obama a Muslim?"
Rebublican Congressman: "I don't believe he is."
Daily Kos: "WTF!!"
Interviewer: "Is Obama a Muslim?"
Republican Congressman: "I believe he isn't."
Daily Kos: "WTF!!"
I don't think there's really any difference between the two phrasings, and you can make either one sound "better" than the other depending on the tone you use.
Likewise, there really is no difference between saying "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist". They are semantically identical statements.
But that's just tone. Anybody that says these two sentences is saying the same thing.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
English is not maths.
Also, what the philosopher-king MrMr said.
When a politician is speaking, the usage of either of these sentences is critical for getting into the constituents' subconscious. When a politician is being quoted in law, it doesn't matter.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hang on, let me make up some "God Loves Global Lorentz Invariance" protest signs...
I get where people are coming from with the whole "Science/Math is a Religion" angle, but it seems incredibly stupid to me. Science and math get religionized when people treat them as mystical black boxes from whence emerge iPhones and trips to the moon. It's like saying that areospace engineering is a religion because, duh, cargo cults. With the exception of people too wrapped up in untestable hypotheses to back down without loss of face, science and math aren't religions for the people actually engaged in knowing shit about them.
To just about everybody, I hope!
The string hypothesis is hardly untestable, just not testable at current limits of instrumentation, for its current predictions. It is hardly a fully explored hypothesis, so people are constantly formulating it's various ramifications to try and find a large enough effect that it can explain conclusively that other hypotheses cannot. The same goes for other theories.
As far as I know, no one refuses to admit defeat when the evidence goes against them. The point is, no evidence has gone against anyone.