not believing in god and believing in no god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2013, 11:53 PM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(09-02-2013 11:44 PM)Julius Wrote:  
Quote:nope. im not trying to confuse anybody. i asked a question because i honestly didnt see the differance. it may seem like i was trying to confuse people to you but things are not always what they seem. i dont use caps because i dont care to. because, you know, it doesnt matter. its a little petty to concern yourself with such things.
Of course it is. You keep believing that, won't you?

Thanks,

Julius

PS. Punctuation and Capitalization...where the hell have you gone? Doesn't this guy see where he's freakin' messing up?
why do you care?
im betting you got nothing better to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 12:07 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(09-02-2013 11:53 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(09-02-2013 11:44 PM)Julius Wrote:  Of course it is. You keep believing that, won't you?

Thanks,

Julius

PS. Punctuation and Capitalization...where the hell have you gone? Doesn't this guy see where he's freakin' messing up?
why do you care?
im betting you got nothing better to do.
You can't do it, can you? Anything resembling normal punctuation and capitalization is beyond you....isn't it?

You will not even try.

You are defective.

Julius.

PS. I will not take shit from the willfully ignorant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 12:23 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
ive often heard theists say to atheists that not believing in god is the same as believing there is no god. then i often hear the atheist deny this stating the two are not the same. i must admit that i dont get this. they seem the same to me. can someone explain what the differance is if in fact there is one?
I don't know, it's semantics really. The way that I prefer to view it is that as an atheist, I don't believe that gods exist, and I hold no religious beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 12:26 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(10-02-2013 12:07 AM)Julius Wrote:  
(09-02-2013 11:53 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  why do you care?
im betting you got nothing better to do.
You can't do it, can you? Anything resembling normal punctuation and capitalization is beyond you....isn't it?

You will not even try.

You are defective.

Julius.

PS. I will not take shit from the willfully ignorant.
it seem like it really bothers you that i wont use caps and punctuation. so i will continue to do so just for you. in fact perhaps i will start doing things like using "u" instead of "you." would that bother u 2?
ah shit, why am i taking u seriously. go away little boy u r annoying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 12:42 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(08-02-2013 08:41 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Agnostics... how I loathe you.

Suppose some random passer by tells you that Mount Olympus is jutting out of your backyard. You go to check (it's an especially boring day) but only find your lovely rose garden and nothing else. Do you then throw your hands up into the air and proclaim "I see no evidence of a Mount Olympus, BUT HOW DO I KNOW FOR SURE!? Sigh. I must hold that it's possible."

What is the purpose of having a word like agnosticism if everything within or outside of reality is "possible". "I can't say for a fact that my head is not a Turkey Sandwich."

Actually, Mount Olympus is jutting out of my backyard, right here in Utah. No joke. It's the actual name of the tallest mountain in the Wasatch mountain range here in Salt Lake City. I live literally in the foothills of Mount Olympus.

I've never seen any gods up there though, and believe me, I've looked.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
10-02-2013, 01:03 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2013 02:13 AM by kim.)
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(09-02-2013 11:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  If you know for a fact that something is not there because there's been reams of tests and mountains of data and you got a degree in it, you think that something is not there.
If you suspect something is not there because you haven't seen any evidence or for any other reason.... you think that something is not there.
So what is the difference?
There is a difference between know for a fact and suspect something

(09-02-2013 11:16 PM)Ghost Wrote:  If I ask you if you think there's a God and you say "No" or you say "I don't believe there is", what's the difference? It amounts to the same thing.
There is a difference between the statements: I don't believe. and No.
I don't believe - - there is doubt
No - - there is no doubt

I can not prove something is. So it might not be. Doubt. In this statement I'm not sure.

I can prove something is not. So it definitely can not be. No doubt. In this statement I'm absolutely sure.

***** Doubt and no doubt are different things.*****

I do not believe the sky is blue. = I can not prove the sky is blue. / No proof it is blue. In this statement I'm not sure the sky is blue. There is doubt.

I believe the sky is not blue. = I can prove the sky is not blue. / Proof it is not blue. In this statement I'm absolutely sure the sky is not blue. There is no doubt.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(10-02-2013 12:23 AM)JDS Wrote:  i...
I don't know, it's semantics really.
...

Sorry to disagree with you but it is not just semantics... it's logic.

I refer the honourable member to the statements I made earlier in posts #63 and #67 and to all the posts that Kim has made on this thread.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
10-02-2013, 07:16 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
Hey, Druid.

Let it drop. Julius is a troll. End of story. He has literally contributed nothing to this conversation. I mean really. He's ad homing you over punctuation? That's pathetic. Like really, it's a fucking joke. Pity him, don't fuel him.

Julius.

stop being a fucking troll

Hey, Kim.

I don't think that you responded to my concern. You just reiterated the same thing that everyone is reiterating. Take a look at my black people analogy. I think it comes closest to what's so confusing to me.

Hey, DLJ.

I believe that you think that those distinctions are important. But they're irrelevant to me. Because of the things that I'm pointing out. So you can continue to repeat that there IS a distinction, but it's not helping THIS conversation.

It strikes me that the point of the distinction you are all making is, "We're not stupid like Theists." Which is fine. If you want to separate yourselves from them in that way, it's reasonable. But there is a thought in your head and when people ask you to share it, when we ask, "what do you THINK," we get quite negative and dismissive reactions. At the end of the day, if you don't believe there is a God or if you know there is no God, as far as you're concerned, there is no God.

I think the disconnect lies between you thinking that the distinction between doubt and certainty is all important and my thinking that the thought that you are doubtful or certain about is all important.

Again, I think my black inferiority analogy really illustrates the question. If different people think the same thing, what does it matter if they're certain or not? That there is a difference between certainty and doubt becomes irrelevant. This, I think, is why people like myself and Druid don't see any difference. Because if you ask the doubter or the certain man, they both BELIEVE that blacks are inferior (I suppose to us believe means "what it is that the person thinks" and to you believe means "uncertainty because there's no proof"). Could you speak to that?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(10-02-2013 07:16 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I believe that you think that those distinctions are important. But they're irrelevant to me. Because of the things that I'm pointing out. So you can continue to repeat that there IS a distinction, but it's not helping THIS conversation.

Of course it is helping this conversation. The OP was:
Quote:ive often heard theists say to atheists that not believing in god is the same as believing there is no god. then i often hear the atheist deny this stating the two are not the same. i must admit that i dont get this. they seem the same to me. can someone explain what the differance is if in fact there is one?

Explaining the difference is the point of the conversation.
Quote:It strikes me that the point of the distinction you are all making is, "We're not stupid like Theists." Which is fine. If you want to separate yourselves from them in that way, it's reasonable. But there is a thought in your head and when people ask you to share it, when we ask, "what do you THINK," we get quite negative and dismissive reactions. At the end of the day, if you don't believe there is a God or if you know there is no God, as far as you're concerned, there is no God.

I think the disconnect lies between you thinking that the distinction between doubt and certainty is all important and my thinking that the thought that you are doubtful or certain about is all important.

No, the distinction may not be all important, but it is important.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2013, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2013 10:27 AM by DLJ.)
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
Ghost,

Yup, I nearly addressed your point of "what does it matter" earlier but I wasn't clear that that was what you were worried about.

I work in a world of compliance, governance, risk, management etc.
Decisions can effect careers, profit, reputation, futures etc. so they are based on process and facts (not hearsay and rumour).

Process requires clear definitions.
Facts (to be categorised as such) require documented evidence.

If there are two propositions, we would look at evidence for and against each option and not just compare the two options.

Both could be accepted, both rejected or one rejected and the other accepted.

But, if you are merely concerned about whether the words "think" and "believe" and "know" are interchangeable, well honestly, I don't care that much because there will always be the follow up... "Why do you think / believe that?" or "How do you know that?" i.e. "What's your evidence?"

That concern, however, was not how I interpreted Drunkin's original question.

Just trying to be helpful.

So, my field and the courtrooms aside, it matters to the unnamed atheists to which Drunkin alluded because the argument appears to be (in the US at any rate) over the burden of proof; the default position; the moral high ground; the importance of evidence in the battle against theocracy.

People's beliefs effect the way they vote and get to impose laws for the 'good' of all.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: