not believing in god and believing in no god
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(11-02-2013 08:52 AM)Ghost Wrote:  ...
We're talking about what distinguishes one group of people from another.
...

Now I see the disconnect.

We were not. You were but I wasn't.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
11-02-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
(10-02-2013 10:01 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm baffled by these responses. I've outlined pretty clearly where the confusion is. And yet for some reason, that is ignored in lieu of reassertions of something I've already recognised.

I get that people think the distinction between believe and know is important. So please, can we move on from that? I'm saying it's NOT IMPORTANT. The reason I'm saying that it's not important is because at the end of the day, the person that believes something and the person that knows something THINKS the same thing. So there IS NO DISTINCTION between what one or the other thinks.

Can someone PLEASE speak directly to that?

Hey, DLJ.

Thank you for trying to be helpful, brother. I appreciate it.

Quote: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?"

But no one is obligated to justify what they think. And knowing why they think what they think doesn't alter what they think.

What someone thinks determines how they act. Why someone thinks doesn't do shit.

Quote: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.

See, this is why I figured that the importance of the distinction is to say, "We're not stupid like Theists." Which I get. You guys are at war. Makes perfect sense. But who, outside of you two groups, gives a fuck? And why, when we ask, "Well what do you think," are we told to go fuck ourselves?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Someone 200 years ago that believed that every organism on the face of the planet was the result of special creation and someone 200 years ago that "knew" that every organism on the face of the planet was the result of special creation did not think exactly the same thing. Because they don't approach it the same way. The person who knows that it is a belief of theirs, might look at any evidence to the contrary, but someone who "knows" it to be true, will likely not. The believer would be someone who has said "this is what our current knowledge and understanding demonstrate to be the most likely scenario as of this moment." While the one who "knew" would have said "I know this to be true" and that would have been the end of the discussion.

I know my wife's car will start start tomorrow and I believe mine will. Her car is brand new (<3,000 miles) and is more likely to be just fine in 24 hours when compared to the piece of shit I am driving. As of right now, I have no good evidence to know it won't start, but I have good evidence to believe it might not. But that evidence is not strong enough for me to say "it will not start tomorrow" but instead, that it most likely will.

The "same" thought occurs about both cars, but are based entirely on different rationalizations, evidence, and modes of thought.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
11-02-2013, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2013 04:09 PM by kim.)
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
Matt, I am completely happy about helping anyone through any learning process. It honors people who have helped me. Shy

(11-02-2013 08:52 AM)Ghost Wrote:  In both world views, that of people who believe(there is no god*) and that of people who know(there is no god*), there is no God. Is that not correct?

{There is no god} is not correct.

There is no god is presupposing that there is not a god. It is an assumption that there is not a god.
To assume that there is not a god discounts/cancels out any notion that there might be a god. There is no room to reason here.

Your example includes people who believe and people who know, there is nothing outside of this god which allows for its absolute non existence. However, people who believe allow the possibility of non existence ... and existence. Belief can go either way. There is room to reason here. This defaults to reason.

no God
to believe(there is no god) = do not know //to have partial or qualified knowledge

to know(there is no god) = know // to have absolute knowledge

Argue with someone who does not know something and you might help them to see your point & vice versa. ie There is reasoning to be found.

Argue with someone who knows something and you will not get them to see your point. ie There is no reasoning "with these people".
***

If someone says there is no god they are not an agnostic, they do not question. They assume a position that there is no god. This would be a hardcore atheist.

If one says they don't believe in or don't think there's god they might be an agnostic, they question. They accept a position that there isn't a god but they also might accept a position that there is a god. This would be an agnostic atheist.

***
There is either: no god for everyone or it's up in the air for everyone.
If it's up in the air, then everyone has a choice
But if there is no god, then no one has a choice.
______
(11-02-2013 08:52 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I'm not saying one is good and one is bad. All I'm saying is that people think things and that is what distinguishes them.
No. What distinguishes people is {whether they think something} or {whether they know something}.
When people think or believe something, the door to change is left open.
When people know something there is no door.

Here is the link from my previous post. I think it may be helpful.

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
11-02-2013, 05:03 PM
RE: not believing in god and believing in no god
I usually qualify my statement...I do not believe the god of the bible exists. Period. Is it possible there is a god? Sure. Is it possible aliens seeded our galaxy? Yes sure why not?

Do I believe in an invisible sky daddy who will send me to heaven if I follow his often contradictory rules and believe what's written the bible No. if it were true, it woukdnt be so heavily lifted from even older myths.


Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: