My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

Does/doesn't what??
Your answer seems to be a non-sequitur.

That place??
Where would that place be?

But it doesn't mean they necessarily exist just because I am able to lack belief in them.

You have used an example where we both know, and it can be proven, that what is believed in actually exists.
I used an example where we don't both know, nor can it be proven, that what is believed in actually exists.
Thus this shows, quite conclusively, that the ability to have belief in something is no arbiter of whether what is believed in actually exists or not.
Yes, you could continue to use examples of things that are known, and can be proven, to exist, but to now do so when you have been shown the flaw in that approach would be dishonest on your part.

I assure you I do lack belief in God, Jan.
Even if, as you claim, that God simply does not exist as far as I'm aware, then I lack belief.
If God exists or not, I lack belief in God.
Why do you insist on assuming that to lack belief in something that the something must therefore exist?
Do you lack belief in Zarg?
I'm sure Zarg does not exist as far as you're aware.
But do you lack belief in Zarg, Jan?

Yes, it does matter, Jan.
Sweeping it away with a hand-gesture is simply avoidance on your part to address the point: Some Deists believe God to exist yet do not "believe in God".
They are not atheist.
This goes against your definition, your assertion of what it means to be atheist.

So you claim and believe.

From one who thinks and believes that God is real, actually exists, and believes in God, your view is to be expected.
It's bearing on reality, however, is what is being debated.
And coming to that debate with the a priori assumption that God exists, with no way to support that assumption, won't get you anywhere.

Ah, so you're arguing from consensus?
You think that because a meme has had longevity that it is the truth?
That it is somehow given reality?
You think that being a sheep rather than thinking for yourself from first principles (i.e. absent any a priori assumptions on the matter) is the way it should be?
I guess if you don't want to do that, and would rather just blindly accept what you have been told, that's your business.
But it changes nothing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

just the rhythm of what he is saying just feels and sounds like the people ive met who talk about philosophy while being higher than a kite.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You asked me whether I'm an atheist or not. I told you I don't label myself. Then you asked me whether I believe in God or not, presumably so you can label me.

That's a pretty useless "definition". It's impossible to tell you whether I believe in that or not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is Zarg?

If Zarg doesn't exist, then there is nothing to believe, or lack belief in.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To believe in Zarg would require me to accept that Zarg exists, or that it is true.
As I don't, it means there is nothing to believe in. If it is not possible for me to believe in something, then I can't lack belief in it.
If I claimed lack belief in it, it would be an empty claim, as I cannot lack belief in it.

If they believe that God exists, then they believe in God, which would be in accordance with their understanding of God. What they don't believe are religious claims about God. Atheist means that the person does not believe in God, because for an atheist there is no God, to believe in. So deists, aren't atheist, they are theist by definition.

Obviously. That's why I'm a theist.

And you come to the same debate with an a priori assumption that God need specific evidence, in order to accept that it exist. Where do you think that gets you?

No. I'm stating a fact.

You see it as a meme, I see it as human nature.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

jan.

 

What's wrong with the label ''atheist''? It describes your position, regarding God.
I would refer to you as ''that bloke who doesn't believe in God'', but it's a lot easier to say ''atheis''.

The definition isn't useless for me.

jan.

 

God, could not be ''God'', if it wasn't the ultimate source.
You are the source of everything that comes from you, including your thoughts, intentions, emotions, speech, actions, etc.
''God'' is the source of everything that comes from God.

jan.

 

How many ways are there to be a theist?
I'm sure everyone knows that a theist is a person who believes in God.

Can you give examples?

jan.

 

A ruler of a powerful and wise alien race.

IF Zarg doesn't actually exist then there is certainly nothing to believe in, that much is true.
But you can still lack belief in Zarg, given that "belief in Zarg" does exist (my friend Bob has it, but I lack what he has).
In such cases, Zarg would not be the ruler of a powerful and wise alien race but merely the concept of a powerful and wise alien race.
And that concept is called Zarg.
Either way, "belief in Zarg" exists.

Furthermore, what if you don't know whether Zarg actually exists or not?

Correct.

Your acceptance or not of Zarg's existence is irrelevant to whether Zarg actually exists or not.
And as such there may well be something to believe in, whether you think so or not.
Your acceptance or not is not the arbiter of what is out there.

But it is not I'm possible...
Unless you think it impossible that you could ever conclude that Zarg exists.

But you can, and do, lack belief in Zarg.
My friend Bob believes in Zarg so "belief in Zarg" exists.
Do you have this "belief in Zarg" or do you not?
If you don't then you lack belief in Zarg.

Eh?
Since when does believing that God exists equate to "believing in" God?
Have you not in the past been at pains to make the distinction between the two?
If you are now saying that one is a necessary effect of the other then you are being inconsistent with your previous arguments.
Furthermore, it is demonstrably false that if one believes God to exist then they believe in God.
Using your previous example: I believe that the British Labour Party exists, but I do not believe in the British Labour Party.
So please stop spouting what you know to be drivel.

And some don't "believe in" God at all.

So you would label some Deists, those that do not "believe in" God, as atheist, even though they believe that God exists.

For some Deists there is a God to believe in but they don't believe in that God.

So unless you label these Deists as atheist you are actually arguing that the determining factor in being an atheist is not the "not believing in God" but actually the lack of belief that God exists.
Because it is that lack of belief (that God exists) that means for an atheist (as you define them) there is no God for them to believe in.
And yes, the atheist can lack belief in God whether God actually exists or not.
You have belief in God.
Atheist lack that belief.

So we have come full circle where you have logically concluded that an atheist is someone who lacks belief that God exists.
Which is what atheists have been telling you from the outset.

The only difference is that you think to "lack belief in God" assumes God to exist.
Which is demonstrably false.
But it does assume that "belief in God" exists, whether God is as you believe, or merely the concept of what you believe - which is only determined by the actuality of God's existence or otherwise.

I'm just highlighting that your position is one of belief, not fact.

That's not actually an assumption I have.
I'm sure it is quite possible that I might accept God's existence without such evidence.
I'm not sure how that might happen, but I don't exclude the possibility.
Would certainly be interesting and worthy of examination if it did.

But yes, having scientific evidence would be the most likely way I will accept something to exist, I don't deny that.
But note that I am not begging the question with regard God's existence.
I don't make the a priori assumption that God is not able to be evidenced through science, for if I did then requiring scientific evidence before accepting God would be tantamount to an a priori assumption as you claim me to have.

It is you who states that God can not be evidenced scientifically.

A fact that has no bearing on the matter in hand, used by you in an attempt to promote the correctness of your position.
So yes, an appeal to consensus.

Well, it's not genetic.
And a meme is any element of behaviour or culture that is passed between individuals by non-genetic means.
But whether belief in God is seen as a meme or human nature, how does that in any way determine the reality of what is believed in?

No, I honestly don't think you are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dozens, in a few major categories.
The count would depend on how animist religions are classified, whether some or all of the various Abrahamic sects are classified as having the same deity, etc.

Or Gods.

Sure.

 

The Jan Paradox: the impossibility of either holding or lacking belief in something objectively untrue / false.

 

How can it describe my position regarding God when you can't tell us what "God" means?

But you're not talking to yourself. When you're talking to other people, you have to have definitions that make sense to them. You'll have to think through what you mean by "God" a lot better before you can discuss the concept with other people effectively.

 

Okay.

I wouldn't lack belief in Zarg, I would lack belief in the notion that Zarg can be believed in, because I far as would be aware, Zarg does not exist. But saying that, it is entirely possible that Zarg could exist, and belief be justified. So I would accept the belief, on those grounds. But I would not be able to believe, or not believe in Zarg. If I was interested, I would do more research. But I don't think I would, as belief in Zarg wouldn't be of any benefit to me.

Then I would lack the belief of belief in Zarg.
Without the testimony of belief, there is no Zarg.
For the atheist, there is no God.

Zarg doesn't exist, as far as I'm aware, so I would have to go with that.

My acceptance is exactly as important as those who accept Zarg's existence.
If Zarg doesn't exist, as Zarg doesn't as far as I'm aware, then that's what I have to go with.
I would only need to adopt the agnostic position

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

if I was interested in finding out whether or not Zarg exists.
But Zarg would remain non-existent as far as I'm aware.

It would be impossible if Zarg doesn't exist, and as far as I'm aware, it doesn't.
So while Zarg doesn't exist, it remains impossible.

I can't. I lack belief in the belief of Zarg, because Zarg doesn't exist as far as I'm aware.

I lack belief in Bob's position

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, because Zarg doesn't actually exist as far as I'm aware.

If you believe that God exists, then you understand aspects of what God is, and does.
Why wouldn't you believe in God, if you believed God existed? Unless you actively denied or rejected God.
Even then, you would have to totally forget that God exists, to truly be an atheist. It wouldn't rely on your outward testimony,
but the reality of what you believe to be true, whether you state it, or not.

The atheist has not got to the stage of what it is to believe in God, because for them there is no God. It is the atheist that needs
to establish God's existence. For the theist there is no issue with whether or not God exists, because God must necessarily exist in order to be God. IOW it is but one of God's attributes. We exist, so God must necessarily exist.

The problem you have, is that God does not exist as far as you're aware. So you cannot comprehend how it is people can believe in something, that for all intent and purpose, does not exist. So as far as you know, if God exists, there's no real reason to believe in God. You may do, or you may not. But that's not how it goes.

Because you don't have to. That is the nature of politics.
The nature of God, in relation to your own nature, is what allows you realise it's existence.
It is of a one-ness, as opposed to opposing factions, ideas.

If they believe that god caused everything, then stayed out of the way. Then they believe that's what God did, and what God does.
How is that not believe in God?
What do you think belief in God entails?

The determining factor for being an atheist has to default to God does not exist as far as they are aware.
The only notion of God atheists have, are from external sources, which probably accounts for why atheists think God is known
via external sources, hence the need for specific evidence.

Atheists lack the claims of belief, because for them there is no God, as far as they can tell, for them to verify whether or not
those claims are true.

On the contrary. It is demonstrably true. You lack belief in the claims of belief in God, because for you there is no God.

Exactly, and there is currently no God for the atheist.

I not talking about what could be. I'm talking about now.
For you accept God exists, you require specific evidence (evidence that satisfies you personal standard of what God is).

We can use God's energies (I say God's energies because I'm a theist), to enlighten us about God. But you have to accept God, and God's energies.
This is where atheists draw the line. They don't accept God, whereas theists do. As a consequence of that, they don't accept God's energies. They are more likely to accept the alternative, a materialistic origin.
Evidence is only good if you know what it pertains to.
If you don't accept God, you will have no idea of how any evidence that lead to the understanding that God exists, is evidence for God's existence. You will attribute it to what you do know. That's why asking for evidence of God's existence, is in some ways, sticking your fingers in your ears, and shouting at the top of your voice.

Humans have the capacity to accept or not. That's how it determines what is believed in.

jan.

 

That's exactly why it pertains to you.
There is no God.

What is it about that definition that makes no sense?

jan.

 

Things I'm learning from Jan in this thread, I think:

1. If a god exists, then atheists and agnostics can cause that god to not exist by lacking a belief in it.
2. As a result of #1, all atheists and agnostics are claiming god does not exist, even if they say they just don't know either way.
3. If a god does not exist, then theists can cause that god to exist by believing in it, at which point its existence becomes self-evident, and god just "is".
4. As a result of #3, all theists are claiming god does exist, even though Jan claims he never said god exists.

...or something...

 

Somebody finally someone straightened out all of the spaghetti in the can

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There is no ''if a god exists''. I'm assuming God IS, and existence is a property.
The alternative would be to assume there is no such thing as God.
The latter does not have to be asserted, or affirmed. There just is no God (no experience of God).
Atheists and agnostic atheists, by default, fall into the latter.
Theists believe in the former, through their understanding of God.

Atheists and agnostic do not need to claim God does not exist. God does not exist for them.

Theists already believe in God, just as atheists/agnostics doesn't.
The issue of existence is an atheist one, because for them God does not exist, and they can't comprehend how it is that people
could believe in something that does not exist.

God is existence. We exist because of God.
To say God exists, is to say God exists like other objects exist.
If that was the case, God could not be God.

jan.

 

This is still a science forum.

You are free to believe that God is beyond rational discussion anywhere else, but that is not true here.

Invoking word salad as a way of making it seem mysterious and super spooky is nonsense.

If it doesn't have properties that can rationally be discussed, then it can't be discussed here.