Religion

[sxcalexc]

This is the first time I've heard "disbelief" being used in the sense that "I may or may not believe".

I think you misunderstand. Disbelief does not mean "I may or may not believe". It means that I don't believe. Having said that, it does not imply that you REJECT the belief. I hope you understand the difference. It does not carry the connotations of rejection, it is merely a LACK of belief. 

[Mao]

bturville: there is still a difference. Take Santa Claus for example, he was said to reside in the Arctic, however, human have explored the arctic and reported no Santa nor Elves. that is 'sufficient evidence'. The others can be explained similarly

God, on the other hand, is quite complicated. Creation of the universe, the Big Bang, has too many unknown things about it. When these phenomenon can be explained by science [and science alone], then we can safely say that there isn't necessarily a God, at that point, agnostics would no longer exist, there is sufficient evidence [and a new faction would be created, those who don't believe in science, nor God, and sit on the fence]

it is true that we are not obliged to accept existence of everything, but nor should we automatically deny, especially on the topic of God which can sway both ways.

[sxcalexc]

Mao, reply to my 2nd last post, I want to know if you are convinced yet, haha! It frustrates me when I'm trying to communicate  a point that is not accepted  :smitten:

[Mao]

I do not “believe” or “have faith” that God does not exist; I simply decline to accept a claim that such an entity exists.

This is the first time I've heard "disbelief" being used in the sense that "I may or may not believe".

I think you misunderstand. Disbelief does not mean "I may or may not believe". It means that I don't believe. Having said that, it does not imply that you REJECT the belief. I hope you understand the difference. It does not carry the connotations of rejection, it is merely a LACK of belief. 

aha, I see, sitting on the fence without actually sitting on the fence.
If I were to ask you "Do you believe that there is a higher power?" what would you answer?

"No I do not accept this belief." Does this imply that you believe there is no higher power? If not, then why answer "no" in the first place?

[sxcalexc]

I do not “believe” or “have faith” that God does not exist; I simply decline to accept a claim that such an entity exists.

This is the first time I've heard "disbelief" being used in the sense that "I may or may not believe".

I think you misunderstand. Disbelief does not mean "I may or may not believe". It means that I don't believe. Having said that, it does not imply that you REJECT the belief. I hope you understand the difference. It does not carry the connotations of rejection, it is merely a LACK of belief. 

aha, I see, sitting on the fence without actually sitting on the fence.
If I were to ask you "Do you believe that there is a higher power?" what would you answer?

"No I do not accept this belief." Does this imply that you believe there is no higher power? If not, then why answer "no" in the first place?

Mao, when I was saying "I", I was not referring to myself, but speaking in the first person. I'm merely proving to you that 'atheism' accepts both definitions.

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable and consequently I live my life as if one does not exist but I also reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist. (ie. not a full-blown vehement atheist [which are probably rarer than fundamentalist theists])

[Mao]

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable but reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist.

which is the point I am making, you are accepting a bit of both, which is not a leap of faith.

Atheism should not be everything except theism. There are two very different trains of thought in there, one with a leap of faith, one without.

[sxcalexc]

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable but reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist.

which is the point I am making, you are accepting a bit of both, which is not a leap of faith.

Atheism should not be everything except theism. There are two very different trains of thought in there, one with a leap of faith, one without.

Yes, two 'defined' train of thoughts both covered by Atheism. However, atheism covers the range of disbelief and there are levels in between such definitions. I am technically somewhere in between an agnostic and a strong atheist. So I guess, a moderate atheist. A complete agnostic would be a 50-50 fence sitter. I go beyond that, but do not deny the possibility a god exists.

[bturville]

God, on the other hand, is quite complicated. Creation of the universe, the Big Bang, has too many unknown things about it. When these phenomenon can be explained by science [and science alone], then we can safely say that there isn't necessarily a God, at that point, agnostics would no longer exist, there is sufficient evidence [and a new faction would be created, those who don't believe in science, nor God, and sit on the fence]

Naturally the big bang and creation of the universe are enormously complex events completely outside our scope of science, and very very unlikely to have occurred by chance, that is true. But then the existence of an intelligent creator with the power and knowledge to create the universe would have to be so much LESS unlikely, that is is counterintuitive to assume his existence. And who designed IT/HIM/HER? If god is supposed to be the answer to the improbability of the universe being created, isn't suggesting something even more improbable a bit....off? Like you said, god is complicated.

it is true that we are not obliged to accept existence of everything, but nor should we automatically deny, especially on the topic of God which can sway both ways.

yes but atheists do not claim that a god exists, while theists do. thus the burden of proof is not on the atheists, and it is understandable for them to reject the claims until they have enough evidence to accept them.

[Mao]

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable but reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist.

which is the point I am making, you are accepting a bit of both, which is not a leap of faith.

Atheism should not be everything except theism. There are two very different trains of thought in there, one with a leap of faith, one without.

Yes, two 'defined' train of thoughts both covered by Atheism. However, atheism covers the range of disbelief and there are levels in between such definitions. I am technically somewhere in between an agnostic and a strong atheist. So I guess, a moderate atheist. A complete agnostic would be a 50-50 fence sitter. I go beyond that, but do not deny the possibility a god exists.

to continue on this 'label' discussion, why can't agnoticism be fence sitting of any degree and atheism be complete denial? Who has the authority to define these labels?

but that is completely off topic. I was just trying to point out a fact that to not believe in God is as much a religion as any theism. To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

[Mao]

God, on the other hand, is quite complicated. Creation of the universe, the Big Bang, has too many unknown things about it. When these phenomenon can be explained by science [and science alone], then we can safely say that there isn't necessarily a God, at that point, agnostics would no longer exist, there is sufficient evidence [and a new faction would be created, those who don't believe in science, nor God, and sit on the fence]

Naturally the big bang and creation of the universe are enormously complex events completely outside our scope of science, and very very unlikely to have occurred by chance, that is true. But then the existence of an intelligent creator with the power and knowledge to create the universe would have to be so much LESS unlikely, that is is counterintuitive to assume his existence. And who designed IT/HIM/HER? If god is supposed to be the answer to the improbability of the universe being created, isn't suggesting something even more improbable a bit....off? Like you said, god is complicated.

it is true that we are not obliged to accept existence of everything, but nor should we automatically deny, especially on the topic of God which can sway both ways.

yes but atheists do not claim that a god exists, while theists do. thus the burden of proof is not on the atheists, and it is understandable for them to reject the claims until they have enough evidence to accept them.

ahh, but atheists disbelieve in God. Whence cometh the evidence?
Theists cannot provide adequate evidence, their belief is a leap of faith.
Atheists cannot provide adequate evidence either, their belief is also a leap of faith

[sxcalexc]

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable but reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist.

which is the point I am making, you are accepting a bit of both, which is not a leap of faith.

Atheism should not be everything except theism. There are two very different trains of thought in there, one with a leap of faith, one without.

Yes, two 'defined' train of thoughts both covered by Atheism. However, atheism covers the range of disbelief and there are levels in between such definitions. I am technically somewhere in between an agnostic and a strong atheist. So I guess, a moderate atheist. A complete agnostic would be a 50-50 fence sitter. I go beyond that, but do not deny the possibility a god exists.

to continue on this 'label' discussion, why can't agnoticism be fence sitting of any degree and atheism be complete denial? Who has the authority to define these labels?

but that is completely off topic. I was just trying to point out a fact that to not believe in God is as much a religion as any theism. To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

Oh no! We've made no progress A religion specifies belief in a supernatural power or a deity. Atheism does not have this. There cannot be an atheist priest or an atheist church. Atheism is specifically NOT a religion. Whilst it is true the most vehement atheists are taking a leap of faith, it still does not make atheism a religion.

Also, you are exactly right about defining these labels. Whilst Oxford English Dictionary is probably the most trustworthy source, the definition is still somewhat subjective.

[Mao]

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable but reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist.

which is the point I am making, you are accepting a bit of both, which is not a leap of faith.

Atheism should not be everything except theism. There are two very different trains of thought in there, one with a leap of faith, one without.

Yes, two 'defined' train of thoughts both covered by Atheism. However, atheism covers the range of disbelief and there are levels in between such definitions. I am technically somewhere in between an agnostic and a strong atheist. So I guess, a moderate atheist. A complete agnostic would be a 50-50 fence sitter. I go beyond that, but do not deny the possibility a god exists.

to continue on this 'label' discussion, why can't agnoticism be fence sitting of any degree and atheism be complete denial? Who has the authority to define these labels?

but that is completely off topic. I was just trying to point out a fact that to not believe in God is as much a religion as any theism. To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

Oh no! We've made no progress A religion specifies belief in a supernatural power or a deity. Atheism does not have this. There cannot be an atheist priest or an atheist church. Atheism is specifically NOT a religion. Whilst it is true the most vehement atheists are taking a leap of faith, it still does not make atheism a religion.

I just realised that is because we're talking about very different things
I am saying atheism is a leap of faith, you are saying atheism is not a religion, of course we didn't make any progress

in that case, I agree with you, atheism is very different to religion, it does not command its believers nor assert facts. BUT it is still a leap of faith.

and BACK ON TOPIC... muslims eh?....

[bturville]

To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

thats not true! you are ignoring the probabilities of the two scenarios, and they are very important. the chances are not 50%.

it is not evidence we are talking about here. the existence (or non existence) of god is disprovable by evidence, as you clearly know. but one cannot hypothesise an enormously complex being (god) as an explanation to improbability, as its existence would itself be even more unlikely, to pretty much infinity, to the point where his existence would require an even bigger explanation than the one we set out to find!

i'm done here. GNIGHT ALL

EDIT: Wow, 2 pages muslim talk, 9 of tangent rambling. oops. maybe this latter part should just be picked up and dumped onto that mile long "is there a god" thread that was floating around ages ago.

[dekoyl]

Ah seems like it's concluded. A few pages back there was also a great religious discussion that lasted into the night but it trailed off

[sxcalexc]

I myself am an atheist. I believe that a higher power is quite improbable but reasonably concede that a deity or deities may indeed exist.

which is the point I am making, you are accepting a bit of both, which is not a leap of faith.

Atheism should not be everything except theism. There are two very different trains of thought in there, one with a leap of faith, one without.

Yes, two 'defined' train of thoughts both covered by Atheism. However, atheism covers the range of disbelief and there are levels in between such definitions. I am technically somewhere in between an agnostic and a strong atheist. So I guess, a moderate atheist. A complete agnostic would be a 50-50 fence sitter. I go beyond that, but do not deny the possibility a god exists.

to continue on this 'label' discussion, why can't agnoticism be fence sitting of any degree and atheism be complete denial? Who has the authority to define these labels?

but that is completely off topic. I was just trying to point out a fact that to not believe in God is as much a religion as any theism. To not believe a religion is as much gamble as believing in a religion.

Oh no! We've made no progress A religion specifies belief in a supernatural power or a deity. Atheism does not have this. There cannot be an atheist priest or an atheist church. Atheism is specifically NOT a religion. Whilst it is true the most vehement atheists are taking a leap of faith, it still does not make atheism a religion.

I just realised that is because we're talking about very different things
I am saying atheism is a leap of faith, you are saying atheism is not a religion, of course we didn't make any progress

in that case, I agree with you, atheism is very different to religion, it does not command its believers nor assert facts. BUT it is still a leap of faith.

and BACK ON TOPIC... muslims eh?....

Lol, at the topic. We've subconsciously diverted from the racist topic, which is a good thing. Mao, if you accept my definition of atheism, at least, you recognise that only the 'strongest' atheists are taking a leap of faith? The majority of them that believe that a deity is improbable (not impossible) are not taking a leap of faith, but judging based on logic. They are not doing so because other people do, or they are told to but because they have reasoned the unlikelihood of a god/s existing.

The religious have 'faith' that there god exists. Atheists deduct that a god is not likely.