Is there a god?

[the carpet man]

i am afraid to say that you are incorrect. athiesm is the belief that there is no god.

not all people who do not believe in god are athiests. i do not believe in a god, but i am agnostic.

[natty dread]

i am afraid to say that you are incorrect.

Yet you said it anyway. Good for you! You conquered your fears!

athiesm is the belief that there is no god.

I don't know what "athiesm" is, but atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Anyone who doesn't believe in a god is an atheist by definition. Atheism implies no knowledge on subjects that are by their nature unfalsifiable.

The word "a-theism" itself implies "absence of theism", ie. the lack of theistic belief.

i do not believe in a god, but i am agnostic.

Being an agnostic does not exclude being an atheist.

[the carpet man]

for a man who makes himself quick to point out silly errors in my post (e.g. mis-spelling of atheism) you make some large and glaring ones in yours.

as i believe i said in a different thread, the website www.dictionary.com is probably of use to you. it would clarify for you the meaning of words such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic', and allow you to see where they differ and exactly what they mean

[natty dread]

the website http://www.dictionary.com is

I'm sorry, but if you take all your knowledge from web-dictionaries, then your knowledge is not on a very firm basis. The meaning of words goes beyond the dictionary-definition, and for that matter, not all dictionaries even agree on the definitions of all the words.

Next time, before you try to lecture to people, try making sure you know what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[john9blue]

the claim "god is not necessary" is a positive claim about necessity, which atheists make without proof. therefore, atheism is a belief.

[Baron Von PWN]

the claim "god is not necessary" is a positive claim about necessity, which atheists make without proof. therefore, atheism is a belief.

That isin't what atheism claims. Atheism claims there is no god. Something which does not exist cannot be necessary.

[john9blue]

the claim "god is not necessary" is a positive claim about necessity, which atheists make without proof. therefore, atheism is a belief.

That isin't what atheism claims. Atheism claims there is no god. Something which does not exist cannot be necessary.

the claim that "god does not exist" directly implies the claim that "god is not necessary", because if god were necessary then he would exist.

[BigBallinStalin]

It doesn't follow that "X is unnecessary" if one claims that "X doesn't exist." From one's own perspective, the belief in X isn't necessary, but this does not exclude the possibility that the belief in X is unnecessary for everyone.

For example, I'm an atheist (based on Haggis' definition), yet I recognize the necessity of the belief in god for certain people because they perceive value in such a belief, thus it becomes necessary for them.

[DogAlmighty]

I think it's wrong to put all people with a lack of belief in a god as described by our world religions as "atheist" and to label that as it's own belief to it's own collective end. For some people their atheisim is in many ways a religion to them especially who are vehement or even actively hostile about it. Atheism has a well earned bad name .

I'm not really sure what people like me could be called. One can throw out words like agnostic, ignostic or religiously apathetic but it is to me a simple lack of "faith" in something that has no practical use, proof or bearing in our daily lives. But it's easy for people to love their labels so they can put things in boxes I suppose. Not that this is at all a bad thing but it would seem that something as personal and intangible as one's view of his universe would defy categorization to the extreme?

[comic boy]

I think it's wrong to put all people with a lack of belief in a god as described by our world religions as "atheist" and to label that as it's own belief to it's own collective end. For some people their atheisim is in many ways a religion to them especially who are vehement or even actively hostile about it. Atheism has a well earned bad name .

I'm not really sure what people like me could be called. One can throw out words like agnostic, ignostic or religiously apathetic but it is to me a simple lack of "faith" in something that has no practical use, proof or bearing in our daily lives. But it's easy for people to love their labels so they can put things in boxes I suppose. Not that this is at all a bad thing but it would seem that something as personal and intangible as one's view of his universe would defy categorization to the extreme?

Atheism has not got a bad name where I live
I suppose it could be the case in long established religious centres , any opposition to the status quo tends to attract hostility

[natty dread]

I think it's wrong to put all people with a lack of belief in a god as described by our world religions as "atheist"

That's not what...

Atheism is "lack of belief in a god" - period. World religions' (by which I assume you mean "the most popular ones") definitions about "god" are irrelevant - if you believe in any kind of god, even one you invented yourself, you're not an atheist. If you don't believe in any kind of god, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that.

However, there are nuances of atheism. Strong atheists make a positive claim about the non-existence of god. Weak atheists make no such claim, but still do not believe in a god. Most atheists are weak atheists. But the one thing that is common to all atheists is that they do not believe in any gods.

[Woodruff]

i do not see why it has to be such anger in response to someone saying that athiesm is a belief? athiesm is the belief that there is no god. this is a simple statement and one that i thought was obvious. you either 'believe' something or you 'know' something - if athiesm is not a belief then you must 'know' it is true. how do you 'know' there is no god?

One involves critical thinking skills and the other does not, for instance.

it is funny that you copy the argument of natty_dread almost word for word. perhaps this is for 'strength in numbers'?

Or perhaps this is because it's painfully obvious.

Were you ever going to state why it is that you don't believe in Santa Claus, or should we just presume it's for the same reasons that I don't believe in God?

[Woodruff]

i am afraid to say that you are incorrect. athiesm is the belief that there is no god.
not all people who do not believe in god are athiests. i do not believe in a god, but i am agnostic.

Agnostic is a modifier. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Very, very rarely is one a true agnostic.

[john9blue]

It doesn't follow that "X is unnecessary" if one claims that "X doesn't exist." From one's own perspective, the belief in X isn't necessary, but this does not exclude the possibility that the belief in X is unnecessary for everyone.

For example, I'm an atheist (based on Haggis' definition), yet I recognize the necessity of the belief in god for certain people because they perceive value in such a belief, thus it becomes necessary for them.

i'm not talking about "belief in god" being necessary, i'm talking about the "existence of god" being necessary.

when atheists say "i don't believe in god", that statement implies: "i believe that god does not necessarily exist". an atheist cannot believe that god's existence is necessary, because that would imply that god exists.

making a positive statement about the necessity of god's existence, without evidence, is an unfounded belief.

[DogAlmighty]

I think it's wrong to put all people with a lack of belief in a god as described by our world religions as "atheist"

That's not what...

Atheism is "lack of belief in a god" - period. World religions' (by which I assume you mean "the most popular ones") definitions about "god" are irrelevant - if you believe in any kind of god, even one you invented yourself, you're not an atheist. If you don't believe in any kind of god, you're an atheist. It's as simple as that.

However, there are nuances of atheism. Strong atheists make a positive claim about the non-existence of god. Weak atheists make no such claim, but still do not believe in a god. Most atheists are weak atheists. But the one thing that is common to all atheists is that they do not believe in any gods.

That's the defintion and it's the truth, as far as dealing with things like demographics go at least. My ill-defined stance stems from the fact that religion is one of those things you can only distance yourself from not by making a claim against it but by simply ignoring it. That's not the sort of thing that sits well with demographics or proactive logic though.

It's funny how most debates on religion I've seen get drawn towards outlining definitions. I generally shy from them but there is this nonsense ditty written by Housman that seems to sum up what comes to my mind on the whole God vs Not God thing, it's not much but here it is:

"The Grizzly Bear is huge and wild
He has devoured the infant child.
The infant child is not aware
He has been eaten by the Bear."

[BigBallinStalin]

It doesn't follow that "X is unnecessary" if one claims that "X doesn't exist." From one's own perspective, the belief in X isn't necessary, but this does not exclude the possibility that the belief in X is unnecessary for everyone.

For example, I'm an atheist (based on Haggis' definition), yet I recognize the necessity of the belief in god for certain people because they perceive value in such a belief, thus it becomes necessary for them.

i'm not talking about "belief in god" being necessary, i'm talking about the "existence of god" being necessary.

when atheists say "i don't believe in god", that statement implies: "i believe that god does not necessarily exist". an atheist cannot believe that god's existence is necessary, because that would imply that god exists.

Necessary to whom is what's being left out here...

How does the belief that "god's existence is necessary" imply that god exists?





Why would it imply that?

[john9blue]

Necessary to whom is what's being left out here...

How does the belief that "god's existence is necessary" imply that god exists?

you're mixing up belief and facts. one's beliefs are just their interpretation of the facts.

the belief that "god's existence is necessary" implies the belief that "god exists"

and the fact that "god's existence is necessary" (if it is true) implies the fact that "god exists"

logically sound beliefs follow the same rules of logic that the facts themselves do:

if one believes that god's existence is necessary (A) then one must also logically believe that god exists (B)

A->B means that notB->notA

atheists believe notB (they believe that god does not exist) so they must also logically believe notA (god's existence is not necessary), which requires proof

rewritten as facts:

if god's existence is necessary (A) then god exists (B)

A->B means that notB->notA

so if notB (god does not exist) is true, then notA (god's existence is not necessary) must be true as well

[BigBallinStalin]

Necessary to whom is what's being left out here...

How does the belief that "god's existence is necessary" imply that god exists?

you're mixing up belief and facts. one's beliefs are just their interpretation of the facts.

the belief that "god's existence is necessary" implies the belief that "god exists"

and the fact that "god's existence is necessary" (if it is true) implies the fact that "god exists"

Why does it imply that?

I still think it matters from the individual's perspective. To say that "something is necessary" is lacking something crucial: "necessary to whom?" or "necessary for what."

It's too open-ended, so that's why I don't really understand the meaning of how you're using the phrase "god's existence is necessary."

[john9blue]

Why does it imply that?

I still think it matters from the individual's perspective. To say that "something is necessary" is lacking something crucial: "necessary to whom?" or "necessary for what."

It's too open-ended, so that's why I don't really understand the meaning of how you're using the phrase "god's existence is necessary."

oh i see.

well i think you'll agree that the fact our universe exists demands an explanation. one popular argument for the existence of god (clicky) says that a creator is necessary for the existence of our universe. this bypasses the problem of occam's razor (which says that there might or might not be a god, and it's more logical to believe there isn't) because it's impossible for our universe to exist without a god.

[BigBallinStalin]

:[

So, basically, an atheist says "god doesn't existence," and someone else is like "well, god must exist because his existence is necessary for the existence of the universe." Atheist says, "god isn't necessary (for the existence of the universe)."

Righty right?

So far so good?

show

[everywhere116]

Why does it imply that?

I still think it matters from the individual's perspective. To say that "something is necessary" is lacking something crucial: "necessary to whom?" or "necessary for what."

It's too open-ended, so that's why I don't really understand the meaning of how you're using the phrase "god's existence is necessary."

oh i see.

well i think you'll agree that the fact our universe exists demands an explanation. one popular argument for the existence of god (clicky) says that a creator is necessary for the existence of our universe. this bypasses the problem of occam's razor (which says that there might or might not be a god, and it's more logical to believe there isn't) because it's impossible for our universe to exist without a god.

Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

[john9blue]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

[everywhere116]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

I disagree entirely. The burden of proof always, always rests on the party making the positive claim, in this case that's "God exists." The same applies with the claim that God is necessary for the universe to exist. First the theist must prove that God exists if he even wants to talk about God being necessary.

[Haggis_McMutton]

]Are you also making the argument that God is necessary for the universe to exist?

Do you know what the Kalam Cosmological argument is?

i am not asserting that god is necessary. what i'm showing here is that an atheist is forced to show how god is NOT necessary in order for his beliefs to be logical/justified. atheists have a burden of proof much like theists do.

This only applies for strong atheists. Ones who say "I know for a fact god doesn't exist".

If you want it to apply to weak atheists as well you have to explain to me why you don't have to give evidence for your belief that the existence of unicorns isn't unavoidable in any universe and so on and so forth.

You can also apply your same argument more directly to things other than the creation of the universe.

If you don't believe that god's love is what's causing gravity then you are forced to show how god's love is NOT necessary for gravity to exist.
You have just taken the god of the gaps and given him a swanky new look

[john9blue]

This only applies for strong atheists. Ones who say "I know for a fact god doesn't exist".

once you have considered the question of whether god exists, you can no longer be a weak atheist because you have answered that question with some (non-zero) degree of certainty. the act of calling yourself an atheist is an active rejection of the god hypothesis. "weak atheism" is a cop-out term used by atheists to pretend that they don't have beliefs.

If you want it to apply to weak atheists as well you have to explain to me why you don't have to give evidence for your belief that the existence of unicorns isn't unavoidable in any universe and so on and so forth.

unicorns aren't necessary for the existence of our universe. why would they be?

If you don't believe that god's love is what's causing gravity then you are forced to show how god's love is NOT necessary for gravity to exist.
You have just taken the god of the gaps and given him a swanky new look

gravity is a fundamental force which follows known physical laws. what part of that is not already explained? (other than the ultimate origin of gravity, but that's the same question as the origin of the universe)