what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Andrea

oh, even the Swedish language is missing a world for a third person with unknown sex so they have to say "she or he"
my question was if "X" means an unknown person/individual solely

No, it can mean anything, not just a person. And when it's used for an unknown person, it's usually as part of an impersonal discussion such as when making a statement of logic. For instance, you would be very unlikely to hear a statement such as: "When X comes in, we will introduce them and then seat them at this table." We would just use 'the person' or 'the people' or be more specific - e.g. 'the guest'.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply... has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe? Two states... you are in one or the other. Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.

The infant example most certainly does apply in that it starkly highlights the differences being discussed. You are right that the infant "does not believe in God". And that statement is far different from saying that the infant "believes there is no God". The infant holds no active beliefs on the subject at all since, as you pointed out, it has no knowledge of the concept.

Where you get off track is in assuming that simply because an adult is aware of the concept of "God", these clear differences no longer apply. Using myself as an example, I "do not believe in God". I've simply discarded the concept as statistically unlikely to the point of irrelevance based on the history of human knowledge as I understand it, and a complete lack of anything that could be considered scientific evidence to support it. Nothing in my reasoning requires an active "belief" on my part in the common, practical sense of the word. So to say that I "believe there is no God" is simply inaccurate, just as it is in the case of the infant example. I don't actively "believe there is no God" any more than I actively "believe there is no Easter Bunny", and yet I don't believe in either.

Now if I went beyond simply reaching a conclusion of unlikelihood based on history, statistics and evidence and started insisting that "I know for a fact that there is no God", then that would require belief on my part, and it would be accurate to say that "I believe there is no God". The leap from "exceedingly unlikely" to "definitive assertion" in this case is not based on any factual knowledge, so it inherently requires belief to make it.

In the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

Where you get off track is in assuming that simply because an adult is aware of the concept of "God", these clear differences no longer apply.

Precisely. Being unfamiliar with the concept of God is only one reason why someone may lack a belief in God, though it's sufficient to debunk the argument that not believing a claim necessitates making an alternate claim.

Originally Posted by Sean

Using myself as an example, I "do not believe in God". I've simply discarded the concept as statistically unlikely to the point of irrelevance based on the history of human knowledge as I understand it, and a complete lack of anything that could be considered scientific evidence to support it.

Just a small point on this. The reason I don't believe in God is not just because of an absence of scientific evidence, but also (perhaps moreso) the likelihood that scientific evidence for such a Being might be fundamentally impossible. After all, if the commonly held notion of God is correct - that He/it is beyond human comprehension - then we should probably not be too surprised at the lack of scientific evidence available to humans!

Contrast this with, say, astrology. I don't believe in the claims of astrologers, not because there can be no evidence of astrology, but because there is no evidence. Unlike the notion of God, if there is truth to the claims of astrology, we would expect to be able to observe the evidence, to comprehend it, to measure it. The cause and the effect are safely within our observable Universe. With the posited concept of God however, that's not necessarily the case.

This isn't to say I disagree with you in the main point you're making, which is that you can simply "not believe" without necessarily positing anything more. It's just to pre-empt the possible counterargument to your reference to a lack of scientific evidence. When it comes to the concept of God, it's not (just) that there is no evidence, but that there probably can be no evidence (therefore no solid basis for positive belief either way, whether in something's presence or absence).

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by Deckard

When it comes to the concept of God, it's not (just) that there is no evidence, but that there probably can be no evidence [...].

Which is, of course, one of the most brilliant components in the invention of the concept of god-like beings.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Just a small point on this. The reason I don't believe in God is not just because of an absence of scientific evidence, but also (perhaps moreso) the likelihood that scientific evidence for such a Being might be fundamentally impossible. After all, if the commonly held notion of God is correct - that He/it is beyond human comprehension - then we should probably not be too surprised at the lack of scientific evidence available to humans!

Absolutely. In fact, the "unknowable" aspect of "God" is exactly why I maintain that there is a chance that he exists - albeit a minuscule chance from a reason-based outlook. And just to be clear, the absence of scientific evidence is only one part of what motivates my disbelief. More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Sean

More active in my disbelief is a modest understanding of how religion developed and evolved throughout human history. When you take the time to understand that, it becomes exceedingly apparent that deities and religions are man-made concepts meant to help us deal with the questions we can't yet answer - particularly in regards to death.

Understood, and in the latter case, very understandable. Those moments when we're confronted with death and suffering are the only times that even a staunch atheist like me comes close to praying - more out of sheer human desperation and distress than anything. I suppose it's akin to grabbing at whatever passing branch you can. And obviously in the times when most of us are lucky enough not to be immediately confronted with these things, there's the permanent, almost unbearable prospect of a great looming void awaiting us all. But hey - way too heavy a subject for a Saturday morning.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by froopy seal

Which is, of course, one of the most brilliant components in the invention of the concept of god-like beings.

The killer feature.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

The killer feature.

In, like, slang, or like for real?*


(Damn, is it just me or do I sound like a valley girl?)

[Deckard]

Slang, and, like.... yeah you sooooo do (like)...

[the mongoose]

Originally Posted by Deckard

that's the last one from me before you have permission to call me Mongoose

Stop laughing motherfucker......you will never have that permission.....I already go by that name, it's MINE!