Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

S.A.M. said:
Why? Don't you know what you don't believe in?
Click to expand...

The thing with "disbelief" is that it can mean two things:

1. Disbelief can be when a person is convinced something is false, and they know that something. This is disbelief in effect and in motivation.

and

2. Disbelief can be when a person doesn't know something in the first place - for them, neither the notion of "belief" nor "disbelief" apply in that instance. This is disbelief in effect, but not in motivation.
 
lightgigantic said:
ashura
“
I would have thought a scientifically inclined person like yourself could quite easily draw up a few distinctions, aside from issues of having an embroidered cushion on it.

I mean what would be your response be to a person who sat on an animal, particularly if that animal started to exhibit signs of complaint?
Click to expand...

I can draw up a few distinctions sure, but I wouldn't know if they fit the bill for your concept; that's why I'd like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth so that we, like I mentioned earlier, don't talk over each other.
 
S.A.M. said:
So atheists disbelieve in anything which cannot be demonstrated by empirical observation? And believe in anything which can? Or is this restricted to the frmazulu?
Click to expand...

I'd say that rational people disbelieve in anything which:
a) Should be empirically observable, and
b) isn't empirically observed.

The question of belief in something that is by nature not empirically observable is interesting, but is very vulnerable to the argument of Russell's teapot and the flying spaghetti monster
In any case, Abrahamic religious scriptures suggest a very palpable God, one that could quite definitely be demonstrated by empirical observation.
 
Pete said:
In any case, Abrahamic religious scriptures suggest a very palpable God, one that could quite definitely be demonstrated by empirical observation.
Click to expand...

What empirical observation could lead you to belief?
 
ashura said:
I can draw up a few distinctions sure, but I wouldn't know if they fit the bill for your concept; that's why I'd like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth so that we, like I mentioned earlier, don't talk over each other.
Click to expand...
Its not a difficult concept.
Being in a conscious state offers opportunities that are simply not available in a deceased state.
That is why people of the victorian era had bear skin rugs as opposed to real live bears in their common rooms
 
You've defined a conscious state as to be alive. So your definition of consciousness is life?
 
lightgigantic said:
if god wasn't the supreme original cause, what would distinguish him from just some mere powerful person (subject to the same issues of imperfection)
Click to expand...

That's not the question for me.
For me, the question is:
If God is the One Supreme Original Cause, what distinguishes him from a merely powerful person (with all the imperfection)?


Opening the door before walking through means I am employing reasoning about cause and effect (ie. "In order to safely walk through the door, I need to open it, lest I bump into it, hurt myself, and most likely not get through"). This means that I believe in the law of cause and effect.
Following down cause-effect chains eventually leads back to (the notion of) the One Supreme Original Cause - this cannot be denied.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why this is difficult - conceptual discussions have their place to play - even in simple issues of walking through a door (eg - what is a door, what are the general principles it operates on etc etc)
Click to expand...

It is difficult - in the light of considering all the things that exist, especially when it comes to Rabies and such.
I can't remain indifferent or equanimous at the notion of God having created Rabies and that I "should just live with it".


However, I think the question -esp. for us in the so-called West- is What is the proper mode or way to show or acknowledge that one believes in the One Supreme Original Cause?
Click to expand...

if the original cause is not conscious, its not clear how that could run parallel with any sort of commonly held definition of god
Click to expand...

The question remains - What is the proper mode or way to show or acknowledge that one believes in the One Supreme Original Cause?

In fact, I shall make this a thread, you are welcome to answer there.
 
SAM said:
My notion of God is irrelevant here. I'm interested in what atheists are not believing in.
Click to expand...
? Catch 22 was a good teenage read of mine.

Never mind your God then. So you lack a few hundred Gods yourself, from the available choices. What is it exactly you are not believing in ? That will give me a clue as to how to approach the matter.

In general I don't believe in other people's imaginary friends, but the exact form of my disbelief does depend on the friend involved at the moment - and the imagination of the person.

And of course I don't exactly disbelieve in my own imaginary friends - I just don't have any. Probably I'm missing out on some benefits - I've heard an imaginary friend can lower your blood pressure, lengthen your life, help prevent suicide in hard times, etc - but it's fairly difficult for someone to just decide to have an imaginary friend, you know ? Doesn't seem to work - -
 
ashura said:
What empirical observation could lead you to belief?
Click to expand...

See [post=1821939]post 28[/post].

Essentially, the same kinds of empirical observations that lead me to believe in the existence of another human being.

Do you believe that I exist? Why?
 
Pete said:
See [post=1821939]post 28[/post].

Essentially, the same kinds of empirical observations that lead me to believe in the existence of another human being.

Do you believe that I exist? Why?
Click to expand...

Suppose all those things in post 28 became true. Why is it specifically the Abrahamic god you choose to believe in?
 
greenberg said:
That's not the question for me.
For me, the question is:
If God is the One Supreme Original Cause, what distinguishes him from a merely powerful person (with all the imperfection)?
Click to expand...
the bit in italics



It is difficult - in the light of considering all the things that exist, especially when it comes to Rabies and such.
I can't remain indifferent or equanimous at the notion of God having created Rabies and that I "should just live with it".
Click to expand...
so In other words you have difficulty with a god that provides facility for suffering in the material world, and this "moral" transgression is sufficient for derailing any further intelligent inquiry into the nature of god?

BTW I did a thread about this some time back
you might want to check out the OP




The question remains - What is the proper mode or way to show or acknowledge that one believes in the One Supreme Original Cause?

In fact, I shall make this a thread, you are welcome to answer there.
Click to expand...
okay, maybe I will answer it there
 
Pete said:
Essentially, the same kinds of empirical observations that lead me to believe in the existence of another human being.

Do you believe that I exist? Why?
Click to expand...
Do you believe in the theory of evolution (and is the evidence for it something that you've personally observed)?

There's just too much stuff out there for us to go around empricially observing everything. At some point we have to put our trust in the secondary sources.

Which sources, and why: now, that's an interesting question.
 
Pete said:
You assign me with a stance I don't maintain.
Click to expand...

You said "Abrahamic religious scriptures suggest a very palpable God, one that could quite definitely be demonstrated by empirical observation." and I asked what could lead you to this belief. Did I misread somewhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top