My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[Baldeee]

To me it does, to you it doesn't.

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

I guess we'll just have to go to that place.

That place??
Where would that place be?

It assumes that you lack belief in God.
If you lacked belief in the British Labour Party, would it mean it they didn't exist. You're right. No!

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

So why would you assume that lacking belief in God, is any different than the Labour Party?

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.

Oh! That's right, because there is no convincing evidence that shows that God exists. Right?
Then you don't lack a belief in God! God simply does not exist, as far as you're aware. Which is a brilliant reason for why you lack belief.

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?

Non of that really matters.

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.

There is God,...

So you claim and believe.

...and there is without God. You are without God, I accept God.

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.

That's the way it has always been. We all identify with that, and we all eventually make our choice.
If you don't want to accept, what has always been in human society, that's your business. But it changes nothing.

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.

 

[pjdude1219]

Why are drugs , implied ?

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.

 

[sideshowbob]

What labels have I demanded?

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.

God just IS, was, and always will be. Anything we can perceive, or know, or experience is ultimately borne out of God. There is nothing but God, and God's energies.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you lack belief in Zarg?

What is Zarg?

I'm sure Zarg does not exist as far as you're aware.

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

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.

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.

So you claim and believe.

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

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.

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?

Ah, so you're arguing from consensus?

No. I'm stating a fact.

You think that because a meme has had longevity that it is the truth?
That it is somehow given reality?

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

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

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So though is god abrahamic , or the source ?

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now you pretend there is only one way to be a theist, and require that the rest of us figure out what this way is and make sure it agrees with all your posting here.

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

Lots of theists disagree with you on every one of those points.

Can you give examples?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

What is Zarg?

A ruler of a powerful and wise alien race.

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

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?

To believe in Zarg would require me to accept that Zarg exists, or that it is true.

Correct.

As I don't, it means there is nothing to believe in.

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.

If it is not possible for me to believe in something, then I can't lack belief in it.

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

If I claimed lack belief in it, it would be an empty claim, as I cannot lack belief in it.

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.

If they believe that God exists, then they believe in God, which would be in accordance with their understanding of God.

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.

What they don't believe are religious claims about God.

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

Atheist means that the person does not believe in God,...

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

...because for an atheist there is no God, to believe in.

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

So deists, aren't atheist, they are theist by definition.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

No. I'm stating a fact.

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.

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

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?

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

No, I honestly don't think you are.

 

[iceaura]

How many ways are there to be a theist?

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.

I'm sure everyone knows that a theist is a person who believes in God.

Or Gods.

"Lots of theists disagree with you on every one of those points."
Can you give examples?

Sure.

 

[James R]

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

This is Jan's argument in a nutshell.

Jan is confused about the difference between a belief existing and the object of that belief existing.

Suppose Jan says "I believe that there is a city called Nairobi in Tanzania", and Magical Realist says "I believe that Bigfoot exists", and I say "I lack both of those beliefs". Jan also says "I believe that God exists" and I say "I lack that belief". How do these statements of belief stack up against Jan's criteria?

Jan says that if Bigfoot doesn't exist then there is nothing to believe. Clearly, it is quite possible to believe that there is a city called Nairobi in Tanzania, and that Bigfoot exists, so by Jan's criteria these things must exist. Similarly, it is quite possible to believe that God exists.

Jan says that to believe in Bigfoot would require that Bigfoot exists. Clearly Magical Realist believes in Bigfoot. Therefore, Bigfoot exists. Similarly, Jan believes in God. Therefore, God exists. And if somebody believes that Nairobi exists in Tanzania, then it does.

On the flip side, Jan says that if he doesn't accept that Bigfoot exists, and he doesn't believe that Nairobi exists in Tanzania, then it means there is nothing to believe in. Similarly, Freddy doesn't accept that man landed on the moon, so by Jan's argument there was no moon landing. And if I don't accept that God exists, that means there is no God to believe in.

I suppose Jan would say to Freddy, "The moon landing doesn't currently exist, as far as you're aware", just as he says "God doesn't currently exist, as far as you're aware".

Prior to correction by Jan, I have always assumed that just because somebody doesn't believe in something does not mean that it ceases to exist. I thought the moon landing happened, whether Freddy believed in it or not. But now, thanks to Jan, I know better.

Similarly, I used to think that just because somebody accepts that something exists, it doesn't mean it exists. But now I know better. Magical Realist accepts that Bigfoot exists, so Bigfoot does exist after all.

On the other hand, Jan might only be saying "Bigfoot exists for Magical Realist" (and not for me), but if that is what he is saying, then he has thrown out the notion of objective existence and replaced it with a new, subjective definition of existence, namely the idea that some things can simultaneously exist for one person and not another.

Jan says if it is not possible for him to believe in something, then he can't lack belief in it. This seems rather less controversial. It is clearly possible to believe that Nairobi exists in Tanzania. It is possible to believe in Bigfoot (Magical Realist does, if there's any doubt). It is possible to believe in God (Jan does). Therefore, it follows that it is possible to lack belief in all those things.

Jan claims, in effect, that it is impossible for anybody to believe in God unless God actually exists. It follows, according to him, it is also impossible to lack belief in God unless God actually exists.

The assumption is that as long as somebody believes in something, then that thing must exist, and then it suddenly becomes possible for the rest of us to disbelieve in it.

We conclude that Bigfoot must exist, or else it would be impossible for Magical Realist to believe in Bigfoot and impossible for me to lack the belief.

We also conclude that Nairobi exists in Tanzania, as long as somebody believes that it does. And it is impossible for me to lack the belief that Nairobi is in Tanzania unless there is at least one person out there who believes that it exists there.

And, of course, we conclude that because Jan believes that God exists, therefore it is possible for atheists to lack belief in God. If God didn't exist, then it would be impossible to be atheist.

One loose end: I'm having a little trouble reconciling my belief that Nairobi is in Kenya with the actual existence of Kenya in Tanzania (which we have established must be true as long as somebody believes in it). According to Jan, I can only lack the believe that Nairobi is in Tanzania because it actually exists there. Otherwise, it would be impossible to lack that belief.

Maybe Nairobi exists in two places at once: both in Kenya and in Tanzania. Or maybe it exists in Kenya for me, and in Tanzania for some other believers, and there is no objective reality.

Building on Jan's argument, I think we must conclude that whenever somebody professes a lack of belief in anything, that thing immediately pops into existence. The very fact that they can lack belief establishes that the thing must actually exist in the manner described by the believer, according to Jan.

From now on, I think we all need to be very careful when we decide to lack belief in something, because lacking belief makes it so, Jan tells us. So please don't go lacking belief in anything dangerous!

 

[Sarkus]

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

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You don't seem to want to accept that theism, and atheism, are natural positions for human beings.

I'm very wary of arguments based on appeals to what is or isn't "natural".

How do you propose to go about establishing whether something is "natural"? And what is the alternative? Artificial? Nurture vs nature?

We are born with the capacity to accept either.

We're born with the capacity to learn about things and to accept or reject them.

Creatures are born infused with capacity, are they not?

In some respects.

Me being a theist should provide you with the adequate reasons how I think about God.
I shouldn't have to explain it anymore than that, as it is the starting position.

Being a theist only speaks to the fact of your belief. It tells me very little about how you think about God.

Nope. I think that people are born with the capacity to accept, or reject God.

I don't think we have any special "God sense", if that's what you're driving at obliquely.

You were already atheist. Thinking about whether or not to believe in God, is not theistic.

I think you're misunderstanding. A person doesn't get to a belief just by thinking. Belief is more of an emotional investment.

Nobody forms a belief through some kind of inner conversation like this one: "I observe that water is falling on my head from the sky. I therefore choose from now on to believe that it is raining."

Rather, when faced with all the sensory input, memory, predispositions, relevant knowledge, and biases, belief just kind of happens you you. You notice that water is falling from the sky. You're aware of the concept of "rain", and probably have some prior experience of it. So it is just "natural" to start to believe it is raining. It's not exactly a conscious choice.

I'm sure this sounds familiar to you with your God belief. You learned, at some point, to associate certain feelings and experiences with the concept of "God", and then your belief just happened. If that happened at a young enough age, you might not even remember a time when you didn't believe in God. Belief wasn't something you chose - it just kind of happened to you.

Atheism is no different. It can happen either because those associations with God never formed in the first place, or because what was once associated with God comes to be recognised as something else. Either the God belief doesn't take hold in the first place, or it vanishes.

Your starting point is a non acceptance of God.

No. My starting point was openness. Then there was God for quite a while, then I gradually realised that God probably isn't real. The child grew into a man, and learned a lot during that process.

Acceptance can be faster than thought.

People are prone to jumping to incorrect conclusions at the drop of a hat.

I never said it was fixed. I said we have the ability to accept or deny God.

You can't deny something that doesn't exist. But you can lack belief in it.

To decided whether or not there is any merit to this concept, God, is an atheist characteristic.

I agree that it is not unusual for atheists who are ex-theists to have considered the merits of the concept of God in some detail. In contrast, many theists don't give it any thought.

No you didn't. You decided to believe in God. I didn't.

No. I was the same as you. I just didn't get stuck in the belief like you are. Not that there's anything wrong with where you are. I understand exactly where you're coming from, and why.

It's not about being noble, nor is it about being better, or safer, or anything like that. You just come to a realisation, and you surrender.
From what I can ascertain, you didn't come to such a realisation. You decided to give it a try.

I understand that's what it feels like for you. Religions all want you to surrender to God, of course. They'll all tell you that's the thing you must do. It could be because it's the right way to get in touch with God, or it could be because they want in some sense to control you. I'm not accusing the religious of being insincere, by the way, (though some of them are). Religious messages can be delievered with the best of intentions.

You didn't think you were atheist, because you were deciding whether or not there was any merit to this idea called God.

For a long time, I wasn't deciding anything. God was the default. And I didn't know the right things. Later came the learning phase where I found out much more about God and religion. And eventually, gradually, not suddenly, I stopped believing.

You probably thought you were in some kind of limbo, or deciding place.

No, it was never quite like that for me.

Neither atheist or theist (until decision day).

There was no single decision day for me that I can remember.

But you were atheist. God was only an idea, and was always only an idea.

In the literal sense, of course, that is true. Maybe God always has been only an idea - for you and me both.

You're less likely to accept something, if you don't want to.

Conversely, you're more likely to accept that something is true if you really want it to be true, even if it isn't.

You've barricaded yourself in by setting up standards of acceptance.

Or maybe you've barricaded yourself by refusing to set up standards.

No matter what you can shift the goalpost to suit yourself.

We all have a tendency towards confirmation bias. I try my best to be aware of that tendency and to avoid bias as much as possible.

A ''convincing argument'' is a two way street. It requires two sides. Imagine asking your fiancé to give you a convincing argument for why you should spend the rest of your life with her.

Interesting example.

When people go into a marriage, they go in with certain expectations, as well as hopes. There is no certainty that a marriage will last for "the rest of your life". The decision on whether to accept or reject a marriage proposal has to be made based on current circumstances, future hopes and imperfect information. Arguments might well sway a potential fiance one way or the other, but no argument will be able to provide certainty or guarantee that things will turn out well.

You're right that for an argument to have an impact on somebody, that person must be open to persuasion in the first place.

Somewhere along the line [Anthony Flew] decided not to accept the notion (so it remained a notion), and like you, went off to decide for himself.
I suspect what happened was, he became tired of the thought processes required to keep God at bay. and would have been able to accept the realisations, and reasoning about God, without having to maintain barriers. The obviousness hit him, and had to concede.

So, maybe he was never really an atheist, but a natural closet theist all along.

What you call my ''assumption'' is no different to your ''assumption'' that for God to exist, there must be evidence of my choosing, to support that assertion. It is where we start.

Apart from God, what else do you assume exists from the start, on the basis of zero evidence? Not many things, I'd wager. So why did you start by assuming God? And when did you start?

I've never said ''God exists''. I, and you, exist. If God exists, as in I or you exist (which is what you mean by existence), then God is just another object that exists within the universe. Therefore God would not be God, by definition.

You never said "God exists"?

You regularly say "God IS".

How is that different?

And that's why you're an atheist. There is no God, only an idea of God.

No. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God. It has nothing to do with there being God or there not being God.(*) I've explained that many times.

Note that the second reason is reliant on the first.

You mean there can't be an idea of God unless God exists?
Does the same thing apply to unicorns and Bigfoot and Nairobi being in Tanzania?

You should learn to accept peoples fundamental positions, and not imply that they are wrong (which is what you do), because it is not the same as yours.

I accept your position for what it is. Who knows? Maybe God exists and you're right to believe in him. The reality, if it ever came to light, would retrospectively justify your belief, even though you hold it for irrational reasons.

Please pardon me if I find myself incapable of joining you in your irrationality. But I think I was right to shrug that off way back when. If it turns out that God is real and I meet him at the Pearly Gates, then if he's all he's wrapped up to be I'm sure he'll forgive my presumption in demanding a little evidence.

---
(*) The lack of belief has something to do with the likelihood of there being a God, I hope.

 

[James R]

Obviously God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, but God IS, as far as theists are.

You believe God IS, you mean. Nobody has established that God IS, as far as I'm aware.

Sometimes we have to rely on others, in order to reject or deny evidence, because we don't possess the knowledge to see it for ourselves. We still have to decide whether or not the evidence is weak, or convincing.

Yes. Consulting experts can help, like I said.

I know you don't know what is God, because of your label. If you are without God, then you don't know God.

What if you used to be with God - i.e. what if you're an ex-theist? Can ex-theists know God, or do they stop knowing at the instant they lose their theism?

You seem to be suggesting that believing in God is the same as knowing God. But knowledge doesn't follow from belief, as I keep having to remind you.

If you are without sight, then you don't know what seeing is (unless you have had some experience of it).

That suggests that ex-theists can know God.

I'm asking if God currently exists as far as you're aware.
The answer is no, God doesn't currently exist as far as you're aware

I refer you to the previous post in which I extensively analysed this form of words you keep using.

You can only speak from your own perspective.

Correct. And from my perspective, knowledge doesn't follow from belief. How is it for you?

Belief is due to awareness, knowledge, intelligence, experience, and so on.

See my comments about belief in the preceding post.

I repeat them, because you keep avoiding them.

I have avoided nothing. I have directly addressed what you have posted, in detail, including your repeated questions. Repeatedly.

So they are wrong, misguided, or disillusioned, for believing in God without going through your mode of checks?

If by "wrong" you're asking whether I think that people who believe without reason are bad people, then my answer is that I don't blame them for being irrational. There are lots of understandable reasons why people are irrational about things. They are only human.

Are some religious people misguided? Yes, and not just by themselves. Sometimes they are, deliberately or unintentionally, misguided by others.

Of course you do. Ultimately ''God'' is nothing more than a word/symbol. I get it.

That's what the whole atheist-theist debate is about, is it not? Is God just a word/symbol/idea, or is God real? The debate is also about whether it is reasonable to believe in God.

I'm guessing you don't like that.

I don't much like irrationality when it leads people to make rash decisions that might, in the short or long term, prove harmful in various ways. Admittedly, a lot of people have a much higher tolerance for irrationality than I do.

I'd like to emphasise that being irrational doesn't make somebody a morally bad person, in and of itself.

You would like it to be that God not existing is the starting point for everyone, therefore the onus is on the person who makes the claim of existence (against the backdrop of non existence).

That approach seems to work well enough for everything else in the world. Why should God be any different?

The reality is, it is not like that.

I don't think you have any better access to "reality" than I do.

There are two perspectives. God just IS (hence everything), or there is no God. Both are starting points.

No, they are conclusions.

 

[sideshowbob]

What's wrong with the label ''atheist''? It describes your position, regarding God.

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

The definition isn't useless for me.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A ruler of a powerful and wise alien race.

Okay.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

But you can, and do, lack belief in Zarg.

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

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.

I lack belief in Bob's position, because Zarg doesn't actually exist as far as I'm aware.

Eh?
Since when does believing that God exists equate to "believing in" God?

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.

Have you not in the past been at pains to make the distinction between the two?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

The only difference is that you think to "lack belief in God" assumes God to exist. Which is demonstrably false.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

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

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.

What is it about that definition that makes no sense?

jan.

 

[Neddy Bate]

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...

 

[Michael 345]

..or something...

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

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.

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.

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

. 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".

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.

As a result of #3, all theists are claiming god does exist, even though Jan claims he never said god exists.

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no ''if a god exists''. I'm assuming God IS, and existence is a property.

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

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.