Did the Red Sea Part?
-
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
whats the difference?
I win because I have the most fun in life...
If you don't know whether or not God exists, you could not hold a belief one way or the other. You could truthfully answer "no" to both questions, "do you believe God exists?" and "do you believe God does not exist?". In other words, you've drawn no conclusions either way. Christians draw the conclusion that God exists. Atheists draw the conclusion that God does not exist.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Others would call it the scientific method, that of proof required not lack of proof.
And yet your lack of proof in the non-existence of God is enough to prove He doesn't exist? :confused:
Non-believers don't have to prove anything. If you say statement A, you have to back it up. Everyone else does not have to back !A up.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
If you don't know whether or not God exists, you could not hold a belief one way or the other. You could truthfully answer "no" to both questions, "do you believe God exists?" and "do you believe God does not exist?". In other words, you've drawn no conclusions either way. Christians draw the conclusion that God exists. Atheists draw the conclusion that God does not exist.
but whats the difference in not believing in god and saying he doesnt exist, i dont follow
I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns.
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Edmundisme wrote:
am not trying to prove His existence.
And I am not trying to disprove his existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Consider the implications of the answers to the questions "does God exists?" and "do unicorns exist?" and they suddenly lose their simmilarity.
oilFactotum wrote:
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God. Atheism is an active belief that God does not exist. I'm not sure what word best describes someone who neither believes that God exists or that he does not exist, but I think "agnostic" is what most people use to describe this position. Whatever it's called, it is not the same as atheism.
-
You said, "God may have parted the water but who did the walking over the sea floor?" This is not different than your original objection that it is impossible for a sea to part in the manner described in the bible. We believe God parted the sea. Why should we then stumble on the sea floor? We Science bows to God, not the other way around. I said, "Those who believe God isn't take it on faith." You responded, "If you call not believing in a pink tea-pot orbiting the Sun then yes, I have faith. Others would call it the scientific method, that of proof required not lack of proof." Atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God. It is the acting belief that he does not exist. Where is your proof that God does not exist? You cannot prove God does not exist any more than I can prove that He does. How is does your belief require less faith than mine?
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God. It is the acting belief that he does not exist.
It is both. Atheism means "without theism" - NOT "anti theism". Atheism in its purest sense is not a belief - it is disbelief! If it's summer and you don't see snow falling down, would it be reasonable to assume there is snow on the ground? There is no justification to believe that there is snow on the ground. That is EXACTLY how an atheist thinks about theism (supernaturalism to be exact). Just as you don't believe in Norse mythology, I do not believe in your god.
Edmundisme wrote:
How is does your belief require less faith than mine?
Because it is YOU who is making an assertion here. Had you not been around claiming that god(s) exists, atheists wouldn't have argued. The burden of proof is on you.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I think you're wrong about atheism.
I don't think so. This is from an atheist's web site: "Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist." From the same site "Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so" A more nuanced(I know some people on this board find that word scary) view of atheism can be found here[^] What you call an atheist is describe here as a "strong atheist", and what I am describing as atheist is in this website described as a "weak atheist".
I'm not sure I'll use an atheist’s website to determine what the word "atheism" means. I prefer to use an accredited dictionary. Sometime granularity can help clear things up. Other times it simply muddies the water. To break atheism up into groups of varying convictions confuses conversation. If atheism means a belief or doctrine that there is no God, then a different word needs to be used to describe a position that claims neither to believe he exists or that he doesn't exist. Why not call “weak atheism” “weak theism”? I think they would be the same thing.
-
but whats the difference in not believing in god and saying he doesnt exist, i dont follow
I win because I have the most fun in life...
Not believing in God does not by itself (without greater context) imply a belief that God does not exist. Another way to say "I believe God exists" is "I think God exists". Likewise, another way to say "I believe God does not exist" is "I think God does not exist". Both imply that a bit of thought has been given to the matter and a conclusion has been reached. But suppose someone hadn't given the matter much thought, or that they were unable to draw a conclusion? This particular person would not hold a belief that God exists and they would not hold a belief that God does not exists. They simply wouldn't draw a conclusion one way or the other. So, if some statement (we'll call it "A") is the opposite of another statement (we'll call it "B"), then saying, "I don't believe A" does not necessarily mean you believe B. Perhaps there was not enough evidence to believe A, and yet not enough to believe B. It's a subtle logical difference.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Hiring a Muslim and saying he has a Muslim name are two separate things. I'm not arguing your point on whether he is or isn't Muslim, he probably is. But the fact that he has an Arabic name and you can't tell a Muslim Arabic name from a non-Muslim Arabic name is what I'm arguing about.
Of course it's possible he's not Muslim. But given the very high probability that he is, my suspscions are well-founded.
-
I'm not sure I'll use an atheist’s website to determine what the word "atheism" means. I prefer to use an accredited dictionary. Sometime granularity can help clear things up. Other times it simply muddies the water. To break atheism up into groups of varying convictions confuses conversation. If atheism means a belief or doctrine that there is no God, then a different word needs to be used to describe a position that claims neither to believe he exists or that he doesn't exist. Why not call “weak atheism” “weak theism”? I think they would be the same thing.
So basically, you'd use a non-Christian or non-Muslim reference to define a Christian or Muslim? That's absurd. If I tell you I am this type of person or I believe in so and so, who are you to tell me no, you believe in what I think you believe?
"I know which side I want to win regardless of how many wrongs they have to commit to achieve it." - Stan Shannon Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
I believe the real world has been trademarked by MTV.
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignorable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." - Albert Einstein Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bullshit, "Welcome to the real world." Copyright (C) 1999 Wachowski bros.
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
-
I'm not sure I'll use an atheist’s website to determine what the word "atheism" means. I prefer to use an accredited dictionary. Sometime granularity can help clear things up. Other times it simply muddies the water. To break atheism up into groups of varying convictions confuses conversation. If atheism means a belief or doctrine that there is no God, then a different word needs to be used to describe a position that claims neither to believe he exists or that he doesn't exist. Why not call “weak atheism” “weak theism”? I think they would be the same thing.
Edmundisme wrote:
I'm not sure I'll use an atheist’s website to determine what the word "atheism" means. I prefer to use an accredited dictionary.
Fine. atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god. [^] Two definitions are provided. Disbelief in(weak atheism) and denial of(strong atheism).
Edmundisme wrote:
To break atheism up into groups of varying convictions confuses conversation.
I disagree. To pretend that all atheists are the same confuses conversation.
Edmundisme wrote:
Why not call “weak atheism” “weak theism”? I think they would be the same thing.
They don't seem the same to me at all.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God. It is the acting belief that he does not exist.
It is both. Atheism means "without theism" - NOT "anti theism". Atheism in its purest sense is not a belief - it is disbelief! If it's summer and you don't see snow falling down, would it be reasonable to assume there is snow on the ground? There is no justification to believe that there is snow on the ground. That is EXACTLY how an atheist thinks about theism (supernaturalism to be exact). Just as you don't believe in Norse mythology, I do not believe in your god.
Edmundisme wrote:
How is does your belief require less faith than mine?
Because it is YOU who is making an assertion here. Had you not been around claiming that god(s) exists, atheists wouldn't have argued. The burden of proof is on you.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
It is both. Atheism means "without theism" - NOT "anti theism". Atheism in its purest sense is not a belief - it is disbelief!
It is a subtle but important difference. In my experience, atheists are not unconvinced that God exists, rather they are convinced he does not. The positions might seem similar, but they are drastically different and so, in my opinion, they each deserve their own word.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
If it's summer and you don't see snow falling down, would it be reasonable to assume there is snow on the ground?
Sure. It would be reasonable to assume that. But could you know it for sure? Would you put $500 on it? What if someone drove into the hills and dumped snow on your lawn as a practical joke? (Admittedly this is contrived, but it makes my point.) Furthermore, you use an example of evidence we both agree on. We both agree that a sunny summer day suggests there is no snow on the ground. However, we disagree on what is considered evidence of God. I belief that life, nature, personality, laws of morality, are all evidence of God.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: How is does your belief require less faith than mine? Because it is YOU who is making an assertion here. Had you not been around claiming that god(s) exists, atheists wouldn't have argued. The burden of proof is on you.
Are you sure theists claimed the existence of God before atheists claimed his non-existence? Also, most atheists I've had discussions with assert that there is no God. So, I think assertions are being made by theists and (most) atheists.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Consider the implications of the answers to the questions "does God exists?" and "do unicorns exist?" and they suddenly lose their simmilarity.
oilFactotum wrote:
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God. Atheism is an active belief that God does not exist. I'm not sure what word best describes someone who neither believes that God exists or that he does not exist, but I think "agnostic" is what most people use to describe this position. Whatever it's called, it is not the same as atheism.
Edmundisme wrote:
Consider the implications of the answers to the questions "does God exists?" and "do unicorns exist?" and they suddenly lose their simmilarity.
I honestly don't see your point. I don't see the loss of similarity. For the rest we can merge the separate threads[^]
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Lack of proof doesn't prove anything. Therefore, your belief that God does not exist isn't based on proof. It's based on faith. Again, that's your belief.
Well, if you believe there are no absolute truths, the debate is pointless. I assume there are absolutes. So, you point out that "lack of proof cannot be proof itself" is simply my belief. Do you believe otherwise?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
If I don't believe something to be true, it is because of lack of proof
Again, atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an active belief that God does not exist. There is a difference.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: Athiests believe God does not exist. This position cannot be proven, therefore it is taken on faith (faith in science, faith in lack of evidence, faith on something, but faith nonetheless). Sorry, I don't believe that.
If we can pick and choose definitions for the words we use, then communication (nevermind debate) is impossible. If we don't agree on the definition of a word, then that word can't help convey meaning, it can only hinder it. The actual definition of atheism is the "belief or doctine that there is no God". If this is not what you mean when you say "atheism" then atheism isn't the right word to use.
Edmundisme wrote:
Well, if you believe there are no absolute truths, the debate is pointless. I assume there are absolutes.
That is impossible. Every religious person believes absolutely in his or her religion and no other. But they cannot all be absolute truths. However, the key word here is not absolute, but believe. Belief and absolute are contradictory.
Edmundisme wrote:
So, you point out that "lack of proof cannot be proof itself" is simply my belief. Do you believe otherwise?
Go read about Cantor sets and uncountability and all. That should prove to be an interesting read for you. Theirs also an Axion of Choice in mathematics that holds true in some sets and not in others. Unfortunately, this is one area of mathematics that deals with no proof but choice.
Edmundisme wrote:
Again, atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an active belief that God does not exist. There is a difference.
No it's not. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Nothing more. Theists are trying to redefine atheistism to mock them by way of saying they believe in not believing. However, if they say they don't believe not for lack of believing, but for lack of proof, you have to accept that they know themselves well and what they're talking about.
Edmundisme wrote:
If we can pick and choose definitions for the words we use, then communication (nevermind debate) is impossible. If we don't agree on the definition of a word, then that word can't help convey meaning, it can only hinder it. The actual definition of atheism is the "belief or doctine that there is no God". If this is not what you mean when you say "atheism" then atheism isn't the right word to use.
That's only because you're picking where your definitions come from. That is the disagreement we're having. If we define something the way someone else wants it and not as how we see it, then obviously we'd never win an argument. But if an atheist tells you he doesn't believe in God for lack of proof, then don't make it out to be a religion. Otherwise, there's no such thing as having no religion. Those who have no feeling one way or the other never gave it much thought to be defined, but everybody can give you a definite answer if put on the spot. By your argument, everybody is thus religious. :wtf:
-
So basically, you'd use a non-Christian or non-Muslim reference to define a Christian or Muslim? That's absurd. If I tell you I am this type of person or I believe in so and so, who are you to tell me no, you believe in what I think you believe?
"I know which side I want to win regardless of how many wrongs they have to commit to achieve it." - Stan Shannon Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
So basically, you'd use a non-Christian or non-Muslim reference to define a Christian or Muslim?
I'm not following you here...
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
If I tell you I am this type of person or I believe in so and so, who are you to tell me no, you believe in what I think you believe?
I can't tell you what you believe. I can only tell you what "atheism" means. Can I call myself a musician, then not play music and claim that because I'm a musician and I don't play music, that musicians don't play music? You can believe what you want, and I can't tell you what you believe. But if you use a word that means "a belief or doctrine that God does not exist" to describe your belief system, is it fair for me to assume that you believe that God does not exist? If this is not what you believe, then you should use another word. At the very least, we need to agree on a definition of the word before we use it in our discussion.
-
Non-believers don't have to prove anything. If you say statement A, you have to back it up. Everyone else does not have to back !A up.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheism isn't the lack of a belief in God. It is the acting belief that he does not exist.
It is both. Atheism means "without theism" - NOT "anti theism". Atheism in its purest sense is not a belief - it is disbelief! If it's summer and you don't see snow falling down, would it be reasonable to assume there is snow on the ground? There is no justification to believe that there is snow on the ground. That is EXACTLY how an atheist thinks about theism (supernaturalism to be exact). Just as you don't believe in Norse mythology, I do not believe in your god.
Edmundisme wrote:
How is does your belief require less faith than mine?
Because it is YOU who is making an assertion here. Had you not been around claiming that god(s) exists, atheists wouldn't have argued. The burden of proof is on you.
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
It is both. Atheism means "without theism" - NOT "anti theism". Atheism in its purest sense is not a belief - it is disbelief!
It is a subtle but important difference. In my experience, atheists are not unconvinced that God exists, rather they are convinced he does not. The positions might seem similar, but they are drastically different and so, in my opinion, they each deserve their own word.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
If it's summer and you don't see snow falling down, would it be reasonable to assume there is snow on the ground?
Sure. It would be reasonable to assume that. But could you know it for sure? Would you put $500 on it? What if someone drove into the hills and dumped snow on your lawn as a practical joke? (Admittedly this is contrived, but it makes my point.) Furthermore, you use an example of evidence we both agree on. We both agree that a sunny summer day suggests there is no snow on the ground. However, we disagree on what is considered evidence of God. I belief that life, nature, personality, laws of morality, are all evidence of God.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: How is does your belief require less faith than mine? Because it is YOU who is making an assertion here. Had you not been around claiming that god(s) exists, atheists wouldn't have argued. The burden of proof is on you.
Are you sure theists claimed the existence of God before atheists claimed his non-existence? Also, most atheists I've had discussions with assert that there is no God. So, I think assertions are being made by theists and (most) atheists.
Edmundisme wrote:
atheists are not unconvinced that God exists, rather they are convinced he does not. The positions might seem similar, but they are drastically different and so, in my opinion, they each deserve their own word.
Convinced as in assuming that there is no snow on the ground a sunny summer day, or that there in fact is snow on the ground a winter day when snow is in the air. It's all about reason.
Edmundisme wrote:
Would you put $500 on it? What if someone drove into the hills and dumped snow on your lawn as a practical joke? (Admittedly this is contrived, but it makes my point.)
No it does not make your point. You see, this is all testable. It is science. You can challenge my theory! I cannot challenge yours, no matte how hard I try. Not because your logic is super tight, but rather because you've got short circuits in your logic.
Edmundisme wrote:
I belief that life, nature, personality, laws of morality, are all evidence of God.
Do you have any evidence for your believing that those are evidence? See what I mean with short circuit logic? You short circuit your logic with god. You cannot back up what you say. I'd have to "take it on faith" - which I am not convinced/willing to do.
Edmundisme wrote:
Are you sure theists claimed the existence of God before atheists claimed his non-existence?
Frooobleknoooooblebabump does not exist!!!!!! No matter what someone in the future might say!!! How can you claim something not to exist if you don't believe in it, before anybody proposed its existence? Do you see the flaw in your logic?
Edmundisme wrote:
Also, most atheists I've had discussions with assert that there is no God.
Atheists are humans, just like theists. Hence they have emotions. Emotions make people assert. As an atheist, being confronted with theism as if it was some kind of truth, is very frustrating. I wonder what you'd think of me if I dedicated my life to the invisible pink camel living on the top of Mount Everest? Chances are that you'd assert that I'm wrong. I do not assert that there is no god. What I am saying though, is that it is highly unlikely that there exists anything supernatural. The only reasonable option is to live my life as if there is no god. I wish other people could see it
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Norse mythology,
One of my cockatoos is named Loki.
_________________________________________ You can't fix stupid, but you can medicate crazy.
Is he naughty? :) (In case you're wondering, the nordic pronounciation of Loki is Lou-keh)
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Well, if you believe there are no absolute truths, the debate is pointless. I assume there are absolutes.
That is impossible. Every religious person believes absolutely in his or her religion and no other. But they cannot all be absolute truths. However, the key word here is not absolute, but believe. Belief and absolute are contradictory.
Edmundisme wrote:
So, you point out that "lack of proof cannot be proof itself" is simply my belief. Do you believe otherwise?
Go read about Cantor sets and uncountability and all. That should prove to be an interesting read for you. Theirs also an Axion of Choice in mathematics that holds true in some sets and not in others. Unfortunately, this is one area of mathematics that deals with no proof but choice.
Edmundisme wrote:
Again, atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an active belief that God does not exist. There is a difference.
No it's not. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Nothing more. Theists are trying to redefine atheistism to mock them by way of saying they believe in not believing. However, if they say they don't believe not for lack of believing, but for lack of proof, you have to accept that they know themselves well and what they're talking about.
Edmundisme wrote:
If we can pick and choose definitions for the words we use, then communication (nevermind debate) is impossible. If we don't agree on the definition of a word, then that word can't help convey meaning, it can only hinder it. The actual definition of atheism is the "belief or doctine that there is no God". If this is not what you mean when you say "atheism" then atheism isn't the right word to use.
That's only because you're picking where your definitions come from. That is the disagreement we're having. If we define something the way someone else wants it and not as how we see it, then obviously we'd never win an argument. But if an atheist tells you he doesn't believe in God for lack of proof, then don't make it out to be a religion. Otherwise, there's no such thing as having no religion. Those who have no feeling one way or the other never gave it much thought to be defined, but everybody can give you a definite answer if put on the spot. By your argument, everybody is thus religious. :wtf:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That is impossible. Every religious person believes absolutely in his or her religion and no other. But they cannot all be absolute truths..
I didn't say my beliefs are absolutes. I said absolutes exist. If a thing is true, it is so regardless of personal opinion on the matter. I stated that lack of proof is not itself proof. You dismissed that as merely my belief. I suggest it is a logical certainty. Furthermore, when Columbus theorized that the world was round, was that absolutely true even though most others were "absolutely" certain it was flat?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Belief and absolute are contradictory
I'm not sure what you're saying here. They are contradictory? So if something is absolute it cannot be believed in? Or if something is believed in it cannot be absolute?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Go read about Cantor sets and uncountability and all. That should prove to be an interesting read for you. Theirs also an Axion of Choice in mathematics that holds true in some sets and not in others. Unfortunately, this is one area of mathematics that deals with no proof but choice.
I have no idea what you're talking about. However, based on logic, I would highly doubt that even in this context lack of proof is itself proof.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Nothing more.
By your definition of the word, I suppose you are correct. However, your definition is not the prevalent one in my experience. At this point, understanding we mean different things, it is no longer worthwhile to debate the definition of the word.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That's only because you're picking where your definitions come from
I picked a dictionary. That seemed like the best place to get an unbiased definition. I didn't scour the net looking for a definition that fit my purpose. You, however, got your definition from an atheist's website. So which of us is "picking" where our definitions come from?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
if an atheist tells you he doesn't believe in God for lack of proof, then don't make it out to be a religion. Otherwise, there's no such thing as having no religion
I don't think