As soon as I get to my comp I will draw a makeshift timeline just for you.

Yeah, I noticed and corrected the problem just prior to you posting. Heidi and Heather, both beginning with He and having blonde hair, it's confusing. Plus, I remember you being straightfaced in Serious Discussion, so all the "Lols" made me think of Corbo. As for my inbox space, joy! I see the limit has been dropped down to 150 and I have 238 messages.




My reply to your post, the whole of my posts in here, or both?

It is a one-way corollary, not both.



Think of it this way: Belief in God/gods is =1, lack of belief is =0, and the belief that gods do not exist =-1.

I'm of the opinion that certain people in here take these internet discussions waaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. These folks aren't here to learn or grow in some way, they're here to force their views on others for who-knows-what-reasons. In SD, however, it's my job to be uniform and consistent.

The reasons for which you highlighted some extra material in my post, and the point you were trying to make by doing that. It really doesn't matter if you say "belief there is no god" or "lack of belief in god," they are the same thing. The only case where they could mean different things is if some person were raised on Mars or in an african jungle or something and had never heard of god, then he would have a lack of belief in god but he might not necessarily believe there is no god, just because he's never believed anything about the entire subject, never thought or heard about it. But to any normal person from earth, "belief in no god" "disbelief in god" "lack of belief in god" "absence of belief in god" are all the same.

I'm thinking this mega semantics argument is missing something. To have a lack of belief does not always mean a disbelief. A lack of belief just means that you have less belief in something, when compared to someone else that has more belief than you.

I can be 75% sure that god exists while my friend is 100% sure that god exists. I could be considered one with a lack of belief, but I wouldn't consider a 75% certainty in the existence of a god an atheist. Atheism would be both a lack of belief and a belief in the absence of god, whereas simply a lack of belief doesn't necessarily qualify as a belief in the absence of god. This is more of a scenario of squares and rectangles; not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.

So one cannot say that Atheism is not a belief, because it is. The definitions that Vrael went and found both included ones that talked about a lack of belief, and a belief in the absence of god. This is because atheism is both, whereas a simple lack of belief is not always the same as a belief in the lack thereof.

Oh, and to that C.S. Lewis quote, I actually don't agree with it. If a god were infinite, then he wouldn't be confined to the limits of logic and sense. If a god were infinite, then our finite selves shouldn't be able to comprehend all that god is capable of. I would say that this is exemplified when non-sensical statements are made with the prefix of "God can". Just because these nonsensical statements can be made doesn't mean that they show a limit to the hypothetical infiniteness of god, I would say that they just show a limit of our understanding.

But of course, these non-sensical statements might just not be making any sense at all, and as such might just mean nothing. If that is the case, then I think C.S. Lewis sounds like he is applying limits to god in ways I don't agree with, and that he should have made this necessary distinction.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 18 2010, 2:55 am by Cervantes. Reason: Added C.S. Lewis retort.

You are sooooo lucky Ts 1.6 came out

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm
I like how that site explains how atheism does not require faith.
The theist presents the idea of god or gods and if it is unacceptable to the atheist then you will remain atheist until you find a concept that is acceptable.

I think you mean if a god were omnipotent**
But the real point is, who are you to say what an omnipotent god can or can't do? It goes for C.S.Lewis as well, he and you have no basis for estimating the powers or lack of powers of an omnipotent God. Sure you can make guesses, as C.S.Lewis has done, but until you've experienced what God can and cannot do, any guess you make is as good as my guess that God is actually watching the universe on a giant TV screen laughing his ass* off at us for our stupidity.

*or whatever the divine equivelent of a gluteous maximus is.

LACK OF BELIEF = DISBELIEF. END OF STORY.

So you're saying you were wrong about there not being a digital camera on my desk? Since, presumably, you didn't believe there is one there.

There is a middle ground buddy. Belief <--> Lack of Belief (Uncertainty) <--> Disbelief

I tried to point this out earlier, maybe you missed my post? Rawr.

http://www.staredit.net/211962/

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 18 2010, 4:17 am by Cervantes. Reason: Fataly mistyped stuff.

First Atheism does not use faith. Read the link.
Second how would that be different than any other faith? If you are (place faith here) you don't think the other vast majority of the world's faith is right.
Its not like one religion is very supportive of another.

Dear Hercanic,

I agree with you. I think you've made it clear as possible many times. People here just don't seem to understand language very well. Vrael gets it but he just doesn't seem to be making certain concessions about the relevance of your point.

Let me try just once to put it this way... in an attempt to show the difference between an absence of belief in God, and the belief that there is no God.

If I say "There is no God" then it is analogous to saying "There is a God" It is making a definite assertion about something that (for our purposes) cannot be proven. (i believe i am safe in saying faith is involved)

If I say "I don't believe in God" then it is not necessarily expressing that i believe there is no god. I can also "I don't believe there is no God." This line of thinking - lack of belief - is acting on uncertainty. I'm done.

(what i'm mostly focusing on here is a difference between agnosticism and atheism. i was not addressing the idea of people who have never considered the idea of god.)

Maybe I'm being stupid, but yes it does? What else could it mean? If someone's uncertain as to whether or not God exists or doesn't exist, then his believes he may exist, but I'm having a difficult time finding your point here, can you elaborate?

Belief that something necessarily does, or belief that something necessarily does not, exist is exclusive to belief that something might or might not exist. Ergo, one who believes maybe cannot believe in the existence of something; ergo, one does not believe it.

Ah, you hit it. Although, you didn't mention a lack of belief in something having the ability to fall into either of the two categories (certainty/uncertainty). Yeah, I just wanted to clarify this and swerve things back towards my post that so many people seem to be ignoring, except for a tiny bit where Vrael responded to a part.

is anyone else Ignostic?

I've never heard of it. But I just looked it up real quick. Seems to have some merit. I like it. I usually default to saying I'm agnostic nowadays (at least when i'm thinking about it), but i'm really more just open to anything. I'm glad you brought this up.

I just wiki it and I can't really tell how it is different from weak atheism. Explain?

I'm still not getting the belief stuff you guys are talking about, but it doesn't seem that important anymore since no one's making any points that rely on it.

I'll talk with you cecil
If you mean omnipotent, and not infinite, this part of the discussion changes quite a bit. Do you mean omnipotent?