"Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical" | Talks At Google

[bhsmte]

Sure, but rejecting one specific god doesn't make one an atheist. There are lots of specific gods that I reject, yet I'm still a theist. You might reject some specific gods, but you still claim to believe that *a* god might exist, you just don't know. Hence, you are agnostic.

If I don't believe the basic description of a certain God exists, then I am indeed an atheist towards that God.

 

[-V-]

If I don't believe the basic description of a certain God exists, then I am indeed an atheist towards that God.

"Atheist" is rejection of ALL gods, not just some. If you think there may be gods but don't know, you are agnostic. Rejecting some specific gods does not change that, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[bhsmte]

"Atheist" is rejection of ALL gods, not just some. If you think there may be gods but don't know, you are agnostic. Rejecting some specific gods does not change that, no matter how much you want it to.

Nope. Agnostic is not being able to know. If I have traits to review and reconcile with reality, I can know.

 

[-V-]

Nope. Agnostic is not being able to know.

As already pointed out, it can mean simply not knowing, it's not limited to "can't" know.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The only evidence I need that the "belief" based faith is false is to just look at the representatives who are trying the hardest to push it. They lack the love and works that their faith is supposed to produce, so that their "arguments" will never gain any momentum. Those with true love and works are either not religious, or they are not pushing their religion on anyone.

Religious people believe what they want to believe. Why? Because it's popular to believe those things.

As far as listening to him. From what I read about the speaker, he is a jerk. I have no desire to listen to what he has to say. Just another right wing idiot bigot living in spiritual darkness.

Christianity has produced more love and goodness than any other religion. Look at almost everything good about Western civilization, including the concept of human rights, comes from Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Atheist" is rejection of ALL gods, not just some. If you think there may be gods but don't know, you are agnostic. Rejecting some specific gods does not change that, no matter how much you want it to.

Wrong, it is a lack of belief in all gods. No rejection. The burden of proof is of course on theists and they have not been able to meet their burden. If you can find evidence for your God atheists will change their mind. Sadly most theists do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Irrelevant. Whether or not my faith might be wrong has no bearing on whether or not "atheists believe there is no god" is a straw man fallacy.

In that context, it is irrelevant, true.

btw: hi, I'm an atheist who does not make the claim that no gods exist. I'm an atheist only because I don't accept god claims as true.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ah, so the difference "believe there is no god" and "lack belief in god" is just splitting hairs. If it's just splitting hairs, then there's no meaningful difference. If there's no meaningful difference, then you can't whine about "atheists believe there is no god" being a straw man fallacy.

"NOT believing there IS a god"

and

"believing there is NO god"

Are, in fact, two very different beliefs. In fact, only one of them is actually a belief.
"not believing claim x", is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.

Do you understand how both statements are different answers to different questions?
It sounds like you don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Great. So instead of "atheists believe there is no god,", it's actually, "atheists believe there is no god until proven otherwise." Yeah, cuz that's totally a meaningful difference completely justifying all the straw man whining. Totally.

Still failing to see the difference between "I don't believe X" and "I believe the opposite of X is true", I see....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right. So, atheists can go on acting & arguing as if there is no god, they're just forbidden from saying the words "there is no god." I'm still waiting for the meaningful difference.

Maybe a black and white analogy might help here....

Suppose you toss a coin and catch it in your hand. You don't look at the result, nore do you show the result to anyone else.

You then claim that it is heads, as a matter of fact.
You ask me if I accept your claim.

I respond with "no": I don't accept your claim as a fact, because I lack the required data to determine if it's actually a fact or not. And you merely claiming it as fact, doesn't make it a fact. So... I do not believe/accept your factual claim concerning the outcome of that coin toss.

Now, does my negative answer mean that I instead BELIEVE/ACCEPT as fact that it is tails instead?

Off course not! And for the exact same reason: I lack the required data to determine if that's a fact or not.

So, to conclude...

1. I do not accept/believe your factual claim that it is heads.
2. By doing so, it does NOT, in any way, mean that I'll automatically accept the opposite claim.


Do you understand now? To not agree that a certain claim is a fact, does not mean that you'll accept the exact opposite as being fact!

 

[DogmaHunter]

When Richard Dawkins started his “There’s Probably No God” ad campaign, he came right out and said that he would have rather not had the word “probably” in there - what he really wanted it to say was simply, “There’s No God.” So, there we have one prominent atheist who isn’t afraid to say he believes there is no God. Dawkins has bunches of awards from multiple atheist organizations. The Atheist Alliance International even gives out a “Richard Dawkins Award”. Clearly other atheists respect and share his views.

I have a Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. I think Webster's has more authority than the atheists here to define what words mean. “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.” And “atheist” is defined as “a person who believes that there is no God.”

So, you’ll just have to forgive me if I take Webster’s word over the atheists here. You’ll just have to forgive me for thinking this whole idea that “atheists don’t believe that there is no god - they only lack the belief that there is one” is pure bunk.

I think that, when it comes to what individuals believe, nothing has a higher "authority" on the contents (or lack thereof) of the beliefs then the individuals themselves.

And concerning dictionaries... you might want to learn how they work. Words usually have multiple meanings and these are given in the dictionary as well.

Only picking the definition that fits your particular point, is not very honest.

Furthermore, here's what the merriam-webster website has to say about the word "atheist":

I took a screenshot instead of typing it.
It defines an atheist as someone who "does not believe in the existence of gods".
It doesn't even say anything about "believing that no gods exist", like you claimed.

Anyway....

Do you understand the difference now between:
- I don't believe a god exists
and
- I believe no gods exist?

Could you explain the difference between both, to prove that you understand it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I said there's a clear distinction and the two shouldn't be lumped together.

There's a distinction in qualifiers.
There's, however, no distinction in terms of rejection of theistic claims.

Both an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist (essentially so called "weak" and "strong" atheism) have one thing in common: both of them will answer "no" to the question "do you believe that god(s) exist?"

That answer is what makes them both atheists - no matter what else they might or might not believe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I

SAID

THERE'S

A

DISTINCTION

AND

THEY

SHOULDN'T

BE

LUMPED

TOGETHER

False.

"agnostic" isn't some "third option" between theist and atheist.

(a)gnostic and (a)theist are both different answers to different questions.
The first is about knowledge and the second is about god-beliefs.

Instead of mutually exclusive "positions", these terms are actually qualifiers of one another.

I'm an agnostic atheists. This means that
1. I don't believe/accept the claim that gods are real, as true
2. I consider it fundamentally unknowable if such entities exist (based on how they are defined, which is more often then not in "unfalsifiable" manner - which is precisely the reason why it requires "faith" to believe it)

 

[-V-]

Wrong, it is a lack of belief in all gods. No rejection.

Good job on completely missing the point and zeroing in on a completely irrelevant detail. The point was about his beliefs in regards to "all" vs. "some" gods. Whether it's a rejection or a lack of acceptance has absolutely no bearing on that whatsoever.

The burden of proof is of course on theists and they have not been able to meet their burden. If you can find evidence for your God atheists will change their mind. Sadly most theists do not understand the concept of evidence.

Apparently you have some lack of understanding of certain concepts as well. Anyone making a positive claim, which many atheists do, brings on a burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good job on completely missing the point and zeroing in on a completely irrelevant detail. The point was about his beliefs in regards to "all" vs. "some" gods. Whether it's a rejection or a lack of acceptance has absolutely no bearing on that whatsoever.

I missed no point. You made a false statement. I got the supposed point, you apparently did not understand the correction.

Apparently you have some lack of understanding of certain concepts as well. Anyone making a positive claim, which many atheists do, brings on a burden of proof.

Wrong again, you are not doing to well here. What positive claim do you think that atheists have made that they cannot support?

 

[-V-]

btw: hi, I'm an atheist who does not make the claim that no gods exist. I'm an atheist only because I don't accept god claims as true.

Prove it.

"NOT believing there IS a god"
and
"believing there is NO god"
Are, in fact, two very different beliefs. In fact, only one of them is actually a belief.
"not believing claim x", is not a belief. It is the lack of belief.
Do you understand how both statements are different answers to different questions?
It sounds like you don't.

Context matters. It was an atheist who was attempting an argument that had the necessary conclusion that there wasn't a meaningful difference. If you can't follow a discussion, don't participate.

Still failing to see the difference between "I don't believe X" and "I believe the opposite of X is true", I see....

Still failing to follow the discussion, I see.

Maybe a black and white analogy might help here....

What would help is you actually following the discussion.

I think that, when it comes to what individuals believe, nothing has a higher "authority" on the contents (or lack thereof) of the beliefs then the individuals themselves.

Then why pretend "no gods exist" is NOT atheism when I've presented facts showing atheists making that exact claim? Are those atheists not authoritative on what they themselves believe? Why pretend atheists haven't been backpedaling trying to avoid burden of proof when I've shown atheists admitting to exactly that? Oh, it must be, "atheists are an authority on what they believe, until they claim to believe something I don't agree with".

It doesn't even say anything about "believing that no gods exist", like you claimed.

I claimed NOTHING about any "Merriam-Webster" dictionary. You're citing a completely different dictionary. To act like I was citing the same book when I specifically named a different source is rather dishonest.

You want to talk about selective definitions? Try posting a screen shot of the definition of "atheism" from that same Merriam-Webster dictionary. You'll find "strong disbelief in gods" included in there.

Do you understand the difference now between:
- I don't believe a god exists
and
- I believe no gods exist?
Could you explain the difference between both, to prove that you understand it?

Of course there's a difference. And with atheists, the difference seems to be, "is anyone going to challenge me with burden of proof? If no, I am the latter. If yes, I am the former."

 

[-V-]

I missed no point. You made a false statement. I got the supposed point, you apparently did not understand the correction.

I understand your "correction". It's simply a completely irrelevant "correction" that has no bearing on the statement being made.

Wrong again, you are not doing to well here.

Oh, gosh, an atheist claims I'm not doing well. How upsetting.

What positive claim do you think that atheists have made that they cannot support?

Are you seriously attempting to deny that atheists have claimed there are no gods?? I've already cited that exact claim being made by atheists.

 

[bhsmte]

Looks a whole lot like shifting the burden of proof. Some christians realize, they cant demonstrate their god exists with anything except faith, so they must claim some atheist somewhere declared no gods exist, so they say this cant be proven either. It is really, quite amusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand your "correction". It's simply a completely irrelevant "correction" that has no bearing on the statement being made.

Wrong again, but then you seem to have hard time understanding corrections.

Oh, gosh, an atheist claims I'm not doing well. How upsetting.

And this sort of attitude probably has quite a bit to do with your inability to learn.

Are you seriously attempting to deny that atheists have claimed there are no gods?? I've already cited that exact claim being made by atheists.

Oops, changing the topic. I and others have been dealing with your mistaken understanding of what atheism is. Yes, some atheists have claimed that there are no gods, but that is not the error of yours that was being discussed.

 

[radhead]

Christianity has produced more love and goodness than any other religion. Look at almost everything good about Western civilization, including the concept of human rights, comes from Christianity.

There has been a positive thread running throughout Christianity, but I have to think those churches have been a minority. The PC-USA I would include in that group.