Is There a God?

[Zottistan]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

Well, I don't know about the others, but I'm just a dick.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

Because I'm a godless heathen liberal commie bastard, and it's what I do.

[Hreintland]

I just answer a question in a title... NO

[Leepaidamba]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

For me:
1: I kinda like it. It's an intellectual exercise for me.
2: I might not believe it, but other people do.
3: Someone might learn something from it, be it me or someone reading along.

[Genivaria]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

ALL important claims should be tested. Getting upset about people demanding proof shows a lack of confidence.

[Samuraikoku]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

I am following the Emperor's will.

[Czechanada]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

I just can't stand irrationality.

[Ryanisking]

Probably not. You're a monkey that's developed some faculties for reason, language, and civilization. You've also been abandoned to your freedom in a pretty rough world. Ultimately, religious belief is just a way out from dealing with the uncomfortable nature of reality by promising a settling of accounts in the afterlife to correct the wrongs in this life.

In the mean time, whether god exists or not (he probably doesn't), your efforts would be better spent not wondering about this question, and instead working with your fellow monkeys to make everyone's life as fulfilled and good as possible.

way to make it upbeat

[Ryanisking]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

never thought about it that way

[Xathranaar]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

I think you overestimate the difficulty of refuting arguments for god.

The main thing is that they are so transparently wrong, we just can't help but point it out.

[The Emerald Dawn]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

Because anything that so many people think is true despite the overwhelming lack of evidence is great to use as a study in group psychology.

[BrightonBurg]

Why yes there is as a god,and there he is..



Hail Lemmy!

[Nouvelle-Albion]

So it's kind of like 50 shades of A?

It doesn't matter if there are 50 shades of A. It's either A (one of those shades) or Not A (not). And no, thinking there is a small probability of the claims doesn't mean you believe, as I've already said.

It's not fallacious Nouvelle, you just don't seem to be able to into basic logic. I already told you I can't tell you at what point you consider something believable. That is up to you, I don't know why you keep asking me when I've answered your question several times now.

No, there is either A, belief in its varying degrees, and B, complete disbelief, and if you discount B, which, by its definition, is Not A, then there is no Not A, and we are left with varying degrees of A. Thus, we have varying degrees of belief, that is, I do not believe it to be probable, though it is still possible, I believe it to be probable, I believe with absolute certainty. Even if I do not think it is probable, I still believe that that something it possible, which, itself, consistute already belief. Therein lies the illogicality of your argument, you are saying, in effect, the believing that something is unlikely consititute a disbelief, whereas it does constitute a belief in the possibility of something, but a belief that that something is not probable. You have said it many times, but you have yet to address this issue, which I have brought up many time, instead, choosing to ignore it which renders your argument, as Nietzche said of Causa Sui, becomes nothing more than a 'rape and perversion of logic and reason', it transgresses against all laws of logical thinking. Now, given this, there is a clear point of believability, that is, something is believable when we have the uncertainty or certainty to justify our varying degrees of belief in it, and unbelievable when we have the absolute certainty to justify completely disbelieving it. You do not claim absolute certainty to justify disbelief, and say that Atheists need not have complete disbelief, therefore, I ask again, since Atheists, by your definition, are at the low end of belief, where does it start?

[Nouvelle-Albion]

I believe in so far as I am certain, and, as there are degrees of certainty, there are degrees of belief. It is not a 'positive, negative, zero, or absent' thing, it is in the degree I believe. When I say that, to go back to an example I used previously, I don't believe that the existence of the Loch Ness Monster is plausible, or, colloquially, I don't believe the Loch Ness Monster exists, then my belief in the Loch Ness Monster is small, that is, that I think Nessie may exist, but probably not, so, it is not negative so much as near zero. If I am absolutely certain she doesn't exist, then I do not believe that Nessie exist at all, and that would be zero, if I believe God to be true, in that I know him to be true with certainty, that would be the highest grade in this hypothetical scale. Therefore, you only have degrees in which you believe in something.

The problem here is that you are looking only at one side of the spectrum. You're looking at one side of the issue. For every truth-claim X there's a corresponding counter-claim X is false. You're only looking at how much one belief one has in the former, not how much disbelief which is equivalent to belief in the latter. If you believe that the truth-claim is more plausible than the counter-claim, you are on the positive side and therefore believe. If vice versa, you are on the negative side and disbelieve. If you think both to be equally plausible, you are undecided. If you don't know the belief exists, you're not on the scale and your belief is absent.
I use this scale in favour of yours, because I do see quite a bit of variation in disbelief.

In which case you do not believe it

Which I don't deny. However, there is a difference. They're simply not on the scale, and once you put them on it you don't know where they'll go.

A belief with zero strength would be one you're completely undecided about. I doubt it ever occurs but I include it for completeness.

Being undecided means you don't believe it. Not that you disbelieve, because I agree there are many shades between belief and disbelief, but "not believing".

Essentially, to put it another way, you have A and Not A. Everything has to either be A or not A. There's no way it can be neither A or Not A or both A and Not A.

That's true, but again there's a difference in that an undecided person has neither belief nor disbelief on the whole.[/quote]

For every claim X, there is claim X is false, true, but we do not say that X is true or X is false with absolute certainty when we apply this to our real world, because while Mathematical proofs can be demonstatably true or false, the real world lacks Mathematics' certainty. Therefore, we do not have the certainty to make very many truth claims, rather, we have beliefs in probability of the truth of something. We trust science to provide something with a reasonably plausible probability of truth because, while we are not certain of such and such widely accepted theory, the evidence for it, while not foolproof, is complete enough to grant us a great deal of certainty regarding that truth. As I have said, there is no degree of disbelief, if we take disbelief to mean the lack of belief, then, obviously, there is only absolute disbelief, the complete rejection of something. However, as we are using it now, we take it to mean that what should properly be thought of as a 'belief' at the low end of my proposed probability scale, ill concieved as it is. We only have complete belief, and varying degrees of belief, and complete unbelief. Your model must account for this fact, that is, there is either complete rejection or varying degrees of belief.

[Person012345]

therefore, I ask again, since Atheists, by your definition, are at the low end of belief, where does it start?

Wow, do you not listen to anything I say? I've already answered this question about 5 fucking times. Whilst I could accept that you're just wrong about belief, because you don't know what you're talking about, I can't imagine your repeatedly asking the same question that I've answered several times already is anything but dishonesty.

[Nouvelle-Albion]

therefore, I ask again, since Atheists, by your definition, are at the low end of belief, where does it start?

Wow, do you not listen to anything I say? I've already answered this question about 5 fucking times. Whilst I could accept that you're just wrong about belief, because you don't know what you're talking about, I can't imagine your repeatedly asking the same question that I've answered several times already is anything but dishonesty.

You addressed me several times, however, you have not addressed any of my points adequetely, which is why I am insisting that you address the question here and now. On a proposed scale of belief, from 0 to 10, with 0 and 10 being disbelief and complete belief, where does Atheism start.

[Nouvelle-Albion]

To make the question easier, given the proposition 'God exist', does the Atheism start at the belief that this statement is maybe true, but not likely, say, a 3-4, this statement is maybe true, but probably not, 1-2, or absolutely false, 0.

[Person012345]

Wow, do you not listen to anything I say? I've already answered this question about 5 fucking times. Whilst I could accept that you're just wrong about belief, because you don't know what you're talking about, I can't imagine your repeatedly asking the same question that I've answered several times already is anything but dishonesty.

You addressed me several times, however, you have not addressed any of my points adequetely, which is why I am insisting that you address it here and now.

I'll answer your question one more time: I cannot tell you at what point you find something believable. The actual problem here is that you're calling degrees of knowledge degrees of belief. Now, I've explained several times that you're wrong, but you're not going to accept logic so whatever. But here's the thing, and it's quite simple - You ask "do you believe in god". If they say "yes" then they're a theist. If not, then they are an atheist. It is not my job to tell someone else whether they believe in something. There is no universal point on the knowledge/belief slider that is the same for everyone.

The point is, I have no idea why you are asking me where on the scale of "belief" it is that you would begin treating something as factual. Or anyone else. How the hell am I supposed to know?

[Tlaceceyaya]

Wow, do you not listen to anything I say? I've already answered this question about 5 fucking times. Whilst I could accept that you're just wrong about belief, because you don't know what you're talking about, I can't imagine your repeatedly asking the same question that I've answered several times already is anything but dishonesty.

You addressed me several times, however, you have not addressed any of my points adequetely, which is why I am insisting that you address the question here and now. On a proposed scale of belief, from 0 to 10, with 0 and 10 being disbelief and complete belief, where does Atheism start.

You can't partially believe that something exists. You either believe it exists or do not believe that it exists. You can believe that it is possible for it to exist, but, ultimately, you either believe that it does indeed exist or do not. You cannot believe that, for example, leprechauns half-exist.

[Avenio]

You addressed me several times, however, you have not addressed any of my points adequetely, which is why I am insisting that you address the question here and now. On a proposed scale of belief, from 0 to 10, with 0 and 10 being disbelief and complete belief, where does Atheism start.

Not to barge in or anything, but I don't think it can be as easily quantified as '0 is disbelief and where n > 0 is always a mode of belief'. Where do apatheists come in, for example? A large chunk of most Western countries' populations will identify as 'Christian' or 'Catholic' or 'Jewish' or what have you on censuses or when interviewed, but when their behaviour is actually observed, they don't actively believe in God or gods on a regular basis, and, indeed, may only go to a church or synagogue on major holidays or when visiting family, and may only actively pray in circumstances of great duress. Would they be atheists if the cultural stigma of their society against atheism wasn't so great? Are they a '0' because they disbelieve most of the time, or a '1' because they do believe, at least part of the time?

EDIT: Changed something for clarity's sake.

[Nouvelle-Albion]

You addressed me several times, however, you have not addressed any of my points adequetely, which is why I am insisting that you address it here and now.

I'll answer your question one more time: I cannot tell you at what point you find something believable. The actual problem here is that you're calling degrees of knowledge degrees of belief. Now, I've explained several times that you're wrong, but you're not going to accept logic so whatever. But here's the thing, and it's quite simple - You ask "do you believe in god". If they say "yes" then they're a theist. If not, then they are an atheist. It is not my job to tell someone else whether they believe in something. There is no universal point on the knowledge/belief slider that is the same for everyone.

The point is, I have no idea why you are asking me where on the scale of "belief" it is that you would begin treating something as factual. Or anyone else. How the hell am I supposed to know?

First, my belief is intertwined with my knowledge, thus, I only believe in something in so far as I am certain of that something. Disbelief occurs when I am completely certain a certain proposition is not true, while everything else consistute a belief in it. Thus, in my lack of knowledge in a God, I do not have the certainty to either completely believe or disbelieve in God. If someone say that the believe in God, and believe in him completely, then they are certain of his reality, then, they answer 'yes', if they are not certain of him, and answer yes or no, that is simply a shorthand for 'I believe he might exist, and that the proposition of God is very probable' and 'I believe he might exist, but that the proposition is inprobable' respectively. Thus, if I am guilty of confusing belief and knowledge, you make teh greater mistake of believing them to be completely unrelated, when both are, in fact, tied to each other. Thus, am I an Atheist when I say 'I believe that God might exist, but that his probability is not likely' or when I make the stronger statement 'I believe that God Might exist, but probably not', or the even stronger statment 'I believe, with certainty, that God does not exist.'

[Nouvelle-Albion]

You addressed me several times, however, you have not addressed any of my points adequetely, which is why I am insisting that you address the question here and now. On a proposed scale of belief, from 0 to 10, with 0 and 10 being disbelief and complete belief, where does Atheism start.

You can't partially believe that something exists. You either believe it exists or do not believe that it exists. You can believe that it is possible for it to exist, but, ultimately, you either believe that it does indeed exist or do not. You cannot believe that, for example, leprechauns half-exist.

No, I did not say that we believe partially, I said can believe in degrees of probably, as in probably not, maybe, and probably.

[Hallistar]

What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that you don't believe even exists?

For me personally, I don't talk much about my irreligiousness in person with others, but I don't see the problem with venting about it sometimes online. My issue though isn't with just a deity, there are atheist (lacking in deity) religions as well, but I'm not involved in those either, thus atheism is more of a subset of irreligiousness for me, but I don't really like to think of myself for not believing in something.

For example, when it comes to Santa Claus, even though you don't believe in him anymore and think the whole concept is silly, you don't wake up either yourself and say 'There is no santa claus' and identify yourself as an anti-santaclausist and think 'there is no coal for naughty kids'..you just don't think about it at all and go on with your life

[Person012345]

First, my belief is intertwined with my knowledge, thus, I only believe in something in so far as I am certain of that something. Disbelief occurs when I am completely certain a certain proposition is not true, while everything else consistute a belief in it.

So you believe in the lock ness monster.

Cool.

[Person012345]

You realise, albion, that your position requires that you believe two logically contradictory statements?

If I posit that God likes cheese and then I posit that God hates cheese, since you can't prove either of them false you must believe them both, right?