Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:+
Let's make it simpler and take out the apostrophes :

1). Atheists do not believe God exists.

2). Atheists believe God does not exist.

Conclusion: the two statements are the same.


Online Dictionary says:

Let's apply that same rationale to Rubberneck's odd/even number of hairs scenario.

1). Rubberneck does not believe he(?) has an even number of hairs on his head.

2). Rubberneck believes he does not have an even number of hairs on his head.

I hope you can see that 2) is not equivalent to 1). 2) is, however, equivalent to another statement:

3). Rubberneck believes he has an odd number of hairs on his head.

And a counterpoint to 1) is yet another statement:

4). Rubberneck does not believe he has an odd number of hairs on his head.

So as regards hairs, Rubberneck stands by statements 1) and 4). He does not hold by statement 2), even though it is extremely similar to 1). He does not stand by statement 3), because it is equivalent to 2) rather than similar.

As regards god, I believe Rubberneck stands by these statements (and please correct me if not, Rubberneck):

a). I do not believe that god exists

b). I do not believe that god is non-existent

And I believe that Rubberneck does not stand by these statements [even though they are similar to a) and b) in the way that 1) is similar to 2)]:

c). I believe god exists

d). I believe god does not exist

ryanbouma wrote:I believe I have hair, even though I have not seen my scalp. It could be fake. But I do not know certain things about my hair. I don't know the average thickness. How many are grey. Even or odd. Etc.

We know there is or is not a God. So which do you believe it is?

Do you believe:

1. There is no God.
2. There is a God.

It's ok if you don't know what he looks like or how many hairs are on His head (assuming He has hair (unlikely)).

You've still not answered what you believe about the number of hairs, again only stating that you don't know. But what do you believe?

We know there are an even or odd number. So which do you believe - odd or even? Do you see it yet, that you actually don't believe either? That's my position on your two propositions.

PerciFlage,

Correct.

I also find it hard to believe that this is difficult to understand.

Rubberneck wrote:
We know there are an even or odd number. So which do you believe - odd or even? Do you see it yet, that you actually don't believe either? That's my position on your two propositions.

Ok I see what you're saying. I have no belief about whether I have odd or even number of hairs, because I don't know.

So would I be right to say, you have no belief about whether God exists, because you don't know? In that case, wouldn't saying "I do not believe God exists" is the same as saying, I do not believe I have an odd number of hairs?

Rubberneck wrote:PerciFlage,
I also find it hard to believe that this is difficult to understand.

For us Christians, it's not very clear how an atheist thinks sometimes. We don't see the distinction. Especially since many of us have met atheists who have no problem firmly saying "I believe God does not exist".

Ahhh atheism the most concertina word in the English language, I prefer to use the classical definition as outlined by Jac here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... n&start=60

Under the classical definition of atheism you are not an atheist Rubberneck and as such I don't consider you one, atheism under the classical definition is "I don't believe that God(s) exist, which is a positive affirmation.

You are what I would term in a perpetual state of not knowing anything, quite a predicament it puts you in with certain subjects.

Atheism has lost all meaning, I don't know why people identify with it anymore.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Ahhh atheism the most concertina word in the English language, I prefer to use the classical definition as outlined by Jac here http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... n&start=60

Under the classical definition of atheism you are not an atheist Rubberneck and as such I don't consider you one, atheism under the classical definition is "I don't believe that God(s) exist, which is a positive affirmation.

You are what I would term in a perpetual state of not knowing anything, quite a predicament it puts you in with certain subjects.

Atheism has lost all meaning, I don't know why people identify with it anymore.

The classical definition? You're living in Ancient Greek times are you, or have you caught up with how language and meanings have changed since then?

Can't say I really care whether you consider me atheist or not, by modern and current definitions, I fit the criteria. If it makes you feel better that you can consider someone to be closer to your "flock" than they actually think, then fine.

Rubberneck wrote:The classical definition? You're living in Ancient Greek times are you, or have you caught up with how language and meanings have changed since then?

It's not that it has changed, it's that it has lost any real meaning, it can mean anything you want it to these days. The reason why we have definitions is so we can be clear about what we are discussing, the waters have become very muddy when it comes to atheism to the point where it is absurd.

I stick with the classical meaning because it just causes confusion as it already has in this thread.

Can't say I really care whether you consider me atheist or not, by modern and current definitions, I fit the criteria. If it makes you feel better that you can consider someone to be closer to your "flock" than they actually think, then fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by closer to my flock, you either in it or your not, there is no inbetween, but please tone it down we are all friendly here, no need for straw men and ad hominems.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Rubberneck wrote:The classical definition? You're living in Ancient Greek times are you, or have you caught up with how language and meanings have changed since then?

It's not that it has changed, it's that it has lost any real meaning, it can mean anything you want it to these days. The reason why we have definitions is so we can be clear about what we are discussing, the waters have become very muddy when it comes to atheism to the point where it is absurd.

I stick with the classical meaning because it just causes confusion as it already has in this thread.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. On the whole I find that most people are aware of what it means by today's standard.

Can't say I really care whether you consider me atheist or not, by modern and current definitions, I fit the criteria. If it makes you feel better that you can consider someone to be closer to your "flock" than they actually think, then fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by closer to my flock, you either in it or your not, there is no inbetween, but please tone it down we are all friendly here, no need for straw men and ad hominems.

No, I suppose there is no inbetween or holding area. While communicating via text alone, tone is inferred by the reader, and it was also a hypothetical, which admittedly happened to be wrong.

Rubberneck wrote:Then we'll have to agree to disagree. On the whole I find that most people are aware of what it means by today's standard.

I am happy to agree to disagree. What I have found however (especially on Reddit) is that there are many different types of "atheism" even atheist Christians, I think if pushed I could at least list 30-40 different types, all with differing beliefs and worldviews. Heck I could call myself an atheist because I don't believe in Gods.

No, I suppose there is no inbetween or holding area. While communicating via text alone, tone is inferred by the reader, and it was also a hypothetical, which admittedly happened to be wrong.

I would say tone is inferred by what the person actually wrote, I have found that straw men arguments are always written in a negative tone.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Rubberneck wrote:Then we'll have to agree to disagree. On the whole I find that most people are aware of what it means by today's standard.

I am happy to agree to disagree. What I have found however (especially on Reddit) is that there are many different types of "atheism" even atheist Christians, I think if pushed I could at least list 30-40 different types, all with differing beliefs and worldviews. Heck I could call myself an atheist because I don't believe in Gods.

Ok. I'm happy with a simple dictionary definition, like from the OED for example.

I would say tone is inferred by what the person actually wrote, I have found that straw men arguments are always written in a negative tone.

And the amount of trouble I've gotten myself into with my wife by simply replying "no" in a text message! I've always blamed her reading of it.

I was feeling quite placid when I wrote it - rather neutral, but I can see how it can obviously be misconstrued. I do apologise if you saw it as a little dig.

Rubberneck wrote:Ok. I'm happy with a simple dictionary definition, like from the OED for example.

I think the best thing is to stay away from definitions and just state what you believe is true and what you do or don't know, that way it is clear on what you are all about.

I even find that people attach a whole heap of misconceptions to the word Christian, there are so many differing beliefs within the term.

And the amount of trouble I've gotten myself into with my wife by simply replying "no" in a text message! I've always blamed her reading of it.

I was feeling quite placid when I wrote it - rather neutral, but I can see how it can obviously be misconstrued. I do apologise if you saw it as a little dig.

Apology accepted.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I think the best thing is to stay away from definitions and just state what you believe is true and what you do or don't know, that way it is clear on what you are all about.

Yup, and I would say that while you have come to see "atheism" as a term that has lost all meaning, it's probable that you have just become familiar with the individual stances of lots of different atheists. Where once there was a homogeneous group of people, now you have come to see some of the subtleties and nuance within that group.

It's the same with any label. If someone says that they are a political conservative then I don't necessarily make an in depth assumption about their position on free markets, and if someone says they are a Christian then I don't presume to know their particular stance on creation.

That's why in my early post to Rubberneck I placed my tongue in my cheek and asked which "reductive, simplistic label" best fit him.

PerciFlage wrote:Yup, and I would say that while you have come to see "atheism" as a term that has lost all meaning, it's probable that you have just become familiar with the individual stances of lots of different atheists. Where once there was a homogeneous group of people, now you have come to see some of the subtleties and nuance within that group.

I wouldn't say that at all, I would say that people who identify as atheist have taken on a label which does not describe them at all.

It's the same with any label. If someone says that they are a political conservative then I don't necessarily make an in depth assumption about their position on free markets, and if someone says they are a Christian then I don't presume to know their particular stance on creation.

But the thing is Christian simply means Christ follower or someone who follows the teachings of Christ, it does not refer to any creation stance etc....
When people hear Christian they automatically assume things about their stance on certain subjects but that is their problem not the person with the label of Christian, when I hear it I assume what it actually means (to follow Christ) and not what people think it means, same goes for atheism (belief that there are no God(s)).

But for the sake of conversing with people, I will accept whatever definition they would like to use but if one wants a position of not knowing then really there is not much to talk about.

To me it's like people saying they don't have a belief in any Sun(s) and then expect me to prove the Sun(s) exist just because they don't have a positive belief that it does not exist just a lack of belief in it. If "atheists" want to be taken seriously, step up to the plate and have a swing.

Sometimes I feel like I am talking to the flat earth society when conversing with atheists.

Danieltwotwenty wrote: I wouldn't say that at all, I would say that people who identify as atheist have taken on a label which does not describe them at all.

Could you give an example of the kind of person who identifies as atheist but whose position is not at least roughly described by that label? Just a quick summary of what they believe, and of what you take the label to mean.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:But the thing is Christian simply means Christ follower or someone who follows the teachings of Christ

That's a broad definition, and within the population of people who could be described as Christian by that definition there is a vast range of different beliefs. Likewise atheism in its broadest sense simply means "without gods", which is a pretty good rough label for the population of people who lack a belief in any gods (such as Rubberneck and me) or who have a positive belief that gods definitely do not exist (such as Richard Dawkins).

Anyway, you seem to share my view that getting to know what a particular person actually believes is more important than trying to find an appropriate label to attach to them, so I won't get too hung up over whether labels have any utility at all.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:But for the sake of conversing with people, I will accept whatever definition they would like to use but if one wants a position of not knowing then really there is not much to talk about.

To me it's like people saying they don't have a belief in any Sun(s) and then expect me to prove the Sun(s) exist just because they don't have a positive belief that it does not exist just a lack of belief in it. If "atheists" want to be taken seriously, step up to the plate and have a swing.

I disagree - I think there's a very great deal to talk about between two people one of whose stance is "I believe x is true" and the other of whose stance is "I don't know whether x is true or not". If you were to say sincerely that you didn't believe either way in the sun, then we could have quite an interesting conversation about the various lines of evidence for the sun and the validity of those lines of evidence.

When it comes to gods in general my position is that I do not know whether any god(s) exist. Things are different when we start talking about specific gods, and specific traits of those gods. My position on the God of Christianity is that I do not know whether he exists, but I am certain that if he does exist that he did not create the universe, earth and species ex nihilo in recent times as per YEC beliefs.

Rubberneck wrote:

B. W. wrote:+
Let's make it simpler and take out the apostrophes :

1). Atheists do not believe God exists.

2). Atheists believe God does not exist.

Conclusion: the two statements are the same.


Online Dictionary says:

don't (doʊnt)
1. contraction of do not.
2. Nonstandard (except in some dialects). contraction of does not.

does·n't (dznt)
Contraction of does not.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/don't
-
-
-

How is having a belief and not having a belief the same thing?

Atheist believe in facts,

Atheist believe in the scientific method

Atheist believe the word believe must be expunged from human vocabulary

Therefore atheist believe...

As for knowing the number of hairs on your head changes everyday due to the fact that you lose some and grow some everyday; therefore, your premise is spurious... because the number of hairs changes daily if not hourly.
-
-
-