what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)

[Deckard]

In all honesty I rarely talk about religion in everyday life, let alone spread anything. I have family and friends who are religious and I have no desire to raise the issue with them. I would say something if I thought they were damaging themselves or others. But their comfort and happiness is more important to me than the particulars of an academic debate on religion. I don't think that's tip-toeing around the issue or being 'scared' to offend them; I think it's just consideration.

If they raise the issue themselves, then I might respond. But mostly I don't feel anything productive can be gained from a face to face religious debate. It's generally less effective than written debate anyway, because (a) emotional reactions are more instantaneous (b) the response time is shorter, and (c) some issues require lengthy elaboration and clarification that lend themselves better to written than verbal debate. So there's a difference between that kind of 'everyday life' scenario, and a platform specifically intended for debating, such as this one, where people are (generally) stepping up to debate, explore and challenge. Which brings up full circle to your original dilemma! In this respect, does a social network count as everyday life - or internet debate? It's a thorny one. Perhaps it ultimately depends on who's in your friends list.

Originally Posted by bryantm3

if your (non) belief system differs because you don't believe you have a hold on the truth...

The one truth I hold is that no-one who claims to hold the truth really holds the truth, apart from the person who declares that...
(and loop back to beginning of sentence)

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Andrea - God as a synonym for "the unknown" is a good point, and the history of mankind - with an ever-retreating/less interacting God - makes that painfully apparent.

A nice claim to fame btw. Yes it could be genetics or memetics or coincidence - there's plenty there to choose from! Was your father particularly creative or musical?

Oh no, not at all. Believe it or not, my father was a dental technician

Originally Posted by Deckard

It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:

(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.

I would like to add:
(3) or speaking a different language

Is "I believe X does not exist" grammatically correct? However I try to translate the two, "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists", to Swedish or Hungarian I get the same sentence. In both cases it starts with "I do not believe..."

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Oh no, not at all. Believe it or not, my father was a dental technician

Being a dental technician probably involves a certain amount of creativity - certainly here in the UK, with our teeth.

Originally Posted by Andrea

Is "I believe X does not exist" grammatically correct? However I try to translate the two, "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists", to Swedish or Hungarian I get the same sentence. In both cases it starts with "I do not believe..."

I should think it's exactly the kind of subtlety that can be lost in translation very easily. If you're translating, probably the best starting point is to decide which object you want to be taken in the negative: I, or X (shown in bold below) then work from there.

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by Deckard

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"

Um they are the same thing. . . if one does not believe x exists, what, then, do they believe? They believe that x does not exist.

Furthermore. . . if they were not equivalent, then the following would be reasonable. . .

"I do not believe x exists, yet I believe x exists."

You must admit that is foolish, no???

Back to your original contention. . ."I have no belief in God" is different from "I believe there is no God".

Consider the statements "I have no belief in God, yet I believe there is a God" and "I have belief in God, but I believe there is no God" . . . again both are foolish statements.

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Being a dental technician probably involves a certain amount of creativity - certainly here in the UK, with our teeth.

Originally Posted by Deckard

I should think it's exactly the kind of subtlety that can be lost in translation very easily. If you're translating, probably the best starting point is to decide which object you want to be taken in the negative: I, or X (shown in bold below) then work from there.

"I do not believe x exists"

"I believe X does not exist"

So now you understand why this thing "being an Underworld fan" is actually running in my blood.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Underwor.../4/jUemgrazg-U

Language...
I don´t know if I ever gonna understand the difference you describe since the languages I speak on a decent level doesn´t have this subtlety in this case.
It´s just not my mindset. Here is another, less subtile example so you understand what I mean:
In Hungarian if you talk about a third person (she or he) it´s called "ö" ("ö" funnily enough means island in Swedish btw. ) so whenever I get going and talking fast in Swedish about a third person I easily mix the "she said so and so…" or "hi said so and so…" even though I´m totally aware about the difference between the two. It´s just not my mindset to distinguish a male from a female when I´m talking about them in third person.

If you are talking about a third person who is unknown the Swedish s say "X and Y" and the Hungarians say "Y". Does "X" mean the same in English? …just curious.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Um they are the same thing. . .

No they're not. . .

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

. . . if they were not equivalent, then the following would be reasonable. . .

"I do not believe x exists, yet I believe x exists."

You must admit that is foolish, no???

What's foolish is your if/then statement. It doesn't in any way follow.

Once again, two hypotheses, which can each be accepted or rejected:

1) God exists
[ACCEPT] I believe God exists.
[REJECT] I do not believe God exists.

2) God does not exist
[ACCEPT] I believe God does not exist.
[REJECT] I do not believe God does not exist.

Whereas when you say...

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

"I have no belief in God, yet I believe there is a God"

That's a contradiction because you're accepting - then immediately rejecting - the same hypothesis ('God exists'), though you're confusing it unnecessarily by wrapping it around a mere semantic difference - to believe, and to have a belief. (I've not claimed any meaningful difference between 'believing' and 'having a belief'.) So all you've really done is applied one negative to the subject without changing the hypothesis. And the result, inevitably, is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

"I have belief in God, but I believe there is no God".

Ditto, just in reverse.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

if one does not believe x exists, what, then, do they believe?

They can believe anything they like, as long as it's not that 'x exists'.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

...They believe that x does not exist.

No they don't. That would be a different hypothesis. Does a person completely unfamiliar with the concept of x somehow "have a belief" that x does not exist? No of course not. Does a newborn baby believe that God does not exist? Or does s/he simply lack that particular belief? The same applies to anyone who is either undecided about God's existence or feels that, because the posited concept of God lies beyond human reach, then so presumably does the answer. Such people don't have a belief that God exists. But if they're undecided or they think the answer inherently unknowable, then they won't have a belief that God does NOT exist either.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Andrea

If you are talking about a third person who is unknown the Swedish s say "X and Y" and the Hungarians say "Y". Does "X" mean the same in English? …just curious.

X is a lot more abstract in English. I really wish there was a gender-neutral word for when talking about a third person of unknown sex. It always ends up sounding either clumsy ("s/he", "(s)he", "he or she") or a bit wrong (the plural - "they").

[bas_I_am]

Let's first use proper english,

The clause "I have a belief that..." is considered poor grammar. This usage indicates the verb is "to have" and is called "passive construct" as it corrupts the conveyance of the subject's action-"to believe". Other common examples include statements of the sort "I made/took a decision" (I decided), "they took a vacation" (they vacationed) etc...

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply... has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe? Two states... you are in one or the other. Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.

I believe in God... am I without doubt? At times, no. As a matter of fact, sometimes I have great doubt.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

The clause "I have a belief that..." is considered poor grammar. This usage indicates the verb is "to have" and is called "passive construct" as it corrupts the conveyance of the subject's action-"to believe". Other common examples include statements of the sort "I made/took a decision" (I decided), "they took a vacation" (they vacationed) etc...

The grammatical difference between "believing in" and "having a belief in" is not what's at dispute here.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Using your example of an infant, it doesn't apply...

Then that alone proves the two statements do not mean the same thing. You are now forced to accept the axiom that not believing a claim does not mean making an alternate claim. And it's not only the infant to which this applies...

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

has the infant considered the God concept? No... but you have... do you believe or do you not believe?

I remain unconvinced by the theists' hypothesis that God exists, so to answer your question directly, I do not believe. But that is not the same as declaring that "I believe God does not exist". It might mean that I assume or live my life 'as if' God does not exist, but that is different to a firm belief or assertion that 'God does not exist'. If you doubt that, go back to where I covered at length why I refuse to posit a lack of God despite lacking a belief in God.

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Now that I think about it... the infant does not believe in God.

Correct. But notice how you chose not to word it as: "the infant believes that God does not exist". Ask yourself why you chose not to word it that way...

[Andrea]

Originally Posted by Deckard

X is a lot more abstract in English. I really wish there was a gender-neutral word for when talking about a third person of unknown sex. It always ends up sounding either clumsy ("s/he", "(s)he", "he or she") or a bit wrong (the plural - "they").

oh, even the Swedish language is missing a world for a third person with unknown sex so they have to say "she or he"
my question was if "X" means an unknown person/individual solely