'There Is No God', or 'I Believe There Is No God'?

[FaithIsFilth]

Not a god then.

I'd certainly consider it to be a/ the god. If the first thing to have ever existed, was a thinking being who then created everything else, to me that's God, no matter how shitty it was at creation. Actually, now that I think about it, it probably would make more sense that God would not be the best at creating stuff, because God had no one to teach him how to create. He would have been self taught. He would have had to wing it, so we should expect there to be mistakes. If you go by the definition that most Christians, Muslims, etc. go with, then yes, that wouldn't be the god that they believe in, who is described as a perfect being.

[GSOgymrat]

Yeah, but if you said that Zeus is a fictional character or that unicorns don't exist, no one would ask for evidence of this assertion.  This requirement to disprove the belief stems entirely from the popularity of the belief.

The majority of people do not believe, and have never believed, Zeus is real or unicorns exist. Humans throughout history in almost all cultures have believed in gods. God(s) in some form is a very persistent belief. To make as a statement of fact that there is no god, there has never been any kind of god and that almost everyone throughout history has been wrong is what I would consider an extrodinary claim, particularly when belief in gods is typically not based on evidence or logic. 

I do not believe in god because I have no subjective experience of god and therefore require compelling evidence or a rational explanation of why such a thing exists. Theists have a subjective experience of god, and/or believe based on faith alone, and/or have poor rationales for believing in god-- none of which persuade me to change my belief. I'm not claiming "There is no god", I'm not telling every religious person on the planet "I am right, you are wrong", but saying "I believe there is no god" and for me to change my believe I need to be persuaded.

A woman looks at an abstract painting and sees a unicorn. I look at the same painting and only see colorful geometric shapes. I believe she sees a unicorn, I'm not going to tell her she is wrong, only that I sincerely don't see it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd certainly consider it to be a/ the god. If the first thing to have ever existed, was a thinking being who then created everything else, to me that's God, no matter how shitty it was at creation. Actually, now that I think about it, it probably would make more sense that God would not be the best at creating stuff, because God had no one to teach him how to create. He would have been self taught. He would have had to wing it, so we should expect there to be mistakes. If you go by the definition that most Christians, Muslims, etc. go with, then yes, that wouldn't be the god that they believe in, who is described as a perfect being.

Sounds like the godhead is getting grey and going bald.

[Kaleb5000]

I would say you would be correct in saying " you don't believe there is a god" because if you made the statement " there is no God" then you would have to be all knowing and we know you are not that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike Cl]

You and I are fictional characters, and not just on this site.  You are an unnamed actor playing the part of Mike, and I am the same or different actor playing the part of Baruch.  Unlike the morons of the West, the Hindus address this.  It is called atman vs brahman.  Your atman is your soul, but that is not your ego.  Your ego is the part you play, which you mostly ad lib.  Atman is who is playing that part.  In theory at least, all the many atmans are one, and are one person, called the brahman ... not the same as the Hindu god Brahman.  Even if you are completely convinced you are Mike (the guy behind your postings as your alter ego here ... you are just deluded as much as any believer).  You believe that your ego is you ... but if you have enough skepticism about that ... then you are on your way beyond where you are now.

I quite disagree.  I do exist.  You can see me and touch me (but be careful where and how :).  You can prove I exist--I have a birth certificate and I'm not from Kenya.  I am aware of the ego and the other various parts of my personality.  Emotion/reason is always in play and are in constant battle.  Therefore, I may act one way today and another way tomorrow; both from what I've learned and from the outcome of the emotional/reason battle. 

All god(s) are fiction.  That, as far as I'm concerned, has been proven beyond a doubt.  Just because most people believe something (god exists) does not make it true.  Great faith and belief does not turn a belief into a fact.  And it matters not how sincere you are.  So, when I hear the phrase--He is a man of great and sincere faith.---I just think this guy is exceptionally blindly stupid and willfully ignorant.  A fiction is a fiction--something or someone based on imagination and nothing else; fiction can never be fact.  I don't care how deeply your yearning is for there to be a god--it is still a fiction and shall remain so for the rest of time.

[Hydra009]

I do not believe in god because I have no subjective experience of god and therefore require compelling evidence or a rational explanation of why such a thing exists. Theists have a subjective experience of god, and/or believe based on faith alone, and/or have poor rationales for believing in god-- none of which persuade me to change my belief. I'm not claiming "There is no god", I'm not telling every religious person on the planet "I am right, you are wrong", but saying "I believe there is no god" and for me to change my believe I need to be persuaded.

Isn't public disbelief and arguing against the idea a pretty good indicator that you do in fact think the belief is wrong?  You might not explicitly say that they're wrong, but you give every indication that you think they're wrong.

Let's say you go to a village and they revere some Naga Queen.  Everyone buys into it.  They try to proselytize to you but you're not won over.  You point out contradictions in their holy text, take exceptions to some especially dubious claims associated with their religion, and generally regard the blind devotion that they show this being as antithetical to modern values of reason and skepticism.  They're predictably pretty upset about this condemnation.  Hostile, even.

Sensing a violent confrontation, you say that the following: "I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't buy into this at all.  I think it's irrational.  I think your holy text was written by people without any sort of divine guidance.  I've heard your stories and I don't personally give them any sort of credence.  I'm not scared of this alleged curse of the Naga Queen on nonbelievers.  I don't anticipate any coming Age of Snakes.  I don't view the new moon as holy.  I don't believe any of that stuff, but I'm not saying you're wrong."

Do you think this position would be regarded as substantively different from the position of a person who claims that the Naga Queen doesn't exist?

A woman looks at an abstract painting and sees a unicorn. I look at the same painting and only see colorful geometric shapes. I believe she sees a unicorn, I'm not going to tell her she is wrong, only that I sincerely don't see it.

The meaning of an abstract painting is necessarily subjective.  A more true to life example would be a mountain spring that people claim heals the ailments, ranging from the common cold to cancer.  Empirical data doesn't bear that out, but people swear by the stuff.  Can I tell them they're wrong?  Of course.

[GSOgymrat]

Isn't public disbelief and arguing against the idea a pretty good indicator that you do in fact think the belief is wrong?  You might not explicitly say that they're wrong, but you give every indication that you think they're wrong.

Let's say you go to a village and they revere some Naga Queen.  Everyone buys into it.  They try to proselytize to you but you're not won over.  You point out contradictions in their holy text, take exceptions to some especially dubious claims associated with their religion, and generally regard the blind devotion that they show this being as antithetical to modern values of reason and skepticism.  They're predictably pretty upset about this condemnation.  Hostile, even.

Sensing a violent confrontation, you say that the following: "I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't buy into this at all.  I think it's irrational.  I think your holy text was written by people without any sort of divine guidance.  I've heard your stories and I don't personally give them any sort of credence.  I'm not scared of this alleged curse of the Naga Queen on nonbelievers.  I don't anticipate any coming Age of Snakes.  I don't view the new moon as holy.  I don't believe any of that stuff, but I'm not saying you're wrong."

Do you think this position would be regarded as substantively different from the position of a person who claims that the Naga Queen doesn't exist?

Perhaps the distinction has to do with level of certainty. If everyone around me agrees that Naga Queen exists and I am the one person who doesn't get it I'm going to question my own perception or interpretation of events.

[Baruch]

Sounds like the godhead is getting grey and going bald.

That is how the Canaanites described El ... a doddering fool, not respectful to grandfathers anywhere.  That is why they went with the dying/rising young male god, Ba'al ... as eventually did the Christians (but not Jews or Muslims, who are actual cousins). Also Ba'al usually had the same powers as Zeus ... so important for rain, thunder and lightning.  El was on Medicare, since the beginning of time.

GSOgymrat ... another fallacy?  Argument from unpopularity?  The atomic hypothesis was unpopular for most of history, until the early 20th century.  Though by original definition, it was also shown at that time, that atoms are composite, not simple, can be cut ... so Greek atoms do not exist, just the kidnapping of a Greek term slapped onto modern atomic theory ... and Zeon's paradox still stings ... hence the desire to prove planck lengh as a minimum distance/time.

[Baruch]

Not a god then.

Classic strawman .... too bad that fallacy is so popular with the rational.  Create an Greek ideal metaphysical god ... and slap self on back when it doesn't exist (except as a concept of course).

Mike ... you and I are not real.  Krishna is the only reality, and you and I and every other being, are merely Krishna using the Internet (which as creator he is responsible for ... not Al Gore) ... because Krishna likes to spam and troll himself ... and other more personal things I can't mention ;-)  Being a method actor, Krishna gets into all his roles, and forgets he is Krishna. 

[Baruch]

Perhaps the distinction has to do with level of certainty. If everyone around me agrees that Naga Queen exists and I am the one person who doesn't get it I'm going to question my own perception or interpretation of events.

Go visit Nagaland in E India then.  In some places, you will be the only one who disbelieves ;-)  And yes, in ancient times most Greeks believed in Zeus, were not as cynical as the Roman government ... and this is why they executed Socrates.  Disbelieving that the Emperor was god incarnate ... would also get you executed.

[Mike Cl]

[quote author=Baruch link=topic=10665.msg1146708#msg1146708 date=1473080493

Mike ... you and I are not real.  Krishna is the only reality, and you and I and every other being, are merely Krishna using the Internet (which as creator he is responsible for ... not Al Gore) ... because Krishna likes to spam and troll himself ... and other more personal things I can't mention ;-)  Being a method actor, Krishna gets into all his roles, and forgets he is Krishna.
[/quote]
Okay.  But even if I'm a simulation being run from on high, I bleed when I cut myself with a knife or I hurt when I hit my fingers with a hammer.  As far as I know, I've not seen or heard Krishna do anything.  So, in your world Krishna may be the reality, but not in mine.  Krishna is and always will be, a fiction.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Classic strawman .... too bad that fallacy is so popular with the rational.  Create an Greek ideal metaphysical god ... and slap self on back when it doesn't exist (except as a concept of course).

Making less sense than normal, guy.

[Hydra009]

Perhaps the distinction has to do with level of certainty. If everyone around me agrees that Naga Queen exists and I am the one person who doesn't get it I'm going to question my own perception or interpretation of events.

Exactly the point I made earlier.  The distinction in the title is purely a function of popularity.  For extinct or obscure cults, you can freely say that they're wrong.  For more popular cults, nonbelievers are pushed to publicly eschewing their beliefs while privately believing (but rarely/never voicing) that they're wrong.

[SGOS]

I just say, "I don't believe in God," and that's about all the information people are equipped to handle.  There's really not much need to nail down my levels of certainty or whether I'm a strong, weak, or agnostic atheist.  I just don't believe in God.  People in this forum might ask for more information to clarify the specifics, but in the real world, it doesn't make much difference how you state your position, because people are going to make their own opinions about whatever they think it was that you just said, and they will run with that, even if you said something else entirely.

[Baruch]

High-tech-philia.  Technies want to be Holodeck simulations, so that they can possibly find the cheat codes and change reality or otherwise live forever.  It is a high tech wishing-tree.  But something low tech like the Gita ... not possible!