diz

" @diz: I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse or not. Regardless, I'm willing to accept that analogies just don't work for you, so I'll drop it. 
 

"I'm saying that an absence of a belief in Gods would not be true, since there would be a belief of some sort about the nature of Gods." 

  
This demonstrates where our disconnect is, I think. We're not talking about beliefs about the concept of Gods, or their properties. We're talking about belief as regards the existence of Gods. For an atheist, that simply means understanding the properties of Gods as described by theists. This isn't a belief issue, since the atheist doesn't believe anything about the properties of Gods. An atheist knows how theists describe Gods, and the atheist doesn't believe that such things exist. That doesn't mean the atheist believes the universe is bereft of Gods. 
 
To define belief, it's just a conviction that something is true, regardless of or despite a lack of evidence. It's not something youc an put a percentage on, but I'd think of it more like a digital property. You either believe something or you don't. Belief in the existence of God(s) = 1 or = 0. There is no Belief in the existence of God(s) = 0.4.  
 

"I see the claim that "atheism is not a belief, but the default state of being", as suggested, as being a totally conceited and unhelpful statement. I don't think I've heard this claim made by anyone else than some select atheists only. If it were not for theism, there would be no opposing state and atheism would not exist." 

 How is it conceited? True: if it were not for theism then atheism wouldn't exist. I don't see how that supports your argument or how that makes the understanding in question, that atheism is the default state, conceited or unhelpful. I think it's very helpful in understanding rights as pertain to religious freedom. Understanding the default state then helps one know when rights are being violated. "

" @diz said: 

I don't think I misread it. I think you mis-wrote it. You wrote "not collecting stamps IS a hobby". Please do continue to omit key words from your posts, while chastising other for your own mistakes, for your best chances of being understood!  You could say that Mano has an absence of belief in Gods - without using double-negatives. Are you saying that you read Mano statement as a rhetorical statement? But I know that the absence of belief in Gods would not be true, since they'd have at least some knowledge of Gods from which to form their beliefs. If those beliefs were unresolved, I can understand that too (not as a absence though!)  "

Now you're cherry picking. The analogy is supposed to use a sarcastic tone to make the point. My original statement:  "The classic analogies are that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby, or like baldness is a hair color."  It's like someone saying "if x is y, then my ass is a banjo." Obviously the speaker's ass isn't a banjo, and x is not y. Not collecting stamps is obviously not a hobby. Not believing in god(s) is not a belief.  Atheism (not believing in god) is not a belief. Clear? If it isn't, the only other thing I can think of to try to convince you involves symbolic logic. Are you familiar with that?  Yes, you can say mano521 (or anyone) has an absence of belief in god(s) without a double-negative. It seems impossible to explain that the direct opposite is not automatically the case, though.   Anyway, I don't understand your claim that "[you] know that the absence of belief in Gods would not be true, since they'd have at least some knowledge of Gods from which to form their beliefs." I think I understand you in so far as you're saying that by virtue of knowing about something (God in this case), the person either believes that the thing exists or believes that it doesn't. What I don't understand is why you think it has to be one or the other. Why can't it be that the user lacks either belief? "

i do understand that you must believe that there is absolutely no god. and i respect that you have gone to such lengths as to make an atheist wedding and funeral. that actually sounds very nice. The broad term atheism does encompass a lot, and it shouldnt be demeaning to you. you take your atheism to a higher level than I. but i am just stating that you do not need to believe there are no gods to be an atheist. And i know im getting into technicalities when i say babies and ignorant people are atheists. and that was basically the point i was trying to make in the very beginning.  I do have a belief. but not on whether gods exist or not. i only believe that people must show more proof as to what they claim, or else i wont believe them. which technically makes me an atheist. i have no belief in gods. My knowledge on gods and the bible shows to me that there is not enough hard evidence to be found to prove god. that is all. that does not mean there isnt one, and i recognize that. You claim that there are no gods. that is a belief. i do not share that belief. i cannot say with all certainty that there arent any gods. my knowledge of religion hasnt brought me to a conclusion about religion, but a conclusion about the lack of evidence for it. i cannot just write it off as entirely false, but i sure as hell wont let it run my life.  I can see how your thoughts on there being no gods may have skewed your definition of atheism. but you must recognize that people dont want to make that leap because that is a very hard thing to defend. i am interested on how you got to your conclusion that there are no gods, because i havent looked into that side of the argument. mostly just the side claiming there are gods.  anyways the definition of atheism itself, which is a lack of belief in god, is not a belief. The lack of something does not make another thing. it is just nothing. There are parts of atheism, which you fall under, that hold the belief that there are no gods. i do not fall under that part of atheism.  as for you true / false statement, that is incorrect. i never said that religion was not true. i am saying that it does not have enough evidence for me to believe it is true. again, not thinking something is true does not inherently mean that you think it is false. there is a middle ground. skepticism. there should be proof shown for either side.   also the entire thing that Burzmail said was "  are that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby, or like bald is a hair color." he is using an analogy proving that atheism is not a belief. Lack of things are not also things "lack of hair is not hair" "not having a hobby is not a hobby" "Not having a belief is not a belief" understand? "

" @diz said:

" @Burzmali said:

" @diz: Sorry to butt in, but you're mistaken on at least two points in your post. First, atheism is not a belief. The classic analogies are that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby, or like bald is a hair color. Second, a double negative doesn't automatically resolve to a true statement. You should look up the types of double negatives that appear in language before going any further with that point.  "

Collecting stamps is a hobby. Baldness is not a hair colour. Those "classic" analogies don't seem to work.  When you talk of double-negatives not automatically resolving, are you speaking of litotes or rhetoric? Do these structures have any place in a simple declaration of belief? Why not enlighten me on what you think the offending statement means? "

I think you misread what I wrote. Atheism is not a belief, just like baldness is not a hair color. No belief = atheism. No hair = baldness. That's the point of the analogy. And I wrote"not  collecting stamps." As in, atheism is not a belief just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Is this why mano521 isn't getting through to you? Are you reading his posts correctly?  Regarding double negatives, litotes are part of rhetoric, so I don't really understand your question there. What I was talking about is the fact that a double negative can resolve to a positive or negative statement. In this case, mano521 is saying he disbelieves in gods. You seem to be looking at this like the only way to disbelieve something is to believe the opposite, but that's not how things work in reality. Disbelief in god is not the same as believing there is no god. There is a middle position of not believing one way or the other. That's what mano521 is getting at: he doesn't believe in gods. He doesn't believe that there are no gods. There is no way, that I can find, to make the second statement without a double negative.   "

It is not demeaning to take the definition of the word atheism and use it in the broadest sense. The fact is that the unthinking and the ignorant do not have belief, putting them under the category atheists. 
 
I do not have a belief in the matter of gods. i lack belief in gods. If i do not believe in gods, and i also do not believe there are none, then where would you say my beliefs lie on the matter? there is no middle ground on an either or statement. That is like saying that not playing hockey is a sport. 
 
By house i mean like just a plain old house. On the spot, once you heard that i said this, you would either have had to believe in me or be skeptical and not believe me. But another fact is that before i told you, you do not have belief in my house in space. i havent even told you about it.  so there was no belief to begin with. making you A"space-houseist" chances are that you still wont believe me until i give you evidence, but you can acknowledge that it could be true.
 
You arent using your double negatives correctly. i can see how you would think that the opposite of "i dont outright believe that there are no gods" means "i believe in gods" but it does not work that way. just because you have a double negative does not necessarily change into a true statement. Lackin belief, which is the definition of atheism, does not automatically mean asserting something is false. just because i think something isnt true, does not mean that i think it is false. I cannot disprove god, but i had no beliefs in it to begin with. it is up to others to prove it to me.  until then i can acknowledge that it could be true, but until then, i do not hold belief in their claim. this also does not mean i believe the opposite. i hold no beliefs in the matter. but this places me under atheism 
  
I got into atheism maybe 3 years ago hardcore, and starting doing research on it. while i did this i came across this guy who helped shaped what my thoughts on what atheism is. 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HNPFUoJvGA that is only one part to a lot of videos that i recommend you watch. because this guy can explain it a lot better than i can  "

" @diz: Sorry to butt in, but you're mistaken on at least two points in your post. First, atheism is not a belief. The classic analogies are that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby, or like bald is a hair color. Second, a double negative doesn't automatically resolve to a true statement. You should look up the types of double negatives that appear in language before going any further with that point.  "

I never new that about Nigel Mansell...

" @diz: my particular disbelief has come about from knowing what gods are. true. but i am saying that lacking belief in something does not require knowledge. it is simply the lack of belief in something. i do not have a belief on the matter of god, i just lack the belief in one. if i were to say that i believe there are no gods, then it would be a belief. i dont think atheism, as i think it is defined, is a belief at all. 
i do realize me using the evolution theory was a mistake. i should have gone with a simpler example. say i was to tell you that there was a house in the depths of space. You would flat out say, no there isnt. but you couldnt possibly prove this. so the most logical thing to do is say i dont believe you. i cant say that there isnt, but because you are making the claim, you should provide proof or evidence. until then, i do not have belief in what you are saying. now replace the house in space with god. the latter answer would be an agnostic atheists answer, such as myself. 
"  I'm worried by your declaration of agnostic atheists not having enough evidence. I think you miss the point entirely."   You saying this shows to me that we have had a huuuge miscommunication and that we should start anew or something, because that is not at all what i have been trying to say. 
as for whether or not i think people can neither believe or disbelieve something, i think yes. but i also think that people can only have belief in something, or lack it. lacking belief in god is atheism in its broadest sense.  
"  " do not outright believe that there are no gods. but i lack the belief in one". When you've removed the double negative, you're left with a contradiction" 
there are no contradictions. it is simple. i lack belief in a god. i do not claim that there are no gods, nor do i claim that there is one. i say show me proof. 
 i do think that this is getting circular because you seem to misinterpret what i tried to get across, which could have been my fault. and for the sake of getting each others points across, i think it would be best to start fresh 
@lazyturtle: @doublezeroduck:  i realize now that i used the theory of evolution wrongly, as it has substantial evidence to support it. i should have used a different example and would like to say i accept Evolution as a fact. just in case that isnt clear haha "

i was merely stating that my way of thinking was the common form of atheism. i never expected you to take it as proof for my case nor did i mean it to be proof. i was just throwing that out there. sorry for the confusion.  i find it confusing however that you cannot grasp what i am trying to say here. my point of view, as it always has been, is that i do not believe in gods. that is NOT to say that i believe there are no gods. I call myself atheist because i am without belief.  Any person who is without belief in theism, whether they have heard of it or not, would be considered an atheist. This is SOLELY because atheism is the lack of belief in god. I never actively deny they exist. I merely say that there is not enough evidence to prove their existence. so why believe in it? You seem to not be able to grasp that my point of view on the definition of atheism comes from the word itself.  A ( WITHOUT) Theism (BELIEF IN GOD/s)  it is not hard to understand this. I understand that absolute knowledge and belief are two different things, BUT they are related in a very important way. You can claim you believe in something without absolute knowledge. For example, evolution is a theory, an extremely strong theory, but a theory nonetheless. we dont know for certain that it is true, but we believe it is true. Same with god. People can believe in god, while not knowing one actually exists. That is an agnostic theist, which requires a leap of faith. You can have your gnostic atheists, who claim that they know there are no gods. Then there are agnostic atheists, who do not claim there are no gods, but do not believe in them merely because there is not enough evidence. People either believe in something, or they do not have belief in it. Belief is either there, or its not. its an extremely simple concept. Ignorance on the subject doesnt matter. They do not know about something, so they dont have belief in it.     you must have missed the point of me singling out that one passage from that website. it is because you dont understand the fact that there is a difference between disbelief in god and believing that there are no gods. both fall under atheism. unless agnostics (the kind that started this whole discussion) believe in god, they are atheists. Atheism encompasses those who are without belief and those who believe that there is no god. at least a god or gods as defined by all the religions we have encountered  I never imposed the claim that gods dont exists towards agnostics. when agnostic atheists differentiate themselves from atheism, i merely state that by not believing in a god, you are apart of the broad term "atheism". atheism as a whole is not a belief. the lack of a belief is not a belief in itself unless you take the exact opposite stance. I am not a strange atheist at all. i just use a broad definition of atheism "

" @diz:   They're not excuses or generalizations.  I was brief because I didn't want to dedicate entire paragraphs to them, but I certainly can.  Literal days:  It is clear that the days of creation were not literal 24-hour days because a day isn't even 24 hours long.  It's currently 23 hours and 56 minutes.  Semantics?  Not at all.  The day used to be shorter, and it continues to lengthen--due to the gravitational force exerted on the Earth from the moon.  Since a day is not defined by a predetermined length, it must then be defined by the Earth's axis--or in the eyes of the ancient Hebrews, the movement of the sun.  This is evidenced in how the author of Genesis denotes the passage of days:  "And there was evening, and there was the morning, the second day."  The Bible clearly states that the sun was not created until the fourth day, making it impossible for modern readers to conclude that the days of creation were literal days.  Genealogies:  Fundamentalist Christians who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old or less are relying on the antiquated conclusions of philosophers and theologians from hundreds of years ago.  The figure of 5,700-10,000 years ago comes from adding up all the years between the generations from Adam to Abraham, and then from Abraham to Jesus, and then from Jesus to today.  However, this method is based upon two obvious conclusions:  that the days of creation were literal days (which we've proven to be false), and that all these genealogies are complete.  In Hebrew culture, genealogies are not meant to be an exact historical account, but to establish credibility and legitimacy by highlighting your ancestors.  Not all names are required for this task, thus only important names are listed.  Often, different family members are listed depending on audience and purpose.  The genealogies of Jesus highlight this perfectly.  The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain varying genealogies of Jesus, which Luke's being more complete--with 77 entries compared to Matthew's 42.  The different genealogies highlight different people in Jesus's family tree because their audiences were radically different.  Matthew was addressing Jews, and Luke was addressing (mostly Greek) Gentiles.  Different names meant different things to these people, and the genealogy was listed so that both groups would see Jesus's claims of being the Messiah as legitimate and in concordance with Old Testament prophecies.  Mark 13:  I brought up Mark 13: 28-31 as example of how taking all Scripture literally makes Jesus a false prophet.  Here, Jesus describes the end of the age and warns His followers that "this generation will not surely pass until these things have happened."  Well, that generation passed and the world didn't end.  I guess that makes Jesus wrong, hm?  Again, no.  Jesus is using Old Testament language ("people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory ") to describe God's judgment upon the nation of Israel.  Jesus is referring to the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD, not the end of the world.  This is just an example of how it is not Christian doctrine to take all Scripture literally at all times, because doing so would make Jesus a false prophet.  As for Scripture that is "ignored," you are referring to Levitical Law, which children of God are no longer bound to.  In Christ, there is a new covenant with God for the forgiveness of sins.  This is, in part, what the Bible tells us when it says "The old is gone, the new has come."  It isn't ignored, but it isn't followed...because we don't have to anymore.  To follow Levitical Law tramples the work done on the Cross, and states that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to forgive sin.  As for science and religion, they're not mutually exclusive.  Science explains God's creation.  Science only conflicts with a wooden, hyper-literal interpretation of Scripture--an interpretation that isn't even logically sound on its own, let alone with modern science to attack it.  Determining what to take literally and what to take figuratively takes knowledge of authorship, historical context, intent, audience, and genre.  The Bible is filled with a variety of genres:  history, narrative, poetry, prophecy, letters, and essays.  It's not picking and choosing what to believe, it's being logical and reasonable in regard to the Word of God. "