the_cave

Ah, I see. Thank you in turn. I think perhaps I was misquoting myself, as I was misunderstanding your protest. In fact, I think I was indeed originally addressing the argument that humans create ethical systems (which you weren't necessarily making...) So, I'd say you were right, in the sense that ethical systems are human.

But I assume you were also protesting associating ethics with, uh, well, God, or any such thing. Which I would not yet concede, so we still disagree. If you say ethical systems are "just human ethics," I guess I'll just disagree and say if there's a God, they're also God's ethics. My point was merely about their universality, which could come entirely from human nature.

Ensign Steve

Thanks, cave. I also want to point out that I edited (added to) that post you quoted, but it was slow-going as the server was being busy. So you may have missed the part at the end where I took back what I said based upon my misunderstanding of your meaning.

the_cave

Ah, and there's the clarification...(I was just editing the reply to get the boldface setting right, but I'll stop now. No, wait--there, it's fixed.) I think we've gotten it straightened out sorry for the semantic confusion.

JubalsCall

Sorry, I haven't posted lately, but it takes time to read everything.

Why do I not believe in Thor or the invisible pink unicorn?

There is absolute no evidence for either(To use the regular response.)
To the "Invisible Pink Unicorn:" If the unicorn was out there, wouldn't we have seen atleast a little proof of it's existence by now like someone running into it, some trees or people just suddenly dissappear(they were ate, I don't know what unicorns eat), and I don't see any foot pinks in the ground that no one can explain.
My reasons for not believing in Thor or an invisible pink unicorn are the same as your reasons for not believing in any dieties.
So you could call me an athiest against Thor and an invisible pink unicorn.

I do not believe in Thor or an invisible pink unicorn.
Also I lack belief that Thor or an invisible pink unicorn exists.

These two statements are the same thing. The word order has changed, but for the most part the meaning has not. I will say one is stronger than the other, but they both say the same thing. When some one "lacks belief" in something. They are saying they do not believe in it. But I it does sound a little weird to say that. May be I really jsut don't understand why you say "lack" instead of "do not." So why do you say that? May be it blew right past me in another post, but I have yet to see any reason that anyone would say "lack" instead of "do not."

Someone also asked me why I care? My answer is I don't really know why I care, but it bothers me that people think there is a difference between the two. Once has more passion in there belief than the other, but that is about it.

I also ask in return why does anyone care if they "lack belief" or they just "do not belief?"
Are you just leaving room open so that if you do die, you might be able to say that you just "lacked belief" in Him, but you never said you "did not believe" in Him?

The only reason I'm really wondering is because it bothers me that people think there is a middle ground on the belief in God and the belief that He is not there.

To the question of believing in god(s) is there any other starting point that you their believe, don't believe, or haven't made up your mind? If so, then what?

Tibbs

sourdough

I was born that way...atheist.

Viti

Jubal, you are still missing the distinction..."I lack belief in X" and "I do not believe in X" are essentially the same. When you say "I believe no X esists" you are making an assertion.

This is the difference between a strong (I believe no X) and weak (I don't believe, I lack belief) atheist.

Biff the unclean

If the unicorn was out there, wouldn't we have seen atleast a little proof of it's existence by now
There is tons and tons of proof, but your lack of faith prevents you from seeing it. If you believed you woud be open minded enough to see it.

like someone running into it, some trees or people just suddenly dissappear(they were ate, I don't know what unicorns eat),
They eat manna from heaven so of course you wouldn't see it.

and I don't see any foot pinks in the ground that no one can explain.
And why would you? This is a strawhorse. The IPU exists on a different spiritual plain from mere humans. How could a mere human with only finite intelligence hope to understand what the IPU does, or why it does it?

I do not believe in Thor or an invisible pink unicorn.
Also I lack belief that Thor or an invisible pink unicorn exists.

These two statements are the same thing.
Have you been to every meadow or woodland glade in the universe? If you had then you would be the IPU, if you haven't then you can't say that there isn't one. If you believe in the IPU you have lost nothing. If you don't believe in it you stand to lose everything. Isn't it wiser then to believe in THE Invisible Pink Unicorn?

But forget about Thor. Thor is just stupid.

James Hamlin

LMAO on that one, Biff.

Ensign Steve

You would say something like that, wouldn't you, Biff? The best trick Thor every played on man was convincing us he didn't exist. But he does exist. In every Hollywood picture. In every heavy metal album. Thor's servants are turing our children away from IPU, and turning them into bunless, cut-weinerd kraut eaters. Let us pray to the IPU for the strength to resist the temptations of Thor. Let us pray for the souls of the aIPUists. Let us pray that they will see the light, and let them realize that in their skepticism and use of logic and science and other such blasphemy, they have been the willing servants of Thor.

Jamie_L

JubalsCall:

I think what you are seeing when some atheists are very nit-picky about how they phrase their lack of belief is a response to a common tactic theists use when arguing with atheists. This tactic is to say: "You, as an atheist, must prove God doesn't exist. You are asserting that God does not exist, and if you can't prove that assertion to be true beyond all doubt, then you must default to the assumption God exists."

This shifting of the burden of proof is common, and it is erroneous in this case. As a response, atheists who do a lot of this kind of arguing have developed a defensive language as a way to identify their position without having to go into lengthy explanations.

As I said, it's a briefer way of saying: "I don't believe your assertiona. You need to prove it to me, otherwise I have no obligation to believe it." It is also a way of saying "if I follow your logic, I must default to believing in everything that I can't prove doesn't exist, from Thor to Santa Claus to the Tooth Fairy to the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage."

You may not actually be trying to shift the burden of proof in this thread, but when you start making detailed statements about what the definition of an atheist is, it feels very much like a prelude to shifting the burden of proof. That's why many folks around here go into "lack of belief" mode.

Jamie