Soul Invictus

CJD,

I concur. I've found myself in a similar quagmire arguing with Goliath over immaterial semantics instead of discussing the heart of the matter.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Invictus, the problem here is simple.

Assuming God/gods don't exist is not the same as believing they don't. Thinking or assuming is not the same as believing. That appears to be the only issue on the Goliath/Soul Invictus front of this debate. "I do not believe (positive statement)" is not the same as "I believe (negative statement)".

As for CJD, you seem to think you have a wonderful argument here, but I have yet to figure out what you are trying to argue. Could you be clearer? What point are you trying to make? All I've seen is you trying to say actions are good indicators of beliefs, and falsely describe non-christian actians as atheistic. Actions aren't good indicators of beliefs- plenty of atheists go to church, hell there are plenty of atheist pastors out there. Plenty of theists ignore church/prayer/etc, but still believe in God. Actions are definitely NOT a good indicator of someone's beliefs. They're a minor indicator, of course- atheists are more likely to act in certain ways...but what point are you trying to make here?

I just don't see where you think it undermines Goliath's position. You say he "lives like an atheist". He IS an atheist! That is his position! That seriously makes no sense. I just have no idea what you're trying to say here.

-B

Mageth

You wrote, "And why does god not factor into the thoughts of an atheist? Because the atheist lacks belief in god(s). Why does god factor into the thoughts of a theist? Because the theist believes in god!"

I totally agree. That was my point. Surely, you have it now.

I also don't see where we disagree, if at all. My argument with Goliath is simple "You live like an atheist. I live like a Christian. It's really that simple. Our actions speak accordingly." How this relates to beliefs or absence of beliefs is not for me to work out. I just think it undermines Goliath's position.

The problem I have is where you leap from "factoring into the thoughts" to "living like". As Bumble Bee Tuna and I have pointed out, how one lives does not necessarily reflect exactly what one believes. Atheism (lacking belief in god(s)), in particular, poses no requirements on how one lives. It doesn't require one not to go to church, not to pray, not to seek moral guidance in the bible or any other religious text, or to do or not do anything else. Atheism has no attached or required moral or ethical values, no required or prohibited behaviors. An atheist lives his or her life according to other guidelines than atheism.

Jamie_L

Didn't take the time to read the whole thread. Forgive me if I'm repeating what others have said.

The problem is that "believe" has many connotations and subtle definitions.

One can say "I believe my car is red."
One can say "I believe God exists."
One can say "I don't believe God exists."

These are all subtle different meanings of "believe". In some sense, atheism can be a "belief". It is not, however, necessarily a belief in the same way that belief in God is a belief.

This same line of reasoning applies to the word "faith".

Jamie

CJD

Invictus, we're here to help.

Bumble Bee Tuna (I simply love that name. It just rolls off the tongue nicely), Please don't mistake my love for writing with my argument. I am having fun, taking myself less seriously (as we all ought to do), and you might be getting that confused with my argument. Look, I cannot spell it out for Goliath. If I do, he will yell at me with 16 point font or something. I want him to connect the dots. Your pointing out the obvious (as with Mageth) is moot. No one denies those things. But follow this: if an atheist does go to church (or is a pastor), he/she must never really believe in what he/she is doing, because they would then cease being an atheist. Because, as you well know, an atheist is, by definition, one who disbelieves in the existence of a God, or is not yet convinced that a God exists. In such cases, their actions are not good indicators of their beliefs. But if they were honest, would their actions then be good indicators? Do you see where this undermines Goliath's argument that atheism is not a belief? (cringing, waiting for Goliath's 16-point comeback). Can someone else explain this to Goliath so that he doesn't need to face correction from a theist?

Which is more plausible, stopping at a red light because you hold a belief that it means "stop;" or stopping at a red light with no apparent beliefs on the subject whatsoever?

Mageth: " . . . how one lives does not necessarily reflect exactly what one believes." Well, you can add me to that list, too. We have no disagreement there. My problem with your thought is couched in this tiny phrase: "Atheism [has] no required or prohibited behaviors." What would you call an atheist who sincerely prays to the God of the bible, goes to church, and tests his/her actions against the ethical standards in Scripture. That's right! A theist! (gasp!). We are starting to beat a dead horse here . . . .

CJD

p.s. Jamie, sounds good to me. Belief, certainty, faith, etc., all fall on the same continuum—it's just a matter of where.

Starboy

CJD I guess it all depends on what you mean by the word believe.

Starboy

Mageth

What would you call an atheist who sincerely prays to the God of the bible, goes to church, and tests his/her actions against the ethical standards in Scripture. That's right! A theist! (gasp!). We are starting to beat a dead horse here . . . .

Well, I wouldn't call them an atheist at all if they prayed thinking there was really a god they were praying to; of course not. But there are examples of atheistic priests that lack belief in a "biblical", personified god-creator, believe Jesus was a man and a teacher and not a god, and that regularly, and obviously, attend church, see to their flock, lead services, read from the bible, lead the congregation in prayers, and test their actions against the ethical standards in Scripture. What would I call them? Atheists. And there's no Atheist Committe that's gonna pull their Genuine Atheist card for doing so.

The "dead horse" is the idea that the actions reliably indicate the beliefs. They do not. You gotta ask someone to find out what they really believe, and hope for an honest answer.

Bumble Bee Tuna

No.

I honestly have no idea where you are coming up with that. What does actions correlating with beliefs have to do with atheism being a belief? Absolutely nothing.

-B

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

The enlarged text was for emphasis.

Incorrect. You asserted that I believed that no gods exist, when in fact, I hold no such belief.

Correct. I do not believe that any gods exist.

Absolutely wrong! It means that when asked the question "Do you believe that any gods exist?" My answer is "no." You're assuming that I've reached a conclusion about the non-existence of gods, when in fact I have reached no such conclusion. This is because I hold no beliefs regarding the existence of gods.

Almost correct--I do not believe that no gods exist.

Correct. I will believe in a god's existence if and only if a proof is given of said god's existence.

Because you apparently do not understand the difference between holding a belief and not holding a belief.

This definition is incorrect. As an aside, there are dictionaries that include the (correct) distinctions between weak and strong atheism, and there are many more dictionaries that define atheism as wickedness. This is why I don't put any stock whatsoever in dictionary definitions when it comes to any debate about atheism and/or religion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS In about 90 minutes, I'm going to be leaving Fargo for the summer. I'll only have limited access to the internet, so if you reply to this, it may be awhile before I respond.

Goliath

Bumble Bee Tuna,

Hurray! At least one person reading this post realizes that there is a difference between holding a belief and not holding a belief!

For the life of me, I'll never be able to figure this out, either.

Sincerely,

Goliath