Talk Elections

General Politics => Individual Politics => Topic started by: MaC on July 21, 2005, 01:41:02 PM



Title: Religion and Morality
Post by: MaC on July 21, 2005, 01:41:02 PM
option 2 for me.  I think disagreeing with the political compass question is BS.  I was brought up in a good house, know the rules, don't steal, don't kill, yet I don't believe in any organized religion.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 21, 2005, 01:42:50 PM
Option 2.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Emsworth on July 21, 2005, 01:45:42 PM
A hybrid of option 2 and option 4. My "moral system" is not a set of absolute determinations of rightness and wrongness, but is instead a mixture of the law and my own completely arbitrary principles.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KillerPollo on July 21, 2005, 01:55:32 PM
Option 1


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Speed of Sound on July 21, 2005, 02:06:41 PM
option 1


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Nym90 on July 21, 2005, 02:56:33 PM
Option 1, though I'm not particularly fond of organized religion.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Gabu on July 21, 2005, 05:23:14 PM
Option 1, though I'm not particularly fond of organized religion.

Don't have much to add to this response. :)


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 21, 2005, 05:35:27 PM
Suprisingly enough... option 1


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: nclib on July 21, 2005, 08:26:51 PM
Option 2.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KillerPollo on July 21, 2005, 08:30:57 PM
I knew it, I'm surrounded by seculars!


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KEmperor on July 21, 2005, 08:34:49 PM
My moral system is not based on fantasy.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: opebo on July 21, 2005, 09:32:30 PM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 21, 2005, 09:33:47 PM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Cubby on July 21, 2005, 09:47:08 PM
Option 2

If organized religion hadn't been hijacked since the 1970's by crazy psycho evangel-fundiment blah blah blahs like Dobson and Falwell, then maybe I'd go to church. That doesn't mean secular types don't have morals, we do.

The current trend in this country towards evangelimentalism or whatever you call that garbage will eventually be seen as a Salem Witch trial-hysteria type process that unfortunately has lasted for many years now.



Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KillerPollo on July 21, 2005, 09:48:58 PM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?
Opebo just got schooled in the John Dibble Academy!


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 21, 2005, 11:12:36 PM
option 1


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KillerPollo on July 21, 2005, 11:12:58 PM
You're surprising!


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 21, 2005, 11:17:04 PM

why?


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KillerPollo on July 22, 2005, 11:57:29 AM
cause you're like making all those dumb strip club and hot communist rebel threads...


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: MaC on July 22, 2005, 08:56:13 PM

that doesn't make him nonreligous, that just makes him sex crazed.  Communism I don't undestand in the least his support for since it calls for a mandatory repeal of all religion.  I don't doubt that he is "a religious"   :P

HAPPY 2000! 


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: KillerPollo on July 22, 2005, 09:05:10 PM
()

HOT COMMUNIST REBEL OOOH YESSS!!


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Alcon on July 22, 2005, 10:20:14 PM

That woman really needs to increase her resolution a bit...she's looking a little 8-bit... :D


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 08:26:55 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief. I do agree with Opebo that there is not an objective morality and that it is a purely subjective issue, but not on religious belief being a mental disorder.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 10:49:41 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Bono on July 23, 2005, 11:01:47 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 11:04:46 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Bono on July 23, 2005, 11:06:56 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Those are acessory beliefs.
Atheism simply means that one belives there is no God(s).
the rest may come in addiction.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 11:17:13 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Those are acessory beliefs.
Atheism simply means that one belives there is no God(s).
the rest may come in addiction.

Well, having just done some reading, your claim on Buddhism and Jainism having no gods isn't true anyways - I believe what they deny is a supreme creator God(big G), but there are numerous smaller gods.

Buddhism just doesn't have an explicit God(though some variations worship Buddha as one), though they don't deny the existence of gods either - so really they are more agnostic than atheist.

On Jainism http://www.angelfire.com/co/jainism/jaingods.html

Quote
When a living being destroys all his karmas, he possesses perfect knowledge, vision, power, and bliss. He becomes omniscient and omnipotent. This living being is a God of Jain religion. Hence Jains do not believe in one God. Gods in Jain religion are innumerable and the number is continuously increasing as more living beings attain liberation. Every living being has a potential to become God of the Jain religion.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Bono on July 23, 2005, 11:18:35 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

exactly. for instance, Budhism and Jainism don't aknowledge the existace of God(s) [not as a supreme being, anyways].

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Those are acessory beliefs.
Atheism simply means that one belives there is no God(s).
the rest may come in addiction.

Well, having just done some reading, your claim on Buddhism and Jainism having no gods isn't true anyways - I believe what they deny is a supreme creator God(big G), but there are numerous smaller gods.

Buddhism just doesn't have an explicit God(though some variations worship Buddha as one), though they don't deny the existence of gods either - so really they are more agnostic than atheist.

On Jainism http://www.angelfire.com/co/jainism/jaingods.html

Quote
When a living being destroys all his karmas, he possesses perfect knowledge, vision, power, and bliss. He becomes omniscient and omnipotent. This living being is a God of Jain religion. Hence Jains do not believe in one God. Gods in Jain religion are innumerable and the number is continuously increasing as more living beings attain liberation. Every living being has a potential to become God of the Jain religion.

I got to that page too, and altough I can't atm think of any link against that, what they refer to as gods, unless my book is wrong, is really freed souls, a similar state at what budhism calls Nirvana.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 11:19:12 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 11:26:13 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Bono on July 23, 2005, 11:27:34 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

A religious belief is a belief in something that is out of the observable bounds.
The existance or non-existance of God is scientificaly unobservable, so it can only be debated on philosophical terms.n
Where was I going with this?


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 11:31:16 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Bono on July 23, 2005, 11:34:58 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

No, because that's in the realm of the observable.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 11:43:28 AM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

No, because that's in the realm of the observable.

So as long as it is in the realm of the unobservable, I can make whatever claim I wish and it is up to those who doubt to disprove it? I'm a gonna go and have some fun!

Oh and still by your definition of religious belief atheism isn't a belief structure as there is no belief in something out of the observable bounds, if you want to say there is a belief, it is a belief that there are no unobservable bounds so by your logic still cannot be considered a religious belief.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Emsworth on July 23, 2005, 01:45:39 PM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

No, because that's in the realm of the observable.

So as long as it is in the realm of the unobservable, I can make whatever claim I wish and it is up to those who doubt to disprove it? I'm a gonna go and have some fun!
I agree with JFK. I could, for example, that these unicorns at the North Pole are invisible, inaudible, etc. Does that suddenly make my claim of their existence valid?

Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. It is not a positive belief system in and of itself (although so-called "gnostic atheism" or "strong atheism" is). A lack of belief in a god is perfectly harmonious with reason, and are logically concordant with Occam's razor.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Bono on July 23, 2005, 01:51:54 PM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

No, because that's in the realm of the observable.

So as long as it is in the realm of the unobservable, I can make whatever claim I wish and it is up to those who doubt to disprove it? I'm a gonna go and have some fun!
I agree with JFK. I could, for example, that these unicorns at the North Pole are invisible, inaudible, etc. Does that suddenly make my claim of their existence valid?

Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. It is not a positive belief system in and of itself (although so-called "gnostic atheism" or "strong atheism" is). A lack of belief in a god is perfectly harmonious with reason, and are logically concordant with Occam's razor.

The explanation that requires less assumptions for teh origin of the unvierse is that a supreme being created it. You can ask Muon about that, the Big Bang requires a lot of assumptions.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 02:03:05 PM
'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

No, because that's in the realm of the observable.

So as long as it is in the realm of the unobservable, I can make whatever claim I wish and it is up to those who doubt to disprove it? I'm a gonna go and have some fun!
I agree with JFK. I could, for example, that these unicorns at the North Pole are invisible, inaudible, etc. Does that suddenly make my claim of their existence valid?

Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. It is not a positive belief system in and of itself (although so-called "gnostic atheism" or "strong atheism" is). A lack of belief in a god is perfectly harmonious with reason, and are logically concordant with Occam's razor.

The explanation that requires less assumptions for teh origin of the unvierse is that a supreme being created it. You can ask Muon about that, the Big Bang requires a lot of assumptions.

Quantitively it may require fewer assumptions but qualitatively it does not.

You should know better than that Bono. Quantity is not always greater than quality. ;)


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Emsworth on July 23, 2005, 02:49:24 PM
The explanation that requires less assumptions for teh origin of the unvierse is that a supreme being created it.
And how do you explain the existence of a supreme being in the first place? That explanation requires even greater assumptions.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 02:55:53 PM
Everyone should try to shorten these quotes when they become too long. :)

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

Don't get all technical on me. :) You know I meant that we don't have a belief in a divine entity and whatnot, not no beliefs whatsoever.

Not having proof something exists doesn't mean it does not exist. You can explicitly prove things either way in many cases, so the burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a claim either way. If you claim there is no Loch Ness monster the burden of disproving its existence lies upon you and if you claim there are unicorns at the North Pole then the burden of proving their existence lies upon you as well.

Let's look at a better example. Say I am a scientist, and I make the claim that black holes don't exist. There is already evidence that they do. Other scientists still claim they exist. So, for my claim to have any credibility, I have to disprove the proof and prove my own claim as well. So, as I said, the burden of proof goes both ways. In trying to get the truth, you can't just search for what is not true or just what is true - you have to work towards both ends if you want to be successful.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Emsworth on July 23, 2005, 02:59:45 PM
As far as my views are concerned, there are two classifications of religious systems: theistic and atheistic. Theism is the presence of a positive belief in a divine entity. Atheism is the absence of a positive belief in a divine entity. Such is the meaning of the prefix "a"-- without.

Therefore, if you don't positively believe in a divine entity, then you are an atheist. Agnostics, therefore, constitute a subset of atheists.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 03:02:09 PM
Everyone should try to shorten these quotes when they become too long. :)

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here. :)

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

;)

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

Don't get all technical on me. :) You know I meant that we don't have a belief in a divine entity and whatnot, not no beliefs whatsoever.

Not having proof something exists doesn't mean it does not exist. You can explicitly prove things either way in many cases, so the burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a claim either way. If you claim there is no Loch Ness monster the burden of disproving its existence lies upon you and if you claim there are unicorns at the North Pole then the burden of proving their existence lies upon you as well.

Let's look at a better example. Say I am a scientist, and I make the claim that black holes don't exist. There is already evidence that they do. Other scientists still claim they exist. So, for my claim to have any credibility, I have to disprove the proof and prove my own claim as well. So, as I said, the burden of proof goes both ways. In trying to get the truth, you can't just search for what is not true or just what is true - you have to work towards both ends if you want to be successful.

Ah, but the point is, if two people make claims to the contrary - if I claim one thing and another claims the opposite, where does the burden of proof lie? With the positive claim (that X exists) or the negative claim (that X does not exist). Are we to believe something exists until it is disproven? Surely the automatic setting would be non-existence rather than existence. A lack of evidence for something's existence can be taken as evidence that it does not exist.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 23, 2005, 03:06:17 PM

that doesn't make him nonreligous, that just makes him sex crazed.  Communism I don't undestand in the least his support for since it calls for a mandatory repeal of all religion.  I don't doubt that he is "a religious"   :P

HAPPY 2000! 

Not neccesarily. There were lots of Communist movements in Latin America that obivously weren't atheist.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 04:13:13 PM
Not having proof something exists doesn't mean it does not exist. You can explicitly prove things either way in many cases, so the burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a claim either way. If you claim there is no Loch Ness monster the burden of disproving its existence lies upon you and if you claim there are unicorns at the North Pole then the burden of proving their existence lies upon you as well.

Let's look at a better example. Say I am a scientist, and I make the claim that black holes don't exist. There is already evidence that they do. Other scientists still claim they exist. So, for my claim to have any credibility, I have to disprove the proof and prove my own claim as well. So, as I said, the burden of proof goes both ways. In trying to get the truth, you can't just search for what is not true or just what is true - you have to work towards both ends if you want to be successful.

Ah, but the point is, if two people make claims to the contrary - if I claim one thing and another claims the opposite, where does the burden of proof lie? With the positive claim (that X exists) or the negative claim (that X does not exist). Are we to believe something exists until it is disproven? Surely the automatic setting would be non-existence rather than existence. A lack of evidence for something's existence can be taken as evidence that it does not exist.

No, we remain skeptical and hope to find out one way or the other - we don't discount something off the bat due to lack of evidence, but we don't automatically believe it simply because someone claims it does or doesn't exist. If we wanted to disprove the existence of something, we would still require some means of proving it - for instance, if something exists, it must have some tangible effect on other things, so you look for evidence of it's effects. For your unicorns at the North Pole, all we'd have to do is go there - if we can't find them, we look for effects we'd expect them to leave(poo, tracks, whatever), and if we have searched sufficiently and turned up no evidence we can say with relative certainty that there are no unicorns at the North Pole.

Now, that's not to say we should actually go to the North Pole to search for your unicorns - I would say it isn't unreasonable to ask the person making the claim to show at least some evidence supporting their claim. For instance, a scientist would need to present some research to back up a hypothesis to show it merits further investigation. Still, as I said, I don't believe it matters whether or not the claim is negative or positive - anyone who makes a claim should try to prove their claim is the truth.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: ilikeverin on July 23, 2005, 04:16:54 PM
I hope so, but I'm not one to judge/I think so, but I don't fit into any pattern


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: opebo on July 23, 2005, 04:17:27 PM

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Actually we know people just rot in the ground - we have dug them up before.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 23, 2005, 04:33:48 PM
Not having proof something exists doesn't mean it does not exist. You can explicitly prove things either way in many cases, so the burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a claim either way. If you claim there is no Loch Ness monster the burden of disproving its existence lies upon you and if you claim there are unicorns at the North Pole then the burden of proving their existence lies upon you as well.

Let's look at a better example. Say I am a scientist, and I make the claim that black holes don't exist. There is already evidence that they do. Other scientists still claim they exist. So, for my claim to have any credibility, I have to disprove the proof and prove my own claim as well. So, as I said, the burden of proof goes both ways. In trying to get the truth, you can't just search for what is not true or just what is true - you have to work towards both ends if you want to be successful.

Ah, but the point is, if two people make claims to the contrary - if I claim one thing and another claims the opposite, where does the burden of proof lie? With the positive claim (that X exists) or the negative claim (that X does not exist). Are we to believe something exists until it is disproven? Surely the automatic setting would be non-existence rather than existence. A lack of evidence for something's existence can be taken as evidence that it does not exist.

No, we remain skeptical and hope to find out one way or the other - we don't discount something off the bat due to lack of evidence, but we don't automatically believe it simply because someone claims it does or doesn't exist. If we wanted to disprove the existence of something, we would still require some means of proving it - for instance, if something exists, it must have some tangible effect on other things, so you look for evidence of it's effects. For your unicorns at the North Pole, all we'd have to do is go there - if we can't find them, we look for effects we'd expect them to leave(poo, tracks, whatever), and if we have searched sufficiently and turned up no evidence we can say with relative certainty that there are no unicorns at the North Pole.

Now, that's not to say we should actually go to the North Pole to search for your unicorns - I would say it isn't unreasonable to ask the person making the claim to show at least some evidence supporting their claim. For instance, a scientist would need to present some research to back up a hypothesis to show it merits further investigation. Still, as I said, I don't believe it matters whether or not the claim is negative or positive - anyone who makes a claim should try to prove their claim is the truth.

Generally we do discount something due to a lack of evidence in our society though. We require some form of proof or else we will not accept it - especially in the scientific world.

The point is, if someone comes along and makes a claim of existence of X and up until this point there has been no knowledge of X, no mention of it, not even a single thought of it. Would it not be reasonable in this case to say X does not exist, if you wish us to believe, you have to prove it.

In the case of God, we don't remain sceptical and wait to find out one way or another, because there seems no way to prove it. By the logic you have applied with the unicorn, we look for its tangible effect and so on and find nothing. By your logic we can now say with relative certainty there is no God.

If we remain sceptical of something's existence, are we not in effect saying we don't truly believe without proof? I didn't necessarily say that something is discounted, more that we aren't inclined to believe without proof - hence scepticism.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 08:18:35 PM

I wouldn't classify those as atheism though, because I think atheism usually also denies any kind of afterlife(you just rot in the ground).

Actually we know people just rot in the ground - we have dug them up before.

Can you prove nothing happens to our conciousness, our inner being(for lack of a better word, soul)?

No, we remain skeptical and hope to find out one way or the other - we don't discount something off the bat due to lack of evidence, but we don't automatically believe it simply because someone claims it does or doesn't exist. If we wanted to disprove the existence of something, we would still require some means of proving it - for instance, if something exists, it must have some tangible effect on other things, so you look for evidence of it's effects. For your unicorns at the North Pole, all we'd have to do is go there - if we can't find them, we look for effects we'd expect them to leave(poo, tracks, whatever), and if we have searched sufficiently and turned up no evidence we can say with relative certainty that there are no unicorns at the North Pole.

Now, that's not to say we should actually go to the North Pole to search for your unicorns - I would say it isn't unreasonable to ask the person making the claim to show at least some evidence supporting their claim. For instance, a scientist would need to present some research to back up a hypothesis to show it merits further investigation. Still, as I said, I don't believe it matters whether or not the claim is negative or positive - anyone who makes a claim should try to prove their claim is the truth.

Generally we do discount something due to a lack of evidence in our society though. We require some form of proof or else we will not accept it - especially in the scientific world.

The point is, if someone comes along and makes a claim of existence of X and up until this point there has been no knowledge of X, no mention of it, not even a single thought of it. Would it not be reasonable in this case to say X does not exist, if you wish us to believe, you have to prove it.

Read the bolded section above again, please. ::)

Quote
In the case of God, we don't remain sceptical and wait to find out one way or another, because there seems no way to prove it. By the logic you have applied with the unicorn, we look for its tangible effect and so on and find nothing. By your logic we can now say with relative certainty there is no God.

Well, if there's no way to prove it, then by your earlier statement society would have discounted the notion, now wouldn't they have. ;)  (actually, I find that many people will accept certain things as truth with no proof whatsoever, simply because they want to believe it's true or even that they are afraid it is true)

As far as God's tangible effects - well, look around you. If God is the creator, he did create all and we wouldn't exist without him. Now, that's not to say we can't mistake an effect of one thing for the effect of another(in some cases, something entirely false) - something else could have brought about the universe, after all. Basically, the notion arose from a question - what created the universe? For some people, the universe existing is sufficient proof that God exists, while for others it is not.

Quote
If we remain sceptical of something's existence, are we not in effect saying we don't truly believe without proof? I didn't necessarily say that something is discounted, more that we aren't inclined to believe without proof - hence scepticism.

Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Gabu on July 23, 2005, 09:39:26 PM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 23, 2005, 11:04:59 PM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 24, 2005, 06:35:54 AM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Gabu on July 24, 2005, 06:42:32 AM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Emsworth on July 24, 2005, 07:22:06 AM
Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.
There is a difference between asserting/believing that God does not exist and not asserting/believing that God does exist. The former implies the latter, but not vice versa. It is the latter which defines atheism.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Gabu on July 24, 2005, 07:23:54 AM
Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.
There is a difference between asserting/believing that God does not exist and not asserting/believing that God does exist. The former implies the latter, but not vice versa. It is the latter which defines atheism.

Yes, I know.  I was replying to JFK about skepticism, not atheism.

Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Emsworth on July 24, 2005, 07:29:08 AM
Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.
No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Gabu on July 24, 2005, 07:38:58 AM
Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.
No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)

I suppose you're correct in your technical analysis of the word "atheism" ("without" + "the belief in a god or gods"), but if you look at any dictionary definition of the word, it'll tell you that it means "the belief that God does not exist" or something along those lines.  For all practical purposes, that's what the word "atheism" means, and any attempt to get it to mean something else will only result in confusion.  Anyone who is not overly pedantic who tells you that they're an atheist just told you that they believe no god exists.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 24, 2005, 08:35:27 AM
Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.
No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)

I suppose you're correct in your technical analysis of the word "atheism" ("without" + "the belief in a god or gods"), but if you look at any dictionary definition of the word, it'll tell you that it means "the belief that God does not exist" or something along those lines.  For all practical purposes, that's what the word "atheism" means, and any attempt to get it to mean something else will only result in confusion.  Anyone who is not overly pedantic who tells you that they're an atheist just told you that they believe no god exists.

I quoted the definition of atheism a few pages back - disbelief in the existence of a God or deity (or words to that effect). It was disbelief, hence without the belief in God.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: JohnFKennedy on July 24, 2005, 08:38:32 AM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: Gabu on July 24, 2005, 08:53:25 AM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.

A lack of belief does not indicate a disbelief, though.  The skeptic is one who simply feels that he or she does not know.  A skeptic will place the burden of proof on whoever is making a claim, and will say that the lack of proof is proof that nothing has been proven - but not that anything has been disproven.  There's a very large difference between a lack of belief and disbelief - a lack of belief simply means that you are not convinced that it is true, whereas disbelief means that you are convince that it is not true.

Take the example of Schroedinger's Cat.  If you don't know what this is, essentially, a live cat is placed in a box with a cannister of a very powerful poison, and an experiment is carried out where the cannister has a chance of breaking.  At the end of the experiment, due to its nature, it is completely unknown whether or not the cat is now dead.

Suppose, now, that a person makes the claim, "The cat is alive."  The skeptic would then turn to that person and ask, "Why?  Do you have any proof?"  The skeptic would ask this because does not see compelling evidence to show that the cat is alive.  This does not, however, mean that the skeptic thinks that the cat is dead - if someone else made the claim, "The cat is dead," the skeptic would have the exact same response.  The skeptic feels that we can't know one way or another until we open the box, and thus presents a lack of belief towards both sides.

I think the crucial point to be made here that forms the crux of the matter is that not believing something is true has no correlation to believing it to be false.  There is a middle ground to be found - it is the fallacy of a false dilemma to assert that one must either believe or disbelieve a claim, and that if you don't believe, then you disbelieve.


Title: Re: Religion and Morality
Post by: John Dibble on July 24, 2005, 10:14:33 AM
Skepticism isn't all out denial, but it isn't all out acceptance either. It means you take the mentality "That might be the case, but I'm just not 100% sure". This is not the same as an atheist saying "There is no God" - that's a statement of certainty. I never said that skepticism was believing, all I implied was that it wasn't totally disbelieving either.

Skepticism is, in a nutshell, the refusal to believe anything unless the skeptic is given what he or she believes to be adequate proof.  It doesn't mean you believe every claim to be false - a true skeptic would require just as much proof of falsity before believing the claim to be false, as well.

Right, that's exactly what I meant.

Ah, I didn't say it is all out denied by scepticism, I said that if we are sceptical we do not believe without proof - thus trending towards the negative, that X does not exist. While we don't categorically deny it, we do tend to believe that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative.

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

The point is though, that scepticism tends to border on disagreeing with the affirmative. Generally a sceptic will be unlikely to believe in the existence of something without proof, they are more likely to believe something does not exist unless there is proof against this theory.

Actually, no it doesn't - it can trend either way, really. There are degrees of skepticism, afterall.