"atheism is a belief"

Originally posted by JerryH
If you are saying that a being that is outside of the natural universe and beyond your examination does not exist, then this is unfounded. You can be free of religion by understanding that considering any of the supernatural is considering all of it.

Sorry old chap but i don't think we occupy the same page. (Or indeed the same dictionary).

Originally posted by googlefudge

Lack of belief in gods, is not the same as, belief in the lack of gods

We know, this is also tautological.

Nobody here is claiming two different things are the same thing.

Lack of belief in gods is not an answer to a question and so is not unfounded.

Actually it IS an answer to a question, just not the question y ...[text shortened]... t will really depend on the atheist in question.

However it's certainly not necessarily true.

"Nobody here is claiming two different things are the same thing."

I'm claiming the two things are different.

"whether you BELIEVE a god exists?".
No I don't believe a god exist.

"Does a God exist?"
This question has no answer. You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural. This is perhaps the misunderstanding that one of us is having. You might think these two questions are the same and I say they are not.

"Quite possibly. However it's not the only question one can ask."
I don't understand this. I'm saying it's not a question that can be asked. I'm saying if you ask a supernatural question with an answer set in the natural then there is no answer and if you extend the answer set into the supernatural there is still no answer.

"WRONG. You can provide perfectly valid and cogent answers to ill formed questions."
The definition of an ill-formed question is a question without an answer in it's answer set.

Originally posted by JerryH
"Nobody here is claiming two different things are the same thing."

I'm claiming the two things are different.

"whether you BELIEVE a god exists?".
No I don't believe a god exist.

"Does a God exist?"
This question has no answer. You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural. This is perhaps the misunderstanding that one of us is having. You mig ...[text shortened]... ."
The definition of an ill-formed question is a question without an answer in it's answer set.

"whether you BELIEVE a god exists?".
No I don't believe a god exist.

Then you are an atheist.

"Does a God exist?"
This question has no answer. You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural. This is perhaps the misunderstanding that one of us is having. You might think these two questions are the same and I say they are not.

"This question has no answer."

Actually that question has many answers, a good number of which are perfectly sound and rational.
You can't just assert that the question has no answer, you have to prove it.

"You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural."

Says who? If the supernatural actually existed who says it cannot be tested??
You are assuming facts about the supernatural you cannot possibly know.

"This is perhaps the misunderstanding that one of us is having. You might think these two questions are the same and I say they are not."

I do not think those two questions are the same. being as how I'm not an idiot.

I think perhaps the misunderstanding here is that you believe you know a whole bunch more about this
topic than you actually do.

This is common among self identified 'agnostics' who erroneously believe they have the intellectual high
ground after spending 3 minutes not thinking very hard about the issue.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Sorry old chap but i don't think we occupy the same page. (Or indeed the same dictionary).

I'm trying to understand your position. Do you believe in things that you can't prove, like the non-existents of God? Or is it that you just don't believe in the existents of every non-proven thing, like the existents of God, the other gods, anything I might imagine, anything anyone might imagine?

Originally posted by JerryH
"Nobody here is claiming two different things are the same thing."

I'm claiming the two things are different.

"whether you BELIEVE a god exists?".
No I don't believe a god exist.

"Does a God exist?"
This question has no answer. You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural. This is perhaps the misunderstanding that one of us is having. You mig ...[text shortened]... ."
The definition of an ill-formed question is a question without an answer in it's answer set.

"WRONG. You can provide perfectly valid and cogent answers to ill formed questions."
The definition of an ill-formed question is a question without an answer in it's answer set.

I think you need a new dictionary.

Yours does not appear to tally with anyone else's.

Originally posted by JerryH
I'm trying to understand your position. Do you believe in things that you can't prove, like the non-existents of God? Or is it that you just don't believe in the existents of every non-proven thing, like the existents of God, the other gods, anything I might imagine, anything anyone might imagine?

If you are genuinely trying to understand, perhaps you might try asking more, instead of telling us.

For example I tend towards a Bayesian view that all our knowledge about reality is probabilistic based
upon the currently available evidence. [a view that is not by any means universally shared here]

So when it comes to questions about the existence of gods and the supernatural I would look at
the currently available evidence and evaluate the prior-probabilities of different hypothesis and
then compare the results. [qualitatively or quantitatively]

Thus I can look at the question as to whether the god of the bible actually exists vs being a man made fiction
and conclude that beyond any and all reasonable doubt the god of the bible is a man made fiction.
To a level of confidence and certainty that while I cannot be epistemically certain that such a being does
not exist I can be cognitively so.

Rinse repeat for other god concepts.

Originally posted by JerryH
I'm trying to understand your position. Do you believe in things that you can't prove, like the non-existents of God? Or is it that you just don't believe in the existents of every non-proven thing, like the existents of God, the other gods, anything I might imagine, anything anyone might imagine?

I believe in things that i 'can' prove or which are convincing to me. For example, i believe in the existence of the apple i just ate, and i believe in the laws of gravity due to the convincing arguments of people cleverer and more informed than myself.

I 'believe' in the non existence of God because (as yet) it has been unproven to me.

Originally posted by googlefudge

"whether you BELIEVE a god exists?".
No I don't believe a god exist.

Then you are an atheist.


[quote]"Does a God exist?"
This question has no answer. You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural. This is perhaps the misunderstanding that one of us is having. You might think these two questions are the same and I say they are ...[text shortened]... the intellectual high
ground after spending 3 minutes not thinking very hard about the issue.

Please provide a sound and rational answer to the question, "Does god exist?".

"You can't test, look, reason beyond the natural." Once you can look at it, test it, reason about it, however supernatural it might have appeared, it has been moved into the natural. I'm assuming that some things can't ever be moved into the natural. That things defined as supernatural, not bound by natural laws, not explained by reason, can't be tested and reasoned about.

I don't think you're an idiot. I don't understand where idiot is coming from. If we agree that those two questions are not the same then I misunderstood you.

Does God exist?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I believe in things that i 'can' prove or which are convincing to me. For example, i believe in the existence of the apple i just ate, and i believe in the laws of gravity due to the convincing arguments of people cleverer and more informed than myself.

I 'believe' in the non existence of God because (as yet) it has been unproven to me.

Then we differ but not by much, I think. I can't see any reason to hold any beliefs about any part of the supernatural.

Originally posted by googlefudge

"WRONG. You can provide perfectly valid and cogent answers to ill formed questions."
The definition of an ill-formed question is a question without an answer in it's answer set.

I think you need a new dictionary.

Yours does not appear to tally with anyone else's.

What is your definition or your preferred dictionary's definition of an ill-formed question?

Mine is: An ill-formed question is a question with no answer in it's answer set. This is logically ill-formed as apposed to grammatically ill-formed, which would not be relative.

Originally posted by JerryH
Then we differ but not by much, I think. I can't see any reason to hold any beliefs about any part of the supernatural.

You are an atheist agnostic.
Atheist: you do not hold any positive belief in the existence of God.
Agnostic: you believe that the question of the existence of God is unanswerable.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you are genuinely trying to understand, perhaps you might try asking more, instead of telling us.

For example I tend towards a Bayesian view that all our knowledge about reality is probabilistic based
upon the currently available evidence. [a view that is not by any means universally shared here]

So when it comes to questions about the existen ...[text shortened]... t such a being does
not exist I can be cognitively so.

Rinse repeat for other god concepts.

So you and others have spent this much time and effort trying to answer a question, and I do mean trying, that can be logically shown to have no answer. Are you going to continue with every other part of the supernatural. One by one almost eliminating, quasi logically, ghost and vampires and unibarleys and the set of the supernatural is infinite or empty?

Originally posted by JerryH
So you and others have spent this much time and effort trying to answer a question, and I do mean trying, that can be logically shown to have no answer. Are you going to continue with every other part of the supernatural. One by one almost eliminating, quasi logically, ghost and vampires and unibarleys and the set of the supernatural is infinite or empty?

I don't think it is up to us to prove the non existence of the supernatural, but for the supernatural to prove its existence to us.

I would have no reason to believe a particular apple existed until it became evidenced by my senses. Why would i think differently about God, ghosts or the bogey man?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is the universe godless?

It appears so.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I don't think it is up to us to prove the non existence of the supernatural, but for the supernatural to prove its existence to us.

I would have no reason to believe a particular apple existed until it became evidenced by my senses. Why would i think differently about God, ghosts or the bogey man?

Sounds good to me except imagine a supernatural being trying to prove that it is supernatural. How could it prove to us unless we ourselves were supernaturally supreme? What proof would you ask for if you could have any and when given what could it mean to you?