Fate

[leo9]

Or in the name of one political system or another. The dangers of fanaticism and the dangers of religion are two different things that only partly overlap.

The difference is that most religions, to one extent or another, proclaim themselves to be the arbiters of goodness and morality.

So did Marxism and Nazism. So, to a lesser extent, do all ideologies: they differ only in their strictness and prescriptiveness. And the same is true of religions. There is a difference between the detailed rules of the Torah and "An it harm none, do what you will."

Your arguments are usually so reasonable and well thought out that it annoys me when you talk nonsense.

Semantics.

Exactly: the meanings of words. Without which, you talk Chinese and I'll talk Martian and we'll forget about communicating anything at all.

So the word 'atheism' may not be absolutely correct in this context. That doesn't negate the idea, though.

No, it just exposes it as self-contradictory.

If you can deny the existence of any gods, how does that make you so much different from someone who denies the existence of ALL gods?

In the first place, it's the difference between one and zero, and if you prove that doesn't exist, don't blame me when your computer crashes.

And in the second place, I never said I deny the existence of any gods. I may reckon that some religionists have completely misunderstood the nature of their god, but that's only my opinion and I wouldn't go to the stake for it. I'm quite prepared to discover when I die that it was all the Flying Spaghetti Monster wearing different wigs. Or indeed to discover nothing at all because I won't be there: but I rate that as rather less likely.

I'm glad you are happy in your faith.

I am happy without faith.

You're playing with words again. Faith, I think we agreed earlier, is belief without proof. When you say there is no evidence for the existence of gods, that's a factual statement. (In the sense that it's verifiable, not in the sense that it's indisputable.) But when you say:

There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents.

that's a statement of faith - a belief which you hold without proof, because it's logically incapable of proof.

I'm not saying this to mock or belittle your beliefs, far from it. I just like to call things by their real names. To reverse your aphorism: we are both believers, you just believe in fewer gods than I do.

[Thorne]

So did Marxism and Nazism. So, to a lesser extent, do all ideologies: they differ only in their strictness and prescriptiveness.

True, but they did not claim to have the backing of a supernatural being behind them.

And in the second place, I never said I deny the existence of any gods.

My statement was not directed at you specifically. But it is unusual, I think you will agree, for a member of any religion to honestly say that their god might not be the one, true God.

Faith, I think we agreed earlier, is belief without proof.

Which is an altogether different thing from disbelief without proof.

But when you say:"There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents", that's a statement of faith - a belief which you hold without proof, because it's logically incapable of proof.

No, it's a statement of statistical certainty. It's saying that the odds of there being gods, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, are so negligible as to be virtually zero. In mathematical terms, it's stating that the probability of there not being gods is 0.999999999999999999.... Rounded to 1.0

we are both believers, you just believe in fewer gods than I do.

And once again I say, disbelief cannot be equated with a belief in the opposite. It's a lack of belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods.

[leo9]

No, it's a statement of statistical certainty. It's saying that the odds of there being gods, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, are so negligible as to be virtually zero. In mathematical terms, it's stating that the probability of there not being gods is 0.999999999999999999.... Rounded to 1.0

And I believe that the odds that there are is so high as to be vitually certainty. But since neither of us can expect to offer evidence for our beliefs - I don't expect miracles, and you can't prove a negative - they remain beliefs without proof, whether expressed sematically or mathematically.

And once again I say, disbelief cannot be equated with a belief in the opposite. It's a lack of belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods.

Lack of belief is agnosticism, the refusal to commit to any belief system. "There are no gods" isn't lack of belief, it's an assertion of belief, belief in atheism.

It's like conservatives who say they're not political, because in their eyes only left-wing views are "politics", conservative views are just common sense.

But I can see this is a sensitive subject for you, so I'll let it go.

[Thorne]

And I believe that the odds that there are is so high as to be vitually certainty. But since neither of us can expect to offer evidence for our beliefs - I don't expect miracles, and you can't prove a negative - they remain beliefs without proof, whether expressed sematically or mathematically.

While true that one cannot prove a negative, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that the universe has evolved along natural, predictable lines without any evidence of supernatural intervention. And every year we learn more and more about how the universe works, how matter and energy interact. All evidence of a completely natural order. Mankind has been searching for the gods for at least 10,000 years without finding one solid piece of evidence for them. In fact, the longer we have looked the lower our expectations of what the gods actually do have become. At one time the gods were able to wield lightning, storms, wind and all manner of potent, deadly forces in their efforts to destroy mankind. Now, it seems, they are relegated to forming images of Jesus on burritos, or the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Lack of belief is agnosticism, the refusal to commit to any belief system. "There are no gods" isn't lack of belief, it's an assertion of belief, belief in atheism.

While I will agree that agnosticism is a "refusal to commit to any belief system" I don't know if that could be considered the same as not believing. One can still believe in God or gods without committing to a particular religion.

But I see that it's my statement that "There are no gods" is what's bugging you, so I'll amend myself. There are probably no gods. Just like there are probably no canals on Mars, and there are probably no invisible unicorns in my back yard. I wish there were, as they could eat the grass and save me having to run the lawnmower.

But I can see this is a sensitive subject for you, so I'll let it go.

I don't find it a sensitive subject. I find it very interesting, in fact. The only thing that bothers me even a little bit is that we've gone from discussing whether or not there is evidence for the supernatural to arguments over terminology. Like many other believers, you can't, or won't, accept the possibility that anyone can exist without some form of belief system. You seem to be able to accept as facts that there are no leprechauns, there are no unicorns, there are no magical fairies drifting along in the garden, there is no Easter bunny. But let someone declare that there are no gods and that goes from a statement of fact to a statement of belief? Seems just a touch hypocritical to me.

[leo9]

Like many other believers, you can't, or won't, accept the possibility that anyone can exist without some form of belief system.

Not at all, I know plenty of people who get along just fine with no belief system, but they wouldn't be having this discussion: they'd just go "Yeah, OK, whatever."

You seem to be able to accept as facts that there are no leprechauns, there are no unicorns, there are no magical fairies drifting along in the garden, there is no Easter bunny. But let someone declare that there are no gods and that goes from a statement of fact to a statement of belief? Seems just a touch hypocritical to me.

Not at all, all of the above are statements of belief. I believe there is no Easter Bunny, but I can't see any way I could be justified in calling that belief a fact: what would I evidence as proof? The fact that most known rabbits don't distribute chocolate eggs makes my belief well founded, but it doesn't prove that there never was and never could be such a creature: it just makes it unlikely enough that I feel justified in disbelieving it.

But since you feel that this is just a quibble over the meaning of words, while I feel it's an important point, we'd better let it go.

[Thorne]

Not at all, all of the above are statements of belief. I believe there is no Easter Bunny, but I can't see any way I could be justified in calling that belief a fact: what would I evidence as proof? The fact that most known rabbits don't distribute chocolate eggs makes my belief well founded, but it doesn't prove that there never was and never could be such a creature: it just makes it unlikely enough that I feel justified in disbelieving it.

So then you TRUST the evidence that there is no Easter Bunny. Not the same thing as "believing" that there is no Easter Bunny. How is that different from trusting the evidence that there are no gods?

But since you feel that this is just a quibble over the meaning of words, while I feel it's an important point, we'd better let it go.

It's not just a quibble, though, it's a real problem. The word "belief" can be used in at least two different ways (as far as this discussion is concerned). You can "believe" something is true despite a lack of tangible evidence (a matter of faith) or you can "believe" something is NOT true BECAUSE their is no tangible evidence (a matter of TRUST). But declaring that the latter is just as much an article of faith as the former is absolutely wrong. You would be most likely to maintain your faith despite the lack of evidence, right? While I would have to change my "belief" if actual evidence for gods were to be found.