Belief

POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Sunday, July 23, 2006 00:26
VIEWED: 4595
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 21, 2006 1:35 PM

Maybe it's because the last thread I posted on was about god, maybe not, but something that has been said on the subject of god is really bugging me and has been for quite some time, and it has nothing to do with god. It has to do with belief in general.

Some people here have said that the statement, "There is no god," does not require belief and is in fact the same as saying, "I do not believe in god."

What bugs me about this is prehaps best summed up in cats. As those of you who actually read my posts know my cat was dying, like all things that were dying (note past tense) she is now dead. So if I say, "There is a cat in my house," you've got no reason to believe me, the cat that I've mentioned so often before is gone. On the other hand you have no reason not to believe me either. I've never lied to you, I've never said anything I knew to be untrue.

Leaving the hypothetical for a moment let me tell you, in spite of not intending to get a new cat, there is indeed a cat in my house. Do you believe that the cat, as defined, exists?

Returning to the hypothetical I can think of only three responses you can give to that (and a number of ways to say them.)
"Yes," "Maybe," and, "No."

Obviously these can be expanded into various statements.

Yes could be stated as:
I believe there is a cat.
I believe you are telling the truth.
I believe that the statement, "There is no cat," is false.
I believe in the cat and do not believe in the non-existance of the cat.
And so on.

Maybe can be stated as:
I do not believe in the cat.
I do not believe that there isn't a cat.
I do not believe you.
I don't believe a gorram thing.
I think that this needs further investigation.
I need more evidence to form an opinion.
And so on. It is best stated as, "I believe neither in the cat nor the nonexistance of the cat."

No can be stated as:
I believe there is not a cat.
I believe in the nonexistance of the cat.
I believe you are lying.
I believe that the statement, "There is a cat," is false.
I believe in the nonexistiance of the cat and do not believe in the cat.
And so on.

My problem is that people have been saying the statement, "I don't believe in the cat," is the same as the statement, "I believe the cat doesn't exist," meaning maybe=no. And to me that's like saying the statement, "I don't believe in the nonexistance of the cat." is the same as, "I believe in the existance of the cat," which would mean maybe=yes.

It makes no sense (to me.) Obviously someone who believes the cat doesn't exist also fails to believe in the cat but the second option (maybe) is a negitive statement, it just says, "I don't believe," and third (no) is instead a statement that says, "I believe that ____ is the way it is."

If I ask, "Is there a cat," and you say, "No," that is a bold assertion about the nature of reality, if you say, "Yes," that is also a bold assertion about the nature of reality. Both assert something and that makes them positive statments. In fact they are both statements of existance. Since the existance or non existance of the cat is a part of the natural world yes and no describe mesurably different versions of the natural world and each claim that its own version exists.

On the other hand "maybe" doesn't assert anything. It doesn't say "there is no cat," and thus tell us somethign about the nature of reality, it doesn't say, "There is a cat," and thus tell us something about the nature of reality. It is a totally negitive statement and does not advocate the existance of anything. All it says is, "I don't believe in the cat," and, for all of you nitpickers out there, "I also don't believe in the non-existance of the cat." (Unless there is some new defintion of maybe that I am currently unaware of.)

-

So here's my problem, if you didn't pick it up, how can people go through life believing that, "I don't believe __," is the same as saying, "I believe the opposite of ___"?

This is especially bugs me in clothing stores, I don't see how someone could ever buy

AURAPTOR

Friday, July 21, 2006 1:42 PM

I believe I have no clue what you're talking about. But sorry for your loss. Hannah must have been some cool cat.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:05 PM

Ah, Feline Philosophy at it's finest.

You do realize that belief blinds as much as it awakens, and thus most folks who believe in one thing or another will not understand a word you speak on this ?

I understand only because I have no faith, no Faith, and believe in nothing at all in such a fashion.

But I am not an Atheist.
(solve THAT riddle, and there will be cookies.)

There's belief, there's Belief, and then there's what you believe in, or believe to be true.

-Frem

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:06 PM

I've said before, on other threads, that in my opinion Atheism is a faith, while agnosticism is only a philosophy. Atheism denies the existence of God/The Gods, despite the fact that there is no way to disprove their existence (it's anxiomatic that you can't prove a negative; 1,000,000,000 white swans do not prove that there is no such thing as a black swan).

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is neutral on the subject, claiming a lack of knowledge. This is, in my opinion, more intellectually honest.

But let me state that this doesn't prove atheists wrong. Deities either do or do not exist, and unless they make themselves overtly known, the debate will never end. And obviously, if they don't exist, that'll never happen.

Which, ironically, means that if the Athiests are right, nobody will ever know it for sure...

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I understand only because I have no faith, no Faith, and believe in nothing at all in such a fashion.

But I am not an Atheist.
(solve THAT riddle, and there will be cookies.)

-Frem

Simple enough. As I discussed above, you're an agnostic.

Where's the cookies?

"Hermanos! The Devil has built a Robot! Andale!." -- Numero Cinco

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I believe I have no clue what you're talking about.

In discussions about god I usually try to keep the distinction between the group known as hard/strong atheists separate from the group known as soft/weak atheists/agnostics/non-theists.

The distinction is that a hard atheist believes that there is no god, and a soft atheist believes neither that god exists nor that god does not exist.

People have accused me of intentionally muddying the waters because they claimed that the statement:
I do not believe in ______
is the same as:
I believe that ______ does not exist.

Well obviously this extends far beyond god, anything can be put into the ______.

I just don't understand how you can get by like that, I mean there's plenty of stuff where people don't believe one way or the other, for example I don't believe there are clouds outside, but that doesn't mean I believe the sky is cloudless. I haven't actually looked up at the sky today and I think I should probably take a look before I reach a conclusion.

If you ask me, "Do you believe there are clouds outside," my answer has to be, "No," but if you ask me, "Do you believe there are no clouds outside," my answer is also, "No."

Some people have said that this is unreasonable or even impossible. I want to know why they say that because it's been bugging me for a while now.

Things that make no sense to me won't stop bugging me, no matter how hard I try to ignore them or for how long. Hopefully someone will come here and help me understand so I can get it out of my head.

Quote:
But sorry for your loss. Hannah must have been some cool cat.

Thanks I guess.

ODDSBODSKINS

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:18 PM

it's certainly not unreasonable to ask that people differentiate between not believing in something, and believing that something is not.

but then, when have reason and human nature ever come into each other sphere's of influence

(before anything is said, that's not intended as a slight towards people who may disagree with me, i freely include my own nature in the unreasonable ones )

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, July 21, 2006 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oddsbodskins:
but then, when have reason and human nature ever come into each other sphere's of influence

Good point.

RUE

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:24 PM

I have no problems with people saying "I believe ....".

It's when they cross over into "therefore it is true ..." (or go even further into "therefore I must make you accept ...") that I object to.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, July 21, 2006 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I have no problems with people saying "I believe ....".

It's when they cross over into "therefore it is true ..." (or go even further into "therefore I must make you accept ...") that I object to.

I believe the current American President is an imbecile therefore it must be true and I must make you all accept it.

Sorry for the temporary hijack to your thoughtful thread Chris, but I could not resist.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE