• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

Does water have a taste?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • No

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • Total voters
    25
Ikari said:
It is a form of atheism and one which is stated often by atheists. Here's the deal with that. Gods are by definition immeasurable systems. There's no way to measure a god and thus there is no way to fully quantitatively or qualitatively demonstrate the existence of a god. In the absence of data, the ability to even take data, one cannot conclusively say anything about the system. Gods are, in fact, a pure superposition of states composed of existing or not existing. We cannot collapse the wavefunction as we have no way to measure the system. So you cannot say anything about gods with 100% certainty. Can gods exist? Sure, why not? Since there is no conclusive evidence (and thanks to the way we've defined gods, can never be conclusive evidence...not in this existence) one must then operate off of probabilities. Well sure a god can exist, but how likely is it for a god to exist? Agnostics may put that more at a 50/50 shot. An atheist will say something more like "while gods can exist, given the observations of this current world it seems to me to be rather improbable and is much more likely that gods do not exist." It's not an absolute statement, but rather one based on probabilities of the superposition of states. Given that the is well more probable that gods do not exist than do exist, I do not believe in a god till there is concrete evidence of a god demonstrated to exist. But that evidence cannot be had due to the definition of gods as immeasurable states. I do not believe in a god.
Click to expand...

All well and good.

Again, I'll say, if I'm so wrong in my understanding please...enlighten me...find things outside of this thread of people on this forum that are athiests making similar statements in anything other than a flippant insulting way that sure, a god is possible, they just don't personally think there is one. Honestly, I'd be happy to be wrong on this, I just rarely can remember reading this in the few religion threads I read.
 
Zyphlin said:
All well and good.

Again, I'll say, if I'm so wrong in my understanding please...enlighten me...find things outside of this thread of people on this forum that are athiests making similar statements in anything other than a flippant insulting way that sure, a god is possible, they just don't personally think there is one. Honestly, I'd be happy to be wrong on this, I just rarely can remember reading this in the few religion threads I read.
Click to expand...

There have been many examples in old religious debates in the Religion forum. I most often encounter atheists whom do not state existences on an absolute scale; but rather on a probability scale. There are those who do speak to absolutes, but that is more a belief structure and most often held by anti-theists; the radicals of the atheist group.
 
Saying you do not believe in something IS a belief.
 
marduc said:
"there is no way to know for sure if there is a god, but to be safe I assume that there is"

there we now have an example of thinking from the standpoint of an agnostic theist. There is a huge difference between that and "I know there is a God"
Click to expand...

Agree 100%

it is the same difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. I do not know there is a god, and although you added qualifying words I do not particularly agree with earlier (there may very well be a God), I acknowledge a possibility that there may be a higher power; however for the sake of my personal life and this specific time and place of existence I see no way of knowing one way or another for a certainty,so I assume the default position that in all liklihood that there is not. I could be wrong...I like my odds though
Click to expand...

I understand that. But again, in that instance I would say that you have a loosely held belief that there is no god, much as I'd say your agnostic thiest has a loosely held belief that there is a god. I can even understand your notion of an agnostic athiest, yet so rarely do I hear that actually being intimidated. Not that they're believing it one way or another simply because of some kind of rationalized reason that has less of a care regarding gods or not and more to do with their personal time. Its generally just a stated belief of "I don't believe in gods".

But still, nothing you've stated changes my notion that athiesm, even agnostic athiesm, is still a belief of some sort because its still making a conclusion for ones self.
 
Hatuey said:
If claiming that disbelief is in fact a belief then one could claim that no taste is in fact a taste of its own. So, does water have a taste?
Click to expand...
Water has no taste - the impurities in the water do.
 
Zyphlin said:
All well and good.

Again, I'll say, if I'm so wrong in my understanding please...enlighten me...find things outside of this thread of people on this forum that are athiests making similar statements in anything other than a flippant insulting way that sure, a god is possible, they just don't personally think there is one. Honestly, I'd be happy to be wrong on this, I just rarely can remember reading this in the few religion threads I read.
Click to expand...

you have at least 2 different people saying this very thing here and now in this thread. It is a very common position, also know as soft (or weak) atheism.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Ikari said:
Why did you edit my post and take out what I had posted there? I'll choose to believe it was on accident; but if not...poor show.
Click to expand...

Eeep, accident indeed. Let me go back in and change it back. I use Internet Explorer 6 at work because we're amazingly bassackwards and as such things can get extremely jumbled here. Sorry Ikari.
 
Zyphlin said:
Agree 100%



I understand that. But again, in that instance I would say that you have a loosely held belief that there is no god, much as I'd say your agnostic thiest has a loosely held belief that there is a god. I can even understand your notion of an agnostic athiest, yet so rarely do I hear that actually being intimidated. Not that they're believing it one way or another simply because of some kind of rationalized reason that has less of a care regarding gods or not and more to do with their personal time. Its generally just a stated belief of "I don't believe in gods".

But still, nothing you've stated changes my notion that athiesm, even agnostic athiesm, is still a belief of some sort because its still making a conclusion for ones self.
Click to expand...

does the agnostic theist regularly go around proclaiming their doubts and screaming "there may be no god!!!!"?

and it is not a belief that there is no god, there just is not reason to believe. This boils down to squabbling semantics and definitions, my lack of belief is NOT a belief.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
well, you got me. but where on earth do we find water that occurs naturally that is without other ingredients?
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be natural?
 
Lets see if I can post this in the right spot now. Sorry about that Ikari!

Ikari said:
No, you said "Possibly because so many atheists go "There is no god" ". Your statement and my statement are very different. I said most atheists state that they do not believe in a god. That doesn't say "there is no god" it says that they do not believe in a god. See the difference?
Click to expand...

Is there a difference between stating "There is a god" and "I believe there is a god"?

To me, I don't see much of a difference save for how you're stating it. One is stating your belief, one is stating your belief acknowledging its a belief.

Yes, I can see why you could be disagreeing with my assessment of how I've seen athiests react usually and how I haven't because...from the implication I'm getting...you seem to think there's a difference in stating "there is no god" and stating " I do not believe there is a god". I don't see a difference between those statements, however I would see a large difference between them and "I believe its possible there's a god, but personally I don't think there is one because I haven't seen proof".
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm just going to come down to this because really that's where the conflict is.

No, I don't see a difference between "I believe there are no X" and "I do not believe in X". To me those are the same thing. To me that is the difference between going "0 - 1 = -1" and "0 + -1 = -1". In both cases your result is -1. In both cases, your stating a belief. Its just a change in how you're attempting to state it.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest with you. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to explain something so simplistic without coming across as being a totally condescending asswipe. I know you are smart enough to understand the difference between "I believe" and "I do not believe". I think you're just being deliberately obtuse.
 
marduc said:
does the agnostic theist regularly go around proclaiming their doubts and screaming "there may be no god!!!!"?

and it is not a belief that there is no god, there just is not reason to believe. This boils down to squabbling semantics and definitions, my lack of belief is NOT a belief.
Click to expand...

I know there's examples in this thread, but they generally didn't step forward until confronted.

And no, generally thiests don't normally state that they think there may not be a god. And I generally don't assume that people who state that they believe in god actually believe that there may not be a god but they just think there is.

And no, your lack of belief IS a belief because you come to a conclussion, that being not believing until such pont that its proven to you. You would only have no belief if you did not come down on either side of it stating that you think in any way one way or the other. Once you start leaning one way or the other that is having a belief in that direction.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Eeep, accident indeed. Let me go back in and change it back. I use Internet Explorer 6 at work because we're amazingly bassackwards and as such things can get extremely jumbled here. Sorry Ikari.
Click to expand...

It seemed that way given the context of the edit (that it was accidental). In the end, I think all this "belief" "not-belief" isn't very important. I'm an atheist. I see no evidence for gods anywhere. Given that it is well more likely that gods do not exist than exist and there is no evidence indicating the existence of a god(s), I do not believe in gods. Do you want to call that a positive belief structure? It's up to you, it doesn't functionally affect me or my reasons for why I self-identify as an atheist. I think there is resistance to the designation of atheism as a belief because of the way it would then subsequently be used against atheists. Y'all have enough fodder already, it's hard enough to be an out of the closet atheist. Don't need anymore.

In fact, I can guarantee you that if atheism had some outwardly visible observable about it; we'd be one of the most discriminated classes. Thankfully you can't tell who is atheist just by looking at them. Unless they're wearing a shirt that says "Kiss me, I'm atheist".
 
Zyphlin said:
Is there a difference between stating "There is a god" and "I believe there is a god"?
Click to expand...

There is indeed significant difference between those two statements. The previous is a statement of absolute, a statement of knowledge. It is saying that you know a god exists. The latter is a statement of belief, given the measurable system you choose to believe in a god. But it's not an absolute statement, it's not claiming knowledge. It's claiming belief.
 
Zyphlin said:
I know there's examples in this thread, but they generally didn't step forward until confronted.

And no, generally thiests don't normally state that they think there may not be a god. And I generally don't assume that people who state that they believe in god actually believe that there may not be a god but they just think there is.
Click to expand...

Its not fashionable to have your lack of faith bared on a platter, although there are many religious people who "have their faith tested". They tend to assert their positions strongly to validify their stance both to themselves and to others.
 
Stating an absolute is still stating a belief. If I state something is blue, and that thing is really blue, the fact its literally IS blue and factually blue doesn't make it not a belief because its still my view of what the truth is concerning said object.

The fact that a belief can be proven true doesn't make it not a belief.

It seems to be that you're arguing that one can only have faith in something that is unprovable or untestable or unverifiable at least in a minimum form.
 
marduc said:
Its not fashionable to have your lack of faith bared on a platter, although there are many religious people who "have their faith tested". They tend to assert their positions strongly to validify their stance both to themselves and to others.
Click to expand...

I understand why they do it. I understand to a point why athiests do it. I don't begrudge either side.

What I'm saying though is when your sides are so self conciously, primarily due to what your own side has done with the words and view points and the demonizing of them, of a particular label but that label applies to you based on the fact you fail to actually make yourself clear or honestly present your point to not be upset or surprised or condenscending when people react to what you're actually saying rather than assuming what you actually mean.

I think what many athiests have done to the notion of faith and turning it into a "bad word" that they're afraid of having applied to them because it gives more "fodder" for people to throw agains them is very similar to the self-consiously and insecure notion of religious people being unable to "question" the belief of the divine as something that isn't infallably correct and unquestionably true.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Stating an absolute is still stating a belief. If I state something is blue, and that thing is really blue, the fact its literally IS blue and factually blue doesn't make it not a belief because its still my view of what the truth is concerning said object.

The fact that a belief can be proven true doesn't make it not a belief.

It seems to be that you're arguing that one can only have faith in something that is unprovable or untestable or unverifiable at least in a minimum form.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you are trying to convey. If I look at something and it's blue, I say "this is blue". It's an absolute statement conveying knowledge about the object itself. I know it's blue. A measured quantity is less belief because in measurement there are no longer probabilities. The wavefunction collapses to one of the allowed eigenstates. Stating a belief and stating a fact are two different things. Stating a belief does not convey knowledge. I don't believe in a god. That statement doesn't say "gods don't exist", it's states the negative belief in the existence of gods. See? It doesn't convey knowledge. I do not know if gods exist or not, I simply do not believe them to exist.

The fact that a belief can be proven true doesn't make it not a belief. But once that belief is measured, it is no longer a belief but a fact as it now has associated with it knowledge and information. And thus the system goes from some superposition of states to a collapsed wavefunction complete with change in entropy. Measured results are measured results. Belief can become measured result if you have the correct meter.
 
Zyphlin said:
I understand why they do it. I understand to a point why athiests do it. I don't begrudge either side.

What I'm saying though is when your sides are so self conciously, primarily due to what your own side has done with the words and view points and the demonizing of them, of a particular label but that label applies to you based on the fact you fail to actually make yourself clear or honestly present your point to not be upset or surprised or condenscending when people react to what you're actually saying rather than assuming what you actually mean.

I think what many athiests have done to the notion of faith and turning it into a "bad word" that they're afraid of having applied to them because it gives more "fodder" for people to throw agains them is very similar to the self-consiously and insecure notion of religious people being unable to "question" the belief of the divine as something that isn't infallably correct and unquestionably true.
Click to expand...

Faith is belief without evidence. If evidence exists then faith is not necessary.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom