(February 14, 2014 at 3:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't claim that God exists. I believe that he does.

Sorry, what does this mean? Wouldn't believing that god exists mean automatically that you accept the claim that he does?

(February 14, 2014 at 4:04 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 14, 2014 at 3:48 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't claim that God exists. I believe that he does.

Sorry, what does this mean? Wouldn't believing that god exists mean automatically that you accept the claim that he does?

Ooo, I know this one.

A claim is defined as as assertion that something is true. A belief is defined as an acceptance that something is true. One is an internal matter, the other looks outwards.

Break it down further, assert is defined as "to state a fact of belief confidently and forcefully." Acceptance is defined as "the process or fact of being received as adequate, valid or suitable.

So whilst I can't speak for frodo I hold the same position. I would not state God as a fact forcefully or confidently. But I do hold it as a belief which, for me, is adequate, valid and suitable.

Does that make sense?

(February 13, 2014 at 4:15 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(February 13, 2014 at 3:15 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: So Sword, pretty much you just make up your religion as you go along, based on what makes you feel good, right?

No, it would help if you read some books outside of atheism or Ray Comfort or whatever. The proper stuff, get yourself a bit a decent theological education. At the very least you'll be able to make a more informed defense of atheism/attack on Christianity. We're not just talking modern day books that have made concessions to the secularist worldview either there is material from the early middle ages and ancient antiquity that are worth checking out. People would never have believed this stuff if it was the kind of garbage you believe it to be.

1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

(February 14, 2014 at 4:35 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Ooo, I know this one.

A claim is defined as as assertion that something is true. A belief is defined as an acceptance that something is true. One is an internal matter, the other looks outwards.

Break it down further, assert is defined as "to state a fact of belief confidently and forcefully." Acceptance is defined as "the process or fact of being received as adequate, valid or suitable.

So whilst I can't speak for frodo I hold the same position. I would not state God as a fact forcefully or confidently. But I do hold it as a belief which, for me, is adequate, valid and suitable.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, it makes sense, I just don't understand the functional distinction as it applies to the burden of proof. If one were to ask about your belief in a god, say, as part of a discussion forum designed around debating that very belief, you'd have to say you accept that he exists, just to remain truthful, right? That's making the claim, regardless of how softly you do it. To say that this absolves you of the burden of proof... well, perhaps it means you aren't interested in shouldering it, but it's still there.

And if you're content to merely believe in a god yet not claim it... why sign up to an atheist forum in the first place?

Anyone can believe whatever they want, and keep it personal. It's only really a problem when they try to dictate what other people do because of their beliefs.

"A belief is an acceptance that something is true" is really over-simplifying. Belief ranges from well-supported by empirical data, to reasonable assumptions, to strongly held beliefs despite a lack of evidence, or a volume of evidence against.

Believing something has no bearing on the veracity of something. People can believe just about anything, justify it internally, where to the external world, the belief is irrational.

This becomes a problem when there are networks of people who want to believe the same wildly inaccurate thing -- for example, the earth is 6000 years old -- and reassure eachother their beliefs are valid and well-supported, while trying to influence public policy for the rest of us.

Or, to put it another way:


(Taken from another thread)

(February 14, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Yeah, it makes sense, I just don't understand the functional distinction as it applies to the burden of proof. If one were to ask about your belief in a god, say, as part of a discussion forum designed around debating that very belief, you'd have to say you accept that he exists, just to remain truthful, right? That's making the claim, regardless of how softly you do it. To say that this absolves you of the burden of proof... well, perhaps it means you aren't interested in shouldering it, but it's still there.

That burden is only there if he wishes to convince others of it's truth. Otherwise, he's under no obligation to justify it to anyone other than himself.

Only when god's existential status is a point of debate would it matter - and then, if one were to take this line would it would be worthy of ridicule.

Just so. All I'm claiming is that I believe something, not that it's true. .

(February 14, 2014 at 4:10 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: Just so. All I'm claiming is that I believe something, not that it's true. .

Right. And as long as you don't try to use that belief to buttress an argument, it's all good.

(February 14, 2014 at 4:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: Sorry, what does this mean? Wouldn't believing that god exists mean automatically that you accept the claim that he does?

My deism is based more on instinct than logical arguments that I could use to make a claim. I've written before that it's a compromise between my skeptical mind and sentimental proverbial heart. This is why some have noted that I "talk like an atheist" when making arguments; it's coming from the same kind of skepticism that most atheists have. The sentiments I mention are driven by the natural universe which is more wondrous than anything religion has ever created (I concur with Richard Dawkins' points about "petty gods" and "little gods") and the potential of the human mind and civilization.

Some have asked me why I never argue for deism. There are many reasons, including my lack of belief about any afterlife and that I see no reason God wants our worship or is even aware of us on a personal basis, but the strongest one is that my instincts are not a reason I should expect anyone else to believe.

Hope that helps.