Annoying Atheist Arguments

[Zone]

Yes, you would. If you think that this outlandish claim is not true then you do have a belief regarding it. That being the default position does not exempt it from being a belief.

There wouldn't really be a good reason to believe it to be true if there isn't any evidence for the Lochness Monster. You can associate the Monster with true objective moral values and people can say how they feel the presence of the Monster within speaking to them in their heart, but that wouldn't be evidence. Only ship with a sonar on could provide the real evidence of something if it's real, physical, detectable and actually there. This is the atheists view of religion in general, it isn't specific to any one specific claim. Non-belief in the Lochness Monster doesn't count as a belief in anything. There would still be all the big questions like why does the universe exist and where do you go when you die but the best thing you can really say is that it probably doesn't have anything to do the Lochness Monster, it seems like something people would make up. So there were eyewitness reports of the Monster but you can't just assume those reports are reliable enough to rest your faith in eternal salvation upon as tempting as it would be.

[genkaus]

Yes, you would. If you think that this outlandish claim is not true then you do have a belief regarding it. That being the default position does not exempt it from being a belief.

Hang on, wait a second, not believing in the Loch Ness Monster is a belief?

Sure.

[Confused Ape]

Not all religions believe in god - in fact, different factions of the same religion may disagree upon it as well. That is not the major claim of all religions and that does not summarily cover the entirety of religious arguments.

I agree. Brahman Of The Vedas is very different to the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Brahman is not "God"
Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the 'acharyas' of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute. This unique conception has not been replicated by any other religion on earth, and is exclusive to Hinduism. Thus to even call this conception of Brahman "God" is, in a sense, somewhat imprecise. This is the case because Brahman does not refer to the anthropomorphic concept of God of the Abrahamic religions. When we speak of Brahman, we are referring neither to the "old man in the sky" concept, nor to the idea of the Absolute as even capable of being vengeful, fearful or engaging in choosing a favorite people from among His creatures. For that matter, Brahman is not a "He" at all, but rather transcends all empirically discernable categories, limitations and dualities.

Associating Hinduism with quantum physics isn't all New Age woo.The Cosmic Dance of Shiva and Quantum Physics

The page has some photos of the statue of Shiva at CERN with information as to why it's there.

A special plaque next to the Shiva statue at CERN explains the significance of the metaphor of Shiva's cosmic dance with several quotations from The Tao of Physics. Here is the text of the plaque:

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, seeing beyond the unsurpassed rhythm, beauty, power and grace of the Nataraja, once wrote of it "It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of."

More recently, Fritjof Capra explained that "Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but is also the very essence of inorganic matter," and that "For the modern physicists, then, Shiva's dance is the dance of subatomic matter."

It is indeed as Capra concluded: "Hundreds of years ago, Indian artists created visual images of dancing Shivas in a beautiful series of bronzes. In our time, physicists have used the most advanced technology to portray the patterns of the cosmic dance. The metaphor of the cosmic dance thus unifies ancient mythology, religious art and modern physics."

Symbols In Hinduism

Hinduism is often labeled as a religion of 330 million gods. This misunderstanding arises when people fail to grasp the symbolism of the Hindu pantheon. Hindus worship the nameless and formless Supreme Reality (Bramh) by various names and forms.

It is the same with all the gods and goddesses: they are not rivals but aspects of a single principle. Hindus have represented God in innumerable forms. Each is but a symbol that points to something beyond; and as none exhausts God's actual nature, the entire array is needed to complete the picture of God's aspects and manifestations.

[Question Mark]

Hang on, wait a second, not believing in the Loch Ness Monster is a belief?

Sure.

Then, and I mean this in the kindest possible manner, you're wrong. A position of neutrality isn't a belief. If I were to say that I'm going to actively deny the existence of the LM, then that would be a belief.

[Zone]

It's that you would really be neutral about the Lochness Monster you would not believe in it's existence unless there was evidence for it's existence. That would be the default if you're not making a special case for it, or if you're grasp on reality is loose and you will believe anything without evidence for no reason.

[genkaus]

There wouldn't really be a good reason to believe it to be true if there isn't any evidence for the Lochness Monster. You can associate the Monster with true objective moral values and people can say how they feel the presence of the Monster within speaking to them in their heart, but that wouldn't be evidence. Only ship with a sonar on could provide the real evidence of something if it's real, physical, detectable and actually there. This is the atheists view of religion in general, it isn't specific to any one specific claim. Non-belief in the Lochness Monster doesn't count as a belief in anything. There would still be all the big questions like why does the universe exist and where do you go when you die but the best thing you can really say is that it probably doesn't have anything to do the Lochness Monster, it seems like something people would make up. So there were eyewitness reports of the Monster but you can't just assume those reports are reliable enough to rest your faith in eternal salvation upon as tempting as it would be.

Actually, non-belief in the Loch Ness monster counts as belief in the proposition that there is no Loch Ness monster. Since there is no evidence for that thing, not believing in it is the right thing to do. What is not right is saying that your belief is not a belief.

---

Then, and I mean this in the kindest possible manner, you're wrong. A position of neutrality isn't a belief. If I were to say that I'm going to actively deny the existence of the LM, then that would be a belief.

There is no position of neutrality between true and false. It doesn't matter if you actively deny the existence of LM or do so passively. Once you deny it, it becomes a belief.

---

It's that you would really be neutral about the Lochness Monster you would not believe in it's existence unless there was evidence for it's existence. That would be the default if you're not making a special case for it, or if you're grasp on reality is loose and you will believe anything without evidence for no reason.

Or not believe in anything without evidence. Neutrality is not possible once confronted with the concept and even if you position is negative by default, it is still as negative position.

[Question Mark]

There wouldn't really be a good reason to believe it to be true if there isn't any evidence for the Lochness Monster. You can associate the Monster with true objective moral values and people can say how they feel the presence of the Monster within speaking to them in their heart, but that wouldn't be evidence. Only ship with a sonar on could provide the real evidence of something if it's real, physical, detectable and actually there. This is the atheists view of religion in general, it isn't specific to any one specific claim. Non-belief in the Lochness Monster doesn't count as a belief in anything. There would still be all the big questions like why does the universe exist and where do you go when you die but the best thing you can really say is that it probably doesn't have anything to do the Lochness Monster, it seems like something people would make up. So there were eyewitness reports of the Monster but you can't just assume those reports are reliable enough to rest your faith in eternal salvation upon as tempting as it would be.

Actually, non-belief in the Loch Ness monster counts as belief in the proposition that there is no Loch Ness monster. Since there is no evidence for that thing, not believing in it is the right thing to do. What is not right is saying that your belief is not a belief.

---

Then, and I mean this in the kindest possible manner, you're wrong. A position of neutrality isn't a belief. If I were to say that I'm going to actively deny the existence of the LM, then that would be a belief.

There is no position of neutrality between true and false. It doesn't matter if you actively deny the existence of LM or do so passively. Once you deny it, it becomes a belief.

I don't think you grasped the concept of what I said in my previous post. By disbelieving the existence of the LNM, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't have a belief in regards to whether it exists or not, because I don't have sufficient evidence to form a belief upon.
If I went to Loch Ness, emptied it, and explored every nook and cranny and discovered there wasn't a LNM, then I would form a belief as to it not existing.

Until evidence is posited one way or another, I have no belief towards or against the existence of the monster. Therefore no belief.

[Zone]

Actually, non-belief in the Loch Ness monster counts as belief in the proposition that there is no Loch Ness monster. Since there is no evidence for that thing, not believing in it is the right thing to do. What is not right is saying that your belief is not a belief.

I don't currently have a belief in the non-existence of the Lochness Monster and I still wouldn't if everyone else in the world believed in it. I see no good reason so far to have a belief in the Lochness Monster. But if some evidence were to turn up and this were verified I would then know of the Lochness Monsters existence. There isn't any belief of any kind involved at any stage of the process.

[Question Mark]

Actually, non-belief in the Loch Ness monster counts as belief in the proposition that there is no Loch Ness monster. Since there is no evidence for that thing, not believing in it is the right thing to do. What is not right is saying that your belief is not a belief.

I don't currently have a belief in the non-existence of the Lochness Monster and I still wouldn't if everyone else in the world believed in it. I see no good reason so far to have a belief in the Lochness Monster. But if some evidence were to turn up and this were verified I would then know of the Lochness Monsters existence. There isn't any belief of any kind involved at any stage of the process.

Not necessarily. There's evidence for some things, but no conclusive knowledge of it. If there was a picture of the LNM, that wouldn't prove its conclusive existence, but it would lend credence towards it. If your level of acceptance were tolerable towards it, you could form a belief about its existence from that.

[genkaus]

I don't think you grasped the concept of what I said in my previous post. By disbelieving the existence of the LNM, I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, I'm saying that I don't have a belief in regards to whether it exists or not, because I don't have sufficient evidence to form a belief upon.
If I went to Loch Ness, emptied it, and explored every nook and cranny and discovered there wasn't a LNM, then I would form a belief as to it not existing.

Until evidence is posited one way or another, I have no belief towards or against the existence of the monster. Therefore no belief.

I do understand what you are trying to say - I just don't see how you can rationally hold that position. Believing the LNM exists or that it doesn't are two mutually exclusive and exhaustive positions (unless you are proposing some sort of intermediate between existence and non-existence). I think you are confusing belief with knowledge. Evidence justifies beliefs, which then is regarded as knowledge. But beliefs can and frequently are held without evidence. However, simultaneously saying that you don't believe there is such a as LNM and that you don't believe there isn't is an example of doublethink.

---

I don't currently have a belief in the non-existence of the Lochness Monster and I still wouldn't if everyone else in the world believed in it. I see no good reason so far to have a belief in the Lochness Monster. But if some evidence were to turn up and this were verified I would then know of the Lochness Monsters existence. There isn't any belief of any kind involved at any stage of the process.

Do you believe there is such a thing as the LNM?

I don't see any option to the answer other than yes or no.