[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

I did... I just dyed my hair so the colour might be kickin in, but I still don't agree

There is always a chance I don't believe in something that does exist.

If you believe in no god, then you are firmly convinced that there is no god.

If you do not believe in god, then you are not convinced that there is a god.

The first instance states that, in your opinion, there is definitely no god. The second instance states that, in your opinion, a god might exist, but that you aren't sure, and will continue to think about it.

[Brenda]

No, it states that I don't BELIEVE in any god. I never said there IS no god... If you come with good arguments, you might even be able to change my mind.

If I believed in God, I would believe He was the only God, which means the Greek mytholgies are lies, that Buddha doesn't exist, that all religions that didn't choose my god, believe in something non-existant.

[Brenda]

I also think, that with this post, I prove that your generalization is wrong. People who believe there is is no god, have thought about that, and always will.

[romanP]

Brenda Brenda:

No, it states that I don't BELIEVE in any god. I never said there IS no god... If you come with good arguments, you might even be able to change my mind.

If I believed in God, I would believe He was the only God, which means the Greek mytholgies are lies, that Buddha doesn't exist, that all religions that didn't choose my god, believe in something non-existant.

I'm not trying to attack you. Replace "you" with "one", if that makes you feel better.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm only trying to explain the difference between a belief in the absence of something and a lack of belief in something that may or may not exist.

[Brenda]

romanP romanP:

Brenda Brenda:

No, it states that I don't BELIEVE in any god. I never said there IS no god... If you come with good arguments, you might even be able to change my mind.

If I believed in God, I would believe He was the only God, which means the Greek mytholgies are lies, that Buddha doesn't exist, that all religions that didn't choose my god, believe in something non-existant.

I'm not trying to attack you. Replace "you" with "one", if that makes you feel better.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm only trying to explain the difference between a belief in the absence of something and a lack of belief in something that may or may not exist.

I know, I didn't take it that way either... you can replace my "I" into "one" too...

I just disagree with your generalization...


And I don't think you posted your generalization as the difference between a belief in the absence of something, and a lack of belief in something... But then again, that could be my haircolour...

I also noticed you changed from " belief in God" (as in the one and only Christian God) to "a god", which imo is not the same...

[hurley_108]

I hope I'm not wrong, but I think romanP is trying to describe the difference between theism and gnosticism. Theism is belief in god. Atheism is a lack of belief in god. We all know this. But there's gnosticism and agnosticism. Gnosticism is a claim to know that one's belief is true, whereas agnosticism is to claim that one does not know that one's belief is true.

As such, people who "believe in god" are gnostic theists. People who "believe there is no god" are gnostic atheists. There are also agnostic atheists, people who don't know if there is a god or not, but don't think that there is. I suppose there can also be agnostic theists, who think that there is a god but aren't sure.

I think romanP is just talking about gnostic theists when he talks about people believe in god and who've "stopped thinking about it."

[Blue_Nose]

How confident you are isn't an indication that you're not open to change your mind, though, it's as simple as that.

I believe there's no personal God, but I'm certainly not going to be ignorant of reality should I be presented with solid evidence to the contrary. Going back to my previous analogy, I'm positively certain my keys are in my jacket pocket, yet perfectly able to accept the reality that they're not, should I have misplaced them.

Now, we can all be philosophical skeptics and assume nothing we believe can be stated definitively, but that's a useless exercise - instead of ending every single statement with, "which may or may not be true, we can never know," we can simply take for granted that people will make errors in judgement and can also reevaluate their position, however confident, should new information arise.