![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Religion again, skip as required.
Okay, one, I really need to stop having arguments with people. It does no-one any good. Especially as I have an exam in about an hour, and can't afford to be distracted. So. Just to clear the muddle in my head:
Okay, one, I really need to stop having arguments with people. It does no-one any good. Especially as I have an exam in about an hour, and can't afford to be distracted. So. Just to clear the muddle in my head:
On the subject of Atheism. As far as I can gather, there are two very distinct strands of atheism, defined by the following statements:
- I don't believe in God/gods
- I believe God/gods doesn't/don't exist
Two vastly different statements, it seems to me.
In the first, the implication seems to be that, whether or not any God/gods exist, the person doesn't believe in them. There is no onus to prove or disprove the existance of a god, as regardless of their presence, the belief is not there. This is a lack of belief.
In the second, the belief is that the god/gods either do not, or cannot, exist. And yes, I categorise this one as a belief, since as of yet there is no reliable way to actually prove such a thing. Well, that I know of. This is belief in a lack.
A lack of belief is not the same as belief in a lack. These are two very different schools of thought.
As for my personal views on either of them, I don't particularly value either of them higher than the other, or higher than any other religion or view on religion. I don't follow either, I have tested those views within myself and found them wanting, but that's only my set of beliefs, and they have no more value than anyone else's.
My only request is that, if you are going to attempt to argue atheism with me, can you please specify what kind, and then stick to it. It gets confusing when people switch them around in the middle of a discussion. Please keep in mind that the above statements, again, are not the same. You can't use them interchangably, not without severely confusing me, and possibly yourself.
Thank you.
Note: Editted as per comments.
- I don't believe in God/gods
- I believe God/gods doesn't/don't exist
Two vastly different statements, it seems to me.
In the first, the implication seems to be that, whether or not any God/gods exist, the person doesn't believe in them. There is no onus to prove or disprove the existance of a god, as regardless of their presence, the belief is not there. This is a lack of belief.
In the second, the belief is that the god/gods either do not, or cannot, exist. And yes, I categorise this one as a belief, since as of yet there is no reliable way to actually prove such a thing. Well, that I know of. This is belief in a lack.
A lack of belief is not the same as belief in a lack. These are two very different schools of thought.
As for my personal views on either of them, I don't particularly value either of them higher than the other, or higher than any other religion or view on religion. I don't follow either, I have tested those views within myself and found them wanting, but that's only my set of beliefs, and they have no more value than anyone else's.
My only request is that, if you are going to attempt to argue atheism with me, can you please specify what kind, and then stick to it. It gets confusing when people switch them around in the middle of a discussion. Please keep in mind that the above statements, again, are not the same. You can't use them interchangably, not without severely confusing me, and possibly yourself.
Thank you.
Note: Editted as per comments.