Not Believing is not a Belief!
I am sick and tired of people refusing to accept my lack of belief as a neutral position despite plainly telling them so. People seem to think that non belief in a god is the same as believing in no god and therefore a belief and atheism a religion. This is absolutely ludicrous! Not believing in a god can never be a belief because, as the words spell out, ‘Not believing’ is the very absence of a belief.
Would one say that not collecting stamps is a hobby or that not playing football is a sport? Of course not. Why? Because not collecting and not playing describe the absence of an action that translates into a hobby or a sport. In the absence of that action, nothing remains that can be attributed to a hobby or a sport.
Another blow to this line of thinking (I can’t even bring myself to call it logic!) is that, if absence of a belief is a belief and hence a religion, then a Christian would have multiple religions. One for the absence of belief in the deities of every other religion and every fictional characters ever created. A religion for the absence of belief in pixies, another for fairies, another for the flying spaghetti monster and so on. I hope the absurdity of calling the absence of a belief a belief is clear now.
Although there may be people who actively believe that there is no god, I do not hold that position. I simply do not believe in a god. I make no statement of whether or not a god exists. I am still waiting for evidence for the existence of a god. Until such evidence has been found I simply do not believe.
However, when one refers to religion and their models of god, that’s a whole new ball game. Religion does not speak of an obscure vague idea of god. Its theology is very specific giving specific attributes to its god. One only has to scrutinize these attributes to evaluate the existence of that particular being. For example, based on the various accepted attributes of the Christian God, it is fairly a simple exercise to arrive at the conclusion that such a god cannot exist. I reject models of gods based on this logic.
However, I accept that this does not mean a god cannot exist and hence hold on to the neutral position of not believing in a god.
Floating Thoughts 
heyy. well ur logic is prestine all through ur blog until ur idea abt holding a neutral position in the exsitence of god poped up.
I was thinking, say you were living in a shady region in texas. Now people over there say, the place has got all sorts of local people problems(rapist,molesteors etc) and u have never happend to run into those problems.
Now normally u wouldnt wait till u run into one of them, for u to start thinking abt moving out.
because u r already inclined to think tat the place is dangerous. And therefore u ll move out.
If u think abt the existence of god in the same lines, it may b illogical to wait for god to show up and then change ur opinion cause u r already inclined to think of its non existence.
U see…u dont need to go to the north pole to know its cold there.similarly u dont have to wait for god to show up for u to have a hard opinion. cause u already know he is not gonna show up
frankly ur neutral position could suggest a subtle “self doubt”(no offence, just a thought)
Unlike the existence of rapists and molestors, the existence of god does not present any immediate threat to my personal safety. Plus since I know that such a thing as rapists and molestors do exist, it is not reasonable to stick around until I have a personal experience. Hence I will move out.
The existence of god, however, is not the same thing since the whole thing is pretty much an unproven claim. As far as I am concerned, some people made the claim that god exists and I reject the validity of the claim. I neither hold the belief that a god exists, nor do I beleive that god does not exist. Thats what I mean by holding the neutral position. I am not inclined to think of its non existence.
Now, keeping that in mind, tomorrow if you do get valid empirical evidence of some kind that a god exists, it would be foolish to hold on to the no god stance. People who say they believe in the non existence of god are as dogmatic as the religious. Hence holding the neutral position is the only reasonable position.
well i say ur evidence is all over the place, it traslates itsself into problems in all dimentions in this planet. Most of which cannot b resolved cause humans beings are not compitant enough. In the midst of all this a believer will sit waiting for “the one” to come and save this planet for centuries, or he ll stop believing cause he knows everything is fallin apart and tat will b his evidence to believe Gods no existence.
when u see bad guys, 2 plane, 2 buildings and crashes u automatically know the bad guys r resposible.
Now would i b wrong if i say it doesnt automatically come to u(A Skeptic)? cause i think u r still waiting for an evidence.
Could it b possible tat u r waiting for the bad guys to admit they r resposible(or could it b possible tat u r waiting for god to come down and tell u tat he doesnt exist?)
do u see my point?
What evidence? What do you mean “it traslates itsself into problems in all dimentions in this planet” and “everything is falling apart”?!? As far as I can tell there is nothing that suggests that anything is falling apart.
[i]Now would i b wrong if i say it doesnt automatically come to u(A Skeptic)? cause i think u r still waiting for an evidence.
Could it b possible tat u r waiting for the bad guys to admit they r resposible(or could it b possible tat u r waiting for god to come down and tell u tat he doesnt exist?)[/i]
Sigh… I suppose you just dont get…. Yes you would be wrong.
you are kidding me right.We got wars being fought for lame reasons(iraq war), we got food crisis all over the world(fertilizers we use for plants are made of oil and oil reserves are gettin bitch slapped day by day).we got parts of the world with water crisis some because of envirment others because of corperations. we got new deseases we cant find cure for. We got our own qovernments engaging in disinformation, crime, bad judgment etc and have the people take all the dirt(showing how much shit they have on the shelf)
infact there are endless amount of problems in this planet compared to the good things we have.
which points out the concept of entropy(the inevitable deterioration of an object, a system , or a society)
this is wat i ment by “evidence is all over the place & everything is fallin apart”
Having and optimistic outlook is great and ignorance can b bliss, but when it comes to this world optimism and ignorance can(not will) make u an idiot. so why take a chance?
so gettin back to our point, the evidence is all over the place. just watch some fox new or CNN. So all u need right now is to connect the dots for an answer to “is there a god or not?”
Lookin at the endless problems i d say God is non existent
but u wouldnt, which is why i asked earlier, are u waiting for god to come down and tell u he doesnt exist?
Ah I see. You seem to be confusing an argument for evidence. The “Problem of Evil”, which is what you have listed out, is an argument against the existence of a god not the evidence for the absence of it. Moreover this argument is only directed at the existence of a specific kind of god, namely the one that is personal and loving. It does nothing to argue against the existence of say a deistic god. With this argument all you can say is that a personal and loving god cannot exist. To say that a god does not exist you would need to have absolute knowledge.
I am not really sure where you got the idea that I am one with an optimistic outlook. As far as my position is concerned I take the skeptical standpoint. Hence I reject the unproven theistic claim that a god exists.
So to answer your question, No. I am simply open to the possibility that I may be wrong. As slim as that possibility is.
To quote Richard Dawkins – “A supernatural creator ALMOST CERTAINLY does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—a fixed false belief.”
Hence I repeat, claiming that you know that a god does not exist would require you to have absolute knowledge. Since you do not have that, you become the dogmatic aler ego of the theistic position. As far as I can tell that is not a reasonable position.
confusion between argument and evidence??? the definition of argument is “a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true”… in otherwords arguing is all abt presenting ur evidence to prove something.
so i d say there may b a glitch in ur logic abt my confussion between argument and evidence.
U said – “The “Problem of Evil”, which is what you have listed out, is an argument against the existence of a god not the evidence for the absence of it”
Now keeping wat i said earlier in mind i suspect if u can see a difference between an argument against the existence of god and the evidence for the absence of it. because the arguments against the existence of a god are, the collective evidences for the absence of it.
Now,1) how are my arguments directed towards the existence of a specific kind of god(personal and loving). They were specifically designed to prove otherwise!
2)and how is there specific kinds of gods? isnt god a creator and an all perfect being who is got everything imaginable when it comes to emotions(happiness, anger, pride love etc), power, intelligence etc. In otherwords a human being without any limits?
If tat is the case, and if my argument according to u is that a personal and loving god cannot exist. Then there is no god all togather. Because being god means to compose and control of everything, and everything includes “personal and loving”.
So if u remove anything of wat god composes off, then he is no god.
So why should anyone need absolute knowledge to know if god exists? all u gotta do is, just look around and “DEDUCE”.
Which is wat ur argument seems to lakh.U can reject the unproven theistic claim that a god exists but u dont seem to know wat to deduce out of it.
Now coming to Mr Richard Dawkins, He is a person who endlessly advocates against the concept of faith and religious believes and inturn promotes atheism.Now how does a guy like tat think “A supernatural creator ALMOST CERTAINLY does not exist?” Some how he seems like, he is not sure abt his preachings.U cannot promote atheism unless u have a hard stance on gods non existence.
therefore as u said being dogmatic certainly wont help but being observant and deducing out of those observations will put u in a reasonable position.
You – confusion between argument and evidence??? the definition of argument is “a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true”… in otherwords arguing is all abt presenting ur evidence to prove something.
Me – Your saying that there is evil in the world is a fact. Your saying that this evil necessarily means that a god cannot exist is an ASSERTION and one that is made without evidence. So there is evil in the world. How does that lead you to conclude that a god does not exist? Where is the connection?
You – so i d say there may b a glitch in ur logic abt my confussion between argument and evidence.
Me – Nope no glitch. You are clearly confusing an argument for evidence. You argue with evidence. Your argument itself is not evidence. In this case you invoke the argument of “Problem of Evil” and attempt to mascarade it as evidence when in fact all you have is an assertion that the presence of evil is equal to the absence of a god. You have not established that as a fact yet. Hence your assertion is faulty.
You – 1) how are my arguments directed towards the existence of a specific kind of god(personal and loving).
Me – Simple. The argument of “Problem of Evil” assumes that a god, if one exists, needs to be in constant touch with humans and love it. Why else would it care about all the suffering? If you consider the concept of the deistic god, the problem of evil does nothing to refute it since a deistic god does nothing nor to interfere with the natural world.
You – 2)and how is there specific kinds of gods? isnt god a creator and an all perfect being who is got everything imaginable when it comes to emotions(happiness, anger, pride love etc), power, intelligence etc. In otherwords a human being without any limits?
Me – What you are talking about is a specific concept of god or basically the christian concept of it. There are various concepts of god. As I already stated, a god that can be defined can be easily refuted. The problem is with the ones that are not defined. To say that No God Exists you will need to have absolute knowledge, which you do not. Hence making such a claim is unreasonable.
You – If tat is the case, and if my argument according to u is that a personal and loving god cannot exist. Then there is no god all togather. Because being god means to compose and control of everything, and everything includes “personal and loving”.
Me – Again that is one specific type of god. How do you know that there is only one kind?
You – So if u remove anything of wat god composes off, then he is no god.
Me – Again you are clinging on to a specific definition of a god.
You – So why should anyone need absolute knowledge to know if god exists? all u gotta do is, just look around and “DEDUCE”.
Me – Because when you look around and deduce, you project your own perception. Your own perception is not error free. How do you know you missed out something? How do you know you factored in everything you were supposed to factor in and did not forget anything? Much more importantly, How do you know that you are not ignorant of certain factors that had they been known would have given you a very different result? You are not at the epitome of knowledge and wisdom so looking around and deducing that there is no god puts you in as much the same footing as the next guy who is looking around and deducing that there is a god.
You – U can reject the unproven theistic claim that a god exists but u dont seem to know wat to deduce out of it.
Me – Let me put it this way. A friend of yours walks up to you and says you won 1 million dollars at the lottery. He then goes on to explain the intricate workings of the lottery and how it does not need a ticket. Despite the fact that you have not heard of the lottery before, you consider the characteristics of the whole mechanism and determine that it is extremely far fetched and inconsistent. More over you see a lot of poor people in and around the area who seem to be poor despite this wonderful lottery. Given this situation would you go about and deduce that there is no such thing as a lottery?!? Or would it be more reasonable to decide that the lottery that your friend told you about is a scam?
This is what you are doing. Just because you understand that the definition of god you were taught is false, does not mean that a god cannot exist. It only means that one you were taught cannot exist.
You – Now coming to Mr Richard Dawkins, He is a person who endlessly advocates against the concept of faith and religious believes and inturn promotes atheism.Now how does a guy like tat think “A supernatural creator ALMOST CERTAINLY does not exist?” Some how he seems like, he is not sure abt his preachings.
Me – LOL. What he has done is that he has taken the most reasonable position possible. I am sorry that you seem to understand that as doubt.
You – U cannot promote atheism unless u have a hard stance on gods non existence.
Me – Wrong. Atheists have nothing to do with proving the non existence of god. In fact there is no way you can prove a universal negetive. Thats why it is considered a logical fallacy. As far as atheists are concerned god is nothing more than a rejected claim. Simply put, atheists are people who do not believe in god. They do not necessarily believe that there is no god.
You – therefore as u said being dogmatic certainly wont help but being observant and deducing out of those observations will put u in a reasonable position.
Me – Unfortunately, assuming that your observations and deductions are inerrant still make you dogmatic.