Ikke å tro er også en tro?

[kybstud]

nei jeg er bare med i ungdomsklubben som er hver fredag, har vært med på diverse arrangementer her i byen der det er snakk om å hjelpe dem med oppsetning av telt der de har konkurranser som vanlige folk kan komme inn å drikke kaffe osv...

Åja, ser at du er fra Bodø. Da kjenner du nok noen jeg kjenner. Hva med søskene Isaksen

 

Og du kjenner vell herr Elvevoll, eller Frøyseth.

[ole_marius]

ja det gjør jeg

 

men hvordan har du kjennskap til dem eller frøyseth generelt?

[kybstud]

Isaksen er litt spesielle begge to, spesielt jr.

 

Frøyseth er ikke helt stødig på 'R'ene sine?

 

Og Martin er kul

 

Har møtt dem på div. arrangementer.

[Leviath]

Man kan nok gjøre det samme med julenissen:

La oss starte med 50% sjanse for at han finnes og 50% for at han ikke finnes.

Hvis vi legger til faktorene "antall uforklarlige pakker under treet" og "pakker kjøpt av foreldre i julenissens navn" får man også en liten prosentandel for at han finnes.

 

Er det riktig å regne slik?

 

Det er vel slik Unwin har gjort det ja

 

Forøvrig:

Og svaret han endte opp med var at det er 67 prosent sjanse for at Gud, ikke nærmere spesifisert hvilken, eksisterer.

[Petrvs Romanvs]

og samme bok....

Var kanskje ikke klar nok når jeg snakket om det moderne, tenker da på 1945 og Nag Hammadi (annet lys).

[insulinshock]

Jeg havnet opp i en diskusjon med flere kristne her om dagen. Et par av dem var lettere kristne og en av dem var utdannet teolog.

 

Diskusjonen var ganske grei bortsett fra en påstand jeg syntes var noe merkelig:

 

"Ikke å tro er også en tro".

 

Jeg mener det blir det samme som å si: Ikke å samle på frimerker er også en hobby.

 

 

Hvis man som meg baserer virkelighetsoppfatningen på naturvitenskapen, og det som er ansett som fakta, kan man da si at jeg tror på naturvitenskapen på samme måte som f.eks. kristne tror på f.eks. Gud eller Jesus?

 

Er det som er bevist ved den naturvitenskapelige metode en tro?

 

Det som er bevist naturvitenskapelig er selvfølgelig ikke 100% sannhet, men det er det nærmeste vi kommer sannheten etter min mening. I tillegg er sannheten man prøver å nærme seg ved hjelp av naturvitenskapen dynamisk. Blir det bevist noe annet enn den gjeldende sannheten blir sannheten endret ved hjelp av de nye bevisene.

 

Er det noen som har gode argumenter for at ikke å tro er faktisk ikke en tro?

 

 

i´ll use another example to examine if "no belief is also a belief".

example. no apple cake is also apple cake.( doesn´t work). no apple cake is no apple cake. physical stuff.

problem ... a belief is not a physical thing( cannot physically sense it... it is non sense).

i leave it now with a belief to be examined.... there are no opposites outside the physical unless i make a belief.an illusion!

so to not believe (illusion) is also a belief(illusion).

sooooo...an illusion is an illusion.

a cake is a cake.

a no cake is a no cake.

a no cake cannot be a cake.

an illusion cannot be a non illusion.

the opposite of a rose is no rose.

the opposite of an illusion is no opposite. unless you belief another illusion is different.

 

 

ps. my written norwegian is too funny to read. QED.

[Hamnli2]

Your written English is incomprehensible.

[Imsvale]

Slett ikke.

[Hamnli2]

i´ll use another example to examine if "no belief is also a belief".

example. no apple cake is also apple cake.( doesn´t work). no apple cake is no apple cake. physical stuff.

problem ... a belief is not a physical thing( cannot physically sense it... it is non sense).

i leave it now with a belief to be examined.... there are no opposites outside the physical unless i make a belief.an illusion!

so to not believe (illusion) is also a belief(illusion).

sooooo...an illusion is an illusion.

a cake is a cake.

a no cake is a no cake.

a no cake cannot be a cake.

an illusion cannot be a non illusion.

the opposite of a rose is no rose.

the opposite of an illusion is no opposite. unless you belief another illusion is different.

 

1. A belief is a physical thing, in the sense that beliefs are pre-made thoughts and opinions about a certain situation or object, before this situation or object is encountered, in witch case it stops being a belief and start being an experience. Thoughts are just electrons firing off on your brain, and then so are beliefs.

 

2. Opposite of illusion is truth.

 

To not believe is to not have a pre-made thought or opinion about a certain situation or object. Its quite simply to not have encountered this situation or object and not having made up your mind about it already. As such not believing is not another belief, it is the lack of belief.

[noob11]

Anyone calling themself an atheist must be familiar with the consept of god. Thus any atheist don't have a lack of belief, but a belief that there is no god.

 

It is possible to lack a belief of god, but such a person would not be able to use the word atheist since that word is bound to the consept of god. If one takes the consept of atheism to a wider context where one disregards any non-proven supernatural entities (like the easter bunny) then I'll dare claim that a person lacking belief is a person that have never comunicated with another human.

[Imsvale]

No, someone to whom the very concept of a god is unknown is by definition an atheist as well.

[Speik]

I'm an atheist and I believe. I don't have a problem with believing either, because "believing" is not the same as "faith". What I believe in (humanist values such as reason, man-made morals and ethics) are earthly, physical things. Its something else to have faith in the divine.

Endret 21. mars 2009 av Speik

[kybstud]

Kan vi ikke holde oss til å snakke norsk?

[Imsvale]

Let me point out: Many atheists also have a belief that there is no god (depends entirely upon the definition of god, obviously). This is different from a mere absence of belief in a god. Whatever the reason for the absence, the term atheism alone simply does not specify.

 

@Ozi: Er det ikke forfriskende med litt engelsk?

[noob11]

No, someone to whom the very concept of a god is unknown is by definition an atheist as well.

True, but the person with no concept of god would also have no consept of atheism, and thus never label himself as such. So, the lable atheism requires the consept of god to be used. No atheist aware of beeing an atheist has a lack of belief of god.

 

Eller for å ta den på norsk. Om man kjenner begrepet ateisme så kjenner man også begrepet gud. Om man ikke har kjennskap til konseptet gud har man heller intet bruk for konseptet ateisme. For å forklare noen at de er ateister må man også forklare konseptet med gud. Dermed blir det ikke mangel på tro, men tro på mangel

[Imsvale]

Self-labeled or not, aware or otherwise, the person is an atheist by definition. Any and all atheists have a lack of belief in a god. The reason is irrelevant.

[noob11]

Self-labeled or not, aware or otherwise, the person is an atheist by definition. Any and all atheists have a lack of belief in a god. The reason is irrelevant.

 

Not at all. The only way you can have a lack of belief in god is if you have never heard about god. If you have heard about god you have made a choice. Either you belive god is real or you don't.

If you have heard an argument then you have either accepted or denied it.

 

If you have heard about god then you either belives he exist or you belives he don't exist. If you have not heard about god then the definition of atheism is irrelevant

 

Before you read the following you lack a belief about tukmaxmannen. I claim that tukmaxmannen have supernatural powers, are omnipresent and really likes mudkips. He is also undetectable by any meassuring devices, but I claim he exist.

Now you have a belief that this tukmaxmannen either exist or don't. You can't have a lack of belief since you have heard about him.

[Hamnli2]

Not at all. The only way you can have a lack of belief in god is if you have never heard about god. If you have heard about god you have made a choice. Either you belive god is real or you don't.

If you have heard an argument then you have either accepted or denied it.

Its not a choice. And no argument is accepted or denied, persuasion is not a conscious process.

 

If you have heard about god then you either belives he exist or you belives he don't exist. If you have not heard about god then the definition of atheism is irrelevant

 

Would you say that you believe that the easter bunny doesn't exist? Or would you say that you don't believe in the easter bunny?

Before you read the following you lack a belief about tukmaxmannen. I claim that tukmaxmannen have supernatural powers, are omnipresent and really likes mudkips. He is also undetectable by any meassuring devices, but I claim he exist.

Now you have a belief that this tukmaxmannen either exist or don't. You can't have a lack of belief since you have heard about him.

 

No, you can have a lack of belief even if you have heard of something. As I stated earlier a belief is a pre-made mindset about a certain object or situation, as such, if you keep your mind open to the possibility of an easterbunny and yet you do not believe in his existence, then you have a lack of belief, not a belief of lack of easterbunnies.

[noob11]

Its not a choice. And no argument is accepted or denied, persuasion is not a conscious process.[/b]

 

So you don't know that you are presuaded? I'm persuaded by arguments, and I weigh each argument to see if I accept this argument or not. Perhaps I work very differently from you, but I'm fairly confident that persuasion is a conscious process

 

Would you say that you believe that the easter bunny doesn't exist? Or would you say that you don't believe in the easter bunny?

 

I'd be equaly comfortable saying both. I don't believe in the easter bunny, and I believe it don't exist. If I were to be presented with a very good argument, or even proof, I'd change my stance on the easter bunny issue.

 

...you keep your mind open to the possibility of an easterbunny and yet you do not believe in his existence, then you have a lack of belief, not a belief of lack of easterbunnies.

If you do not believe in the existence of the easterbunny then your belief is that there is no easterbunny. How is that not a belief of lack of easterbunnies?

 

But, if I'm not mistaken this is perhaps a semantic discussion. And as such its probably unwinnable. I firmly believe that a lack of belief is only possible if you have no consept of the topic of belief. I have a lack of belief in all those things I've never heard about. But once I hear about something I make a choice of what to believe about it. Either its true, or its not. Further info might change that from one to another. Before I thought about the tukmaxmann I had a lack of belief about him, but now that I have thought about it I believe he don't exist

 

EDIT: regarding your statement that belief is a pre-made mindset..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief says Belief is "something believed".

Atm I believe that is probably a more right way of using the word then what you say in your statement

Endret 21. mars 2009 av noob11

[Imsvale]

Not at all. The only way you can have a lack of belief in god is if you have never heard about god. If you have heard about god you have made a choice. Either you belive god is real or you don't.

If you have heard an argument then you have either accepted or denied it.

 

If you have heard about god then you either belives he exist or you belives he don't exist. If you have not heard about god then the definition of atheism is irrelevant

Seeing as theism is a positive belief in a theistic god, atheism² is anything which isn't theism, including both ignorance and rejection of said god.

 

Lack of positive belief in a god (i.e. lack of theism => atheism) is present in both cases.

 

²atheos: a = not/without + theos = god