Ikke å tro er også en tro?

[Hamnli2]

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

yes I do, but thats not the point. The point is that you dont choose to be persuaded, thats what I meant.

 

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

 

Lets just agree to disagree then, semantics are never interesting to discuss.

 

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

 

Yeah, sure thats the definition, but it says absolutely nothing about what a belief is. As such, I believe mine to be a better definition

[noob11]

EDIT: the you in this post is refering to TrondH86

 

Yes, but ignorance of god makes atheism irrelevant. You do know the concept of atheism, thus you also know the concept of god and thus you have a belief that god do not exist. Or in other words a belief in the lack of god.

 

My stance is that anyone calling themselfs an atheist have a belief in the lack of god. I'm not saying that those that are ignorant of the issue have a belief. How could they?

 

True, both ignorance and rejection of god is atheism, but one of them is a lack of belief and the other is a belief of lack. All athism does is say that this person does not fall in the catogory of people that do believe god exists. And, as the group of people are ignorant of the consept of god is probably confined to people that have no way of communicating with other humans they are largly irrelevant in a discussion about ... Well, pretty much anything.

 

If I were to ask you "Do you believe that there is no god?" you would probably say yes. While someone ignorant of god would probably say "what?" or "what is god?". Then when the concept of god is explained that previously ignorant person would probably say no or yes.

 

Lack of positive belief in a god due to rejection of said god = Belief in a lack of god.

Lack of positive belief in a god due to ignorance of said god = Lack of knowledge about god and thus no basis to form a belief = lack of belief of god.

Both the above = atheism.

Endret 21. mars 2009 av noob11

[Imsvale]

Belief in the absence of a god is also absence of (positive) belief in a god, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

 

You also don't need to call yourself an atheist to be an atheist any more than you need to call yourself homo sapiens to be homo sapiens. You just are, by definition.

[noob11]

yes I do, but thats not the point. The point is that you dont choose to be persuaded, thats what I meant.

...

Lets just agree to disagree then, semantics are never interesting to discuss.

...

Yeah, sure thats the definition, but it says absolutely nothing about what a belief is. As such, I believe mine to be a better definition

Yes, the argument that persuades you will do so no matter what you want. I got caught in the not a consious thing.

 

I'll have to disagree with you on semantics tho, they _can_ be intresting to discuss

 

And for the definition of belief. Why not simply say its something you believe without having the facts? IE: I have a belief in the lack of god because I believe that there is no god Since I also believe that we can't have knowledge of a god that can't be measured I would lable myself an agnostic atheist. EDIT: BTW, the word preconception seems to cover what you talked about in point 1 in your statement earlier.

 

Og for å ta siste biten på norsk. Jeg tror at gud ikke finnes, jeg tror at vi ikke kan vite om en gud som ikke kan måles finnes, så jeg kaller meg selv en agnostisk ateist.

Endret 21. mars 2009 av noob11

[noob11]

Belief in the absence of a god is also absence of (positive) belief in a god, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

 

You also don't need to call yourself an atheist to be an atheist any more than you need to call yourself homo sapiens to be homo sapiens. You just are, by definition.

 

As opposed to the definition theist/atheist the definition homo sapiens sapiens don't have a duality.

 

It seems we are in agrement on the definition of atheism. The reason I went into this disscusion is the claim that " any and all atheists have lack of belief". That is what I disagree with. I believe every atheist aware of the fact they are an atheist have a belief of lack, and that every atheist that is ignorant of the issue have a lack of belief.

 

Just as you can't have a belief when you are ignorant of the topic, you also can't not have a belief when you know about the topic. As long as it is a topic its possible to believe something about.

[Imsvale]

As opposed to the definition theist/atheist the definition homo sapiens sapiens don't have a duality.

That doesn't change anything. If this were a different discussion, I would also argue the above somewhat.

 

It seems we are in agrement on the definition of atheism. The reason I went into this disscusion is the claim that " any and all atheists have lack of belief".

Yes, this is what they all have in common.

 

I can see where the misunderstanding lies. You think I was asserting that all atheists have only a lack of belief in a god. This is obviously not the case. Some atheists go further and have a positive belief in the non-existence of a god. This effectively supersedes the absence of belief in a god, even though the absence of belief in a god is still present. Note however the key difference between belief in a god and belief about a god.

[insulinshock]

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.

 

hello out there´s

with any information about god i can make choices

1. belief

2. not belief

3. know

4. do not know

 

is knowing different to belief?

dictionary time.

belief(acceptance of statement to be true or existing)

knowing(awareness by observation,information and inquiry).

 

i reason knowing(what is) and belief(the judgement as truth of what is).

 

 

 

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.

 

hello out there´s

with any information about god i can make choices

1. belief

2. not belief

3. know

4. do not know

 

is knowing different to belief?

dictionary time.

belief(acceptance of statement to be true or existing)

knowing(awareness by observation,information and inquiry).

 

i reason knowing(what is) and belief(the judgement as truth of what is).

[Lillekrek]

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?

 

Ikke å tro, er å tro kan jo også begrunnes i det at du tror på naturvitenskapen. Men, i motsettning til religiøstro som baserer seg kun på en bok, og hvordan deres trosretning tolker boken, tror vi andre på empirisk fakta, og en enorm mengde vitenskapelig fakta. <Vitenskapelig fakta vil si fakta samlet gjennom den vitenskapelige metode>. Det går også ut på at en aldri kan vite helt sikkert, men vi er "pretty damn close". Mens religion godtar dogmer og forklaringer, søker vitenskapen på å finne ut. Vi er søkende etter sannheten isedet for å godta alt uten noen som helst bevis annet enn en tro.

[thai-mat]

Ikke å runke er også å runke?

[ole_marius]

begynner å bli som smått lei av copy + paste nå

 

denne diskusjonen er tatt mange ganger før og jeg gjentar meg, å diskutere dette på engelsk er mye lettere

 

tro (belive) som å tro at det blir fisk til middag

tro (faith) som troen på en gud

[kybstud]

Alle ateister her er vel enige i at de tror at det ikke finnes en Gud?

 

Om de gjør det tror de jo.

[ole_marius]

tro (belive) som å tro at det blir fisk til middag

tro (faith) som troen på en gud

 

hvilken av disse ordene er det du refererer til? belive eller faith?

[Imsvale]

Alle ateister her er vel enige i at de tror at det ikke finnes en Gud?

Det er mye som kan opptre hos personer samtidig med fravær av gudetro. Noe kan klassifiseres som underkategorier av ateisme (nonteisme, antiteisme), mens det meste annet har det ingen hensikt å koble spesifikt opp imot ateisme i det hele tatt.

 

Om de gjør det tror de jo.

Og om du mener jorda går rundt sola, så tror du jo også.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

Det vesentlige er hva man baserer det på.

Endret 25. mars 2009 av TrondH86

[kybstud]

tro (belive) som å tro at det blir fisk til middag

tro (faith) som troen på en gud

 

hvilken av disse ordene er det du refererer til? belive eller faith?

Believe. I believe in God.

 

Og om du mener jorda går rundt sola, så tror du jo også.

Selvfølgelig. Strengt tatt kan det hende at det nettopp er jorda som står i ro i forhold til universets "vegger"

[geebs]

Distinksjonen, som du sikkert også skjønner, Ozi, er at den ene er basert på fakta, mens den andre er helt grunnløst basert (eller basert løst på noe uten gyldig grunnlag). Du "tror" ikke at månen er lagd av ost selv om vi aldri kan konkludere at det ikke på et tidspunkt aldri er, eller aldri har vært, en eneste del av månen som er laget av ost. Grunnen er ganske enkel at det ikke eksisterer noen bevis for å anta at månen er, eller noen gang har vært, delvis laget av ost.

Det finnes ingenting som tjener som bevis for guds eksistens, ergo, det er ingen grunn til å "tro" at det denne osten eksisterer. Det betyr ikke at vi "tror" på samme måte som religiøse mennesker eller ostetroere gjør. Jeg ser forskjellen, du ser forskjellen, alt annet er kun provosering...

[Imsvale]

Faith er ikke en motsetning til belief, men en underkategori. Det er en tro som ikke hviler på noe som helst, og er stolt av det; en tro som ikke hviler på noe kan heller ikke rokkes av noe.

[noob11]

I can see where the misunderstanding lies. You think I was asserting that all atheists have only a lack of belief in a god.

 

Trodde jeg hadde svart på denne, men den gang ei. Ja, du har rett i det.