Tom C wrote:
Keith that's not what I meant... :-) Obviously. I meant beliefs, period.
Let's say that one does not believe in God. The converse of that is to
say they believe there is not a God. Therefore they have a belief and
are not brain dead or a corpse.
That's an old and false line of argument, albeit one that is very
appealing at first sight.
When some-one says they "believe in God", they mean that they
believe that a particular entity, with certain properties,
exists. They may or may not be able to verbalise they reasons for
their belief.
When I say "I do not believe in God", I mean that there is no
evidence available to make me conclude that the entity called
"God" exists.
These are two VERY different kinds of statements.
I have reviewed the available "evidence" and arguments in favour
of god, and, because I am neither brain dead nor a corpse (save
after certain long drinking sessions which we will not discuss
further), have decided that they are insufficent to compel belief.
Putting it more simply: "lack of belief is not belief in a lack".
Keith McG
