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
I get your point. Would you agree that others though, may indeed hold a
belief that there is not a God, as opposed to simply not personally finding
there to be compelling evidence?
Tom C.
