Keith McGuinness wrote:
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".
I had a similar debate with someone else once, and I tried to point out
(and perhaps this is also what Tom is saying, but I am not speaking for
him) that I used the word "belief" to mean "a firmly held opinion or
conviction."
Most atheists of my acquaintance "feel sure" that there is no God. In
other words, that is something they "believe" (means the same thing.)
On the other hand, the other person (and perhaps also you?) used the
term "belief" in another, equally valid sense: "an acceptance that
something exists or is true."
