No. They are not equivalent beliefs. I can appreciate you admitting you can't prove God exists. But there are differences between the two.

 

One big difference is that I would change my mind, if there was proof.

 

Another difference is that it is a little different between proving an affirmative (God exists) and a negative (God doesn't exist). Russell's famous teapot is important. (Russell said that if he stated there was a cosmic teapot floating in space between earth and mars, you would be unable to disprove his belief in the teapot, but that your inability to disprove his belief doesn't mean he is right).

 

I don't believe in Santa Clause. Would you consider that "a matter of faith" as well? If so, your working definition of "a matter of faith" is too broad to have any real meaning.

 

Finally, we should define what you mean by "God" If you mean some vague force that created the universe, set it in motion and then has been taking a nap for 14 billion years, then okay, that would be hard to disprove. If you mean "God" as the Christian God in the Bible, or the God of any other modern religion, then disproving parts of that are much easier.

 

I will assume, and pardon me if this incorrect, that you are a Christian. So, you then would not believe in Zeus. Is your disbelief in Zeus "a matter of faith" or is it the result of you not seeing any evidence of Zeus whatsoever?

 

If it makes you feel better for some reason to think as you posted, I guess it's no real big deal.

 

You certainly spent a whole lot of space trying to refute me if it's "no real big deal".

 

That's a trend I see with most avowed atheists, on one hand they will say that if people believe in God it's "no real big deal" to them yet (despite claims made by the originator to the contrary) spend large amounts of time trying to prove they are right and all the rest of us are not only wrong, but stupid.

 

And yes, my disbelief in Zeus is a matter of faith, faith that the God I believe in exists.

Who are you trying to kid?

 

Can you prove it?

No. They are not equivalent beliefs. I can appreciate you admitting you can't prove God exists. But there are differences between the two.

 

One big difference is that I would change my mind, if there was proof.

 

Another difference is that it is a little different between proving an affirmative (God exists) and a negative (God doesn't exist). Russell's famous teapot is important. (Russell said that if he stated there was a cosmic teapot floating in space between earth and mars, you would be unable to disprove his belief in the teapot, but that your inability to disprove his belief doesn't mean he is right).

 

I don't believe in Santa Clause. Would you consider that "a matter of faith" as well? If so, your working definition of "a matter of faith" is too broad to have any real meaning.

 

Finally, we should define what you mean by "God" If you mean some vague force that created the universe, set it in motion and then has been taking a nap for 14 billion years, then okay, that would be hard to disprove. If you mean "God" as the Christian God in the Bible, or the God of any other modern religion, then disproving parts of that are much easier.

 

I will assume, and pardon me if this incorrect, that you are a Christian. So, you then would not believe in Zeus. Is your disbelief in Zeus "a matter of faith" or is it the result of you not seeing any evidence of Zeus whatsoever?

 

If it makes you feel better for some reason to think as you posted, I guess it's no real big deal.

 

The bolded reminds me of a quote from Richard Dawkins:

 

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Topic was absolutely not to shame anyone. I've just always been fascinated with the idea of smart people believing outrageous ideas. For example, Heaven's Gate, the Hale-Bopp comet people. Very educated, tech saavy people who bought into Marshall Applewhite's belief that Hale-Bopp was coming to taxi them to Nirvana. Just fascinating...simply fascinating. Like I say, if you WANT to believe bad enough, rationality will be cast aside in favor of magic...

 

Don't forget this past Wednesday, yet the Earth is still here.

Who are you trying to kid?

 

All you have to do is look at this posters history of starting threads. His intent is proven by his history.

 

I'm sure all that was wanted was rational conversation and there would be no shaming.

You certainly spent a whole lot of space trying to refute me if it's "no real big deal".

 

That's a trend I see with most avowed atheists, on one hand they will say that if people believe in God it's "no real big deal" to them yet (despite claims made by the originator to the contrary) spend large amounts of time trying to prove they are right and all the rest of us are not only wrong, but stupid.

 

And yes, my disbelief in Zeus is a matter of faith, faith that the God I believe in exists.

 

And this is a trend that I see with a lot of avowed believers, say one thing, get refuted, and change the argument. I refuted your original claim that believing God doesn't exist is a matter of faith the same as believing he does exist is a matter of faith. And you ignored that and then now say "a lot of atheists say .......etc" It may be true, but it is non-responsive to your original post and my reply.

 

So, do you believe in Santa Clause? And, if you do not believe in Santa Clause, is that a matter of faith? Or is it something else? Because I could say that I believe in Santa Clause, as the creator of the universe, and that it is a matter of faith to me and that your failure to believe in Santa Clause is a matter of faith to you, and both beliefs are therefore equally valid. Do you agree with that? Of course you don't.

 

Now it truly is no big deal if you want to believe it, but I responded because now you can see how it is insulting to others to assert it. You might want to believe in a God you admit you can't prove exists, and that it is your right. But I want to make a sound decision on these matters, and have given it a lot of thought, and for you to dismiss all the thought and deliberation on it as "a matter of faith" is demeaning.

And this is a trend that I see with a lot of avowed believers, say one thing, get refuted, and change the argument. I refuted your original claim that believing God doesn't exist is a matter of faith the same as believing he does exist is a matter of faith. And you ignored that and then now say "a lot of atheists say .......etc" It may be true, but it is non-responsive to your original post and my reply.

 

So, do you believe in Santa Clause? And, if you do not believe in Santa Clause, is that a matter of faith? Or is it something else? Because I could say that I believe in Santa Clause, as the creator of the universe, and that it is a matter of faith to me and that your failure to believe in Santa Clause is a matter of faith to you, and both beliefs are therefore equally valid. Do you agree with that? Of course you don't.

 

Now it truly is no big deal if you want to believe it, but I responded because now you can see how it is insulting to others to assert it. You might want to believe in a God you admit you can't prove exists, and that it is your right. But I want to make a sound decision on these matters, and have given it a lot of thought, and for you to dismiss all the thought and deliberation on it as "a matter of faith" is demeaning.

 

If you want to believe that Santa Claus is the creator of the universe that's fine with me, I don't as a matter of faith and it doesn't affect me one way or the other nor does it affect my belief. If you don't want to believe in God that's fine. But no matter how you want to spin it you can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore you're acting on faith. The fact that you seem to think even the idea of having faith in anything is demeaning and insulting is just as demeaning to me.

If there was no God there'd be no reason to be a Atheist. Truth.

And this is a trend that I see with a lot of avowed believers, say one thing, get refuted, and change the argument. I refuted your original claim that believing God doesn't exist is a matter of faith the same as believing he does exist is a matter of faith. And you ignored that and then now say "a lot of atheists say .......etc" It may be true, but it is non-responsive to your original post and my reply.

 

So, do you believe in Santa Clause? And, if you do not believe in Santa Clause, is that a matter of faith? Or is it something else? Because I could say that I believe in Santa Clause, as the creator of the universe, and that it is a matter of faith to me and that your failure to believe in Santa Clause is a matter of faith to you, and both beliefs are therefore equally valid. Do you agree with that? Of course you don't.

 

Now it truly is no big deal if you want to believe it, but I responded because now you can see how it is insulting to others to assert it. You might want to believe in a God you admit you can't prove exists, and that it is your right. But I want to make a sound decision on these matters, and have given it a lot of thought, and for you to dismiss all the thought and deliberation on it as "a matter of faith" is demeaning.

 

Santa Clause absolutely exists. At the expense of good taste, some might say, but it definitely exists.

Scientists say Global Warming exists.

 

Other Scientists say Global Warming does not exist.

 

If science explains everything, how is this so? Does it take faith, in the scientists?

Obvious science? Have you poured through the data yourself?

 

Fwiw, I don't care how old the earth is and I don't care what other people think.

Scientists say Global Warming exists.

 

Other Scientists say Global Warming does not exist.

If science explains everything, how is this so? Does it take faith, in the scientists?

 

Please don't act like this is a 50/50 argument about the affect humans have on the environment. Human neglect caught the Cuyahoga River on fire, and human attention fixed the problem, thanks, weirdly enough, to Richard Nixon.

 

Do you burn styrofoam for heating fuel?

Please don't act like this is a 50/50 argument about the affect humans have on the environment. Human neglect caught the Cuyahoga River on fire, and human attention fixed the problem, thanks, weirdly enough, to Richard Nixon.

 

Do you burn styrofoam for heating fuel?

 

I don't think anyone ever said humans don't impact the environment...the argument comes from exactly how much they impact the climate. The Environment is not the same as the Climate.

I don't think anyone ever said humans don't impact the environment...the argument comes from exactly how much they impact the climate. The Environment is not the same as the Climate.

 

No, but the dismisser crowd acts as though there's nothing we can do to adversely affect things. And that annoys me. So, to them I say, start burning styrofoam for heating fuel and back up your position, and let me know how that turns out.

No, but the dismisser crowd acts as though there's nothing we can do to adversely affect things. And that annoys me. So, to them I say, start burning styrofoam for heating fuel and back up your position, and let me know how that turns out.

I gotcha