& this is NOT as some claim, the refusal to believe that which is true, a subtle misreading of a definition by someone. Disbelief is "the inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." Or, " the lack of faith in something." That first definition makes no claim that that something is true or real, just that the disbeliever doesn't accept it!

@NotConvinced Well yes since Rowling created it.

@NotConvinced Thank you

Disagree. Saying that one has no belief in a god is quite different from a claim that a god does not exist. The first is a statement that essentially says, " I see no proof, therefore I will not make a positive claim for belief." This in itself does not automatically embrace the negative claim, which is, "I believe a god does not exist." Tho a negative statement it makes a positive claim for disbelief. Therefore the burden of proof shifts, at least somewhat, to the "anti-believer" to give a basis or proof for his claim. Yes, a comprehensive idea of what 'god' actually is would be nice, but it varies so much from some Cosmic Thunderer to your 'universal awareness', & thus stays ephemeral & nebulous enough to keep this conversation on terms boiling yet!

@phxbillcee It seems to me that there’s a difference in saying that “I believe God doesn’t exist” and the bald-faced assertion that there is no God. The first is a statement about yourself, which would be clearer if prefaced by “in my opinion”. If you were a Canadian you could end with “aye?”

As an analogy, say that two people are looking and one says, “I see a deer” and the other says: “I don’t see it”. They are talking about themselves and there should be no cause for argument. If the second says, “You are full of crap and there is zero evidence for a deer. You have made a positive statement and now you have the burden of proof “, well in that case there might be hard feelings. From the perspective of the first person, it was just a glimmer of a sighting from far off. He has already said all he knows about it and has no further evidence to offer. If they are friends they will accommodate each other’s human limitations without psychoanalyzing or making Ill judgments.

Of course there is the case where the first person forms a deer cult and decrees that anyone who does not see a deer will go to hell. Banding together against such nonsense is perfectly understandable.

The concept of burden of proof makes no sense to me as applied to normal conversation.

Well put.

The so-called “supernatural” can be thought of in a way different than magic. Everything can be considered supernatural. The part of this greater reality that we are able to perceive—that is our own personal reality, which we label the physical universe. As such we are all supernatural beings. This is not woo—it’s been established science since the days of Maxwell.

@WilliamFleming Then using "super"natural is misleading; it is natural. By definition, the supernatural is above or outside of nature, and is nothing we can have information about or make assertions about. There is by definition nothing but the natural world. If everything is supernatural than nothing is natural.

There are things that we do not perceive and/or understand, but that doesn't justify making a category error out of them. A minority of those things will remain ever beyond our grasp because of our limitations or the limitations of our situation (for example, some aspects of reality could not be properly apprehended unless we could somehow step outside of reality to get an overview). Most of those things will eventually be understood, just as much of human ignorance has been remedied in the past.

@mordant Sound good, except that IMO we know nothing except in a superficial way, and certainly nothing outside our space/time/matter model except glimmers of intuition.

@WilliamFleming I agree it is the conceit of every generation to imagine that it has most of the knowledge there is to be had. I think it was the guy running the patent office in the early 20th century that opined that there was nothing much more left to invent. Then when the first computers were built, the head of IBM theorized that there might be a worldwide market for like a dozen of them. And then Bill Gates said we'll never need more than 640K of user RAM.

That said, what we DO know is hardly "nothing except in a superficial way". We can legitimately have a high degree of confidence in quite a lot. Even harkening back to Newtonian physics, he was off on very small and large scales, but to this day Newtonian equations are plenty adequate for calculating orbital mechanics. Relativity and Quantum theories were only refinements for edge cases.

So while I believe very much in epistemological humility and open mindedness, I do not think we are entirely ignorant nor are we unable to draw any useful and substantive conclusions.

@TheMiddleWay Agreed about science. Not about gods.

@TheMiddleWay While I generally respect your middle-ground position, and ability to argue as logically as possible, I think in this case, you are going too far. It's not possible for the baby to confirm or deny anything, as they are not capable of speech, or much in the way of cognitive thought. If the absence of belief is the default, then any belief in gods or religion must be taught. If a child is not exposed to indoctrination, they are highly unlikely to manifest such beliefs on their own. Humans created the concept of gods. Grown, ignorant, ancient humans, who didn't understand how the world worked, and needed to explain things to themselves. They had to teach others their ideas about these concepts. Children didn't come up with this stuff.

@TheMiddleWay We definitely disagree on this issue.

And they are taught the names of those gods. Indoctrination is the point: everyone gets their ideology from someone else. So we’re either indoctrinated or we become free-thinkers.

@KKGator, @TheMiddleWay I heard it recently said that if there were not in existence the current belief systems, others may take their place, and they would most probably be different beliefs created by different individuals. But if those who discovered scientific truths did not exist, someone else would arrive at those truths eventually, probably, because they are universal truths based on natural reality. And science is not dogmatic; it evolves, and aims at objectivity. Being taught religion and being taught science are fundamentally different experiences.

No one is required to use atheist (or any other term) to describe them self. I just use secular humanist which is what I am.

I used to feel the same way about having a positive term. One that has been proposed is Apistevist. However, I have started to feel that negatively stated terms can be an advantage as long as you realize it makes no claim to fully encompass your beliefs, but is only a start. You are less able to be pigeon-holed. Because the term Atheist carries so much baggage, perhaps Non-Theist or simply non-religious might be a good choice? Agnostic also carries a lot of baggage. None is a lame sounding name.

@TheMiddleWay sounds too similar to ignorant. No thanks

@TheMiddleWay I get it but don't care for the connotation.