So:
A believes in god
B believes in the absence of god?
More like:
A does not believe in God
B believes thereās no God
Is A and B the same thing?
I think theyāre basically equivalent if we have a fixed and clear definition of something. The problem here is that ābelieve there is no godā could either refer to one particular god which a theist has defined, or the set of all possible gods. Iāll happily agree to the first one (so far at least, willing to listen) but the latter is an impossibility. I donāt have the knowledge to rule out every possibility we might think of as a god. Iām only aware of gods from peopleās claims, and I think itās more accurate to say that I donāt believe those claims.
1 Like
Right, this is the old āwhat shape does your god take?ā kind of question. Where the word āgodā becomes a semantic discussion.
The universe is vast and much is unknown or outside of our understanding, the idea their may be sentient forms of life that are beyond our understanding or capability to comprehend and may be defined in some form or another as god like. I donāt think can be ruled out, but by the same notion I donāt see evidence for an existence either. Which leads to the question of āhow do you prove a negative?ā.
One can be open minded yet base their reality on what they can perceive without leaps of faith based on no evidence whatsoever.
2 Likes
In my understanding, there lies the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic.
Atheistic do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity.
Agnostic claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.
In other words, an atheist believes in the absence of God, while an agnostic has absence of belief in God (or any deity presented by any religion to this day).
But thatās my understanding, which could be wrong, hence the poll above.
1 Like
If you all accepted acintyabedhabedha (simultaneous difference and non-difference), you wouldnāt ask (yes / no) questions like that.
Professed agnostics would probably be okay with that, but most professed atheists wouldnāt agree. You say thereās a god. I really donāt believe in that god. That makes me an atheist with respect to that god, and by extension, in general. There are a lot of things about the cosmos I donāt and probably canāt know, and Iām agnostic to that degree. People often use the term āstrong atheistā to describe the āthere are no godsā position.
Honestly, do you think everything that comes out of Petersonās mouth is going to be life changing and extremely profound? He has had some sub par interviews, talks and debates. The first Peterson and Sam Harris one was not so great. They just werenāt on the same page and were not vibing. Sometimes it just isnāt there. Even Kobe and Jordan had sub par games.
I donāt envy the microscopic scrutiny placed on Petersonās words. People try so hard to take him down, they straw man him over and over again like the Kathy Newman interview. Theyāve said heās a nazi, white supremicisr and all sorts of nasty stuff. Heās talking about a lot of sensitive topics and complicated topics as well.
All this semantics. An endless chain of signifiers. Hereās a distinction that actually mattersā¦
There are two types of atheists: the kind that leave everybody else alone and the kind that donāt.
And two kinds of theists.
Thereās two kinds of everybody.
Except agnostics. The great thing about agnostics is theyāre never pushing their beliefs on you. God bless `em.
Maybe they are not sure if they should 
I swear, Iām going to send teams of Buddhist missionaries to knock on all yāallās doors.
You have them at your beck and call?
Just as long as there are no self-immolations. I have enough trouble with my neighbors
1 Like
I didnāt realize that Forumosa was about discussing the poster. Forgiven as this may be simply a situation of a poster who lacks basic comprehension (of the rules)
hahahaha āglobalistsā are the ONLY reason you are in Taiwan.
nope, completely within the rules to criticize what other posters said.