The FINAL Thread on what "atheist/m" actually means!

[The Atheist]

On another thread, Drkshadow wrote:


IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

Also, it's not like a whole blog (http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/) communities exist (http://exfundy.wordpress.com/) full of daily posts (http://thechapel.wordpress.com/) by atheist's spewing vitriol about religion and sharing other posts dealing with other topics of interest to a group of people who don't share a belief--whoops, I mean basic common assumptions--erm, I mean coincidental overlap of certain accidental synchronizations of ideas. :rolleyes:

This is a very common assertion made against atheists and I thought it would be ideal if I had a handy thread with the evidence to point to every time!

Let's start with the fact that atheism is not a belief, but a simple lack of belief.

Atheist = without god/s.

It really is that simple.

Drkshadow has been good enough to provide some links, but unfortunately - for him - they support my position far more than his!

First link, from the front page:


"The American brand of Christianity is unraveling while its hypocrisy is being weighed by the minds of our younger folks and discovering that questioning religious doctrine is a trait of human nature, not the voice of Satan."

Appears to be attacking christianity and I can't find any comment about there being no god as a factual statement.

The bloke seems to be taking great and rightful pleasure in poking fun at the rituals of christianity. Pretty funny stuff - thanks for that link. Anyone that starts an article with "Words of a prominent Cactholic" and quoting Hitler is worth a look any day!

:D

I see he gives his position away later in a Q&A:


Questions: Do we need a “war on religion”?

Blog: Can we simply just expose the ridiculousness of religious rituals without an open display of mockery?

Doesn't appear very hard line at all.


Second link, from the "About" page (http://exfundy.wordpress.com/about/):


In 2005, I finally decided to listen to my rational self and conceded that Christianity was flawed. I am now an ex-Christian, and I’ve been writing my thoughts on leaving the faith for a long time. Look at my archives and you will see the progress of my de-conversion from anger and turmoil to self-respect and free thinking.

Please beware that my earlier posts do not describe my current ideas. Those posts reflect who I was at the time. I am a work in progress.

"I am a work in progress"??

Doesn't sound that much like a hardline atheist to me!

Third link, from "About Me" (http://thechapel.wordpress.com/about/):


I am a former minister currently living in the southeastern USA. I am now an atheist, one who does not hold any belief in any god. If there is any divine or creative entity, I believe that he/she/it is probably conceived most accurately in deist terms. On Richard Dawkins’ 7-point scale of belief, I am a 6.

No equivocation on what he means there, and for those unfamiliar with the world's most-famous atheist, Richard Dawkins' scale, here it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formul ation).

'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

That is definitely not saying Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!.

People who say that atheism is a complete denial of god are mistaken or guilty of assumption. It results from taking one look at a headline and making assumptions about what it says.

In my vast experience of talking to atheists - which I'd bet is exponentially more than you - I have met very, very few atheists who will try to say that they are 100% convinced that god/s do not exist.

Just as it would be absurd for me to base my view on christianity on Fred Phelps and Jack Chick, it is absurd to base one's thoughts on atheism on the lunatic fringe, which is the part that states factually "There is no god!".

All clear now?

[L.M. The Third]

Is there such a thing as FINAL on Litnet? Then the world's coming to an end!

[Drkshadow03]

Drkshadow has been good enough to provide some links, but unfortunately - for him - they support my position far more than his!



Actually the links support my position, which was an entirely different point.

I linked to those sites because it seems to me the existence of communities of atheist posting relatively similar material suggests a shared set of beliefs/ideas/ideologies/whatever word you wish to fill in the blank.

You used the links to argue against the notion that "Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!" To be perfectly honest, I was being mostly facetious and I know not all atheists really hold that position. These were basically meant to be two completely separate points that you confused for a single idea for some reason. But I realize perhaps due to the ordering it wasn't clear why I included the links. Still, you haven't actually addressed the point I made by including the links at all.

To point out what I'm getting at, it seems to me atheism is in fact a kind of belief system/ideology/thought system (I don't want people getting caught up on the word "belief"), and other than declaring it not to be so, I haven't seen much counter evidence to the contrary.

[OrphanPip]

I think it's a bit of a spurious argument. Certainly, people with similar opinions will organize and share ideas. However, the difference is that atheism can exist independent of contemporary organized ideologies. A child never exposed to the idea of God is not an atheist in the same sense as people who read Dawkins.

I also think what you may be perceiving as an atheist ideology is rather the result of philosophical ideologies which lead, in general, to atheist world views. Someone who believes in empirical materialism, as I do, is very likely to be an atheist. However, empirical materialism is not an ideology of atheism by definition.

Atheist hold roughly ideological views, just like everybody else on Earth, but I don't think you really find many ideologies which have at their base that gods don't exist.

[JuniperWoolf]

You know what I like better than arguing against theists from an atheist point of view? Arguing in favour of an apathetic one.

Is there a god? I don't care.

What happens when we die? Doesn't matter, nothing that I can do about it.

They can't say "well, how do you KNOW that there's no such thing as god(s)? You have faith in your own ideology, you hypocrite!" because the response to any theological question will only be "it just doesn't matter." Conversation cut short. Everyone that I've argued against didn't have a practiced route to follow from there to try to convert me. Then you can go back to arguing about why organized religion is socially, morally and economically damaging without anyone turning it around on you and telling you that atheism is just as faith-based as Christianity to try to shut you up. Plus, there's no more theological blah blah blah that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yep: as a debater, good ol’ apathy's worked pretty well for me so far.

*edit* To be honest, arguing against spirituality as a whole is in my opinion pretty pointless. People can't give up spirituality because death is just too horrifying and people need comfort from that, they need their own theories to give them hope that they'll see their loved ones again and that we don't cease to exist. Arguing against organized religion, however: now that is a worthy cause, and I really think that it's do-able.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

This thread will remain open on the condition that it does not deteriorate into yet another "my belief is better than yours" bickering and explores what it has set out to; i.e., "what is atheism?"

Off-topic posts and/or posts containing personal/inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice.

Those who ignore this reminder might expect to receive infraction points.

[The Atheist]

Is there such a thing as FINAL on Litnet? Then the world's coming to an end!

:lol:


Actually the links support my position, which was an entirely different point.

What?

How on earth can you say that when they utterly refute your initial assertion? Here it is again:


Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!

That's really the only part I have a problem with. Whether or not atheists are reasonable to religion - or indeed, should be - is a different question.


I linked to those sites because it seems to me the existence of communities of atheist posting relatively similar material suggests a shared set of beliefs/ideas/ideologies/whatever word you wish to fill in the blank.

Is that surprising?

Atheists do share something, and in USA especially, they share despised minority status. There was a poll not long ago which showed atheists to be the least-trusted group if the several groups offered.

Given a commonality, communities will develop. Those communities are still a tiny minority of atheists. The vast majority of atheists never raise it as a topic and many keep it quiet to not upset family & friends.


To point out what I'm getting at, it seems to me atheism is in fact a kind of belief system/ideology/thought system (I don't want people getting caught up on the word "belief"), and other than declaring it not to be so, I haven't seen much counter evidence to the contrary.

Well, hopefully you'll be disabused of that notion, because it can't be a belief system and using communities of like-minded people is not a way of showing any kind of doctrine.

Truth be told, those groups are not anywhere near as cohesive as a casual glance may make you think. I don't belong to any atheist groups but have been on the periphery of several and can assure you that there are frequent and violent disagreements between the members. Funnily enough, the worst enemies I've made online are atheists. I usually get along fine with theists and a couple of my most trusted online buddies are lifetime christians.


You know what I like better than arguing against theists from an atheist point of view? Arguing in favour of an apathetic one.

Is there a god? I don't care.

What happens when we die? Doesn't matter, nothing that I can do about it.

I think it was Rowan Williams who said some time ago that the real threat to christianity was not militant atheism, a la Dawkins, but apathetic agnosticism - that exact "don't care" attitude.

My wife is the #1 practitioner of it.

:)

She actually calls herself a "coproagnstic". Doesn't care, doesn't give a .......



*edit* To be honest, arguing against spirituality as a whole is in my opinion pretty pointless. People can't give up spirituality because death is just too horrifying and people need comfort from that, they need their own theories to give them hope that they'll see their loved ones again and that we don't cease to exist.

It's interesting and unsurprising that the decline of religion in the west is matched by the growth in belief in psychics and the paranormal.

I can't see that as an improvement myself.

[Paulclem]

The idea of a creator God was always problematic for me, and I could never get beyond the creation of evil by a creator God.

I was brought up in a "coproagnstic" household myself, (I only went to church for harvest festival at Primary school, my secondary school was also coproagniostic), though my parents had a couldn't give a **** attitude to everthing, worthwhile or not.

I think atheism is a healthy state of mind, as it's not a passive one but questioning. Doubting Thomas is given such a bad press - imagine the hard time he had in the pub - I jest - but the moral of the story is too uncritical for me.

[Drkshadow03]

I had a response, but I edited it out.

I am just finding the more I think about this issue, the more I don't care. So I'm bowing out.

[The Atheist]

I think atheism is a healthy state of mind, as it's not a passive one but questioning.

You're sailing into the same region that causes misconceptions here - atheism isn't questioning at all. Lots of atheists ask questions, but atheism isn't a default quest for knowledge.

There are many people who correctly call themselves atheist, but who believe in the most awful garbage - astrology, numerology and homeopathy etc - and who wouldn't know how to ask a question if instructions were painted on their right arm.

[Paulclem]

Yes - I was thinking of being questioning rather than questing. Seems clear.

[sixsmith]

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

[Paulclem]

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

It's a moot point for some people, and so the term is useful for these. How would you term yourself- sceptic? Or is that another superfluous term?

[MarkBastable]

I think sixsmith has a point.

On the question of 'God the creator' I come in at about 6.5 on the Dawkins scale. That's pretty atheist.

But on the question of 'God the universal scorekeeper and judge' I don't feature on the Dawkins scale at all, because I can't see why I should even consider it as a possibility. The universe presents me no more reason to contemplate the prospect that individual human beings will ultimately be judged by a Cosmic Umpire than it gives me reason to contemplate the possibility that the the law of gravity is suspended on alternate Thursdays or that the world is spun on its axis by the sweeping tails of invisible dragons attempting to fly to the stars.

I guess that's pretty atheist too - but not in the same sense as the first circumstance.

[Lokasenna]

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or [B]elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

I think you're on to something as well.

The concept of 'atheism' can encompass several distinct cultural phenomena. On the one hand, there is the understanding of certain people that there is no Creator; it is a lack of belief, albeit a profound one. And then there is the more militant 'atheism', which serves as a radically active anti-religious doctrine.

Speaking as a tolerant man, and as someone who identifies himself as something between a pantheist and a deist, I know which of the two makes me feel more uncomfortable. I have many atheist friends, and many devout friends, and I have seen them get on together very well. But when somone argues, in a dogmatic manner, against someone else's dogma, it gets my heckles up. Some atheists, the militant ones (who are most definitely a minority), have such a patronising, condescending air about them, they are in fact a parody of the religious institutions they attack.

[sixsmith]

I think sixsmith has a point.

But on the question of 'God the universal scorekeeper and judge' I don't feature on the Dawkins scale at all, because I can't see why I should even consider it as a possibility. The universe presents me no more reason to contemplate the prospect that individual human beings will ultimately be judged by a Cosmic Umpire than it gives me reason to contemplate the possibility that the the law of gravity is suspended on alternate Thursdays or that the world is spun on its axis by the sweeping tails of invisible dragons attempting to fly to the stars.




This is basically my point. The term sceptic is similarly unnecessary because I am not presented with anything to be sceptical about.

[Paulclem]

On the God the creator scale - I must be a 10 - I can't believe there is a creator God.

[The Atheist]

I have a problem with the term atheist (at least as a one-size-fits-all concept) because it suggests that one possesses a theory or elief that God does not exist when, to my mind, neither are really required.

Stoi!

That is exactly the mistake I'm trying to correct here.

Atheism is not a belief or theory that god does not exist. Someone who believes no god/s exist, is certainly an atheist, but they are a very small subset of atheists. The word has a wider meaning as I have already stated:

"I do not believe that god/s exist."

If you cannot grasp that issue, then you're in the wrong thread!

You're right in there being no need to even contemplate the idea, but that tends to ignore the point that unchecked, religion has, can and will try to enforce its morality and teachings on the world.

How many cases of the religious right in USA trying to subvert justice, education and society do you need?


I think you're on to something as well.

Have a think about the more accurate description of atheism and I think you'll find he's wrong, but you get onto a more sensible track here:


The concept of 'atheism' can encompass several distinct cultural phenomena. On the one hand, there is the understanding of certain people that there is no Creator; [B]it is a lack of belief, albeit a profound one. And then there is the more militant 'atheism', which serves as a radically active anti-religious doctrine.(bolding mine)

Not forgetting Buddhists and many millions of others who have supernatural beliefs but do not believe in a god. Atheism by definition must encompass all non-religious cultures. If you think I like rubbing shoulders with people who believe the world is run by alien lizards, you're wrong! ;)


Speaking as a tolerant man, and as someone who identifies himself as something between a pantheist and a deist, I know which of the two makes me feel more uncomfortable.

That's an interesting and oft-repeated criticism I hear from the "middle ground" if I may call you that.

Why does militant, anti-religious atheism actually bother you? What, in particular about attacking religions gives you pause to dislike it? I'm genuinely interested.

My defence of militant atheism is as noted above.


Some atheists, the militant ones (who are most definitely a minority), have such a patronising, condescending air about them, they are in fact a parody of the religious institutions they attack.

Hard not to be dogmatic when you're right!

:D


On the God the creator scale - I must be a 10 - I can't believe there is a creator God.

You can't be a 10!

The belief index only goes to 7.

:D

I class myself as a 6.9999 recurring. Infinity to one is the odds I'd offer on there being god/s. As close to absolute as you can be without making an unsupportable claim.


The term sceptic is similarly unnecessary because I am not presented with anything to be sceptical about.

Wow. Where do you live?

And can I move there?

Even now, my computer screen is bombarded with adverts, many of which I am deeply sceptical about. In fact, my whole life is bombarded with advertisements. I can't even walk to the shop without seeing a huge variety of advertising material. I'm sceptical of most of the products advertised. Is Coke really the "Real Thing" where you live?

All day, I talk to people who try to talk themselves into getting a job. Every one of them is the ideal candidate, apparently. Then, when I'm trying to hold a sane conversation with someone, he or she may well drop in a fact I know is wrong. This kind of stuff, where I must be sceptical of almost everything I see, hear or read, is a bloody nuisance.

If I can move to a place where everything is kosher, count me in!


But on the question of 'God the universal scorekeeper and judge' I don't feature on the Dawkins scale at all, because I can't see why I should even consider it as a possibility.

You've never met a christian who made the claim that there is a scorekeeper/judge thingy? The one I usually refer to as the "sky-daddy"?

Christ, if I can't move to 6smith's place, can I come to where you are instead?

Over here, even in a relatively irreligious country like NZ, my kids are deluged with religious dogma from all sides. Not by teachers, that kind of stuff is verboten officially, but even when she went on school camp last month, some damn parent told the kids to sit tight while he said grace. (It had to be a Yank, didn't it?) Her previous school had a religious period once a week as do the majority of schools in NZ.

My daughter's friends take her to churches where people actually preach that there is indeed a sky-daddy and that he's watching her right now, and if she screws up, she's going to the hot place! Because religion relies on getting new recruits by infecting them young, she's a prime target. (not that it'll work - she has certainly inherited her father's cynicism. ;))

Crikey, if you and 6 can amalgamate your worlds - one without lies, the other without religion (same thing really! :D) I'd find it paradise.

My passport's ready, and I even have a British one, so I cna be there next week!

Freedom, here we come!!!

[dafydd manton]

One's beliefs can be OFFERED to other people, that's fine, and if they say no, then that's an end to it, but nobody has the right to force their beliefs on you, as at your kid's camp. That HAS to be a no-no.
As for the bit about the eternal bonfire, nice dogma, but if you were to look up the words Sheol and Haides in GREAT detail, analysing every time they are used, you'll find that it just means "grave", so you won't need the asbestos underwear. Even if it were a reality, who has the right to frighten kids with it, least of all somebody else's. Most unhealthy.

[Lokasenna]

One's beliefs can be OFFERED to other people, that's fine, and if they say no, then that's an end to it, but nobody has the right to force their beliefs on you, as at your kid's camp. That HAS to be a no-no.

My sentiments entirely.

Atheist, my objection comes from people lecturing at me. I feel it insults my intelligence. We can neither categorically prove or disprove the existence of divinity, and thus any debate must be foregrounded in some degree of belief (or lack of it). As for why lecturing atheists seem to annoy me more, that comes as a result of frequency. While I have, on rare occasions, been called a godless heathen, and even a "filthy apostate" on one memorable occasion by the religious crowd, I have much more often been called a "moron" for deigning to believe in something as "stupid" as a God. In my personal experience, I've recieved a hell of a lot more tolerance from religious people than from radical atheists. They have a tendency to treat you as if you were somehow mentally dificient for holding belief.

[dafydd manton]

I think to be fair there are a goodly number of evangelizing zealots on both sides of the argument. Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt!

[Paulclem]

You can't be a 10!

The belief index only goes to 7.

Ah. Did I miss it? 7 then.

[The Atheist]

One's beliefs can be OFFERED to other people, that's fine, and if they say no, then that's an end to it, but nobody has the right to force their beliefs on you, as at your kid's camp. That HAS to be a no-no.

Honestly, and as I've said several thousand times, if religious people would stick to that, I wouldn't be The Atheist and I'd revert to my gamer name: Arrogant_B_Stard. I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs, but how they try to propagate them concerns me a great deal.


As for the bit about the eternal bonfire, nice dogma, but if you were to look up the words Sheol and Haides in GREAT detail, analysing every time they are used, you'll find that it just means "grave", so you won't need the asbestos underwear. Even if it were a reality, who has the right to frighten kids with it, least of all somebody else's. Most unhealthy.

Couldn't agree more. Why the hell people fall for it continues to astonish me, and even more astonishing is that it's the brand of christianity that's growing.

If I look at it logically, the type of theism which should have appeal in the year 2010, is Rowan Williams' brand of non-dogmatic, hug-a-stranger, all-inclusive kind of agnostic theism. Rowan even said a few years ago that "belief in the virgin birth and bodily resurrection are not essential".

Heresy!

No wonder RatZZinger's mob is showing the welcome mat to disaffected Anglicans.

Yet that type of theism, which acknowledges science and reason and asks nothing more than faith, is failing - dying with its adherents from last century.

Meanwhile fundamentalism in both islam and christianity is rising.

Bizarre.

[OrphanPip]

My sentiments entirely.

Atheist, my objection comes from people lecturing at me. I feel it insults my intelligence. We can neither categorically prove or disprove the existence of divinity, and thus any debate must be foregrounded in some degree of belief (or lack of it). As for why lecturing atheists seem to annoy me more, that comes as a result of frequency. While I have, on rare occasions, been called a godless heathen, and even a "filthy apostate" on one memorable occasion by the religious crowd, I have much more often been called a "moron" for deigning to believe in something as "stupid" as a God. In my personal experience, I've recieved a hell of a lot more tolerance from religious people than from radical atheists. They have a tendency to treat you as if you were somehow mentally dificient for holding belief.

I think that could only happen in an academic setting. Then again, in all my time at university it never once occurred to me to even inquire into the religious beliefs of people I know. Although, the only Christian I associate with regularly is my mother, and she's awful.

[Lokasenna]

I think that could only happen in an academic setting. Then again, in all my time at university it never once occurred to me to even inquire into the religious beliefs of people I know. Although, the only Christian I associate with regularly is my mother, and she's awful.

That's true. The only social standpoint I can talk from is that of a student. The university where I did my undergraduate degree had an extremely large and active atheist society, who made a point of going to all the socials of the religious societies in order to mock and catcall, which I found rather distasteful.

At the same time, I was also heavily involved in student politics, and found myself on several occasions working with the Christian Union, the Catholic, Jewish and Islamic societies, and I found them to be very professional, even when we were in disagreement.

[MarkBastable]

Stoi!You've never met a christian who made the claim that there is a scorekeeper/judge thingy? The one I usually refer to as the "sky-daddy"?



Well, yeah. But that doesn't oblige me to consider it. I've met people who made the claim that the entire universe goes around the earth every twenty-four hours - but that doesn't oblige me to consider the possibility.

[sixsmith]

Stoi!

That is exactly the mistake I'm trying to correct here.

Atheism is not a belief or theory that god does not exist. Someone who believes no god/s exist, is certainly an atheist, but they are a very small subset of atheists. The word has a wider meaning as I have already stated:

"I do not believe that god/s exist."

If you cannot grasp that issue, then you're in the wrong thread!

I do not consider it necessary to make or even contemplate the negative statement. Thus, I have a problem with the term a-theism. It countenances such a contemplation, and is thus a mischaracterisation of my non-contemplation.


You're right in there being no need to even contemplate the idea, but that tends to ignore the point that unchecked, religion has, can and will try to enforce its morality and teachings on the world.

No it doesn't. One's non-contemplation of a God is one thing. Their recognition of the fact that those who do believe in a God frequently attempt to force that belief on others is something else.


Wow. Where do you live?

And can I move there?

Even now, my computer screen is bombarded with adverts, many of which I am deeply sceptical about. In fact, my whole life is bombarded with advertisements. I can't even walk to the shop without seeing a huge variety of advertising material. I'm sceptical of most of the products advertised. Is Coke really the "Real Thing" where you live?

All day, I talk to people who try to talk themselves into getting a job. Every one of them is the ideal candidate, apparently. Then, when I'm trying to hold a sane conversation with someone, he or she may well drop in a fact I know is wrong. This kind of stuff, where I must be sceptical of almost everything I see, hear or read, is a bloody nuisance.

If I can move to a place where everything is kosher, count me in!

You're taking me out of context here. Products, for example, exist and thus their purported quality is something about which I can be sceptical.


Well, yeah. But that doesn't oblige me to consider it. I've met people who made the claim that the entire universe goes around the earth every twenty-four hours - but that doesn't oblige me to consider the possibility.

Exactly.

[Leland Gaunt]

Unsurprisingly, The Atheist, is correct on what the term atheist means. This is a list of how I understand atheist terms:
atheist-I do not believe in God
"strong" atheist-God does not exist.(obviously fallacious, and it is unfortunate that this is how most people view atheists)
"weak" atheist- I have not been given enough evidence to believe in God

Also, agnostic has nothing to do with belief. Just knowledge.
Agnostic, is thinking that knowledge of God is unattainable, or it does not exist. So, you must either be agnostic atheist (me) or agnostic theist.
Then there are all sorts of cool, but obscure terms, like ignostic, that I won't bore you with.

[JBI]

You are using inductive reasoning to justify a belief - a belief in the fact that god doesn't exist - you define yourself as atheist, and in the process, you create a belief - simply not believing in something does not make you atheist, being an atheist implies a recognition of the lack of belief in a deity.

As such, the whole atheist, or "The Atheist," the one identifying him/herself in this construction as atheist is merely politicizing, or categorizing something which is a negative - do we have a group of people who don't believe in Jonathan Ben-Israel as the supreme deity? Should we call them Abenisraelists? The whole notion is supported by your incessant desire to use an ad hominem in your evangelicalized preaching of atheism.

I have friends who come from predominantly atheist countries - China, for instance, where something like a creation story has never been taken as belief (it is not part of the original dogma) and belief in superior beings has been out of fashion for a long time. Likewise, absolute morality is not inherent in the cultural composition, so that literature, and art stresses the individual's role in deciding the benevolent moral decision, rather than acting in accordance with the great scheme.

Are those people atheists? They simply just go about their every day business, and maintain traditional and progressive views like everyone - they have no need to preach and define themselves, or state exactly what their beliefs are, or read crappy literature that preaches, or put a personal argument in a serious discussion.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity, especially in its first 1000 years did far more to help people than Atheism ever has. The dogma of Vatican two is far more progressive than any serious movement that has come out of the "Atheist movement" or the "actual atheism" as you term it.

I have no problem with beliefs, but in the end, I see what church groups do for their communities (not all church groups of course) and I hear a bunch of loud annoying brats on the internet preaching their self-superior nonsense.

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant. What is irrelevant is how well you treat the people around you, and how well one contributes to the society they are in. If someone was an Atheist or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or whatever, I wouldn't care as long as they don't go around preaching how much truer their nonsense is, and actually do things for those around them.

All you do is cheapen nonbelieving to suit your own political agenda, and quite frankly, the manner in which you carry it out is insulting to both those with religious affiliation, and those of us, like me, without it, who don't want to be grouped together with hateful preachers.


Simply put, the flaw with your reasoning is its hypocrisy - you define atheism as a state of consciousness - by necessity then you are promoting a movement, rather than a non-belief - you are believing in your standpoint, as apposed to not considering the question. The same way evolution is taken as a doctrine in opposition to creationism, as apposed to a simple scientific principle, like gravity, without any real political affiliation.


You know what I like better than arguing against theists from an atheist point of view? Arguing in favour of an apathetic one.

Is there a god? I don't care.

What happens when we die? Doesn't matter, nothing that I can do about it.

They can't say "well, how do you KNOW that there's no such thing as god(s)? You have faith in your own ideology, you hypocrite!" because the response to any theological question will only be "it just doesn't matter." Conversation cut short. Everyone that I've argued against didn't have a practiced route to follow from there to try to convert me. Then you can go back to arguing about why organized religion is socially, morally and economically damaging without anyone turning it around on you and telling you that atheism is just as faith-based as Christianity to try to shut you up. Plus, there's no more theological blah blah blah that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Yep: as a debater, good ol’ apathy's worked pretty well for me so far.

*edit* To be honest, arguing against spirituality as a whole is in my opinion pretty pointless. People can't give up spirituality because death is just too horrifying and people need comfort from that, they need their own theories to give them hope that they'll see their loved ones again and that we don't cease to exist. Arguing against organized religion, however: now that is a worthy cause, and I really think that it's do-able.

Finally, someone who shares my own views - about time people take a stand against isms that are so tediously annoying. Though I have to say, the wonders religious groups do for community welfare, especially historically is very persuasive in that we need to get a different sort of progress toward a non-ideologically-affiliated sense of community - nationalism in this world has proven to be a thing of the past, political ideology has begun to start to shrink, really now we need something to replace it.

[The Atheist]

Unsurprisingly, The Atheist, is correct on what the term atheist means. This is a list of how I understand atheist terms:
atheist-I do not believe in God
"strong" atheist-God does not exist.(obviously fallacious, and it is unfortunate that this is how most people view atheists)
"weak" atheist- I have not been given enough evidence to believe in God

Also, agnostic has nothing to do with belief. Just knowledge.
Agnostic, is thinking that knowledge of God is unattainable, or it does not exist. So, you must either be agnostic atheist (me) or agnostic theist.
Then there are all sorts of cool, but obscure terms, like ignostic, that I won't bore you with.

Bravo!

Correct in every respect!

:D


.... simply not believing in something does not make you atheist....

Please read the thread and at least make an effort to understand why you are wrong.

Atheism is not the strawman you create in the balance of your post, but I'll give it 8/10 for humour.

[MarkBastable]

I think what we have here is two different contexts for the use of a single term.

Take the word 'paranoid'. It has a very specific meaning in psychology - tightly defined and carefully used by those in the profession in which the word was first coined. But it also has a vernacular usage, that is much more widespread and well understood amongst ordinary English speakers.

They're different and, actually, incompatible.

Take 'similar'. To a mathematician, 'similar' means 'identical to'. To an everyday user of English it means 'quite like, but not identical to'.

Those two uses of the same word are actually close to being opposites. But mathematicians have learned to live with it.

And 'atheist' is like that. In philosophy it has a very specific meaning, which is the one that The Atheist is taking a lot of trouble to explain. But in general use it simply means 'someone who doesn't believe in God'.

These usages co-exist. And I agree that in a discussion like this, we need to agree which meaning we're all assuming.

But, to be honest, Atheist, the vernacular usage is likely to persist here, however hard you try to convince everyone to adopt the more specific meaning.

[The Atheist]

I think what we have here is two different contexts for the use of a single term.

Yes, but what we also have is an emotive term.

Importantly, the emotion surrounding the word all comes from the non-atheist, vast majority of the population. I don't know a single atheist who's passionate about atheism, as I likewise know nobody who is passionate about their a-philately.

The emotive usage of atheism equating "there is no god" is a simple ploy which is shared by the religious right,and militant agnosticism.

Militant agnosticism - now there's an oxymoron for you - and it's probably why I am deeply suspicious of people who claim to be agnostic yet get vehemently opposed to atheism, but it exists. There is a good example in this thread.

My question for those who oppose atheism as a concept, and continue to promote personal agendas at the expense of reality is:

Do the anti-atheists attack fundamental religion with the same vehemence they attack atheism?



Take the word 'paranoid'. It has a very specific meaning in psychology - tightly defined and carefully used by those in the profession in which the word was first coined. But it also has a vernacular usage, that is much more widespread and well understood amongst ordinary English speakers.

The word "theory" is a better example, because the psychiatric use of "paranoid" is very specific and in a very limited group.



And 'atheist' is like that. In philosophy it has a very specific meaning, which is the one that The Atheist is taking a lot of trouble to explain. But in general use it simply means 'someone who doesn't believe in God'.

But that's identical to what I've been saying.

An atheist, is someone who doesn't believe in god! From any side of the fence.

:banana:

The problem, as I've been saying since post #1, is the option and accusation screamed at atheism by both theists and miltant agnostics is that atheism is saying "there is no god!" which is completely different from what you and I have now agreed is the meaning.


But, to be honest, Atheist, the vernacular usage is likely to persist here, however hard you try to convince everyone to adopt the more specific meaning.

Oh, I have no doubt on that score, mate!

Threads like this are a great metaphor for life; if I am unable to convince people of the simplest, most-easily provable, cast-iron fact that the OP is correct, then it pretty much shows why positions of doubt and question - atheism and scepticism - are useful tools.

Still, the facts are there for those who choose to find them.

[dafydd manton]

Can somebody explain something to me? As you know, I am far from being an atheist - quite the reverse - but why on earth are there so many people who seem keen to argue the point, rather than accept that we are all what we are, usually through choice, and none of those professing to be atheists have ever said "I WILL NOT EVER believe!" It many be unlikely, I admit, but if The Atheist and a few others have made that decision, whether for the time being or not, could we not just respect that stance?

[Leland Gaunt]

belief in the fact that god doesn't exist
I do not understand why you refuse to use the term properly. If nothing else just look at the word atheist. a-without, lacking. theism-belief in a deity. atheism-lack of a belief in a deity. No belief. Certainly, there are those that claim otherwise, but they have their own special category of atheism (see my earlier post).

absolute morality is not inherent in the cultural composition
So?

Are those people atheists?
Do they believe in God? If yes, then they are not. It really is that simple.

As far as I am concerned, Christianity, especially in its first 1000 years did far more to help people than Atheism ever has. The dogma of Vatican two is far more progressive than any serious movement that has come out of the "Atheist movement" or the "actual atheism" as you term it.
That's nice. I'd say that it did more harm as well. But the two aren't really comparable. People will do things in the name of Christ, but not in the name of Hitchens:p.The point is that good done by Christians can be attributed to the Church, as opposed to that individual Christian. Atheists do not have a unified center, or movement.. So any good done by an atheist, is just done by that atheist and not one of them will claim to have done it in the name of atheism. You have really got to get rid of this comparison, the two are nowhere near the same.
Actually, I have come up with a wonderful idea! We should all band together and buy an enormous chalkboard. And anytime an atheist, irreligous person, or anyone who even has any doubts about religion does something good, we chalk it up to our organization!

hear a bunch of loud annoying brats on the internet preaching their self-superior nonsense.
I'm sorry that you have had poor experience with atheists.

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant.
Progressive? Yes. True? No, just probable. Moral? Eh, as much as any group of people. Now as to charity, once again I'm sorry that your interactions with atheists have been negative. But I assure you that we do help and contribute. I personally volunteer at a hospital and donate blood on a regular basis. I might consider giving money once I start making more than minimum wage.:D I know other atheists that do the same things, even some that work abroad in programs like Peace Corps.

Finally, someone who shares my own views - about time people take a stand against isms that are so tediously annoying.
Actually, it seems to me that he is just taking a more diplomatic and effective standpoint in regards to debating in an attempt to get results. It's also very Buddhist, in that it regards the metaphysical as unimportant. I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted you, Juniper Woolf.

nationalism in this world has proven to be a thing of the past, political ideology has begun to start to shrink, really now we need something to replace it.
Nationalism? You have clearly never been to an international soccer match. I'm a little confused as to the political ideology portion of your post. Has the number of ideologies shrunk, or has the belief in them shrunk?

Atheism is not the strawman you create in the balance of your post, but I'll give it 8/10 for humour.
I admire your ability to find humor in dark places.

[The Atheist]

Can somebody explain something to me? As you know, I am far from being an atheist - quite the reverse - but why on earth are there so many people who seem keen to argue the point, rather than accept that we are all what we are, usually through choice, and none of those professing to be atheists have ever said "I WILL NOT EVER believe!" It many be unlikely, I admit, but if The Atheist and a few others have made that decision, whether for the time being or not, could we not just respect that stance?

:lol:

Respect for opinions? Are you mad?


I do not understand why you refuse to use the term properly. If nothing else just look at the word atheist. a-without, lacking. theism-belief in a deity. atheism-lack of a belief in a deity. No belief. Certainly, there are those that claim otherwise, but they have their own special category of atheism (see my earlier post).

And you're still right!



Do they believe in God? If yes, then they are not. It really is that simple.

That's the disappointing part - is is so damned simple, and you have succinctly noted twice, the meaning has been that way for thousands of years: without god/s.



I admire your ability to find humor in dark places.

:D

[El Viejo]

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.

[MarkBastable]

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.


Yeah - take Saul of Tarsus. Complete change of mind; no change of approach.

[Leland Gaunt]

Not sure I'll get this out properly:

When I was a little Catholic I became disturbed that we weren't actively evangelizing our friends and relatives. Here we were, the only ones not going to hell, and we were doing nothing to pull the others into the boat with us.

Now I'm evangelical about atheism, grammar, and vocabulary. Although I'm trying to round my edges I am terribly pedantic, despite endless revisions and rewrites.

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Some atheists are evangelicals. Some, like Dawkins, are fire-breathing evangelicals. Others are more passive, like the Catholics I grew up with.
I agree with this. Just so long as either group's image isn't defined by the evangelicals or even the passive portion. Both have positive and negative sides to them.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

[dafydd manton]

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,

Doubtless it is, but I have to confess that as an addition to either side of the argument, it leaves a certain amount to be desire, such as lucidity, understandability, and a few other -ilities. :brickwall

[Leland Gaunt]

..!.,
This could be fun. I have always loved puzzles. Is it supposed to represent the Big Bang?

[JuniperWoolf]

I think this evangelical bug is a personality trait that, like our other personality traits, exists apart from what we believe, but influences what we do with what we believe.

Yeah, but it is a pretty irritating personality trait. There are a lot of us that will side with the opposing view just to spite people with the "evangelical bug," so more often than not it has the opposite to the desired effect. If pushy folk are going to look at it logically, shoving their opinions down other people's throats is a total waste of time.

[sixsmith]

This is for Dawkins & Hitchens:

..!.,


I suppose it was only a matter of time before this debate descended into semaphore.

[The Atheist]

This could be fun. I have always loved puzzles. Is it supposed to represent the Big Bang?

I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.

I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.

Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.

[Leland Gaunt]

I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.

I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.

Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.
Well, I wasn't thinking it was at all positive. My guess, was that he was mocking the perceived simplicity of the Big Bang Theory. *Sigh* But, I suppose your right. That was a whole lot less interesting than it could have been.

[Lokasenna]

I suspect you're looking at it from the wrong angle - it's not the kind of salute you were thinking of.

I could be wrong - and my apologies if I am - but I see four fingers and a thumb, with the middle finger extended and the other fingers folded down.

Didn't really add a lot to the thread, but one way of saying "**** you" without recourse, I suppose.

That's a shame - I had thought it some kind of ontological quandry.

This thread shouldn't descend into abuse, from either side. We are, all of us, mature adults. I'm sure that we can have an informed, civilized discussion, even in view of our differing opinions. I may not like Dawkins' ideas, but I respect the man as an intellectual and a free thinker, and I certainly wouldn't give him the one-fingered salute.

[Leland Gaunt]

We are, all of us, mature adults.
Heh, I suppose I should feel honored.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post, but I don't want to condemn him until he verifies what it truly means. I'm still holding out on the possibility that I might be right in my previous guess.

[El Viejo]

Yeah, but it is a pretty irritating personality trait. There are a lot of us that will side with the opposing view just to spite people with the "evangelical bug," so more often than not it has the opposite to the desired effect. If pushy folk are going to look at it logically, shoving their opinions down other people's throats is a total waste of time.

Have to differ on 'total waste of time.' Noisy, abrasive pushing works very well for Rush, et al.

When one has the notion that they know something that others need to know (e.g. the Gospel, the primary ingredient of Soylent Green, the correct spelling of 'millennium') they try to pass on the information. They may be inept, irritating, even dangerous, but their intentions just might be good.


I agree with this. Just so long as either group's image isn't defined by the evangelicals or even the passive portion. Both have positive and negative sides to them.

Unfortunately it is the evangelical members who are out front creating the public image of a group, particularly when it's viewed through the lens of the media.

[Leland Gaunt]

Unfortunately it is the evangelical members who are out front creating the public image of a group, particularly when it's viewed through the lens of the media.
It really is unfortunate, because of this a lot of people get defensive with their views, and hardliners have been created on each side.:(

[JuniperWoolf]

Have to differ on 'total waste of time.' Noisy, abrasive pushing works very well for Rush, et al.

Hey man, they aint noisy and abrasive! They're... whimsical and rebellious!

[billl]

Maybe you both know... Maybe neither of you realize... Nice work, either way!

[The Atheist]

Ho hum - re-education time again!


Atheism is a faith just like any religion let me show you

Atheism = faith that there is no god

This is wrong. To save me repeating it all, please read the thread from the start. You are not the arbiter of the meaning of the word and you are incorrect.


As it is not known weather there is a god or not

Now you may say I am wrong and atheism is merely

Atheist = without belief in god/s.

So it is not a faith. But then I might say religion is not a faith as it is simply

Deist = without belief of absence of god/s.

You'd be wrong there as well.

Deists are not theists and generally don't belong to any religion.

[keilj]

I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God

[blazeofglory]

Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.

Theism is on the other hand is a search for the unknown. It is not the final. In the Veda there is a mention of eternal search. I do not know for sure there is God or not but the search is fascinating

[Haunted]

I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God

Either they don't see it, or don't want to admit it, just the fact that they can't stop from coming into religious threads, the God(s) that they don't believe in actually controls their lives.

[OrphanPip]

I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God

Really? Because I don't stop several times a day to pray to my God like a Muslim, nor do I commemorate a weekly Sabbath. The only time I ever engage in these debates on the site is when I witness outright misunderstanding of science, which offends me as a scientist, or silly attacks on atheism like the above, which offends me as an atheist. Either you're grossly underestimating how much time is spent in religious worship by many theist, or grossly overestimating the amount of time it takes an atheist to make a forum post.

I don't go into the theistic threads to argue that God doesn't exist.


Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.

Nonsense, let's distance ourselves merely from the existence of modern militant atheism. Early atheist philosophers, like Mill and Locke, have been essential in the development of our concepts of secular liberty. Religious minorities have benefited from atheist thinkers, just as some have suffered as a result of others like Mao and Stalin. Likewise, many atheist have been murdered by religious extremist.

To take such a reductionist position and view an entire group of people as purely antagonistic is nothing more than outright prejudice.



Theism is on the other hand is a search for the unknown. It is not the final. In the Veda there is a mention of eternal search. I do not know for sure there is God or not but the search is fascinating

I would argue the search is a waste of time and energy could be used better elsewhere. The only problems I have with religion is when it is used to try and justify limiting the liberties of others. Unfortunately, it so often is.

[Haunted]

I don't go into the theistic threads to argue that God doesn't exist.



Thank you. But other atheists do, and with a lot of venom.

[OrphanPip]

Thank you. But other atheists do, and with a lot of venom.

And in some countries atheism is punishable by death. And public opinion polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for atheist, they're less popular than gays but a bit more than pedophiles.

It's not as if religious proselytizing and self-promotion isn't a common occurrence.

[The Atheist]

I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God

As usual, I've been pipped by Orphan.

This is so absurd as to almost be beyond comment.

I don't know any atheists that spend any time at all thinking about god.

A few of us are interested in religion.


Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.

I don't see how you could describe it as antagonistic - can you explain please?



Theism is on the other hand is a search for the unknown. It is not the final. In the Veda there is a mention of eternal search. I do not know for sure there is God or not but the search is fascinating

Science is a search for the unknown as well; it actually gets the odd result.


Either they don't see it, or don't want to admit it, just the fact that they can't stop from coming into religious threads, the God(s) that they don't believe in actually controls their lives.

Ah, I see you repeating the same fallacy.

In what way does entering a discussion control my life?

I have pointed out on more occasions than I could count that we have numerous, demonstrable instances of where religion, left unchecked, would rule our lives as it does in many parts of the world where a theocracy exists.

It's not even an original assertion you're making, but it's one of the less well-known ones.

Instead of making silly assertions, just expand on your premise and explain how me attending the occasional religious thread - and if you check the number I'm involved in, it is a small percentage of the whole - is "controlling my life".

Thanks.

You do realise this thread is about atheism, don't you?


Either you're grossly underestimating how much time is spent in religious worship by many theist, or grossly overestimating the amount of time it takes an atheist to make a forum post.

I am dead set sick and tired of you making all these excellent comments while I'm asleep! You leave me with little to say.

:D


Thank you. But other atheists do, and with a lot of venom.

I'll just add a question to Pip's comments:

Last time you made this assertion, I asked you for evidence of these people who "Go into atheist threads to argue that god doesn't exist, with venom"

I'm still waiting.

Where is your evidence that what you're claiming exists? Please show me more than one or two posts where that has ever happened at LitNet.

I believe your entire position is made of straw.

[Haunted]

And in some countries atheism is punishable by death. And public opinion polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for atheist, they're less popular than gays but a bit more than pedophiles.

I'm not aware of polls about atheist leaderships, I heard there's some issues with Protestants vs. Catholics on the presidency level. But that's ages ago. Now it's all about who has a better spin on jumpstarting the economy.


It's not as if religious proselytizing and self-promotion isn't a common occurrence.

there's always a bit of that on both sides, but just don't trash other people's faith and do any naming calling like the guy in the sky but much worse. Just yesterday there was another inflammatory post about the Pope but thankfully it was quickly deleted by the mods.

[keilj]

As usual, I've been pipped by Orphan.

This is so absurd as to almost be beyond comment.

I don't know any atheists that spend any time at all thinking about god.

A few of us are interested in religion.



Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie

let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh

[OrphanPip]

I'm not aware of polls about atheist leaderships, I heard there's some issues with Protestants vs. Catholics on the presidency level. But that's ages ago. Now it's all about who has a better spin on jumpstarting the economy.


There was a CNN poll conducted where people were asked if they would vote for a person if they were black, a woman, a mormon, a catholic, an atheist, or gay. I'm having trouble finding that article though, I remember it on TV and circulating a lot around the election time, but searches for keywords like atheism, CNN, popular seem to just turn up articles about people thinking Obama is an atheist, which is in turn being used as a character assault on Obama, like the Muslim accusations.

Fox News conducted a poll in 1999 that found that 69% of respondents wouldn't vote for an atheist. In 2003 they conducted a similar poll on religions, the worst performer was Islam, with 47% saying they would be less likely to vote for someone if they were Muslim.

in 2008, atheist were slightly more popular than Scientologist, but still more unpopular than muslims.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251802,00.html

[MarkBastable]

Either they don't see it, or don't want to admit it, just the fact that they can't stop from coming into religious threads, the God(s) that they don't believe in actually controls their lives.


I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.

[Leland Gaunt]

Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie

let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh
Well, I am a little doubtful as to not any time thinking about god, but I do find that when people see the unlikelihood of God, most focus on some other aspect of life. I rarely ever talk about God outside of the internet, and only in politics or conversations involving a misrepresentation of atheism do I interject.


Atheism has been a theory, an antagonistic theory and nothing beyond that. It is a reaction to believers only and in itself it is drivel.
What? I'm really confused as to what your trying to say. How is it drivel?


there's always a bit of that on both sides, but just don't trash other people's faith and do any naming calling like the guy in the sky but much worse. Just yesterday there was another inflammatory post about the Pope but thankfully it was quickly deleted by the mods.
There is an enormous difference between tolerance and respect.


I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.
:lol:

[The Atheist]

Wow, I thought you were a pretty honest guy. But this is a blatant lie

let's keep the conversation honest Atheist - you've used the word god 40 times in this thread so far - no time at all thinking about him huh

:smilielol5:

Brilliant!

You talk of honesty then make that comment?

Given that I'm here stressing that atheists do not believe in god/s, it's impossible to discuss atheism without using the word, unless I resort to "deity/ies" which is much less finger-friendly. Is this a ploy to cause me RSI?

I have to say that that's probably the silliest post I've ever seen on any bulletin board.

[Serena03]

A belief system indicates by definition:

'faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society'

If an atheist is only defined as 'one who lacks belief in a god or deity' then this could not be justified a belief system as a single belief could not hold out as a complete system.

However, depending on an individual's degree of 'atheism,' their way of living may also come with a set of 'fixed and coherent beliefs' with 'lack of belief in God' as its main catalyst which may include:

-belief that there is no god/deity
-belief that there is no afterlife
-belief in the doctrine of evolution
-belief in a moral and content life without the need of a god
-belief that the more constituted religions are unnecessary and tend to do more evil than good
-belief that the universe did not begin with God nor is it endured by God

Even though these beliefs vary with each individual, they probably have more affect on the individual themselves rather than an entire culture or community, unless they let it affect the community(but it is not usually a case). Nevertheless they could qualify as a personal belief system as these beliefs have yet to be universally declared as facts. Our whole way of living is based upon a belief system by how we see concepts as more fitting and efficient in accordance to our own common sense and reason. A life lived without God could be a belief one sees fitting to their life. But if one really opposes a certain system, there is no need to congregate under the same stylistics as what militant atheists do.

Atheism may be 'without belief in God,' however, it is still not without belief. It is actually logically impossible not to believe in anything, as each opposing thought is really just belief in the opposite, unless fact succeeds the belief.

As a deeply religious non-believer myself, I have no problem admitting that I have beliefs and hold belief of life without a god. But I tend to refrain from using the title 'atheist' as it seems too ambiguous, self-contradicting and conform. I am however, without worship in anything, without desire of an immortal life, without the use of God as the ultimate answer for everything and a immensely high believer in goodness with evil as a reluctant counter-balance. I an not sure exactly how this categorizes me, but it is easy enough to just refer to myself as simply just 'complacent.'

[Haunted]

There was a CNN poll conducted where people were asked if they would vote for a person if they were black, a woman, a mormon, a catholic, an atheist, or gay. I'm having trouble finding that article though, I remember it on TV and circulating a lot around the election time, but searches for keywords like atheism, CNN, popular seem to just turn up articles about people thinking Obama is an atheist, which is in turn being used as a character assault on Obama, like the Muslim accusations.

Fox News conducted a poll in 1999 that found that 69% of respondents wouldn't vote for an atheist. In 2003 they conducted a similar poll on religions, the worst performer was Islam, with 47% saying they would be less likely to vote for someone if they were Muslim.

in 2008, atheist were slightly more popular than Scientologist, but still more unpopular than muslims.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251802,00.html

would you vote for a high school dropout...do you want someone with excessive BMI to rule the country... how do you feel about a president who snorts when he/she laughs...They poll everything. I personally have no problem with an atheist president, but Scientologist, that's a differnt story. I wouldn't like a president wearing an alumium foil hat with an anntenna.


I do wish you wouldn't come barging into this atheist thread. Although you can't see it or won't admit it, atheism evidently controls your life.

No sir, I didn't barge in. Atheism doesn't control my life. Neither does religion.

Came in here because it says it's the "final" word, just wanted to see if the curtains came down and when the gigantuan strobe light display starts over the Atlantic.

[OrphanPip]

would you vote for a high school dropout...do you want someone with excessive BMI to rule the country... how do you feel about a president who snorts when he/she laughs...They poll everything. I personally have no problem with an atheist president, but Scientologist, that's a differnt story. I wouldn't like a president wearing an alumium foil hat with an anntenna.


I'm just saying it's indicative of high levels of mistrust and dislike of atheist in the general American population. Muslims and atheist are, at least for the poll respondents, unfit for leadership by virtue of their views on religion. There is still a heavy emphasis placed on the specifically Christian values of American politicians, with some moderate tolerance for Jews. I say it's probably true that many atheist have antagonistic views towards the religious, but there is a similar, if not higher, level of dislike of atheism by the religious that is usually brushed aside when people decide to criticize the militant atheist.

Hell, when an atheist group decided to advertise on buses it caused an uproar, I don't think there's ever been an atheist letter campaign to ban religious ads. Likewise, ads for atheist groups are routinely targeted for vandalism.

The attempt to paint atheist as merely trouble makers and the religious as benign victims of the angry insecure atheist ignores the reality of how these issues seem to play out in reality.

[The Atheist]

However, depending on an individual's degree of 'atheism,' their way of living may also come with a set of 'fixed and coherent beliefs' with 'lack of belief in God' as its main catalyst which may include:

-belief that there is no god/deity
-belief that there is no afterlife
-belief in the doctrine of evolution
-belief in a moral and content life without the need of a god
-belief that the more constituted religions are unnecessary and tend to do more evil than good
-belief that the universe did not begin with God nor is it endured by God

Some of those bear no relation to atheism, which really is just a lack of belief in god/s.



Atheism may be 'without belief in God,' however, it is still not without belief. It is actually logically impossible not to believe in anything, as each opposing thought is really just belief in the opposite, unless fact succeeds the belief.

I only find one belief necessary - that reality exists. Once we get past that, everything else has conformed to empirical investigation.

[hoope]

Man ! I was trying to read the whole posts.. reached until 3 or 4 ...
couldn't resist replying...

There were many comments that i liked .. and infact suppported ; among which JBI 's


If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude, rather than some crying cyberbullying. As it is, whether you believe in god or not is particularly irrelevant. What is irrelevant is how well you treat the people around you, and how well one contributes to the society they are in. If someone was an Atheist or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or whatever, I wouldn't care as long as they don't go around preaching how much truer their nonsense is, and actually do things for those around them.

All you do is cheapen nonbelieving to suit your own political agenda, and quite frankly, the manner in which you carry it out is insulting to both those with religious affiliation, and those of us, like me, without it, who don't want to be grouped together with hateful preachers.


Simply put, the flaw with your reasoning is its hypocrisy - you define atheism as a state of consciousness - by necessity then you are promoting a movement, rather than a non-belief - you are believing in your standpoint, as apposed to not considering the question. The same way evolution is taken as a doctrine in opposition to creationism, as apposed to a simple scientific principle, like gravity, without any real political affiliation.



Originally Posted by keilj
I've noticed that atheists spend more time thinking about/pondering/discussing/worrying about God than people who actually believe there is a God



So as i see it .. and since we are talking about what atheism means ..
It's somelanguages the word Atheism mean ABSTANING FROM THE INTENDED or from whats intended .
In religion .. it mostly stands for denying God !


Now where comes the big issue .. because Atheism is not belief.. BUT however , they tend to make it that way .. Many ATHEISMS defend it , the create this as a religion.. as something with a base or something which was there since Adam and Eve.. They try to be atheistic in every behavior , act , teaching .. and mostly in everything !!!
So the problem is not Atheism itself.. but its the Atheist.

And if we want to discuss this .. i guess we will be dragged into many things .. and Scheherazade will end up closing this thread

We will end up into couple points most of which :
- The prove that he world was created
- The prove that there is God
- and the prove that there is only one God ..

and .. and .. and ... and..
We have discussed this over and over again .. and i yet don't know why most of the atheist ( as said by keilj ) spend more time in discussing and arguing..

Whats the point ? and where it will take us ?
Do you want us to admit that Atheism is right .. or that YOU are right ? Or its just for the sake of discussion !!!!

[MarkBastable]

If atheism is so progressive and true, and more moral, or whatever, lets see some charity work, and community work, and progressive attitude....


I think you're missing the point. The Atheist is not saying that atheism is more moral or progressive or anything. I'm sure he'd agree that an atheist mass murderer is just as likely as a Catholic or Sikh mass murderer. Equally, an atheist is as likely as a Baptist or a Jainist to dive in to the river to save a puppy from drowning.

Theists do not have a monopoly on insane cruelty or on selfless loveliness. Both those qualities seem to be pretty evenly distributed across all human beings, whatever worldview they profess.



No sir, I didn't barge in. Atheism doesn't control my life. Neither does religion.


Likewise. Please remember that next time you see me contributing my atheist views in a thread about God.

[Serena03]

Some of those bear no relation to atheism, which really is just a lack of belief in god/s.

If we are only defining 'atheism' by one principle, then it is true that it could not constitute as a 'religion' or 'belief system.' However, many atheists would use similar beliefs like these as reasons not to believe. A theist as well may be simply defined as one who believes, also not a constituted religion on its own, but there is generally more advocacy involved so a single conclusion can be made. But an individual's constitution of fixed beliefs which leads to one singular belief could be justified as a 'belief system' for drawing a conclusion of belief or disbelief.



I only find one belief necessary - that reality exists. Once we get past that, everything else has conformed to empirical investigation.

Are there no supporting claims as to why you only believe in this? It seems empirical investigation has already been endlessly going as to what exactly 'reality' is as well as existence, leading to more questions or beliefs that are less likely to ever be answered, thus we are forever stuck on belief.

[Haunted]

I'm just saying it's indicative of high levels of mistrust and dislike of atheist in the general American population. Muslims and atheist are, at least for the poll respondents, unfit for leadership by virtue of their views on religion. There is still a heavy emphasis placed on the specifically Christian values of American politicians, with some moderate tolerance for Jews. I say it's probably true that many atheist have antagonistic views towards the religious, but there is a similar, if not higher, level of dislike of atheism by the religious that is usually brushed aside when people decide to criticize the militant atheist.

Hell, when an atheist group decided to advertise on buses it caused an uproar, I don't think there's ever been an atheist letter campaign to ban religious ads. Likewise, ads for atheist groups are routinely targeted for vandalism.

The attempt to paint atheist as merely trouble makers and the religious as benign victims of the angry insecure atheist ignores the reality of how these issues seem to play out in reality.

Pip, I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally had no opinion of atheism and I'm really not aware of any campaign against atheism. I don't talk religion with my friends, I've known them for years and didn't know what their faith is until they get married and I have to find my way to the church.

However I uses past tense saying I had no opinion, that because I now do, and that started on Litnet as I read more and more hateful posts ridiculing or even attacking religion and God. But I assure you, I would not stereotype atheists as being obnoxious as a group based on the behavior I witnessed here. I have made a great atheist friend here, we share views on this subject early on but most of the time we just chat about our lives, talk about books, share music...

As far as American distrust of atheist and muslims in key political leadership, a lot has to do with the fact that this country is founded on Christian principles and values, that's what attracted countless immigrants here. Or else the society built by Christians produced such a favorable environment that anyone can enjoy, people just want it to stay that way.

But it goes beyond religion. We have to consider the policies as a result of a leadership from those who hold very different religious (or the lack of) values. This may result in political alliances that would impact the welfare and security of the country. Back in the day Protestants were suspicious of Catholic leadership too, but as I understand it, part of it was on a policy and political level.

I assume you are atheist. If you take up US citizenship and run for president, I wouldn't rule you out, and so will a percentage of the population no matter how small it is. If you are well spoken, reasonable, (which you seem to be in your reply posts to me, sparing any insults), I would certainly consider you. But mind you, we are not big on curling here, and if you want to make us a curling country, I doubt if you'd have a chance.

[The Atheist]

Whats the point ? and where it will take us ?
Do you want us to admit that Atheism is right .. or that YOU are right ? Or its just for the sake of discussion !!!!

I'll assume you're serious in asking those questions and answer accordingly.

I don't care whether people are theist, atheist or agnostic.

The point of the thread is exactly as it say on the title - what "atheism" means, not whether it's right.


If we are only defining 'atheism' by one principle, then it is true that it could not constitute as a 'religion' or 'belief system.'

Bingo!

It truly is that simple.


However, many atheists would use similar beliefs like these as reasons not to believe.

Sure, but as I have repeatedly said, atheism isn't a group or a doctrine, so the only criterion needed to self-identify as one is lacking a belief in god. This includes:

People who say "There is no god"
Panpspermians. (I really want to meet one of these, I know they are out there)
David Icke
Hundreds of millions of Buddhists


A theist as well may be simply defined as one who believes,...

No, theism is just as simple - a theist is someone who believes there is one god, of the "personal" variety to use Eonstein's terms, although it doesn't feel right.

Buddhists alone ruin that position, because the vast majority of them do not believe in a god. I know quite a number of Buddhists that cheerfully admit to being atheists.


... also not a constituted religion on its own, but there is generally more advocacy involved so a single conclusion can be made.

Except not even all theists need a conclusion. The Church of England is happily agnostic in congregational terms.


Are there no supporting claims as to why you only believe in this? It seems empirical investigation has already been endlessly going as to what exactly 'reality' is as well as existence, leading to more questions or beliefs that are less likely to ever be answered, thus we are forever stuck on belief.

Again, I find this extremely simple. If I look at every single philosophical, metaphysical, supernatural, paranormal [and tautological!] claim ever made, there is one inescapable dichotomy:

Reality exists or it does not.

Solipsism just doesn't cut it for me.

Since I learned to learn, empirical investigation has a 100% track record in predicting and verifying how the universe I perceive works. If reality exists, so do those empirical conclusions.

That I believe reality exists doesn't bother me philosophically for a millisecond.


However I uses past tense saying I had no opinion, that because I now do, and that started on Litnet as I read more and more hateful posts ridiculing or even attacking religion and God.

Again, the same assertion?

Where is your evidence?

I don't believe there is a shred of evidence that there are "hateful posts ridiculing and attacking religion and God.", so I have had to go and check it out myself.

I currently have open the first.....13, dammit! threads that feature god/s and religions.

Out of thousands of posts, there are two that could be classed as ridiculing religion. (I have ignored the Buddhist threads for reasons which should be obvious)

On the other hand, I can point to several dozen instances where the assertion is made that atheists on this site attack religion. You are not the only one that believes this and it is demonstrable - and now demonstrated - that the assertion is incorrect.

Please don't confuse my stance on the present pope as being an attack on religion; I repeatedly extol the virtues of Rowan Williams just as do the opposite to Ratzinger - I think he is a bad example of human being, nothing to do with Catholicism.

[Dodo25]

Now it's at least somewhat on topic:


If you are doubting something you should read both arguments against and in favor of. And there are quite a number of arguments for the existence of god, both old and new. Also, even being an agnostic myself, I find the notion that atheism (or agnosticism) involves "having no beliefs" very strange. Sure, you don't believe in one thing - god - but then if you think that the statement "god is real" is false, and if you think that doesn't make sense, then you'd have a whole lot of beliefs about astronomy, geology, biology, etc. How? Let me explain. Everywhere around the world, all of this was first explained by religion - then came science, and had to work very hard to establish new paradigms. It wouldn't make much sense to be an atheist in the modern sense of the world in, let's say, 1300AD - if you didn't believe in god, back then, you couldn't even explain why stars moved in the night sky. Well, of course things are different today - but, at least if you are a "Dawkinsonian" atheist, you'd still would have to express a belief that the scientific method is our best shot at understanding the world (and why, you'd even have to believe in "truth", and that itself is very problematic).



The case is crystal clear, no argument for god is even remotely convincing (so far, I'm willing to listen if anyone comes up with something new). And atheism really doesn't involve any beliefs, it's simply the absence of a belief in god. And as a side note, labeling yourself 'agnostic' doesn't really make sense, because a) mosts atheists are 'agnostic atheists', meaning they don't claim to have absolute knowledge, and b) by saying you're an agnostic, you make it sound like you think the possibility whether god exists is about 50%, so you're not even confident enough to take a position. Unless that actually is your view, in which case I'm of course wondering whether you think the possibility of Narnia being in someone's wardrobe is about 50% too for you, and if not, what difference there is between god and Narnia, if both aren't supported by evidence.

One doesn't need to be able to explain things god used to explain in order to not believe. Before Darwin wrote 'Origin of Species', Hume pointed out that 'God' isn't an explanation. Even children ask the question 'who created god', clearly noticing the problem. I'll never understand how people can be satisfied with god as an explanation.

And Plato noticed thousands of years ago that god isn't needed for morality either. If 'good' is what god says is good, then he might as well have said that torturing children is good. If god has other criteria for telling what is 'good', then so do we.

Darwin made it possible to be an 'intellectually fulfilled' atheist, but even before, believing in god just didn't make sense. It's better to admit 'I DONT KNOW' instead of just ascribing everything you don't know to something that is even more difficult to explain than the thing you were wondering about in the first place.

'Belief' in the scientific method? Yes. 'Faith' in the scientific method? Hell no. Belief can be based on evidence, faith isn't. The scientific record has an outstanding track record. Logic and rationality is needed for even having a discussion, so not accepting them would disqualify you anyway. And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is.


I'm sorry, but there are quite a few things wrong with this post. For one you seem to be equivocating on the definition of "agnostic." You assume (in one place) that it can be boiled down to a belief in probability, likewise can atheism, and hence the concept of "agnostic atheist" would make no sense, since they would be mutually exclusive belief systems. Moreover, the whole idea of boiling it down to beliefs in probability is pathetically Dawkinsion and misleading. Most agnostics would not pretend they know the probability at all ... the fact that Dawkins thinks they do demonstrates how ignorant he really is ... and that he maintains this idea belies any claim of an "agnostic atheist" since, saying that you think there is, say, a 99% chance that god doesn't exist makes a quite positive and theoretical claim about the nature of God, and dismisses God on those accounts, instead of practical ones.

Everyone uses different definitions of the noun 'agnostic'. Some use it as in 'one can never know' (being consistent, these people would have to use the same reasoning for ghosts, unicors or Narnia), some use it as in 'I don't believe in god, but there could be one', in that case, they are atheists and just confusing everyone including themselves, and finally, some use it in the sense 'I'm totally undecided and don't want to take a stand either way'. Those last ones are the ones I refer to as 'agnostics', because knowing nothing except that someone calls himself an 'agnostic', I grant him the only definition of the word that actually makes sense. But it's never wrong to ask for clarification. So yeah, the last definition of agnostics sorta assigns a probability, but it reflects the personal attitude on the issue and isn't regarded as an objective estimate or whatever. The 'we just can't know' definition is probably the one most used, but I think everyone who uses it is making a huge mistake having to do with the burden of proof. In short, if something does exist, it is possible to find evidence for it. So that's why I think that definition sucks.

Now, and this makes things even more complicated, there's also an adjective 'agnostic'. One that actually does have a precise meaning (thank God!): noncommittal or undogmatic. Thus, used as an adjective, any atheist who doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge is an agnostic atheist. In the same way, I'm don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I'm not dogmatic about it, which makes me an agnostic a-toothfairyist.

Also, of course atheists don't need to assign a probability to their beliefs. They can if they want to, but technically, as this thread here has hopefully established, atheists just don't believe in god, whether they would put the probability of non-existence at 51% (in which case there'd be a case for Pascal's wager), 99.99999999999999%, or 100%.



Science is wracked by the same absurdities as religion. The religious will maintain that God always was and will be. Some scientists will maintain the exact same thing about the nature of energy. Tell me how the claim latter make has more merit than the former? But in any case, who created energy? Who created time and space? Why does time travel forward? If there are a billion possible realities why this one? In the end, it is usually reconciled as a fundamental absurdity ... or the children are usually with a good licking..

Check out the bolded statement again in the quoted post of mine.

Why the latter claims has more merit? Well for one thing, 'energy' doesn't claim to care about your well-being, or whether you worship it, or whether whatever it is predestined to do will produce conscious beings or not. And for another thing, scientists didn't learn of 'energy' by studying an ancient book, but they actually found evidence for its existence. You have two alternatives, one a totally wasteful, conscious super-intelligent being, and the other as simple as possible, always-existing quantum fluctuation (our concept of 'zero' is a construct because in reality, there's always some quantum fluctuation, tiny particles popping in and out of existence), which one should you chose?. Ockham's razzor cuts god into tiny quantum particles (I just thought of that, how original!).

If there's a million possible realities, why this one? Well, string theory suggests there's 10^500 possible realities, and they all are. Lots of parallel universes out there. Every possible combination of fundamental constants allowed by the Callabi-Yau shape of the additional seven hidden dimensions (I'm no physicists though, I have no idea what a Callabi-Yau shape is, but anyway, it sounds kinda cool and I definitely have more reason to trust astro-physicists on astrophysics than ancient goat herders on astrophysics.

Of course, string theory isn't yet universally accepted. But it's a promising approach, and even if wrong, something like it would actually make sense, compared to 'god' it would actually explain some troubling things, i.e. why the universe just happens to be friendly for life. Answer: There are so incredibly many of it one of them almost has to be, and obviously we can't be in the ones that don't support life.

Think the same thing trough with god: why does the one thing (god) that always exists want to consciously create a universe? Why is that one thing already conscious, and why does it have a plan, and where the hell did that plan come from if it contains something that would just as well working without a conscious plan-haver?? (Also, why does 'he' want to be worshipped? And why does he have a son, and what about the ghost? But yeah, you're probably talking about the 'impersonal' god, because no one with decent education takes the Bible literally. Well, what use is that god for? There aren't even any gaps left in science really. You have quantum stuff or god, and whatever you choose it won't really make a practical difference because the definition of god has been crippled in order to not contradict science. The only difference it makes is that your faced with having to explain why theres a conscious being just eternally existing. Good luck with that.)



Also, where is the evidence that your evidence is significant, and where is the evidence for that evidence? At some point your "belief" is reduced to "faith" in a certain (set of) article(s) of evidence. Moreover, the theist doesn't unequivocally dismiss logic or rationality ... Aquinas couldn't make his arguments otherwise. Science and the emphasis on evidence are not the necessary (logical) consequences of logicality. Logic is simply the negative form of the truth; in other words, if something follows the logical form we can accept its conclusion as following from its premises. But since there can never be a test for positive truth (for if there were, we'd have to subject it to itself, which would render its validity based on a circular, and thus untrustable, argument) we can never with any apodictic certainty know if our premises are true. But what makes men 'assume' science or religion is that these belief systems tend to make them happier..

People don't have 'faith' in science. They have reasonable evidence to believe science works. Ever flown with a plane and landed in the right spot? Even when they lost your luggage along the way, you gotta admit that this wouldn't just happen if science was nonsense. The computer in front of you? Just happend to arrange itself? The moon landing? The accurate prediction of time-relativity in two watches, one still, one orbitting the earth at high speed? Or hold on, how can we proof that the empirical confirmation of a staggering prediction isn't nonsense? Why is nonsense nonsense and not something else? Why is anything anything? Why broat greendo panscake? I'm sorry, if you abolish logic itself, I might as well say god is a ham sandwich. You lose all basis to even have a discussion. If that's truly your belief, why bother to make a (somewhat) coherent argument? Hypo(crit).



And there's nothing really problematic about 'truth', some postmodernists just like to think there is. ... where is the "truth" and argument in this? This sounds more like a dogma. For the reason above expounded, the range of things which have universal validity is fairly small. It applies to math, some logical principles, the existence of space and time, and perhaps some other rules (such as cause and effect) ... though some of these things are only "true" in so far as we need to presume them before we can proceed in our some of our inferential affairs, while sensibility itself does not necessitate them. A good example of this is cause and effect, where our capacity to experience does not exclude the metaphysical doctrine of preestablished harmony; however, we must deny the belief if we are to proceed in many of our (scientific) inferential affairs. This type of "truth" is contrasted with, for example, space and time, which must exist in order for experience to occur.

Oops, looks like you do accept logic and math. Never mind my last few sentences then. Anyway, how about this definition of truth: truth := whatever best predicts reality. We might not have it perfectly right, but at least right enough to make damn good predictions. And what else do we really need anyway?

Is there even a reality? I say there is. It feels like one. Prediction fulfilled, case closed.

Could we be living in a matrix? Technically yes, but Ockham's razzor speaks against it, as does the ethical argument that whoever would've created that matrix is a jerk, and generelly, highly evolved beings aren't jerks (because they would've killed each other before they'd reached such advanced technology). So no, most likely not.

[Cunninglinguist]

Everyone uses different definitions of the noun 'agnostic'.

I don't care how you define agnostic; I'm flexible enough to assume another person's definition in an argument. But you were clearly equivocating, and that's a pretty big problem which renders your argument incoherent. Likewise, you were equivocating on the definition of atheist, between a practical atheist and a theoretical atheist.


Some use it as in 'one can never know' (being consistent, these people would have to use the same reasoning for ghosts, unicors or Narnia), some use it as in 'I don't believe in god, but there could be one', in that case, they are atheists

Oh, they're confusing everyone? I think they're confusing you. Or, you're confusing yourself with everyone. I thought you said people used different definitions ... so what, do tell, makes yours better than his or hers or mine?


and finally, some use it in the sense 'I'm totally undecided and don't want to take a stand either way'. Those last ones are the ones I refer to as 'agnostics'

Things are much clearer, indeed, when you refer to these individuals as apatheists instead of agnostics.


The 'we just can't know' definition is probably the one most used,

And that's why you should use it too, unless you don't care about confusing people.


but I think everyone who uses it is making a huge mistake having to do with the burden of proof.

Burden of proof is in many instances a joke. So what, are the atheists trying to present a circumstantial case, through which they raise a ton of questions, thus shifting the burden of proof? That, in itself, makes two rather flimsy assumptions: 1) that every theist is trying to prove something and 2) that their policy in doing so is necessarily scientific ... for the latter, most theists use, last I checked, a policy called faith and can easily counter rationality by saying "that's why it's called faith".


any atheist who doesn't claim to have absolute knowledge is an agnostic atheist. In the same way, I'm don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I'm not dogmatic about it, which makes me an agnostic a-toothfairyist.

In other words, you're a theoretically agnostic practical a-toothfairyist ... the problem, again, with these words is that they sometimes refer to a practical POV and sometimes a theoretical opinion. Sano was using "agnostic" to refer to his theoretical POV, and you seemed to miss that in your original post ... the real joke was that, when you tried to impose your own definition onto him you couldn't even agree with yourself.


Also, of course atheists don't need to assign a probability to their beliefs. They can if they want to, but technically, as this thread here has hopefully established, atheists just don't believe in god, whether they would put the probability of non-existence at 51% (in which case there'd be a case for Pascal's wager), 99.99999999999999%, or 100%.

Anyways, anyone who makes a theoretical assertion about God is using faith ... it is as simple as that. Furthermore, atheists who make theoretical assertions about God (this category seems to comprise mostly angsty teenagers) are idiots.


Why the latter claims has more merit? Well for one thing, 'energy' doesn't claim to care about your well-being, or whether you worship it, or whether whatever it is predestined to do will produce conscious beings or not. And for another thing, scientists didn't learn of 'energy' by studying an ancient book, but they actually found evidence for its existence

This isn't responding to my question.


Ockham's razzor cuts god into tiny quantum particles (I just thought of that, how original!).

As most any Doctor of Philosophy will tell you, Occam's Razor isn't a legitimate way of measuring metaphysical claims.


If there's a million possible realities, why this one? Well, string theory suggests there's 10^500 possible realities, and they all are. Lots of parallel universes out there.

You failed to see my point. You can't explain why you're here, conscious in your body ... what, if anything, is preventing you from being conscious in another body? At some level these types of things boil down to randomness.


I definitely have more reason to trust astro-physicists on astrophysics than ancient goat herders on astrophysics.

Ah, so you're admitting your faith in what scientists say?


But yeah, you're probably talking about the 'impersonal' god, because no one with decent education takes the Bible literally.

True that ... in any case, don't think I'm arguing for faith or God. I'm essentially Kantian (see my signature) and arguing for a proper understanding of the limits of reason.



People don't have 'faith' in science. They have reasonable evidence to believe science works.

So they use science to prove the merits of science ... that's pretty much the definition of an unsound argument.


Ever flown with a plane and landed in the right spot? Even when they lost your luggage along the way, you gotta admit that this wouldn't just happen if science was nonsense.

I didn't say science was nonsense; I very much like science to the extent that it makes my life, in many respects, a lot easier to live. But there is no rule that necessitates the laws of physics and, therefore, for all we know, they may not hold true two minutes from now. There is no apodictic (strict) proof that can be done which shows they will, though through reference to experience this makes for a sensible assumption.


I'm sorry, if you abolish logic itself, I might as well say god is a ham sandwich. You lose all basis to even have a discussion. If that's truly your belief, why bother to make a (somewhat) coherent argument? Hypo(crit).

I'm not denouncing logic, you're just overstating and stepping far beyond its limits. You're demonstrating quite well the grievous fault, which I pointed out before, modern philosophy is afflicted by. Evidently, you think you can move forward without even understanding what constitutes a logical deduction.


how about this definition of truth: truth := whatever best predicts reality.

That's almost fair, though there are things that have a higher degree of certainty than even, say, laws of physics (such as the existence of space and time, as I pointed out). If we are to keep with 3000 years of tradition and reserve the epithet of truth for that which is most certain and strictly necessary, then I have to contest that your definition is quite unsuitable.


Could we be living in a matrix? Technically yes, but Ockham's razzor speaks against it

Again, the razor is meaningless in the field of theoretics. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's Razor merely states that that which makes the least number of new assumptions is the most intuitive or commonsensical. It does not say that the hypothesis that makes the least number of assumptions is correct ... indeed, it doesn't say anything with respect to "correctness".

[Dodo25]

Oh, they're confusing everyone? I think they're confusing you. Or, you're confusing yourself with everyone. I thought you said people used different definitions ... so what, do tell, makes yours better than his or hers or mine?".

The fact that atheism has a precise definition, and thus if someone uses the same definition for agnostic it is inefficient and confusing. If you want to distinguish between practical and theoretical, fine, but that still doesn't change the fact that people who don't believe in god but grant that he may exist are by defintion atheists. I owe you an explanation why the most common definition is nonsensical too, it's coming later when you attack 'burden of proof'.



Things are much clearer, indeed, when you refer to these individuals as apatheists instead of agnostics.

You suggested this for the ones 'totally undecided and not willing to take a stand either way. This doesn't necessarily assume that the question whether god exists itself is irrelevant to these people. They might base their position on their current view of the evidence. In many cases, they indeed are apatheists, but not always.

Actually, why don't all non-theists get rid of the freaking labels and simply emphasize they use reason instead of faith?




Burden of proof is in many instances a joke. So what, are the atheists trying to present a circumstantial case, through which they raise a ton of questions, thus shifting the burden of proof? That, in itself, makes two rather flimsy assumptions: 1) that every theist is trying to prove something and 2) that their policy in doing so is necessarily scientific ... for the latter, most theists use, last I checked, a policy called faith and can easily counter rationality by saying "that's why it's called faith".

They aren't 'countering rationality'. They're simply being irrational. The very point is that atheists don't have to present anything, the burden of proof always rests on the believer. Without a single argument or piece of evidence for the existence of flying pink unicorns, there is no reason whatsoever for you to bother about this claim, even if people have faith in them. Some agnostics use the argument (and I've seen it at least half a dozen times almost literally as follows) 'the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproven'. That's their position. Well, what about 'the existence of pink flying unicorns can neither be proved nor disproven'. See what's wrong? If they existed, why the hell shouldn't we be able to 'prove' it? Not in the mathematical sense of course, but in the same way people know evolution is true. Circumstancial, statistical evidence. Prayer might have effects. Holy texts might for once be consistent and actually accurately predict something that isn't vague. They might contain knowledge that couldn't possibly have existed two thousands of years ago. Neuroscience might show that all causality breaks down in the human brain, giving room for 'free will' or 'souls'. All of this would be evidence (though in some instances weak evidence) for the existence of god. Only non-existence is unproveable, but that's tautological because you can't prove the non-existence of any non-contradicting concept!

Some people argue science a priori rules out the supernatural. In one sense, it's true, science expects things to work according to laws and patterns, if not, there would be no motivation to even bother investigating. However, here comes the important part: Science could in principle detect the supernatural, so it doesn't totally rule it out. It only couldn't explain it if it were encountered.

In short: 'theoretical agnosticism' is simply wrong. There's been a time where lots of people didn't think black holes existed. But no one was theoretically agnostic about them, at least I hope not, because now, we KNOW they exist. There's evidence.



Anyways, anyone who makes a theoretical assertion about God is using faith ... it is as simple as that. Furthermore, atheists who make theoretical assertions about God (this category seems to comprise mostly angsty teenagers) are idiots.

If I say 'god most likely doesn't exist', there's no faith in that statement (except if theists are right about what they consider 'evidence for god', but so far no one has brought forward a sound argument. They even admit their position rests on faith). If, on the other hand, I say the likelihood of god's existence is exactly 0.00000000000001%, then I'm just being stupid, and yeah, there'd be faith in that statement.



This isn't responding to my question.

You Kant possibly mean that! It totally nailed the answer to your question. The latter claim has more merit because its explanatory power, a highly relevant concept in the scientific method and the philosophy of science, is much much much much much (go on some thousands times) greater than invoking god. You have to start with something, in the atheistic position, it's energy. In the theist one, it's god, who then creates energy. (And by 'energy', I just mean the fundamental nature of existence as represented in the relatively simple equation(s) of m-theory or some other not yet discovered theory). We already know energy exists. We don't know god exists. What does god add to energy? Does he explain it by invoking something simpler? Does he explain it the way Darwinian evolution explained the complexity of life? NO!!!!

He doesn't even attempt to explain it, instead, invoking god postulates a hyper-complex unsolveable freaking mystery. Explanatory power: ZERO. Analogy: Why does it rain? Answer 1: water vapor condenses when it gets too cold. Answer 2: Thor forces water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. Thor is a huge man with muscles who likes to wear ancient clothes. He is immortal and he lives in the sky.

You have two possible answers, one postulates the fact that it simply happens to be the nature of water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. And the other... Well you get the point.



As most any Doctor of Philosophy will tell you, Occam's Razor isn't a legitimate way of measuring metaphysical claims.

Explanatory power is. And as the scientifically literate philosophers will tell you, metaphysics is nonsense by its very own assumptions. Carnap wrote a paper about that somewhere.



You failed to see my point. You can't explain why you're here, conscious in your body ... what, if anything, is preventing you from being conscious in another body? At some level these types of things boil down to randomness.

Uhm, 'my' consciousness is the result of processes going on in my brain. In someone else's brain, there are different processes, so 'someone else' (or bether, 'something else') is conscious there. And if you think consciousness itself produces unsolveable problems, that's not the case. It would so in god, because we have nothing to explain god with. On earth however, consciousness is accounted for by the forces of evolution. There still remains 'the hard problem of consciousness' with qualia and everything, but there have been some very convincing and promising approaches, fascinating stuff. 'Consciousness Explained' by Dennett is well worth reading (twice).



Ah, so you're admitting your faith in what scientists say?

You're misusing the word faith. It's defined as 'belief without evidence'. I have reasons (-> evidence) to 'trust' scientists. Try to understand this, you're making the same mistake over and over again. What is it with 'faith' that you find so important? It's always irrational to have faith.



So they use science to prove the merits of science ... that's pretty much the definition of an unsound argument.

No. They use the achievements of science to show science works. What do you use to show math isn't nonsense? Same thing, it works, it produces great results, it makes sense. If you really want to make the point that people think science works because of their faith in it, just don't do so using a computer. It's hypocritical.



I didn't say science was nonsense; I very much like science to the extent that it makes my life, in many respects, a lot easier to live. But there is no rule that necessitates the laws of physics and, therefore, for all we know, they may not hold true two minutes from now. There is no apodictic (strict) proof that can be done which shows they will, though through reference to experience this makes for a sensible assumption.

So what? You're still using the damn computer. No one is claiming that science is 100% ultimate infallible explanation of everything, including the future. It just has an impressive track record, and it makes accurate predictions over and over again. If I were to offer to bet with your for ten dollars whether the next stone you throw will come down or hover into the void of the cosmos, you surely would take the bet.



That's almost fair, though there are things that have a higher degree of certainty than even, say, laws of physics (such as the existence of space and time, as I pointed out). If we are to keep with 3000 years of tradition and reserve the epithet of truth for that which is most certain and strictly necessary, then I have to contest that your definition is quite unsuitable.

Tradition isn't a good reason. Also, I don't quite get your distinction. Let's just keep it at the 'almost fair', I'm good with that.



Again, the razor is meaningless in the field of theoretics. Contrary to popular belief, Occam's Razor merely states that that which makes the least number of new assumptions is the most intuitive or commonsensical. It does not say that the hypothesis that makes the least number of assumptions is correct ... indeed, it doesn't say anything with respect to "correctness".

Actually, I suppose your right, in this one case, invoking Ockham's razzor as evidence against the matrix possibility isn't sound. It's not too implausible that sometime in the future of this universe, beings will be able to create a matrix just like our universe. That's still way different from the god proposition, because whoever would have created the matrix would still be the product of evolution in some universe, so the explanation would still go on and lead to simpler things that started the chain of causation.

[jajdude]

I don't believe in this thread.

<smirk>

[Dodo25]

I don't believe in this thread.

<smirk>

hav sum f8 m8! lol

[AuntShecky]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

[YesNo]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."
At the risk of giving the wrong answer, I'll say, "They pretty much mean the same thing." :)

[Dodo25]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

There are some subtle differences, the first one is very polite but it lacks certainty. The second one lacks certainty and, while not being literally impolite, can be interpreted as personally threatening. The thrid one is full of certainty but factual. The fourth is totally certain too, but again with a connotation one could interpret as being personal.

So thanks, good point, thinking about it I realized I may have phrased some of my responses in a bad way, sorry about that. It wasn't intended, it just tends to get that way, especially with 'dissecting' posts. I'll be more careful next time.

[The Atheist]

Quick Essay Quiz:

Discuss the differences among this quartet of statements:



"I believe that this is wrong."

"I believe that you are wrong."

"This is wrong."

"You are wrong."

Is there a point to that? None of them relate to atheism in any way.

Mind you, precious little else recently in this thread does either!

:lol:

[Musicology]

Atheism is the carnal mind revolting against itself. In public.

[AuntShecky]

Is there a point to that? None of them relate to atheism in any way.

Mind you, precious little else recently in this thread does either!

:lol:

That's what I mean, Mr. A! It's one thing for a LitNetter to explain that atheism is wrong/right because. . . . It's quite another to say the person who espouses atheism or its opposite is wrong.

The first is part of a reasonable debate and the second is an ad hominem attack.

The difference is subtle, but I'm sure you can see it.

[The Atheist]

Atheism is the carnal mind revolting against itself. In public.

Just in the way that the universe doesn't orbit the earth.

;)


That's what I mean, Mr. A! It's one thing for a LitNetter to explain that atheism is wrong/right because. . . . It's quite another to say the person who espouses atheism or its opposite is wrong.

The first is part of a reasonable debate and the second is an ad hominem attack.

The difference is subtle, but I'm sure you can see it.

No problem with that - I just wasn't sure what you were aiming it at.

The thread was simply supposed to be what atheism meant and not whether it's right/wrong/indifferent.

One way or another, you've put it back on track!

:D

[Musicology]

Atheism is, by its words and actions, the carnal mind revolting, against itself. In public.

[The Atheist]

Atheism is, by its words and actions, the carnal mind revolting, against itself. In public.

Does repeating a fallacy render it less fallacious?

[Musicology]

Atheism is the smartest kid in the block - (in his own mind). He lives only for argument - most of which is with himself.

He should be put to bed and given some molasses. It will pass.

Those who live to prove a negative deserve atheism. It makes their life meaningful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX0Q2UY_l0g



Does repeating a fallacy render it less fallacious?

[The Atheist]

Yes, it does.

Why doesn't it surprise me you'd think that?

[Musicology]

Athiesm is the juvenile activity of proving a negative, or trying to. The remedy is being put to bed with a spoonful of molasses.

Don't take your SELF too seriously. It self destructs.


Why doesn't it surprise me you'd think that?

[Dodo25]

Athiesm is the juvenile activity of proving a negative, or trying to. The remedy is being put to bed with a spoonful of molasses.

Don't take your SELF too seriously. It self destructs.

I'm sure this already stands somewhere in the first five pages of this thread, but here again:

Atheists don't need to prove anything, just as much as I need to proof that there's no Narnia in my wardrobe in order to not believe in it. Exactly because one can't prove a negative, it becomes the default rational position if there's no positive evidence available. The burden of proof rests on the believer, and an atheist is simply someone who does not have 'faith' in God (faith = belief without evidence).

[JBI]

I'm sure this already stands somewhere in the first five pages of this thread, but here again:

Atheists don't need to prove anything, just as much as I need to proof that there's no Narnia in my wardrobe in order to not believe in it. Exactly because one can't prove a negative, it becomes the default rational position if there's no positive evidence available. The burden of proof rests on the believer, and an atheist is simply someone who does not have 'faith' in God (faith = belief without evidence).

Burden of proof for whom? I see no problem with them believing as long as they do not force you to believe, from the first point you made. There is only a burden of proof if you desire one, for the religious person, proving to the non-believer is often irrelevant.

The idea of atheism as "someone who..." is kind of contradictory, since one cannot define oneself as one who does not believe, when one is defining, which means you believe in a definition.

Everyone trusts some things, everyone believes in things, an atheist, by definition, is someone who is without "theos" or a deity. In truth, that includes many forms of other religions and cultural traditions that hold belief-based opinions, such as the ancestor worship of Confucian (often neo-Confucian) thought patterns, and their mix with other traditions, like Buddhism.

God is not relevant to belief - one can believe in Fengshui but not Jesus, or astrology and not Zeus.

Faith does not equal belief, they are different things. A faith, and faith, are also different things.

[The Atheist]

Athiesm is the juvenile activity of proving a negative, or trying to.

Ah, you're just wrong, plus you haven't been following the thread. Even worse, not just not following, but failing to read the very first post:


Let's start with the fact that atheism is not a belief, but a simple lack of belief.

Atheist = without god/s.

It really is that simple.....


All clear now?

There is no negative involved, so you're making a simple error. There are people who claim that no god/s exist, but they are a very small subset of the whole. Just as I don't class all theists as people who would blow themselves up in the name of their god/s, I expect to find the same not classing all atheists by a small subset's behaviour and beliefs.


The remedy is being put to bed with a spoonful of molasses.

Tip: adding old wives' remedies for obstreperous children to a thread merely makes you look silly.


Don't take your SELF too seriously. It self destructs.

Luckily, I don't take anything seriously. That's one of the joys of life from where I see it; there's nothing to be serious about.


...an atheist, by definition, is someone who is without "theos" or a deity...

Good grief; if that isn't the final proof in the final thread, I don't know what is! JBI and I agreed it.

[Musicology]

He who is the greatest is the servant of all.

That came from a source greater than you, Mr Atheist.

[Delta40]

I was recently told don't have an opinion if you don't need one, which means stay open. Since we only need an opinion when something needs to be decided, then why have one where no decision needs to be made? I was rather impressed by this because I realized once I have an opinion (even it is based on limited info) I become self-interested and defensive. This means I am less likely to 'hear' or 'listen' since I am so busy looking for ways to reinforce my position in the matter.

I don't need to have an opinion on belief or non belief in God - at least not until my final moments! So I figure if I remain open till I need to decide, I might make a better decision when the time comes.

Wow! that felt really good!

[Dodo25]

I was recently told don't have an opinion if you don't need one, which means stay open. Since we only need an opinion when something needs to be decided, then why have one where no decision needs to be made? I was rather impressed by this because I realized once I have an opinion (even it is based on limited info) I become self-interested and defensive. This means I am less likely to 'hear' or 'listen' since I am so busy looking for ways to reinforce my position in the matter.

I don't need to have an opinion on belief or non belief in God - at least not until my final moments! So I figure if I remain open till I need to decide, I might make a better decision when the time comes.

Wow! that felt really good!

It seems to me this is one of the few cases were the term 'agnostic' would be appropriate. Refusing to even think about it probably makes you agnostic, or even better, as Cunninglinguist pointed out, apathetic.

If, one the other hand, one isn't sure either way, it tends to mean 'atheist', unless one is clearly leaning towards theism.

So much for terminology. I don't really see the reasoning behind it though. Let's compare it with the question whether Narnia exists in my wardrobe. Should I 'stay open' by just not thinking about it? I don't really see the point. If it were in there, I'd think it would be kinda cool and I would want to get in. Analogically, if there were a god, at least one that in some way interacts with humans, then it would be a rational thing to consider this when deciding 'what to do'. And for physicists, whether there is a god matters too, because then they could just sit back and stop bothering with the 'explaining'.

[Cunninglinguist]

The fact that atheism has a precise definition, and thus if someone uses the same definition for agnostic it is inefficient and confusing. If you want to distinguish between practical and theoretical, fine, but that still doesn't change the fact that people who don't believe in god but grant that he may exist are by defintion atheists. I owe you an explanation why the most common definition is nonsensical too, it's coming later when you attack 'burden of proof'.

Where I live it doesn't have anywhere near a precise definition; things are quite equivocal, as per usual. But where do you live, and can I move there? Contrary to what many here would like to think, it doesn't (and perhaps even can't) have a precise definition at all; in one instance it refers to a theoretical opinion, in another a practical one. Trying to claim the otherwise demonstrates either intentional fallacy or blatant ignorance.

To go on a tangent, ironically, somehow, agnosticism has the same problem ... although it was originally coined to refer to a distinctly theoretical opinion: Huxley wrote, "I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no [a posteriori] reason for believing it, but on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objection to the doctrine." People have now perverted that understanding through either misusage or false pretense or both (e.g. there are a few instances where religious officials have tried to apologize by branding themselves as agnostics) and now think that agnosticism (can) refers to a practical opinion. But, In the end, the concept of a practical agnosticism is absurd, since every action and inaction imply a moral judgment. Therefore, agnosticism (sensibly used) can only refer to a theoretical point of view - on the whole, I'd recommend that people stop using (and thinking) the otherwise, because the otherwise just makes no sense.


You suggested this for the ones 'totally undecided and not willing to take a stand either way. This doesn't necessarily assume that the question whether god exists itself is irrelevant to these people. They might base their position on their current view of the evidence. In many cases, they indeed are apatheists, but not always.

To tangent, again, on theoretical grounds, given that one won't let anything theoretical influence how one conducts oneself morally, making a claim either way is useless and stupid (hence why I'd call myself an agnostic). On the other hand, if such-and-such a theoretical claim (such as the existence of a God) does influence one's moral behavior then, given that their behavior is bad (let's assume by a general standard), that's apparently enough reason to contest that claim. This seems to be the latent objective behind most of atheism, but, I assure you, it is a quite futile effort to refute religion on theoretical grounds. Refute it on practical grounds, only.


Actually, why don't all non-theists get rid of the freaking labels and simply emphasize they use reason instead of faith?

I would guess because that'd be too simple.


The very point is that atheists don't have to present anything, the burden of proof always rests on the believer.

Contrary to a popular belief, this notion makes very little sense. On the one hand, if you're making a positive claim that God doesn't exist (which The Atheist has rightly pointed out that most "atheists" don't do this), and if you expect to be taken seriously, a proof would be quite requisite. On the other, if you're claiming that atheism is better on practical grounds, that still requires evidence. The theoretical position that doesn't require proof is agnosticism (for it has nothing which might be proved); the practical position that doesn't require justification is none.

In any case, it almost doesn't matter. The idea that a proof is necessary would, as JBI suggests, void the priority of religious faith. That rationalism should be everyone's foremost priority is the flimsy assumption that the "burden of proof" argument rests on, and the assumption that dooms it from the start in many cases.


Without a single argument or piece of evidence for the existence of flying pink unicorns, there is no reason whatsoever for you to bother about this claim

As a hypothetical it's bothered with a lot ... you're bothering with it currently. I guess you fell into a bit of a hypocrisy there. To take the (invisible) pink flying unicorn as a practical tenant is, yes, plainly retarded if not impossible.


Some agnostics use the argument (and I've seen it at least half a dozen times almost literally as follows) 'the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproven'. That's their position. Well, what about 'the existence of pink flying unicorns can neither be proved nor disproven'.

I'm pretty sure, for anyone who's given it a fair deal of consideration, that their answer would be the same for both.


See what's wrong?

No.


If they existed, why the hell shouldn't we be able to 'prove' it?

Not all things which "exist" in whatever form are "provable" (if we use a rather liberal definition of the word). Did the past exist? Prove it. Theoretically speaking, you can't. The universe may be 2 minutes old, and all your memories past two minutes ago implanted.


Not in the mathematical sense of course, but in the same way people know evolution is true.

In another thread recently started, I saw Pip argue that science moves forward by falsification, that no theory can be "false" or "true". I thought to myself, "this is all fair and well but stands in stark contradiction to the popular usage of these words." You exemplify my objection quite well, sir.


Only non-existence is unproveable,

That's a pretty unequivocal categorical error. Can you prove the non-existence of a robber in your house? According to your definition of a proof, yes. Can you prove the non-existence of cancer in your prostate? Well, if that weren't so then, by God, why the hell do doctors preform prostate exams? For whatever reason people like to delude themselves into thinking that your statement is truth, when it's plainly not.


Some people argue science a priori rules out the supernatural. In one sense, it's true,

Maybe in the "wrong" sense - that is, if you don't understand how a priori is defined. Science operates almost completely in the a posteriori, empirical realm - in the end, it could all be one enormous post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


science expects things to work according to laws and patterns,

That's the assumption, unprovable as it is. Nevertheless, it's been quite practical over the years, which is why (and only why) we keep it.


Science could in principle detect the supernatural, so it doesn't totally rule it out. It only couldn't explain it if it were encountered.

I'm chary to admit those propositions since they seem to rest on a particular and peculiar definition of "supernatural."


In short: 'theoretical agnosticism' is simply wrong. There's been a time where lots of people didn't think black holes existed. But no one was theoretically agnostic about them, at least I hope not, because now, we KNOW they exist. There's evidence.

This is misrepresenting the example. The existence was refuted because they were thought to have, as it were, a self contradictory nature, not because we lacked the evidence. The concept of God, on the other hand, need not be self-contradictory (albeit it sometimes is). And as for "knowing" something exists ... what does knowledge consist of anyways? People seem to assume that its criteria is self-evident, but their criteria in full is currently quite uncertain to the best of philosophers and scientists. As for evidence, it is always fallible on a priori grounds (which you later implicitly admit, anyways) - some forms are more trustable than others on a posteriori grounds - that is, it is never sufficient for a priori truth.


If I say 'god most likely doesn't exist', there's no faith in that statement

Yes there is. I'm sorry you can't see that.


If, on the other hand, I say the likelihood of god's existence is exactly 0.00000000000001%, then I'm just being stupid, and yeah, there'd be faith in that statement.

Making a quantitative assertion about this-or-that is formally no different than making a qualitative one. That is, to say either is to claim some property about some thing (God), which, in our case, is stepping beyond the bounds of certitude.


You Kant possibly mean that! It totally nailed the answer to your question.

Yes I do and no you didn't.

The question was essentially this: How can someone claim that X object (energy) having this-or-that property (perpetual, immortal existence) is true--and, moreover, possible--while simultaneously claiming that Y object (God) having the exact same property (existing forever) is categorically absurd and impossible. The answer: because they haven't fully considered what they're saying ... But of those who so ardently claim to live by it, who listens to sound reasoning anyways?


instead, invoking god postulates a hyper-complex unsolveable freaking mystery.

So does the mere consideration of our existence...


You have two possible answers, one postulates the fact that it simply happens to be the nature of water vapor to condense when it gets too cold. And the other... Well you get the point.

When we consider the universe in its totality, instead of certain parts of it in relation to others (which is what your analogy does), we recognize that there's a fundamental absurdity to it all.


Explanatory power is. And as the scientifically literate philosophers will tell you, metaphysics is nonsense by its very own assumptions. Carnap wrote a paper about that somewhere.

Huh? The majority of metaphysics is in its own way bosh, true. But there's a rather enormous latent contradiction in what you're saying. Modern theoretical and quantum physics, in a critical way, owes itself to Kant who attempted to defined the proper scope of metaphysics, not completely eliminate it. I smell you don't know what you're talking about...


'my' consciousness is the result of processes going on in my brain. In someone else's brain, there are different processes, so 'someone else' (or bether, 'something else') is conscious there. And if you think consciousness itself produces unsolveable problems, that's not the case. It would so in god, because we have nothing to explain god with. On earth however, consciousness is accounted for by the forces of evolution. There still remains 'the hard problem of consciousness' with qualia and everything, but there have been some very convincing and promising approaches, fascinating stuff. 'Consciousness Explained' by Dennett is well worth reading (twice).

There is a teleporter thought experiment that produces a number of dilemmas about consciousness: Imagine you had a teleporter with two terminals. It functions by recording the position of all the atoms in your body (and all other pertinent properties); it disassembles you, sends this recorded information to the other terminal which assembles your body using different atoms. Now, suppose that it assembled you twice or three times; riddle me this, which body would you be conscious in? After a good deal of consideration, it almost makes a "soul" or "ghost" plausible ... are you paradoxically conscious in all three? Philosophy of mind can offer some interesting theories. But, in any case, in short, you didn't fully appreciate my question again.


You're misusing the word faith. It's defined as 'belief without evidence'. I have reasons (-> evidence) to 'trust' scientists.

Practical reasons, yes. The theist has practical reasons (for example, to not being beaten by a nun) to adopt a policy of religious faith. In any case, the notion that the laws of physics will hold true for the next minute is an article of scientific faith. It cannot be proven on a priori grounds, it cannot be disproven. Practically speaking, I'm going to assume (theoretically) that they will - but, I've still committed myself to an article of faith. I'm not "misusing" the word - your scope of it, only applying to religious faith, is too narrow.


What is it with 'faith' that you find so important? It's always irrational to have faith.

Call it faith or belief (if you can elucidate a fundamental difference between the two, be my guest); one must realize one has some form of it, that everyone has some form and must have it in one way or another in order to make any moral choice.


They use the achievements of science to show science works.

Yep. But that does not give a priori validity, which was my point.


What do you use to show math isn't nonsense? Same thing, it works, it produces great results, it makes sense.

Math works because of the three classical laws of thought, which are self-sufficient ... science only works in part because of them. On the whole, they do not work by the same manner at all. Science ultimately gains its merits through consequences, math through logical necessity...


If you really want to make the point that people think science works because of their faith in it, just don't do so using a computer. It's hypocritical.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - but I'm going to keep using my computer because I have faith that it will start up every morning when I push the 'power' button. Do you think faith is inherently bad? Or are you just afraid of being branded in such-and-such a way?


No one is claiming that science is 100% ultimate infallible explanation of everything, including the future.

If you're not doing this then why are you so passionately defending science - unless you're defending the position that we should assume (that is, have faith) for practical reasons that science is, in fact, infallible? I'm not an abecedarian - as said before, I quite like science. But that you recognize it's fallible, though treat it as if it weren't, implies that you've put a certain amount of trust in it that is (inherently) unwarranted by its own nature.


Tradition isn't a good reason. Also, I don't quite get your distinction. Let's just keep it at the 'almost fair', I'm good with that.

You adopted a certain definition of truth that the example you cited didn't. This can be construed as a contradiction. In any case, putting all types of "truth" or things that we treat as certain under one head is misleading and can lead to equivocation. However, the distinction tends to only be useful outside of every day discourse - I guess you want to keep the debate pedestrian.




invoking Ockham's razzor as evidence against the matrix possibility isn't sound. It's not too implausible that sometime in the future of this universe, beings will be able to create a matrix just like our universe. That's still way different from the god proposition, because whoever would have created the matrix would still be the product of evolution in some universe, so the explanation would still go on and lead to simpler things that started the chain of causation.

As a general comment, razors have been put forth that assert the more complex the better ... anyone can make any sort of principle like those or Occam's ... for example, the theory that has 50 axioms is best ... in short, they're generally meaningless. The only reason Occam's sticks is because it appeals to natural intuition. People who think that his Razor can yield something a priori reliable don't understand the concept.

Edit:


So much for terminology. I don't really see the reasoning behind it though.

Clear communication, I'd hazard to guess.

[Musicology]

What a confused world these atheists make !! Whose definition of atheism is so complicated we can compare it to a computer which finally spits out an answer such as -

'Atheism is defined as being a God in whom we dare NOT to believe'.

Great ! That's your choice. But the relevance of your atheism to human existence and to human sanity is what, exactly ? No answer !

I recommend another spoonful of molasses and early bed. The alternative is to entertain more first person singular, I, me, myself, and more of me, self, and self righteousness. Which, yawn, has no record of doing anything good for mankind.

'You will learn, my boy, you will learn' (LOL).

[The Atheist]

What a confused world these atheists make !!

Sorry, but you're getting it wrong again - there is no confusion among atheists at all.

Many theists try to tell everyone else what atheism is, but since no theists can be atheists, it makes as much sense as me trying to describe Beethoven's 9th to a profoundly deaf person.

That will never stop the theists trying, but it's amusing as hell at least.



'You will learn, my boy, you will learn' (LOL).

Ooh, I'd be pretty confident I have more than a few years on you, not that it matters.

[Calidore]

it makes as much sense as me trying to describe Beethoven's 9th to a profoundly deaf person.


Allow me to be the first to point out that Beethoven's 9th was composed by a profoundly deaf person. :smile5:

[Dodo25]

Where I live it doesn't have anywhere near a precise definition; things are quite equivocal, as per usual. But where do you live, and can I move there? Contrary to what many here would like to think, it doesn't (and perhaps even can't) have a precise definition at all; in one instance it refers to a theoretical opinion, in another a practical one. Trying to claim the otherwise demonstrates either intentional fallacy or blatant ignorance.

People keep misusing it yeah, but as The Atheist (who else would you ask? haha) pointed out, it's the atheists themselves you should ask. It's really not that difficult, I'm atheist in the same way most people don't believe in the tooth fairy. Nothing more, nothing less.



To go on a tangent, ironically, somehow, agnosticism has the same problem ... although it was originally coined to refer to a distinctly theoretical opinion: Huxley wrote, "I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no [a posteriori] reason for believing it, but on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objection to the doctrine." People have now perverted that understanding through either misusage or false pretense or both (e.g. there are a few instances where religious officials have tried to apologize by branding themselves as agnostics) and now think that agnosticism (can) refers to a practical opinion. But, In the end, the concept of a practical agnosticism is absurd, since every action and inaction imply a moral judgment. Therefore, agnosticism (sensibly used) can only refer to a theoretical point of view - on the whole, I'd recommend that people stop using (and thinking) the otherwise, because the otherwise just makes no sense.

I agree, the definitions here are, now at least, totally confusing. That's why I tried to list all the ones I've encountered and then tried to find one that actually makes sense. One way somehow made sense, the others didn't. As I stated before, if theoretical agnosticism implies that 'weak' atheism is unreasonable, it is making the mistake of assuming that if god exists, it could not be proven. (And yes, I'm using the word prove in the non-mathematical sense.) If, on the other hand, theoretical agnosticism is just pointing out the fact that atheists can't prove that there's no god, and that so far, the opposite hasn't been proved either, then that's trivial and as I said, most atheists would be 'agnostic atheists', the former theoretically, the latter practically. I'm not sure whether I understand your objection, is it tied to the notion of Judgement Day? Not every definition of god uses this, and I would also object to the idea that the existence of a god would make people more moral. But anyway, that isn't relevant for our semantical discussion here.



Contrary to a popular belief, this notion makes very little sense. On the one hand, if you're making a positive claim that God doesn't exist (which The Atheist has rightly pointed out that most "atheists" don't do this), and if you expect to be taken seriously, a proof would be quite requisite. On the other, if you're claiming that atheism is better on practical grounds, that still requires evidence. The theoretical position that doesn't require proof is agnosticism (for it has nothing which might be proved); the practical position that doesn't require justification is none.

I disagree. This postulates that when there are two options, existence and non-existence, odds for each would be 50%, if no further information is given. However, since there's an infinite amount of outlandish beings / hypotheses one can come up with, it's clearly impossible that even close to 50% of them are true. The rational thing to do is thus lean towards agnostic a-whateverism, as long as no positive evidence exists in favor of 'whatever'. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Not conclusive by all means, but enough to shift the burden of proof. Or else, scientists would be continually wasting their time trying to disprove all the nonsense human beings can come up with.



In any case, it almost doesn't matter. The idea that a proof is necessary would, as JBI suggests, void the priority of religious faith. That rationalism should be everyone's foremost priority is the flimsy assumption that the "burden of proof" argument rests on, and the assumption that dooms it from the start in many cases.

Here comes relativism again. Exactly, religious faith is irrational. And there shouldn't be any priority. Simply saying 'we needn't be rational' isn't going to help. Either you want to have a rational(!) discussion here, or else, why bother? You're disqualifying yourself from any argument if you think rationality is 'an assumption that dooms it from the start'. Besides, doesn't your very reasoning proof that faith is, by definition, ir-rational?



Not all things which "exist" in whatever form are "provable" (if we use a rather liberal definition of the word). Did the past exist? Prove it. Theoretically speaking, you can't. The universe may be 2 minutes old, and all your memories past two minutes ago implanted.

This doesn't mean god is improvable. And by 'provable', I neither mean mathematical proof, nor some other absolute. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is totally fine, despite being somewhat flimsy.



That's a pretty unequivocal categorical error. Can you prove the non-existence of a robber in your house? According to your definition of a proof, yes. Can you prove the non-existence of cancer in your prostate? Well, if that weren't so then, by God, why the hell do doctors preform prostate exams? For whatever reason people like to delude themselves into thinking that your statement is truth, when it's plainly not.

I think the category error is committed by the 'other side'. Whenever a scientist / atheist makes the statment 'x isn't real', there are people jumping in screaming 'you can't prove it!', and immediately you're accused of scientism and dogmatism. But basically, you're right, in the case of 'not being able to prove negatives', one talks about absolute proofs. If 'beyond reasonable doubt' absence of evidence reasoning counts, then one can indeed prove negatives. In case of precise claims involving things that actually do exists (i.e. cancer in one's lung), one even has to 'look for the thing in question'.



Yes there is. I'm sorry you can't see that.


Let's once and for all clarify what faith means: It means belief without evidence. Sometimes even belief despite contradicting evidence. If you use another definition, that's fine, just point it out to me and coin a new word that means what I use 'faith' for. Because that's the only thing I'm arguing against. I'm not arguing against having reasonable beliefs.



The question was essentially this: How can someone claim that X object (energy) having this-or-that property (perpetual, immortal existence) is true--and, moreover, possible--while simultaneously claiming that Y object (God) having the exact same property (existing forever) is categorically absurd and impossible. The answer: because they haven't fully considered what they're saying ... But of those who so ardently claim to live by it, who listens to sound reasoning anyways?

Few atheists claim god is categorically impossible! All that's needed is that it's much less likely than whatever alternatives there are. Think of it this way: There's data that needs to be explained. In our case, it's the fact that reality exists in a certain way. Then there are hypotheses, both 'energy' and 'god' explain the data. Energy does it elegantly, with each property being 'used'. God does the same job, but many properties are left unneeded, and unsupported by evidence. There's no need for omnipotence, omniscience, love, consciousness, jealousy or any of the other attributes sometimes attributed to god. That's what I meant by 'simplicity' being better than 'complexity'. By itself, the statement is indeed wrong. It only becomes useful when applied to data, when some of the complexity is superfluous. Ockham's razzor is often misused. But THIS is exactly the kind of situation where it is useful. Appart from the success demonstrated by a posteriori evidence, this application of Ockham's razzor can even be justified a priori with logic.



When we consider the universe in its totality, instead of certain parts of it in relation to others (which is what your analogy does), we recognize that there's a fundamental absurdity to it all.

Doesn't negate the fact that we should favor the most likely / least absurd explanation.



Huh? The majority of metaphysics is in its own way bosh, true. But there's a rather enormous latent contradiction in what you're saying. Modern theoretical and quantum physics, in a critical way, owes itself to Kant who attempted to defined the proper scope of metaphysics, not completely eliminate it. I smell you don't know what you're talking about...

I indeed have no idea how metaphysics could have helped with quantum physics or theoretical physics. The kind of philosophy that defines the 'boundaries' of science (if there are any) is of course valid, but is that really called 'metaphysics'? (I'm asking genuinely.)



There is a teleporter thought experiment that produces a number of dilemmas about consciousness: Imagine you had a teleporter with two terminals. It functions by recording the position of all the atoms in your body (and all other pertinent properties); it disassembles you, sends this recorded information to the other terminal which assembles your body using different atoms. Now, suppose that it assembled you twice or three times; riddle me this, which body would you be conscious in? After a good deal of consideration, it almost makes a "soul" or "ghost" plausible ... are you paradoxically conscious in all three? Philosophy of mind can offer some interesting theories. But, in any case, in short, you didn't fully appreciate my question again.

Of course, you'd be triple-conscious! As for not answering your question, if that didn't count as an answer then I don't understand your question. Care to elaborate?



Practical reasons, yes. The theist has practical reasons (for example, to not being beaten by a nun) to adopt a policy of religious faith. In any case, the notion that the laws of physics will hold true for the next minute is an article of scientific faith. It cannot be proven on a priori grounds, it cannot be disproven. Practically speaking, I'm going to assume (theoretically) that they will - but, I've still committed myself to an article of faith. I'm not "misusing" the word - your scope of it, only applying to religious faith, is too narrow.

If you insist, yes, 'practical' ones. But don't come with the ridiculous claim that 'not being beaten up by a nun' is in the same category. There's nothing about this that would make it even remotely 'truer'. And it is NOT an article of faith. Faith is belief without evidence. The last 36789 times I checked, the laws of nature held up. That's evidence. Not conclusive, but it would be stupid to expect the opposite. Call it something else, it's not belief without evidence. (I'm not just applying it to religious faith.)



Call it faith or belief (if you can elucidate a fundamental difference between the two, be my guest); one must realize one has some form of it, that everyone has some form and must have it in one way or another in order to make any moral choice.

Beliefs can be reasonable, even when they're not mathematically proven. And people always act 'to the best of their knowledge', or at least they should. Even many religious people would deny that they have 'belief without evidence', they just disagree about what counts as evidence!



Math works because of the three classical laws of thought, which are self-sufficient ... science only works in part because of them. On the whole, they do not work by the same manner at all. Science ultimately gains its merits through consequences, math through logical necessity...

I feel like I had been saying that all along. Either way, I agree. One could add that there's something to be said in favor of the scientific method a priori too, but ultimately, the success of science is inded judged by the consequences.

[The Atheist]

Allow me to be the first to point out that Beethoven's 9th was composed by a profoundly deaf person. :smile5:

That's why I picked it.

;)


People keep misusing it yeah, but as The Atheist (who else would you ask? haha) pointed out, it's the atheists themselves you should ask. It's really not that difficult, I'm atheist in the same way most people don't believe in the tooth fairy. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll just repeat that for simplicity.

It is that easy.

[Musicology]

What you do NOT believe is of the utmost irrelevance to what exists. Unbelief stops nothing except the unbeliever.

[The Atheist]

When I set these two definitions side by side, I can't help but see a ven diagram in which the second definition of atheism given here falls into the overlap space between Atheism an Agnosticism.


Can one of you wise people clear up this ambiguity for me?

There isn't an abiguity.

Agnostics who do not believe in god are also atheists*.

Some even call themselves agnostic atheists.

Subsets are cool like that.

*not popular among agnostics, but times are hard all over.

[G L Wilson]

Atheism and atheists are greatly misunderstood. It is a wonder that we haven't been purged from the great system of things.

[The Atheist]

Atheism and atheists are greatly misunderstood.

106 posts in, I admire your perception!


It is a wonder that we haven't been purged from the great system of things.

Been tried...

[G L Wilson]

Most of the world is made of fools, and it is our job to make sense of them.