How do you view atheism?

[Malachi151]

I'll comment later...

[corplinx]

The real question is, where is Kennedy's head?

[Cecil]

Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cecil
Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

Well, I was going to ignore this comment, as its an old and tired one, but I'll poke it with a stick...

Do you beleive that dragons exist?

Can you prove that they do not?

Let's make three terms:

Dragonist = someone who believes in dragons
Adragonist = someone who beleives that dragons do not exist
agdragonist = someone who says that they aren't sure if dragons exist or not becuase its impossible for them to prove that they don't exist.

You would classify yourself as an agdragonist I assume.

I'm 100% positive that "god" does not exist. "God" has no meaning, and there is not one single thing that leads to the suspicion that "god" miight exist if "god" could even be defined.

The entire "god" concept does not even make sense.

No, I am an athiest, 100% confident that "god" does not exist, 100% confident that there is no "heaven" and no "hell", no "afterlife" (they call it death for a reason), and nothing "supernatural" at all, i.e. I am a materialist, and IMO the only that makes any sense is materialism.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Cecil
Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

i can't disprove that old pesky teapot isn't oribiting the sun but the chances (in my opinion at least) are too slim to consider seriously (or at all). for me, it's the same when it comes to believing in a god.

atheism and agnosticism are indeed two different things.

and if we want to get into semantics, i prefer "i don't believe gods exist" as opposed to "i believe that no gods exist"

[ssibal]

I am an atheist....period. I would have voted for the first choice but that whole personal preference does not apply (it implies that people choose their beliefs).

[corplinx]

Maybe this should be in the religion forum?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, I was going to ignore this comment, as its an old and tired one, but I'll poke it with a stick...

Do you beleive that dragons exist?

Can you prove that they do not?

Let's make three terms:

Dragonist = someone who believes in dragons
Adragonist = someone who beleives that dragons do not exist
agdragonist = someone who says that they aren't sure if dragons exist or not becuase its impossible for them to prove that they don't exist.

You would classify yourself as an agdragonist I assume.

I'm 100% positive that "god" does not exist. "God" has no meaning, and there is not one single thing that leads to the suspicion that "god" miight exist if "god" could even be defined.

The entire "god" concept does not even make sense.

No, I am an athiest, 100% confident that "god" does not exist, 100% confident that there is no "heaven" and no "hell", no "afterlife" (they call it death for a reason), and nothing "supernatural" at all, i.e. I am a materialist, and IMO the only that makes any sense is materialism.
you're my hero Malachi151

Atheism isn't a 'belief":)


It's not believing. It's not being able to believe in something that in no way exists.

It's anti-belief.

I also don't believe the tooth fairy takes my kids' teeth. I know...I forgot to retrieve one once, and the kid found it the next morning. Dumb tooth fairy, could help a parent out once in a while, sheesh :D

[Tmy]

Sometimes Im an atheist and sometimes Im not. During the playoffs I find myself praying quite a bit.

Depending on my mood i do and dont believe. Is that so bad? Its a comfort thing. Plus in a death situation it makes practicle sense to believe in god. If hes real, your in, if hes not, so what your dead.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Tmy
Plus in a death situation it makes practicle sense to believe in god. If hes real, your in, if hes not, so what your dead.

You're making the assumption that there's one god, when in reality their are hundreds of religions and thousands of gods. Do you believe in all of these gods simultaneously, in order to save your immortal soul? Oops... Thou shalt have no other god before me, or some such.

[Nyarlathotep]

I am most definitely an atheist. I think society would be a lot better off with out religion but I would never condone enforcing atheism on anyone. Thus the second option mkaes the most sense to me.

[Garrette]

Yes, Malachi, I agree with your response, too, and thank you for stating it so well.

It is one of the few 'buttons' I have when theists begin defining me for me. They seem unwilling and incapable of grasping the simple concept.

I am an atheist. I'm not a weak atheist nor a strong atheist. I am an atheist. I possess no belief in a god.

I suspect, though, that your 'agdragonist' example will fall on deaf ears. I have used similar examples with theists and they pooh-pooh them without comment saying I'm just desperate or don't get it or whatever.

Then I kill them and feed their entrails to Satan.

[fishbob]

I believe there is no god. I believe that people who believe in god are delusional.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by fishbob
I believe there is no god. I believe that people who believe in god are delusional.

Oh my gosh, you can't say that....
That makes you a believer :D

[fishbob]

Yes it does. But I can look around and see reasons (evidence) for my beliefs. Pretty appalling reasons too.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, I was going to ignore this comment, as its an old and tired one, but I'll poke it with a stick...

Do you beleive that dragons exist?

Can you prove that they do not?

Let's make three terms:

Dragonist = someone who believes in dragons
Adragonist = someone who beleives that dragons do not exist
agdragonist = someone who says that they aren't sure if dragons exist or not becuase its impossible for them to prove that they don't exist.

You would classify yourself as an agdragonist I assume. That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

"God" has no meaning The cause of the universe's existence.

No, I am an athiest, 100% confident that "god" does not exist, 100% confident that there is no "heaven" and no "hell", no "afterlife" (they call it death for a reason), and nothing "supernatural" at all, i.e. I am a materialist, and IMO the only that makes any sense is materialism. [/B] Be sure you understand there is a difference between being an atheist and disbelieving in the god of one particular religion.

There is a paradox called the "Lottery Paradox". Suppose you are running a lottery with an infinite number of tickets. Each ticket has only an infinitesimal chance of winning, but if you believe of each ticket that it will not win, then you must conclude that the lottery will not be won by any ticket, a patently false conclusion. Therefore, of each ticket it is not rational to believe that it will win, nor is it rational to believe that it will lose; you may think it very unlikely to win, but you should not believe it to be a loser.

The same goes for the propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...
for an infinite number of gods.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Cecil
That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

The cause of the universe's existence.

Be sure you understand there is a difference between being an atheist and disbelieving in the god of one particular religion.

There is a paradox called the "Lottery Paradox". Suppose you are running a lottery with an infinite number of tickets. Each ticket has only an infinitesimal chance of winning, but if you believe of each ticket that it will not win, then you must conclude that the lottery will not be won by any ticket, a patently false conclusion. Therefore, of each ticket it is not rational to believe that it will win, nor is it rational to believe that it will lose; you may think it very unlikely to win, but you should not believe it to be a loser.

The same goes for the propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...
for an infinite number of gods.

Why would anyone buy a ticket for a lottery wih an infinite number of combinations?

However little you spent on the ticket, it would still be a waste of money.

The same goes for your propositions.

Graham

[ingoa]

Too many gods around...

I cannot remember where I read this a few days or weeks ago....
But I think it is fitting:

I am no atheist, I just believe in one god less then you do. :D

[richardm]

Originally posted by Cecil
Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist.

What makes you think dragons live on the surface?

[Jon_in_london]

Cecil,

Do you think the Loch Ness Monster may exist?

Also:

You state that ""God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe." and "Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god."

Were this the case then good could neither infulence us or be relevent to anything in the universe. Not only that but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the existence of anything outside the universe, quite on the contrary, since the universe is defined as being the place where everything extant exists.

So god does not exist.

[Malachi151]

I think religion is political, and this is where the fundamentlaists "are right".

The separation of Church and State was good thing for obvious reasons, but, the truth is that religion is, and always has been, a political tool. It is in reality impossible to separate religious views from politcs if you are seriously true to your beliefs, and because of that I understand where the Muslims and Christian fundies are coming from.

Religoius beliefs, or lack there of, in truth define your reality. These beliefs determine the most fundamental way that people view and relate to the world. To say that religous beliefs, or lack-there-of are simply "personal preference" is to deny the importance of these beliefs and their role in society.

If your religion tells you that there is one true God and that this God is the most important thing in the universe, and that society must be based on the values determined by this God and that how you act (which also means how other people act) and what you value will determine your fate for the rest of eternity then this belief HAS to be a part of your politics. Politics is the way in which we shape our society, to claim that you can truely believe in a god that tells you how to shape society and that you can then take poitcal position that oppose what you believe god tells you to do makes no sense.

Furthermore, the fact is that "god is a lie", and it is the biggest lie in the world, and its a lie that shapes people most basic views of life and humanity. IMO permitting the belief in gods is the greatest injustice in the world. It is just an excepted form of brain washing and social manipulation, and its only excepted because its pervasive.

I'm not someone who would "let my children choose for themselves", no I will tell my children that "good is a lie". Probably not like that, but still. I would no sooner allow my children to be infected with religious beliefs then the good ol' boy down the street would allow his children to attend a Communist school.

Religion is the number one most destructive force on the planet, bar none. The "liberation of humanity" is defined IMO by the abolition of religious belief. I'm not saying that thats something that needs to be done by force, only that mankind will never even have the possibility of "being free", until all religoius beliefs are vanquished.

You can't have a conciousness of humanity and have religious beliefs at the same time, its impossible. Its impossible to understand what life is about, or not about, and believe god, its that simple.

So yes, religion is political, and the fundamentalists know that it is. Religious fundamentalists understand religion, just from the wrong side of the coin.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Cecil
Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

All of which can be summed up in my own position:

Agnostic in Principle; Atheist in Practice

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Cecil,

Do you think the Loch Ness Monster may exist?

It's possible, though I personally find the case presented by the "Nessie" believers (or "Champie" believers, for that matter...) to be utterly unconvincing. Though there is NO evidence other than dubious eyewitness testimony and film footage, and unexplainable sonar readings, the lack of any evidence is itself not evidence of its nonexistence.

Jon,
Do you think the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Jon,
Do you think the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist?

Put simply, thats exactly what i think.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Put simply, thats exactly what i think.

That's a very definitive statement.

What led you to that conclusion?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It's possible, though I personally find the case presented by the "Nessie" believers (or "Champie" believers, for that matter...) to be utterly unconvincing. Though there is NO evidence other than dubious eyewitness testimony and film footage, and unexplainable sonar readings, the lack of any evidence is itself not evidence of its nonexistence.

Jon,
Do you think the Loch Ness Monster cannot exist?

You have already presented more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster then has ever been presented for any "god". :p

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151


You have already presented more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster then has ever been presented for any "god". :p

For arguments sake:

What about the "eyewitness testimony" of Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Thomas and others?

The shroud of Turim?

Hell, many if not most xians claim the universe itself as evidence!

(Not that I myself am buying any of it though...) ;)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Kodiak


For arguments sake:

What about the "eyewitness testimony" of Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Thomas and others?

The shroud of Turim?

Hell, many if not most xians claim the universe itself as evidence!

(Not that I myself am buying any of it though...) ;)

Okay I stand corrected, they both have equally lame supporting evidence. :p

Manufactured evidence, lies, and delusions are about that any of them have to go on.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Cecil
That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

.

Wheres Noahs ARC? Physical proof that the earth was covered by a giant flood. How can God create the earth in 7 days when science tells us its a few days older than that. Were are the remains of giants (like Goliath) who roamed the Earth around Davids time. Why arent dinosours ever mentioned. What about all the people in the bible who lived hundreds of years, howd that happen.

Youll all be sorry when Zues and the other Gods retun to Earth and punish you for calling them 'myths".

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Kodiak


That's a very definitive statement.

What led you to that conclusion?

:rolleyes: Do you really expect me to go through all that?

[Peach Jr.]

I voted for "I'm an atheist, but it's only a personal preference".

For me, atheism is the lack of belief. I don't believe in anything that cannot be proven to my satisfaction. For you smartypants out there, the jury's still out on quantum physics/mechanics for me as well. The existense of any and all gods (no, I don't capitalize dragons or unicorns either, except at the beginning of a sentence) cannot be proven. "You just have to believe". No, I don't. However, I don't have the right to enforce my opinions on others. Except for my babies. :D

Malachi151, you do have a good point there about religion being a political tool. It certainly has become one in the States - during these past few years in particular.

[Luke T.]

I am a deist. Before that, an atheist. Before that, an agnostic. Before that, a Catholic.

Sors immanis et inanis, rota tu volubilis...

Anyway. I think the only thing atheism has in common with religion is that both camps have their fanatics who detest the other side with vigor. And then there are those who believe in live and let live.

I am of the "live and let live" group.

When I was an atheist, I was of the "detest with vigor" group. So I guess I'm better off, happier, now.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by corplinx
Maybe this should be in the religion forum?

Yep. :D

[Valiant Dancer]

I believe that all religions and atheism are a form of philosophy. While I do not subscribe to the atheistic philosophy (which merely does not contain a God belief), I recognize it as a valid spiritual path.

Religion is for people who have a need for mysticism and ceremony in their lives. Atheists do not have this need and therefore, do not need the theological construct of a deity.

I have this need for mysticism and ceremony. I find benefit in it. Since I don't hurt anyone with it nor give it any credence in scientific observations, who cares?

As it is logically impossible to prove a negative, one cannot disprove the existance of a supreme being. One can only prove that the chance of existance is astronomically small. It is also logically impossible to prove the existance of something that has no observable phenomenon.

It is possible to be a critical thinker and theistic.

As for the dragon experiment, it does not limit the existance of dragons to the Earth. Therefore, while extremely unlikely, dragons might exist on a life bearing planet we have not observed. One could craft a philosophy which includes the existance of dragons. (perhaps on a fictional planet of Pern, but I've read that book.)

(edited because I screw up the spelling of simple words)

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Cecil
There is a paradox called the "Lottery Paradox". Suppose you are running a lottery with an infinite number of tickets. Each ticket has only an infinitesimal chance of winning, but if you believe of each ticket that it will not win, then you must conclude that the lottery will not be won by any ticket, a patently false conclusion. Therefore, of each ticket it is not rational to believe that it will win, nor is it rational to believe that it will lose; you may think it very unlikely to win, but you should not believe it to be a loser.

The same goes for the propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...
for an infinite number of gods.

With that kind of logic you can prove basically everything!

You can prove that there indeed has to be a teapot orbitting the sun, since there is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a red iron teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a blue tin teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a green teapot with n red dots to do aforesaid.

But is there really a teapot?

The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Cecil,

You state that ""God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe." and "Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god."

Were this the case then good could neither infulence us or be relevent to anything in the universe. Not only that but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the existence of anything outside the universe, quite on the contrary, since the universe is defined as being the place where everything extant exists.

So god does not exist.
Your assertion about the lack of anything outside the Universe is spurious. Lack of evidencedoes not prove lack of existence. The physical Universe that we live in is all that we can experience, but it is just one of possibly an infinite number of universes. We cannot experience any of them because they exist outside our space-time continuum. That does not mean that they don't exist, merely that their existence is physically irrelavent to us.

My research involves measuring the movements of stars and the numbers of different types of stars in nearby space. From my point of view quantum mechanics is utterly irrelavent, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, just that it has absolutely no impact on what I do and can be utterly disregarded. And yes Peach, the jury is still out on QM, Relativity and in fact all of physics. That's the point of science!

I guess what I'm saying is that although we cannot proove that god exists we similarly cannot prove that it doesn't. The thing is, it doesn't matter - if it doesn't exist then, well, it doesn't exist, but if it does exist then it is too far beyond our comprehension to be worth contemplating.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


:rolleyes: Do you really expect me to go through all that?

I expect nothing, which is why I asked politely.

Definitive claims require definitive evidence.

By your statement I assumed that you could put the issue of "Nessie" to bed for good.

Perhaps I was wrong...

Can you make the same concession?

[Lord Emsworth]

The reason why I went with the first option is that I basically see Atheism more or less as a reation to a God claim. Without that God claim there simply would be a void. And I can't see anything that would make sense for society. At least that is my stance, my preference.

Sure critical thinking and suchlike are good concepts that can lead to a lack of believe conclusion, but then I think it should be rather the critical thinking that would make a concept for society than the conclusion (in this case Atheism) that I have drawn under special circumstances (confrontation with a God claim) from it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win.

Not true. Winning numbers which no one forsaw, and therefore , for which no ticket exists, occur all the time...

[Graham]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Not true. Winning numbers which no one forsaw, and therefore , for which no ticket exists, occur all the time...

Smart answer but at least one number (or set of numbers) in the lottery has to win.

Not so in the god scenario.

Graham

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Not true. Winning numbers which no one forsaw, and therefore , for which no ticket exists, occur all the time...

But the possibility to draw a winning ticket (or fill in the right number) has to exist before the drawing, or else it is not a lottery but a scam.

Wheter somebody draws that winning ticket (or fills in the right numbers) or not is immaterial

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


But the possibility to draw a winning ticket (or fill in the right number) has to exist before the drawing, or else it is not a lottery but a scam.

Wheter somebody draws that winning ticket (or fills in the right numbers) or not is immaterial

Though I agree that there is no evidence to suggest god's existence, that does make the existence of god an impossibility.

The virtue of being an agnostic is the ability to accept the fact that, however unlikely, one might be wrong about the nonexistence of god(s).

Again, it comes down to "Agnostic in priciple; Atheist in Pratice" - I do not think there is a god(s), though I can accept the fact that, though no evidence exists, I could still be wrong.

[BillyTK]

I'm more of an apathist than an athiest. Whether god/s exist or not, I carnt seem to muster up the effort to be concerned; particularly as there is no proof either way.

[fishbob]

What about the "eyewitness testimony" of Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Thomas and others? Second or third or twelfth hand hearsay.

[Chanileslie]

I'm a hardcore atheist. I don't think it is a personal choice much more than I don't see any evidence to support a supreme being. I don't believe that atheism should be a forced position; I could honestly care less what people believe as long as they don't try to force me to believe and they are not causing harm to others.

I find such propositions as Pascal's wager to be absurd because if there is no god, you have wasted time and energy believing in that which there is no evidence to support and I find that to be an intellectually dishonest position.

[Kodiak]

fishbob's sig: Yesterday's paranoia is today's Republican fund-raiser. - Zippy, May 2003

In the meantime, the Dems are raising funds for tomorrow's... :p

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Though I agree that there is no evidence to suggest god's existence, that does make the existence of god an impossibility.

The virtue of being an agnostic is the ability to accept the fact that, however unlikely, one might be wrong about the nonexistence of god(s).

Again, it comes down to "Agnostic in priciple; Atheist in Pratice" - I do not think there is a god(s), though I can accept the fact that, though no evidence exists, I could still be wrong.

Really now? I wouldn't consider myself an agnostic in the least, although I can accept if I am wrong, but I will need some evidence to make that conclusion. I am an atheist, and I am sure gods don't exist because we lack evidence for such beings and it maybe possible, but it is hardly plausible. Not only that, but god(s) and religion changes from culture to culture and from era to era, and this just shows that is more of a construct and function of the society within which that god(s) or relgion(s) is/are found in the era within which it is found.

I am not saying that if evidence were found that god(s) existed that I would not consider that evidence. If it were strong, verifiable, quantifiable evidence, I would change my opinion, but alas I don't see that evidence anywhere, and in thousands of years of looking, it hasn't been found as of yet. I will not believe until such a time as evidence is produced.

At this juncture, religion is mutable, and that is a big point against it since it is the very religion that propounds that god(s) exist. No religion has survived intact (in the same form with the same beliefs that it began with) after a few years much less hundreds or thousands of years. We can see some fine examples of this in some of the most well documented religions such as christian mythology, ancient Egypt mythology, Greek mythology, ect. These are religions that changed and adapted over time to changing societies to the point where their gods even have changed positions on major issues overtime following the patterns of the society within that religion is lodged.

So is it plausible to believe? No. Is it rational to believe that we don't know? I don't believe so since there is absolutely no evidence nor even any consistency within the belief systems themselves that would support the existence of a supreme being. Not only that but I think I don't know is a much more plausible and possible answer.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Really now? I wouldn't consider myself an agnostic in the least, although I can accept if I am wrong, but I will need some evidence to make that conclusion. I am an atheist, and I am sure gods don't exist because we lack evidence for such beings and it maybe possible, but it is hardly plausible. Not only that, but god(s) and religion changes from culture to culture and from era to era, and this just shows that is more of a construct and function of the society within which that god(s) or relgion(s) is/are found in the era within which it is found.

I am not saying that if evidence were found that god(s) existed that I would not consider that evidence. If it were strong, verifiable, quantifiable evidence, I would change my opinion, but alas I don't see that evidence anywhere, and in thousands of years of looking, it hasn't been found as of yet. I will not believe until such a time as evidence is produced.

At this juncture, religion is mutable, and that is a big point against it since it is the very religion that propounds that god(s) exist. No religion has survived intact (in the same form with the same beliefs that it began with) after a few years much less hundreds or thousands of years. We can see some fine examples of this in some of the most well documented religions such as christian mythology, ancient Egypt mythology, Greek mythology, ect. These are religions that changed and adapted over time to changing societies to the point where their gods even have changed positions on major issues overtime following the patterns of the society within that religion is lodged.

So is it plausible to believe? No. Is it rational to believe that we don't know? I don't believe so since there is absolutely no evidence nor even any consistency within the belief systems themselves that would support the existence of a supreme being. Not only that but I think I don't know is a much more plausible and possible answer.

You sound like an agnostic to me, given my understanding of the terms...

Atheist - one who denies (declares untrue) the existence of god.

Agnostic - one who thinks that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You sound like an agnostic to me, given my understanding of the terms...

Atheist - one who denies (declares untrue) the existence of god.

Agnostic - one who thinks that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Atheists lack a God belief. They do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything. Newborns are atheists. They have no concept of a God. That gets taught later (as most philosophies are).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Atheists lack a God belief. They do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything. Newborns are atheists. They have no concept of a God. That gets taught later (as most philosophies are).

Is it possible we're BOTH right?? (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)

From the website above: Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Well, I was going to ignore this comment, as its an old and tired one, but I'll poke it with a stick...

Do you beleive that dragons exist?

Can you prove that they do not?

Let's make three terms:

Dragonist = someone who believes in dragons
Adragonist = someone who beleives that dragons do not exist
agdragonist = someone who says that they aren't sure if dragons exist or not becuase its impossible for them to prove that they don't exist.

You would classify yourself as an agdragonist I assume.

I'm 100% positive that "god" does not exist. "God" has no meaning, and there is not one single thing that leads to the suspicion that "god" miight exist if "god" could even be defined.

The entire "god" concept does not even make sense.

No, I am an athiest, 100% confident that "god" does not exist, 100% confident that there is no "heaven" and no "hell", no "afterlife" (they call it death for a reason), and nothing "supernatural" at all, i.e. I am a materialist, and IMO the only that makes any sense is materialism.

Wow!, I've been gone a while. But I see that the same typical anti-religion blather is still going on. Good to see that certain things don't ever change. That's why I like coming to JREF.

As for dragons, they do exist. I've seen them and so have many others. As for evidence, check out the link.

dragon link (http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/komodo/)

OK, Malachi151, now do you believe...:D

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You sound like an agnostic to me, given my understanding of the terms...

Atheist - one who denies (declares untrue) the existence of god.

Agnostic - one who thinks that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

No, an athiest is one who lacks belief in or does not believe in a god. I am one such. I don't even think one is possible much less plausible.

I don't think it is unknown nor unknowable, and I feel it is absurd to assume that something with no evidence other than, "BillyJoBob over there believes and that's good enough for me."

There is no ultimate reality of god simply because god does not exist. Now, should on some strange off chance, evidence shows that I am wrong, well I consider myself a scientist, I will review the evidence and will change my opinion if the evidence is verifiable and quantifiable.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Is it possible we're BOTH right?? (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)

From the website above: Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

By the very word lack of belief it indicates that atheists do not believe in god(s). The rest is just word twisting. There is no god. And if you want me to believe in such an improbable thing, then pony up the evidence.

[Eos of the Eons]

Kimodo dragons, I hear their bites are freakishly deadly.

Hey, the people that worship gods think they have evidence. That's the problem.:)

[Schizobunny]

Originally posted by Cecil
Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

I would just like to point out that your reasoning also applies to fairies and leprecans.

[Schizobunny]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cecil
[B] That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

Your reasoning makes no sense. You are implying that because we have explored a vast majority of the Earth that we know of everything on the Earth and that is not true. We have trillions of more insects, bacteria, and animals to discover. So there fore you can not proove dragons do not exist just like you can't proove god doesn't exist so there fore it makes perfect sense to assume there is no god.

[Otther]

By deffinition atheism does not require one to deny god's existance, just to not believe in it. So atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

And kudos Kodiak for your level headed rationalism.

[Ziggurat]

I suspect the position Malachi is advocating is that given by the poll answer "Embracing atheism is one of the ultimate goals for the salvation of humanity". I don't see too much discussion of the social aspect implicit in that so far, so I'll jump in. Malachi is a commie, and as such, I view his statements on atheism with a bit of suspicion. I don't think he's ultimately concerned with atheism as a personal belief, my suspicion is that he's concerned with an atheist society, somewhat akin to the Soviet Union's atheism. And of course, right now it's easy to place atheism as a sort of opposite of theocracies, which people are paying a fair amount of attention to right now and most people on this board would agree are bad things. But an atheist state is not the opposite of a religious state (which is why it was stupid to stick the phrase "under God" in the pledge to try to counter the Soviets). The opposite of BOTH atheist and a religious state is a completely secular state, which wants nothing to do with religion.

I bring this up because, while I'm fine with atheism and consider myself a bit of a weak atheist, when a commie starts talking about societal goals for things that I regard as personal choice or viewpoint, well, that makes me edge a little closer to all the libertarians out there (a group I'm normally not all that fond of). Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's not what Malachi was trying to get at, but that's what struck me upon reading the poll, and it's something I didn't see people talking about.

[ssibal]

Where is the evidence that the universe was created? Where is the evidence that there is anything else besides the universe?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by ssibal
Where is the evidence that the universe was created? Where is the evidence that there is anything else besides the universe?


Hey, I'm totally with you on that!

[Igopogo]

Originally posted by ssibal
Where is the evidence that the universe was created? Where is the evidence that there is anything else besides the universe?

There isn't, but there are only three possibilities:

1) The universe was created

2) The universe always existed (for infinity)

3) the universe doesnt' exist - it's all a bad dream

Just because the universe may have been created, doesn't imply that someone/something created it. It could still be a chance event, (like big bang theory) that created it.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I suspect the position Malachi is advocating is that given by the poll answer "Embracing atheism is one of the ultimate goals for the salvation of humanity". I don't see too much discussion of the social aspect implicit in that so far, so I'll jump in. Malachi is a commie, and as such, I view his statements on atheism with a bit of suspicion. I don't think he's ultimately concerned with atheism as a personal belief, my suspicion is that he's concerned with an atheist society, somewhat akin to the Soviet Union's atheism. And of course, right now it's easy to place atheism as a sort of opposite of theocracies, which people are paying a fair amount of attention to right now and most people on this board would agree are bad things. But an atheist state is not the opposite of a religious state (which is why it was stupid to stick the phrase "under God" in the pledge to try to counter the Soviets). The opposite of BOTH atheist and a religious state is a completely secular state, which wants nothing to do with religion.

I bring this up because, while I'm fine with atheism and consider myself a bit of a weak atheist, when a commie starts talking about societal goals for things that I regard as personal choice or viewpoint, well, that makes me edge a little closer to all the libertarians out there (a group I'm normally not all that fond of). Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's not what Malachi was trying to get at, but that's what struck me upon reading the poll, and it's something I didn't see people talking about.

Why must people keep blathering that "I'm a commie", when I've said repeatdly that I think Communism has no hope of success?

I've run my own business, I'm currently applying for a patent, I've bought remodeled and sold homes for profit, and I plan to start a new business soon, as well as selling my patent when it finally comes through, I'm preparing for the GMAT now to get my MBA.

Atheism isn't a belief at all, atheism is just the normal view of the world unclouded by supersticious lies.

Two ways to see the world, as it is, or as part of a set of lies, i.e. athiesm or theism.

Umm... there is no such thing as "an atheist state". Who said anything about "the state" anyway? I'm talking about society, and as Thomas Paine said, society and the state are two separate things.

Animals and babies are atheist. Its just not having a view of the world that involves the supernatural, that's all, nothing funky about that.

Hmm.. now, let's see, do you think it would be good if the majority of people in society believed that sea monsters would eat anyone who entered the ocean? Do you think that if people believed that that it would be HELPFUL to society to dispell that delusion?

Or do you see that as simply a matter of personal choice that has no real baring on humanity and you could care less if people believe in lies all their lives?

The idea that we should live ina society that intentionally promotes deliusional ideas that deeply alter people's ability to understand reality is idiotic. To not understand the relationship between religion and oppression is again idiotic.

All you have to do is look at the Middle East. Do you think those people are suffering because of their religons delusions? I do.

Christian America is to an atheist society as the Middle East is to Christian America.

i.e. its only steps on a ladder. The difference between fundamentalism and liberal religious views is the same as the difference between liberal religious views and atheism. The human condition is improved with each step. The separation of Church and State did wonders for humanity, just look at what it has lead to. Its safe to say that without that step we would not have landed on the moon, and probably not even have much in the way of medicine or computers, etc.

Religion is a lie, period. That we should tolerate brainwashing people with lies is idiotic. Religious views are not like being gay, or black, etc. All religious views are socially enforced lies, they aren't something that you are born with, they aren't something natural, they are a product of only one thing, people lying to other people and manipulating them. Religion is a social tool for polical control, its that simple, thats all it ever has been, that's what its purpose is, to make it easier to oppress people.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Kodiak


I expect nothing, which is why I asked politely.

Definitive claims require definitive evidence.

By your statement I assumed that you could put the issue of "Nessie" to bed for good.

Perhaps I was wrong...

Can you make the same concession?

Oh, just let me :rolleyes: again.

Look, anybody who actually thinks there is even the minutest chance a giant prehistoric sea-lizard is kicking the can around a small lake in one of the most densely populated and developed small islands in the world and has never been definitively seen or photographed or detetcted by any of the numerous submarine and sonar sweeps and assorted other scientific expiditions is blatantly delusional and should be locked up in a padded cell for their own protection.

Now in the absence of the above mentioned attempts at detection I would have said that it could exist although it would be so enormously unlikely as to render serious consideration completely ludicrous. However, in the light of the above, no, it cannot and does not exist.

[fishbob]

So there fore you can not proove dragons do not exist just like you can't proove god doesn't exist . I can't prove god isn't pink with purple polka dots, and doesn't walk with a limp, and doesn't smoke cuban cigars. But hey, that wouldn't make any sense.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to winNo, that's not a problem. Remember, the list was

(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.

So long as we include all logically possible Gods and combinations thereof, the list is exhaustive. One of these must be correct.

The lottery analogy essentially says that since one of these must be true we cannot assign zero probability to them all. There's one minor flaw in the analogy.

No one actually does this.

Some assign zero probability to all but one. Others, very nearly zero to all, or all but one, or whatever. No one assigns zero probability to all, since this would mean rejecting both the statement 'no god(s) exist' and 'at least one god exists'. Which would be pretty f*cking stupid, to say the least. Of course, in the lottery we have no reason to suppose that one ticket is more likely to win than any other. Not so in this case.

[jim_scotti]

Originally posted by Tmy
Sometimes Im an atheist and sometimes Im not. During the playoffs I find myself praying quite a bit.


I gave up prayer when I realised it didn't seem to make any difference in the outcome of the event I prayed for - that was about the time I also gave up the superstition of religion....

Now, whether or not I am wearing my favorite team's cap or World Series commemorative T-shirt and how that affects the outcome of todays game - now that is another story..... (Dang superstitions - at least I don't worry about the chalk line when I come off the field each inning when I'm playing softball....)

Jim.

[Eos of the Eons]

You're my hero Malachi151
:)


That last post was phenomenal, couldn't have said it better myself.

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Cecil
Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.


There is no evidence that I am not a clone of your mother, then mutated by impossible to track aliens.

You can't prove that there aren't any red swans.

You can't prove that I'm not constantly followed around by a String (In the physicists sense) sized dragon.

You can't prove that you're not in the Matrix.


Proving a negative is pretty much impossible most of the time.

If there is no proof for it, then it makes sense to not believe in it.
If there does happen to be proof for it at a certain point, then believe in it.

Edit: I consider myself an atheist, but that Does not mean that I am unable to change my mind given the right circumstances .

You act as if, just because I'm an atheist I still wouldn't believe in God if angels came up to me and took me for a walk around town.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Igopogo


There isn't, but there are only three possibilities:

1) The universe was created

2) The universe always existed (for infinity)

3) the universe doesnt' exist - it's all a bad dream

Just because the universe may have been created, doesn't imply that someone/something created it. It could still be a chance event, (like big bang theory) that created it.

I would just add option:

4) the universe (as we describe it) came into being from something (popularly and incorrectly known as nothing) else.

There are also numerous other options that I'm too tired too innumerate and, I'm willing to bet, numerous more that, sadly, neither you nor I am ever likely to be inteligent or experienced enough to some up with.

Graham

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


With that kind of logic you can prove basically everything!

You can prove that there indeed has to be a teapot orbitting the sun, since there is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a red iron teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a blue tin teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a green teapot with n red dots to do aforesaid.

But is there really a teapot?

The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win. Yes, there is a very small probability that a teapot currently orbits the sun. This does not IMPLY that there is one, only that it is not rational to believe that no such teapot exists.

One ticket in the lottery has to win, just as one proposition in the set of propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...

must necessarily be true. It is not rational to BELIEVE of every ticket that it is a losing ticket, and likewise it is not rational to BELIEVE any of the above propositions false. One may think it very very unlikely that any particular one is true, but believing it to be false it irrational.

To parrot an old cliche, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited to add: There is a difference between "disbelieving" a proposition (ie, believing it to be false) and "not believing" a proposition.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Cecil
Yes, one ticket in the lottery has to win, just as one proposition in the set of propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...

must necessarily be true. It is not rational to BELIEVE of every ticket that it is a losing ticket, and likewise it is not rational to BELIEVE any of the above propositions false. One may think it very very unlikely that any particular one is true, but believing it to be false it irrational.

To parrot an old cliche, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited to add: There is a difference between "disbelieving" a proposition (ie, believing it to be false) and "not believing" a proposition.

Except that "no God Exists" has a far greater weight of probablility than all of the "God a/b/c/d/e/f/g!'s you can ever think of.

We know that there are any number of balls marked "no god" can be drawn and still thelottery will be valid.

We know that only one of the "god balls can be drawn without the lottery being logically invalidated.

For a draw of five numbers, which five will you pick?

Graham

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Graham


Except that "no God Exists" has a far greater weight of probability than all of the "God a/b/c/d/e/f/g!'s you can ever think of.

We know that there are any number of balls marked "no god" can be drawn and still thelottery will be valid.

We know that only one of the "god balls can be drawn without the lottery being logically invalidated.

For a draw of five numbers, which five will you pick?

Graham

Hmmm I think that a MATHmatical statistical model would find, without any other restrictions, the probability of any case is the same.
The philosophical weighting of the various possibility is a completely differently case.


The problem I have with both true believers and atheists are that they are both absolutist positions with the atheists having a harder road to hoe as a negative hypothesis is impossible to prove, whereas believers can assign any phenomenon ( such as a window stain) to be the affirmation of thier believe

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The problem I have with both true believers and atheists are that they are both absolutist positions...
That is a common misconceptionabout atheists and one reason why I describe myself as an "agnostic" to those who do not understand what atheism means. The overwhelmingly vast majority of atheists simply say they see no evidence for a god, not that there absolutely cannot be one.

By the same token, few "true believers" would claim that their concept of God is absolutely correct, in fact almost all say, at some point, that it is impossible for a human to understand the mind of God.

[Eos of the Eons]

If a god has a mind, then we have to be able to see it, cause that would mean it's made of matter. Since gods aren't matter, they cannot have minds.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Graham
Except that "no God Exists" has a far greater weight of probablility than all of the "God a/b/c/d/e/f/g!'s you can ever think of. How do you know this?

[Eos of the Eons]

You have to be matter to exist. And ideas are even matter because you have a brain that comes up with them, and that is matter.

For there to be gods...they only exist as ideas do, in our brain matter...but if you don't believe in them, then they can't exist for you.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Tricky

That is a common misconceptionabout atheists and one reason why I describe myself as an "agnostic" to those who do not understand what atheism means. The overwhelmingly vast majority of atheists simply say they see no evidence for a god, not that there absolutely cannot be one.

By the same token, few "true believers" would claim that their concept of God is absolutely correct, in fact almost all say, at some point, that it is impossible for a human to understand the mind of God.

No sir the predominate position of an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, by definition.
An agnostic ( which I define myself as ) is a person who believes only things that can be demonstrated by evidence.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


No sir the predominate position of an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, by definition.
An agnostic ( which I define myself as ) is a person who believes only things that can be demonstrated by evidence.

The "agnostic" (which literally means: to deny divine knowledge, and SHOULD be pronounced a-nostic) position is that everything is possible which has not been disproven.

This "should" mean that your view that "god" might exist is the same as you view that "giant pink planet eating space monkey's" might exist.

The existance of either has not been disproven. In fact according to the "agnostic" position anything anyone can image is equally likely to be real and you hold out the possibility that it may in fact be real.

The atheist position is different though, and works on a quite a bit more logic and intelligence.

You see, the atheist position basically says that if something is claimed to be real, for which there is no proof at all, and for which there are known motives for people to lie about the existance of this thing, and the only source of the concept of the existance of this thing in the first place is lies, misconceptions, and ignorance, then it is unlikely beyond a reaonsable doubt that said thing exists at all.

For someone to claim that something exists without any proof or reason to believe it to be so makes it LESS likely that said thing exists than if said thing was never mentioned at all.

When you understand the anthropological process of the development of religion then there is zero reason to believe that a god might exist.

Its like your father telling you a bedtime story about your long lost uncle who was a King of Ireland, and then years later he tell you that it was just a story and he never had any brothers, and then you stilling going on to believe that you still "might" have a long lost uncle that's a King of Ireland.

You have to bea moron to still believe that you might "really" have a long lost uncle anymore. Is it still technically possible? yeah, sure it is, its as possible as it is for anyone to have a long lost uncle, and you can never prove that you don't have a long lost uncle, because if you could then he wouldn't be lost!

But the fact that your dad lied to you about having a long lost uncle certinaly doesn't lend any credence to the idea that you may REALLY have one.

The fact that thousands of cultures made up ideas about spirits and gods does nothing at all to lend any credence to the idea that a "god" might exist. The whole thing was purely an invention of the mind of man in the first place. Duh!

Its a lie that was made up for VERY earthly reasons. It played a very EARTLHY role in human culture. Why the hell would a human social phenomenon be likely to be real? The only way, IMO, that anyone can believe in god, is to be either ignorant, stupid, or both. I think that for most people its simply ignorance, and I can't really fault people for being ignorant or stupid. Stupidity is genetic and ignorance is ultimately a product of society, so I don't blame people for their own ignorance or their own stupidity, but by the same token I have no patience for it either. I've got limited time to live, the least of my concerns is lowering myself to the stupidity or ignorance of others.

Yes I do have contempt for everyone who is not atheist, and I like it that way :D

I have zero respect for religion, anymore than I have respect for any other lies. Relgion is the biggest and worst lie on earth. As far as I'm concerned too the Catholic Church is the most vial organization on earth as well. That the Vatican is respected in this day and age is an insult to all humanity IMO. Its the most repulsive organization in the history of man IMO.

Just look at Mexico. You want to know the one real difference between Mexico and the USA? The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has destroyed that nation. The history of Mexico is a sad one. As much promise as America, but dominated by the Vatican instead of separation of Church and State, the resutls are proof of how disgusting that instituion is. Mexico could be equal to the US. It isn't because of the "Church".

Sinead O'Connor goes down in my book as one of the greatest people of the past 30 years just for riping up the picture of the Pope in live national TV. That was a true act of courage and one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Is it possible we're BOTH right?? (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)

From the website above: Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Your definition of atheist only includes strong atheism. Even the website you quote mentions that actively denying a diety is a sub-set of atheism. The definition you give for atheism is, therefore, incomplete.

The definition you have of atheism is too narrow.

[max]

I don't believe there is a God but I do believe we live on after our bodies die. I also believe that we are not the only planet that supports life, the universe is vast and probably holds several planets and suns similar to our system.
Although I don't believe there is a God, I do think there is some sort of intelligence from which everything stems. I do believe we evolved but at some stage spirits took over the human body possibly at the time we developed a conscience. When we die I believe we revert to the spirit dimension.
Religion in my opinion, is man made/written and just a well thought out way of keeping down the masses.
The thought of there being an intelligence somewhere, somehow, has a similar effect on me, I suppose, as religion has on the God worshippers. i.e. it keeps me on my toes and prevents me from doing wrong

[Tricky]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

No sir the predominate position of an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, by definition.
An agnostic ( which I define myself as ) is a person who believes only things that can be demonstrated by evidence.
While your position is supported by some, though not all dictionaries, I believe that if you took a formal poll of all those here that call themselves atheists, you would find that the predominant position is that atheiests don't believe in a god, rather than they believe there is no god. I'm sure you can understand the difference.

Go ahead. Ask around.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Your definition of atheist only includes strong atheism. Even the website you quote mentions that actively denying a diety is a sub-set of atheism. The definition you give for atheism is, therefore, incomplete.

The definition you have of atheism is too narrow.

Exactly my point. My definition was too narrow.

Your definition was too narrow also, though.

It seems the best definition (coming from the website I linked) encompasses BOTH of our versions (thus the "we're both right" remark I made)...

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Exactly my point. My definition was too narrow.

Your definition was too narrow also, though.

It seems the best definition (coming from the website I linked) encompasses BOTH of our versions (thus the "we're both right" remark I made)...

No. The definition I had encompasses both. The website singles out traits of two sub-sets. My contention is that the basis of atheism is a lack of a God belief. How does weak atheism or strong atheism not conform to this contention? Both do not have a God belief.

Here is what I said about atheism, "Atheists lack a God belief. They do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything."

"Lack a God belief" is a very broad statement. It includes both strong and weak atheism.

"Do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything" indicates that there are strong atheists as well as those who merely do not have a God belief.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Cecil
Yes, there is a very small probability that a teapot currently orbits the sun. This does not IMPLY that there is one, only that it is not rational to believe that no such teapot exists.

One ticket in the lottery has to win, just as one proposition in the set of propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...


must necessarily be true. It is not rational to BELIEVE of every ticket that it is a losing ticket, and likewise it is not rational to BELIEVE any of the above propositions false. One may think it very very unlikely that any particular one is true, but believing it to be false it irrational.

To parrot an old cliche, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited to add: There is a difference between "disbelieving" a proposition (ie, believing it to be false) and "not believing" a proposition.

OK, it seems that I must have, for whatever reasons, completely misread your post and I think you can simply forget about my response to it. Apologies.

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by Cecil
[B] That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god. And thanks to the Amazing Razor of William of Occam, we don't need to. There is no concrete question about the Universe we can ask to which "God" is an answer. God is more like the stuff you jam into the places where your questions are. It stops you from thinking further about whatever topic is on your mind.

In pre-scientific times the fabric of religious understanding covered the Universe completely. No natural phenomenon existed that wasn't explained as the actions of God, or spirits. As science advanced, that fabric was pulled back. It now is reduced to a dime-sized shred, covering a very remote sector of our understanding, in a place where most people don't really go. But to assume that because modern cosmology hasn't stated clearly the cause of the Universes' origin, it therefore still could be God, is silly. My atheism proceeds from an understanding of the last 5-600 years of history, and the faith, oddly enough, that we will eventually figure it out. Even in the last ten years, we have made dramatic strides.

The fallacy that you are committing is that of false alternative. Atheists don't think of things in terms of "God" and "No-God." There isn't an entity that we put in God's place. Rather, there is simply a recognition that God was created by Man, in the imagination of Man, and therefore there is no need to seek him in the Cosmos because like dragons he won't be there.

The origin of the God theory isn't born from someone's careful examination of the evidence and conclusion that there was no better answer. Rather it is born and perpetuated out of the primal fear of death. Since the origin of the God theory, we have discovered far better tools with which to examine the Universe. Theism is like the biological appendix.

In the context of theism's political role, I believe (I hope, actually) that our society will eventually evolve itself out of the need for theism, because in my opinion theism leads society to do a great many things that are against our own best interests.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

However, in the light of the above, no, it cannot and does not exist.

Wow, way to go Jon!

First person ever to prove a negative existential claim :rolleyes:

If ever there was a candidate for the illogic award, you are it.

Adam

[TillEulenspiegel]

I don't believe it exists.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Malichi151:
"This "should" mean that your view that "god" might exist is the same as you view that "giant pink planet eating space monkey's" might exist.

The existence of either has not been disproved. In fact according to the "agnostic" position anything anyone can image is equally likely to be real and you hold out the possibility that it may in fact be real.
Your dirsion is duly weighted and discarded.
That kind of statement belongs more to the fanatical adherents of QM or homeopathetic remedies in the Science forum.
The claim that an agnostic embracing everything equally is absurd on it's face, as I stated I accept things provable while you enjoy the position of the self-convenced that what you believe is true , regardless of the fact that a negative hypothesis is unprovable.
Space monkey indeed.

[Beanbag]

Dyed in the wool, born again athiest.

It's my most desperate wish that one of these days the rest of the world will grow up and abandon their belief in imaginary friends. They spend too much time trying to prove that their imaginary friend is greater than the other's imaginary friend.

And unfortunately, too many people get hurt in the "discussion".

Beanbag

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Beanbag
Dyed in the wool, born again athiest.

It's my most desperate wish that one of these days the rest of the world will grow up and abandon their belief in imaginary friends. They spend too much time trying to prove that their imaginary friend is greater than the other's imaginary friend.

And unfortunately, too many people get hurt in the "discussion".

Beanbag


Very very true.

Rather, there is simply a recognition that God was created by Man, in the imagination of Man, and therefore there is no need to seek him in the Cosmos


That's exactly it.