Why?

[fadetree]

Ok, I'd like to be an Atheist. Seriously. It would help if someone could tell me how they *know* a god or gods don't exist. As an Atheist, I'd believe strictly in reason. Therefore, note that lack of evidence for is not evidence against, so all arguments beginning with 'We don't need a god to explain..' don't count. For the same reason, emotional arguments about why would we suffer if God was good, etc, don't count, as the question is not about the nature of God or gods but the existence of them.

Go.

[fadetree]

For extra credit, tell me why being an Atheist that categorically denies that god or gods exist is different from being a fundamentalist crazypants that categorically affirms they exist.

[Thulack]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-cpL--0AQA

[fadetree]

Fail. Nice title tie in, but reference is : 'the world is so bad, therefore god or gods must not exist', disallowed previously. Next.

[indiscriminate_hater]

nah

[Thulack]

The title tie in was all i was going for. For me i just don't believe their is a god. Nothing has ever shown me otherwise and i am not wasting my time with something that cant be proven to exist.

[fadetree]

Ah ok. So noted. Doesn't help me out though, you are actually making an argument from faith just as a theist would, drop the 'don't' from your sentence and poof yer a worshipper. It's legit, but doesn't answer the question.

[Glenzig]

Should be a very amusing thread. Thanks Fadetree.

[fadetree]

Yeah it probably will be, but I actually am serious about the question. I was going to go to some prestigious atheistic or religious site where they argue all day long about silly shit, but then I thought, hey I can do that right here.

[Troubled]

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

This faq should answer all your questions.

[fadetree]

Nope. Unfounded argument from authority. Next.

[Glenzig]

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

This faq should answer all your questions.

Hahahah! Wasn't expecting that. Good one.

[Faron]

I don't *know* there isn't a god, just like I don't *know* that there isn't a race of flying mushroom people live in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter and control everything on Earth through the use of a magical cabbage given to them by the ghost of Thomas Jefferson.

fence-sitting bullshit.

[Plur]

I too am ashamed to admit that I was once an Atheist. Everyone knows that a magical creature dictates what happens in nature. This creature is hard to accept as real, but we must have faith that he is going to lead us to the magical beer volcano that is littered with strippers.
I too denounced god, then one day he reached down from the heavens and touched me with his noodly appendage. I saw with my own eyes his enormous balls, and he promised me salvation at the great beer volcano.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster.

[fadetree]

But isn't that what 'Atheist' means? Categorical denial of any god or gods? Since Atheists appeal to reason and science all the time, and criticize the religious crazies all the time, I thought there might be a better argument than 'well, there just isn't'.

I don't understand the fence remark, atheism is hardly sitting on the fence. That'd be agnosticism.

[Danth]

I don't understand why self-described atheists argue about religion. I don't believe in nor care about UFO's or little green men, and as such I don't argue about those things on internet web sites. You can consider yourself an atheist as far as traditional religions are concerned without necessarily disavowing the possibility of higher forms of intelligence or life beyond that which science can presently explain.


Danth

[Faron]

The point is that the existence of "God" is given validity only because it has a lot of history behind it, even though "God" and the flying mushroom people have the exact same amount of evidence which proves there existence - that amount being zero. The fact that people came up with the idea of "God" a long time ago and people continue to believe it in reality gives the belief no weight. Taking the position that there might be a god or that there might be flying mushroom people on Jupiter simply because you can't disprove it is fence sitting bullshit. And people who say those things probably just passed their Phil101 class and think they are Plato reincarnated.

[Borak]

Ok, I'd like to be an Atheist. Seriously. It would help if someone could tell me how they *know* a god or gods don't exist. As an Atheist, I'd believe strictly in reason. Therefore, note that lack of evidence for is not evidence against, so all arguments beginning with 'We don't need a god to explain..' don't count. For the same reason, emotional arguments about why would we suffer if God was good, etc, don't count, as the question is not about the nature of God or gods but the existence of them.

Go.

There are a number of things that are vexing about this post. Allow me to explain.

I have been an atheist (note, no capital) for about 12 years now, before which I was nominally Catholic. At no point in my life, before or after deconversion, did I say to myself, "I'd like to be an atheist." I don't think that belief, or lack thereof, is something you can choose. I can't believe the sky is pink, no matter how much I want it to be so. I didn't want to become an atheist, actually the realization that I was one was quite jarring when it dawned on me. I became an atheist because it seemed like all the evidence available to me pointed in the direction of there being no credible evidence for supernatural beings.

Notice how I defined atheism. I did not define it as *knowing* that a god or gods do not exist. No atheist that I know in person defines being an atheist that way! Atheism to me, and to every other atheist I personally know, is simply the LACK OF BELIEF in the god proposition. It does not necessarily imply the absolute belief in the NO GOD proposition.

Yes this sounds like agnosticism. Guess what? Most atheists like myself would define themselves as agnostic atheists. What this means is that, even though I do not possess absolute knowledge about the (non)existence of a god or gods (the agnostic part), I do not believe a god actually exists (the atheist part). I would argue that a high percentage of believers are agnostic theists, who also lack absolute knowledge but believe the evidence points to god(s). The people that scare me, are the gnostic people on either side - gnostic atheists ("I know everything"), or gnostic theists ("god speaks to me").

I do not categorically deny that god(s) exist. I just find the probability so unlikely, especially given how they have been defined in ancient texts, that I ignore it, just as I ignore the possibility of me personally winning that $300 million lottery and save myself that $1.

[fadetree]

Faron, do you mean 'The point is that the belief in the existence of "God" is given validity only because it has a lot of history behind it"? Certainly valid from a social perspective, but not so much from reason. The number of people believing or not believing in something doesn't seem to have much relationship to its actual truth or not. Conversely, the Pythagorean Theorem has a lot of history behind it, but that's not what gives it it's validity.

The rest of that argument seems to be citing lack of positive evidence, which as I've mentioned, is not evidence against.

Your criticism is of Agnosticism as being fence-sitting bullshit I still don't understand. Since you say can't prove a negative, why would you take a radical position ( Atheism ) to criticize another radical position ( Theism ).

From your arguments I'd wind up an Agnostic I think.

[fadetree]

There are a number of things that are vexing about this post. Allow me to explain.

I have been an atheist (note, no capital) for about 12 years now, before which I was nominally Catholic. At no point in my life, before or after deconversion, did I say to myself, "I'd like to be an atheist." I don't think that belief, or lack thereof, is something you can choose. I can't believe the sky is pink, no matter how much I want it to be so. I didn't want to become an atheist, actually the realization that I was one was quite jarring when it dawned on me. I became an atheist because it seemed like all the evidence available to me pointed in the direction of there being no credible evidence for supernatural beings.

Notice how I defined atheism. I did not define it as *knowing* that a god or gods do not exist. No atheist that I know in person defines being an atheist that way! Atheism to me, and to every other atheist I personally know, is simply the LACK OF BELIEF in the god proposition. It does not necessarily imply the absolute belief in the NO GOD proposition.

Yes this sounds like agnosticism. Guess what? Most atheists like myself would define themselves as agnostic atheists. What this means is that, even though I do not possess absolute knowledge about the (non)existence of a god or gods (the agnostic part), I do not believe a god actually exists (the atheist part). I would argue that a high percentage of believers are agnostic theists, who also lack absolute knowledge but believe the evidence points to god(s). The people that scare me, are the gnostic people on either side - gnostic atheists ("I know everything"), or gnostic theists ("god speaks to me").

I do not categorically deny that god(s) exist. I just find the probability so unlikely, especially given how they have been defined in ancient texts, that I ignore it, just as I ignore the possibility of me personally winning that $300 million lottery and save myself that $1.

Thanks Borak, that's a great post. This kind of atheism/Agnosti-whatever I could work with.

[fadetree]

Although it kind of dodges the original questions by redefining the term, but I don't mind, since it's reasonable. Followup : do you think it is possible to experience any kind of evidence that would convince you of a supernatural being?

[fadetree]

I don't understand why self-described atheists argue about religion. I don't believe in nor care about UFO's or little green men, and as such I don't argue about those things on internet web sites. You can consider yourself an atheist as far as traditional religions are concerned without necessarily disavowing the possibility of higher forms of intelligence or life beyond that which science can presently explain.


Danth

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

[Econ]

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

So the position that their is absolutely zero factual evidence supporting the existence of an invisible flying man in the sky is purely based on faith alone.
Right.

[fadetree]

Yes, it is. You have to state that you know everything there is possible in the universe, and that's not one of them. That's the only way to, using reason, categorically deny it's existence. It's teh exact same argument the religious types make.

[fadetree]

meaning, if you also say that you in fact don't know everything in the universe, then you are arguing from simple belief, ie., faith.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

Yes, it is. You have to state that you know everything there is possible in the universe, and that's not one of them. That's the only way to, using reason, categorically deny it's existence. It's teh exact same argument the religious types make.

Your posts give the impression that you are more focused on labels than on actual thought processes.

The first issue that I see is your implication that there is either atheist or agnostic when it comes to nonbelief. This is problematic because not only does it set an idea that the two aren't comparable or interchangeable depending on context, but it also ignores stances potentially separate from both, anti-theism and skepticism for example.

I apologise if this post comes off as pretentious, I don't mean to belittle you in any way. It's just that with this subject, context is everything and I honestly don't know exactly what it is that you are actually looking for.

[Samoht]

i can't tell if this guy is legit or if yall just got trolled by some confirmation biased bullshitter...

but i guess i'll bite. atheism isn't the denial of gods. atheism is the lack of belief either way because itdon'tmatterwedon'tgiveafuck. atheists don't need a book full of draconic laws or anecdotal crap to tell them how to behave. atheists are just as prone to have good morals as christians are to have bad morals (and in my experience, moreso).

what atheists *are* sure of is that there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again

[Danth]

Well, some folks use faith as though it's a dirty word, but it really isn't. I take it on faith that Uzbekistan's a real place and not merely some weird conspiracy, although I've never been there and don't know anyone who has. Essentially everything you believe that hasn't been confirmed by your own direct observation is based on faith to some greater or lesser degree. Some of those leaps of faith, however, are more likely to be ultimately proven correct than others.

It bears mention that atheism is not a belief system. As such, atheists cannot be lumped together in precisely the same manner as how Mennonites or Baptists or Unitarians can. Different atheists (and agnostics) will have different opinions about things.

Danth

[paulgiamatti]

Ugh, can you guys please just go read the religion thread, all of this has been answered in 50 different ways 50 times over.

[iruinedyourday]

this is how some feel about it: http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Scientific_method

[fadetree]

Your posts give the impression that you are more focused on labels than on actual thought processes.

The first issue that I see is your implication that there is either atheist or agnostic when it comes to nonbelief. This is problematic because not only does it set an idea that the two aren't comparable or interchangeable depending on context, but it also ignores stances potentially separate from both, anti-theism and skepticism for example.

I apologise if this post comes off as pretentious, I don't mean to belittle you in any way. It's just that with this subject, context is everything and I honestly don't know exactly what it is that you are actually looking for.

Nope, you are right, I am making a sharp ( possibly unreasonable ) distinction between Atheism and Agnoticism. At some point in the spectrum though, you have to either say you don't know or conclude that no god exists. If you make that conclusion, you are as vulnerable to reason based attacks as the religious types are, but most people I talk to who deny god exists don't seem to realize it.

[fadetree]

Well, some folks use faith as though it's a dirty word, but it really isn't. I take it on faith that Uzbekistan's a real place and not merely some weird conspiracy, although I've never been there and don't know anyone who has. Essentially everything you believe that hasn't been confirmed by your own direct observation is based on faith to some greater or lesser degree. Some of those leaps of faith, however, are more likely to be ultimately proven correct than others.

It bears mention that atheism is not a belief system. As such, atheists cannot be lumped together in precisely the same manner as how Mennonites or Baptists or Unitarians can. Different atheists (and agnostics) will have different opinions about things.

Danth

Yes, this is a really good argument. I've never personally seen a quark.

[Borak]

meaning, if you also say that you in fact don't know everything in the universe, then you are arguing from simple belief, ie., faith.

Sigh, this is not black and white. You guys are replying to each other too rapidly to establish what evidence you find credible, which is the real issue. There could be a lot of "evidence" supporting god claims, but if it is rubbish, you can safely ignore it.

You have to establish some epistemological common ground and agree upon what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence. Very briefly, I will outline a few forms of evidence, from least credible to most credible:

1. Hearsay (written words/text)
2. Statement of authority (similar to #1 except made by "experts" such as professors / law enforcement / etc)
3. Historical evidence
4. Personal experience (only if it is your own, others fall under hearsay)
5. Scientifc theory (meaning well supported explanatory model, not "guess")
6. Mathematical calculation

If a problem boils down to a mathematical calculation (how far will this tank of gas allow me to drive), you would be ridiculed for ignoring the result because you think you know better. Similarly, if your evidence comes in the form of spoken words, no matter how eloquent, they cannot be given much weight.

OK, so this is a brief list of the TYPES of evidence there are. Now the question is, how much evidence do you need? Well, this depends on how great the claim is. If I claim to have $5 in my pocket, I doubt you would need much evidence for it, you might not even ask me for any. In any event, it would be trivial to produce the evidence. Now if I claimed to have $500,000 in the bank, you wouldn't just believe me saying so, you'd ask for a little evidence, but it wouldn't shock you either.
If I claimed to be worth $1 billion, you'd ask for a TON of evidence, because while billionaires exist they are quite rare and you can probably access a publicly available list of every one of them.

Now, if someone comes to me and states a claim that a supernatural being exists that is greater than this entire universe, what greater claim is there? This claim would require the best and greatest amout of evidence possible, and yet most often all the evidence offered is words in an old book. It doesn't take "faith" to reject a claim supported by the flimsiest of evidence.

[paulgiamatti]

Agnosticism simply is, by definition, atheism. There isn't a spectrum between the two.

[fadetree]

i can't tell if this guy is legit or if yall just got trolled by some confirmation biased bullshitter...

but i guess i'll bite. atheism isn't the denial of gods. atheism is the lack of belief either way because itdon'tmatterwedon'tgiveafuck. atheists don't need a book full of draconic laws or anecdotal crap to tell them how to behave. atheists are just as prone to have good morals as christians are to have bad morals (and in my experience, moreso).

what atheists *are* sure of is that there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again

This is what I'm talking about. Atheism that is not the denial of gods is called agnosticism.

But labels aside, how are you *sure* that "there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again"

You are just making a bunch of "I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it" arguments, which is not what I'm looking for. That kind of crap is what I'm trying to leave behind.

[fadetree]

Agnosticism simply is, by definition, atheism. There isn't a spectrum between the two.

Thats not true as far as I know...do you have a reference? By definition, A-Theism : Greek for 'No Diety'. A-Gnosticism : 'No Knowledge'.

[Bazia]

i think atheists apply the scientific ideal that lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove something's existence

the acceptance of something's existence requires some type of facts/proof, not the lack of facts/proof that something doesn't exist

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Nope, you are right, I am making a sharp ( possibly unreasonable ) distinction between Atheism and Agnoticism. At some point in the spectrum though, you have to either say you don't know or conclude that no god exists. If you make that conclusion, you are as vulnerable to reason based attacks as the religious types are, but most people I talk to who deny god exists don't seem to realize it.

This is fair. I'll keep my response short and simple.

There is nothing irrational/hypocritical about acknowledging there are forces/powers/whatever beyond our comprehension, while simultaneously coming to the conclusion (via observation) that Abrahamic world views are utter nonsense.

[Borak]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think paulgiamatti is saying that, while agnosticism and atheism are technically distinct, if you drew a Venn diagram of people that hold each position they'd almost completely overlap.

[Samoht]

This is what I'm talking about. Atheism that is not the denial of gods is called agnosticism.

not exactly. atheism is without gods. agnosticism is without knowledge. the two aren't mutually exclusive, but atheists have a firm lack of religion. it's not a denial. it just doesn't exist.

But labels aside, how are you *sure* that "there is no way in hell that there's a benevolent creator, or if there ever was one, he died a long time ago because at this point, the idea that we were created as some kind of utopia of peace and love and sex without STDs is just lol. if he saw the crapshoot his creation has become today, he would probably /wrist all over again"

You are just making a bunch of "I don't like it so I'm not going to believe it" arguments, which is not what I'm looking for. That kind of crap is what I'm trying to leave behind.

are you unsure of what the definition of the word "benevolent" is?

[Sidelle]

Atheists and religious people are often so similar to each other in these threads. Both sides have excellent skills at being self-righteous pricks when they're shoving their beliefs or non-beliefs down the throats of people around them.

Yeah I know, I didn't answer your question -- sorry. :) I was just making a general observation based on my experiences of reading the metric shit-ton of religious discussion posts that blow up threads like this every time...

Carry on.

[fadetree]

Sigh, this is not black and white. You guys are replying to each other too rapidly to establish what evidence you find credible, which is the real issue. There could be a lot of "evidence" supporting god claims, but if it is rubbish, you can safely ignore it.

You have to establish some epistemological common ground and agree upon what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence. Very briefly, I will outline a few forms of evidence, from least credible to most credible:

1. Hearsay (written words/text)
2. Statement of authority (similar to #1 except made by "experts" such as professors / law enforcement / etc)
3. Historical evidence
4. Personal experience (only if it is your own, others fall under hearsay)
5. Scientifc theory (meaning well supported explanatory model, not "guess")
6. Mathematical calculation

If a problem boils down to a mathematical calculation (how far will this tank of gas allow me to drive), you would be ridiculed for ignoring the result because you think you know better. Similarly, if your evidence comes in the form of spoken words, no matter how eloquent, they cannot be given much weight.

OK, so this is a brief list of the TYPES of evidence there are. Now the question is, how much evidence do you need? Well, this depends on how great the claim is. If I claim to have $5 in my pocket, I doubt you would need much evidence for it, you might not even ask me for any. In any event, it would be trivial to produce the evidence. Now if I claimed to have $500,000 in the bank, you wouldn't just believe me saying so, you'd ask for a little evidence, but it wouldn't shock you either.
If I claimed to be worth $1 billion, you'd ask for a TON of evidence, because while billionaires exist they are quite rare and you can probably access a publicly available list of every one of them.

Now, if someone comes to me and states a claim that a supernatural being exists that is greater than this entire universe, what greater claim is there? This claim would require the best and greatest amout of evidence possible, and yet most often all the evidence offered is words in an old book. It doesn't take "faith" to reject a claim supported by the flimsiest of evidence.

If, by evidence, you mean 'things that make it seem to me that something is true', which is what you seem to be saying, I still think that the bald claim that 'thing x cannot be true' needs to be supported by saying '...and I have reviewed all possible evidence'.

What do I say to people who say "How do *YOU* know there isn't a god?". I didn't used to know what to say to people who said "How do you know there is a God?', and I was hoping the other camp had more cogent arguments.

[paulgiamatti]

It's just common sense really. The moment you go from believing in a god or deities to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. Atheism is a prerequisite for being an agnostic.

[Archalen]

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of animosity on both sides that make people really foam at each other. One block to me on the road to atheism is that 'Atheists' seem to be very hypocritical, hysterically denying that any god exists, while also claiming reason to be on their side. They don't seem to ( usually, see the above post ) realize that their position is just as faith based as a fundamental religious person's is.

Nah man, there are hundreds of things I don't believe in. Does it really take faith to not believe the veracity of the thousands of legends and myths we are told over a lifetime? I don't give ghosts, gods, monsters, witches etc. differing levels of respect.

[fadetree]

i think atheists apply the scientific ideal that lack of evidence to the contrary doesn't prove something's existence

the acceptance of something's existence requires some type of facts/proof, not the lack of facts/proof that something doesn't exist

Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. And by evidence I mean 'scientific evidence', not emotionalism or faith or just deciding you don't like something.

[fadetree]

It's just common sense really. The moment you go from believing in a god or deities to only believing that it could be a possibility, you become an atheist. Atheism is a prerequisite for being an agnostic.

Wow, I think you better check your definitions. I might be wrong, but I don't think so, everything I find says basically the opposite.

[Borak]

If, by evidence, you mean 'things that make it seem to me that something is true', which is what you seem to be saying, I still think that the bald claim that 'thing x cannot be true' needs to be supported by saying '...and I have reviewed all possible evidence'.

Dude, I said before on the first page, I never claimed that gods don't exist (that 'thing x cannot be true'). What you just quoted above, is me saying that the evidence is so lame that I don't believe the claim. I reject THE GOD CLAIM for lack of credible evidence. That does NOT mean I unequivocally accept the NO GOD CLAIM. Can you not accept that subtle position?

[fadetree]

Nah man, there are hundreds of things I don't believe in. Does it really take faith to not believe the veracity of the thousands of legends and myths we are told over a lifetime? I don't give ghosts, gods, monsters, witches etc. differing levels of respect.

That's an interesting question, does it take faith *NOT* to believe in something? ..I guess not. It takes faith to deny the possibility of something though, unless there is scientific evidence. But really I'm out on a limb there too, because science itself really doesn't know anything for sure, and will happily tell you so.

[fadetree]

Dude, I said before on the first page, I never claimed that gods don't exist (that 'thing x cannot be true'). What you just quoted above, is me saying that the evidence is so lame that I don't believe the claim. I reject THE GOD CLAIM for lack of credible evidence. That does NOT mean I unequivocally accept the NO GOD CLAIM. Can you not accept that subtle position?

Dude, can you not tell when I am talking about you and when I am not? I never said that was your claim.

[Troubled]

http://api.ning.com/files/kvOHl9cTrw7tTohXFKjpEExwwz0hualrDsn0-6s1D4DjsRMe*PO7qlttW97WZji-XBcwFp*Xow8E56zaTjaZNfL0xbIoD9xr/gnosticism_graph.png

[Troubled]

http://api.ning.com/files/kvOHl9cTrw7tTohXFKjpEExwwz0hualrDsn0-6s1D4DjsRMe*PO7qlttW97WZji-XBcwFp*Xow8E56zaTjaZNfL0xbIoD9xr/gnosticism_graph.png

uh, i guess copy/paste

[fadetree]

I'd think you knew I understood what you were saying in your first post by my reply, but maybe not. The 'bald claim' I am talking about is the subject through all of this, I wasn't saying you were making that claim yourself.

[fadetree]

Well, anyway, before this disintegrates, thanks for the answers. It's given me a lot to think about.

[Borak]

I'd think you knew I understood what you were saying in your first post by my reply, but maybe not. The 'bald claim' I am talking about is the subject through all of this, I wasn't saying you were making that claim yourself.

Ah the original post. Well OK, I just don't know how many actual atheists in the world actually say "I know with absolute certainty that no gods exist." I've never met any atheists like that, even at large atheist meetings. I think people just say that on the internet to be verbal gasbags.

[paulgiamatti]

My argument is that agnostic theism doesn't make sense, since theism is the belief in a deity or deities. Admitting that you don't know if a deity exists or not is the same thing as not believing in that deity. My argument is that the distinction people make between belief and knowledge is a distinction without a difference.

[Samoht]

Admitting that you don't know if a deity exists or not is the same thing as not believing in that deity.

that's actually the definition of faith, lol. i think you're proving why atheists are mostly smarter than christians. don't get me wrong, there are some smart christians. some.

but there are some dumb atheists, too, and you do have your definitions backwards.

[paulgiamatti]

Faith is a more malleable word than that. Many theists could say they know with absolute certainty that their deity exists, but they'd still call that faith.

[Danth]

Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. And by evidence I mean 'scientific evidence', not emotionalism or faith or just deciding you don't like something.

At the very least some notions of god are disproven via observable evidence. The Aztecs followed a sick and bloodthirsty religion that mandated the sun be fed the blood of human sacrifice (among other things) so as to have the strength to rise. After the Spanish ended their civilization, razed their temples, and halted their ceremonies, the sun did in fact continue rising each day and life on earth did not end. Just as well, too...would've put a damper on this discussion if all life had ended 500 years ago.


Danth

[Samoht]

At the very least some notions of god are disproven via observable evidence. The Aztecs followed a sick and bloodthirsty religion that mandated the sun be fed the blood of human sacrifice (among other things) so as to have the strength to rise. After the Spanish ended their civilization, razed their temples, and halted their ceremonies, the sun did in fact continue rising each day and life on earth did not end. Just as well, too...would've put a damper on this discussion if all life had ended 500 years ago.


Danth

how do you know that the aztecs didn't already supply the sun with enough blood offering to continue to rise for another 500 years? gosh, i hope it doesn't run out soon...

[Pokesan]

You can't know anything. Knowledge is merely opinion. The human body is a mystery, science just falls in a hole when it tries to explain the nature of the soul. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality. How does science explain psychics, auras, the power of prayer?

[Samoht]

the power of prayer?

i'm sorry, the power of what?

often times, the success of prayer can be easily explained by four categories: coincidence, deceit, or failure. for instance, if you've ever prayed for someone that was terminally ill, they either got better because they were going to get better anyway, were never sick to begin with, or died despite your prayer.

it's honestly just a placebo.

[Samoht]

*three categories, oops

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

explain psychics?

Here is the long list of psychics who've won the lottery:

[Bazia]

Yeah, but that cuts both ways. Lack of evidence for is not evidence against. And by evidence I mean 'scientific evidence', not emotionalism or faith or just deciding you don't like something.

no it doesnt cut both ways, if u want something to be considered acceptable u have to have to some kind of proof or facts

[Pokesan]

Shakespeare said it first - "There are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality - it doesn't explain love or spirituality"

You're so sure of your position but you're just closed minded. I think you'll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist.

[Patriam1066]

Atheists and religious people are often so similar to each other in these threads. Both sides have excellent skills at being self-righteous pricks when they're shoving their beliefs or non-beliefs down the throats of people around them.

Yeah I know, I didn't answer your question -- sorry. :) I was just making a general observation based on my experiences of reading the metric shit-ton of religious discussion posts that blow up threads like this every time...

Carry on.

I agree with this completely. Unfortunately, though I am tolerant in my personal life, I'm also the most opinionated person probably in the history of Earth. Because of this, I'd argue with a fence post. I'm pretty sure this self analysis applies to about 95% of the people who post in the religion threads.

As for religion, people just need more education. If you are taught science, math, history, sociology... etc etc, even if you are devout like I am, you still don't want to kill people or persecute them. The problem is certainty. If you are 100% certain that your position is correct, historically, you have been very willing to bring about radical change (often in a violent way) to see your one sided worldview brought into fruition. This could be said of the Lord's Resistance Army (Christians in Uganda), any Communist party (you could claim militant atheism, or simply a militant political belief, that despite lacking any actual evidence, thought itself to be the solution to humanity's problems), to the numerous Islamic extremist groups. Hell, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka were technically secular, but they had a nationalistic / Hindu extremist sentiment. Killing people or persecuting them is wrong 100% of the time. Teach that in schools and all of us, regardless of belief system, will be able to get along.

For that matter, give children everywhere ANY type of schooling that isn't religiously based and I think you'll see this problem subside. But yeah, there is definitely a fuckton of self-righteousness in these religion threads. I'm so glad we have two more of them now on the front page of RnF. I will do my best not to post in them, but damn do I love arguing.

[Clark]

You could always log into AOL instant message chatrooms and talk about weird shit. I sure don't wanna read this crap here though!

[Troubled]

I think you'll find that your faith in science and tests is just as blind as the faith of any fundamentalist.

Read that shit on a postcard?

[paulgiamatti]

You can't know anything.

Fundamentally and scientifically, this is true. I mean, I highly suspect that this is true, as have many other philosophers, intellectuals, and scientists. No scientific study that answers important questions about the universe is 100% conclusive, but we still go ahead and say that something is a fact or that something is true.

Knowledge is merely opinion.

And the reason we do this is because it would be really frustrating to have to say, "The likelihood of x being true falls within the percentile of 99.9-repeating." Just as it would be really frustrating to have to say, "I highly suspect that Uzbekistan is a real place. I've never been there, and I don't know anyone who's been there, but I think it is very likely that this place exists." We don't say that for a good reason - we just say Uzbekistan is a real place and that this is a fact. It is a part of human knowledge. It has transcended opinion and graduated to truth.

Shakespeare said it first - "There are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality - it doesn't explain love or spirituality"

First of all, Shakespeare never said this. This is a quote from a character in Tim Minchin's beat poem Storm who references Shakespeare. The original quote from Hamlet is as follows:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Shakespeare was right about philosophy, certainly. As Arthur Eddington said, "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."

The human body is a mystery, science just falls in a hole when it tries to explain the nature of the soul. Science is just how we're trained to look at reality. How does science explain psychics, auras, the power of prayer?

Things like love, spirituality, and the idea of a soul become more explainable at the level of the brain every single day. These things are being explained by neuroscience at this very moment while we sit here and play ForumQuest. Just because science doesn't have every single answer to everything in the universe yet doesn't have anything to say about how successful it's been in explaining reality to us so far. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for science. We owe everything to it, which is why it's our best indicator of truth. We can never know truth, but we can and must chase after it, and science simply provides us with the best compass for doing so. It is our true north, regardless of whether or not you or anyone else likes it.

[Mandalore93]

The biggest destruction that religion could face would come as the result of three things.

1. Teaching children basic logic and rational skills.

2. Comparison of world religions in primary education. Hard to believe in one thing exclusively when they all seem to be copying off each other.

3. Taxing religion. For whatever reason people's faith has never seemed to coincide with their pocket book. It's how the Muslims took the Christian heartland and turned it into Muslim strong holds within a century or two. For the most part they were very easy rulers...as long as the money was paid. Convert or pay.

[Mandalore93]

Also, since I can't seem to find the edit button in my alcohol induced state.

I also think that most agnostics are atheists and vice versa or else functionally atheists (pantheists, spiritualists). I can't think of any atheists who are a 7 on the scale.

I'm curious where all these throat cramming atheists are coming from? Are they visiting door to door in your area? Is there an atheist church on every block where you are? Are we wielding our tax-exempt billions on forcing atheism as the new state religion? Oh...they're posting on the internet? Oh fuck! OH GOD NOOOOO. PLEASE LORD SAVE US FROM THESE MACHETE WIELDING MANIACZZZZZZ! THEY'RE GOING TO FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS!

Oh...that's religious people who do that? Nahhhhhhh.

But on a more serious note, grouping atheists together as a group is disingenuous at best. There are certainly those who have the same values but there's certainly not a central command structure in place such as the Catholic Church or the other sects' equivalents. Anti-theists would be a different matter though, imo.

[paulgiamatti]

Atheists who make it a point to declare their atheism are just obnoxious. I have no problem with non-believers who reject this word. If someone asks me specifically, then yes - I am an atheist. A very agnostic atheist, but an atheist nonetheless. The new atheist movement as far as I'm concerned is a waste of time. Theism is solipsistic, but so is going around shoving in everyone's face what you don't believe in. We don't need any of this - we don't need visibility, and we don't need to create an in-group/out-group mentality. Atheists are easily identifiable to one another without a movement or a banner to march under.

And w/r/t agnosticism, I still stand by my argument about knowledge having no clear distinction from belief when we're talking about theism. I don't buy the idea of an agnostic theist; this idea means the same thing to me as an intellectually dishonest theist. In other words, not actually a theist, but rather someone who merely identifies as one despite questioning their own belief or perhaps not believing at all. Ironically, an intellectually honest thing to do when you're not claiming to have god on your side.

You can't be an agnostic without lacking or, at the very least, questioning belief.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Atheists who make it a point to declare their atheism are just obnoxious. I have no problem with non-believers who reject this word. If someone asks me specifically, then yes - I am an atheist. A very agnostic atheist, but an atheist nonetheless. The new atheist movement as far as I'm concerned is a waste of time. Theism is solipsistic, but so is going around shoving in everyone's face what you don't believe in. We don't need any of this - we don't need visibility, and we don't need to create an in-group/out-group mentality. Atheists are easily identifiable to one another without a movement or a banner to march under.

When people in government stop ignoring the separation of church and state (either via laws, money, or the pledge of allegiance) atheists won't complain about it.

When the general population doesn't associate atheism with "devil worship" atheists won't complain about it.

I could go on but you should get the idea. If you don't, you're part of the problem.

[paulgiamatti]

Those things can be spoken out against while including believers. That's what the whole idea of secularism entails - it's about building the wall between church and state while still including religious people who understand the importance of doing so. The people who wrote the U.S. constitution were religious people, and they understood as well as any of us that a secular society includes not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion.

The wall between church and state needs to be upheld, but we don't need to divide people in the process. A movement for atheism will only compartmentalize it and create just as many people against it as there are parading under it. If you really want a movement to represent you, join one of the many secular humanist organizations (http://www.secularhumanism.org/). If you want to attach yourself to an idea, attach yourself to skepticism or rationalism. If you want to devote yourself to something, become a scientist or a humanitarian.

[myriverse]

Ok, I'd like to be an Atheist. Seriously. It would help if someone could tell me how they *know* a god or gods don't exist. As an Atheist, I'd believe strictly in reason. Therefore, note that lack of evidence for is not evidence against, so all arguments beginning with 'We don't need a god to explain..' don't count. For the same reason, emotional arguments about why would we suffer if God was good, etc, don't count, as the question is not about the nature of God or gods but the existence of them.

Go.
Nothing whatsoever about the reality I interact with even comes close to suggesting that there could be a god or gods. The onus is not on atheists. It's on theists.