Is atheism a religion?

[Snorri1234]

And yet, you still consider your position superior? Lacking proof?

Sure thing. PROOF, though an excellent rapper, is not needed for the decision here. At least, the lack of proof (or evidence in fact) is what leads me to a conclusion. Much like the evidence that aether doesn't exist makes me think it doesn't exist.

Your objection to this basically boils down to the same thing creationism is founded on. The lack of evidence for your position doesn't mean that THE OTHER SIDE isn't wrong even though the evidence points towards them being way more right.

See, theists see proof. We acknowledge is it not proof that can necessarily be readily shared, particularly on the internet, (close and personal friends though you all be ..lol), but it IS proof. Agnostics acknowledge doubt. That is reasonable, just not our position. Atheists.. atheists like to claim that their position is the fully logical one, proven by science, etc. Now you are saying you admit you lack that proof, but still believe?

See, told you it was religion.

uh yeah, atheism is and always has been a belief. or, to put it better, a disbelief. for the very same reason we disbelief the existence of invisible unicorns and Zeus and that one Hindu god, we disbelieve the existence of your god.

[PLAYER57832]

And yet, you still consider your position superior? Lacking proof?

Sure thing. PROOF, though an excellent rapper, is not needed for the decision here. At least, the lack of proof (or evidence in fact) is what leads me to a conclusion. Much like the evidence that aether doesn't exist makes me think it doesn't exist.

Your objection to this basically boils down to the same thing creationism is founded on.

Creationism is the idea that God created al, so yes. The other .. the one about which there have been several threads is based on ignoring proof that exist.

If anything, that is more like atheism than belief in God.

The lack of evidence for your position doesn't mean that THE OTHER SIDE isn't wrong even though the evidence points towards them being way more right.

There you go again. Your sentence is true, except for that "more" bit. As long as you insist that your thinking is superior, all you really show is narrow-mindedness. And it doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree, the proof you feel you see (unless absolute). Not being able to even truly understand the other position means your mind is limited.
And yes, I absolutely say the same of those who believe in God and cannot begin to understand those who don't.

[Snorri1234]

The flaw in this position is that you're assuming a decision has to be made,

yupyup. A decision is made always. You either believe or don't believe, not believing isn't a choice you can really make.

However, I see no reason why this must be true. For practical matters such as the case you cited, of whether gravity actually exists, it makes pragmatic sense to have a belief system because it allows us to function normally. In the case of religion though, that argument fails, because there is no pragmatic reason why choosing to positively deny the existence of Gods, as opposed to taking no stance, is beneficial. If there is no call to make such a choice, then it is not logical to make one.

Of course, the very problem with your argument is that it essentially should be the same for gravity as it is for god. Agnostics do nothing in their live that is different from what atheists do (except maybe typing less on the interwebs) so for pragmatic purposes they are not different. You can either believe in gravity or remain agnostic about it, but it's not like you are going to throw yourself out of the window.

Did you even read what I said?

Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that if anything, there is reason not to take the stance, on the off chance that God exists, and he really hates atheism but doesn't mind agnosticism too much.

Odds are that he is going to condemn you anyway for not burning goats at his altar anyway.

[LikeYestrdaysJam]

It is infinitely more rational. You dismiss thousands upon thousands of gods and I simply dismiss one more. Unless you believe that not worshipping the greek pantheon is irrational you are simply being inconsistent.

(also, the point is really that atheism is more rational than agnosticism.)

Even if your logic were correct, this isn't really the best use of "infinite" as a descriptor. It seems your assertion is that atheism is better than religion because it rejects one more god than any religious person. That doesn't seem to give it much credit. And there is no way that atheism is more rational than agnosticism, because there is no basis for the belief that no gods exist.

No there is basis for the belief that no god exists, if there is no evidence i have seen of a god why would i believe in one you are the people who have no basis for believing in god. Until the moment something besides a book shows be god exists i will believe there is no god.
When god comes pearing through the clouds and places a dragon or unicorn or a new species on the ground then i will believe in a god. Just because youve convinced millions there is a god doesnt mean that is a basis for believing in god

[alex951]

Woodruff here, no, atheism is not a religion it is simply not believing in a higher being

[Metsfanmax]

yupyup. A decision is made always. You either believe or don't believe, not believing isn't a choice you can really make.

I have made no choice as to whether I believe God exists or I believe God does not exist. Therefore I stand as a contradiction to your claim.

Of course, the very problem with your argument is that it essentially should be the same for gravity as it is for god. Agnostics do nothing in their live that is different from what atheists do (except maybe typing less on the interwebs) so for pragmatic purposes they are not different. You can either believe in gravity or remain agnostic about it, but it's not like you are going to throw yourself out of the window.

It's not a very important distinction pragmatically, but it may be philosophically. The fact that atheists and agnostics make similar pragmatic choices does not justify the assertion that God does not exist. Your "analogy" with gravity fails here, because there is no analogue for "throwing yourself out the window" in this case. That is, except for what I've said below.

Odds are that he is going to condemn you anyway for not burning goats at his altar anyway.

As long as it's possible that agnosticism leads to a better result than atheism, then that's enough to justify not taking a stance from a pragmatic point of view. But we shouldn't need that, because as rational actors we have no need to make a stance when there is no evidence to take such a stance.

[nietzsche]

NO
Lock this thread

[Neoteny]

Pardon my late return to this discussion. Busy busy.

That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it. See Russell's teapot. If I assert that there is a mechanism other than evolution that explains the diversity of biology (other than a god, obviously), but then declare that it is supernatural and there's no way you can weigh the evidence to discern its merit, I would excuse your atheism with respect to my hypothesis, and I would expect you to call the agnostics irritating. Like, really, really irritating.

If atheism were truly the stance of not believing in God, then I would agree. But that is not what atheism is. Atheism is the belief that no supernatural beings (at least, the ones in the traditional religious sense) exist. We could get into a semantics debate, but the definition of atheism as "rejection of theism" is trivial and not philosophically meaningful, so let's not accept that one. I am an agnostic and I believe that to mean that there is no meaningful stance on the existence or non-existence of God.

Oh, I'm glad you can redefine things in ways that mesh more closely with your worldview. Atheism encompasses a wide range of views or opinions. Some would agree with your definition. Many would not. I don't particularly want to get into a semantic debate; I'm just arguing from my own perspective. That said, I'm not just rejecting theism and the existence of the "supernatural" as it pertains to religion, I'm rejecting, particularly in this thread, the intellectual process that allows you to say "any particular thing that you can make up that cannot be proven or disproven should not be assumed to not exist." You still have not addressed the fact that you are willing to lend credence to a concept toward which evidence cannot be given, and does not explain anything fruitfully. Ever. What's the point, other than to avoid stepping on someone's toes?

So, are you agnostic? Because that's not an agnostic claim. An agnostic would say that there is no way to know if god is outside of science. If you think god is outside of science, then you are following the lead of theists (or at least just taking their word on it) by repeating such.

Depends on whose god you're talking about. Some gods are men with extra powers. You're sounding more and more Abrahamic the more you type. Speaking of Abrahamic gods, if a god did such things that violate the normal universal parameters (you know, bringing people back to life, curing blindness, etc.), science would be able to observe them, and surely we could recognize that these miracles would be of supernatural origin. Perhaps god only does things when we're not looking, eh? Either way, even if that puts him outside of naturalistic inquiry perhaps, the entire point of most gods is that they are observable somehow.

I wasn't arguing that if God existed, this is what he should look like; I was simply arguing about the Abrahamic God because that's the one most people believe in, and using that as a reference for my argument. However, it was not a mistake. The entire point of religion is that it is faith-based. If you could prove or disprove the existence of God, then ipso facto it would no longer be religion. So we have to be debating about things of supernatural origin; there's nothing to debate about if that's not the case, because we can all agree that if science can disprove or prove something, we should just believe that.

And the Abrahamic god, scripturally anyhow, does a lot of things that would by scientifically observable. The recent boobquake thing parodies that a bit, but curing whatever illness and changing the weather or outcomes of sporting events are all testable things. I'm being slightly facetious, but there is plenty that is claimed by any particular religion that could be scientifically tested. Therefore, a god that does things with us is not completely outside the burden of proof. That said, a god that does not interact with us in a measurable way is a pretty useless god that doesn't really require much in the way of belief, right?

I'm talking about singularities, man. That's the only "great unknown" that a creator god has left to hide behind. Your religion is showing again, Mr. I'm-arguing-as-an-agnostic. I'm not making philosophical claims. If there is nothing a god contributes to our universe, what's the point in believing in a god without any evidence? See my evolution allegory.

Well, so far you have done a terrible job of proving that god cannot be disproven. But even still, the point that a god is unnecessary, especially because s/he cannot be proven or disproven, is still damning. Why would you believe in something unnecessary that no one can give you evidence for? Why is throwing up your hands in despair more logical than rejecting such silliness?

Again, this goes back to how we define atheism, which I believe to be a positive assertion. In no way do I support believing in a god. I just believe there's no evidence for rejection of a god, and thus the only rational/intelligent/logical choice is simply to not take a stance.

Really? All the conflicting stories as to the nature of god, the fact that all the metaphors and myths are reflections of social constructs, and the personification of nearly every god is not evidence for them being a human creation? Whatever dude.

It's biased to call that "throwing your hands up in despair," because that assumes the existence of a right answer. But an agnostic, mainly by definition if nothing else, takes the stance that there is no right answer. So it's not a nihilistic point of view, it's just a statement that humans are finite and limited beings, and some knowledge is therefore outside of your bounds. Making an assertion about such knowledge is pointless.

Wat. Of course there is a right answer, regardless of whether it's empirically proveable. Either there is a god or there isn't. No assertion about knowledge is necessary. We know plenty now that leads toward evidence of a lack of a deity. For example; there isn't a need for an intelligent creator, nor an external moral compass. So why do we not know if there is a god again?

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

What is confusing about that statement? Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.

There's nothing confusing. You just keep asserting that your stance is the rational one. I can only respond with "You still have not addressed the fact that you are willing to lend credence to a concept toward which evidence cannot be given, and does not explain anything fruitfully," so many times before you just become a broken record.

There is a huge difference between no evidence and no evidence that can be readily shown other people, evidence that is testable, etc.

This is what so many of you wish to dismiss. It's not that there is no evidence for God, its that the evidence is something more easily dismissed than scientific proofs. This does not, however, translate into a lack of logic or reasoning for those who believe God exists, any more than a lack of absolute proveable evidence means some scientific theories are definitely wrong.

You're right; atheists won't take as evidence how someone else feels, which is really what it often comes down to. There really isn't a good reason to, since millions (billions even) of other people feel differently. The few things that are more tangible are always better explained by simpler phenomenon (chemistry, biology, physics, cosmology). I don't necessarily think basing these things on untestable feelings is illogical, but I don't think you should expect to be taken seriously when we're talking about evidence. Is something that cannot be conveyed to another individual something that can be called evidence? Is it that theists are much more easy to convince? What key element are atheists missing?

Actually, on that level, just about everything, including what you (and I) call verifiable evidence is really "feeling". You use the term "feeling" as a handy way to say, again, that atheism is just "more logical" or "more based on proof". That you think this, though, only shows how little you understand of those of us who believe in God. Now, I am not saying your position is "illogical" or "stupid". I AM saying that to make that claim about others, because you don't understand, are not capable, perhaps, of understanding what we think and why is very narrow minded and, frankly, unscientific.

As for "it all can be explained by science". The idea that a miracle is only something that cannot be at all explained by science is held only by a few. I believe God made this world and while he is fully capable of violating those "rules", mostly does not.

I don't count statistics as a feeling. I don't know exactly what you're arguing here, but I have plenty of experience with being in a theistic mindset. I don't think it's illogical or stupid, but I don't think it accurately represents the way the world is either. That's fine, but my issue is that belief in god really has nothing to stand on as far as conveying it to others, and the idea that this is on equal ground with disbelief in god (because the burden of proof really is not on us; the null hypothesis should be that there is no god; this is where agnostics irritate me: we have all this evidence around us, and they think that we can't comment on it for some reason) Sure, god might not break the rules often, but I'm saying that when he does, science should notice.

Furthermore, as for absolute proof, the atheist have an almost impossible task there, because it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. To contrast, only one piece of evidence is necessary to prove God exists. Most of us who believe have seen evidence, just not evidence that we can trot out for others to see.

You also confuse absolute proof with evidence. Proof is absolute. Evidence, however, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Few will say that there is proof of God, but most of us will say there is evidence. (and atheists say the same in reverse).

I'm not talking about absolute proof. Most atheists are not. We're talking about evidence. There is very little convincing evidence for even the existence of the supernatural. I'm not talking about absolute proof, but, seriously, all you can really give an atheist as evidence anymore is your word. "Trust me; god has revealed himself to me." Give me something other than the miscellany of myth and urban legend. All that I've seen would be dismissed from a court of law faster than a Charles Manson appeals request.

You actually voiced my argument without even realizing it. "Very little evidence" is not the same as "no evidence".

Eh, not really. I changed my modifier to "very little" because we have not explained the origin of the universe yet. That's really one of the few areas that we have no real idea of what the hell might have happened, and therefore it's the only area where "god did it" might have any bearing. I don't think you want your god to hide behind that.

At any rate, again, we are talking about evidence you, yourself do not happen to see. That doesn't mean its not there. When someone presents evidence in science that cannot be replicated, it is discarded as proof, yes. However, then that person and others try to go back and find a way to prove it. In this case, the proof is not anything that can be (currently) tryly subjected to proof. It is not scientific, but it is valid. It is as valid as Leonardo's or Andy Warhol's paintings are valid representations of "art".

That's perhaps fair enough. Like I've said previously, and I think snorri said elsewhere, you will be hard-pressed to find an atheist who will say he is 100% sure god does not exist. Any one will tell you what it will take to be convinced. We aren't all blind to evidence. But the history of evidential inquiry points the odds against a god. That said, how do you expect us to believe without evidence? What is it about atheists that is being held back? What evidence are we missing that theists are not?

In before "god is beyond blah blah blah."

Oh wait, here it is.

There are two main flaws with the type of argumentation you're using. The first is that you seem to trying to prove the validity of atheism by proving the lack of validity of major organized religion. This is in no way a logical proof. Christians may have it wrong, and in fact all religious people may have it wrong, but that doesn't make atheism correct.

That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it.

Two reasons. First, you again try to claim that empirical, testable evidence is the only evidence there can be.

I don't think you can demonstrate that there is another type of evidence. Or are we talking about how we feel again?

Second, you cannot actually prove that God is unnecessary.

Yet. He is not necessary for more and more every day.

All you can prove is that you don't have to acknowledge God to live on earth, etc. Sure, presence of God is a belief, and assertion, but so is belief that no God exists.

The way I see it, the non-existence of god is the null. It is the most parsimonious way a universe could be. Of course it's a belief, but without any evidence for a god, how can the belief in a god be seen as "equally rational," as so many agnostics and theists claim. Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence. But there is a suspension of something that is required to believe in something without evidence.

The intellectual dishonesty is the claim, again, that failure to understand theism truly, translates into a higher order of intelligence. It is convenient atheists, to believe that people who think like them are more intelligent, but simply not true, except where atheists self-define it so.

Again, I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has to do with some willingness to believe without evidence. I am not willing to do that. More importantly, I'm not capable of doing that.

[PLAYER57832]

Yet all great scientific discoveries, all inventions, art, literature, even many business ventures (not all), etc. ALL begin first with a dream, a belief, absent of real proof. In fact, many of the greatest achievements involve challenging known evidence. From Pasteur to Einstein to even, well, Andy Warhol.

[Metsfanmax]

Oh, I'm glad you can redefine things in ways that mesh more closely with your worldview. Atheism encompasses a wide range of views or opinions. Some would agree with your definition. Many would not. I don't particularly want to get into a semantic debate; I'm just arguing from my own perspective. That said, I'm not just rejecting theism and the existence of the "supernatural" as it pertains to religion, I'm rejecting, particularly in this thread, the intellectual process that allows you to say "any particular thing that you can make up that cannot be proven or disproven should not be assumed to not exist." You still have not addressed the fact that you are willing to lend credence to a concept toward which evidence cannot be given, and does not explain anything fruitfully. Ever. What's the point, other than to avoid stepping on someone's toes?

I didn't realize I had said anything which might imply I would lend any credence to religion. Let us be clear then: I think religion is patently stupid, and anyone who believes in a god/invisible pink unicorn is probably wasting their time. But that's not relevant. You keep on trying to imply that because I might be implying that religion has credence, therefore your argument is correct. But that's nonsense. I think religion and atheism are both nonsensical views, and for exactly the same reason. I am not lending credence toward either, because both are assertions based in exactly zero evidence. Given that, it seems that most of your argumentation is inapplicable, since it seems to be based in an ad hominem attack. I don't understand why you think this is even clever argumentation; even if I somehow were "lending credence" to religion, that would not justify atheism at all.

As to the part about me "redefining" things, my definition may be a little bit generalizing; but the point is, it applies to anyone who believes, even to a small extent, that there cannot be a god. My argumentation certainly applies to your definition: you (and everyone else in this thread) have failed to give any logical reasons why that intellectual process you mentioned is faulty.

And the Abrahamic god, scripturally anyhow, does a lot of things that would by scientifically observable. The recent boobquake thing parodies that a bit, but curing whatever illness and changing the weather or outcomes of sporting events are all testable things. I'm being slightly facetious, but there is plenty that is claimed by any particular religion that could be scientifically tested. Therefore, a god that does things with us is not completely outside the burden of proof. That said, a god that does not interact with us in a measurable way is a pretty useless god that doesn't really require much in the way of belief, right?

On the contrary, the only meaningful god (in the philosophical sense) is the one that does not interact with us in a meaningful way. That is the point of the Abrahamic religions. If we could observe god, then faith would have no purpose, and there would be no reward for the faithful. Obviously if a supernatural being did exist and meaningfully interacted with us, we wouldn't need to have a philosophical debate, we would have a pragmatic one about what to do about it.

Really? All the conflicting stories as to the nature of god, the fact that all the metaphors and myths are reflections of social constructs, and the personification of nearly every god is not evidence for them being a human creation? Whatever dude.

That is correct, that is no reason for rejection of that god. The fact that humans are generally stupid does not, in and of itself, make those views incorrect. By your own stance (see below), there is an objective truth, so the fact that humans believe in a certain truth has zero effect on the validity of that statement. If the Christian God does exist, and the Bible is correct, then the fact that Christians have generally made some bad decisions and been bad people in many cases is irrelevant, is it not? It seems that most of your argumentation is based on the idea that since religious people are crazy/fallible/human, religion is incorrect. But that's just an absurd point of view, and a major logical fallacy.

Wat. Of course there is a right answer, regardless of whether it's empirically proveable. Either there is a god or there isn't. No assertion about knowledge is necessary. We know plenty now that leads toward evidence of a lack of a deity. For example; there isn't a need for an intelligent creator, nor an external moral compass. So why do we not know if there is a god again?

The question of attainable knowledge is something that belongs in another thread entirely, but suffice it to say here that if we, by definition, cannot ever know the right answer, then the fact that there is a right answer is rather irrelevant.

There's nothing confusing. You just keep asserting that your stance is the rational one. I can only respond with "You still have not addressed the fact that you are willing to lend credence to a concept toward which evidence cannot be given, and does not explain anything fruitfully," so many times before you just become a broken record.

See above. I lend no support to either religion or atheism, and even if I did, that would not lend credibility to your stance.

[PLAYER57832]

There is a huge difference between no evidence and no evidence that can be readily shown other people, evidence that is testable, etc.

This is what so many of you wish to dismiss. It's not that there is no evidence for God, its that the evidence is something more easily dismissed than scientific proofs. This does not, however, translate into a lack of logic or reasoning for those who believe God exists, any more than a lack of absolute proveable evidence means some scientific theories are definitely wrong.

You're right; atheists won't take as evidence how someone else feels, which is really what it often comes down to. There really isn't a good reason to, since millions (billions even) of other people feel differently. The few things that are more tangible are always better explained by simpler phenomenon (chemistry, biology, physics, cosmology). I don't necessarily think basing these things on untestable feelings is illogical, but I don't think you should expect to be taken seriously when we're talking about evidence. Is something that cannot be conveyed to another individual something that can be called evidence? Is it that theists are much more easy to convince? What key element are atheists missing?

Actually, on that level, just about everything, including what you (and I) call verifiable evidence is really "feeling". You use the term "feeling" as a handy way to say, again, that atheism is just "more logical" or "more based on proof". That you think this, though, only shows how little you understand of those of us who believe in God. Now, I am not saying your position is "illogical" or "stupid". I AM saying that to make that claim about others, because you don't understand, are not capable, perhaps, of understanding what we think and why is very narrow minded and, frankly, unscientific.

As for "it all can be explained by science". The idea that a miracle is only something that cannot be at all explained by science is held only by a few. I believe God made this world and while he is fully capable of violating those "rules", mostly does not.

I don't count statistics as a feeling. I don't know exactly what you're arguing here, but I have plenty of experience with being in a theistic mindset. I don't think it's illogical or stupid, but I don't think it accurately represents the way the world is either. That's fine, but my issue is that belief in god really has nothing to stand on as far as conveying it to others, and the idea that this is on equal ground with disbelief in god (because the burden of proof really is not on us; the null hypothesis should be that there is no god; this is where agnostics irritate me: we have all this evidence around us, and they think that we can't comment on it for some reason) Sure, god might not break the rules often, but I'm saying that when he does, science should notice.

Everything we think and do can be boiled down to a feeling. Statistic, etc are useful tools to try and get away from human being's fundamental biases, but they are just tools. If you think statistics are not often tainted by people's feelings, then you have little experience with them. Granted, a good statistician is aware of the biases, can operate to avoid "contamination" as much as possible, but failure to recognize limits is the biggest reason for faulty results in studies.

Furthermore, as for absolute proof, the atheist have an almost impossible task there, because it is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. To contrast, only one piece of evidence is necessary to prove God exists. Most of us who believe have seen evidence, just not evidence that we can trot out for others to see.

You also confuse absolute proof with evidence. Proof is absolute. Evidence, however, can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Few will say that there is proof of God, but most of us will say there is evidence. (and atheists say the same in reverse).

Eh, not really. I changed my modifier to "very little" because we have not explained the origin of the universe yet. That's really one of the few areas that we have no real idea of what the hell might have happened, and therefore it's the only area where "god did it" might have any bearing. I don't think you want your god to hide behind that.

Want a list of what we don' t yet know?

How the Earth was actually created (not just the universe), what the deepest reaches of the ocean are like, what other planets are like, if there is other life "out there". We also don't know why some people are evil, others in equally terrible circumstances become "saints". We don't really know much about why people do what they do. (we know some, but there is a lot more we don't know).. and among the biggest puzzles, how it is that people can see the same evidence and yet see very different reasons for that evidence.

At any rate, again, we are talking about evidence you, yourself do not happen to see. That doesn't mean its not there. When someone presents evidence in science that cannot be replicated, it is discarded as proof, yes. However, then that person and others try to go back and find a way to prove it. In this case, the proof is not anything that can be (currently) tryly subjected to proof. It is not scientific, but it is valid. It is as valid as Leonardo's or Andy Warhol's paintings are valid representations of "art".

That's perhaps fair enough. Like I've said previously, and I think snorri said elsewhere, you will be hard-pressed to find an atheist who will say he is 100% sure god does not exist. Any one will tell you what it will take to be convinced. We aren't all blind to evidence. But the history of evidential inquiry points the odds against a god. That said, how do you expect us to believe without evidence? What is it about atheists that is being held back? What evidence are we missing that theists are not?

Look up. The problem is that atheists often START by dismissing the very evidence that would provide the proof.

In before "god is beyond blah blah blah."

Oh wait, here it is.

There are two main flaws with the type of argumentation you're using. The first is that you seem to trying to prove the validity of atheism by proving the lack of validity of major organized religion. This is in no way a logical proof. Christians may have it wrong, and in fact all religious people may have it wrong, but that doesn't make atheism correct.

That was not my intent. I apologize for not communicating that appropriately. I am trying to highlight the complete lack of empirical communicability of evidence for the existence of a supernatural anything. No religion or individual has managed to get around this. When you recognize that god is not necessary (seriously, all that's left is creation, and at the rate we've been progressing, it's only a matter of time [pun intended]), the positive assertion that a god exists requires more than just assertion. Bleating about how we can never know either way is intellectually dishonest. If it is unnecessary, and cannot be demonstrated to exist, why is believing in it as rational as not believing in it.

Two reasons. First, you again try to claim that empirical, testable evidence is the only evidence there can be.[/quote]

I don't think you can demonstrate that there is another type of evidence. Or are we talking about how we feel again?[/quote]
You dismiss feelings and other "soft" evidence to your peril. We and most life on earth are not robots. Feelings and response is a big part of what makes life the richness it is. (and the terrible parts, too).

Second, you cannot actually prove that God is unnecessary.

Yet. He is not necessary for more and more every day.

That is your perception, because it is what you wish to believe. I believe otherwise. Again, you confuse what you feel to be sensible, what can be thought with reason, with absolute proof and truth. Confusing the two leads to many, many errors in life, not just science.

All you can prove is that you don't have to acknowledge God to live on earth, etc. Sure, presence of God is a belief, and assertion, but so is belief that no God exists.

The way I see it, the non-existence of god is the null.

The "way you see it" is the problem. That you cannot see an option doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You accept this without a thought in most other instances, but for some reason think God should be an exception. Why? And, who knows, maybe there is an "other".

It is the most parsimonious way a universe could be. Of course it's a belief, but without any evidence for a god, how can the belief in a god be seen as "equally rational," as so many agnostics and theists claim. Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence. But there is a suspension of something that is required to believe in something without evidence.

Again, you confuse evidence you don't see with no evidence and you confuse what you believe to be true, what is possible, with elimination of other options. Atheism is a logical option. However, so is belief in God, provided one does not put in attributes that are proven wrong already. (Thunder is not Thor hitting his hammer on an anvil, at least not in any real and physical sense).

The intellectual dishonesty is the claim, again, that failure to understand theism truly, translates into a higher order of intelligence. It is convenient atheists, to believe that people who think like them are more intelligent, but simply not true, except where atheists self-define it so.

Again, I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. I think it has to do with some willingness to believe without evidence. I am not willing to do that. More importantly, I'm not capable of doing that.

No, it has to do with a willingness to look at different kinds of evidence. Its like the businessman who ignores impacts of pollution because they are not directly related to his business, are externalities he can safetly ignore in his profit equations. You ignore things that are difficult to understand, are hard to assess physically, to quantify, because it is convenient. Science, any great advances rarely come from staying with what is convenient

[Snorri1234]

yupyup. A decision is made always. You either believe or don't believe, not believing isn't a choice you can really make.

I have made no choice as to whether I believe God exists or I believe God does not exist. Therefore I stand as a contradiction to your claim.

"I think religion is patently stupid, and anyone who believes in a god/invisible pink unicorn is probably wasting their time. "

You know what that says? It says that you don't believe in God(s). That makes you an atheist according to the general accepted use of the term.

Of course, the very problem with your argument is that it essentially should be the same for gravity as it is for god. Agnostics do nothing in their live that is different from what atheists do (except maybe typing less on the interwebs) so for pragmatic purposes they are not different. You can either believe in gravity or remain agnostic about it, but it's not like you are going to throw yourself out of the window.

It's not a very important distinction pragmatically, but it may be philosophically. The fact that atheists and agnostics make similar pragmatic choices does not justify the assertion that God does not exist. Your "analogy" with gravity fails here, because there is no analogue for "throwing yourself out the window" in this case. That is, except for what I've said below.

Actually, the analogue for throwing yourself out of the window in this case is "worship this or that God". Which is required by every religion.

Odds are that he is going to condemn you anyway for not burning goats at his altar anyway.

As long as it's possible that agnosticism leads to a better result than atheism, then that's enough to justify not taking a stance from a pragmatic point of view. But we shouldn't need that, because as rational actors we have no need to make a stance when there is no evidence to take such a stance.

Ah, I see the problem. You think this is a reasonable stance to take.

There is enough evidence to take a stance, that's the problem people have with your view.

[Metsfanmax]

You know what that says? It says that you don't believe in God(s). That makes you an atheist according to the general accepted use of the term.

I neither believe in gods nor disbelieve in gods. The fact that I think Christians are silly hardly makes me an atheist. Anyone who has any knowledge of religious philosophy recognizes that my view is what is commonly considered to be agnosticism, as opposed to atheism, which is the positive assertion that no gods exist.

Actually, the analogue for throwing yourself out of the window in this case is "worship this or that God". Which is required by every religion.

Again, major organized religion may be wrong, but that does not mean that god does not exist. What we are arguing about here is not whether Christianity/Islam/Judaism/whatever are correct, but whether the gods they believe in actually exist. It's entirely possible that the Abrahamic god does exist, but none of the major religions are worshiping him in a way that he desires. It's all irrelevant though.

Ah, I see the problem. You think this is a reasonable stance to take.

There is enough evidence to take a stance, that's the problem people have with your view.

None of you have actually been able to say what that evidence is, though, you simply keep on asserting that there's a justification for outright rejecting the possibility that a god exists without backing it up.

[silvanricky]

God is defined as the creator of the Universe. THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not proof, but at least evidence. The flying teapot is different because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It's not a hard concept.

THAT IS A DUMB DEFINITION!


Essentially, what you just said is that God is the big bang. nothing more.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying God is the creative cause of the big bang or however else you want to describe the first act. He's not saying God is the big bang itself.

Sure thang, and that basically makes him the big bang. Being the cause of the big bang and nothing else makes you indistinguishable from the big bang itself.

You're pretty thick, Snorri. If you can't distinguish between God being considered the creator of the big bang (separate from it and the cause of it) from God being the big bang then.....

ahh, I want to be nice

That's like saying someone builds a house, but they're actually the house itself. Someone procreates children, but they aren't the parent - they're the actual child that they just procreated.

[Snorri1234]

You know what that says? It says that you don't believe in God(s). That makes you an atheist according to the general accepted use of the term.

I neither believe in gods nor disbelieve in gods.

This is by definition impossible.

I continue to be baffled by this assertion people make where belief is now somehow different from all other things. You are not in quantum superposition, absence of belief is absence of belief.

Here is what you just said: "I don't believe in Gods and I don't don't believe in Gods." You know what a double negative is, right?

The fact that I think Christians are silly hardly makes me an atheist. Anyone who has any knowledge of religious philosophy recognizes that my view is what is commonly considered to be agnosticism, as opposed to atheism, which is the positive assertion that no gods exist.

Anyone who has any knowledge of religious philosophy knows that agnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive. Shit man, Huxley himself never meant for agnosticism to be a creed, it's merely a position on the question of whether absolute knowledge exists at all.

I'm an agnostic, johnblue is agnostic, Neoteny is agnostic. We are also atheists and theists because we realize that belief is not the same as knowledge.

Actually, the analogue for throwing yourself out of the window in this case is "worship this or that God". Which is required by every religion.

Again, major organized religion may be wrong, but that does not mean that god does not exist. What we are arguing about here is not whether Christianity/Islam/Judaism/whatever are correct, but whether the gods they believe in actually exist. It's entirely possible that the Abrahamic god does exist, but none of the major religions are worshiping him in a way that he desires. It's all irrelevant though.

Huh, how is it irrelevant?

Ah, I see the problem. You think this is a reasonable stance to take.

There is enough evidence to take a stance, that's the problem people have with your view.

None of you have actually been able to say what that evidence is, though, you simply keep on asserting that there's a justification for outright rejecting the possibility that a god exists without backing it up.

Except that none of us do this. We say that there is justification for not believing God exists, much as we say there is a justification for believing that evolution is real or a number of other things we say it's perfectly reasonable to take a stance on.

[Snorri1234]

God is defined as the creator of the Universe. THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not proof, but at least evidence. The flying teapot is different because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It's not a hard concept.

THAT IS A DUMB DEFINITION!


Essentially, what you just said is that God is the big bang. nothing more.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying God is the creative cause of the big bang or however else you want to describe the first act. He's not saying God is the big bang itself.

Sure thang, and that basically makes him the big bang. Being the cause of the big bang and nothing else makes you indistinguishable from the big bang itself.

You're pretty thick, Snorri. If you can't distinguish between God being considered the creator of the big bang (separate from it and the cause of it) from God being the big bang then.....

ahh, I want to be nice

That's like saying someone builds a house, but they're actually the house itself. Someone procreates children, but they aren't the parent - they're the actual child that they just procreated.

Huh? No, it's not like saying that at all. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, saying that God caused the big bang is nonsensical and pointless because then God is the beginning of the universe. (essentially, you can of course seperate God from the big bang but the problem is that your seperation has fuckall meaning.)

johnblue redefined the big bang as god. the spark that started the big bang can not be said to be different from the big bang.

[PLAYER57832]

Huh? No, it's not like saying that at all. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, saying that God caused the big bang is nonsensical and pointless because then God is the beginning of the universe. (essentially, you can of course seperate God from the big bang but the problem is that your seperation has fuckall meaning.)

johnblue redefined the big bang as god. the spark that started the big bang can not be said to be different from the big bang.

Among other reasons, there might just be more than one universe and all might not be a part of the Big Bang, even if the Big Bang proves the true beginning. (not saying I really like this answer, because it sort of just pushes off the answer, but regarding any specific origin theory, it is valid reasoning).

[Snorri1234]

Huh? No, it's not like saying that at all. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, saying that God caused the big bang is nonsensical and pointless because then God is the beginning of the universe. (essentially, you can of course seperate God from the big bang but the problem is that your seperation has fuckall meaning.)

johnblue redefined the big bang as god. the spark that started the big bang can not be said to be different from the big bang.

Among other reasons, there might just be more than one universe and all might not be a part of the Big Bang, even if the Big Bang proves the true beginning. (not saying I really like this answer, because it sort of just pushes off the answer, but regarding any specific origin theory, it is valid reasoning).

true, I'm just not cool with people who use definitions of god as proof of god.

[PLAYER57832]

Huh? No, it's not like saying that at all. The big bang is the beginning of the universe, saying that God caused the big bang is nonsensical and pointless because then God is the beginning of the universe. (essentially, you can of course seperate God from the big bang but the problem is that your seperation has fuckall meaning.)

johnblue redefined the big bang as god. the spark that started the big bang can not be said to be different from the big bang.

Among other reasons, there might just be more than one universe and all might not be a part of the Big Bang, even if the Big Bang proves the true beginning. (not saying I really like this answer, because it sort of just pushes off the answer, but regarding any specific origin theory, it is valid reasoning).

true, I'm just not cool with people who use definitions of god as proof of god.

I agree, but in a sense, that is what you and Neoteny are doing for Atheism. You define evidence, etc, to exclude the very things to which theists look. Just saying...

[Metsfanmax]

Except that none of us do this. We say that there is justification for not believing God exists, much as we say there is a justification for believing that evolution is real or a number of other things we say it's perfectly reasonable to take a stance on.

You just did exactly what I said. You said that you claim to know a justification for not believing God exists, but you failed to say what it is.

[PLAYER57832]

Except that none of us do this. We say that there is justification for not believing God exists, much as we say there is a justification for believing that evolution is real or a number of other things we say it's perfectly reasonable to take a stance on.

You just did exactly what I said. You said that you claim to know a justification for not believing God exists, but you failed to say what it is.

In fairness, he has. It is his perception of lack of "visible"/proveable evidence. I disagree, I believe there is evidence. (though his position is rational)

To contrast, I am not really sure even what your position is, except to object. (sorry, but true).

[Metsfanmax]

Except that none of us do this. We say that there is justification for not believing God exists, much as we say there is a justification for believing that evolution is real or a number of other things we say it's perfectly reasonable to take a stance on.

You just did exactly what I said. You said that you claim to know a justification for not believing God exists, but you failed to say what it is.

In fairness, he has. It is his perception of lack of "visible"/proveable evidence. I disagree, I believe there is evidence. (though his position is rational)

To contrast, I am not really sure even what your position is, except to object. (sorry, but true).

That is not evidence for the position that God does not exist. It is merely a pragmatic reason why one might choose not to believe in a god.

My position is that I have no position, so yes, your description of it is correct. I think that having a religious belief (even if that belief is that no gods exist) is silly. If this position irritates you, it is only because it is so firmly instilled in everyone's consciousness that they are either religious or atheist, when I do not see why this must be the case.

[PLAYER57832]

Except that none of us do this. We say that there is justification for not believing God exists, much as we say there is a justification for believing that evolution is real or a number of other things we say it's perfectly reasonable to take a stance on.

You just did exactly what I said. You said that you claim to know a justification for not believing God exists, but you failed to say what it is.

In fairness, he has. It is his perception of lack of "visible"/proveable evidence. I disagree, I believe there is evidence. (though his position is rational)

To contrast, I am not really sure even what your position is, except to object. (sorry, but true).

That is not evidence for the position that God does not exist. It is merely a pragmatic reason why one might choose not to believe in a god.

Lack of evidence is not proof, no, but it can be seen as evidence.

My position is that I have no position, so yes, your description of it is correct. I think that having a religious belief (even if that belief is that no gods exist) is silly. If this position irritates you, it is only because it is so firmly instilled in everyone's consciousness that they are either religious or atheist, when I do not see why this must be the case.

Irritates? No. Its just that you completely and utterly fail to make sensible arguments.

I disagree with snorri and Neoteny, and many people who post here. You, I cannot even truly disagree with, because, well, there is just nothing there. Its like disagreeing with a vacume..

[Metsfanmax]

Lack of evidence is not proof, no, but it can be seen as evidence.

Perhaps by someone who has never properly used the word "evidence" before. No one would take it as "evidence" that alien life forms do not exist simply because we have never seen them, yet for some reason people take it as "evidence" that God does not exist for exactly the same reason.

Irritates? No. Its just that you completely and utterly fail to make sensible arguments.

I disagree with snorri and Neoteny, and many people who post here. You, I cannot even truly disagree with, because, well, there is just nothing there. Its like disagreeing with a vacume..

You have failed to show in what my arguments are not sensible. My view is the only rational view presented here; to make an assertion as to the existence of God without actual evidence one way or the other is the nonsensical view. I challenge you to provide me with even one logical justification for believing either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odjsRY4Scrc

you forced my hand