Why atheism?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Regret
Most questions on here are directed at religious people, given this, I decided to question the atheists.

Why atheism over religion? Why do you believe that there is no God? Why not agnostic at the least?

It seems to me that a stance such as atheism takes a decent amount of faith in the absence of such a figure, as the absence of evidence cannot be held as evidence.

In my opinion, atheism presents itself as a possible stumbling block to discovery and advancement as it is based in an assumption that is just as untestable as the opposing assumption. I do not believe it necessary to consider the possibility of God as an explanation in scientific research just because it is possible, but I believe the absolute denial of the possibility is illogical and poorly rationalized.

Shakyamunison
Technically, am I an atheist because I do not believe in a god, if it is defined as a supernatural male being worshiped as the creator of the universe? I do believe that the universe is a living being that we are a part of, that I call God for continents sake. So, were would you categories me?

ThePittman

Regret
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Technically, am I an atheist because I do not believe in a god, if it is defined as a supernatural male being worshiped as the creator of the universe? I do believe that the universe is a living being that we are a part of, that I call God for continents sake. So, were would you categories me? I would not categorize Buddhists as atheist in my view of atheism. I think the term needs to be slightly redefined as I think the term was created in a civilization where religions such as Buddhism were not present.



Definitions 1 and 2 should be altered to have and/or such that:

1 The study of the nature of God and/or religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2 A system or school of opinions concerning God and/or religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

I believe Buddhism would be defined as a theology, thus Buddhist Theology is an accurate term I believe.

Perhaps I should restate my subject to atheologists that have a atheistic stance?

Regret

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
But as to the denial of the possibility, why is this view held? Skepticism and suspicion I can respect, but they are not absolute. I am not referencing religions in any manner, only the possibility of the existence of God. Religious skepticism and disbelief hold much more validity for me than atheism, which I find to be irrational.

You misinterperet atheism and agnosticism.

Agnositcs don't have an answer. They don't want to prove or disprove existance of gods. Many just don't think the question matters.

An athiest thinks that no gods exist. That doesn't mean that any they deny total possibility. The same holds true for religion. Religious people have to rationally concede that there is a possibility that no god exists.

Personally, most of my beliefs come from a progression basically stating that religions were false pretenses made around personal interpreations of percieved gods. In my opinion the only reason that religion is still around is because people choose to teach it from birth. Therefore it would be my personal opinion that if a god existed (which is both irrational and contradictory to every other aspect of existance) the probability that we here on Earth have a proper religiondescription of that god is about as close to 0 as you can get.

There come a point, in all rational thought, where if the probability approaces zero so much that your functial probability becomes 0. The intellectual proabalilty is still a physical number, and you have to admit that, but for all intents and purposes, god is fake.

ThePittman

ThePittman
Originally posted by Alliance
There come a point, in all rational thought, where if the probability approaces zero so much that your functial probability becomes 0. The intellectual proabalilty is still a physical number, and you have to admit that, but for all intents and purposes, god is fake. Very well said thumb up

Alliance
Thanks, I've thougut this through a lot over the years.

Shakyamunison
However, my religion does not worship a God. I personally believe in a God but other members would consider themselves as atheists.

Alliance
Regret, also don't forget that there are degrees of atheism as well, I'm weak athiest, which is basically an agnostic that opens his eyes ninja.

Like in any religion (in this case religious pilosophy) the radical elements do not reflect well on the moderate majority.

Lana
The simple and short of it, for me, is that I find the idea of some higher being controlling everything silly and irrational. There is more to it, and it's mostly due to a lack of evidence to show otherwise (and remember that burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim), but that is largely why I do not believe in any sort of god or religion.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
You misinterperet atheism and agnosticism.

Agnositcs don't have an answer. They don't want to prove or disprove existance of gods. Many just don't think the question matters.

An athiest thinks that no gods exist. That doesn't mean that any they deny total possibility. The same holds true for religion. Religious people have to rationally concede that there is a possibility that no god exists.

Personally, most of my beliefs come from a progression basically stating that religions were false pretenses made around personal interpreations of percieved gods. In my opinion the only reason that religion is still around is because people choose to teach it from birth. Therefore it would be my personal opinion that if a god existed (which is both irrational and contradictory to every other aspect of existance) the probability that we here on Earth have a proper religiondescription of that god is about as close to 0 as you can get.

There come a point, in all rational thought, where if the probability approaces zero so much that your functial probability becomes 0. The intellectual proabalilty is still a physical number, and you have to admit that, but for all intents and purposes, god is fake.

I am not misinterpreting. I am speaking to the absolute denial, and I know many absolute atheists. In my experience, atheists I have met tend towards the absolute, or true, atheist position. I would classify you as borderline atheist, as your view is agnostic with a more rational stance on the subject causing your position to be much closer to atheism than to theism, imo.

Kayne Archeron
it's an interesting thought though... are creatures like us, with our intellectual and imaginative possibilities, really the products of chance?

Alliance
I don't consider myself agnostic and calling me one would not be correct. I'm athiest, however I am rational and have a stance that is not confrontational. However, if a person walked up to me on the street and said do you believe in god, I would say flatly "no."

Have you ever asked these "athiest" firends of yous to concede that there is an unnaturall small unnatural possibility that a god in some form exists. What did they say?

Can you personally deny the probability that a god does not exist?

Storm

Alliance
Thats right. Remeber, burden of proof is on those people of religion. There is no natural reason why god should exist or even thought to exist. God is an unnatural concept. The default positon should be atheism, but because of the pervasiveness of religion in socities...people view the situation the other way.

Trickster
I find that both flatout denial and blind faith are distateful positions to hold. There is no, nor will their ever be any, conclusive evidence on the existence of God.

However, if someone is going to hold one or the other, athiesm seems more rational than faith. When one decides that things for which there is no evidence, then they really have no basis to deny the existence of anything else. How can a theist deny the existence of fairies? An athiest has the benefit of being able to deny everything which cannot be proved.

(As an aside, being an athiest carries with it other more negative connotations. If someone refuses to accept things without proof, then can they decide what is right or wrong?)

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
I don't consider myself agnostic and calling me one would not be correct. I'm athiest, however I am rational and have a stance that is not confrontational. However, if a person walked up to me on the street and said do you believe in god, I would say flatly "no."

Have you ever asked these "athiest" firends of yous to concede that there is an unnaturall small unnatural possibility that a god in some form exists. What did they say?

Can you personally deny the probability that a god does not exist? The majority of them deny the possibility, but yes I see what you mean, none of them would make an absolute statement to God's nonexistence. They cite typical responses that diminish the probability of such an entity. They are well educated people, and their rationale

I would agree that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Perhaps all stances are agnostic with varying degrees. And pure atheism and pure theism are merely points along this agnostic continuum. Perhaps without evidence to either stance, true theism and atheism are impossible.

WrathfulDwarf
My take?

Neither Religion or Atheism is above each other in my world. Period! Live with it.

ThePittman

Regret

Storm
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats right. Remeber, burden of proof is on those people of religion. There is no natural reason why god should exist or even thought to exist. God is an unnatural concept. The default positon should be atheism, but because of the pervasiveness of religion in socities...people view the situation the other way.
Disbelief seems to be the default position. No one is born having a belief. Beliefs are acquired through culture and education.

And why does the theist disbelieve in all other gods except for the one or few in their belief system?

Alliance
Because they are taught so. Alternative beliefs, fomr my experiences...come later in life through outside influences.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats right. Remeber, burden of proof is on those people of religion. There is no natural reason why god should exist or even thought to exist. God is an unnatural concept. The default positon should be atheism, but because of the pervasiveness of religion in socities...people view the situation the other way. I think the default position should be neutral, not theist or atheist. Disbelief and belief are polar opposites that should not be a default.

Trickster
Originally posted by Regret
The majority of them deny the possibility, but yes I see what you mean, none of them would make an absolute statement to God's nonexistence. They cite typical responses that diminish the probability of such an entity. They are well educated people, and their rationale

I would agree that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Perhaps all stances are agnostic with varying degrees. And pure atheism and pure theism are merely points along this agnostic continuum. Perhaps without evidence to either stance, true theism and atheism are impossible.

True athiesm and theism are rationally impossible positions to maintain... But there are people that will follow them irrationally.

I disagree, however, that they are points on an agnostic continuum. A part of agnosticism is a belief that the entire discussion is one that is irrelevant to life, since God doesn't seem to actually do much. I suppose athiests could hold this position, but theists would be hard-pressed to do so.

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
I think the default position should be neutral, not theist or atheist. Disbelief and belief are polar opposites that should not be a default.

No. This is what I'm referring to. YOu don't wake up in the morning expecting the natural laws to be redefined, or for the sky to be made of candy canes.

Why do you afford that priveledge to a god?

Regret
Originally posted by Trickster
True athiesm and theism are rationally impossible positions to maintain... But there are people that will follow them irrationally.

I disagree, however, that they are points on an agnostic continuum. A part of agnosticism is a belief that the entire discussion is one that is irrelevant to life, since God doesn't seem to actually do much. I suppose athiests could hold this position, but theists would be hard-pressed to do so. My definition, and what I consider to be the accurate definition, is: one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. I am not speaking of groups that hold beliefs outside this. I also believe you are referring to ignosticism, not to agnosticism.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
No. This is what I'm referring to. YOu don't wake up in the morning expecting the natural laws to be redefined, or for the sky to be made of candy canes.

Why do you afford that priveledge to a god? You are not born with any understanding as to the natural laws, they are learned. Belief or disbelief in God at this point does not contradict prior knowledge. It is only indoctrination that makes belief more or less possible.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Regret
I am not misinterpreting. I am speaking to the absolute denial, and I know many absolute atheists. In my experience, atheists I have met tend towards the absolute, or true, atheist position. I would classify you as borderline atheist, as your view is agnostic with a more rational stance on the subject causing your position to be much closer to atheism than to theism, imo.

It might have been easier if you specified you were talking to Strong rather than Weak atheists.

And Strong atheists- assuming they are intelligent- base their ideas on their interpretation of facts and evidence, not assumption.

And no, his position is not agnostic. It is atheist. You must be clear on the strong/weak atheist distinction, and how a weak atheist is very much NOT an agnostic.

Alliance
No. Its is impossible for everyone to know. Please answer my question before I have any further discussion on this matter.

Originally posted by Alliance
Can you personally deny the probability that a god does not exist?

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It might have been easier if you specified you were talking to Strong rather than Weak atheists.

And Strong atheists- assuming they are intelligent- base their ideas on their interpretation of facts and evidence, not assumption.

And no, his position is not agnositc. it is atheist. You must be clear on the strong/weak atheist distinction, and how a weak atheist is very much NOT an agnostic. Probably I should have, although, in comments by non-Christians in reference to Christians, such distinctions are not often afforded. If one expects similar care in reference the same consideration should be given. I will attempt to reference and specify more accurately in the future, but it may be difficult as this distinction is a new concept for me.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
No. Its is impossible for everyone to know. Please answer my question before I have any further discussion on this matter.
Originally posted by Alliance
Can you personally deny the probability that a god does not exist? Originally posted by Regret
I would agree that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Perhaps all stances are agnostic with varying degrees. And pure atheism and pure theism are merely points along this agnostic continuum. Perhaps without evidence to either stance, true theism and atheism are impossible.

Sorry, does this not answer your question?

Ushgarak
Ok, well, I shall clarify, as I did recently in a thread around the same area.

An agnostic looks at the evidence and says that he/she is not sure, on balance, if there is a God or not.

An atheist looks at the evidence and says- there is no God.

But the storng and weak atheist has a different reasoning.

A weak atheist (it sounds perjorative, but it is not meant to be; it is just as avalid a position as strong) reasons that there is no evidence for God, and that if he did exist it would be reasonable for there to be some, and that regardless, in the rational world we live in that we base our lives upon, it is not reasonable to think something exists when there is no evidence for it. Therefore, he does not think there is a God any more than he thinks there is a tooth fairy.

A strong atheist looks at the evidence and says that the evidence actively proves that there either a. is no God or b. CANNOT be a God. The reasoning for this is many and varied.

Strong atheism can also be a philosophical position- i.e. "I can't actually prove there isn't, but I am absolutely certain there is no God based on my own understanding of the Universe", which is probably where Shaky is coming from.

So, to sum up-

A weak atheist does not think there is a God

A strong atheist thinks there is no God.

Important distinction. Push most atheists and I think you will find they are weak rather than strong; no shame to them either.

Noble Strong
http://www.slipstreamproductions.net/public/meme/Jesus_Not_Happy.jpg

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret


Sorry, does this not answer your question?

Sorry, I missed that embarrasment.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, well, I shall clarify, as I did recently in a thread around the same area.

An agnostic looks at the evidence and says that he/she is not sure, on balance, if there is a God or not.

An atheist looks at the evidence and says- there is no God.

But the storng and weak atheist has a different reasoning.

A weak atheist (it sounds perjorative, but it is not meant to be; it is just as avalid a position as strong) reasons that there is no evidence for God, and that if he did exist it would be reasonable for there to be some, and that regardless, in the rational world we live in that we base our lives upon, it is not reasonable to think something exists when there is no evidence for it. Therefore, he does not think there is a God any more than he thinks there is a tooth fairy.

A strong atheist looks at the evidence and says that the evidence actively proves that there either a. is no God or b. CANNOT be a God. The reasoning for this is many and varied.

Strong atheism can also be a philosophical position- i.e. "I can't actually prove there isn't, but I am absolutely certain there is no God based on my own understanding of the Universe", which is probably where Shaky is coming from.

So, to sum up-

A weak atheist does not think there is a God

A strong atheist thinks there is no God.

Important distinction. Push most atheists and I think you will find they are weak rather than strong; no shame to them either.

And I'm going to reject that Ush. Sorry, but there can't be such a thing as a weak atheist. Either you are or you aren't. Unless the word Atheist has taken a complete direction in the 21th century then I don't accep it. The very word Atheist comes from the greek word atheos which translated means "'without gods". So if a person is down to earth who lives rejecting gods by all means he/she is an Atheist. These weak atheist you speaking of are either clueless people who aren't sure what to accept or just plain confused. Because you either believe or don't believe.

Ushgarak
Well, I am going to have to reject your rejection, WD, on the grounds it is inept.

I really don't see what you are saying there. Weak and Strong are just two different justifications for atheism, and to say a weak atheist is clueless just because he holds the position that it is not reasonable to think something exists if there is no evidence for it... is pretty silly, to be honest. It is a very credible view. Most people don't believe something until it is proven.

Weak and strong alike are both atheists, and both fit the definition of the word. They both 'are'. VERY confused by your post, to be honest. And both views DO exist, so to reject them is rather arrogant.

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, well, I shall clarify, as I did recently in a thread around the same area.

An agnostic looks at the evidence and says that he/she is not sure, on balance, if there is a God or not.

An atheist looks at the evidence and says- there is no God.

But the storng and weak atheist has a different reasoning.

A weak atheist (it sounds perjorative, but it is not meant to be; it is just as avalid a position as strong) reasons that there is no evidence for God, and that if he did exist it would be reasonable for there to be some, and that regardless, in the rational world we live in that we base our lives upon, it is not reasonable to think something exists when there is no evidence for it. Therefore, he does not think there is a God any more than he thinks there is a tooth fairy.

A strong atheist looks at the evidence and says that the evidence actively proves that there either a. is no God or b. CANNOT be a God. The reasoning for this is many and varied.

Strong atheism can also be a philosophical position- i.e. "I can't actually prove there isn't, but I am absolutely certain there is no God based on my own understanding of the Universe", which is probably where Shaky is coming from.

So, to sum up-

A weak atheist does not think there is a God

A strong atheist thinks there is no God.

Important distinction. Push most atheists and I think you will find they are weak rather than strong; no shame to them either. Thanks for the definitions, I can understand these stances, although I think the use of the terms "theist" and "atheist" are too extreme for proper usage without such qualifiers.

As to Christianity, Mormons are Christians in our own beliefs, and if one is using the actual definition of the term. Given this, the use of the term Christian as frequently used is often in error when referring to some Christian concepts. I have taken to using the term "mainstream" to preface comments regarding the majority of Christianity's beliefs. Mormon beliefs are often so alien to mainstream Christianity that we are not viewed as Christian by mainstream Christians. Regardless of this, we believe in the Bible and live our interpretation of its teachings, and so are often lumped in with mainstream Christianity when comments are made concerning beliefs.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Regret


Sorry, does this not answer your question? Sorry but you are wrong.
Theism = belief in god
Atheism = disbelief in god

Just because something can't be proven scientifically, doesn't mean it can't be believable.

The problem I have about atheism is that not many theists understand why people are atheist. Most of them are people who haven't been taught religion, or raised to support one.

Having that said, atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the abscence of belief of god. Atheists aren't people who decide they're not going to believe in god. Although some have made that decision, most of those "atheists" still think about if there is a god. True atheists never do that, by definition.

you fundamentalists have to remember that Atheism is not a religion, atheist parents don't go to their children, "Do not believe in god." No. They don't mention god. Most atheists haven't even heard the theory of Creationism. I know because most of my school is atheist. (Well, all the children are.) All children start off atheist because they have no knowledge of the theory of god. Religion is something that's forced upon minors to keep people inline and follow a bunch of rules that were made to stop problems in the middle east (and the continent of india) over 2,000 years ago. Yeah. So if you think Atheism is blind, think about what religion most religions are. The words "out of date" come to mind.

Regret
Originally posted by lord xyz
Sorry but you are wrong.
Theism = belief in god
Atheism = disbelief in god

Just because something can't be proven scientifically, doesn't mean it can't be believable.

The problem I have about atheism is that not many theists understand why people are atheist. Most of them are people who haven't been taught religion, or raised to support one.

Having that said, atheism is not the belief that there is no god, it is the abscence of belief of god. Atheists aren't people who decide they're not going to believe in god. Although some have made that decision, most of those "atheists" still think about if there is a god. True atheists never do that, by definition.

you fundamentalists have to remember that Atheism is not a religion, atheist parents don't go to their children, "Do not believe in god." No. They don't mention god. Most atheists haven't even heard the theory of Creationism. I know because most of my school is atheist. (Well, all the children are.) All children start off atheist because they have no knowledge of the theory of god. Religion is something that's forced upon minors to keep people inline and follow a bunch of rules that were made to stop problems in the middle east (and the continent of india) over 2,000 years ago. Yeah. So if you think Atheism is blind, think about what religion most religions are. The words "out of date" come to mind. Wrong. Atheism is a disbelief or denial, not the absence of belief.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Regret
Most questions on here are directed at religious people, given this, I decided to question the atheists.

Why atheism over religion? Why do you believe that there is no God? Why not agnostic at the least?

It seems to me that a stance such as atheism takes a decent amount of faith in the absence of such a figure, as the absence of evidence cannot be held as evidence.

In my opinion, atheism presents itself as a possible stumbling block to discovery and advancement as it is based in an assumption that is just as untestable as the opposing assumption. I do not believe it necessary to consider the possibility of God as an explanation in scientific research just because it is possible, but I believe the absolute denial of the possibility is illogical and poorly rationalized.

I also wonder why the hell someone would actually choose atheism. I think its because some thing terrible/scarring happened to them in their life to make them stop believing.

Ushgarak
Atheism has nothing to do with belief; it is just a characteristic. It can be an aspect OF a belief, though. For example, Humanism is a belief that is atheist. Some would say Buddhism is as well.

Pretty much all atheists hold world views that are beliefs with an atheist characteristic.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Regret
Wrong. Atheism is a disbelief or denial, not the absence of belief. Then what about people who have never heard of god, are they atheist or theist?

Regret
Originally posted by lord xyz
Then what about people who have never heard of god, are they atheist or theist? Neither, both are stances on the subject of God.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Atheism has nothing to do with belief; it is just a characteristic. It can be an aspect OF a belief, though. For example, Humanism is a belief that is atheist. Some would say Buddhism is as well.

Pretty much all atheists hold world views that are beliefs with an atheist characteristic.

Atheism = no religion aka secular

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, I am going to have to reject your rejection, WD, on the grounds it is inept.

I really don't see what you are saying there. Weak and Strong are just two different justifications for atheism, and to say a weak atheist is clueless just because he holds the position that it is not reasonable to think something exists if there is no evidence for it... is pretty silly, to be honest. It is a very credible view. Most people don't believe something until it is proven.

Weak and strong alike are both atheists, and both fit the definition of the word. They both 'are'. VERY confused by your post, to be honest. And both views DO exist, so to reject them is rather arrogant.

Then I will illustrate further. If indeed Atheism is the rejections of gods. Then by all means Christians are Atheist. Because they reject any gods and only accept the true creator and savior in their faith which God and Jesus. See the contradiction here? If we were to accept your explanation of a weak atheist then that weak atheist denies all other gods but leaves the possibility of one true creative being. That doesn't work. Either you do belive or just don't believe. So if you come to the conclusion that there is no point in believing then you've become an Official Atheist.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Regret
Neither, both are stances on the subject of God. laughing Sure. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Alliance
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I also wonder why the hell someone would actually choose atheism. I think its because some thing terrible/scarring happened to them in their life to make them stop believing.

confused

Lana
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I also wonder why the hell someone would actually choose atheism. I think its because some thing terrible/scarring happened to them in their life to make them stop believing.

I wonder why someone would choose religion, myself.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Then I will illustrate further. If indeed Atheism is the rejections of gods. Then by all means Christians are Atheist. Because they reject any gods and only accept the true creator and savior in their faith which God and Jesus. See the contradiction here? If we were to accept your explanation of a weak atheist then that weak atheist denies all other gods but leaves the possibility of one true creative being. That doesn't work. Either you do belive or just don't believe. So if you come to the conclusion that there is no point in believing then you've become an Official Atheist.

Umm, what?

Christians are atheist because they reject all gods except the Christian one?

That is highly contradictory. How can you follow a religion that worships a higher being and be atheist?

If you believe in any sort of higher being you are a theist.

If you have no belief in any sort of higher being or believe there is no way for a higher being to exist, you are an atheist.

And if you are unsure but accept that one could possibly exist, then you're agnostic.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Lana
I wonder why someone would choose religion, myself.

Why?

If you don't believe in life after death or have nothing to look forward to, then why not just kill yourself? After all, "there's no point in living".

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Lana




Umm, what?

Christians are atheist because they reject all gods except the Christian one?

That is highly contradictory. How can you follow a religion that worships a higher being and be atheist?

If you believe in any sort of higher being you are a theist.



That's my point. Under that observation a christian would seen like an atheist because of his/her rejection of other gods. Which makes it contradictory. Now, you bring a theist. Which is what I would say is more credible than a "weak atheist".



I completely agree. This is what I consider a Hardcore Atheist. Or a "strong atheist" as Ush mentions. The weak atheist is the one I have a hard time accepting.

crazy

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
My take?

Neither Religion or Atheism is above each other in my world. Period! Live with it.

Athiesm can be just as destructive as Thiesm has been throughout history...

I mean think about it....many people have killed in the name of their God...many innocent people throughout history have been terrorized, tortured, oppressed, and killed by the followers of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism...

And many of the Thiests in power who have committed those inhumane crimes have done so in the name of God, justifying their violence through thier dogmas based on Faith.

At the same time, however, people have also been motivated to kill and do horrible things by a beleif in the LACK of natural consequences. If you truly beleive that there is no afterlife, no punishment, no justice, etc. and you desire to hurt somebody, what's going to stop you from doing so?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why?

If you don't believe in life after death or have nothing to look forward to, then why not just kill yourself? After all, "there's no point in living". Wait, are you saying that the purpose in life is the after life? Okay, I am against that in so many ways, I don't even know where to begin.

Alliance
Originally posted by crazy
Finish it... the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, I really love that line.

While this is technically correct, there is strong evidnece against god and no one has any reason to take the notion of god seriously.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why?

If you don't believe in life after death or have nothing to look forward to, then why not just kill yourself? After all, "there's no point in living".

Because you do what you can with the time you have. Honestly, do you do everythign for your god? I thought not. Try thinking. "there is no point in living" is not associated with general athesim.

If you think thats true, then I say to you, "why not just die, since all you live for is in your afterlife?"

Thats waht I thought...its a bullshit perspective.

Lana
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why?

If you don't believe in life after death or have nothing to look forward to, then why not just kill yourself? After all, "there's no point in living".

What? You can't create your own purpose for living?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's my point. Under that observation a christian would seen like an atheist because of his/her rejection of other gods. Which makes it contradictory. Now, you bring a theist. Which is what I would say is more credible than a "weak atheist".



I completely agree. This is what I consider a Hardcore Atheist. Or a "strong atheist" as Ush mentions. The weak atheist is the one I have a hard time accepting.

No, it's simply called they believe solely in their religion.

And I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting weak atheism. In my sentence about atheism there I included both atheistic stances - not holding a belief in a higher being (which is in line with weak atheism) and believing that there is no way for one to exist (strong atheism). It might seem like the difference is just semantics but it isn't.

Gregory
It certainly can be. If you'd expect evidence, and there isn't any, it's evidence of absense.

For example: I'm living in a graduate dorm, with walls so thin you can practically hear it when one of your neighbors turns on his computer.

"I believe that the other people in my pod throw extremely loud parties every Friday night."

"I have never heard my neighbors make noise on Friday night."

That last statement is a statement of absense of evidence. And, since I'd expect to encounter certain evidence if my hypothesis was true (specifically, I'd expect to hear a lot of noise on Friday nights), it is also evidence of absense.

Alliance
YAY!

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why?

If you don't believe in life after death or have nothing to look forward to, then why not just kill yourself? After all, "there's no point in living".


Do you think Life is really that bad ? How pessemistic....

In fact, the possible lack of an afterlife is what makes this life even more precious....

Lana
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Do you think Life is really that bad ? How pessemistic....

In fact, the possible lack of an afterlife is what makes this life even more precious....

I'd say I agree with this. We've only got one chance, may as well make the most of it.

Alliance
Originally posted by Alliance
"why not just die, since all you live for is in your afterlife?"

lord xyz
Originally posted by Gregory
It, uh, certainly can be. I'f you'd expect evidence, and there isn't any, it's evidence of absense. Not really. Say I ask you to show me evidence of your dog that died a year ago.

You can't show me any evidenc of you having a dog, does that prove you never had a dog?

Lana
Originally posted by Alliance


I was going to say that in my post, actually, but refreshed the page and saw you did already.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Lana




No, it's simply called they believe solely in their religion.

And I really don't understand why you're having trouble accepting weak atheism. In my sentence about atheism there I included both atheistic stances - not holding a belief in a higher being (which is in line with weak atheism) and believing that there is no way for one to exist (strong atheism). It might seem like the difference is just semantics but it isn't.

That's another way of putting it.

It's not that I'm having trouble acceptin weak atheism. I'm sure that if one of those weak atheist would explain his/her ideas I would understand it more. However, I still can't see how the ideology of Atheism can be split into two camps.

A weak atheist may assert there is no evidence justifying a belief in any deity, but he/she does not necessarily deny the possibility of any deity's existence.

Is that correct? so my next question would be....Do they really leave room for doubt?

Gregory
Originally posted by lord xyz
Not really. Say I ask you to show me evidence of your dog that died a year ago.

You can't show me any evidenc of you having a dog, does that prove you never had a dog?

I edited my post:

"It certainly can be. If you'd expect evidence, and there isn't any, it's evidence of absense.

For example: I'm living in a graduate dorm, with walls so thin you can practically hear it when one of your neighbors turns on his computer.

"I believe that the other people in my pod throw extremely loud parties every Friday night."

"I have never heard my neighbors make noise on Friday night."

That last statement is a statement of absense of evidence. And, since I'd expect to encounter certain evidence if my hypothesis was true (specifically, I'd expect to hear a lot of noise on Friday nights), it is also evidence of absense."

Your example makes no sense to me. But if you come into my house and see no evidence of a dog: no dog in the house or in the yard, no food or water bowls, no leashed or bones or toys, it is inded evidence that I do not currently have a dog.


I suppose you could say that if there is no evidence that God exists, it is not evidence that God never existed; that's the closest parallel I can draw with your example.

Lana
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's another way of putting it.

It's not that I'm having trouble acceptin weak atheism. I'm sure that if one of those weak atheist would explain his/her ideas I would understand it more. However, I still can't see how the ideology of Atheism can be split into two camps.

A weak atheist may assert there is no evidence justifying a belief in any deity, but he/she does not necessarily deny the possibility of any deity's existence.

Is that correct? so my next question would be....Do they really leave room for doubt?

I'll see if I can explain it from my own viewpoint.

I would say that I am a weak atheist - a good part of why I am atheist (beyond the fact that I greatly dislike organized religion and the hypocricy of it) is that there is simply no evidence at all that a higher being could exist, and I find the idea of believing in something based on blind faith and with nothing to back it up quite ridiculous.

Now, could something exist? Possibly. But would I believe it? No, because I haven't seen any evidence to show it.

Alliance
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
That's another way of putting it.

It's not that I'm having trouble acceptin weak atheism. I'm sure that if one of those weak atheist would explain his/her ideas I would understand it more. However, I still can't see how the ideology of Atheism can be split into two camps.

A weak atheist may assert there is no evidence justifying a belief in any deity, but he/she does not necessarily deny the possibility of any deity's existence.

Originally posted by Alliance
Agnositcs don't have an answer. They don't want to prove or disprove existance of gods. Many just don't think the question matters.

An athiest thinks that no gods exist. That doesn't mean that any they deny total possibility. The same holds true for religion. Religious people have to rationally concede that there is a possibility that no god exists.

Personally, most of my beliefs (weak atheism) come from a progression basically stating that religions were false pretenses made around personal interpreations of percieved gods. In my opinion the only reason that religion is still around is because people choose to teach it from birth. Therefore it would be my personal opinion that if a god existed (which is both irrational and contradictory to every other aspect of existance) the probability that we here on Earth have a proper religion/description of that god is about as close to 0 as you can get.

There come a point, in all rational thought, where if the probability approaces zero so much that your functial probability becomes 0. The intellectual proabalilty is still a physical number, and you have to admit that, but for all intents and purposes, god is fake.

xmarksthespot
I don't see why weak atheism should be so confusing. It's simply saying based on the evidence available or lack thereof, there is no reason for one to believe in a god. As opposed to the active belief that a god or gods cannot exist.

Alliance
laughing That was a nice simple way to put it.

Gregory
From my viewpoint: a weak atheist says that there is no evidence of God; therefore, it is reasonable to say, "God does not exist." This upsets a lot of people, who seem to feel that we shouldn't make statements like that if we can't back it up with positive evidence ("God cannot exist because..."wink, but it's not unreasonable, IMO (of course, I'm a weak atheist, so I might be biased).

Do you believe in elves? No. Can you prove that elves don't exist? Well, no; how couldI ? But a magical being would violate the known laws of physics and there's absolutely no evidence for them, so it's perfectly reasonable to believe they don't exist.

Do you believe in God? Same answer.

Regret
Originally posted by Gregory
It certainly can be. If you'd expect evidence, and there isn't any, it's evidence of absense.

For example: I'm living in a graduate dorm, with walls so thin you can practically hear it when one of your neighbors turns on his computer.

"I believe that the other people in my pod throw extremely loud parties every Friday night."

"I have never heard my neighbors make noise on Friday night."

That last statement is a statement of absense of evidence. And, since I'd expect to encounter certain evidence if my hypothesis was true (specifically, I'd expect to hear a lot of noise on Friday nights), it is also evidence of absense. This expectation is based on preexistent knowledge. Since we do not know if God would "make the noise" we expect, absence is only absence due to our lack of knowledge.

Capt_Fantastic
Most people on these boards would likely think I'm an atheist. However, I'm not. I simply adhere to the idea that I haven't got a clue and neither does anyone else.

Lana
Originally posted by Gregory
From my viewpoint: a weak atheist says that there is no evidence of God; therefore, it is reasonable to say, "God does not exist." This upsets a lot of people, who seem to feel that we shouldn't make statements like that if we can't back it up with positive evidence ("God cannot exist because..."wink, but it's not unreasonable, IMO (of course, I'm a weak atheist, so I might be biased).

Do you believe in elves? No. Can you prove that elves don't exist? Well, no; how couldI ? But a magical being would violate the known laws of physics and there's absolutely no evidence for them, so it's perfectly reasonable to believe they don't exist.

Do you believe in God? Same answer.

People who get upset over something like that obviously don't know you can't prove a negative wink

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Gregory
From my viewpoint: a weak atheist says that there is no evidence of God; therefore, it is reasonable to say, "God does not exist." This upsets a lot of people, who seem to feel that we shouldn't make statements like that if we can't back it up with positive evidence ("God cannot exist because..."wink, but it's not unreasonable, IMO (of course, I'm a weak atheist, so I might be biased).

Do you believe in elves? No. Can you prove that elves don't exist? Well, no; how couldI ? But a magical being would violate the known laws of physics and there's absolutely no evidence for them, so it's perfectly reasonable to believe they don't exist.

Do you believe in God? Same answer. They're not really asking for "positive evidence", they're really asking for proof of negative. Logical fallacy.

The null hypothesis should always be that there is no phenomenon.

Alliance
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Most people on these boards would likely think I'm an atheist. However, I'm not. I simply adhere to the idea that I haven't got a clue and neither does anyone else.

Thats agnostic. And personally, I think you're ignoring evidence, but thats your perogative.

Gregory
If we're talking about Christianity, I disagree. Let's use the Bible as our "preexistant knowledge." In probably every single one of the narrative books of the Bible (excluding the letters, in other words), God makes his presence known in unmistakable, miraculous ways. And yet, in reality, he never makes himself known at all, never mind raising the dead or raining fire down on cities.

In other words:

If Christianity is correct, we expect God to act like God acts in the Bible.

In the Bible, God constantly makes himself known.

In reality, God never makes himself known (at least not obviously).

Therefore, the absense of evidence of God is evidence that Christianity is not correct (not absolute evidence, of course, because there's no reason God couldn't interfere directly with the world for thousands of years, and then get up one day and say, "Well, that's enough of that." But still evidence.)

It's true that absense of evidence is only evidence if you'd expect positive evidence. So, for example, the absense of evidence of divine intervention in the world is not evidence against Deism, since Deism doesn't posit divine intervention.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats agnostic. And personally, I think you're ignoring evidence, but thats your perogative.

And what evidence would that be?

I disagree with the notion I'm agnostic. But that's cool.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Lana
I'll see if I can explain it from my own viewpoint.

I would say that I am a weak atheist - a good part of why I am atheist (beyond the fact that I greatly dislike organized religion and the hypocricy of it) is that there is simply no evidence at all that a higher being could exist, and I find the idea of believing in something based on blind faith and with nothing to back it up quite ridiculous.

Now, could something exist? Possibly. But would I believe it? No, because I haven't seen any evidence to show it.

That's a more clear and direct explanation.

On your commen about organized religion....well, there are people within a religion that also begin to dislike the hypocracy and decide to reject that particular religion and leave it. But only to start their own new religion with their own ideas. smile

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Most people on these boards would likely think I'm an atheist. However, I'm not. I simply adhere to the idea that I haven't got a clue and neither does anyone else.

I'm one of those persons. Would you say a "strong atheist" doesn't have a clue?

Alliance
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
On your commen about organized religion....well, there are people within a religion that also begin to dislike the hypocracy and decide to reject that particular religion and leave it. But only to start their own new religion with their own ideas. smile

And hence the viscious cycle of religion continues....

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I'm one of those persons. Would you say a "strong atheist" doesn't have a clue?

You're one of what persons?

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Alliance
If you think thats true, then I say to you, "why not just die, since all you live for is in your afterlife?

Because you must do things in this life in order to achieve the desired afterlife (ie: Heaven).

And comitting suicide is a one-way ticket to Hell.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You're one of what persons?

I was one of the persons who thought you were an atheist.

Regret
Originally posted by Gregory
If we're talking about Christianity, I disagree. Let's use the Bible as our "preexistant knowledge." In probably every single one of the narrative books of the Bible (excluding the letters, in other words), God makes his presence known in unmistakable, miraculous ways. And yet, in reality, he never makes himself known at all, never mind raising the dead or raining fire down on cities.

In other words:

If Christianity is correct, we expect God to act like God acts in the Bible.

In the Bible, God constantly makes himself known.

In reality, God never makes himself known (at least not obviously).

Therefore, the absense of evidence of God is evidence that Christianity is not correct (not absolute evidence, of course, because there's no reason God couldn't interfere directly with the world for thousands of years, and then get up one day and say, "Well, that's enough of that." But still evidence.)

It's true that absense of evidence is only evidence if you'd expect positive evidence. So, for example, the absense of evidence of divine intervention in the world is not evidence against Deism, since Deism doesn't posit divine intervention. Actually God does not regularly make his presence known in the Bible. There is a large period of time between Adam and Noah where there is no evidence of God making himself known. There are also large periods of time throughout where God does not make himself known.

~1056 years between Adam and Noah
~300 years between the Tower of Babel and Abraham
~400 years between Joseph and Moses
300-400 years between the OT and the NT

Absence of God making himself known is a common occurrence throughout the Bible.

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Alliance
And hence the viscious cycle of religion continues....

I wouldn't label it as "viscious". I see it more as a "search".

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I disagree with the notion I'm agnostic. But that's cool.

Then what are you?

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I was one of the persons who thought you were an atheist.

oh.

No, I wouldn't say they haven't got a clue. I think they give up too easily sometimes, which is understandable considering the choices for religions. Saying it absolutely isn't one way because it's absolutely another isn't very open minded.

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Then what are you?

nothing.

Gregory
Originally posted by Regret
Actually God does not regularly make his presence known in the Bible. There is a large period of time between Adam and Noah where there is no evidence of God making himself known. There are also large periods of time throughout where God does not make himself known.

~1056 years between Adam and Noah
~300 years between the Tower of Babel and Abraham
~400 years between Joseph and Moses
300-400 years between the OT and the NT

Absence of God making himself known is a common occurrence throughout the Bible.

So ... we can say that there were no miracles or divine manifestations during those periods because there's an absense of Biblical evidence for them?wink

WrathfulDwarf
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
oh.

No, I wouldn't say they haven't got a clue. I think they give up too easily sometimes, which is understandable considering the choices for religions. Saying it absolutely isn't one way because it's absolutely another isn't very open minded.

Totally agree Capt...

Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Totally agree Capt...

Cheers. I can understand why you think I'm an atheist. But it isn't really religion I argue against, it's the followers. Religion can be a good thing. It's just like a gun. In the hands of the wrong person it can be dangerous. But in the hands of the right person it can save lives.

Alliance
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wouldn't label it as "viscious". I see it more as a "search".

Why is that?

Regret
Originally posted by Gregory
So ... we can say that there were no miracles or divine manifestations during those periods because there's an absense of Biblical evidence for them?wink I would state that there were no miracles or divine manifestations during those periods because the Bible is the record of such events, at least for the Biblical Abrahamic God. Absence of record is one of two things, evidence of the events or evidence of poor recording, the first is more probable.

Gregory
I don't understand this; can you rephrase?

The idea that the Bible is intended as the complete record of divine events is--and I mean absolutely no offense by this--silly. There's a huge amount of Jewish tradition and beliefs that never made it into the Bible. Lilith would be a famous example.

Regret
Originally posted by Gregory
I don't understand this; can you rephrase?

The idea that the Bible is intended as the complete record of divine events is--and I mean absolutely no offense by this--silly. There's a huge amount of Jewish tradition and beliefs that never made it into the Bible. Lilith would be a famous example.

Sorry for the typo:

"Absence of record is one of two things, evidence of the absence of events or evidence of poor recording, the first is more probable."

Tradition and beliefs are not necessarily God interacting with man. Also, these periods are nearly empty even with the inclusion of Jewish events not included. I don't believe such a belief to be silly, but you could be right, and if you are, it is also silly to believe that currently events similar have not occurred recently.

Gregory
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. We're getting pretty far off topic, but I'm not sure I agree with your dichotomy. There are really three options: that nothing happened, that miracles happened and nobody bothered to record them (admittedly unlikely), or that miracles happened, they were recorded, and those records when the way that most records from that time period went. When every thing has to be copied by hand, it's real easy for things to get lost (if it wasn't for the Nag Hammody (sp?) library, for example, we'd have practically no Gnostic Christian documents).

Still, I'm willing to cede a point when it seems undefensible--there is indeed no way of saying what God should be doing if he exists, since even Christian holy works say he often just hangs around. In this case, absense of evidence can't be evidence of absense.

(I'm not willing to say that absense of evidence can't be evidence of absense, though)

Regret
Originally posted by Gregory
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. We're getting pretty far off topic, but I'm not sure I agree with your dichotomy. There are really three options: that nothing happened, that miracles happened and nobody bothered to record them (admittedly unlikely), or that miracles happened, they were recorded, and those records when the way that most records from that time period went. When every thing has to be copied by hand, it's real easy for things to get lost (if it wasn't for the Nag Hammody (sp?) library, for example, we'd have practically no Gnostic Christian documents).

Still, I'm willing to cede a point when it seems undefensible--there is indeed no way of saying what God should be doing if he exists, since even Christian holy works say he often just hangs around. In this case, absense of evidence can't be evidence of absense.

(I'm not willing to say that absense of evidence can't be evidence of absense, though) I agree, I do not believe proof as to the existence/nonexistence of God is possible. I disagree that there is any evidence to either side of the argument. And on the existence side, such evidence is not often replicable and is often subjective, and therefore not necessarily evidence to those not present at the time.

Darth Kreiger
I believe there could be, and I have no problem with it (Athieism=Hates Religion) So I'm kinda just not-religious

Lana
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I believe there could be, and I have no problem with it (Athieism=Hates Religion) So I'm kinda just not-religious

Atheism does not automatically equal "hates religion".

Regret
Originally posted by Lana
Atheism does not automatically equal "hates religion".
I agree, I'd go further and say hate is not a part of it. Hate is something outside the terms.

Darth Kreiger
Originally posted by Lana
Atheism does not automatically equal "hates religion".

Atheism isn't Openminded to the "Could be", if you are, you arn't Athiest(the people trying to get Under God removed from the POA)

Gregory
There's a hell of a difference between hating something and being "open-minded" about it.

And you might not want to make to many comments about what "atheists" are doing, what with atheists having absolutely no central authority.

Lana
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Atheism isn't Openminded to the "Could be", if you are, you arn't Athiest(the people trying to get Under God removed from the POA)

And this is where you are wrong and if you'd read my post on my stance (which is very similar to the general stance of weak athiesm) you would see this.

Not having a belief in something does NOT mean you completely reject all possibility of it existing. As I said, I have no belief in any sort of higher being, but I aknowledge that one possibly could exist. I just don't believe it myself unless I get evidence to prove its existence.

The average person couldn't care less about the POA, atheist or not. Hell, the average person can't even recite it from memory.

And for that matter, that's no different from the people who want public prayer time and creationism in public schools.

You seem to know very little about religion, atheism, and, well, a lot of things erm

Mindship
It's been my experience that most atheists don't believe in God (specifically, the biblical, "all-loving" kind) for one of two reasons...
1. There is no proof (ie, empirical proof).
2. There's too much suffering in the world or in one's personal life.

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by Regret
Neither, both are stances on the subject of God.

We are all born Atheist.

Regret
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
We are all born Atheist. A decision is required to be atheist, you can't disbelieve or deny something you don't know about.

Lana
Originally posted by Regret
A decision is required to be atheist, you can't disbelieve or deny something you don't know about.

You can't believe something you don't know about.

And what is atheism? Not having a belief in god.

Regret
Originally posted by Lana
You can't believe something you don't know about.

And what is atheism? Not having a belief in god. atheism is the denial or disbelief in the existence of god, not having belief in god is not the same as atheism. Atheism as you describe would be existent at birth, iff God doesn't exist, I believe infants are born with the belief, and experience with examples of disbelief are the reason for the occurrence of disbelief. Given this, I could say that all infants are born theists.

Lana
Originally posted by Regret
atheism is the denial or disbelief in the existence of god, not having belief in god is not the same as atheism. Atheism as you describe would be existent at birth, iff God doesn't exist, I believe infants are born with the belief, and experience with examples of disbelief are the reason for the occurrence of disbelief. Given this, I could say that all infants are born theists.

No, not having a belief in any sort of god is atheism. Have you just completely ignored/disregarded most of the thread?

Punkyhermy
I don't get atheists plain and simple.

That we are is a phenomenon proof enough.

Regret
Originally posted by Lana
No, not having a belief in any sort of god is atheism. Have you just completely ignored/disregarded most of the thread? The belief that infants are atheist is presupposing atheism being correct. Infants and those without a knowledge of the concept of God cannot accept, believe, deny or disbelieve in God. Not having a belief in God is not the same as not having the concept of God. The concept must be present to have a stance either way.

Punkyhermy
Originally posted by Regret
The belief that infants are atheist is presupposing atheism being correct. Infants and those without a knowledge of the concept of God cannot accept, believe, deny or disbelieve in God. Not having a belief in God is not the same as not having the concept of God. The concept must be present to have a stance either way.

I think infants are the most prone to be the ultimate anti-all things atheisim. Just by existing they are experiencing, submitting, acepting the natural laws governing life.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
The belief that infants are atheist is presupposing atheism being correct. Infants and those without a knowledge of the concept of God cannot accept, believe, deny or disbelieve in God. Not having a belief in God is not the same as not having the concept of God. The concept must be present to have a stance either way.

But generally up until an autonomous age a child is considered of there parents religion regardless of there mental ability.

I say there is something for what Lana is saying - atheism is the complete lack of belief in a deity.

As for me - I am borderline agnostic/atheist. Cop out? Perhaps. I can't say 100% there is no God, so there is a tiny bit of room. However I believe in things in place of God - science, humanity. I don't believe there is a God, at all - though there is the incredibly unlikely chance there is one.

As such I would consider myself atheistic as I don't believe in a God, I don't think one exists, I think there is proof in science that makes the things in the Koran or Bible or whatever highly unlikely - to the point where I see no reason to entertain the idea of a God/gods.

Punkyhermy
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura


As such I would consider myself atheistic as I don't believe in a God, I don't think one exists, I think there is proof in science that makes the things in the Koran or Bible or whatever highly unlikely - to the point where I see no reason to entertain the idea of a God/gods.

Bare in mind that the Quran at least has yet to be contradicted by any advancements in science. wink

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by Regret
A decision is required to be atheist, you can't disbelieve or deny something you don't know about.

I'm not being literal... A newborn child has no concept of god, or religion, so I call a spade, a spade. You grow up isolated without the precense of religion(as many cultures have) and you will not know religion. Luckily we have the option to choose.
I choose atheism because religion suppresses free will, and curiosity IMO (Galileo, Socrates, Darwin, etc.). I get your argument... If you have a box you can't open, and A. says it's filled with feathers, and B. say's it's filled with leaves, then one is just as rational as the other, so why not be an Agnostic? IMO, religion pales in comparrison to science. The basic fundamentals of science have made monumental gains in regards to where we come from in the past 500 years. Poseidon dosen't cause earthquakes, we are not the center of the Universe, there was no great flood, fossil records, we share genes with chimps, mice, E. coli, etc... Plus, we're 1 Galaxy amongst billions, that makes religion very trivial in my eyes.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But generally up until an autonomous age a child is considered of there parents religion regardless of there mental ability.

I say there is something for what Lana is saying - atheism is the complete lack of belief in a deity.

I don't believe that a person without the concept of God can lack the belief, the concept of God must be present for such to be the case.

Regret
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
I'm not being literal... A newborn child has no concept of god, or religion, so I call a spade, a spade. You grow up isolated without the precense of religion(as many cultures have) and you will not know religion. Luckily we have the option to choose.
I choose atheism because religion suppresses free will, and curiosity IMO (Galileo, Socrates, Darwin, etc.). I get your argument... If you have a box you can't open, and A. says it's filled with feathers, and B. say's it's filled with leaves, then one is just as rational as the other, so why not be an Agnostic? IMO, religion pales in comparrison to science. The basic fundamentals of science have made monumental gains in regards to where we come from in the past 500 years. Poseidon dosen't cause earthquakes, we are not the center of the Universe, there was no great flood, fossil records, we share genes with chimps, mice, E. coli, etc... Plus, we're 1 Galaxy amongst billions, that makes religion very trivial in my eyes. I don't believe that science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science is in line with any rational religion. Science does not conflict with the concept of God. The concept of God does not conflict with science.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I don't get atheists plain and simple.

That we are is a phenomenon proof enough. That's like saying chocolate bars and rainbows are proof of unicorns.

Punkyhermy
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's like saying chocolate bars and rainbows are proof of unicorns.

What the f**k?
confused

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
I don't believe that a person without the concept of God can lack the belief, the concept of God must be present for such to be the case.

Well then I guess it is theoretically possible that animals believe in God as well.

It comes, in this case, back to understanding. A person without the concept of God neither believes or disbelieves since that requires knowledge. They are, essentially, neutral. Lack of concept does not as a default put them in either of the categories - belief/disbelief.

A child before the age where they know of such thing does not believe, but at the same time they don't really disbelieve. As such they are neutral. When they reach an age where they grasp the concept they will fall into the categories - do they believe there is a God/gods (Theists) or not (Atheist.)

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well then I guess it is theoretically possible that animals believe in God as well.

It comes, in this case, back to understanding. A person without the concept of God neither believes or disbelieves since that requires knowledge. They are, essentially, neutral. Lack of concept does not as a default put them in either of the categories - belief/disbelief.

A child before the age where they know of such thing does not believe, but at the same time they don't really disbelieve. As such they are neutral. When they reach an age where they grasp the concept they will fall into the categories - do they believe there is a God/gods (Theists) or not (Atheist.) That is my view.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
That is my view.

Well, I am in reasonable agreement.

Of course it links to two different things:

Lacking knowledge to either believe or not (not theism or Athiesm)

Having knowledge and choosing to believe or not (Theism or Athiesm)

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
I agree, I do not believe proof as to the existence/nonexistence of God is possible. I disagree that there is any evidence to either side of the argument. And on the existence side, such evidence is not often replicable and is often subjective, and therefore not necessarily evidence to those not present at the time.

Then why aren't you agnostic?

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, I'd go further and say hate is not a part of it. Hate is something outside the terms.
yes
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Atheism isn't Openminded to the "Could be", if you are, you arn't Athiest(the people trying to get Under God removed from the POA)
Well, youre the ones who added it in as a sign that America was a great Christian nation against "athiest" communists.
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
We are all born Atheist.
Estute.
Originally posted by Regret
A decision is required to be atheist, you can't disbelieve or deny something you don't know about.
No one in their right mind would believe in a god.
Originally posted by Regret
atheism is the denial or disbelief in the existence of god, not having belief in god is not the same as atheism. Atheism as you describe would be existent at birth, iff God doesn't exist, I believe infants are born with the belief, and experience with examples of disbelief are the reason for the occurrence of disbelief. Given this, I could say that all infants are born theists.
You stuck in a mental rut. You start CLEAN. Tabula Rasa. The only reason you believe in god is because someone else told you. No infant is born praying. That concept is simply absurd.
Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I don't get atheists plain and simple.

That we are is a phenomenon proof enough.
Not to those who sit down and think of it for a second.
Originally posted by Punkyhermy
I think infants are the most prone to be the ultimate anti-all things atheisim. Just by existing they are experiencing, submitting, acepting the natural laws governing life.
And who said a god put them there? Things have natural properties.
Originally posted by Regret
I don't believe that science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science is in line with any rational religion. Science does not conflict with the concept of God. The concept of God does not conflict with science.
Correct. But science has undoubtedly changed the nature of god, forced him back. More proof against god.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's like saying chocolate bars and rainbows are proof of unicorns.
yes

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Then why aren't you agnostic?

I have had experiences that do not fit with doubt as to the existence of God. I do not claim that they are evidence, as I have no tangible support for the personal experience and they are not replicable.

Originally posted by Alliance
No one in their right mind would believe in a god.

In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.

Originally posted by Alliance
You stuck in a mental rut. You start CLEAN. Tabula Rasa. The only reason you believe in god is because someone else told you. No infant is born praying. That concept is simply absurd.

I did not state they were born praying. I believe that infants are born with a glimmer of understanding as to the existence of God. Such is entirely possible, especially given that human memory is horrible. Stating that an infant is born atheist is a similar stance, and both are unprovable as it will be impossible to raise an infant in a theist/atheist neutral environment. Your claim as to the reason I believe in God is hasty and without knowledge of my history. I can tell you that I have experienced religious variety in my history, and have not always believed as I do currently. I have experienced atheism, satanism, mainstream Christianity, extreme cult, Masonry, Celtic Wicca, and a few others, many firsthand, a few secondhand. I believe as I do due to experience with the people created by varied belief systems as well as the belief systems themselves. My beliefs have also been shaped by my personal experiences within religions, and the varied experiences within each. I believe as I do because to believe otherwise, given the evidence as to where people have the highest tendency of proper behavior and happiness, would be illogical. The idea that atheism is correct, when in my experience a higher level of happiness and contentment exist in a theist paradigm, is absurd.

Originally posted by Alliance
Correct. But science has undoubtedly changed the nature of god, forced him back. More proof against god.

Science has not changed the nature of God, it has changed the traditions and philosophies of men about the nature of God. God has always been the same, it is man that has grown and has found his own opinions and superstitions about the nature of God to be in error. More proof as to the faulty nature of Man's philosophies when not grounded in true science. God is existent, man merely has developed elaborate philosophies about him and his existance which have evolved into a belief that God stated he existed as man has stated he does. Science is merely another means of clarifying the errors of man's religious philosophies. Science does not force God back, man himself does this.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Regret
In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.

Although an atheist could respond that it is the other way around - it often seems to be an unwinnable argument about which side is more biased or not (and I can't say, but then again some people least willing to listen have been religious in my experience.)



That was what I was getting at. Personally since I think religion is man made one learns it from others rather then feels it in oneself. Still a child is born without the necessary knowledge or cognitive ability to believe either way. They are neutral - neither atheist or theist.



With is subjective. I dare say from my experiences an atheist is capable of being equally happy and content as a theist. This is that neither other greater happiness - since I operate upon the human side. I don't think there is a God, thus it is human happiness in religion, and human happiness in Atheist. Neither other a greater sense of well being, both world views can lend themselves to goodness.

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
I have had experiences that do not fit with doubt as to the existence of God. I do not claim that they are evidence, as I have no tangible support for the personal experience and they are not replicable.
Then is it evidence or just you attempting to rationalize your position?



Originally posted by Regret
In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.
No more biased then yours. I also have the ability to argue without some of the restraint of bias. If I'm debating something, I try to set aside my lenses. If I'm stating an opinion, of course its going to be biased.


Originally posted by Regret
I did not state they were born praying. I believe that infants are born with a glimmer of understanding as to the existence of God. Such is entirely possible, especially given that human memory is horrible. Stating that an infant is born atheist is a similar stance, and both are unprovable as it will be impossible to raise an infant in a theist/atheist neutral environment.
Again, you're think of this the wrong way. Agnosticism is NOT the middle perspective. I'd argue that an infant would not spontaneously create a god, certainly not one with all the hoopla attached to it (as in indocrinated religion). The concept of God is an absurd concept, it goes against EVERY other natural principle. Gods are spread through people, not through independant observation.

Originally posted by Regret
Science has not changed the nature of God, it has changed the traditions and philosophies of men about the nature of God. Read history. It tells you many things. If you think the nature of God has not changed because of science, you are in clear denial of evidence.

Mindship
Infants = natural-born atheists??

Infants are barely aware of themselves. In fact, they aren't aware of themselves until they're a few months old.

God as an abstract, think-for-yourself concept: that doesn't happen until adolescence, generally around when the capacity for abstract thought and metacognition emerges.

Speaking of which, IMO there is too much overthinking going on in this thread for a simple concept:

Atheism: "There is no God."
Theism: "There is a God."
Agnosticism: "I don't know."

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Then is it evidence or just you attempting to rationalize your position?

It is evidence for me, firsthand experience is evidence. Now, if I were to present it without tangible evidence, or without the capability to replicate the event, would a rational individual hold it as compelling evidence? Probably not. I do not delude myself into believing that my experiences would necessarily stand as evidence to another.

Originally posted by Alliance
No more biased then yours. I also have the ability to argue without some of the restraint of bias. If I'm debating something, I try to set aside my lenses. If I'm stating an opinion, of course its going to be biased.

I am not stating that I am not biased, I am stating that the atheist stance should not be the default stance. The atheist stance is not a rational stance from a theist perspective in the same manner that theism is not rational from an atheist stance. It is hypocritical to claim otherwise. Neither stance is without bias, atheists only have some sway because their base of understanding is acceptable and a part of any rational theist.

Originally posted by Alliance
Again, you're think of this the wrong way. Agnosticism is NOT the middle perspective. I'd argue that an infant would not spontaneously create a god, certainly not one with all the hoopla attached to it (as in indocrinated religion). The concept of God is an absurd concept, it goes against EVERY other natural principle. Gods are spread through people, not through independant observation.

This is only the perspective of the atheist, and not the perspective of the theist. It is only a belief based on your personal bias, not on fact. Atheism is just as indoctrinated as theism. You are a hypocrite when you force such a view on a theist and then claim they have no right to force a theist view on you. Quit forcing your beliefs concerning God on the theists, we have no more reason to accept your view than you do ours. There is no scientific evidence for the view of an infant on the concept of God, and the concept of God is not man made from a theists view. The question is untestable and your position does not rely on fact, it relies on the opposing view. Until the question is resolved, the most logical stance is somewhere between, not on the atheist side or the theist side of the discussion.

Originally posted by Alliance
Read history. It tells you many things. If you think the nature of God has not changed because of science, you are in clear denial of evidence. This nature of God was written by men, many of which were probably pushing for their own personal motivations. The nature of God as man understands it is mainly man's philosophies as to what it might be, God has not stated his nature completely in any sacred text. Religion has changed, but religion is the response of man to God and not God. Your view on the subject is off and your perspective is wrong to even debate the topic given your stance as to the reality of God. Your perspective is that God and religion are man-made and fictional, from that perspective, yes, it appears that the nature of God has changed, but from a theist perspective it has not.

Ushgarak
Scientifically speaking, Regret, you would have to prove that infants DID know about God. Which you can't, so therefore an objective, rational opinion would dismiss the idea. It takes faith to make it work.

Regret
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although an atheist could respond that it is the other way around - it often seems to be an unwinnable argument about which side is more biased or not (and I can't say, but then again some people least willing to listen have been religious in my experience.)

That is my point. Atheism is not necessarily the default stance, no matter what atheists claim. Theism is not necessarily the default stance, no matter what theists claim. Both sides are biased, imo. Neither one is really in control of the situation, but they sure do think they are. The stance that atheism is the default is an entirely biased stance. I did not state that infants are theists, I stated that this is my belief, I did state that it is an unknown and as such our view should be that we do not know. I do not believe that without an understanding of the concept of God a person can be theist or atheist.

Just because science hasn't shown the existence of God, does not limit the possibility. Just because atheists deny the personal evidence of the theists does not make the personal evidence irrelevant. The atheist stance is not supported by science, but neither is the theists stance. Atheists feel that science supports their view. I, after twelve years of higher education and additional professional experience, believe that science supports the stance of the theist. Science cannot be used as support given this. Now, if science cannot be held as support for either position, which one has more support? I am biased, I accept that, but so is the atheist opposition.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
That was what I was getting at. Personally since I think religion is man made one learns it from others rather then feels it in oneself. Still a child is born without the necessary knowledge or cognitive ability to believe either way. They are neutral - neither atheist or theist.

That is my point.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Which is subjective. Yes, it is subjective. I have not done a study on the subject, and do not plan on it as I have no interest in social psychology nor in other branches of psychology that would hold the topic as being relevant. But my experience does show my claim, which could be a similar view as seeing and believing a stereotype, but currently it is my view.

Ushgarak
I think a great many people will take it as entirely unreasonable to say that science support theism, Regret. I think that is the kind of statement that greatly damages credibility.

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Scientifically speaking, Regret, you would have to prove that infants DID know about God. Which you can't, so therefore an objective, rational opinion would dismiss the idea. It takes faith to make it work. Agreed, objective, yes, although I think that rational should be removed. But I am not speaking as to objective thought.

This is assuming an atheist stance. Theists claim a great deal of personal, subjective, evidence as to God. Given this, from a theist stance such is not irrational, subjective yes, but not irrational.

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think a great many people will take it as entirely unreasonable to say that science support theism, Regret. I think that is the kind of statement that greatly damages credibility. It supports theism as much as it does atheism. I don't make the claim that it does in fact support theism, although personally I believe it, which is what I stated. I do not believe that science supports atheism either, and do state that.

debbiejo
I don't know if I agree with that, because young children see magic all around them.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lana
How can you follow a religion that worships a higher being and be atheist? How can you not believe in god because of having no knowledge of it, and not be atheist? WD was using the def that Regret used.

debbiejo
Atheists believe that we are only worm food........I don't believe that....there is much paranormal things that go on to say different.

lord xyz
Originally posted by debbiejo
Atheists believe that we are only worm food........I don't believe that....there is much paranormal things that go on to say different. Yes, every time we go into our church the vicar says the words "And whenst though shall be buried, thou shalt be food for the worms of the Earth.

Whereas philosophers and fundamentalists are in a science room looking at the paranormal saying "Yeah this seems possible, we've tested it, looked at all the variables, and it turns out that humans do have souls that escape to the clouds when we die, hard to believe but it's true!"

no expression

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, every time we go into our church the vicar says the words "And whenst though shall be buried, thou shalt be food for the worms of the Earth.

Whereas philosophers and fundamentalists are in a science room looking at the paranormal saying "Yeah this seems possible, we've tested it, looked at all the variables, and it turns out that humans do have souls that escape to the clouds when we die, hard to believe but it's true!"

no expression

roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing

Alliance
Originally posted by debbiejo
Atheists believe that we are only worm food........I don't believe that....there is much paranormal things that go on to say different.

no expression

lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
roll eyes (sarcastic) laughing laughing out loud

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't know if I agree with that, because young children see magic all around them.

To an extent we are, but we are not bound to be Atheist. I was refering more towards "tabula rasa" that every child starts with a "clean slate," and chooses their own preferances through experience. Some good'ol Aristotle, John Locke theories...

lord xyz
Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't know if I agree with that, because young children see magic all around them. huh

Interseting, you say young children see magic, but children don't know god. Maybe magic is more true than god!

ThePittman
Children are basically clay and can be molded to believe what ever you tell them until they get information to question the source.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't know if I agree with that, because young children see magic all around them.

I don't think it is magic... it is the learning process where one encounters a mass of data and input with out any sort of understanding on what it means. Wondrous, but not magical.

Much like a "primitive" society might see magic in the guns and armor of explorers - it is merely a way of viewing things until the necessary knowledge is acquired to understand.

Mindship
Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't know if I agree with that, because young children see magic all around them.

Children think they see magic all around them. As Imperial Samura alluded to, "magical thinking" is a phase of cognitive development we all go through as young children, and human beings went through, as a species, early in our evolutionary history.

This is not to say that some genuine psychic/astral experiences may not be happening (though conclusive proof of that has yet to be noted). But magical thinking (which includes wishing / wish fulfillment) is basically an unclear/partial differentiation of the inner world from the outer.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Alliance
There is no natural reason why god should exist or even thought to exist. God is an unnatural concept.


I dont know, if you belive in Aliens how is belief in God illogical? Do bacteria believe in humans? Have you noticed how solar systems seem to be similar to the structure of molecules? I mean if we humans have control over creatures like bacteria logic dictates that there are beings looking down on us.

Atlantis001
Originally posted by Regret
It is evidence for me, firsthand experience is evidence. Now, if I were to present it without tangible evidence, or without the capability to replicate the event, would a rational individual hold it as compelling evidence? Probably not. I do not delude myself into believing that my experiences would necessarily stand as evidence to another.

But what kind of evidence were these ? Was this evidence not empirical you say ?

Alliance
Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont know, if you belive in Aliens how is belief in God illogical? Do bacteria believe in humans? Have you noticed how solar systems seem to be similar to the structure of molecules? I mean if we humans have control over creatures like bacteria logic dictates that there are beings looking down on us.

Extremely faulty logic.

The only evidence of other life in the universe is us.

Bacteria don't have a mental capacity...they don't believe in anything.

I wasn't aware that we had detected the molelcular composition of planets in other solar systems messed Dont be foolish. Physics/Chemistry dictate that they should be the same, I would say that they are, but don't make it sound like its been tested.

How do humans control bacteria?

And that does NOT mean by any stretch of the imagination that there are beings looking down on us.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Alliance
Extremely faulty logic.

The only evidence of other life in the universe is us.

Yes but you know it and I know it aliens should exist. It is not improbable that we may meet aliens in the future. There are alot of things in science that they say we will never discover but we do.

As far as I know scientists belive in other dimensions. It could simply be in this universe we are the most advanced beings.


Originally posted by Alliance

Bacteria don't have a mental capacity...they don't believe in anything.

Bacteria are alive. An extremely intelligent lifeform could think the same about us.

Originally posted by Alliance

I wasn't aware that we had detected the molelcular composition of planets in other solar systems messed Dont be foolish. Physics/Chemistry dictate that they should be the same, I would say that they are, but don't make it sound like its been tested.




http://www.terrific-scientific.co.uk/Pages/AtomicStructure/topic%20graphics/atomic_ionic.gif

So that doesnt look anything like a Solar System?

ThePittman

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>