Why atheism?

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.

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

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.

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

Originally posted by Alliance

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

😆 That was a nice simple way to put it.

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..."😉, 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.

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.

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.

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..."😉, 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 😉

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..."😉, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 🙂

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?

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. 🙂

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