What kind of atheist are you

[Fifty]

This is great.

So what has it got to do with me?

I just quoted two people who made two different but interesting opinions.

Just because I have a certain mindset, does not mean I cannot laud people
who make logical statements, even if they are not from my sphere of thinking.

Is that too difficult a concept for you to digest???

.

Okay, lets try this again:

Do you believe there is definitely no God? Earlier in the thread you said you did. Now, if you think there is definitely no God, I ask that you provide a logical or physical proof that God cannot possibly exist. If you cannot, then your assertion that God definitely does not exist would involve a measure of faith. I'm aware that you are an atheist. So am I. All I'm asking is for you to reconcile your disdain for the concept of faith with the assertion that God DEFINITELY does not exist. I'm not saying atheism is a religion under any circumstances, and I'm not implying that you are not an atheist under any circumstances, and I'm not implying that the type of faith I talk about is religious faith. I just want to know how you reconcile the concept that any sort of faith is wrong with the assertion that God definitely does not exist.

Sorry for misenterpreting you earlier, I thought that when you said those quotes summed up the thread for you that you meant that you were agreeing with the statements you quoted. My bad.

 

[CurtSibling]

Okay, lets try this again:

Do you believe there is definitely no God? Earlier in the thread you said you did. Now, if you think there is definitely no God, I ask that you provide a logical or physical proof that God cannot possibly exist. If you cannot, then your assertion that God definitely does not exist would involve a measure of faith. I'm aware that you are an atheist. So am I. All I'm asking is for you to reconcile your disdain for the concept of faith with the assertion that God DEFINITELY does not exist. I'm not saying atheism is a religion under any circumstances, and I'm not implying that you are not an atheist under any circumstances, and I'm not implying that the type of faith I talk about is religious faith. I just want to know how you reconcile the concept that any sort of faith is wrong with the assertion that God definitely does not exist.

Give it a rest, Fifty.
Don't bug me with silly demands that I must justify my own beliefs to you.
Why is it so important to you? Unless you are some christian looking to convert?

I don't need faith to retch at the hypocritical emptiness when I see foolish people
ruining their lives chasing an invisible man that was created to control the weak.

And don't give me such baloney about me providing proof of there not being a god.
Should I? Why does it matter to anyone but me that I am ungodly?

My ideas are for me only - When I look at the sky, I see clouds, not gods.

My mind is one of logic, and my heart is a pragmatic one. I have no need to
apologise with guilt for being born, or to seek out a metaphor for a parent by
childishly seekings a 'father-god' to worship...That is total idiocy to me.

I never have insisted that anyone else be an atheist, I really do not care.
I am not some mindless Dalek, who must be surrounded with dolts of a
like mind to have any power. I do not need the mob, I do not need faith.

I don't need to believe in a myth, I merely reject what is absurd.

There no way for me to prove anything about a god, a thing I don't have
in my life. And why should I? Just to please some nosey foreigner on a forum?

If you believe in god, then you have the explaining to do, not me.
Your faction wants to rule the world with tyranny and a ban on freedom.

But not me..."Do what thou wilt be the whole of the law!"
That is the maxim I live by - Do whatever and just keep out of my way.

And besides, you know very well I cannot provide you proof beyond the
pages of history of our world. The fact that religions have always been
the answer to our mysteries until more convincing data was found.

The same goes for a god. Think of this...

Take the basic pagan spirit, the focus of worship for a primitive man.
Now, we evolve this childish idea with the ages and eventually, you will
have well-developed myths, the 'gods' of the world religions you see now.

Does that make the concept any more real???? Not in my book, chum.

Everything evolves, even our fallacies and follies. Some concepts grow with time.

Just because many people dream about a god, should I take them more seriously???

If you cannot understand why I reject invisible men, then you are wasting my time.

Sayonara.

Sorry for misenterpreting you earlier, I thought that when you said those quotes summed up the thread for you that you meant that you were agreeing with the statements you quoted. My bad.

I'll forgive you this time.

.

 

[Fifty]

I completely understand what you are saying with regard to religion, and I completely agree. I'm an atheist too, and I too reject the type of silly notions that you cite. It seems to me that your atheism is more like mine: that is, option 2.

Like you say, neither of us could absolutely prove beyond any doubt that there is no God. So why not, instead of saying that there is definitely no God (which would imply that you have absolute proof that there is no god) just say that there is absolutely no evidence of God, and that the whole concept can be boiled down to a yearning for understanding (like the belief in the pagan spirit you cite), so we see no reason to believe in God or to give the notion of God any more credit than we would the notion that our brains are really made of cleverly disguised cottage cheese.

It may seem like I'm just arguing pointless semantics here, as it seems we have extremely similar views with regard to religion. However, I think it is important for atheists to make a point of the distinction between atheism and faith, because supernaturalists often attempt to make the ridiculous claim that atheism is some kind of a religion or that atheism requires faith. If we, as atheists, restrict ourselves to the fact that we have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe in all the tired dogma of religion, we can rebuff any attempt to claim that atheism involves faith. However, if we positively assert that there is no god and no possibility of god, we open the door for faith (or at least belief without proof, which is just about the same thing as faith) to creep into the discussion, and it damages our credibility when we at one point say that we take nothing on faith and then simultaneously believe that there is definitely no god without definite proof.

I hope this has clarified my stance. In no way would I suggest that you are in any way on-par with the religious when you assert your atheism, and I agree with your reasoning. The only point is that I think it is important to make the distinction that atheism shouldn't involve a positive assertion that the entire concept of god is completely impossible (unless of course you have proof of said assertion), but rather atheism needs to be seen for what it is: rejection of baseless conjecture and rejection of the notion of belief without evidence.

 

[Sarevok]

I have absolutely no belief in god

 

[Fifty]

I have absolutely no belief in god

I would hope that most atheists would be able to at least say that much!

 

[brennan]

The hypothesis that 'there is a god' has no foundation in logic or evidence.

Any existence of such a belief historically can be explained as 'superstition'.

If I were to spend my life accepting the possibility of every last unprovable, untestable theorem the world could throw at me, I would never have a chance to live. So I throw them out. As positivist, to say that such things do not exist is a necessary part of my philosophy.

To have faith is to believe something without evidence. I have no 'faith' in my philosophy since I do not claim the existence of anything I have no evidence for. Everything I 'believe' in (to use your use of the word) is evident to me, ie: it can be observed directly or inferred consistently from observation.

 

[Fifty]

The hypothesis that 'there is a god' has no foundation in logic or evidence.
Any existence of such a belief historically can be explained as 'superstition'.

agreed

If I were to spend my life accepting the possibility of every last unprovable, untestable theorem the world could throw at me, I would never have a chance to live. So I throw them out. As positivist, to say that such things do not exist is a necessary part of my philosophy.

I don't see how accepting the possibility (keep in mind we are talking about a REMOTE possibility here) makes life any different. Just because you accept an extremely minute possibility does not mean that you have to constantly acknowledge every possibility and react accordingly. For example, you must acknowlege the possibility that you could be hit by a meteor at any time walking outside. However, just because we accept that there is a tiny probability of getting hit with that meteor doesn't mean we have to live any differently.

To have faith is to believe something without evidence. I have no 'faith' in my philosophy since I do not claim the existence of anything I have no evidence for. Everything I 'believe' in (to use your use of the word) is evident to me, ie: it can be observed directly or inferred consistently from observation.

agreed. So if one would positively assert that there is absolutely no god, and assuming they did not have an adequate logical or physical proof that the existence of god is impossible, wouldn't that assertion constitute believe without evidence, and, by definition, faith? That is why I'm contending that the only type of atheism that doesn't rely (at least a tiny bit) on faith, is atheism based on the notion that there is absolutely no evidence of God, so there is no reason to believe that god exists until evidence is found (which probably won't happen, but unless we have a logical or physical disproof of God we have to accept the slight possibility that evidence may be found).

 

[brennan]

I don't see how accepting the possibility (keep in mind we are talking about a REMOTE possibility here) makes life any different. Just because you accept an extremely minute possibility does not mean that you have to constantly acknowledge every possibility and react accordingly. For example, you must acknowlege the possibility that you could be hit by a meteor at any time walking outside. However, just because we accept that there is a tiny probability of getting hit with that meteor doesn't mean we have to live any differently.

But that would be a real and testable possibility, given that we can see 'shooting stars', find meteorites etc. I see no reason to give the 'god' hypothesis the time of day. I believe in the existence of quasars, because I can look up data on them (even be hit by cosmic rays from them on a daily basis) - does this mean they have a noticeable affect on my life, no, but given that they meet my criteria for an 'acceptable' hypothesis...

agreed. So if one would positively assert that there is absolutely no god, and assuming they did not have an adequate logical or physical proof that the existence of god is impossible, wouldn't that assertion constitute believe without evidence, and, by definition, faith? That is why I'm contending that the only type of atheism that doesn't rely (at least a tiny bit) on faith, is atheism based on the notion that there is absolutely no evidence of God, so there is no reason to believe that god exists until evidence is found (which probably won't happen, but unless we have a logical or physical disproof of God we have to accept the slight possibility that evidence may be found).

No. If I positively asserted that there is no dancing invisible hippo on my desk, would you say that I was expressing 'faith' in the matter? What if I said the same about an elephant, shrew, monkey and hedgehog? I would be building up a pretty sizeable pantheon (zoo, even) of beliefs... Disbelief in something unfounded is not faith, it is reason.

Given the nature of the universe I see, I would say that the existence of a God as represented by organised religions is fundamentally opposed to my observations: in that everything I see is self-explanatory. Furthermore, the response of the Theist when faced with scientific observation (in the case that they don't just ignore the evidence of course) is to retreat to being the 'God of Gaps' - further evidence of the nonsensical nature of the hypothesis.

 

[col]

Its hard to know which God not to beleive in sometimes.

 

[Fifty]

If I positively asserted that there is no dancing invisible hippo on my desk, would you say that I was expressing 'faith' in the matter? What if I said the same about an elephant, shrew, monkey and hedgehog?

It absolutely is faith, unless you can prove to me that there is no dancing invisible hippo on your desk, which you probably cannot. You can say, without resorting to faith, that there is no point in even beginning to consider the notion of a dancing invisible hippo on your desk, because there is absolutely no evidence of said hippo. However, if you say that there is DEFINITELY no hippo on your desk, how does this not involve faith unless you can PROVE that there is no hippo. The notion of "definitely and absolutely" implies that there is literally no possibility whatsoever for the hippo to logically be there. A dancing hippo that you cannot detect is certainly logically possible, so if you say that there is ABSOLUTELY no way that the hippo exists, you are basing that on faith.

Given the nature of the universe I see, I would say that the existence of a God as represented by organised religions is fundamentally opposed to my observations: in that everything I see is self-explanatory. Furthermore, the response of the Theist when faced with scientific observation (in the case that they don't just ignore the evidence of course) is to retreat to being the 'God of Gaps' - further evidence of the nonsensical nature of the hypothesis.

In this paragraph you seem to be agreeing with me: there is no reason to believe in god because there is no evidence of god. This does not exclude the possibility of god's existence, it only states that it is foolish to believe something of which we have no evidence. Similarly, unless you have absolute proof that the notion of god is a logical impossibility, to assert that God definitely does not exist involves belief not based on observation, which is faith.

 

[col]

It largely depends on one's definition of 'existence', does it not? It is logically impossible to prove the non existence of something that doesnt exist.

 

[Fifty]

Indeed. That's what TLC and Mise were discussing earlier in the thread.

 

[Perfection]

It largely depends on one's definition of 'existence', does it not? It is logically impossible to prove the non existence of something that doesnt exist.

Isn't that saying that there's a proof for the non-existance of proofs of the non-existance of things?

 

[brennan]

The dancing hippo is subject to analysis: I can try to feel it *gesticulates madly over desk*... nope nothing; smell it *sniff sniff*... nothing again: I can't hear anything either, or feel the desk vibrating or moving. Given my experience of the world it seems reasonable to assume that the proposed hippo does not in fact exist since I cannot find any attributes that I would associate with a dancing hippo.

You may complain that I am restricting the set of 'things that exist' to those that only have a physical manifestation. Damn right. Any thing that exists must be subject to the physical world, in my view. There must be some kind of standard by which we consider the existence of something to be either beyond doubt, or at least possible. Invisible dancing hippos do not match these criteria, and neither does God.

unless you have absolute proof that the notion of god is a logical impossibility, to assert that God definitely does not exist involves belief not based on observation, which is faith.

Given that I am setting up standards of proof, and methods of testing the existence of things, I would say that I am basing my non-belief in God upon observation. Furthermore, I do not agree that your use of the word faith is consistent with its definition.

Check out good old Wikipedia. The definition it gives for faith (and it agrees with my OED) is always a positive thing: Faith is a belief in something, both without evidence and even in spite of evidence. I am not expressing any such belief, merely rejecting a worthless hypothesis in view of the evidence.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@brenna: You're ignoring the possibility the hippo might be physically detectable in some way you haven't thought of trying.

 

[brennan]

Irrelevent. The discussion requires that I cannot detect it, since if I can detect it then I can state clearly that it does exist, since I have evidence for it. We are talking about things that cannot be proved to exist...

 

[Souron]

I believe that becouse it is not possible to have any evidence of an omnipotent being, that the existance of such a being is irrelivant but possible.

I voted other.

 

[Fifty]

@brennan
Okay, so imagine you live 200yrs ago, and someone tells you about some subatomic particle that we know exists today but was undetectable back then. Does that mean that 200yrs ago that particle could not possibly have existed? Doesn't make much sense to me. Sitting there at your computer, there is a HUGE number of things that you cannot detect (and you can sit here and tell me that you could detect them if you wanted to, but that doesn't seem to hold up your own standard of evidence until you actually DO detect them), does that mean that none of those things could possibly exist?

 

[brennan]

The ancient Greeks discussed the nature of matter. Democritus coined the term we now use as 'atom' for the smallest indivisible piece of matter. It was valid to conjecture about such things then because it was clear that the truth was unknown. Under such circumstances lots of hypotheses could be put forward but it would be hard to test them, and 'God' (or Gods, or even Titans) would even have been a valid one.

200 years ago, a modern theory, if proposed, would have been as valid as any other theory that explained all the observations. Today is a different matter. And we are still talking about evidence, there is none for God.

It is not so much the substance of 'belief' that counts as the manner in which we come by it - scientific method. The one leads to the other, which can always be wrong. But remember that a new theory must always explain evidence with at least the same accuracy as the one before it, which makes the old theory not so much 'wrong' as 'inaccurate'. As an example consider how small a correction to Newtonian gravitational theory Einstein made, it is hard to judge Newton as being wrong.

 

[Fifty]

200 years ago, a modern theory, if proposed, would have been as valid as any other theory that explained all the observations.

While perhaps one could have hypothesized the existence of some of the particles that are just now being observed by particle accellerators, it would have been impossible to observe them back then. Simiilarly, the dancing hippo hypothesis may certainly be proposed now, but maybe we just don't have the tools sophisticated enough to detect it at this time. Yet you assert that the dancing hippo DEFINTELY does not and COULD NOT POSSIBLY exist. You can imagine some guy 200yrs ago saying the same thing about said sub-atomic particle, however we know now they were wrong.

This is why we call theories theories, and not facts. Even if a theory is corraborated by tons of evidence, that doesn't mean that a disproof of the theory cannot possibly be found. And if a theory is not supported by evidence, we do not acknowledge it as a good theory and so we disregard it until evidence is found, but we do not say it is absolutely impossible under any scenario.