NationStates Jolt Archive

okay after reading the "why i am an athiest" thread, i realise alot of athiests/agnostics seem to think they know some kind of universal truth and they have no faith stance

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right? or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith

i just wanted to make this point because i'm an agnostic and other agnostics are making my kind look ignorant (would use a stronger word but that would be flamin:p )

a - t h e - i s t

Five words.

Welcome to NationStates General.

Enjoy your stay! :)

a - t h e - i s t

sorry:(

a - t h e - i s t

That was both necessary and entirely justified.

And this post is not sarcasm.

Five words.

Welcome to NationStates General.

Enjoy your stay! :)

that's not five words:confused:

lol your one of the people in the 4chan region! that site is disturbing...

Any belief you have requires faith,it just depends what you have faith in.If you have faith that there is no God,then that's your faith.Faith doesn't mean religion.

that's not five words:confused:

lol your one of the people in the 4chan region! that site is disturbing...

I would be in the 7chan region, but there isn't one, so I'm stuck in the 4ailchan region.

probably just because some dude named muhammed walked out into the desert and came back saying an angle spoke to him, or some water walking bloat up and turned water into wine, or because some bearded tart parted a sea... that doesn't make it true. I'm agnostic because I do believe in some sort of higer being or consouis at least. However fairy tales aren't enough to et me to commit myself to an organized devout group that doesn't know what they're talking about half the time an rely on blind faith. A truly destrectable activity threwout all of history.

So essentially you are saying that the default position is to believe in some higher power and that to do anything else requires a leap of faith?

I happen to see it as the other way around.

It does not require a leap of faith to have the position that the tides are not generated by miniature aquatic hamsters running in wheels while dressed up as clowns. It takes a rather ludicrous leap of faith to assume that they are.

probably just because some dude named muhammed walked out into the desert and came back saying an angle spoke to him

obtuse, acute or right?

That makes all the difference. Only the true orthodox believe that it was a rigid 90 degree angle

Oy, we'll wait a page or two for this thread to air out, then get to work, yes that's what we'll do *walks off, mumbling to self*

and the problem with your assesment is that to use your definition, ANYTHING requires faith. Belief in god requires faith. Not believing in god requires faith. Believing that there may, or may not be a god requires faith.

Stepping out of bed and trusting you won't fall intangible through the floor requires faith.

probably just because some dude named muhammed walked out into the desert and came back saying an angle spoke to him, or some water walking bloat up and turned water into wine, or because some bearded tart parted a sea... that doesn't make it true. I'm agnostic because I do believe in some sort of higer being or consouis at least. However fairy tales aren't enough to et me to commit myself to an organized devout group that doesn't know what they're talking about half the time an rely on blind faith. A truly destrectable activity threwout all of history.

Learn to spell and I'll take you seriously.
As far as I know,an angle didn't talk to Muhammed the Prophet.Nor did an angel,for that matter.According to the Qur'an,Allah did.And Allah is a god,not an angel.And I expect people who are religious,including myself,to find some of your comments kind of insulting.Like the whole bearded tart bit.When you learn to debate,and not just insult people's viewpoints,come back,and people will take you seriously.

okay after reading the "why i am an athiest" thread, i realise alot of athiests/agnostics seem to think they know some kind of universal truth and they have no faith stance

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right? or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith


Basically you've diluted the word "faith" so that it means any belief or lack of belief.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the earth was created by the Giant Space Molemen?

....No?

AHA! FAITH POSITION! YOU HAVE FAITH! ;)

and so on for each and every possible thing you've ever believed in, or not believed.

probably just because some dude named muhammed walked out into the desert and came back saying an angle spoke to him, or some water walking bloat up and turned water into wine, or because some bearded tart parted a sea... that doesn't make it true. I'm agnostic because I do believe in some sort of higer being or consouis at least. However fairy tales aren't enough to et me to commit myself to an organized devout group that doesn't know what they're talking about half the time an rely on blind faith. A truly destrectable activity threwout all of history.

Ah, scepticism, 'tis alive and well. Scepticism allows you to be curious because you don't accept everything without question.

So essentially you are saying that the default position is to believe in some higher power and that to do anything else requires a leap of faith?

I happen to see it as the other way around.

It does not require a leap of faith to have the position that the tides are not generated by miniature aquatic hamsters running in wheels while dressed up as clowns. It takes a rather ludicrous leap of faith to assume that they are.

no i didnt mean that, all religious views (all views) require faith, i was just highlighting that athiesm and agnosticism require as much faith as any thiestic belief!

Any belief you have requires faith,it just depends what you have faith in.If you have faith that there is no God,then that's your faith.Faith doesn't mean religion.

Well, that's where it gets tricky. A religion is a comprehensive set of beliefs that are unified by a common principle or statement of faith; so, atheism would not be a religion in and of itself but secular humanism could and most likely would be depending on how it is used and what the person in question believes. A nontheistic belief system can still be a religion. Now, if your atheism provided a context for all of your life stances, it could be considered a private religion.

The whole problem is that people have this irrational idea that having some kind of "faith", or a "religion" or even a belief" to be somehow bad...it's a bizarre stigma that seems based more on some kind of dogmatism than any real argument.

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right?

There is a difference between "thinking god doesn't exist" and "not think god does exist." It is subtle, but it is there. I do not think unicorns exist. I do not think that aliens from Pluto exist. However, I do not actively disbelieve in either. Unicorns might exist, in some form. I simply have no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do. There might be aliens from Pluto. I simply have no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do.

or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

The question boils down to this: What is the default? Do you think that people are born with an innate belief or faith in God? If they are not, then implicit atheism is the default - a lack of belief - a lack of faith. Some sort of evidence, whether it is personal experience or simply the affirmation of others, convinces theists that a deity or deities do exist. And some - explicit atheists - take what they see as a lack of evidence and form a positive belief out of it - that there absolutely is no god.

Implicit atheism, however, truly is a lack of belief, rather than a belief in a lack, as it were.

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith

You are making the word "faith" rather useless here. By the definition you seem to be using, all knowledge and every viewpoint is "faith."

Learn to spell and I'll take you seriously.
As far as I know,an angle didn't talk to Muhammed the Prophet.Nor did an angel,for that matter.According to the Qur'an,Allah did.And Allah is a god,not an angel.And I expect people who are religious,including myself,to find some of your comments kind of insulting.Like the whole bearded tart bit.When you learn to debate,and not just insult people's viewpoints,come back,and people will take you seriously.Don't make typos when you tell someone about his spelling mistakes :D :headbang:

and the problem with your assesment is that to use your definition, ANYTHING requires faith. Belief in god requires faith. Not believing in god requires faith. Believing that there may, or may not be a god requires faith.

Stepping out of bed and trusting you won't fall intangible through the floor requires faith.

exactly:D

Don't make typos when you tell someone about his spelling mistakes :D :headbang:

...Abuuh?
Metinks I'm blind...could you highlight it for me?

...Abuuh?
Metinks I'm blind...could you highlight it for me?

The rather odd lack of spaces, presumably.

There is a difference between "thinking god doesn't exist" and "not think god does exist." It is subtle, but it is there. I do not think unicorns exist. I do not think that aliens from Pluto exist. However, I do not actively disbelieve in either. Unicorns might exist, in some form. I simply have no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do. There might be aliens from Pluto. I simply have no evidence and thus no reason to believe that they do.



The question boils down to this: What is the default? Do you think that people are born with an innate belief or faith in God? If they are not, then implicit atheism is the default - a lack of belief - a lack of faith. Some sort of evidence, whether it is personal experience or simply the affirmation of others, convinces theists that a deity or deities do exist. And some - explicit atheists - take what they see as a lack of evidence and form a positive belief out of it - that there absolutely is no god.

Implicit atheism, however, truly is a lack of belief, rather than a belief in a lack, as it were.



You are making the word "faith" rather useless here. By the definition you seem to be using, all knowledge and every viewpoint is "faith."

i think when a baby is born it has no faith but as soon as it sees a wall it has faith in the wall, and then it sees it's mother and has faith in her etc...
therefore it is physically impossible to be conscious and not have faith, maybe some form of nonthiesm could be a position of no faith im not sure, but generally everything is faith (think about it you mite just see what i mean)

You are making the word "faith" rather useless here. By the definition you seem to be using, all knowledge and every viewpoint is "faith."

Hmm. Faith-based at least.

Though saying that every belief system is faith-based would be a fair assessment, I think. I have yet to encounter anyone who does not have a faith-based belief system, regardless of how strongly they might oppose other such systems.

...Abuuh?
Metinks I'm blind...could you highlight it for me?look hard at your first angel. ;)

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right?

No, it means that belief in God is not rationally justified or, to put it another way, that my lack of belief in God is rationally justified.

Implicit atheism, however, truly is a lack of belief, rather than a belief in a lack, as it were.

The problem is, is a lack of belief a belief? The only way to really have no belief is to simply not comment on it (like the Buddha did, IIRC) and consider the question itself wrong. Otherwise, you're making a statement about the idea in question, which ultimately constitutes a belief.

You are making the word "faith" rather useless here. By the definition you seem to be using, all knowledge and every viewpoint is "faith."

It can be reduced to such, that's correct. The problem is, reducing everything to faith doesn't produce any meaningful new knowledge so it isn't considered when we're discussing, say, the properties of black holes or the evolution of the flagellum.

For example, we take it on faith that our perception of reality is real or that our observations are correct, but it produces nothing of value to think that they aren't so it's not considered. I mean, I have no problem taking on faith that germs as we perceive them exist or that my clothes aren't going to spontaneously combust...

look hard at your first angel. ;)

Read his quote-he was the one who said angle,it wasn't me.

look hard at your first angel. ;)

AP calc I got so made fun of for writing out that I had to memorize my table of special angels instead of special angles... I know how to spell it now though! ;)

/spam/

atheism certainly requires as much faith as any religion, but agnosticism does not require faith in anything. there isn't a way to PROVE the existence or non-existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

prove that there is no god? not possible, by the very definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.....that very being could obviously provide any evidence it desired and convince you that it did not exist. there is no way to prove you are not being tricked or misled by an infinitely powerful being.

prove there is a god? not possible, you can prove that there is a being with more knowledge and power than ourselves....but there is no way to prove it knows everything without knowing everything yourself, and no way to test its' ability to do every infinite thing.

I don't believe that I know a damn thing about God, including whether or not he exists. I don't believe anyone else does, either.

look hard at your first angel. ;)

That was purposeful. Read.

an angle didn't talk to Muhammed the Prophet.Nor did an angel

The problem is, is a lack of belief a belief? ...Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is the belief in the non-existence of god(s).

atheism certainly requires as much faith as any religion, but agnosticism does not require faith in anything. there isn't a way to PROVE the existence or non-existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

prove that there is no god? not possible, by the very definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.....that very being could obviously provide any evidence it desired and convince you that it did not exist. there is no way to prove you are not being tricked or misled by an infinitely powerful being.

prove there is a god? not possible, you can prove that there is a being with more knowledge and power than ourselves....but there is no way to prove it knows everything without knowing everything yourself, and no way to test its' ability to do every infinite thing.

Actually, I'd like a more rigirous proof of the impossibility of proving or disproving a god. This seems a bit lacking.

That was purposeful. Read.

Thankyou:)

Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is the belief in the non-existence of god(s).

That is strong atheism. Weak or implicit atheism indeed *is* simply a lack of belief.

Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is the belief in the non-existence of god(s).

*buzzer*

Atheism is anything and everything not Theism.

atheism certainly requires as much faith as any religion, but agnosticism does not require faith in anything. there isn't a way to PROVE the existence or non-existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.

prove that there is no god? not possible, by the very definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing being.....that very being could obviously provide any evidence it desired and convince you that it did not exist. there is no way to prove you are not being tricked or misled by an infinitely powerful being.

prove there is a god? not possible, you can prove that there is a being with more knowledge and power than ourselves....but there is no way to prove it knows everything without knowing everything yourself, and no way to test its' ability to do every infinite thing.

wait but how do you know we cant prove god does or does not exist?

we mite be able to we just havent found it yet;) therefore you have faith that you cannot prove either viewpoint by definition

:eek:

wait but how do you know we cant prove god does or does not exist?

Proving he does exist is theoretically possible. Him descending down from Heaven with an Angelic choir for instance would be pretty convincing.

Proving he does not exist however is not.

:eek:

Shocking, isn't it, how dichotomies work?

(I'm so totally asking for a fight, using the word dichotomy.)

:eek:

:fluffle:

Atheism is not simply a lack of belief, it is the belief in the non-existence of god(s).

Well, that is strong atheism. Implicit atheism is a little different in that it is a lack of belief in God as opposed to the explicit statement that God does not exist. God might exist, but as of now you see no evidence to belief in it.

Even so, it's still a belief, but not as strong a belief as strong atheism.

God, these terms are so confusing...

Atheism is anything and everything not Theism.That's the meaning of the word. So?

Proving he does exist is theoretically possible. Him descending down from Heaven with an Angelic choir for instance would be pretty convincing.

Proving he does not exist however is not.

him descending down from heaven wouldn't prove anything, he'd have to use his power to defy logic to prove his existence

what if an omnipotent being who made himself not a god with his powers came down and proved god didnt exist??

Learn to spell and I'll take you seriously.
As far as I know,an angle didn't talk to Muhammed the Prophet.Nor did an angel,for that matter.According to the Qur'an,Allah did.And Allah is a god,not an angel.And I expect people who are religious,including myself,to find some of your comments kind of insulting.Like the whole bearded tart bit.When you learn to debate,and not just insult people's viewpoints,come back,and people will take you seriously.

wow, you need to chill, oh wa wa wa im offended. This is the internet. You'd get the same response from me in real life. Get over yourself and your politically correct ideals. And Grammar Nazis get no one nowhere. yeah thats right, no one, nowhere. Correct it boy. CORRECT ME! :upyours:

That's the meaning of the word. So?

So, a lack of belief is in fact atheism. contrary to, you know, what you said in the post I quoted.

what if an omnipotent being who made himself not a god with his powers came down and proved god didnt exist??

Isn't that what Jesus kind of did?

there is no way to prove that a being coming down with a choir of angels is god. there is no way to prove infinite knowledge without having that knowledge yourself, and it is obviously impossible to disprove the existence of an all-powerful being. if it is all-powerful, it can provide any evidence you require or non-existence.....there is no way around that

him descending down from heaven wouldn't prove anything, he'd have to use his power to defy logic to prove his existence

what if an omnipotent being who made himself not a god with his powers came down and proved god didnt exist??

Depends. What exactly does 'making himself not a god' entail?

him descending down from heaven wouldn't prove anything, he'd have to use his power to defy logic to prove his existence

Which also is theoreticallly possible.
To summarise: if God exists, he can prove he exists.

athiesm? you've heard about it. the whole cult is supposed to be a secret! who's the traitor who revealed it?

So, a lack of belief is in fact atheism. contrary to, you know, what you said in the post I quoted.Belief is not equivalent to theism. The word Theos/Theoi is part of both words theism and atheism, so both deal with the possible position one can have towards god/gods. That is either to believe in god(s) or to believe that god(s) don't exist. If you don't make such considerations and remain neutral, none of the words should apply. :confused:

Belief is not equivalent to theism. The word Theos/Theoi is part of both words so both deal with the possible position one can have towards god/gods. That is either to believe in god(s) or to believe that god(s) don't exist. If you don't make such considerations and remain neutral, none of the words should apply. :confused:

See the bit at the end? That -ism part right there? Yeah, that means "belief in" Theism = Belief in god or gods. Now, direct your attention to Atheism. That a- part right up in the front there? That means 'not'. Atheism = Not Theism. Anything that = Not Theism, = Atheism.

Atheism and Agnosticism are no more a faith position than it is a faith position to eat your cereal in the morning, assuming that it will not suddenly turn to poison.

i think when a baby is born it has no faith but as soon as it sees a wall it has faith in the wall, and then it sees it's mother and has faith in her etc...

So your usage of the word faith is entirely useless then. Any discussion using "faith" this way boils down to a bunch of useless philosophical babble about whether or not existence exists.


The problem is, is a lack of belief a belief?

No, it isn't. Is lack of light a light source? Is lack of food a meal? Lack of belief is just that - lack of belief. It cannot be a belief in and of itself, because then it ceases to be a lack of belief.

The only way to really have no belief is to simply not comment on it (like the Buddha did, IIRC) and consider the question itself wrong. Otherwise, you're making a statement about the idea in question, which ultimately constitutes a belief.

No, the only way to have no belief is just that - to have no belief. An implicit atheist has no belief in any deity, which basically boils down to the same thing as making no comment (except when asked, obviously). The problem that people have with this concept is that, in human society, the vast majority of people do believe in a deitiy or set of deities. Because of this, many people view belief as the default, and thus think that any atheist must have had belief in the divine and then lost it - thus making nonbelief a leap of faith in their minds. This, however, does not make any sort of rational sense. The fact that most people believe in the divine does not make this the default position

To be a belief - you need to make a positive statement. You either need to say, "There is a God/gods," or, "There is no God/gods." The implicit atheist does niether. They simply say, "I do not believe in any God/gods." This statement is not a statement that the divine does not exist or that it does. It is merely a statement of a lack of belief.

Your Budhist monk, by avoiding the question would be, by definition, an implicit atheist, as he would not believe in God/gods.

It can be reduced to such, that's correct.

Not by any common definition. Useless philosophical discussions sometimes take the word there, but they are just that - useless.

See the bit at the end? That -ism part right there? Yeah, that means "belief in" Theism = Belief in god or gods. Now, direct your attention to Atheism. That a- part right up in the front there? That means 'not'. Atheism = Not Theism. Anything that = Not Theism, = Atheism.Atheism = Non-Theism

The thing with agnosticism is that, we consider the question: "God exisits?" Totally irrelevant because there are, at least for our kind, a proof good enough that God actually exists or doesn't. Therefore the position of agnosticism.

Another thing is that in catholicism, for instance, faith is a gift of God, ergo, if u don't have faith...is it God's fault??

-Kini, proven agnostic

Atheism and Agnosticism are no more a faith position than it is a faith position to eat your cereal in the morning, assuming that it will not suddenly turn to poison.

Well, depending on your definition of poison, and the cereal you eat...You know those cereals that are sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn puffs, dusted with sugar? Yeah, killers those ones are.

I don't really believe in a god, i just have a knowledge at the back of my mind that fate, or at least a type of it exists, so, i don't bother thinking about it, there isn't much point. it tends to make life extremely boring since it's so predictable. There are upsides though, since i get the feeling that oh well, something bad happened, but there was nothing i could do about it, life goes on.

If more people believed in fate life would be much easier.

Well, that is strong atheism. Implicit atheism is a little different in that it is a lack of belief in God as opposed to the explicit statement that God does not exist. God might exist, but as of now you see no evidence to belief in it.

Even so, it's still a belief, but not as strong a belief as strong atheism.

God, these terms are so confusing...

You contradicted yourself here. It's either a lack of belief or a belief. It cannot be both.

Atheism = Non-Theism

Non:
French equivalent to English "no"; Italian equivalent to English "not"; Latin equivalent to both "not" and "no"

I always thought that Atheism was short for Antitheism, which sounds to me as an actively pursued position, not just a "passive" lack of something.

I always thought that Atheism was short for Antitheism

It's not.

Atheism is a belief, but it’s not a religious belief.

We wouldn’t say that those who don’t believe in witches have a supernatural belief, merely that they have a belief about the supernatural. It is the same case with the Atheist; s/he holds a belief about religion, not a religious belief.

It's not.What does atypical mean?

probably just because some dude named muhammed walked out into the desert and came back saying an angle spoke to him

I never knew there was a religion that believed in talking angles. :p

What does atypical mean?

Since the 'without' meaning of 'a-' wouldn't fit, a simple definition is "Not typical", typical meaning "capturing the overall sense of a thing; representing something by form"



Adjective

atypical

1. Not conforming to the normal type
2. Unusual or irregular

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Atheism is a belief, but it’s not a religious belief.

We wouldn’t say that those who don’t believe in witches have a supernatural belief, merely that they have a belief about the supernatural. It is the same case with the Atheist; s/he holds a belief about religion, not a religious belief.

Reference: Post 13 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12008915&postcount=13)

Personally I have always defined people who do not know whether or not a god/gods existed as agnostic, and those who actively believe that God does not exist as atheist. Effectively I suppose I would define what someone previously called weak or implicit atheism as agnosticism and strong atheism as atheism.
Also as I have a dictionary next to me I thought I would look up agnostic and atheism, and interestingly the definitions of both include the word 'belief'. It defines agnosticism as the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists and atheism as belief that there is no God.
I am aware that is not precisely the same sense in which I used them above, I just thought it was interesting and so put it down, it is entirely possible that other dictionaries and/or people may define them in different ways, but defining them as I did at the top makes it least confusing for me. As I realise that there are people who never really think about whether God exists and then there are people like Richard Dawkins who so strongly believe that God does not exist that they actively try to campaign to convert people to their views and I feel that such differing viewpoints should be classified separately.

This is my first post.

I always thought that Atheism was short for Antitheism, which sounds to me as an actively pursued position, not just a "passive" lack of something.

No, the prefix is a-, not a shortened version of anti-

Main Entry: 2a-
Pronunciation: (')A also (')a or (')ä
Variant(s): or an- /(')an/
Function: prefix
Etymology: Latin & Greek; Latin, from Greek -- more at UN-
: not : without <asexual> -- a- before consonants other than h and sometimes even before h, an- before vowels and usually before h <achromatic> <ahistorical> <anastigmatic> <anhydrous>

Thus, the definition of atheism, if we were to go by the etymology, would be "not theism" or "without theism."

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

So atheism, by etymology, means "without belief in the existence of a god or gods".

A person who has never even considered the question would be an atheist. A person who has thought about it, but simply hasn't been convinced is an atheist. A person who has thought long and hard on it and has concluded that there absolutely is no god would also be an atheist. To differentiate between them, people have come up with the terms "implicit atheist" which is a lack of belief, rather than a belief unto itself and "explicit atheist" which is one who would declare that no god exists - who believes in the lack of gods.

It defines agnosticism as the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists and atheism as belief that there is no God.

Interestingly enough, the definition of agnosticism means that one can be a theist or atheist and also be an agnostic. Many people define belief and knowledge as two different things - knowledge being something with more certainty, more evidence perhaps. This means they can have a belief on the subject, but also feel that it is impossible to actually know for certain...

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: 'thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

:confused: Your definition of theism seems to include the definition of monotheism, which I find slightly odd.

Very good and interesting point Dempublicents1

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche

all of nietzche's quotes are crap really, i mean the whole asylum could be right, even when heir views contradict, cuz who cares about logic?

having said that nietzsche did say the all time best thing ever... i dont wanna say it though cuz it will spoil the mystery...

Any philosophy that takes a definite stance on theology, or how humans can come to terms with the divine is religious by nature. Atheists say there is no god, which is taking a definite stand on theology. They can't prove that there is no god, so it is therefore a statement of faith. Communists are about as atheist as you can get, but their philosophy of dialectical materialism is very much religious. Religion does mot necessarily imply belief in a god. Take Taoism for example. :cool:

meh, taoism has a god its just not a classical monotheism god

its like star wars force, its very powerful just not conscious

You contradicted yourself here. It's either a lack of belief or a belief. It cannot be both.

Not necessarily. Taking a stance on the issue does mean you have belief in your particular position; the only way to not have a belief would be to literally have no position on it either way.

Not necessarily. Taking a stance on the issue does mean you have belief in your particular position; the only way to not have a belief would be to literally have no position on it either way.

Which incidentally falls into Atheism. Unless you consider it to be Theism?

Any philosophy that takes a definite stance on theology, or how humans can come to terms with the divine is religious by nature. Atheists say there is no god, which is taking a definite stand on theology. They can’t prove that there is no god, so it is therefore a statement of faith. Communists are about as atheist as you can get, but their philosophy of dialectical materialism is very much religious. Religion does mot necessarily imply belief in a god. Take Taoism for example. :cool:
Then ‘religion’ is nothing more than unprovable claims, which I find to be a poor definition. The concept of religion seems, IMO, to contain more than just an unprovable claim.

Therefore I would argue that dialectical materialism is a political/economic philosophy, not a religion. Similarly, I would contend that Taoism, and many of what we in the West would call ‘Eastern Religions’, are more closely analogous to our conception of philosophy rather than religion.

Then ‘religion’ is nothing more than unprovable claims, which I find to be a poor definition. The concept of religion seems, IMO, to contain more than just an unprovable claim.

Therefore I would argue that dialectical materialism is a political/economic philosophy, not a religion. Similarly, I would contend that Taoism, and many of what we in the West would call ‘Eastern Religions’, are more closely analogous to our conception of philosophy rather than religion.

you're an amazing human being:fluffle:

Faith is confidence in a claim as truth without proof to support said claim. I believe (based on that definition) that to make an definite assertion about something that cannot be proven is a demonstration of faith on the part of the asserter. Atheists and Theists make these assertions, therefore both of them demonstrate faith.

The real question becomes "What is proof?". All proofs require postulates or axioms. It is impossible to proove every postulate simulataneously, so believing anything at all is ultimately based on faith in the fundamentals of the proof.

There is no shame in having faith. Faith is a requirement for rational thought. Misplaced faith can be a dangerous thing, however.

:fluffle:
Vielen Danke! Everyone loves a bit of fluffle. Well, nearly everyone....

Which incidentally falls into Atheism. Unless you consider it to be Theism?

Neither. It has nothing to say about God either way; it would have to be put in its own category, nontheism.

Similarly, I would contend that Taoism, and many of what we in the West would call ‘Eastern Religions’, are more closely analogous to our conception of philosophy rather than religion.

I agree, I am not entirely sure what the Taoist teachings are, but I have always considered Buddhism to be somewhat more like a philosophy than a religion, and Confuscianism even more so.

The thing is, you have to really stretch the concepts of belief or faith to let atheism or agnosticism fit under them. You are basically saying that an agnostics belief that not believing things is the best philosophy is the same level of belief that a fundamentalist of a religion exhibits. you may as well say we all have faith, as we all more or less believe that reality exists and that the sun will rise tomorrow, etc.

The thing is, you have to really stretch the concepts of belief or faith to let atheism or agnosticism fit under them. You are basically saying that an agnostics belief that not believing things is the best philosophy is the same level of belief that a fundamentalist of a religion exhibits. you may as well say we all have faith, as we all more or less believe that reality exists and that the sun will rise tomorrow, etc.

Well, we do. The problem is, people assume that faith is a bad thing; every single thing we do is taken on faith and we could not function without it. However, the problem isn't faith, it's what people use that faith for that matters.

Someone using their Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist or whatever faith to help the poor or to build a homeless shelter is a lot different than someone using their faith to blow up a synagogue or an abortion clinic. It's just like the difference between an atheist who uses their faith to combat extremism as opposed to one who is an extremist and who insults or even harms others.

Faith has no degrees, but the way people use it does. It's what you do with your faith, whatever you place it in, that matters.

I think the 'faith' that the observable and objective is paramount might be better called 'sanity.'


Make no mistake, this 'faith' is shared equally by religious people, who derive their irrational beliefs from what they observe, read, &c.

of course it is. i thought everyone knew this. i mean everyone over 13 that isn't a fundy troll bitch that is.

Faith has no degrees, but the way people use it does. It's what you do with your faith, whatever you place it in, that matters.

True. Like Christians place their faith in two sets of beliefs. That God etc. exists, and that Vishnu, Siva, Zeus, Allah, etc. etc. don't.

This second item, the negative belief is as much an item of faith as the positive belief in God.

That being the case, the atheist has simply reduced the number of unsupported and unsupportable items of faith from two to one. That has to be an improvement.

I think the 'faith' that the observable and objective is paramount might be better called 'sanity.'

Well, it's the most practical thing. I mean, I love being skeptical as much as anyone else, but I do concede that it's a lot easier to just assume that things are probably going to turn out the way they should. I don't relish worrying that Cthulhu's going to jump out from behind a bush on the way to get a coffee.


Make no mistake, this 'faith' is shared equally by religious people, who derive their irrational beliefs from what they observe, read, &c.

Irrationality in and of itself is not a bad thing. We need irrational decisions and thoughts to fill in the places where rationality doesn't work.

:confused: Your definition of theism seems to include the definition of monotheism, which I find slightly odd.

Yeah, well. Blame Mirriam-Webster and whoever they talked to when compiling it. This probably has to do with the fact that monotheism in most western cultures is considered the "norm" and polytheism, in its various forms, is often referred to as paganism. Thus, there are probably people out there who would only use the word "theism" to describe monotheism. But, academically, I've never heard anyone use it in that manner.

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. A lack of belief cannot be a belief. Anything which is a belief is, by definition, not a lack of belief.

Taking a stance on the issue does mean you have belief in your particular position;

Indeed. But remaining at the default, and taking no stance outside of it, does not.

the only way to not have a belief would be to literally have no position on it either way.

And to have no position on it would be to not believe in god, hence - atheism.

Im tired of the same thread over and over, so Im thinking I may just copy/paste this one whenever this or one similar pops up.


I am equally certain as any Christian on the planet that my position on the existance of any god is the correct one.

Wich is to say that neither of us has any fucking clue what the truth really is, all we can do is ask the same goddamn question over and over again, until each of us comes across an answer we decide works.


I say that anyone who allows some magical sky-man to do thier thinking is an idiot, and adherance to organized religion is the first introduction to corruption most people encounter in thier lives.

However, (pay attention, this part is important)

I am also a wise enough person to know that I dont know shit.
If you understand that, you know exactly what it means.
It means that no matter how adamantly I adhere to Atheism, to claim with absolute surety, that my beliefs and mine alone, are the only correct system out there?

That would be the most assinine claim anyone could ever make.

There is no proof, nothing.
Not in the Bible, or Koran, or Torah, or Tao Te Ching, nothing.
No text book on physics can answer the question.
None ever will.

The only difference is that to prove there is nothing, you need nothing.
To prove there is something, you need something.

Have I mentioned there is nothing?

Yes necessarily. A lack of belief cannot be a belief. Anything which is a belief is, by definition, not a lack of belief.

Well, here's a big problem that stems from terms. When you say that you lack belief, do you mean that if you were asked "Does God exist" you would say something like "I have no belief on the matter"?

And to have no position on it would be to not believe in god, hence - atheism.

Well, no, it's even less than that. You literally have no position whatsoever. It's hard to convey because it's one of those qualia-type things (or the perfect triangle for that matter); I can imagine what having no belief is like, but I can't put it in to terms without sounding similar to implicit atheism.

I am also a wise enough person to know that I dont know shit.

That's a really true statement; the most wise thing you can do is realize that you know nothing. And, as a corollary, I'd say it's important to admit that you are limited and fallible.

That being the case, the atheist has simply reduced the number of unsupported and unsupportable items of faith from two to one. That has to be an improvement.

That's debatable. For some people, the thought of no God would be terrifying, for others comforting, and for others meaningless. Of course, it's also important to note that atheism does not preclude belief in the supernatural, only the divine, so it's entirely possible that you can have spiritual beliefs without God. In fact, I believe Buddhism could fall under that description along with Taoism.

I personally believe in God because I think doing so expands the amount of meaningful knowledge I have at my disposal, and provides a solid context for my beliefs.

Well, here's a big problem that stems from terms. When you say that you lack belief, do you mean that if you were asked "Does God exist" you would say something like "I have no belief on the matter"?

The implicit atheist would say, "I do not believe that God exists." Note that this is different from, "I believe that God does not exist," a statement that the implicit atheist would not make.

In the end, that boils down to "I have no belief on the matter." The implicit atheist neither believes that God exists nor believes that God does not exist.

Well, no, it's even less than that. You literally have no position whatsoever. It's hard to convey because it's one of those qualia-type things (or the perfect triangle for that matter); I can imagine what having no belief is like, but I can't put it in to terms without sounding similar to implicit atheism.

Having no position would mean that you do not believe in a God - hence, atheism.

I know the universal truth that God doesn't exist, and Christians are bunch of gullible idiots.

PS: Unless you believe in Creationism you're just gullible.

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right? or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

There are, tentatively speaking, three kinds of atheists who are distinct from agnostics (and there are some agnostics who just justifiably call themselves atheists.)

There are the atheists who take their position on faith. Here, your point is justified.

There are the atheists who conclude that God does not exist based on some logical argument against it - the alleged logical incoherence of omnipotence, the incompatibility of omnipotence with omnibenevolence, and so on. That is not a position based on faith in the non-existence of God, though it is one whose basic framework can be attacked on a few grounds.

Then there are the atheists who don't deny that conceivably, God could exist, but see the idea, independent of convincing evidence, as ridiculous - much the same way I see my friend as a liar when he declares that he is God, even though, conceivably, he could be telling the truth. We all hold things to be true that we are not certain of, and this does not require faith as long as we are not willing to claim certainty. This is where I fall.

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

Only this is not a necessary tenet of agnosticism at all, and one that has nothing to do with "no evidence" but rather with an analysis of the limitations of knowledge. How can you verify the existence or non-existence of an immaterial being?

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith

Yes, but the kind of faith required to reject skepticism is of a different quality than the kind of faith required to believe in God, and the two should not be lumped together.

For an indirect illustration of this idea, consider this - everyone rejects skepticism, in act if not in thought, but there are plenty of atheists.

The implicit atheist would say, "I do not believe that God exists." Note that this is different from, "I believe that God does not exist," a statement that the implicit atheist would not make.

In the end, that boils down to "I have no belief on the matter." The implicit atheist neither believes that God exists nor believes that God does not exist.

It would be easiest to say "I have no belief in regard to the existence of God" and just clarify it, but I understand what you mean.

Having no position would mean that you do not believe in a God - hence, atheism.

It all comes down to semantics. I use different terms for the same thing; I think nontheism better describes implicit atheism, while atheism better describes strong atheism. It prevents confusion.

But then again, it's usually not the implicit atheists who really get involved with the debate about God.

Then there are the atheists who don't deny that conceivably, God could exist, but see the idea, independent of convincing evidence, as ridiculous - much the same way I see my friend as a liar when he declares that he is God, even though, conceivably, he could be telling the truth. We all hold things to be true that we are not certain of, and this does not require faith as long as we are not willing to claim certainty. This is where I fall.

This is the belief I have trouble classifying under atheism; I see theism and atheism as explicit beliefs, while things like this fall more in to the agnostic spectrum.

You could call this perhaps atheistic agnosticism because it really just doesn't take the kind of explicit stance that is associated with atheism.

There are, tentatively speaking, three kinds of atheists who are distinct from agnostics (and there are some agnostics who just justifiably call themselves atheists.)

Or even agnostics who would call themselves theists. This is the problem with the way people try to classify. They want someone to be an atheist, theist, or agnostic, but it is possible for an agnostic to be either a theist or an atheist.

This is the belief I have trouble classifying under atheism; I see theism and atheism as explicit beliefs, while things like this fall more in to the agnostic spectrum.

You could call this perhaps atheistic agnosticism because it really just doesn't take the kind of explicit stance that is associated with atheism.

No, it still takes an explicit stance: there is no god. It merely does not assert that there is proof for this stance, or that it is rested upon some kind of unquestionable certainty.

To use the example I referenced earlier again, I have a friend who claims he's God. This claim, it seems to me, is hardly equivalent to the kind of claim about which I might seriously be agnostic. It is possible, for instance, that he read a book on Sunday. That would be a fairly reasonable claim; reading books is a perfectly ordinary activity, the sort of thing that I would have no reason to doubt if he claimed it were true. Without any claim either way, I am agnostic on the question; I hold to neither position, because I see no reason to.

Now, it is also possible that he is indeed God, but this claim is not reasonable and not ordinary. Without any positive evidence (other than his less-than-serious word) for this kind of outrageous claim, I can reasonably assume that it is false, as indeed I do. This time, I am indeed taking a position - I deny that he is God. I do not claim certainty in doing so, but I need not to take the position.

I may be "agnostic" - but I am "agnostic" in the same sense that I am "agnostic" about almost everything I do not accept. It is possible that the Bush Administration is a bunch of extra-terrestrials, and that what I view as their manifest incompetence and utter corruption is in fact merely the pursuit of an interstellar plan necessary to avert galaxy-wide catastrophe, but since this seems to me to be an absurd claim, I am content with labeling them incompetent and corrupt.

This distinction is why the leap of faith necessary for religion is so significant to philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard and Miguel de Unanumo - it is not simply the assertion of something fairly reasonable, the sort of thing about which no one would look at you crazily. It is the assertion of something that, on its face, appears absurd. That is its power, and that is one reason I reject it.

That's a really true statement; the most wise thing you can do is realize that you know nothing. And, as a corollary, I'd say it's important to admit that you are limited and fallible.
*Crash lands in topic*

The most wise thing I'd propose is to realize that you might know infinitessimally little and have no influence over the world around you, but when put to good use, such limited knowledge and power can be invaluable.

In any case, I feel that at the core of Religious uncertainty is the issue of Semantics. One does not need to have faith in either the existence or non-existence of God when the definition of God is still vague.

By certain definitions, I might be said to be a Theist, since I acknowledge the validity of a universal personification. By others, I might be said to be Atheist, since this personification is unlikely to be embodied in an actual separate cosmic person.

Until we are presented with a definition of God, any position we take is not so much of faith in an outside entity or lack thereof as much as faith in a personal interpretation, regardless of where we stand.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible and acceptable to take an explicitly neutral stance based on an acknowledged lack of understanding.

Copying and pasting:


Why I am an agnostic:

I am not arguing that we should be impartial in order to function as rational beings (rationality is always a slave to proclivity), rather I am stating that we must be impartial due to our form as rational beings. Our rationality is built on possibilities and causes, creating a chain of likelihoods and certainties of pasts and futures: this was, this happened, this is, this will happen. Because of this chain, we are also bound by space and time, attempting to create as clear spatio-temporal contiguities as we possibly can. In sum, our rationality works on probabilities and space-time. Those supernatural entities, those gods that people seek, will no doubt be unbound by the boundaries imposed upon our reason, ergo, we do not have the faculties to make statements upon the existence of God, and we do not have the faculties to declare observations as evidence of God.


Why atheism must be separate from agnosticism:

Because no one is completely unskeptical of knowledge. Anyone within a logical argument can be forced to say that there is a possibility that they don't "know" what they think they know.

EDIT: Of course Decartes uses circular logic (that I am certain he knew about but was unwilling to remove) to avoid this problem.

If you can get the most devout believer to say that he doubts any of his perception, that he may be in the midst of an intricate dream, then he too counts as an agnostic.

If we allow varying degrees into this epistemological stance, then it includes everyone and becomes meaningless.

Why atheism must be separate from agnosticism:

Because no one is completely unskeptical of knowledge. Anyone within a logical argument can be forced to say that there is a possibility that they don't "know" what they think they know.

Indeed, but this is not the same thing as agnosticism, which is the standpoint that you cannot know. "I might be wrong," is not the same thing as, "There is no way to objectively determine the truth of this." The latter comes much closer to agnosticism than the former.

If you can get the most devout believer to say that he doubts any of his perception, that he may be in the midst of an intricate dream, then he too counts as an agnostic.

Wrong. Doubt and agnosticism are not the same thing. I doubt that there is a bear in my house right now, but I am not agnostic about it, because I think it is possible to know whether or not there is a bear in my house. This could be determined with as near 100% certainty as humanly possible.

There are those who believe that it is possible to know, with certainty, that there is a god and that certain things can be said about that god. They may doubt their own version, but they believe it can be known. Many don't doubt their own ideas either. These people are not agnostics.

Indeed, but this is not the same thing as agnosticism, which is the standpoint that you cannot know. "I might be wrong," is not the same thing as, "There is no way to objectively determine the truth of this." The latter comes much closer to agnosticism than the former.

Wrong. Doubt and agnosticism are not the same thing. I doubt that there is a bear in my house right now, but I am not agnostic about it, because I think it is possible to know whether or not there is a bear in my house. This could be determined with as near 100% certainty as humanly possible.

There are those who believe that it is possible to know, with certainty, that there is a god and that certain things can be said about that god. They may doubt their own version, but they believe it can be known. Many don't doubt their own ideas either. These people are not agnostics.

As a strong agnostic, I hold firmly that agnosticism is complete epistemological skepticism, one cannot know of any God or any correlation a natural occurrence or object may have with God.

When I mentioned doubt, I mentioned doubt of perception, not doubt of knowledge. If there is a doubt of perception, there directly follows a skepticism of knowledge, an understanding that we cannot be sure of a truth. So if the firmest believer concludes that his perception may be false, he cannot hold any grasp on true knowledge. I know of no way to hold perception to perfect accuracy.

Basically you've diluted the word "faith" so that it means any belief or lack of belief.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the earth was created by the Giant Space Molemen?

....No?

AHA! FAITH POSITION! YOU HAVE FAITH! ;)

and so on for each and every possible thing you've ever believed in, or not believed.

Faith is knowing something to be true without proof, and accepting that there is no proof. Technically, there is no proof God doesn't exist (at least none that are irrefutable) so atheism is a matter of faith. So, yes, believing the world was not created by the Giant Space Molemen is a matter of faith. Now, there is substantial physical evidence that would prove GSM did not create the earth, so most people would accept that as fact. But, physical evidence is not infalliable.

Faith has no degrees, but the way people use it does. It's what you do with your faith, whatever you place it in, that matters.

I don't think that is the way I view faith.

Faith is a very useful mechanism. It allows me to deal with situations I have not encountered before. If I have done lots of walking but never stepped onto a beach the first time I place my foot down on the beach I am placing faith in my past experience with walking that stepping on the beach will be a similar experience. If I didn’t have faith it would be very difficult to take that next step as I would have no framework with which to view the new event. If after thousands of steps on the beach and for which each and every time the ground has been there to support me this activity would take less and less faith the more I did it..

If however I were to take a step and fall through the floor, in order for me to start walking again I would have to re-establish my confidence. My first step would require a lot of faith as my recent experience would be telling me that it was unsafe. I am relying on my faith in past experience to tell me that the next step will be ok. At that time I may have a body of evidence that I have to place my faith in that says the floor will be fine despite my recent experience that says that the last step I took was not safe. Ie 0 out of 1 recent steps were safe. After my first safe step I would be up to 1 out of 2 then 2 out of 3… etc till I was 99 out of 100 steps were safe…. The more steps I took the less I would have to rely on faith until faith was playing a vanishingly small part in my ability to take my next step.

I view religious faith in a similar fashion. I have yet to see any evidence that would make me believe in God consequently it would take an enormous leap of faith for me to believe in him despite all my experience. For me atheism essentially takes no faith at all.

For other people who have been brought up with religion being a heavy part of their life I imagine they see evidence for His work in everything. They look at a blade of grass and see His work, consequently for them belief in god actually takes very little faith at all. Believing everything written in the scriptures on the other hand may take a greater deal of faith.

The amount of faith it takes to believe in or not believe in God would depend on your personal experiences and the light in which you viewed them. My mother is an evolutionary biologist so for me strict belief in the Christian scriptures would take an enormous leap of faith that would fight against every piece of evidence I have and everything I viewed because on the framework I used to view that event. To discount the work of a god in those events would take almost no faith at all because there being no god fits well with all the evidence I have all ready accumulated.

Who knows what the natural state of being is. For me personally though atheism is a matter of very little faith indeed.

Faith is knowing something to be true without proof, and accepting that there is no proof. Technically, there is no proof God doesn't exist (at least none that are irrefutable) so atheism is a matter of faith.

Atheism is not a position of "knowing" anything. It is a belief. Specifically, a lack of belief.

Faith is in fact a strong spiritual belief. Faith is not required to simply answer "no" to the question "do you believe in God," hence atheism is not a matter of having faith. Many people would in fact define atheism as a matter of *not* having faith.

Atheism is not a position of "knowing" anything. It is a belief. Specifically, a lack of belief.

Implicit atheism, yes. Strong atheism is entirely different and fully fits the definition of faith.

Faith is in fact a strong spiritual belief. Faith is not required to simply answer "no" to the question "do you believe in God," hence atheism is not a matter of having faith. Many people would in fact define atheism as a matter of *not* having faith.

Well, it does require faith if you believe that your position is true as opposed to dependent on experiences or data.

Implicit atheism, yes. Strong atheism is entirely different and fully fits the definition of faith.

Since the topic is "atheism" here, we must reduce to the most common and defining thing. Atheists do not believe in God. To say "atheism" but actually only mean one specific subset of atheism is like saying "Islam" when one what really means is "Extremist Muslim terrorists."

Well, it does require faith if you believe that your position is true as opposed to dependent on experiences or data.

True, but again belief is not necessarily a matter of philosophical assertions as to what is true or not.

Since the topic is "atheism" here, we must reduce to the most common and defining thing. Atheists do not believe in God. To say "atheism" but actually only mean one specific subset of atheism is like saying "Islam" when one what really means is "Extremist Muslim terrorists."

Of course. Generally, however, the debate seems to fall between strong atheism and strong theism as opposed to any others on the spectrum.


True, but again belief is not necessarily a matter of philosophical assertions as to what is true or not.

No, it's not. If anything, an implicit atheist couldn't call their beliefs true because they hinge on evidence rather than some positive statement of belief.

Of course, everything eventually reduces to faith but it's a slightly different kind of faith.

Atheism is no different than disbelief in Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one would call it a position of faith to disbelieve in those.

Is there need for evidence to not believe in religion?

God can smack me with a giant fish and i can still say there is no god

One can believe in anything regladless how stupid it is

Neither.

*buzzer*

C'mon Tali, say it with me. Di-cho-to-my. There is no 'neither'. Would you agree that the lack of a position is not theism?

Now, there is substantial physical evidence that would prove GSM did not create the earth

Such as?

the athiest was used by the romans to decribe the christians.

Ohhh many many thanks to the OP for this one, I love it, it is one of my personal faves.

I will say all that we think is true is ultimatly based on faith, even that which we like to think of as objective knowldege.

Ohhh many many thanks to the OP for this one, I love it, it is one of my personal faves.

I will say all that we think is true is ultimatly based on faith, even that which we like to think of as objective knowldege.

Except math.:p *nodnod*

In the beginning there was no religion.
The first Humans were very intelligent animals. They understood more about the world than other animals. In becoming human they became conscious of themselves. In becoming conscious of themselves they naturally questioned their origins. They questioned the natural world around them. As they had no understanding of biology, physics or chemistry so they drew the conclusion that something or someone had put them here and had created all around them. this must have seemed logical to them as they saw that for a spear or a hut or anything else to come into existance, someone had to make it.
With the division of labour came the specialisation of spirituality. A priestly caste developed who acted as bureaucrats, scientists and dispensers of religion. Because they did no other work they had time to develope their knowledge of astronomy which impacted upon agriculture I.E. the ability to predict tides and flooding around the Nile valley and such areas of early civilisation allowed them to appear to have some supernatural knowledge. it suited them to perpetuate this myth so the sun, the moon and the stars became gods. Sacrifices made to the gods meant meat for the priests. Tithes meant grain and other foodstuffs.
In early religions belief in an afterlife was not universal. In many of them the afterlife was reserved for the nobles and priestly castes. This made them godlike and helped perpetuate the social sytems that gauranteed them their lavish lifestyles. Hence religion was born, invented by men through ignorance and perpetuated by greed. This is why I am an Atheist. I base my atheism upon historical, anthropological and scientific evidence. It is not a faith position.

I've always been curious about one thing, why do agnostics have this immense desire to make it seem like atheists are relying on faith?

The simple fact of the matter is that while a loose definition of faith can be applied to anything from the implicit belief that your next footstep will not launch you into space to belief in god, religions of the world rely on blind faith. Blind faith is belief without evidence. Atheism does not require blind faith. The reason you will see so many atheists make the seemingly bold claim that atheism is the default position is because, if you take the time to think about it, it really is.

If you start with the position that a god exists then it is essentially impossible to prove you wrong, because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread you cannot know everything at once, and we cannot currently observe what is outside of our universe. So if you're trying to decide one way or the other, assuming that god does exist means you've already made a decision.

If you start with the position that we cannot determine if god exists then you have also already made a decision, you have decided that blind faith is a reasonable way to determine reality. This is because implicit in the claim that we cannot know if god exists or not is the acceptance that faith without evidence for it is a reasonable way to make a claim. You can't prove what they're assuming is wrong, so it's unreasonable of you to say that it's not true.

If, however, you start with the position that god does not exist then all it takes to prove your position wrong is one piece of evidence that such a being actually does exist. So atheism, the assumption that god does not exist unless you can show otherwise, is actually the only position that even has a chance of being shown to be wrong, so if you're asking the question, "Does god exist?", then atheism really is the default starting point, in fact, it's the only reasonable one.

religions of the world rely on blind faith.

Incorrect. Some religious people hold their beliefs in blind faith, but it is not a requirement.

Blind faith is belief without evidence.

Define evidence. Meanwhile, blind faith implies unquestioning faith, not simply faith without a specific type of evidence.

Atheism does not require blind faith.

Explicit atheism does, or at least on faith. Implicit atheist does not.

The reason you will see so many atheists make the seemingly bold claim that atheism is the default position is because, if you take the time to think about it, it really is.

If you start with the position that a god exists then it is essentially impossible to prove you wrong, because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread you cannot know everything at once, and we cannot currently observe what is outside of our universe. So if you're trying to decide one way or the other, assuming that god does exist means you've already made a decision.

Indeed. Hence the reason that you don't assume it at the beginning - it is a conclusion you reach.

If you start with the position that we cannot determine if god exists then you have also already made a decision, you have decided that blind faith is a reasonable way to determine reality. This is because implicit in the claim that we cannot know if god exists or not is the acceptance that faith without evidence for it is a reasonable way to make a claim. You can't prove what they're assuming is wrong, so it's unreasonable of you to say that it's not true.

Again, hence the reason that you don't start with the position that it cannot be determined. It is a conclusion you reach.

If, however, you start with the position that god does not exist then all it takes to prove your position wrong is one piece of evidence that such a being actually does exist. So atheism, the assumption that god does not exist unless you can show otherwise, is actually the only position that even has a chance of being shown to be wrong,

If someone were to determine with certainty the existence or non-existence of God, would that not prove the agnostics (atheist or theist) incorrect? By saying that the agnostic cannot be proven incorrect, you are basically agreeing with the agnostic - saying that neither position will ever be known with certainty.

Incorrect. Some religious people hold their beliefs in blind faith, but it is not a requirement.
True enough, people who have never questioned just hold it because it's what they were told to believe.
Define evidence. Meanwhile, blind faith implies unquestioning faith, not simply faith without a specific type of evidence.
ev·i·dence (ĕv'ĭ-dəns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Explicit atheism does, or at least on faith. Implicit atheist does not. Correct, but when agnostics criticise atheism they do not acknowledge the existence of implicit atheism or they wouldn't have made the claim that atheism requires faith in the first place.
If someone were to determine with certainty the existence or non-existence of God, would that not prove the agnostics (atheist or theist) incorrect? By saying that the agnostic cannot be proven incorrect, you are basically agreeing with the agnostic - saying that neither position will ever be known with certainty.This would be true if there were a solid, unchangeable definition of god. There is not, the definition of god varies from person to person, and even from day to day. So the concept of god it's self cannot be proven impossible. That does not, however, require the implied viability that comes from a position that explicitly states that you should not assume god does not exist.

Then ‘religion’ is nothing more than unprovable claims, which I find to be a poor definition. The concept of religion seems, IMO, to contain more than just an unprovable claim.

Therefore I would argue that dialectical materialism is a political/economic philosophy, not a religion. Similarly, I would contend that Taoism, and many of what we in the West would call ‘Eastern Religions’, are more closely analogous to our conception of philosophy rather than religion.

Exactly, religion is an unproven basis from which we perceive the universe through (Weltanschauung). Nobody can prove that a god does not exist, nor can they prove the validity of evolution (in fact evolution can be disproven). Taoism is not simply a philosophy. Philosophy is based solely on reasoning (whether it is good reasoning or not). Taoism incorporates a belief in energy fields and spirituality that can only be accepted on faith. Dialectical Materialism is not a political or economic philosophy. Communism is, but dialectical materialism is simply the philosophy on which the basis of the idea of revolution was founded by Marx. The Communist use of dialectical materialism has to do with the eventual perfection of society through a supposed natural societal evolution. History would seem to contradict the possibility of this utopian goal. It is very much a religion and not a philosophy of reason.

The amount of faith necessary to believe something is going to depend on your background.

When you are young on balance your parents are likely to be seen to have been a good and reliable source of info. Thanks to them you have learned all sorts of stuff. Thats why it is easy for small children to believe in things like Santa Claus. Their parents told them that Santa was real so he was. All the evidence said he was real, because the bulk of the childs experience said that the people telling them that Santa was real were honest (plus the stocking fills up and the cookies disappear) So it in fact takes very little faith to believe in Santa Claus at a young age the "evidence" is all there.

Same with religion. If you are told that God exists by people you trust you are likely to believe because there has been all sorts of evidence in the past that these people are on the whole honest with you.. why would that change. There is even evidence, a book with his word, and churches and thousands and thousands of other people that also believe. It actually requires very little faith to believe if you are not presented with any contrary evidence, and even if you are, you simply have to weigh that against the bulk of experience you have which has been viewed in a theistic way.

Same with atheism. If you are never told about a God and given alternative explanations for the phenomena around you it takes absolutely zero faith to not believe in God, you don't even know about the concept. As you grow up and the circle of people you know increases eventually you are likely to come across the concept of God. At that point it does take some faith to not believe in God. You have to weigh the evidence of trustworthiness of parents who haven't told you about God against the trustworthiness of the person who has told you about God. And weigh the evidence you have seen for things that are claimed to be because of God against the evidence that you have acquired previously.

As you can see the amount of faith needed to believe is dependant on your past... I happen to believe that as theism is a concept that is not necessarily immediately descernable from your immediate environment that atheism is in fact the only position that can involve zero faith. If you aren't told about God you don't have to have faith not to believe in Him. If however you ever come across the concept of a god or gods then it does require faith to be abjectly disbelieving.

So although atheism may well be the default state and so require no faith, but due to the prevalance of theistic ideas in human culture, as you will encounter the idea of God at some point, for all practical purposes atheism does require faith.

True enough, people who have never questioned just hold it because it's what they were told to believe.

And many question and still believe.

ev·i·dence (ĕv'ĭ-dəns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.

In that case, there is evidence for God, enough to convince me, anyways. It isn't empirical evidence, but it is evidence. I cannot share this evidence with you, as it is drawn from my own personal experiences, but it does exist.

Correct, but when agnostics criticise atheism they do not acknowledge the existence of implicit atheism or they wouldn't have made the claim that atheism requires faith in the first place.

*shrug* Most of the "agnostics" that criticize atheism on that basis aren't really aware of what the term means in the first place. They aren't aware that an atheist or theist can be just as agnostic as they. They also aren't aware that, unless they are theists, they are, by definition, atheists.

This would be true if there were a solid, unchangeable definition of god. There is not, the definition of god varies from person to person, and even from day to day. So the concept of god it's self cannot be proven impossible. That does not, however, require the implied viability that comes from a position that explicitly states that you should not assume god does not exist.

If you have no evidence that a given deity exists or does not exist, it really doesn't make sense to assume either one, except for the purposes of a specific discussion. But this is the difference between the implicit and explicit atheist. The implicit atheist does not assume that the divine does not exist. Instead, he simply does not believe that the divine does exist unless given evidence. The explicit atheist, on the other hand, does make this assumption - a leap of faith, as it were.

I will say all that we think is true is ultimatly based on faith, even that which we like to think of as objective knowldege.

i couldn't agree more:)

maths, logic, feelings, emotions. just everything you can put words thoughts or jibberish to

Except math.:p *nodnod*

:headbang:

anyway i thought of a weird theory to show athiesm as a faith position

opposites are by definition exactly the same except in one quality in which they are as different as possible (e.g particles and anti particles, black and white (share properties) and true good and evil are both identical just one focuses on suffering the other on happiness)
in the case of athiesm and thiesm they are identical except when it comes to whether god exists or not, therefore if one is a faith position so is the other

i know its a weird theory and being a by definition arguement you can just say "oh well im not that kinda athiest" to get out of it

And many question and still believe.

In that case, there is evidence for God, enough to convince me, anyways. It isn't empirical evidence, but it is evidence. I cannot share this evidence with you, as it is drawn from my own personal experiences, but it does exist.True enough, I should have been specific.
*shrug* Most of the "agnostics" that criticize atheism on that basis aren't really aware of what the term means in the first place. They aren't aware that an atheist or theist can be just as agnostic as they. They also aren't aware that, unless they are theists, they are, by definition, atheists.Exactly, but many people in this thread were expressing the opinion that they are agnostic atheists and them made the claim that atheism isn't reasonable.
If you have no evidence that a given deity exists or does not exist, it really doesn't make sense to assume either one, except for the purposes of a specific discussion. But this is the difference between the implicit and explicit atheist. The implicit atheist does not assume that the divine does not exist. Instead, he simply does not believe that the divine does exist unless given evidence. The explicit atheist, on the other hand, does make this assumption - a leap of faith, as it were.That's not entirely accurate. Even the implicit atheist assumes god doesn't exist, he just does not make the claim that god cannot exist. You are correct, though, in that he does not believe that the divine does exist unless given evidence.

:headbang:

anyway i thought of a weird theory to show athiesm as a faith position

opposites are by definition exactly the same except in one quality in which they are as different as possible (e.g particles and anti particles, black and white (share properties) and true good and evil are both identical just one focuses on suffering the other on happiness)
in the case of athiesm and thiesm they are identical except when it comes to whether god exists or not, therefore if one is a faith position so is the other

i know its a weird theory and being a by definition arguement you can just say "oh well im not that kinda athiest" to get out of it

That would only work if all atheist and all theists believed the exact same thing, though. Last time I checked, no two people ever believe the exact same thing....

:headbang:

anyway i thought of a weird theory to show athiesm as a faith position

opposites are by definition exactly the same except in one quality in which they are as different as possible (e.g particles and anti particles, black and white (share properties) and true good and evil are both identical just one focuses on suffering the other on happiness)
in the case of athiesm and thiesm they are identical except when it comes to whether god exists or not, therefore if one is a faith position so is the other

i know its a weird theory and being a by definition arguement you can just say "oh well im not that kinda athiest" to get out of itThe opposite of faith in god is a lack of faith in god.

The opposite of faith in god is a lack of faith in god.

nah i would say the opposite of faith in god is faith in no god

faith in god=1
lack of faith in god would just be (does not=)1
faith in no god= -1 (maybe you could but faith in an anti-god as minus 1 but alot of thiests say an anti-god is just a god so i thought best leave that dodgey subject out of it)

non-theism=0 (this is the only view i can think of which hasn't taken a stance of faith, because not thinking about it could mean there is no faith involved i suppose)

you've sort of pwned me with that arguement, cause both lack of faith in god and faith in no god both seem like opposites to faith in god

nah i would say the opposite of faith in god is faith in no god

faith in god=1
lack of faith in god would just be (does not=)1
faith in no god= -1 (maybe you could but faith in an anti-god as minus 1 but alot of thiests say an anti-god is just a god)

non-theism=0 (this is the only view i can think of which hasn't taken a stance of faith, because not thinking about it could mean there is no faith involved i suppose)

Theology isn't math.
And faith in no god makes very limited sense indeed...

The opposite of faith in god is a lack of faith in god.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between saying "I believe in the existence of God" and "God does exist" just like there is a difference between "I do not believe in the existence of God" and "God does not exist".

Explicit claims require both faith and belief, while implicit claims require only belief.

nah i would say the opposite of faith in god is faith in no god

faith in god=1
lack of faith in god would just be (does not=)1
faith in no god= -1 (maybe you could but faith in an anti-god as minus 1 but alot of thiests say an anti-god is just a god so i thought best leave that dodgey subject out of it)

non-theism=0 (this is the only view i can think of which hasn't taken a stance of faith, because not thinking about it could mean there is no faith involved i suppose)

you've sort of pwned me with that arguement, cause both lack of faith in god and faith in no god both seem like opposites to faith in godAtheism is anything not theism. So "non-theism" is atheism.

Not necessarily. There's a difference between saying "I believe in the existence of God" and "God does exist" just like there is a difference between "I do not believe in the existence of God" and "God does not exist".

Explicit claims require both faith and belief, while implicit claims require only belief.I do not know a single explicit atheist, only implicit ones.

Theology isn't math.
And faith in no god makes very limited sense indeed...

it seems like maths to me. they way "intellectuals" talk about it anyway

to love hate=hate
1 x (-1)=-1
to hate love=hate
(-1) x 1=-1
to hate hate=love
-1 x -1=1
to love love=love
1 x 1=1

anyway i only used 1 and -1 as examples, i could of used hot and cold or good and evil

Atheism is anything not theism. So "non-theism" is atheism.

if you have thought about whether god exists or not and give even a tiny tiny rats ass whether he does or not then you are not a non-thiest


Nontheism (or non-theism), broadly conceived, is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena). The word is often employed as a blanket term for all belief systems that are not theistic, including atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain Eastern religions like Confucianism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism. This usage is somewhat misleading, however.

im using the first meaning, so its sort of misleading, but i meant those who dont give a shit/ dont believe either but dont sit on the fence in my previous post

it seems like maths to me. they way "intellectuals" talk about it anyway

to love hate=hate
1 x (-1)=-1
to hate love=hate
(-1) x 1=-1
to hate hate=love
-1 x -1=1
to love love=love
1 x 1=1

anyway i only used 1 and -1 as examples, i could of used hot and cold or good and evil

Yep, hate and love are that simple. :rolleyes:

if you have thought about whether god exists or not and give even a tiny tiny rats ass whether he does or not then you are not a non-thiest


Nontheism (or non-theism), broadly conceived, is the absence of belief in both the existence and non-existence of a deity (or deities, or other numinous phenomena). The word is often employed as a blanket term for all belief systems that are not theistic, including atheism (both strong and weak) and agnosticism, as well as certain Eastern religions like Confucianism, Taoism, and Zen Buddhism. This usage is somewhat misleading, however.

im using the first meaning, so its sort of misleading, but i meant those who dont give a shit/ dont believe either but dont sit on the fence in my previous postSo it's a term to try and seperate taoism, zen buddhism and other atheistic beliefs from their atheistic roots.

Yep, hate and love are that simple. :rolleyes:

you see, now you just have faith that they are more than that

when i was in love it seemed the simplest thing in the world:D


when you hate something its simple too really


if you dont believe that then how about the fact that using the number 1 in calculations is actually infinitely complicated when you think about it deep down, its sort of the opposite of infinity so in my mind is just as weird

So it's a term to try and seperate taoism, zen buddhism and other atheistic beliefs from their atheistic roots.

the definition is suggesting that it is supposed to mean the first sentence, and when used to describe taoists etc. its actually sort of misleadin because they believe some kindof imbetween god exists and he doesnt which isnt the same as not caring or not being concious about it

you see, now you just have faith that they are more than that

when i was in love it seemed the simplest thing in the world:D


when you hate something its simple too really


if you dont believe that then how about the fact that using the number 1 in calculations is actually infinitely complicated when you think about it deep down, its sort of the opposite of infinity so in my mind is just as weird

I don't have faith that they are more complex for the rest of mankind. But I have the experience that they are way more complex for some.
Besides, I challenge you to find a sane person who loves hate or hates love.

I don't have faith that they are more complex for the rest of mankind. But I have the experience that they are way more complex for some.
Besides, I challenge you to find a sane person who loves hate or hates love.

meh i doubt there are any, i was just tryin to show how words and maths are related and therefore the study of thiesm related to maths


and for the record i dont believe in maths so dont think it's like my equivilant of a god cuz for some reason every1 makes that assumption

the definition is suggesting that it is supposed to mean the first sentence, and when used to describe taoists etc. its actually sort of misleadin because they believe some kindof imbetween god exists and he doesnt which isnt the same as not caring or not being concious about itAtheism is not not caring or not being conscious about it, it is the lack of belief in it. Taoists do not believe in god, so they are atheistic. Non-theist is just a term used to try and make atheism seem less credible (Though, admittedly, my insistence that it is such a term is also an attempt to make it seem more credible, but mine doesn't require re-defining the term or inventing new words)

Not necessarily. There's a difference between saying "I believe in the existence of God" and "God does exist" just like there is a difference between "I do not believe in the existence of God" and "God does not exist".

Explicit claims require both faith and belief, while implicit claims require only belief.
Or the absence thereof.

The statement, "I do not believe in the existence of God" requires neither belief nor faith.

Exactly, but many people in this thread were expressing the opinion that they are agnostic atheists and them made the claim that atheism isn't reasonable.

??? Wacky.

That's not entirely accurate. Even the implicit atheist assumes god doesn't exist, he just does not make the claim that god cannot exist. You are correct, though, in that he does not believe that the divine does exist unless given evidence.

An assumption requires a positive statement. An implicit atheist does not make nor does he need to make a positive statement. He simply remains unconvinced and thus does not believe. This is not the same as making an assumption that god does not exist. An assumption would be to actively disbelieve, rather than simply not believe.

The opposite of faith in god is a lack of faith in god.

Not really. I would say that the opposite of faith in god is faith in the lack of a god.

Not really. I would say that the opposite of faith in god is faith in the lack of a god.

I would have said that will depend on the person.

Atheism is not not caring or not being conscious about it, it is the lack of belief in it. Taoists do not believe in god, so they are atheistic. Non-theist is just a term used to try and make atheism seem less credible (Though, admittedly, my insistence that it is such a term is also an attempt to make it seem more credible, but mine doesn't require re-defining the term or inventing new words)

not being concious about whether god exists means you have either NEVER thought about it or HAVE no memory of thinking about it, athiesm is thinking about it and coming to the conclusion that god does not exist (based on faith:))

or if god came to earth and offered salvation and you told him to shove it up his ass that too could be seen as nontheism i suppose (thats the not caring side)

thats the definition i'm using anyway which i implied in my last post i thort

Oh, by faith position I thought you meant something like "missionary".

??? Wacky.Precisely, I just don't think they quite realised what they were saying.
An assumption requires a positive statement. An implicit atheist does not make nor does he need to make a positive statement. He simply remains unconvinced and thus does not believe. This is not the same as making an assumption that god does not exist. An assumption would be to actively disbelieve, rather than simply not believe.An assumption does not require a positive statement, that's why it's an assumption. It's the starting point of a position, and if someone can provide empirical evidence to move me away from that starting point I will do so.
Not really. I would say that the opposite of faith in god is faith in the lack of a god.Then you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Not really. I would say that the opposite of faith in god is faith in the lack of a god.
But that's not right. The opposite has to be a strict negation. Belief vs. not belief.

Disbelief is a different measure entirely. Disbelief is inconsistent with belief, but it's not the negation of belief.

Or the absence thereof.

The statement, "I do not believe in the existence of God" requires neither belief nor faith.

you used the term belief in your definition, this means you can rephrase ur sentence to "i believe not in the existence of god"

if you change the words it still needs faith

not being concious about whether god exists means you have either NEVER thought about it or HAVE no memory of thinking about it, athiesm is thinking about it and coming to the conclusion that god does not exist (based on faith:))

or if god came to earth and offered salvation and you told him to shove it up his ass that too could be seen as nontheism i suppose (thats the not caring side)

thats the definition i'm using anyway which i implied in my last post i thortI think if god came to earth and offered salvation and you told him to shove it then you'd be called screwed.

I think if god came to earth and offered salvation and you told him to shove it then you'd be called screwed.

tell that to lucifer:D (or any random satanist/luciferian)

i discovered recently that lucifer is only mentioned once in the bible, and that in hebrew (or latin) in could be interpreted as the roman god of enlightenment lucifer rather than an angel and that it was some kind of metaphor cuz surely roman gods dont exist in the bible
(i just thort it was worth mentioning)

you used the term belief in your definition, this means you can rephrase ur sentence to "i believe not in the existence of god"

if you change the words it still needs faithOnly if you use the most broad definition of faith, one in which you must have faith that gravity will hold you in place and must have faith that your fingers are not about to fall off.

Only if you use the most broad definition of faith, one in which you must have faith that gravity will hold you in place and must have faith that your fingers are not about to fall off.

yea..... the other kind of faith (as in trust) is really just a deeper version of this "broad" faith you speak of

i.e believing in god is a leap to he exists, having faith in god (as in trusting him) is like believing he will do whats right, which is a leap to he WILL do what is right

they seem identical to me

So what is the definition of someone who has never come across the idea of theism.

Are they atheist?? Theism certainly doesn't play a role in their life....

Are they agnostic?? They certainly wouldn't be sure of whether theistic thought is valid or not??

Seems to me that a position of total ignorance of theism would not require any faith as such.. it wouldn't require any belief... it just wouldn't be.

Is a total ignorance of theism, atheist??

So what is the definition of someone who has never come across the idea of theism.

Are they atheist?? Theism certainly doesn't play a role in their life....

Are they agnostic?? They certainly wouldn't be sure of whether theistic thought is valid or not??

Seems to me that a position of total ignorance of theism would not require any faith as such.. it wouldn't require any belief... it just wouldn't be.

Is a total ignorance of theism, atheist??

i think an athiest would say its athiestic

a thiest wud say he wud naturally come to understand god just differently from how we do

some people would say he's a non thiest

but i imagine it would vary greatly depending on the details of the scenario

tell that to lucifer:D (or any random satanist/luciferian)

i discovered recently that lucifer is only mentioned once in the bible, and that in hebrew (or latin) in could be interpreted as the roman god of enlightenment lucifer rather than an angel and that it was some kind of metaphor cuz surely roman gods dont exist in the bible
(i just thort it was worth mentioning)
Actually, there are a number of gods listed in the bible, El, Yahweh, Lucifer, Abba even the holy spirit is technically a god.

But that's not right. The opposite has to be a strict negation. Belief vs. not belief.

Disbelief is a different measure entirely. Disbelief is inconsistent with belief, but it's not the negation of belief.

Not love isn't the opposite of love. Hate is.

Not white isn't the opposite of white. Black is.

The opposite has to be directly opposed to something. A simple negation does not always achieve that opposition.


not being concious about whether god exists means you have either NEVER thought about it or HAVE no memory of thinking about it, athiesm is thinking about it and coming to the conclusion that god does not exist (based on faith)

This would only be true if the default were believing. If you think about something, and remain at the default, that doesn't mean that you have taken a leap of faith. In fact, you have chosen not to do so.

you used the term belief in your definition, this means you can rephrase ur sentence to "i believe not in the existence of god"

Actually, that would be a pretty odd sentence. Looks like improper syntax to me. What you are trying to do is equate "I do not believe in the existence of god," with, "I believe in the non-existence of god." The two are not the same.


An assumption does not require a positive statement, that's why it's an assumption. It's the starting point of a position, and if someone can provide empirical evidence to move me away from that starting point I will do so.

An assumption is the starting point, but it is still a positive statement. It is taken as true for the logical process/discussion/etc. you are having. You are making the statement that it is true by assuming it.

So what is the definition of someone who has never come across the idea of theism.

Are they atheist?? Theism certainly doesn't play a role in their life....

Yes. They do not believe in the divine and are thus, by definition, atheist - implicit atheist to be precise.

Are they agnostic?? They certainly wouldn't be sure of whether theistic thought is valid or not??

Agnostic doesn't mean "not sure." It means that one thinks it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not the divine exists. A person who is not even aware of the concept of the divine could not be an agnostic, as they would have no position on whether or not the existence/non-existence of the divine could be known.

Is a total ignorance of theism, atheist??

Presumably, yeah. Whether or not they're agnostic is arguable with Vittos.

Actually, there are a number of gods listed in the bible, El, Yahweh, Lucifer, Abba even the holy spirit is technically a god.

it says all of them are false gods tho rite? like that bhaal story i remember, but they way it mentions lucifer as like a god fallen away from god is weird, i think it means achieving enlightenment is against god or something

i thought the holy spirit was made up after the bible by the church?

Agnostic doesn't mean "not sure." It means that one thinks it is impossible to know with certainty whether or not the divine exists.

Could mean that you don't think you can know, in which case....

Actually, that would be a pretty odd sentence. Looks like improper syntax to me. What you are trying to do is equate "I do not believe in the existence of god," with, "I believe in the non-existence of god." The two are not the same.


nah it definatly is a proper sentence, its just an older way of saying it and tryin to seem smart and im pretty sure it s identical to the other sentence

Only if you use the most broad definition of faith, one in which you must have faith that gravity will hold you in place and must have faith that your fingers are not about to fall off.
Even with that definition of faith you still don't need any to avoid holding an opinion regarding god.

I do not know a single explicit atheist, only implicit ones.

Yeah, they're not as common.

Basically you've diluted the word "faith" so that it means any belief or lack of belief.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that the earth was created by the Giant Space Molemen?

....No?

AHA! FAITH POSITION! YOU HAVE FAITH! ;)

and so on for each and every possible thing you've ever believed in, or not believed.

if i say i don't believe in the giant space molemen then yes that is a faith position, if i had no opinion on it i.e havent thought about it then i would lack faith in that area

i say that the earth cud've been created by them so i therefore have faith that it is possible....

im tempted to call you a nazi...i'm not really sure why:confused:

it says all of them are false gods tho rite? like that bhaal story i remember, but they way it mentions lucifer as like a god fallen away from god is weird, i think it means achieving enlightenment is against god or something

i thought the holy spirit was made up after the bible by the church?Not really, they've just been latter re-interpreted to be other names of god by modern day Hebrews and as the names of angels by Christians.

Quote:[Originally Posted by Helspotistan
So what is the definition of someone who has never come across the idea of theism.
Are they atheist?? Theism certainly doesn't play a role in their life....]

Yes. They do not believe in the divine and are thus, by definition, atheist - implicit atheist to be precise.


So I don't see how this could posibly be a faith position?
I may have to have some degree of faith to believe that my fingers won't fly off the ends of my hands and off into space while I am typing.. but I need no faith at all to not believe in something I have never even heard of. In fact it is impossible for me to have faith in the non belief because I am not even aware that it could be a posibility.

Therefore Atheism is by default not a faith position.

As soon as someone is aware of theism as a concept then sure it does take some degree of faith not to believe... but up until that point it requires no faith at all.

i think an athiest would say its athiestic

a thiest wud say he wud naturally come to understand god just differently from how we do

some people would say he's a non thiest

but i imagine it would vary greatly depending on the details of the scenario

ZOMG! Ok, seriously, I'm not usually a spelling nazi, but you use to word way too much to not be corrected.

It is atheist. Not Athiest. It is theist, not thiest.

nah it definatly is a proper sentence, its just an older way of saying it and tryin to seem smart and im pretty sure it s identical to the other sentence

To which other sentence? "I believe not in god," if it were common usage, would mean the same thing as "I do not believe in god," which would still mean that there is no belief.

"I believe there is no god," on the other hand, is a belief.

Let's look at the syntax in another way. Suppose I were to say "I do not run." You might rephrase this, "I run not." Either way, I'm not running.

Yeah, they're not as common.Which is why the claim that atheism requires faith, which comes up far to often, is annoying.

So I don't see how this could posibly be a faith position?

It isn't.

As soon as someone is aware of theism as a concept then sure it does take some degree of faith not to believe... but up until that point it requires no faith at all.

Why does it take faith to continue to not believe? Do I need faith because I understand the concept of aliens but do not believe that there are aliens on Pluto? Do I need faith because I have heard of unicorns but do not believe they actually exist?

if i say i don't believe in the giant space molemen then yes that is a faith position, if i had no opinion on it i.e havent thought about it then i would lack faith in that area

i say that the earth cud've been created by them so i therefore have faith that it is possible....

im tempted to call you a nazi...i'm not really sure why:confused:No, it's a belief based possition. Even Christians say that if you don't believe in god then you "just lack faith". What's so complicated about the difference between the two?

It isn't.



Why does it take faith to continue to not believe? Do I need faith because I understand the concept of aliens but do not believe that there are aliens on Pluto? Do I need faith because I have heard of unicorns but do not believe they actually exist?

Well yes.. you do need "faith" in that crazy broad sense of the word.

Faith in the evidence of your senses rather than the word of someone else.

I am an atheist. I don't feel it requires classical "faith" to be an atheist. Its simply a losely defined concept that is causing a lot of trouble.

from dictionary.com:

faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

> this faith is required for atheism .. faith in the evidence of your senses and scientific knowledge.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

> this faith is required for atheism .. as there can be no proof of non existense... only an overwhelmingly large body of evidence for theism not being necessary

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

> obviously not needed for atheism

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

> probably irrelavant

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

> obviously not needed for atheism

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

> probably irrelavant

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.


> probably irrelavant

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom

> obviously not needed for atheism

9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

> obviously needed for atheism

If you start with the position that a god exists then it is essentially impossible to prove you wrong, because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread you cannot know everything at once, and we cannot currently observe what is outside of our universe. So if you're trying to decide one way or the other, assuming that god does exist means you've already made a decision.

Belief in God can take a very scientific approach in defining what seems to be the most likely form and preference of God, and then using this as a predictive guage for one's actions and beliefs. If one makes a very complex definition of God for oneself, it is entirely possible to take in countering observations and make amending hypothesis. In this sense, God can be a falsifiable, evolving, and growing concept just as any scientific theory.

In other words, there is nothing about the assumption of God that causes one to take a completely unchallengeable position.

If you start with the position that we cannot determine if god exists then you have also already made a decision, you have decided that blind faith is a reasonable way to determine reality. This is because implicit in the claim that we cannot know if god exists or not is the acceptance that faith without evidence for it is a reasonable way to make a claim. You can't prove what they're assuming is wrong, so it's unreasonable of you to say that it's not true.

This is a non-sequitor. Saying that we cannot form reasonable supported opinions concerning God does not mean that reason should therefore be eschewed or that faith can provide reason.

The last sentence is true, but it is another non-sequitor and even more importantly does not support your argument in the slightest. The main problem is that agnosticism can't be counted as a starting point or a finishing point or anywhere in between because agnosticism isn't even running in the race.

Agnostics stand on the sideline and tell the theists and the atheists that they are wasting their energy.

If, however, you start with the position that god does not exist then all it takes to prove your position wrong is one piece of evidence that such a being actually does exist. So atheism, the assumption that god does not exist unless you can show otherwise, is actually the only position that even has a chance of being shown to be wrong, so if you're asking the question, "Does god exist?", then atheism really is the default starting point, in fact, it's the only reasonable one.

The default starting point is vacuity, a confused sort of agnosticism where one is completely open to any religious claims. As someone becomes more and more positive in their statements concerning God, they become farther and farther away from the starting point. Therefore, the strong atheistic position of "No, God does not exist", is the farthest point so far reached on the route.

I do not know a single explicit atheist, only implicit ones.

Exactly, the vast majority of atheists are apologetics who take refuge in the agnostic camp. In my weaker moments I will admit that atheists can be agnostics and agnostics can be atheists, but I won't accept any self-titled atheists into the agnostic camp. If they were truly agnostic they wouldn't be calling themselves atheists and they wouldn't be needing the apologetics.

When looking for definitions of faith I found this:


faith

"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result
of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith,
and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3).
Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it
assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the
understanding."

Up until this point I would be thinking that this definition pretty much exluded having faith in God :)

it howeever then goes on to say


Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate
ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.........


and much more.. you can find the quote at dictionary.com at the bottom of the page (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)

Well yes.. you do need "faith" in that crazy broad sense of the word.

Faith in the evidence of your senses rather than the word of someone else.

But your senses aren't telling you there is no God any more than they were before someone mentioned it. And you don't have faith that the person is wrong - you simply have a lack of faith that they are.

from dictionary.com:

faith  /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

> this faith is required for atheism .. faith in the evidence of your senses and scientific knowledge.

Neither "evidence of your senses" nor scientific knowledge are involved in implicit atheism. All that is required is a lack of such "trust" in others. In other words, a lack of faith in the word of others.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

> this faith is required for atheism .. as there can be no proof of non existense... only an overwhelmingly large body of evidence for theism not being necessary

You are describing explicit atheism, in which a person believes that there is no god. This is not the same thing as not believing that there is a god. Most have agreed that explicit atheism is faith-based.

But your senses aren't telling you there is no God any more than they were before someone mentioned it. And you don't have faith that the person is wrong - you simply have a lack of faith that they are.
I don't see it that way.

If the person that tells you about god is completely unknown to you then sure you would only have to have a lack of faith that they are telling the truth.

But if on the other hand, that person is known to you and has been truthful and trustworthy in the past, then suddenly it does take a level of faith in your body of knowledge to deny them, over the faith you have in their honesty.

That is why people who have grown up with theistic views all around them have a much easier time believing in God than those that have never been exposed to those ideas. Because they have a ceratin degree of faith in their body of experiences.

I don't see it that way.

If the person that tells you about god is completely unknown to you then sure you would only have to have a lack of faith that they are telling the truth.

But if on the other hand, that person is known to you and has been truthful and trustworthy in the past, then suddenly it does take a level of faith in your body of knowledge to deny them, over the faith you have in their honesty.

Maybe "truth" wasn't the best term to use. I don't think most atheists think that their theist friends are lying about their experiences - just that they are wrong about them. Nobody is right all the time - this is something we know. So when someone says something that doesn't seem convincing, it doesn't really matter how well you know them - they very well could be wrong.

That is why people who have grown up with theistic views all around them have a much easier time believing in God than those that have never been exposed to those ideas. Because they have a ceratin degree of faith in their body of experiences.

Truth be told, I've never met a single person who has never been exposed to someone who believes in the divine. Have you? After all, even at the highest percentages, atheists are only estimated to be at about 4% of the total population.

Exactly, the vast majority of atheists are apologetics who take refuge in the agnostic camp. In my weaker moments I will admit that atheists can be agnostics and agnostics can be atheists, but I won't accept any self-titled atheists into the agnostic camp. If they were truly agnostic they wouldn't be calling themselves atheists and they wouldn't be needing the apologetics.For your statement to be accurate agnosticism and atheism have to be mutually exclusive, they're not. Agnosticism is the position that the starting point, god if you prefer, cannot be known, it's counterpoint is gnosticism which is the claim that it can be known. Atheism is the assumption that there is no god until you provide evidence otherwise, and theism is the assumption that there is a god. It is entirely possible to be both agnostic and atheist, as it is possible to be agnostic and theist. That's what a deist is. The people you decry are gnostic atheists, people who take their lack of belief into the realm of certainty.

And are you sure you were using the right word? Apologetics (http://www.answers.com/apologetics?nafid=3)?

Maybe "truth" wasn't the best term to use. I don't think most atheists think that their theist friends are lying about their experiences - just that they are wrong about them. Nobody is right all the time - this is something we know. So when someone says something that doesn't seem convincing, it doesn't really matter how well you know them - they very well could be wrong.



Truth be told, I've never met a single person who has never been exposed to someone who believes in the divine. Have you? After all, even at the highest percentages, atheists are only estimated to be at about 4% of the total population.

Mostly referring to small children.

Friend of mine was very big on not introducing his daughter to theistic thought till she reached school age so she may at least have some chance of making up her own mind on the matter.

The other day one of her 4 year old friends asked her if she believed in Jesus Christ.. My friend was dismayed when his daughter immediately replied that "Yes of course she believed in Jesus Christ" he wondered where he had gone wrong... why she was so eager to believe.. until the next sentence arrived.." Jesus Christ means you are angry... Daddy says it everytime he is mad"

So sure it may be pretty much impossible to go through your life without coming across theistic thought.. but there may be a few years there where the idea hasn't crossed a kids mind...

For your statement to be accurate agnosticism and atheism have to be mutually exclusive, they're not. Agnosticism is the position that the starting point, god if you prefer, cannot be known, it's counterpoint is gnosticism which is the claim that it can be known.

I did admit that agnosticism and atheism were not technically mutually exclusive, but I reject those that claim both titles, as those who do generally are not agnostic at all. It is true, indeed, that all agnostics are atheists.

Atheism is the assumption that there is no god until you provide evidence otherwise

Atheism is the lack of belief in God, not an assumption that there is no God. If your definition were correct, then agnosticism and atheism would be mutually exclusive. The agnostic is precluded from making that assumption as it is no more probable or standard than any other assumption concerning God.

, and theism is the assumption that there is a god.

No one assumes something without reason. If God is assumed, then the person was given reason to assume. If no God is assumed, then the person was given reason to assume.

It is entirely possible to be both agnostic and atheist, as it is possible to be agnostic and theist. That's what a deist is. The people you decry are gnostic atheists, people who take their lack of belief into the realm of certainty.

No, deists make positive statements concerning the nature of God. Look them up.

From my copy and pasted post:

Because no one is completely unskeptical of knowledge. Anyone within a logical argument can be forced to say that there is a possibility that they don't "know" what they think they know.

EDIT: Of course Decartes uses circular logic (that I am certain he knew about but was unwilling to remove) to avoid this problem.

If you can get the most devout believer to say that he doubts any of his perception, that he may be in the midst of an intricate dream, then he too counts as an agnostic.

If we allow varying degrees into this epistemological stance, then it includes everyone and becomes meaningless.

And are you sure you were using the right word? Apologetics (http://www.answers.com/apologetics?nafid=3)?

Actually I should have used the term "apologist" rather than "apologetics", but it isn't a matter of meaning, but of grammer.

In any sense, apologetics is not simply a branch of Christianity, but of any belief system.

And many question and still believe.



In that case, there is evidence for God, enough to convince me, anyways. It isn't empirical evidence, but it is evidence. I cannot share this evidence with you, as it is drawn from my own personal experiences, but it does exist.

No.

It does not.

It exists nowhere outside your own mind.
Such "evidence" could be nothing more than a chemical release that gave you a "warm fuzzy" inside a church one day.

Evidence can be seen, and felt, and experienced by more than just one person, or it really doesnt count does it?

I can tell you I had an experience with a magical pink unicorn, but theres no way for you to know wether or not Im lying, or going along with a crowd, or simply convinced myself of that wich did not occur.

*yawns*
This again? Has the current incarnation of BAAWA joined in yet? He's always fun to disagree with, he gets sooo annoyed.

okay after reading the "why i am an athiest" thread, i realise alot of athiests/agnostics seem to think they know some kind of universal truth and they have no faith stance

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right? or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith

i just wanted to make this point because i'm an agnostic and other agnostics are making my kind look ignorant (would use a stronger word but that would be flamin:p )

Mmmh... cannot agree. I'm atheist because I think that the God hypothesis isn't either "proven" or "reasonable", so I reject it as meaningless. But I have no faith about this, by "faith" meaning "an absolute belief, that cannot be changed by evidence or the lack thereof".

No one assumes something without reason.

You assume too much, or you've met only people whose intelligence is waaay above the average. People assume a lot of things just out of authority or fear, look at those "I'm Christian so I when I die I'll go to heaven while you atheists will burn in hell" posts...


Sigh.:rolleyes:

You assume too much, or you've met only people whose intelligence is waaay above the average. People assume a lot of things just out of authority or fear, look at those "I'm Christian so I when I die I'll go to heaven while you atheists will burn in hell" posts...

Sounds like a reason to assume God's existence to me. I wasn't just talking about evidence, just IF's statement that the assumption of no God is a starting point.

There's nothing to suggest the existance of any magic sky faeries, therefore I am left to conclude they don't exist.

Besides, if god exists I must kill it to embrace my own god-nature.

I think the question of there being a God presumes there either is or isnt one. I think the answer is instead tulipeggs. What i mean by that is, i dont think the question can be properly phrased that way. In the same way that you couldnt explain the concept of algebra to a spider, as it has no possible frame of reference, i dont think our brain is equipt nor do we have the ability nor the perceptions nor the ability to concieve of the idea that would even lead to asking the "right" question.
The rest is all semantics imo.

Sounds like a reason to assume God's existence to me. I wasn't just talking about evidence, just IF's statement that the assumption of no God is a starting point.

Ok, if we want to stretch "reason" that much, I suppose we could call that a reason... although, not a valid reason for faith (as stated even by Christian theology).
Sigh. I can't stand lack of rationality. Why theists simply don't say "I want to believe" instead of attacking non-believers with "it is plain evidence that there is a God"? I, personally, don't give a damn about my neighbour being atheist, agnostic, monotheist, polytheist, whateverist. I wish everybody could do the same, but I think it's asking too much.

I think the question of there being a God presumes there either is or isnt one. I think the answer is instead tulipeggs. What i mean by that is, i dont think the question can be properly phrased that way.

What you mean to say is "Do gods exist?" Mu.? I think.

No.

It does not.

It exists nowhere outside your own mind.

If it exists within my own mind, then it exists, just as surely as any personal experience - any memory - exists.

Love exists only within your own mind, but would you say that you have never loved anyone? No one else can prove that you love someone. You cannot share your emotional responses towards someone with anyone else any more than I can share my experience of God. But you know that they are there.

Such "evidence" could be nothing more than a chemical release that gave you a "warm fuzzy" inside a church one day.

It could be. Of course, very little evidence - even empirical - is more than a chemical or physical release or change of some sort. We perceive those changes and interpret them in some fashion. With something that occurs in a petri dish, I can show the evidence to others. With something that occurs within my own mind - within my own experience, I cannot.

Evidence can be seen, and felt, and experienced by more than just one person, or it really doesnt count does it?

Of course it does, to the person who sees, feels, or experiences it. If you were alone and had an experience, would it not count anymore? If you heard a bird singing while sitting alone in your yard, would that experience "not count" in your experiences related to birds?

Your own experience is evidence - but only to you. Empirical evidence, on the other hand, can be

I can tell you I had an experience with a magical pink unicorn, but theres no way for you to know wether or not Im lying, or going along with a crowd, or simply convinced myself of that wich did not occur.

Indeed. Hence the reason that I would be unlikely to believe that you had an experience with any such thing. I have no experience of any unicorn, magical and pink or otherwise, so I would be unlikely to take your word for it. But if *I* had such an experience, I might come to the conclusion that such an entity actually existed. I would question my own perception, naturally. I would look for other explanations. But in the absence of any such explanations, I very well might conclude that my experience was real, whether it was shared by another or not.


But I have no faith about this, by "faith" meaning "an absolute belief, that cannot be changed by evidence or the lack thereof".

That's an interesting definition of faith. Of course, only the most fundamentalist members of any religion/ideologyetc or atheists have "faith" that could meet your definition. Very, very, very few people would bother to define it that way, as the word would be virtually useless to them.

What you mean to say is "Do gods exist?" Mu.? I think.

Im not saying that at all. That would be an attempt to label something that cant even be defined because i dont believe we have the ability to do so. You cant just simplfy it by trying to morph the question into some version of the existence of god or not because i think the concept goes far beyond and different then that.

I define “faith” as belief without evidence. I don’t use faith in my life. Now if you want to define “faith” as a thirty pound beagle, I guess I’d have to say I have faith.
Religion wouldn’t enter my mind at all ‘cept for two reasons: I find mythology to be entertaining. People are affecting my life based on what their invisible playmates are telling them.

The rest is all semantics imo.
The role of semantics and its poor construction in religious discourse is one that cannot be ignored. It is core to the notion of an Atheistic identity, for certain, but more importantly, it is the key driving force at present in the splitting of schools of thought on the matter of Theology. Were we to focus on solidifying our definitions before attempting to delve deeper, we would come across considerably fewer problems.

A trivial pursuit? Maybe. But one must learn to stand up and walk before they can learn to run, and the current environment of Western Theological Philosophy is an example of trying to increase crawling speed first.

What you mean to say is "Do gods exist?" Mu.? I think.

That's what Buddhism's answer is...and it's definitely the only answer that really isn't faith based.

*buzzer*

C'mon Tali, say it with me. Di-cho-to-my. There is no 'neither'. Would you agree that the lack of a position is not theism?
Thought this was worth responding to...

The lack of a position on the matter is not necessarily dependent on a lack of awareness of the subject, even when it involves a lack of semantical understanding of the terms being used. I might, for instance, have already derived an opinion on the possibility of super-planar persons long before the notion of gods has ever been explained to me.

It would not be fair to call me Atheistic, or even non-Theistic, when I suspect the possibility of things that I would have called Gods, should I have been aware of what Gods were, yet lack the understanding to do so.

That's what Buddhism's answer is...and it's definitely the only answer that really isn't faith based.
I quite like Hinduism's answer, personally.

"Do Gods Exist?" "Sure, if you want to look at things a certain way. It's no big deal, though."

I quite like Hinduism's answer, personally.

"Do Gods Exist?" "Sure, if you want to look at things a certain way. It's no big deal, though."

Yeah, the Eastern religions definitely have the right idea when it comes to that stuff.

Reincarnation and karma also make a lot more sense than the other two options; I don't think I'd really want to exist forever in some spiritual world or just be dead and cease to exist. I mean, neither of those really work and don't really provide a very good explanation of anything.

From my Facebook group (http://bates.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2213134845):

There is an idea among theists that the burden of proof somehow lays on the atheist to prove reasonable grounds for his belief- that is, to prove a negative. In his famous response to this argument-from-ignorance absurdity, Bertrand Russell, in an article prepared for, but never published by, Illustrated magazine, wrote the following:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

The premise of Russell’s reply should be an obvious logical truth to even the blindest theist: the lack of proof of the nonexistence of an object is not proof, or even evidence, for the existence of that object.

For the sake of argument, let us take the absurd postulate of the theist that the onus lays on atheism for disproof of God, as truth. From this statement, we can draw some inarguable logical conclusions.

Because we have not observed the entire universe and everything in it, it follows logically that we have no reason to disbelieve in hobgoblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, trolls, Allah, or Zeus. As such, we cannot say that anyone disbelieves in Zeus; we can only say that Zeus remains a possibility worthy of further explanation. UFOs, vampires, the Thing, the Blob, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, It, She, Them, and Shiva must all be said to be possibilities, and it would be irresponsible of us to teach any form of suspicious pseudoscience in public schools that attempts to disprove the works of these entities. No one can possibly be a non-believer in the Creature from the Black Lagoon because we have not observed every lagoon in the entire universe for such a Creature.

Scientifically speaking, we cannot provide empirical observation to back up the quantum cosmological model of the universe’s thermodynamics-friendly theory of a self-causing universe, so we must accept it as equally valid that it was caused by an uncaused cause called God, which we somehow not to be self-contradictory. We must therefore also consider it irresponsible to teach gravitation in public school classrooms, for though we do have a gravitational constant, we have no empirical observation of a particle that causes gravity outside of inference, so we cannot take gravity to be true.

We have not observed every single possible number, therefore we cannot accept it as true that every single whole number multiplied by 2 will yield an even number. Similarly, because we have not described triangles with every single possible measure of sides, not even the most vigorous mathematical proof of the validity of Pythagorean theory can be said to be absolutely true because such theory is derived entirely from inference.

That is what happens when we draw logical conclusions from the belief that the burden is on atheism to disprove a negative.

Because we understand that there will always exist certain postulates about which no empirical claims can be made, and because we have all been through variously absurd arguments with theists over the nature of religious faiths and the reasons for the lack of ours, we, the teapot atheists, state that:

1. All agnostics must be atheists, contrary to the opposite claim made by another Facebook group. The agnostic acknowledges that no statements, qualitative or otherwise, can ever be made about God regarding his nature or existence, but as we also have seen, the same applies to such absurdities as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Hagbard Celine’s ultra-computing golden Discordian submarine. As such, because the agnostic has no more reason to believe in God but presumably does not believe in UFOs, vampires, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it follows logically that the agnostic does not believe in God any more than these things, which is to say, the agnostic does not believe in God, which is to say, the agnostic is an atheist, whether he wants to label himself as such or not.

2. The modern Intelligent Design movement is a contemporary political movement, NOT a contemporary scientific movement. We understand that there exists only one article from a peer-reviewed journal anywhere in the entire scientific literature arguing for Intelligent Design (from Protein Science 12; its refutation, on both factual and methodological grounds, is in the follow issue of that journal) and none that has not been disproved, and as such, reasoning such as “teaching the controversy” is just an excuse to attempt to slip creationism into public school curriculums. We understand that think-tanks such as the Discovery Institute are taking advantage of a theocracy-friendly contemporary political situation to try to insert unabashedly Biblical ideas into public schools, and that the leadership of the Intelligent Design movement cannot be separated from their religious leanings.

3. The fossil record and biochemical evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is uncontested by any even modestly responsible member of the scientific community. If not for a massive donor base comprised mostly of the religious right-wing, we understand that such movements would have disappeared entirely from public discourse. If left to compete independent of populist publicity in the marketplace of ideas, all modern religious and pseudoscientific New Age theories would no longer exist.

4. No political idea that subsists entirely on religious ideas, such as the use of taxpayer funds to maintain stone transcriptions of the Decalogue on public grounds or the daily public prayer in public schools that is the “under God” clause of the Pledge of Allegiance, has a valid place in the American political system. We fully support the introduction of atheism into the political system and are strongly disapproval of the public devotion to religious fairy tales that forces the political system to be inclusive only of theists.

5. We recognize the double standard that exists wherein it is impolitic or rude to question one’s religious beliefs but no such ideas are invoked in regards to those that question the scientific method or its conclusions. That being said, we are not afraid to demand testable hypotheses from the religiously inclined, to ask them to provide evidence for their beliefs, and to provide testable, falsifiable data to support their assertions. In the absence of such data, we are unafraid to completely dismiss all religious texts, beliefs, and traditions as myths and fairy tales.

The premise of Russell’s reply should be an obvious logical truth to even the blindest theist: the lack of proof of the nonexistence of an object is not proof, or even evidence, for the existence of that object.

The converse is also true; it's possible that such a teapot does exist, but since it apparently has no effect on our empirical measurements of the properties of the galaxy, then we can disregard it for purposes of scientific inquiry.

Scientifically speaking, we cannot provide empirical observation to back up the quantum cosmological model of the universe’s thermodynamics-friendly theory of a self-causing universe, so we must accept it as equally valid that it was caused by an uncaused cause called God, which we somehow not to be self-contradictory

I can simply argue that God is infinite and exists outside of the physical world, so any laws that apply here don't apply to it.

Well, if you can't provide empirical evidence or test the predictions of that idea it shouldn't really be considered science no matter how much scientific terminology it uses (frankly, that's nothing more than pseudoscience, and it's kind of disturbing when scientists use it).

Actually, pretty much anything that speculates about the creation, purpose, or reasons for the existence of the universe should be considered metaphysics or religion rather than science, since we simply can't test it due to the fact that we exist within the physical universe.

Now, if someone wants to try to do set up a scientific experiment to try and find this stuff out, they should so that we can see if it is possible or not. I'd prefer to know our limitations rather than assume we don't know.

We have not observed every single possible number, therefore we cannot accept it as true that every single whole number multiplied by 2 will yield an even number. Similarly, because we have not described triangles with every single possible measure of sides, not even the most vigorous mathematical proof of the validity of Pythagorean theory can be said to be absolutely true because such theory is derived entirely from inference.

That's true. That's why "laws" aren't as popular in science anymore; it was incredibly pretentious and incorrect to presume the objective truth of a particular scientific theory, when new evidence might cause the theory to be changed, redefined or discarded entirely. Insisting on absolute truth leads to dogmatism, which leads to stagnation and eventually regression.

1. All agnostics must be atheists, contrary to the opposite claim made by another Facebook group. The agnostic acknowledges that no statements, qualitative or otherwise, can ever be made about God regarding his nature or existence, but as we also have seen, the same applies to such absurdities as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Hagbard Celine’s ultra-computing golden Discordian submarine. As such, because the agnostic has no more reason to believe in God but presumably does not believe in UFOs, vampires, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it follows logically that the agnostic does not believe in God any more than these things, which is to say, the agnostic does not believe in God, which is to say, the agnostic is an atheist, whether he wants to label himself as such or not.

Not necessarily. Agnosticism does not necessarily mean "unknowable"; for example, I'm an agnostic because I don't know if God exists, but my opinion would automatically change if I experienced or saw some evidence for or against God. I don't know if any of them exist, but it's possible that one of them, some of them, all of them, or none of them exist. I commit to neither belief nor disbelief.

I'm the kind of agnostic who'd cross himself in a Church or avoid tromping through the woods in the afternoon just in case Jesus or Pan really do exist as Gods. I prefer to hedge my bets rather than gamble.

3. The fossil record and biochemical evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is uncontested by any even modestly responsible member of the scientific community. If not for a massive donor base comprised mostly of the religious right-wing, we understand that such movements would have disappeared entirely from public discourse. If left to compete independent of populist publicity in the marketplace of ideas, all modern religious and pseudoscientific New Age theories would no longer exist.

Science and religion are not contradictory when properly interpreted. The only people that think they are are those with closed and narrow minds, and that applies to both sides of the debate. Some of the greatest scientists alive today are devoutly religious, just like some of the greatest scientists alive today aren't. However, they both manage to make huge strides in their disciplines regardless of their beliefs.

We fully support the introduction of atheism into the political system and are strongly disapproval of the public devotion to religious fairy tales that forces the political system to be inclusive only of theists.

I support the introduction of no "ism" in to the government. Mandating an ideology or religious stance is dangerous no matter what it is.

The government should refrain from having an official position on religious matters, and any mentions of "God" in existence today should be recognized more for their historical importance than any embrace of religion.

That being said, we are not afraid to demand testable hypotheses from the religiously inclined, to ask them to provide evidence for their beliefs, and to provide testable, falsifiable data to support their assertions. In the absence of such data, we are unafraid to completely dismiss all religious texts, beliefs, and traditions as myths and fairy tales.

The problem is, that doesn't work; just because you have no experience of religious feelings doesn't mean they don't exist, especially given the number of people who have had mystical experiences throughout history, and also given the interesting and world-changing experiences people have had under the influence of drugs like ketamine or psilocybin. It comes down to nothing more than "I experienced it, so it's true to me"...you can't really argue against that.

You can't prove or disprove non-empirical personal experience, so to dismiss religion based upon a lack of empirical evidence is a leap of faith unsupported by the nature of religious or personal experience. It also stifles discussion, which is inherently counterproductive. Religion, and all philosophy for that matter, are slippery fields because they don't fit the terminology of a discipline like science.

you atheists all defend your "faith" like zealots:D i think it shows whether it is faith or not

but seriously heres another way of puttin this

right and wrong are both moral views
pain and pleasure are both hedonistic
black and white both involve all colours (lack of and alll of)
atheism and theism both invilve faith

love is the opposite of hate not no love

anti-faith is the opposite of faith not no faith
atheism is the opposite of theism
anti-faith is still faith just in the opposite of the faith in context
therefore both require faith

Yeah, the Eastern religions definitely have the right idea when it comes to that stuff.
except that all of those hindus and buddhists in asia have gods. buddhism might not have a specific god but virtually all individual buddhists DO. why do you think they have temples? why do you think they have home shrines?


Reincarnation and karma also make a lot more sense than the other two options; I don't think I'd really want to exist forever in some spiritual world or just be dead and cease to exist. I mean, neither of those really work and don't really provide a very good explanation of anything.

no they dont. reincarnation and karma make NO sense. what is the mechanism for reincarnation? who RUNS the system of karma?

nor would i want to live over and over again being punished in this life for something someone else did in some other life. the idea that the miserable people of the world somehow deserve their misery because of something that happened in the past is nonproductive and disturbing.

you atheists all defend your "faith" like zealots:D i think it shows whether it is faith or not

but seriously heres another way of puttin this

right and wrong are both moral views
pain and pleasure are both hedonistic
black and white both involve all colours (lack of and alll of)
atheism and theism both invilve faith

love is the opposite of hate not no love

anti-faith is the opposite of faith not no faith
atheism is the opposite of theism
anti-faith is still faith just in the opposite of the faith in context
therefore both require faith

ALL?

isnt that just a tad bit of an overstatement?

There is an idea among theists that the burden of proof somehow lays on the atheist to prove reasonable grounds for his belief- that is, to prove a negative.

I would say that the burden of proof lies on whomever is making a positive statement and trying to convince others of it. If it is your belief that the divine does exist and you are not trying to convince others of it, there is no burden of proof. If it is your belief that the divine does not exist and you are not trying to convince others of it, there is no burden of proof.

However, the moment you attempt to convince others of your beliefs - the minute you try to enforce them or belittle others for disagreeing with you - the burden of proof lies on you. Both theists and atheists have been known to do these things, and thus both, within that position, have the burden of proof.

The premise of Russell’s reply should be an obvious logical truth to even the blindest theist: the lack of proof of the nonexistence of an object is not proof, or even evidence, for the existence of that object.

No one has ever claimed that this is true. Of course, another true statement would be the following: "Lack of proof of the existence of an object is not proof that it does not exist."

1. All agnostics must be atheists, contrary to the opposite claim made by another Facebook group. The agnostic acknowledges that no statements, qualitative or otherwise, can ever be made about God regarding his nature or existence,

This is incorrect. An agnostic can be either an atheist or a theist. The agnostic does not hold that no statements can ever be made about God regarding God's nature or existence. The agnostic holds that these things can never be known. However, many beliefs would not be considered knowledge in the same way that empirically tested evidence might be considered to be knowledge. It is perfectly possible to hold that the existence or nature of God cannot be known, but to still hold beliefs on those points.

2. The modern Intelligent Design movement is a contemporary political movement, NOT a contemporary scientific movement. We understand that there exists only one article from a peer-reviewed journal anywhere in the entire scientific literature arguing for Intelligent Design (from Protein Science 12; its refutation, on both factual and methodological grounds, is in the follow issue of that journal) and none that has not been disproved, and as such, reasoning such as “teaching the controversy” is just an excuse to attempt to slip creationism into public school curriculums. We understand that think-tanks such as the Discovery Institute are taking advantage of a theocracy-friendly contemporary political situation to try to insert unabashedly Biblical ideas into public schools, and that the leadership of the Intelligent Design movement cannot be separated from their religious leanings.

Indeed.

3. The fossil record and biochemical evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is uncontested by any even modestly responsible member of the scientific community.

Indeed.

If not for a massive donor base comprised mostly of the religious right-wing, we understand that such movements would have disappeared entirely from public discourse. If left to compete independent of populist publicity in the marketplace of ideas, all modern religious and pseudoscientific New Age theories would no longer exist.

There are an awful lot of ideas out there that people hold very strongly to, but that haven't been widely publicized. I think there will always be "theories" (in parentheses to denote that this is the layman's theory, not the scientific one) that contradict science. There will always be people with only the most basic understanding of science and the scientific method who will think that their ideas somehow qualify.

4. No political idea that subsists entirely on religious ideas, such as the use of taxpayer funds to maintain stone transcriptions of the Decalogue on public grounds or the daily public prayer in public schools that is the “under God” clause of the Pledge of Allegiance, has a valid place in the American political system. We fully support the introduction of atheism into the political system and are strongly disapproval of the public devotion to religious fairy tales that forces the political system to be inclusive only of theists.

The introduction of atheism into the government would be every bit as much a restriction of religion as placing religion within the government. The government should be completely neutral on the subject.

As for the 10 Commandments structures, I have no problem with them in the sense that the Supreme Court has upheld - historical displays, generally as a part of a display on the history of law. Regardless of whether or not the OT laws truly came from God, they did form the law, historically, for some societies, and thus have their place within that structure.

no they dont. reincarnation and karma make NO sense. what is the mechanism for reincarnation?
This gives me a nice excuse to look at the duality of the individual.


What is the origin of human consciousness? I and many others would field that the emergence of the self-aware human is the result of the systemic complexity of his organic structure; the brain, sensory organs and all of the systems required to fuel, maintain and protect these aspects of us are what give us Mind.

Now then, each of these things are built up of finite physical parts. Though a man himself, when divided, is no longer a man, he can yet be so split. Were it possible to reverse this division, you could reconstruct him (though, of course, such recomposition is beyond our limited capabilities as far as I know).

What, then, if his divided form was dispersed and reunified in part within other beings? Well, you see where I'm going on this.


The other question to ask is "What is the nature of a conscious person"? While a person is definitely a physical body, they are also a culmination of ideas and experiences, which while they are retained in our structure are also replicable in others of a different physical form. If someone else was to be given your ideas and shared in your experiences, they would turn out to be very similar, if slightly different, to yourself. So is it accurate to say that a man's character, his personality and even his self can not in some sense be inherited by others? I know that a lot of what I am is derived from those around me, and I'm sure that others are hardly different.

What it all boils down to is that the human mind and spirit is not something that is indivisible. We are built up of several conceptual notions swirling together and forming an interesting mesh that we call self. If two selves are made up of the same concepts, then they might as well be each others' incarnations, for the person is effectively the same underneath the surface.


But meh. This is just a pondering, and bares little relation to Hindu or Buddhist ideas.

love is the opposite of hate not no love
What about "A position that is not Love"? Is that an opposite of anything?

This gives me a nice excuse to look at the duality of the individual.


What is the origin of human consciousness? I and many others would field that the emergence of the self-aware human is the result of the systemic complexity of his organic structure; the brain, sensory organs and all of the systems required to fuel, maintain and protect these aspects of us are what give us Mind.

Now then, each of these things are built up of finite physical parts. Though a man himself, when divided, is no longer a man, he can yet be so split. Were it possible to reverse this division, you could reconstruct him (though, of course, such recomposition is beyond our limited capabilities as far as I know).

What, then, if his divided form was dispersed and reunified in part within other beings? Well, you see where I'm going on this.


The other question to ask is "What is the nature of a conscious person"? While a person is definitely a physical body, they are also a culmination of ideas and experiences, which while they are retained in our structure are also replicable in others of a different physical form. If someone else was to be given your ideas and shared in your experiences, they would turn out to be very similar, if slightly different, to yourself. So is it accurate to say that a man's character, his personality and even his self can not in some sense be inherited by others? I know that a lot of what I am is derived from those around me, and I'm sure that others are hardly different.

What it all boils down to is that the human mind and spirit is not something that is indivisible. We are built up of several conceptual notions swirling together and forming an interesting mesh that we call self. If two selves are made up of the same concepts, then they might as well be each others' incarnations, for the person is effectively the same underneath the surface.


But meh. This is just a pondering, and bares little relation to Hindu or Buddhist ideas.

its as good a spiritual thought as any

kinda goes along with the reality that we are made up of a trillion cells each with its own life and each utterly dependant on the rest

and the reality that we carry around with us more individual bacteria than we do cells in our body. we are, in essense, a sloppy bag of germs. maybe the image of god is more e.coli than man.

ALL?

isnt that just a tad bit of an overstatement?

i meant all of you on this thread who are defending it....

What about "A position that is not Love"? Is that an opposite of anything?

"a position that is not hate"

What about "A position that is not Love"? Is that an opposite of anything?

Well, that could be a lot of things. Anything that isn't something can be anything else according to that position.

"a position that is not hate"
Opposites cannot be equally satisfied; "Indifference" would suit both of those.

Opposites cannot be equally satisfied; "Indifference" would suit both of those.

yes but that does not mean they are not opposites, not love implies it is either indifference or hate and not hate implies indifference or love

and since opposites are identical except for one quality.... love and hate in this case.... and identical in that indifference satisfies both....

another point:-

take all negative numbers and all positive numbers, 0 is neither one or the other but atheism is the opposite of theism so if theism is 1 than atheism is -1 and if you take atheism as the 0 like your trying to do then theism would be infinity

Well, that could be a lot of things. Anything that isn't something can be anything else according to that position.
Exactly, and such is the difficulty in defining reactionary stances. If you are to say that "Atheism" is defined as "that stance which is not Theism", you are creating too broad a sweep for the term to be useful. On the other hand, if you are to say that it is "that stance which is contrary to Theism" then you are requiring an explicit opposition to Theistic beliefs.

The problem, yet again, lies in semantics; this time in the semantics of identity. Until people can decide what they mean by "Atheist", its use as a notion isn't very useful, and that condition requires people to have an agreed definition of the God or Gods we do or do not believe in, which (gasp!) requires them to spend time on it and communicate.

Exactly, and such is the difficulty in defining reactionary stances.

Must atheism be a reactionary stance?

If you are to say that "Atheism" is defined as "that stance which is not Theism", you are creating too broad a sweep for the term to be useful.

Not really. As I showed earlier, even just going by the direct meaning of the word theism and the prefix a-, atheism means, "without a belief in a god or gods." Seems pretty clear to me.

On the other hand, if you are to say that it is "that stance which is contrary to Theism" then you are requiring an explicit opposition to Theistic beliefs.

That would probably be better indicated by a term like antitheism.

The problem, yet again, lies in semantics; this time in the semantics of identity. Until people can decide what they mean by "Atheist", its use as a notion isn't very useful, and that condition requires people to have an agreed definition of the God or Gods we do or do not believe in, which (gasp!) requires them to spend time on it and communicate.

If everyone within a given mindset must agree on exactly what that mindset is for the term to be useful, then every term for any religion, ideology, philosophy, political stance, etc., etc., etc. is useless.

I define “faith” as belief without evidence. I don’t use faith in my life. Now if you want to define “faith” as a thirty pound beagle, I guess I’d have to say I have faith.
Religion wouldn’t enter my mind at all ‘cept for two reasons: I find mythology to be entertaining. People are affecting my life based on what their invisible playmates are telling them.

Faith is always evidence based!!

But often evidence is being informed of something that someone else has experienced.

How many people believe in viruses just because they have been told they exist or seen them in a book. Compare that with the number of people who have actually seen one (technically zero, as they aren't visible in a light microscope, but some have visualised them on the screen of an electron microscope) Its all based on how much you trust your source. If the source has been accurate about things before you are more likely to trust it. You are more likely to have FAITH in that source and hence its info.

Science is about evidence based on reproducible experiments.. so the evidence can be checked, and on important stuff it will be.

But essentially you have to have FAITH that people who do the science are telling you the truth... even when it comes down to scientific "fact". If you haven't performed the experiment yourself they could all be lying... the chances of so many people lying is pretty low.. but I guess its not impossible.

This is the angle that religion comes in ... lots of people tell you that God exists .. they are usually pretty trustworthy on most stuff. You would normally have faith in what they said. In order to not believe you simply have to have more FAITH in the evidence against than for.

For me thats easy.. the balance of faith is so far in favour of there not being a god as to be overwhelming. It would be ridiculous for me to believe in god. Just as it would if someone told be there were pink fairies that make the world go round.

For others that balance is very different..

There is an idea among theists that the burden of proof somehow lays on the atheist to prove reasonable grounds for his belief

As evidenced by this thread, there is an idea among atheists that they rest on the default assumption. That no God is a perfect assumption to make when no evidence is found. This is as untrue as the opposing position.

This is incorrect. An agnostic can be either an atheist or a theist. The agnostic does not hold that no statements can ever be made about God regarding God's nature or existence. The agnostic holds that these things can never be known. However, many beliefs would not be considered knowledge in the same way that empirically tested evidence might be considered to be knowledge.

And it is impossible to hold a consistent position without admitting some degree of doubt in one's knowledge, especially when combined with a separately held conviction of a higher knowledge. Therefore, no one can uphold a position of ultimate knowledge, and everyone is agnostic to a degree.

It is perfectly possible to hold that the existence or nature of God cannot be known, but to still hold beliefs on those points.

This is true.

As evidenced by this thread, there is an idea among atheists that they rest on the default assumption. That no God is a perfect assumption to make when no evidence is found. This is as untrue as the opposing position.

Thats because if a child is born and is never told about God .. or any god for that matter they will not believe in a god. They won't because they won't have even thought of the idea...

Hence it is the default position. We are not born with a belief in God.

Thats because if a child is born and is never told about God .. or any god for that matter they will not believe in a god. They won't because they won't have even thought of the idea...

Hence it is the default position. We are not born with a belief in God.

That is, as I said in an earlier post, agnostic vacuity, and it is a form of atheism as well as a starting point, but it is by no means the default position. A child is born with no consideration of any concept, and therefore by your logic, the default position of any subject is one of ambiguity.

Must atheism be a reactionary stance?
Well, one would think so. It's a position adopted in response to other peoples' ideas of God, isn't it?

Not really. As I showed earlier, even just going by the direct meaning of the word theism and the prefix a-, atheism means, "without a belief in a god or gods." Seems pretty clear to me.
For one, the alpha privative as a direct literal convention does not necessarily imply "Without"; it's just a negative more often than not, which still leaves things open in itself (though you're welcome to restrict the definition to more than its compositional meaning if you like, rather like people do with "Christian" and "Democrat").

For two, it doesn't seem clear to me. If you know that you are without a belief in a god or gods, does that mean you know what god is or gods are? God in one person's eyes might simply be the personification of human kindness, and I know that I believe in that. Can you assuredly say that such an understanding of what God is would be mistaken?

If everyone within a given mindset must agree on exactly what that mindset is for the term to be useful, then every term for any religion, ideology, philosophy, political stance, etc., etc., etc. is useless.
Oh, it takes much less than that for those terms to be useless, believe me. Merely setting aside personal identity by mindset is enough to quash its effect.

The fact is that we shouldn't need to identify either ourselves or others as Atheist or Agnostic or Christian or whatever, and that we continue to do so is only encouraging the cold war of ideological antagonism.

Segregation by ideology, even in name, is a fundamentally disastrous idea that has pervaded our society far enough. It's about time we got people to think about the names they take for themselves.

Well, one would think so. It's a position adopted in response to other peoples' ideas of God, isn't it?

no it's not. Atheism is the position that god doesn't exists, regardless of what religions say.

besides, atheism is the default position in the absence of any proof for or against the existence of god (the burden of proof being on those who affirm the existence of something), and since god's existence can neither be prooved or disprooved, you have a choice : either keep the default position, or have faith, and not bother with proof.

no it's not. Atheism is the position that god doesn't exists, regardless of what religions say.

besides, atheism is the default position in the absence of any proof for or against the existence of god (the burden of proof being on those who affirm the existence of something), and since god's existence can neither be prooved or disprooved, you have a choice : either keep the default position, or have faith, and not bother with proof.
Without the postulation of the existence of God or Gods, the position that God does not exist would never arise. What's more, the position of the Atheist must implicitly assume some definition of what God is or Gods are, and this definition is not even defined internally by the position but rather in response to that which other people have proposed. To suppose that Atheism by name and nature is anything other than reactionary is naive in the extreme.

The fact is that the default position is not Atheism; it is Innocence. The Atheist is the one who has arrived at a conclusion (albeit temporary) of what God is and rejected it, the Theist is the one who has arrived at a conclusion of what God is and accepted it, while the Innocent are those who have not yet made such a conclusion. And until we can agree on what God as a concept is supposed to be or represent, such a position is not only the default but remains the only rational one to adopt.

okay after reading the "why i am an athiest" thread, i realise alot of athiests/agnostics seem to think they know some kind of universal truth and they have no faith stance

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right? or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith

i just wanted to make this point because i'm an agnostic and other agnostics are making my kind look ignorant (would use a stronger word but that would be flamin:p )

Yes, I do think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Faith is always evidence based!!

But often evidence is being informed of something that someone else has experienced.

How many people believe in viruses just because they have been told they exist or seen them in a book. Compare that with the number of people who have actually seen one (technically zero, as they aren't visible in a light microscope, but some have visualised them on the screen of an electron microscope) Its all based on how much you trust your source. If the source has been accurate about things before you are more likely to trust it. You are more likely to have FAITH in that source and hence its info.

Science is about evidence based on reproducible experiments.. so the evidence can be checked, and on important stuff it will be.

But essentially you have to have FAITH that people who do the science are telling you the truth... even when it comes down to scientific "fact". If you haven't performed the experiment yourself they could all be lying... the chances of so many people lying is pretty low.. but I guess its not impossible.

This is the angle that religion comes in ... lots of people tell you that God exists .. they are usually pretty trustworthy on most stuff. You would normally have faith in what they said. In order to not believe you simply have to have more FAITH in the evidence against than for.

For me thats easy.. the balance of faith is so far in favour of there not being a god as to be overwhelming. It would be ridiculous for me to believe in god. Just as it would if someone told be there were pink fairies that make the world go round.

For others that balance is very different..

so you think that just because you've seen viruses they're real?!? you also seem to have ALOT of faith in this evidence you speak of, well it basically runs your life it seems

as far as i'm concerned there is no evidence for or against pink faries, because there is no evidence that scientific evidence, or evidence in general actually says anything truthful

generally i agree with you though

Thought this was worth responding to...

The lack of a position on the matter is not necessarily dependent on a lack of awareness of the subject, even when it involves a lack of semantical understanding of the terms being used. I might, for instance, have already derived an opinion on the possibility of super-planar persons long before the notion of gods has ever been explained to me.

It would not be fair to call me Atheistic, or even non-Theistic, when I suspect the possibility of things that I would have called Gods, should I have been aware of what Gods were, yet lack the understanding to do so.

Ah yes, Saki is here. Lemme catch up, then a reply I suppoe.

We have not observed every single possible number, therefore we cannot accept it as true that every single whole number multiplied by 2 will yield an even number. Similarly, because we have not described triangles with every single possible measure of sides, not even the most vigorous mathematical proof of the validity of Pythagorean theory can be said to be absolutely true because such theory is derived entirely from inference.

Uh, actually, no, not really. Rest of the post is fine just...not this bit.

Well, one would think so. It's a position adopted in response to other peoples' ideas of God, isn't it?



No

some of the folks who follow Buddah are Atheists because of his teachings (and others are theist... and some are atheistic but also anamistic... which I have yet to understand)

Taoism does not require a god per-say either4

so NO many religions are atheistic without being reactionary

okay after reading the "why i am an athiest" thread, i realise alot of athiests/agnostics seem to think they know some kind of universal truth and they have no faith stance

so i ask this, do you athiests out their really think lack of evidence means that thinking god doesn't exist is actually right? or that since it doesn't PROVE anything that to make the leap from lack of evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to no god doesn't require faith

for the agnostics, to make the leap from no evidence (or whatever your reason for your beliefs) to it cannot be proved either way surely requires faith

and to believe that the study of the natural actually does anything at all requires faith

i just wanted to make this point because i'm an agnostic and other agnostics are making my kind look ignorant (would use a stronger word but that would be flamin:p )


Well, that's not entirely true. I'm agnostic because it's too hard to convince myself to have faith in anything. So I gave up trying.

The fact is that the default position is not Atheism; it is Innocence. The Atheist is the one who has arrived at a conclusion (albeit temporary) of what God is and rejected it, the Theist is the one who has arrived at a conclusion of what God is and accepted it, while the Innocent are those who have not yet made such a conclusion. And until we can agree on what God as a concept is supposed to be or represent, such a position is not only the default but remains the only rational one to adopt.

Let us postulate a completely secular society, one in which people had never heard of such things as "God" and "Religion". Although their atheism is not a reaction to but simply an ignorance of theism (innocence). This is still atheism, simply not labeled so because there exists nothing in their cognitive universe to which it can be juxtaposed in relation to.

We simply create a categorization, the knowledge of which could not exists without something to measure it against, namely, it's opposite.

J.

The fact is that the default position is not Atheism; it is Innocence.

Ey now. If you get let loose, you get all philisophical on us, quit it. Does a newborn child believe in at least one god?

Without the postulation of the existence of God or Gods, the position that God does not exist would never arise. What's more, the position of the Atheist must implicitly assume some definition of what God is or Gods are, and this definition is not even defined internally by the position but rather in response to that which other people have proposed. To suppose that Atheism by name and nature is anything other than reactionary is naive in the extreme.

The fact is that the default position is not Atheism; it is Innocence. The Atheist is the one who has arrived at a conclusion (albeit temporary) of what God is and rejected it, the Theist is the one who has arrived at a conclusion of what God is and accepted it, while the Innocent are those who have not yet made such a conclusion. And until we can agree on what God as a concept is supposed to be or represent, such a position is not only the default but remains the only rational one to adopt.

nope. I don't need a definition for god. atheism states simply (or anyway my atheism does) that supernatural phenomenons don't exist, and doesn't care for things that 1) are not testable and 2) don't help in understanding the world.