NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey Atheists, got a question for you.

I think I am running into a contradiction for atheism, namely that atheism makes the same ‘leap of faith’ that religions do.

To wit: science cannot of course test or provide direct proof of the existence of god(s). As it has been pointed out to countless Creationists on this board. Science is the realm of the natural world and god(s) belong to the supernatural. This excludes us from ever finding any definitive proof to the existence of god(s).

In the same vein, it is also, of course, impossible for science to prove a negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.

I’m busy with lesson planning today so I might not respond back till later, but I will be back. ;)

It's not absolute, merely extremely likely. There's a >99.99% chance that earth has no dancing purple unicorns balanced on the back left hoof. There's a >99.99% chance the sun will rise tommorrow. There's a >99.99% chance that there's no christian god. We can't be 100% sure unless we somehow become omniscient, so we have to make that tiny "leap of faith".

You cannot say you know there is no God (explicit atheist), but you can be an implicit atheist where you simply believe there is no God but don't know it for certainty.

Hey Atheists, got a question for you.

I think I am running into a contradiction for atheism, namely that atheism makes the same ‘leap of faith’ that religions do.

To wit: science cannot of course test or provide direct proof of the existence of god(s). As it has been pointed out to countless Creationists on this board. Science is the realm of the natural world and god(s) belong to the supernatural. This excludes us from ever finding any definitive proof to the existence of god(s).

In the same vein, it is also, of course, impossible for science to prove a negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.

I’m busy with lesson planning today so I might not respond back till later, but I will be back. ;)


Agnosticism is the philosophical position of not being able to know whether god exists.

Atheism is the belief that there isn't a god. Or if you will, a lack of belief that there is.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Teacup...TEACUP!!!

Sorry, we've been hashing this for like a week now so that's all I feel like saying at this point.

there is no reason to believe in something that cant be proven. its not a leap of anything to stay where you are--a person with no faith.

it does take a leap to believe in something that cant be proven. you are flying in the face of rationality.

I choose to distance myself from religion because I feel there is no God.

Science cannot demonstrate that God does not exist.

But science cannot demonstrate lots of things that I think I have good reason to believe, so....

Essentially, believing there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://ewlong.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/flying_spaghetti_monster.jpg) is an irrational position because His Noodly Divinity cannot be proven nor disproven.

Atheism is the belief that there isn't a god. Or if you will, a lack of belief that there is.
Those are two different things.

Failing to believe that there is a god is wholly consistent with the position presented in the OP. Believing that there is no god requires a leap of faith.

Both qualify as atheism (as both fail to believe there is a god), but only one of them two positions is entirely reasonable (devoid of faith).

Nervun, I do not understand why you reason faith is necessary to not take up a belief.

By the way, as an atheist, I personally do not believe in the existence of any particular deity, nor believe that there necessarily is a deity, nor do I believe that if there were some deity it would necessarily be unknowable. It seems being agnostic would entail having more theistic beliefs than I have rather than less.

This same leap is something we do every day to live in the world. I trust my experience that gravity will be the same every day. So what? It's the same leap that science requires: the assumption that things aren't (completely) random.

I would not say that there are no gods in an absolute sense. Like you say, it can't be proven and there is definitely a big leap if you do say that, of the same magnitude of believing without proof. I will say that, in the sense that there has been no reason to suppose there is gods, there are none.

No reason to believe these gods exist, so I don't believe.
In shorter form, "There are no gods."

I believe this is the defining characteristic between "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism (weak being the 'no reason to believe so don't think there is' guys). The 'strong' ones appear to be irrational. Of course, I tend to think that usually these guys are backlashing against something they didn't like rather than arriving at it through thinking a long time.

Nervun, I do not understand why you reason faith is necessary to not take up a belief.
Nervun asserted no such thing. Nervun asserted that you must have faith to believe that god does not exist, but belief is not required if you don't believe that, but sinply fail to believe that god does exist.

There's a reasonable position available between (or opposite, depending how your draw the continuum) believing there is a god and believing there isn't, and that position is failing to believe either.

there is no reason to believe in something that cant be proven. its not a leap of anything to stay where you are--a person with no faith.

it does take a leap to believe in something that cant be proven. you are flying in the face of rationality.

It depends what kind of God we are talking about here. There is no status quo about creation, it does not seem like the universe was created or was not created, unlike how it seems like there are no pink unicorns. It isn't proving a negative, the statements God does exist and God does not exist are equal positive assertions.

It depends what kind of God we are talking about here. There is no status quo about creation, it does not seem like the universe was created or was not created, unlike how it seems like there are no pink unicorns. It isn't proving a negative, the statements God does exist and God does not exist are equal positive assertions.

no it doesnt.

there is no proof of any god so there is no reason to believe in any god.

pick a god. any god. is there any proof of its existence?

then why would i believe in it?

the amorphous "there must be a creator of all of this but i have no notion of what he might be like or want from me" is not particularly worth considering. its no one's god.

there is no reason to believe in something that cant be proven. its not a leap of anything to stay where you are--a person with no faith.

it does take a leap to believe in something that cant be proven. you are flying in the face of rationality.
But is that not what Atheists are saying? They believe there is/are no god(s). That is something that cannot be proven one way or another.

It isn't proving a negative, the statements God does exist and God does not exist are equal positive assertions.
I thought the word "not" made "God does not exist" a negative. Or did "There is no God" and "God does not exist" suddenly start meaning different things?

I thought the word "not" made "God does not exist" a negative. Or did "There is no God" and "God does not exist" suddenly start meaning different things?It's a negative statement but a positive assertion: "There is no god" must mean that you know there is none. Unless you are omniscent, there is no possible way for you to know this, so you must be making it up.

But is that not what Atheists are saying? They believe there is/are no god(s). That is something that cannot be proven one way or another.

the significance of that is seems to be far more important to you than it is to me.

when someone makes an unprovable assertion, the most rational response is to disbelieve it.

It's a negative statement but a positive assertion: "There is no god" must mean that you know there is none. Unless you are omniscent, there is no possible way for you to know this, so you must be making it up.
here we are again -_-...


so fairies, pixies, the boogie man, tooth fairy, easter bunny, santa claus, a baby carrying stork, ect,ect should be thought of as possible?

Hey Atheists, got a question for you.

I think I am running into a contradiction for atheism, namely that atheism makes the same ‘leap of faith’ that religions do.

To wit: science cannot of course test or provide direct proof of the existence of god(s). As it has been pointed out to countless Creationists on this board. Science is the realm of the natural world and god(s) belong to the supernatural. This excludes us from ever finding any definitive proof to the existence of god(s).

In the same vein, it is also, of course, impossible for science to prove a negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.

I’m busy with lesson planning today so I might not respond back till later, but I will be back. ;)

The best explanations I've heard are essentially Occam's razor. Though personally, I'm agnostic, so Gods, invisible pink unicorns, the Matrix, and no supernatural stuff at all rank pretty much the same for me: as things that might be true, though I don't have any reason to believe they are right now.

the significance of that is seems to be far more important to you than it is to me.

when someone makes an unprovable assertion, the most rational response is to disbelieve it.
But again, that would then launch Atheism into a "Because I say so" relm that is NOT logical or reasonable.

Because the actual 'rational' responce, ala science, is that absence of proof does not mean absence of thing in question. And if science cannot find it, that just means science cannot take it into account, not that it doesn't exist.

So, again, it seems to me that taking the absolute position that there is/are no god(s) (I wish English grammar was eaiser to account for single/plurals) would be an act of feeling, belief, or faith, not actual logic.

no it doesnt.

there is no proof of any god so there is no reason to believe in any god.

pick a god. any god. is there any proof of its existence?

then why would i believe in it?


Why should I believe there is no God (I do by the way), if there is no proof that there is none either?


the amorphous "there must be a creator of all of this but i have no notion of what he might be like or want from me" is not particularly worth considering. its no one's god.

Doesn't mean you have to discount the existence of it.

I for one take the centuries of searching for evidence of god and failing to find it, as decent evidence of no god.

How is atheism a leap of faith?
"An all powerful being did not make everything."
Real hard. Where you want to take it from there is your problem.

How is atheism a leap of faith?
"An all powerful being did not make everything."
Real hard. Where you want to take it from there is your problem.

It's a leap from the initial position of "an all powerful being may or may not have made everything."

I thought the word "not" made "God does not exist" a negative. Or did "There is no God" and "God does not exist" suddenly start meaning different things?

Nope. The word IS or DOES makes the statement a positve.

here we are again -_-...


so fairies, pixies, the boogie man, tooth fairy, easter bunny, santa claus, a baby carrying stork, ect,ect should be thought of as possible?Certainly. But, of course, they are very, very unlikely, as we haven't seen any reason to believe them.

But again, that would then launch Atheism into a "Because I say so" relm that is NOT logical or reasonable.

Because the actual 'rational' responce, ala science, is that absence of proof does not mean absence of thing in question. And if science cannot find it, that just means science cannot take it into account, not that it doesn't exist.

So, again, it seems to me that taking the absolute position that there is/are no god(s) (I wish English grammar was eaiser to account for single/plurals) would be an act of feeling, belief, or faith, not actual logic.

The thing is, even "strong" atheists are general de facto atheists. Dawkins himself (the oh-so radical and militant atheist... but I've already expressed my dissatisfaction with that phrase in other threads) considers him an atheist the same way he is an a-teapotist. There's no evidence in favor, and it is therefore irrational to believe. The rational choice is always to not believe something until there is evidence in favor.

Nope. The word IS or DOES makes the statement a positve.

english classes are teaching the young wrongly then.

in english "there is no god" is a negative statement.

how can you state this as a matter of fact? you can not prove nor disprove.

here we are again -_-...


so fairies, pixies, the boogie man, tooth fairy, easter bunny, santa claus, a baby carrying stork, ect,ect should be thought of as possible?

No. Again, there are an infinite possibilities of what God could be. The tooth fairy is a significant tangible thing and can be tested by science (seeing if a tooth transforms into a coin) and thus disproved. As I said before, there is no status quo as to whether or not the universe started from a cause or was always an effect in the long chain of cause and effect. There is a status quo however that the tooth fairy does not exist.

It's a leap from the initial position of "an all powerful being may or may not have made everything."
Agnosticism has nothing to do with atheism.

Well, many people make that point.
If referring to hard athiests, those who actively disbelieve, I suppose that is true. Soft athiests just lack the belief. I think that people who make a leap of faith actually can recognize that they do so. For some reason, I don't feel that I make a leap of faith.
I find that with no evidence, that atleast all currently existing ideas of a god can't be true compared to the evidence we have against them. So it isn't exactly a leap of faith.
Edit: Umm. When does the tooth fairy transform teeth?

I was an athist for awhile until someone told me of a christian debater who made the following point:

Do you know 100% of everything.
No.
Ok so do you know 99% of everything?
Again, no.
Ok so lets assume you do. Is it possible that God exists in the other 1%?Could be.
So being omiponenit is it possible for him to have created the world 5000 years ago, and made it look like the universe had existed for billions of years?

Now from this one could say that it takes alot of faith to believe in that 1% but think about this: How much does humanity as a whole know about the universe when we have not even been to another planet?

I for one as an agnostic am willing to assume that humanity does not know more than 10% (at best) of galactic history or science. (although a much closer # would probaly be 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%)

Now even withthe 10% of all knowlege we have aquired I am not willing to bet against god existing in the other 90%. thus i am an agnostic, reconizing that the existence of god can't be proven, but then again we don't know jack.

Well, many people make that point.
If referring to hard athiests, those who actively disbelieve, I suppose that is true. Soft athiests just lack the belief. I think that people who make a leap of faith actually can recognize that they do so. For some reason, I don't feel that I make a leap of faith.
I find that with no evidence, that atleast all currently existing ideas of a god can't be true compared to the evidence we have against them. So it isn't exactly a leap of faith.
Edit: Umm. When does the tooth fairy transform teeth?

What exact "evidence we have against them" do you have to prove there is no god? Just your belief correct? that is the leap of faith he is talking about.

Yes, it requires a leap-of-faith. To say that there is no Christian God is one thing, to that Universe is an effect without a cause is ludicrous. If the Universe had a cause, whatever that cause is, being sentient or no, is God. If it didn't have a cause, then the Universe itself is God, and therefor Buddhism is correct.

Either way, I have trouble comprehending Atheism.

No. Again, there are an infinite possibilities of what God could be. The tooth fairy is a significant tangible thing and can be tested by science (seeing if a tooth transforms into a coin) and thus disproved. As I said before, there is no status quo as to whether or not the universe started from a cause or was always an effect in the long chain of cause and effect. There is a status quo however that the tooth fairy does not exist.

actually yea you would have to. about the only thing listed that isnt not as supernatural as a god(and as such being in the realm of "infinite possibilities") is the stork.


and the tooth fairy is not a tooth turning into a coin. it is a fairy that takes your tooth and leaves money.

But is that not what Atheists are saying? They believe there is/are no god(s). That is something that cannot be proven one way or another.
You can't prove a negative. If you can't prove God exists, he doesn't exist. You can't prove "God does not exist." Because (a) that's a negative and (b) that would require that evidence of God existing be concrete in the first place.

You: "This all powerful being exists and made me and you and all things."
Me: "Can you prove that he exists?"
You: "Can you prove that he does not exist?"
Me: "What the hell are you talking about/ You are the one saying he exists but you can provide evidence of his existence? How the fuck am I supposed to prove he doesn't exist? By cross analyzing the evidence you don't have?"
You: "You have to have faith."
Me: "Should I clap if I believe you are full of shit?"

What exact "evidence we have against them" do you have to prove there is no god? Just your belief correct? that is the leap of faith he is talking about.
NO

The leap of faith is to believe that an all powerful being exists and is the great creator. There is no leap of faith to not make a leap of faith. That assertion is positively absurd.

You can't prove a negative. If you can't prove God exists, he doesn't exist. You can't prove "God does not exist." Because (a) that's a negative and (b) that would require that evidence of God existing be concrete in the first place.

You: "This all powerful being exists and made me and you and all things."
Me: "Can you prove that he exists?"
You: "Can you prove that he does not exist?"
Me: "What the hell are you talking about/ You are the one saying he exists but you can provide evidence of his existence? How the fuck am I supposed to prove he doesn't exist? By cross analyzing the evidence you don't have?"
You: "You have to have faith."
Me: "Should I clap if I believe you are full of shit?"

It seems that if you try to ask for proof that god does not exist then the radical atheist gets angry.

What exact "evidence we have against them" do you have to prove there is no god? Just your belief correct? that is the leap of faith he is talking about.

You either read that as modifying the wrong word, or I wrote it wrong.
Evidence we have makes ideas about god currently existing, such as Creationism, sound pretty idiotic. That is the evidence of which I speak.

But again, that would then launch Atheism into a "Because I say so" relm that is NOT logical or reasonable.

Because the actual 'rational' responce, ala science, is that absence of proof does not mean absence of thing in question. And if science cannot find it, that just means science cannot take it into account, not that it doesn't exist.

So, again, it seems to me that taking the absolute position that there is/are no god(s) (I wish English grammar was eaiser to account for single/plurals) would be an act of feeling, belief, or faith, not actual logic.

there is no leap involved when there is no proof. you didnt believe it before it was presented to you, you continue to not believe it after it is presented with no proof and no possibility of proof. you are in the same place.

the same thing cannot be said of faith. before its presented to you, you dont believe it; after it is presented to you with no proof and no possibility of proof you have to make a leap into the world of faith. you are not in the same place you started.

you are not positing a "germ theory" where we live in the 1800s and germs exist but they are not yet demostrated to exist. there are ways to figure it out, to demonstrate it or to suppose experiments that might be done some time in the future when better equipment exists.

you are supposing a god without evidence. with not just no way to prove him today but no possible way to prove his existence. its more like "string theory" where there seems to be a mathematical proof of it but scientists say that there will never be a way to prove it experimentally. in such a case one has no reason to believe in "string theory". (since there is a mathematical indication of string theory, im agnostic on it. if there were that much proof of any particular god, i would also be agnostic about it)

again I say:

I for one take the centuries of searching for evidence of god and failing to find it, as decent evidence of no god.

It seems that if you try to ask for proof that god does not exist then the radical atheist gets angry.
You didn't read what you quoted did you? You might as well have stared at the sky for an hour in the middle of a clear day and then turned around and said "I wonder why people get angry when I say the sky isn't blue."

You didn't read what you quoted did you? You might as well have stared at the sky for an hour in the middle of a clear day and then turned around and said "I wonder why people get angry when I say the sky isn't blue."

oh but my friend, the sky isnt blue. that is basic science. :)

Why should I believe there is no God (I do by the way), if there is no proof that there is none either?



Doesn't mean you have to discount the existence of it.

because with no proof and no possibility of proof, there is no reason to believe.

every god proposed by man has turned out to be false. if i were to believe in "god" what would i believe?

Nervun asserted no such thing. Nervun asserted that you must have faith to believe that god does not exist, but belief is not required if you don't believe that, but sinply fail to believe that god does exist.
I see no mention of those who have no beliefs in Nervun's post unless it is entailed in 'atheist'.

But is that not what Atheists are saying? They believe there is/are no god(s). That is something that cannot be proven one way or another.
I expect some are saying as much. But some theists are saying Christ is the only begotten son of the only true God and others say he's just some prophet, and a less important one than the only true God's only true prophet, some other theist folk say there is actually more than one deity.

Agnosticism (as you describe it, and as I understand it is most usually meant) is not really an absence of belief. After all, can it proven that nothing can ever be proven about a deity (would not proving such a thing about a deity require you to do what it is you are seeking to prove is not possible)? Agnostic belief in the unknowable nature of any deity (as I understand it) entails more belief than my own position.

Atheism can (and to some atheists does) refer to a belief in the non-existence of deities, but it also refers as much to absences of theistic beliefs (including an absence in a belief that it is necessarily true that no deity exists).

You either read that as modifying the wrong word, or I wrote it wrong.
Evidence we have makes ideas about god currently existing, such as Creationism, sound pretty idiotic. That is the evidence of which I speak.

Either way you slice it to believe or not to believe requires a leap of faith because there is no evidence either way.

You can't prove a negative. If you can't prove God exists, he doesn't exist. You can't prove "God does not exist." Because (a) that's a negative and (b) that would require that evidence of God existing be concrete in the first place.

You: "This all powerful being exists and made me and you and all things."
Me: "Can you prove that he exists?"
You: "Can you prove that he does not exist?"
Me: "What the hell are you talking about/ You are the one saying he exists but you can provide evidence of his existence? How the fuck am I supposed to prove he doesn't exist? By cross analyzing the evidence you don't have?"
You: "You have to have faith."
Me: "Should I clap if I believe you are full of shit?"

Again "You" (in the example) is the one who is flawed already as he is asserting that God does exist. "Me", on the other hand is the merely asking for proof, and doesn't show himself to be an atheist. So this isn't a defence for atheism, as if "You" was an explicit atheist, "Me" would still be logically correct if he replied in the same way.

Look:

You: "This all powerful being doesn't exist and he didn't make me and you and all things."
Me: "Can you prove that he doesn't exist?"
You: "Can you prove that he does exist?"
Me: "What the hell are you talking about/ You are the one saying he doesn't exist but you can't provide evidence of his non existence? How the fuck am I supposed to prove he does exist? By cross analyzing the evidence you don't have?"
You: "You have to have faith."
Me: "Should I clap if I believe you are full of shit

NO

The leap of faith is to believe that an all powerful being exists and is the great creator. There is no leap of faith to not make a leap of faith. That assertion is positively absurd.

No it's not. To assert "There is no tree in that field" is a leap of faith if you haven't seen the field. Similerly, to assert that "there are no gods" is a leap of faith. The only position without a leap of faith is that "there might be gods, but I don't know."

oh but my friend, the sky isnt blue. that is basic science. :)
You missed the point and I hate you.

again I say:

i agree with you.

You didn't read what you quoted did you? You might as well have stared at the sky for an hour in the middle of a clear day and then turned around and said "I wonder why people get angry when I say the sky isn't blue."

I would not say that because the sky is blue so with that assertion you must have evidence of the non existance of god then? No you just have a belief of non existance with no foundation.

Either way you slice it to believe or not to believe requires a leap of faith because there is no evidence either way.

You are ignoring what I say. So I'll make a second point.
Burden of proof. Wiki'll give you everything you need to know.

Now to attempt to explain better. I AM SAYING THE EXISTING STORIES OF GOD ARE FALSE. Now either god/s exist, he/she/they don't want to be known at all, or he/she/they is a figment of human imagination. I believe the latter.
Now what I am saying is, it is more logical to follow evidence that is there. God(the capitalized version signifies Christianity, as they refer to him as this) has evidence against the stories told of him. Correct? I don't have extensive knowledge of other religions beyond the basic ideas, but they have equally bogus stories for the most part. Notice I speak of theistic religions.

You missed the point and I hate you.

I would say it is a point. not all things as are they appear from our perspective.

Either way you slice it to believe or not to believe requires a leap of faith because there is no evidence either way.

to quote myself:

there is no leap involved when there is no proof. you didnt believe it before it was presented to you, you continue to not believe it after it is presented with no proof and no possibility of proof. you are in the same place.

the same thing cannot be said of faith. before its presented to you, you dont believe it; after it is presented to you with no proof and no possibility of proof you have to make a leap into the world of faith. you are not in the same place you started.

because with no proof and no possibility of proof, there is no reason to believe.

every god proposed by man has turned out to be false. if i were to believe in "god" what would i believe?

How have they "turned out to be false"? Where is your proof they do not exist?

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from?

The recognition that the concept of a god(s) is a human construct?

How have they "turned out to be false"? Where is your proof they do not exist?

oh, do you believe in the greek pantheon?

because with no proof and no possibility of proof, there is no reason to believe.


So why are you an atheist then?


every god proposed by man has turned out to be false. if i were to believe in "god" what would i believe?

What? You are joking right? Can you show me where every God has turned out to be false? I'm waiting.

oh, do you believe in the greek pantheon?

Laughably, the Pantheon is more realistic than the Judaic God.

So why are you an atheist then?



What? You are joking right? Can you show me where every God has turned out to be false? I'm waiting.

i am an atheist because there is no reason to believe and because there is no actual faith that stands up to scrutiny

gee given that there are thousands of gods invented by humanity, no im not going to go through all of them.

is there one you believe has some basis in fact?

A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety.

So if an atheist is believing in something not based in something not having empirical evidence or in spite of it rather there position is based on a lack of evidence it would not be a "leap of faith" as the definition states. Now if there was proof of god and an atheist was to say there was no god then they would be doing the leap.

You are ignoring what I say. So I'll make a second point.
Burden of proof. Wiki'll give you everything you need to know.

Now to attempt to explain better. I AM SAYING THE EXISTING STORIES OF GOD ARE FALSE. Now either god/s exist, he/she/they don't want to be known at all, or he/she/they is a figment of human imagination. I believe the latter.
Now what I am saying is, it is more logical to follow evidence that is there. God(the capitalized version signifies Christianity, as they refer to him as this) has evidence against the stories told of him. Correct? I don't have extensive knowledge of other religions beyond the basic ideas, but they have equally bogus stories for the most part. Notice I speak of theistic religions.

How can you say one way or another that the stories are false? were you around back then? NO. Do you have evidence they are false? NO. All you have is a belief that they are false. So who says your belief trumps the beliefs of others?

Laughably, the Pantheon is more realistic than the Judaic God.

they seem to be about the same to me.

Anybody who isn't religious or does not believe in the supernatural is an atheist. Sure, some atheists believe that the answer to certain questions is unknowable. They are agnostic. So are some theists, certain kinds of Buddhists for example.

Atheism and agnosticism addresses two different questions and separating them only hurts the Free Thought cause. Everyone who is an atheist, whether they acknowledge it or not, is considered and enemy by "traditional" religion, whether they acknowledge it or not.

In addition, I'd just like to say that it seems many people who criticize famous atheist thinkers don't actually know what those thinkers have said or wrote. This, of course makes their arguments null, but still meets with applause in a society where deity belief is the norm.

I can not disprove it. So therefore i can not say with certantity one way or the other. Can you?

the base stories of the greek mythos can be shown to be false. where should i begin to believe in their gods?

oh, do you believe in the greek pantheon?

I can not disprove it. So therefore i can not say with certantity one way or the other. Can you?

The burden of proof can lie with either side.

1. The christian says: God does exist. Now one needs to prove that he does. (duh)

2.The hard line atheist says: God for absolute certainty does exist. Now this require proof to. Key phrase: certainty. Now by saying that word, you take the burden of proof opon yourself, because you can't say for "certainly" without, accually knowing. Now you must provide proof for "knowing" god does not exist.

How can you say one way or another that the stories are false? were you around back then? NO. Do you have evidence they are false? NO. All you have is a belief that they are false. So who says your belief trumps the beliefs of others?

Who says? My god.
Read please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
The second one will clear up my first statment.

To be totally serious, science disproves past and current idols of worship. Atleast the tales of them. Which is the point I've been trying to make.

the significance of that is seems to be far more important to you than it is to me.

when someone makes an unprovable assertion, the most rational response is to disbelieve it.

You just backed yourself into the corner of the bullpen...

"There is no God."
This statement cannot be proven. So, we should disbelieve it according to you.

"There is a God."
This statement cannot be proven as well. So, we should also disbelieve it according to you.

That leaves us all Agnostic.

At least that should stop the arguments, eh?

I took a huge leap of faith today. Despite thousands of eye-witness accounts, I decided that I do not believe in Bigfoot. Sasquatch is a myth. I just had to get that off my chest.

As for God.... call me back when you get some plaster footprints or grainy photos.

The burden of proof can lie with either side.

1. The christian says: God does exist. Now one needs to prove that he does. (duh)

2.The hard line atheist says: God for absolute certainty does exist. Now this require proof to. Key phrase: certainty. Now by saying that word, you take the burden of proof opon yourself, because you can't say for "certainly" without, accually knowing. Now you must provide proof for "knowing" god does not exist.

But thiests made the statement of god first, placing burden of proof on them.

A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in something without, or in spite of, available empirical evidence. It is an act commonly associated with religious belief as many religions consider faith to be an essential element of piety.

So if an atheist is believing in something not based in something not having empirical evidence or in spite of it rather there position is based on a lack of evidence it would not be a "leap of faith" as the definition states. Now if there was proof of god and an atheist was to say there was no god then they would be doing the leap.

Remember the wiki is to be used lightly any moron can update it. With that said Atheisism is the "belief" that there is no dieties without empirical evidence. therefore it is a leap of faith by your definition.

You just backed yourself into the corner of the bullpen...

"There is no God."
This statement cannot be proven. So, we should disbelieve it according to you.

"There is a God."
This statement cannot be proven as well. So, we should also disbelieve it according to you.

That leaves us all Agnostic.

At least that should stop the arguments, eh?


that would make better sense if it were a 50/50 proposition.

no one would ever say "there is no god" if someone else did not first assert "there is a god". the proof must lie with the first assertion. without proof, there is no reason to believe.

Remember the wiki is to be used lightly any moron can update it. With that said Atheisism is the "belief" that there is no dieties without empirical evidence. therefore it is a leap of faith by your definition.

Umm no atheism is not a belief that there are no deities without empirical evidence. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, gods, etc. This lack of belief can very much be based in proof such as people's problems with the bible or other issues with evidence used to prove religions. To say that all atheism is is a belief without empirical evidence is a gross mislabeling of the term.

Oh my. I thought this forum would be more accepting. My previous post wasn't posted, likely because the mod didn't like the link to the wiki I put in it. Prejudice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

that would make better sense if it were a 50/50 proposition.

no one would ever say "there is no god" if someone else did not first assert "there is a god". the proof must lie with the first assertion. without proof, there is no reason to believe.

Actually the proof lies on both. My only point in all my posts is that no one knows for certain either way. At one time the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. With time the scientific proof mounted to disprove this theory.

Interesting. The mods seem unwilling to allow my two previous posts to come through. I'll stop trying to make my previous point, because apparently being a religious athiest isn't allowed.
Why do you think burden of proof lies on both parties. There must be a statement of God before a statement against him can begin.
I will go for the night. Bye.

Actually the proof lies on both. My only point in all my posts is that no one knows for certain either way. At one time the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. With time the scientific proof mounted to disprove this theory.

yeah.

my point is that there is no sense in "believing" in a god without human interaction, without scriptures, without some history. this unprovable god we are left with is no god that is represented by any religion. its just a mental construct without any real meaning. very much like the teapot.

science has pushed god out of the observable world into the realm of the unseen. it makes him irrelevant even if he does (or did) exist.

But thiests made the statement of god first, placing burden of proof on them.

I have a gallon of ice cream in front of me. I made the statement, so normally it would be up to me to prove it.

What you say is: I know for certainty that you don't. Now you can say that, but again that word certainty. Now for something that I would otherwise have great dificulty proving, you already said you "know" I dont based on my lack of evidence. What you are saying is that you have factual knowlege. certaity=fact. So you have factual knowlege based on what I cannot prove. The burden is for you to prove i don't.

(I know its a lame analogy, but im teird and its the best i can think of at the momment)

Umm no atheism is not a belief that there are no deities without empirical evidence. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, gods, etc. This lack of belief can very much be based in proof such as people's problems with the bible or other issues with evidence used to prove religions. To say that all atheism is is a belief without empirical evidence is a gross mislabeling of the term.

You cannot have a lack of belief in anything you must believe for or against something. so i stand on my prievious comments.

I don't believe there is a god. No great leap of faith there. If I said I don't believe there is a giant monster living in under my bed, or I don't believe that the planet is actually ruled by a secret race of alien mole people, you would not think any faith were required. I class the gods imagined by humans in the same catagory... that is imaginary.

Interesting. The mods seem unwilling to allow my two previous posts to come through. I'll stop trying to make my previous point, because apparently being a religious athiest isn't allowed.
Why do you think burden of proof lies on both parties. There must be a statement of God before a statement against him can begin.
I will go for the night. Bye.

no no

its not a mod thing, its a jolt thing. its an anti-spam measure. once you reach 10 posts, youll be fine.

dont go now, we have them on the ropes!

You cannot have a lack of belief in anything you must believe for or against something. so i stand on my prievious comments.

Nope. If I "believe against" something, that would mean that I had to have some belief in that thing to begin with, or I had to lend credence to the possibility that belief in the thing was accurate somehow.

I don't "not believe" in god. I don't think there is any such thing. So I have a lack of belief.

I have a gallon of ice cream in front of me. I made the statement, so normally it would be up to me to prove it.

What you say is: I know for certainty that you don't. Now you can say that, but again that word certainty. Now for something that I would otherwise have great dificulty proving, you already said "know" I dont based on my lack of evidence. What you are saying is that you have factual knowlege. certaity=fact. So you have factual knowlege based on what I cannot prove. The burden is for you to prove i don't.

(I know its a lame analogy, but im teird and its the best i can think of at the momment)

i never believe any unprovable thing that people say online. and i hope you dont either.

You cannot have a lack of belief in anything you must believe for or against something. so i stand on my prievious comments.

1. So you would say that there is no such thing as implicit atheism?

2. Well then lets reformat lack of belief to a denial of belief based on problems with the bible, geographical evidence and etc. If that is what the belief of atheism is based on can you tell me then that it is not based on empirical evidence?

that would make better sense if it were a 50/50 proposition.

no one would ever say "there is no god" if someone else did not first assert "there is a god". the proof must lie with the first assertion. without proof, there is no reason to believe.

. . .

How are two sides of a coin, not a 50/50 proposition?

At any rate.. did you read your own quote?

"when someone makes an unprovable assertion, the most rational response is to disbelieve it."- Ashmoria

Does it matter when the assertion was made?

It's the same as quibbling over what came first, the chicken or the egg...

I don't believe there is a god. No great leap of faith there. If I said I don't believe there is a giant monster living in under my bed, or I don't believe that the planet is actually ruled by a secret race of alien mole people, you would not think any faith were required. I class the gods imagined by humans in the same catagory... that is imaginary.

But you can't prove anything you just believe and thats the point.

Essentially, believing there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://ewlong.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/flying_spaghetti_monster.jpg) is an irrational position because His Noodly Divinity cannot be proven nor disproven.

yes but ur wrong because there is much evidence pointing TOWARDS the existence of his holiness the FSM. to the forum poster, you are completely right. we believe that schools should teach equal time of Intelligent design, FSMism, and scientific conjecture based on overwhelming evidence. for those of you who wish to explore his noodly ways: www.venganza.org

i never believe any unprovable thing that people say online. and i hope you dont either.

tis true. but just because I said it online and you don't believe it dosn't make it absolutly false now does it?

The concept of a god(s) was created by man only, so there is no reason to believe that there is a god at all until evidence surfaces.

1. So you would say that there is no such thing as implicit atheism?

2. Well then lets reformat lack of belief to a denial of belief based on problems with the bible, geographical evidence and etc. If that is what the belief of atheism is based on can you tell me then that it is not based on empirical evidence?

To deny belief in a higher power is to believe that belief in a higher power does not exist does not exist. Doesn't add up. Just make your stand that you believe there is no deity.

The concept of a god(s) was created by man only, so there is no reason to believe that there is a god at all until evidence surfaces.

at least you take the leap of faith that you "believe" there is no god. There is no evidence that GOD does not exist either.

To deny belief in a higher power is to believe that belief in a higher power does not exist does not exist. Doesn't add up. Just make your stand that you believe there is no deity.

George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[28] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief.

I guess it can also be referred to as strong vs. weak atheism with weak atheists being those like agnostics or other non theists.

But once again lets use an example on the Christian God with someone denying belief in it. A person does not believe in God because of issues with the bible, issues with geographic sites involved in such religions and etc. Would you say that their stance of not believing is not based on empirical evidence if those are the reasons for their non belief?

The concept of a god(s) was created by man only, so there is no reason to believe that there is a god at all until evidence surfaces.

oh God.

that said it is the unprovable assertion of christians and musims that god wrote the bible and the koran.

yeah.

my point is that there is no sense in "believing" in a god without human interaction, without scriptures, without some history. this unprovable god we are left with is no god that is represented by any religion. its just a mental construct without any real meaning. very much like the teapot.

science has pushed god out of the observable world into the realm of the unseen. it makes him irrelevant even if he does (or did) exist.

A teapot does exist and is relevant if you want tea.

that would make better sense if it were a 50/50 proposition.

no one would ever say "there is no god" if someone else did not first assert "there is a god". the proof must lie with the first assertion. without proof, there is no reason to believe.

One man tells you that the floor in one section of your house is unsupported, and that if you step on it, you will fall through. Another man says it's supported just fine. Do you immediately believe the second man? or do you withold belief until you can test it somehow?

Of course, we cannot very easily test for God or the invisible pink unicorn, so that complicates things somewhat.

at least you take the leap of faith that you "believe" there is no god. There is no evidence that GOD does not exist either.

Once again, it is not a leap of faith not to believe in something that is not there.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If you don't is that a leap of faith? Or is it just good common sense to not believe in imaginary creatures?

One man tells you that the floor in one section of your house is unsupported, and that if you step on it, you will fall through. Another man says it's supported just fine. Do you immediately believe the second man? or do you withold belief until you can test it somehow?

Of course, we cannot very easily test for God or the invisible pink unicorn, so that complicates things somewhat.

correct so therefore you can not prove or disprove the floor being supported with out a leap of faith onto said floor.

. . .

How are two sides of a coin, not a 50/50 proposition?

At any rate.. did you read your own quote?

"when someone makes an unprovable assertion, the most rational response is to disbelieve it."- Ashmoria

Does it matter when the assertion was made?

It's the same as quibbling over what came first, the chicken or the egg...

of course it makes a difference. no one actively asserts that there is no god. someone else has to bring it up.

ogg wasnt sitting around the cave one day when he suddenly said to mog "there is no god".

and the egg came first.

I have never seen, tasted, tuched, heard, or smelled the earth's core. So you are telling me that i must rely on other persons that i have never heard of, let alone meant, to tell me it exists? Well since I nor no one that i know and trust cannot test for it, it must not exist. :eek:

Once again, it is not a leap of faith not to believe in something that is not there.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If you don't is that a leap of faith? Or is it just good common sense to not believe in imaginary creatures?

The tooth fairy as it exists today is false as pepitrated by parents and passed down as a false entity to their offspring. It can be disproved as it exists today. Religion can not be disproved or proved.

A teapot does exist and is relevant if you want tea.

you need to bone up on your atheism talk

the teapot in question is in solar orbit between mars and jupiter.

an unprovable god is irrelevant when you need a god on your side. how do you decide what one to pray to?

One man tells you that the floor in one section of your house is unsupported, and that if you step on it, you will fall through. Another man says it's supported just fine. Do you immediately believe the second man? or do you withold belief until you can test it somehow?

Of course, we cannot very easily test for God or the invisible pink unicorn, so that complicates things somewhat.

Not the same point. The floor of your house is there, solid and testable. No one imagined the floor.

God had to be thought up by somebody in the first place. Having done so, it is up to the folks who thought him up, or those who believe it, to prove it.

I could not NOT believe that something imaginary existed until someone had imagined it up. Like this...

I believe that there is a large glob of a very sticky invisible substance that I will call "Ploobell" hovering over your head right now. If you don't immediately put on a hat, it is going to drip all over you and you will be disolved immediately.

Do YOU believe in Ploobell? Probably not. Did you believe it did not exist before I mentioned it? Of course you didn't. It didn't occur to you that such a thing was possible, so you would have no belief one way or the other until someone (me) postulated the existance of Ploobell.

Thus, a lack of belief in god happens AFTER someone creates a god.

One man tells you that the floor in one section of your house is unsupported, and that if you step on it, you will fall through. Another man says it's supported just fine. Do you immediately believe the second man? or do you withold belief until you can test it somehow?

Of course, we cannot very easily test for God or the invisible pink unicorn, so that complicates things somewhat.

i have experience with my floor. i would have to have some reason to believe this guy who said that my floor was suddenly unsupported. did he have access to the basement below it? does he have some knowlege of termites that i have missed? without some extra reason to believe him, im going with my own experience.

people tell you all kinds of crazy things all the time. you generally dont believe them now do you.

Once again, it is not a leap of faith not to believe in something that is not there.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If you don't is that a leap of faith? Or is it just good common sense to not believe in imaginary creatures?

Your statement that the tooth fairy is "imaginary" is derived from your belief. And just because something is common sense doesn't make it true.

The tooth fairy as it exists today is false as pepitrated by parents and passed down as a false entity to their offspring. It can be disproved as it exists today. Religion can not be disproved or proved.

Acually the tooth fairy is extremly easy to disprove. If the parents dont swich the tooth, and it is still there in the morning, then it has failed the legend of its existence. (i mean there could be a tooth fairy that doesn't collect teeth :confused:)

oh God.

that said it is the unprovable assertion of christians and musims that god wrote the bible and the koran.

we know that god didnt write the bible or the koran. only people wrote those. believers believe that those books were inspired by god.

now the golden plates of mormonism is another story...

... It can be disproved as it exists today...

Well no... that's the point.. you actually can't disprove the tooth fairy. It doesn't take a leap of faith to not believe in it... but that holds true to all imaginary creatures such as unicorns, Thor, Allah or Yahweh.

you need to bone up on your atheism talk

the teapot in question is in solar orbit between mars and jupiter.

an unprovable god is irrelevant when you need a god on your side. how do you decide what one to pray to?

The need to "bone up" on my atheism talk is like "boning up" on my knowledge of all religions, it is Mute. The point is that One can not prove or disprove thier theist or non theist beliefs. If I were to pray to a deity i would pray for the one that i feel most comfortable with.

Your statement that the tooth fairy is "imaginary" is derived from your belief. And just because something is common sense doesn't make it true.

I believe that the tooth fairy is imaginary, yes... a fictional character created by people. I believe that god is the same.

I don't believe that the tooth fairy actually exists. Likewise, I do not believe that god actually exists. But it is not a leap of faith in either case to not believe that something imaginary is real.

Let's turn it around for a second. Do YOU believe the tooth fairy is a real person who flits around taking baby teeth out from under pillows and leaving cash in their places? Do you?

well, if we all step back and use inductive reasoning, I believe we can conlude that most theistic beliefs popular among humans are highly improbable to be true, first off because most contradict each other in some way or another, leaving only one or none possible, and second becasue many religions have claims about some mysterious unknown forces (usually God or magic) that defy or have defied the known laws of physics. Of course, it could be that science will eventually progress and we will learn how to econimcally convert a few fish and loaves of bread into enough to feed the staring Thrid World, but until then... who knows?

I don't think pantheism or deism are as improbable as most theistic beliefs, but they certainly don't describe a god anywhere near involved in human affairs as other religions. I do not hold either of those beliefs, i.e. I am an atheist, but if some day I suddenly experienced something that defied the known laws of physics in a manner similar to things described in religious texts, these would probably be one of the first two ideas I would retreat to. (I am a very stubborn person when it comes to what i believe)

Not the same point. The floor of your house is there, solid and testable. No one imagined the floor.

God had to be thought up by somebody in the first place. Having done so, it is up to the folks who thought him up, or those who believe it, to prove it.

I could not NOT believe that something imaginary existed until someone had imagined it up. Like this...

I believe that there is a large glob of a very sticky invisible substance that I will call "Ploobell" hovering over your head right now. If you don't immediately put on a hat, it is going to drip all over you and you will be disolved immediately.

Do YOU believe in Ploobell? Probably not. Did you believe it did not exist before I mentioned it? Of course you didn't. It didn't occur to you that such a thing was possible, so you would have no belief one way or the other until someone (me) postulated the existance of Ploobell.

Thus, a lack of belief in god happens AFTER someone creates a god.


well for one i didn't put a hat on, and I didn't dissolve, thus proving your Ploobell false.

two if it was natural not to believe in a god then how did it even get started-in so many cultures?

of course it makes a difference. no one actively asserts that there is no god. someone else has to bring it up.

ogg wasnt sitting around the cave one day when he suddenly said to mog "there is no god".

and the egg came first.

What? Athiests do not actively assert that there is no god? (well, some don't 'actively' assert it)

How exactly do you know that 'ogg' didn't say that?
Since this can't be proven, the rational thing to do would be to not believe you. (according to you)

Wether you believe in creationism, or the scientific explanations, I don't see any way that the egg could have come first.

Not the same point. The floor of your house is there, solid and testable. No one imagined the floor.

God had to be thought up by somebody in the first place. Having done so, it is up to the folks who thought him up, or those who believe it, to prove it.

I could not NOT believe that something imaginary existed until someone had imagined it up. Like this...

I believe that there is a large glob of a very sticky invisible substance that I will call "Ploobell" hovering over your head right now. If you don't immediately put on a hat, it is going to drip all over you and you will be disolved immediately.

Do YOU believe in Ploobell? Probably not. Did you believe it did not exist before I mentioned it? Of course you didn't. It didn't occur to you that such a thing was possible, so you would have no belief one way or the other until someone (me) postulated the existance of Ploobell.

Thus, a lack of belief in god happens AFTER someone creates a god.

I believe that there is no ploobell. If i cared to disprove it then i would need evidence ploobell doesn't exist.

I have never seen, tasted, tuched, heard, or smelled the earth's core. So you are telling me that i must rely on other persons that i have never heard of, let alone meant, to tell me it exists? Well since I nor no one that i know and trust cannot test for it, it must not exist. :eek:

the only "faith" i have to have in the existence of the core of the earth is that the scientists who have tested and retested the various theories of it over a large number of years are not making it up whole cloth.

its more certain than the big bang which has only indirect evidence of its one-time existence. as something that i cannot do the proof of myself, i am agnostic on the big bang--i believe in it with resevations.

Remember the wiki is to be used lightly any moron can update it. With that said Atheisism is the "belief" that there is no dieties without empirical evidence. therefore it is a leap of faith by your definition.

But once again lets use an example on the Christian God with someone denying belief in it. A person does not believe in God because of issues with the bible, issues with geographic sites involved in such religions and etc. Would you say that their stance of not believing is not based on empirical evidence if those are the reasons for their non belief?

Am I going to get an answer to this USE?

Acually the tooth fairy is extremly easy to disprove. If the parents dont swich the tooth, and it is still there in the morning, then it has failed the legend of its existence. (i mean there could be a tooth fairy that doesn't collect teeth :confused:)

Or the tooth fairy decided to to prove itself.

What? Athiests do not actively assert that there is no god? (well, some don't 'actively' assert it)

How exactly do you know that 'ogg' didn't say that?
Since this can't be proven, the rational thing to do would be to not believe you. (according to you)

Wether you believe in creationism, or the scientific explanations, I don't see any way that the egg could have come first.

the notion of god has to preceed the denial of god.

see "ploobell"

dinosaur eggs existed well before chickens ever did.

do i need to go on?

well for one i didn't put a hat on, and I didn't dissolve, thus proving your Ploobell false.

two if it was natural not to believe in a god then how did it even get started-in so many cultures?

Not at all. The Ploobell is still there, waiting for its moment. You are still at risk, and so you should put on a hat. Similarly, gods want worship, and if I don't put on the hat of worshipping them, I am at risk. Better go find a hat now!

Natural? I think god is a phase cultures go through on the way from "What is making all those big flashes and loud noises when it rains" to figuring out the science behind thunder and lightening. Currently we have answered a lot of the questions that god was created to help primitive man answer. Some we have not yet answered. Some we may never have the answers for... so the imaginary construct "god" may always have a place, as we humans are really not ever satisfied with "I dunno" as a final answer.

we know that god didnt write the bible or the koran. only people wrote those. believers believe that those books were inspired by god.

now the golden plates of mormonism is another story...

or the ten commandments.........

point taken

I believe that the tooth fairy is imaginary, yes... a fictional character created by people. I believe that god is the same.

I don't believe that the tooth fairy actually exists. Likewise, I do not believe that god actually exists. But it is not a leap of faith in either case to not believe that something imaginary is real.

Let's turn it around for a second. Do YOU believe the tooth fairy is a real person who flits around taking baby teeth out from under pillows and leaving cash in their places? Do you?

The tooth fairy is a real person it is one of your parents and the lore is passed down from generation to generation.

I am agnostic because of the following...

Ok so we all know that everything is caused by something else, right? It is inherent in our world. NOTHING causes itself. So if everything has its cause, logically we should arrive at a point where there is an Uncaused Cause. This is how apologetics usually explain the logic in God existing. Now, we can't say that this Uncaused Cause is the same guy who allegedly sent Jebus down, but we can say that the possibilty for a God existing is evident.

Also, if there is no God, where did the matter at the beginning of time come from? Again, matter does not cause itself into being. There is a finite amount of matter, as we all know, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

At the same time, the thought that an obscenely powerful being is out there seems utterly ridiculous. If God could do ANYTHING, why does he not interfere. "It would contradict free will" Christians say. But what if I am choking on a piece of meat all alone in the forest, I had no choice in the matter. Why doesn't God save me then? I mean, I didn't choose to choke.

Therefore, I decided that the search for God is pointless. I will NEVER know in my lifetime, why spend precious moments worrying about such things? I mean if God doesn't exist and I simply cease existing when I die, fine (it's not like I'm going to be able to bitch about it:p). If God exists, then surely he/she/it understands that this doesn't make much sense, and if this indivdual is truly benevolent, then I think I'll get a break...

The tooth fairy is a real person it is one of your parents and the lore is passed down from generation to generation.

are you sure thats the road you want to go down?

arent you arguing by example that god is an artificial construct passed down from generation to generation with no more factual basis than the tooth fairy?

the only "faith" i have to have in the existence of the core of the earth is that the scientists who have tested and retested the various theories of it over a large number of years are not making it up whole cloth.

its more certain than the big bang which has only indirect evidence of its one-time existence. as something that i cannot do the proof of myself, i am agnostic on the big bang--i believe in it with resevations.

well yes they have tested [B]models[B] of the core. they have not acually tested the core iself.

The tooth fairy as it exists today is false as pepitrated by parents and passed down as a false entity to their offspring. It can be disproved as it exists today. Religion can not be disproved or proved.

Religion is exactly the same, in that respect. If everyone stopped going to church and stopped preaching about god religion would cease to exist, much as if everyone stopped putting money under pillows the tooth fairy legend would cease to exist.

If, somehow, it were possible to erase all knowlege of the current gods from existance, the next generation would not, nay COULD not believe in them. It is possible that they might somehow feel the need to create gods of their own, but without the current model being passed down to them, it is unlikely that the gods they created would be anything like the ones we have now.

Am I going to get an answer to this USE?

Again you use the term "non-belief" in actuality you "believe" these texts to be flawed and therefore decide to not believe. I.E. your leap of faith.

I am agnostic because of the following...

Ok so we all know that everything is caused by something else, right? It is inherent in our world. NOTHING causes itself. So if everything has its cause, logically we should arrive at a point where there is an Uncaused Cause. This is how apologetics usually explain the logic in God existing. Now, we can't say that this Uncaused Cause is the same guy who allegedly sent Jebus down, but we can say that the possibilty for a God existing is evident.

Also, if there is no God, where did the matter at the beginning of time come from? Again, matter does not cause itself into being. There is a finite amount of matter, as we all know, matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

At the same time, the thought that an obscenely powerful being is out there seems utterly ridiculous. If God could do ANYTHING, why does he not interfere. "It would contradict free will" Christians say. But what if I am choking on a piece of meat all alone in the forest, I had no choice in the matter. Why doesn't God save me then? I mean, I didn't choose to choke.

Therefore, I decided that the search for God is pointless. I will NEVER know in my lifetime, why spend precious moments worrying about such things? I mean if God doesn't exist and I simply cease existing when I die, fine (it's not like I'm going to be able to bitch about it:p). If God exists, then surely he/she/it understands that this doesn't make much sense, and if this indivdual is truly benevolent, then I think I'll get a break...

Maybe matter was always there?
Why does it need to be created to just exist?
The Universe may have always existed.. it is, after all, The Universe.
Maybe everything that is happening is caused by 'God'.
Perhaps we just think nothing is happening/controlled, because 'such is life', we have always lived like this, and these things happen all the time.
Free will is whatever we think it is, we can't possibly know the truth... some large hand may be forcing my hands to type these very words...keystroke by keystroke...:eek:

?:confused:?:confused:?:confused:?:confused:?:confused:?:confused:?:confused:?:confused:??

My stance is just to believe what you want on the matter, because we will never find out the truth in this life.

Not at all. The Ploobell is still there, waiting for its moment. You are still at risk, and so you should put on a hat. Similarly, gods want worship, and if I don't put on the hat of worshipping them, I am at risk. Better go find a hat now!

Natural? I think god is a phase cultures go through on the way from "What is making all those big flashes and loud noises when it rains" to figuring out the science behind thunder and lightening. Currently we have answered a lot of the questions that god was created to help primitive man answer. Some we have not yet answered. Some we may never have the answers for... so the imaginary construct "god" may always have a place, as we humans are really not ever satisfied with "I dunno" as a final answer.

I am satisfied with it. I don't know. The point of my arguments is that we can't know. (see my first post)

well yes they have tested [B]models[B] of the core. they have not acually tested the core iself.

which is OK with me and should be with you also.

after all, science answers questions it seldom claims final proof. there may come a time when its shown that the center of the earth is hollow. should that be proven, science will accept it, not cling to the old solid core theory.

im 50 years old. some of the things i was taught as fact when i was in school have turned out to be wrong. it was done through experimentation designed to test theories and generate new questions.

i am OK with my faith in science resting on the proofs presented. i am not OK with the suggestion that it is reasonable to believe in something that has no possibility of proof and whose every story has turned out to be false.

I am satisfied with it. I don't know. The point of my arguments is that we can't know. (see my first post)

LOL... yes, of course, some individuals ARE ok with I dunno... my point was the ones who are not sometimes create gods to fill in the gaps.

which is OK with me and should be with you also.

after all, science answers questions it seldom claims final proof. there may come a time when its shown that the center of the earth is hollow. should that be proven, science will accept it, not cling to the old solid core theory.

im 50 years old. some of the things i was taught as fact when i was in school have turned out to be wrong. it was done through experimentation designed to test theories and generate new questions.

i am OK with my faith in science resting on the proofs presented. i am not OK with the suggestion that it is reasonable to believe in something that has no possibility of proof and whose every story has turned out to be false.

That is fine. What I am not okay with is people saying: This is the proofs presented and because of these proofs, you are a complete idiot for believing what you choose.

In my daily life, I make choices about what I believe at all times. When I ask someone out and she says yes, I believe that she will show up but there is a chance that she won't.
Similarly I am now believing I am typing on the computer although there is a chance this is just a very realistic dream.
There is much evidence pointing to the fact that I'm really typing right now and no evidence in favor of the dream hypothesis. But nonetheless I don't rule out that there is a very low chance but an existent one that this is a dream.
I am not atheist, I am rationalist. I believe in what at all times seems to me to be the highest probability.
Now go much further than that. there is no evidence that points for the existence of your 'God' and loads of evidence against its existence. we all have a choice what we want to believe and that's why i respect your position. I simply choose to believe the hypothesis that has 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of being right (add a few trillions of 9's there to help you get the idea) and you choose to believe one that has much less than that. obviously they can't be both right so try to imagine what kind of probability we are talking about. I take these probabilities of course from evidence that is seen to us.

Now I have no problem that you believe whatever you wish to believe. But PLEASE don't make a fool of yourself by trying to convince people who believe in the 99.999...% one that your .000...% one is actually the 'right' one to believe in. By the way, based on current evidence, there is more chance that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists that your 'God' because at least it has a describable shape in a physical form - somewhat compatible with our current laws of physics. so if you insist on being a rebel in terms of rationality i suggest you go for the most probable of choices you have left after the other one, based on all the scientific evidence, and not one of the least ones proposed so far. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage, rAmen.

That is fine. What I am not okay with is people saying: This is the proofs presented and because of these proofs, you are a complete idiot for believing what you choose.

oh i hope it doesnt surprise you to find out that i agree with you.

i have no problem with people having religious faith. its mostly for personal reasons eh? i doubt anyone ever watched a history channel show on noah's ark and became religious because of it. people are religious because it speaks to them.

well yes they have tested [B]models[B] of the core. they have not acually tested the core iself.

And that is what science does. It tests. It tries out different models to see which ones best fit the data available. When the data changes, the models change.

At one point, the earth was thought to be flat. Available information then suggested this was not the case. It further came to light that we were not the center of the universe, that the earth went around the sun and not the reverse... and so on and so forth.

Currently, our best scientific models are based on the data provided by many sources that we go around the sun, a huge ball of burning gas. No one has actually gone out there and touched it and made sure that it is true, that the sun is not merely a slide projected on a really huge screen, but we are fairly sure that we have a pretty good grasp of what is really true here.

Core of the earth is the same. No, we haven't been there, but seismological data and magnetic fields and many other testable things lead us to some pretty strong conclusions. Until some radical new data comes along, we are rather certain about the core. If you were to do the testing yourself, you could be too.

>99.99% chance that there's no christian god.
Hmm. How did you come to that conclusion? I'm under the impression that, since God's Existence/Nonexistence was unprovable, you can't base a mathematical calculation on nonexistent (something else to prove?) data. Or did you come to that conclusion arbitrarily?

As for belief, all beliefs related to God/Gods/Deities require a leap of faith. Faith is the key word here. Faith implies a trust in something which you do not have complete knowledge or proof of the existence of. Faith is a fundamental component of theistic religions. And to make a judgment based on the existence of anything unprovable, then by definition you need to have faith in something (i.e., the nonexistence or existence of God). Science, by the way, can't help in this question because science cannot be applied to supernatural phenomena/beings. (By the way, 'burden of proof' as you say is completely irrelevant, mainly to the fact that you have to have a provable subject to have proof at all!)

which is OK with me and should be with you also.

after all, science answers questions it seldom claims final proof. there may come a time when its shown that the center of the earth is hollow. should that be proven, science will accept it, not cling to the old solid core theory.

im 50 years old. some of the things i was taught as fact when i was in school have turned out to be wrong. it was done through experimentation designed to test theories and generate new questions.

i am OK with my faith in science resting on the proofs presented. i am not OK with the suggestion that it is reasonable to believe in something that has no possibility of proof and whose every story has turned out to be false.

It has at least one possibility of proof: you'll know for sure shortly after you die.

The tooth fairy is a real person it is one of your parents and the lore is passed down from generation to generation.

One of my parents? Oh dear. Both of my parents are dead. Does that mean no one will ever get a quarter again?

Perhaps what you meant to say was that one of my parents assisted in the perpetuation of the myth of the tooth fairy. This does not make the tooth fairy a real character, it merely means that my parents kept the story going. Not unlike priests have been doing about gods for a very long time, with as little basis in reality for the prime object of their concern.

But that begs the question. Do you, personally, believe that there is a little person in a pink tutu with wings and a magic wand who flies from house to house with a sack of money and steals childrens teeth?

In my daily life, I make choices about what I believe at all times. When I ask someone out and she says yes, I believe that she will show up but there is a chance that she won't.
Similarly I am now believing I am typing on the computer although there is a chance this is just a very realistic dream.
There is much evidence pointing to the fact that I'm really typing right now and no evidence in favor of the dream hypothesis. But nonetheless I don't rule out that there is a very low chance but an existent one that this is a dream.
I am not atheist, I am rationalist. I believe in what at all times seems to me to be the highest probability.
Now go much further than that. there is no evidence that points for the existence of your 'God' and loads of evidence against its existence. we all have a choice what we want to believe and that's why i respect your position. I simply choose to believe the hypothesis that has 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of being right (add a few trillions of 9's there to help you get the idea) and you choose to believe one that has much less than that. obviously they can't be both right so try to imagine what kind of probability we are talking about. I take these probabilities of course from evidence that is seen to us.

Now I have no problem that you believe whatever you wish to believe. But PLEASE don't make a fool of yourself by trying to convince people who believe in the 99.999...% one that your .000...% one is actually the 'right' one to believe in. By the way, based on current evidence, there is more chance that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists that your 'God' because at least it has a describable shape in a physical form - somewhat compatible with our current laws of physics. so if you insist on being a rebel in terms of rationality i suggest you go for the most probable of choices you have left after the other one, based on all the scientific evidence, and not one of the least ones proposed so far. May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage, rAmen.

So how would you test to find out it was a realistic dream?
And by your post I can assume you know 99.999999999999999999999999% (add a few trillion 9's) of everything? So what is the precentace of what you know compared to what you don't?

this is not a personal thing its a scientific thing. all scientific findings so far (and there have been quite a few) reject the idea of a god the way u believe in it. Yes, there is a chance that they all might be wrong, but that was an approximation of it.

[QUOTE=Upper Botswavia;13009604]And that is what science does. It tests. It tries out different models to see which ones best fit the data available. When the data changes, the models change.

At one point, the earth was thought to be flat. Available information then suggested this was not the case. It further came to light that we were not the center of the universe, that the earth went around the sun and not the reverse... and so on and so forth.



QUOTE]


I cant help but point out that those were based on the best scientific models of the times.

the way u believe in it
And you presume to know everyone's religious beliefs? People you probably have never met before, and never will? Just like that 99.99999999-whatever percent you know about the universe, right?

It has at least one possibility of proof: you'll know for sure shortly after you die.

Or you won't because you will be dead, and brain functions will have ceased, so there will be no knowing of anything anymore.

Life after death is another of the unprovable assertations.

It has at least one possibility of proof: you'll know for sure shortly after you die.

only if it turns out that the christian god was the correct one.

if there is no god, no god involved with humanity, no god who provides an afterlife, or a god who provides reincarnation, ill never know.

Anybody who isn't religious or does not believe in the supernatural is an atheist.
I disagree with this.

I classify myself as an agnostic because I think the possibility of G/god(s) existing is utterly irrelevant to our reality: If it were relevant we'd have evidence, or more specifically, we'd know of its/her/his/their existence and effects.

Or in other words:
Q: Do gods exist?
A: Banana

[QUOTE=Upper Botswavia;13009604]And that is what science does. It tests. It tries out different models to see which ones best fit the data available. When the data changes, the models change.

At one point, the earth was thought to be flat. Available information then suggested this was not the case. It further came to light that we were not the center of the universe, that the earth went around the sun and not the reverse... and so on and so forth.



QUOTE]


I cant help but point out that those were based on the best scientific models of the times.

Certainly, and I am not saying we are DONE and everything is guaranteed. Just that we are dealing with things that are testable, as opposed to ones that are not.

I have final, clinching proof of God's nonexistence...

...
...
...


The Babelfish. :D

"And you presume to know everyone's religious beliefs? People you probably have never met before, and never will? Just like that 99.99999999-whatever percent you know about the universe, right?"

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're trying to say by this or how it in any way reflects the content of what I said, (or did you simply dismiss the rest of it). Have you read it thouroughly. i would be happy to explain it in spanish if necessary. I don't get your comment. A proposito lo escribes de nuevo en espanol?

The wording of 'the way u believe in it' implies you know what the other person's beliefs, no? How can you assume you know what someone's religious beliefs are just by looking at a person? Or do you just assume that everyone labeled as a theist has the same set of beliefs? You can divide the world between theists, atheists, and agnostics, but you can't make a generalization on one side. For example, just in the Christian religion there are those who believe in God intervening directly into the universe itself, and there are those who believe that God does absolutely nothing in this life. And everything in between. Interpretation of God is a decision you make personally. You can't just cite a wikipedia article and say 'this is what all Methodists believe' and 'this is what all Muslims believe' and 'This is what all atheists believe'.

And no, for crying out loud, I don't speak Spanish.

I appologize for unjustly grouping all you slim-chance-believers together and thinking back it might have been disresectfull to groups such as Jews and Muslims who don't wish to be grouped together :fluffle: but my position still holds that the next best hypothesis after the 99.999...% one starts with a probability of .000...% just like all the others. Perhaps you may think that yours is more likely than the other .000...% one, but in the eyes of evidence, they are both trillions of 9's away from being anywhere close to what evidence suggest and therefore are quite close to each other, and the choice between .000...% and .000...% (my appologies for not being able to actually show a difference between these two very different viewpoints its just that the only difference lies trillions of decimals away) is indeed important to some, but are both almost equally viable.

As I have said before, how do you know that probability? Or is it just a hyperbole to illustrate your convictions?

no i only quote every scientific research that has found evidence that contradicts the existence of any god, which is 100% of the ones ive heard of so far (please inform me of any i dont know of that may suggest differently, altering the probabilites by a few trillionths) that has to do with any issue god is involved in.

Two problems:

1: Sources, please?

2: And where does this evidence come from, which shows that science can be applied to supernatural deities?

let me point you to any research that has to do with the possibility of breaking the laws of physics. you have some reading to do before further comments if you were not familiar with any of these before, so I'll leave you to this enlightenment, and step back.

I happen to be a physics major.

One, you still haven't cited any sources yet. No really, I'm intrigued to see these studies.

I am an atheist because I don't discriminate against or for any religious belief system. They are all equally worthless to me. Every non-muslim knows what its like to disregard the "truth" of islam, every non-christian knows the same about christianity, same with non-hindus, etc. Everyone is atheistic about all the religions except their own. The atheist just doesn't have one to discriminate in favor of.

Do I know there is no god, do I believe there is no god, do I have faith there is no god? No. God either does not exist or is purposefully irrelevant according to the evidence at my disposal.

Or put it like this, a theist is someone with a distinct belief system about god or gods, an atheist is someone without such a belief system.

It seems that if you try to ask for proof that god does not exist then the radical atheist gets angry.

No, it should make everyone mad.

Think about it. If something exists, it will leave evidence in some form of its existence.

If something does not exist, it does not leave evidence(Obviously).

In order to prove something, you must provide evidence.

Let me ask you: How can prove that something does not exist, when evidence for that something does not exist? The only way to definitively prove that something does not exist is to know 100% of everything. Period.

Thus, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist.

oh i hope it doesnt surprise you to find out that i agree with you.

i have no problem with people having religious faith. its mostly for personal reasons eh? i doubt anyone ever watched a history channel show on noah's ark and became religious because of it. people are religious because it speaks to them.

People are religious because of their upbringing, mostly, and environment. It's no shocker that Christian parents tend to raise Christian children, Muslim parents tend to raise Muslim Children, Hindi parents tend to raise Hindu children, and so forth and so on.

"Speaking to them" has little to do with it.

Being raised to believe does.

You cannot have a lack of belief in anything you must believe for or against something. so i stand on my prievious comments.
Ok, so you have a firm belief as to the truth of the statement "I (Okeefeandfarrands) am currently wearing blue underpants", then. That's interesting because it made me realise that I wouldnt expect a complete stranger to form a belief about the colour of my underwear, over the internet, during a discussion about matters of spiritual import....

...wow, how naive must I have been.:eek:



oes it matter when the assertion was made?

It's the same as quibbling over what came first, the chicken or the egg...
Mmm, is it not obvious the egg came first?:confused:

You can't prove a negative. If you can't prove God exists, he doesn't exist.

What are you talking about, just because you can't prove something doesn't make it not there. Science can't prove many things for 100% certain but they are still thought to exist.

Anyone claiming to know anything for certain has the obligation to prove it. If you can't, than claiming you know it for certain is just blinding yourself the same as the religious nuts blind themselves when they claim to know God exists. You say you can't prove a negative so how can you be absolutely sure it doesn't exist?

If I say there is a little magical elf on my shoulder than it's on me to prove it. But if you claim there absolutely isn't than it's also on you to prove that. The only real answer is to say that you don't see one and it's highly unlikely and against the laws of our world as we know them that it is there.

Claiming to know the unknowable for certain is foolish. Agnosticism is the true wisdom seekers way.

Do I know there is no god, do I believe there is no god, do I have faith there is no god? No. God either does not exist or is purposefully irrelevant according to the evidence at my disposal.

You're not an atheist... You're an agnostic. If you were an atheist you would say that you do know there is no god.

Many people who say they are Atheists are actually agnostic, most people who are clear headed enough to see that religions are a bit nuts are also clear headed enough to know that they can't know such things for sure.

Hey Atheists, got a question for you.

I think I am running into a contradiction for atheism, namely that atheism makes the same ‘leap of faith’ that religions do.

To wit: science cannot of course test or provide direct proof of the existence of god(s). As it has been pointed out to countless Creationists on this board. Science is the realm of the natural world and god(s) belong to the supernatural. This excludes us from ever finding any definitive proof to the existence of god(s).

In the same vein, it is also, of course, impossible for science to prove a negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.

I’m busy with lesson planning today so I might not respond back till later, but I will be back. ;)

I have been saying this forever. The truly rational ones are the agnostics.

the notion of god has to preceed the denial of god.

see "ploobell"

dinosaur eggs existed well before chickens ever did.

do i need to go on?

Yea... but that isn't the issue. There is no evidence of existence, or non-existence, and by your reasoning that means we should believe Neither.
Now, either accept that that is what you said, or agree that you are flawed in your reasoning.

I always thought the chicken/egg analogy meant the egg was the chicken's egg... If not, then you would be right.

No, don't go on, I can only point something out to you a finite amount of times, without becoming tired.

I have been saying this forever. The truly rational ones are the agnostics.

*shakes your hand*

Edit:
I would like to add, as my last statements in this thread, that:

There are probably things we may never discover the truth about.
There may be subjects humankind will argue about until we all are actual dust in the proverbial wind.
We are most likely all irrational in some way.

I know I am, since I believe in a God.
However, I believe what I believe, and I believe what I believe is the truth about things. It may not be, or it may be. But it is just that; what I believe.
Now, I am sure you all feel the same way about your beliefs, no matter what they are.

So, maybe we can all lay our differences aside and try to make up some sort of plan to solve world hunger or something.

Listen up all you atheist bashing dipshits!

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. There is no special philosophy or science behind it. We are all just born atheists. The burden of proof lies with those of you who claim that there is a God.

Now some astronomers have an interesting theory. If you ask them if they think there is intelligent life in the universe other than humans, they might say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Of course if you believe that then you might as well believe in Russell's teapot or the FSM. So then it stands to reason to just say, "There is no God" just as you can say "There is no intelligent alien life in the universe" Of course if you believe in both then you should be sterilized.

The thing is, even "strong" atheists are general de facto atheists. Dawkins himself (the oh-so radical and militant atheist... but I've already expressed my dissatisfaction with that phrase in other threads) considers him an atheist the same way he is an a-teapotist. There's no evidence in favor, and it is therefore irrational to believe. The rational choice is always to not believe something until there is evidence in favor.
Then you are irrational as you have no evidence to back up your belief that there is not, correct?

Listen up all you atheist bashing dipshits!

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. There is no special philosophy or science behind it. We are all just born atheists. The burden of proof lies with those of you who claim that there is a God.


The burden of proof lies on anyone who claims anything. Is God, Isn't God. Both are claims of knowledge, neither of which can be backed up.

People are religious because of their upbringing, mostly, and environment. It's no shocker that Christian parents tend to raise Christian children, Muslim parents tend to raise Muslim Children, Hindi parents tend to raise Hindu children, and so forth and so on.

"Speaking to them" has little to do with it.

Being raised to believe does.

if their religion means nothing to them then when they are adults they will put it aside only attending on holidays and big family events. (i personally consider such people to be defacto atheists since their actions belie their faith)

in the US, religious people go to church on a regular basis and give their hard earned cash to keep their local churches well funded. i consider that evidence that their belief is very important to them.

You can't prove a negative. If you can't prove God exists, he doesn't exist.
We can't prove cosmic strings either. Sorry, again, lack of evidence does NOT mean lack of said thing. That's a maxium that has been used a number of times (I.e. where the missing links are and so on).

Ok, so you have a firm belief as to the truth of the statement "I (Okeefeandfarrands) am currently wearing blue underpants", then. That's interesting because it made me realise that I wouldnt expect a complete stranger to form a belief about the colour of my underwear, over the internet, during a discussion about matters of spiritual import....

...wow, how naive must I have been.:eek:


i dont know what HE is thinking but blue undies are SEXXXY!

i am perfectly willing to believe that that is the exact sum total of all that you are wearing.

Explicit atheism, yes. Implicit, no. Even so, it's meaningless because a "leap of faith" is in no way a negative thing; there are some things that require such a leap, and ultimately our knowledge is limited to a set of unprovable axioms that have to be taken on faith.

Honestly, I don't care what you believe as long as you don't belittle my beliefs.

The burden of proof lies on anyone who claims anything. Is God, Isn't God. Both are claims of knowledge, neither of which can be backed up.

No you are wrong. Nobody needs to prove that the sky is blue or that poop comes out of your ass. Now if you want to tell me about something that cannot be observed or understood by virtually everyone of their own accord, well thats where proof comes in handy. If you want to tell me that there is a god or that invisible monsters move my car keys around at night, well then I am going to need some proof.

Listen up all you atheist bashing dipshits!

Atheism is not a religion, it is the absence of religion. There is no special philosophy or science behind it. We are all just born atheists. The burden of proof lies with those of you who claim that there is a God.

Now some astronomers have an interesting theory. If you ask them if they think there is intelligent life in the universe other than humans, they might say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Of course if you believe that then you might as well believe in Russell's teapot or the FSM. So then it stands to reason to just say, "There is no God" just as you can say "There is no intelligent alien life in the universe" Of course if you believe in both then you should be sterilized.

I was born an atheist? Really? I thought I was born without any conception or idea of god in my head, either for or against. And my children, too. Maybe it's a genetic thing that runs in my family.

And you're using the teapot thing wrong. It is only supposed to be about the provability of god. It has nothing to say about the relative value of a belief in god in comparison to the belief in a celestial teapot.

It's too late to sterilise me, I'm afraid. My children (the oldest had her first day of kindergarden today) believe all sorts of irrational and magical things. Should I be thinking about getting them sterilised?

I always thought the chicken/egg analogy meant the egg was the chicken's egg... If not, then you would be right.

No, don't go on, I can only point something out to you a finite amount of times, without becoming tired.

oh i see i DO need to go on.

you arent thinking evolutionarily. chickens evolved over time from egg laying creatures. whether it was a quick evolution or a slow steady change over time there was still a day when a creature that wasnt a chicken laid the egg of a creature that was a chicken. so even with chickens, the egg came first.

there is no leap involved when there is no proof. you didnt believe it before it was presented to you, you continue to not believe it after it is presented with no proof and no possibility of proof. you are in the same place.

the same thing cannot be said of faith. before its presented to you, you dont believe it; after it is presented to you with no proof and no possibility of proof you have to make a leap into the world of faith. you are not in the same place you started.

you are not positing a "germ theory" where we live in the 1800s and germs exist but they are not yet demostrated to exist. there are ways to figure it out, to demonstrate it or to suppose experiments that might be done some time in the future when better equipment exists.

you are supposing a god without evidence. with not just no way to prove him today but no possible way to prove his existence. its more like "string theory" where there seems to be a mathematical proof of it but scientists say that there will never be a way to prove it experimentally. in such a case one has no reason to believe in "string theory". (since there is a mathematical indication of string theory, im agnostic on it. if there were that much proof of any particular god, i would also be agnostic about it)
Not quite, I am asking about how Atheists can make a deffinate statement, 'There is/are no god(s)' when it is impossible to say one way or the other. To make such a statement means that you DO have a belief. It's not a belief in, but a belief of a statement that is, when you get down to it, based upon your feelings on the matter.

Yea... but that isn't the issue. There is no evidence of existence, or non-existence, and by your reasoning that means we should believe Neither.
Now, either accept that that is what you said, or agree that you are flawed in your reasoning.


having zero evidence of the existence of something may not be the perfect proof of its non existence but its a damned good reason not to believe in it.

Not quite, I am asking about how Atheists can make a deffinate statement, 'There is/are no god(s)' when it is impossible to say one way or the other. To make such a statement means that you DO have a belief. It's not a belief in, but a belief of a statement that is, when you get down to it, based upon your feelings on the matter.

honestly?

its because i feel that people pretend to be talking about some non-denominationally-associated god when they are really talking about whatever god they personally believe in.

do you really believe in an aloof god who has zero measurable effect in the world?

I was born an atheist? Really? I thought I was born without any conception or idea of god in my head, either for or against.

YES! I'm glad you understand. You see atheism is not the denial of a god, it is simply the absence of a belief in god.

And you're using the teapot thing wrong. It is only supposed to be about the provability of god. It has nothing to say about the relative value of a belief in god in comparison to the belief in a celestial teapot.

I geuss so, but in my opinion the two theories hold equal value.


It's too late to sterilise me, I'm afraid. My children (the oldest had her first day of kindergarden today) believe all sorts of irrational and magical things. Should I be thinking about getting them sterilised?

haww thats so cute. You got me. I love kids.

do you really believe in an aloof god who has zero measurable effect in the world?

No, I believe in a God that I know nothing about. It does exist, but its specific nature is currently unknowable.

I was born an atheist? Really? I thought I was born without any conception or idea of god in my head, either for or against. And my children, too. Maybe it's a genetic thing that runs in my family.

And you're using the teapot thing wrong. It is only supposed to be about the provability of god. It has nothing to say about the relative value of a belief in god in comparison to the belief in a celestial teapot.

It's too late to sterilise me, I'm afraid. My children (the oldest had her first day of kindergarden today) believe all sorts of irrational and magical things. Should I be thinking about getting them sterilised?

atheist means lack of a belief in a god. when you are born, you had no concept of god so you didnt believe in a god. so you were an atheist.

if you look back in this thread youll see that explained as being an implicit atheist.

yeah.

my point is that there is no sense in "believing" in a god without human interaction, without scriptures, without some history. this unprovable god we are left with is no god that is represented by any religion. its just a mental construct without any real meaning. very much like the teapot.

science has pushed god out of the observable world into the realm of the unseen. it makes him irrelevant even if he does (or did) exist.
We are not talking about if belief in god(s) is/are relevant or even if you should, it's the belief that there is/are not god(s).

I'm not trying to recreate Pascell's Wager, or even say you should believe. I am mearly trying to find out about this contradiction. How can atheists say there is/are no god(s) when the existance (Or non) thereof must be in doubt? Logically, they should be Agnostic, but after reading through the tread, it seems they have the same rock hard faith in their belief, even though they never can support it.

The same as every theist religion.

No, I believe in a God that I know nothing about. It does exist, but its specific nature is currently unknowable.

interesting

do you do anything about it? attend services, read scripture, pray, behave in a certain way?

having zero evidence of the existence of something may not be the perfect proof of its non existence but its a damned good reason not to believe in it.

During Galileo's trial, one of the criticisms laid against him was that for the heliocentric model of the solar system to be correct, the rest of the stars would have to be significantly further away from us than the sun and the planets.

Gailileo had zero evidence for this. None at all. Accordingly, the powers that be decided not to believe in it. They reasoned that having zero evidence of the existence of something may not be the perfect proof of its non existence but its a damned good reason not to believe in it.:)

If I say there is a little magical elf on my shoulder than it's on me to prove it. But if you claim there absolutely isn't than it's also on you to prove that. The only real answer is to say that you don't see one and it's highly unlikely and against the laws of our world as we know them that it is there.


Your elf is my ploobell from an earlier example, but it all boils down to the same thing. Anybody can CLAIM any sort of magical creature they want, but until they can provide proof, the creatures do not exist.

I can't prove they don't, but I do not have to, as there is no way possible to prove non-existence, but there ARE ways to prove existence. Since your proof is possible, it falls on you to provide it. Until you do... well, your imaginary friends are just that.

atheist means lack of a belief in a god. when you are born, you had no concept of god so you didnt believe in a god. so you were an atheist.

It's not that I didn't believe, it's that I had no conception of what it was and could not have a position on it. By that logic, I also didn't believe in clouds or trees or anything else I have seen or experienced in my entire life.

That makes that "atheism" irrelevant.

We are not talking about if belief in god(s) is/are relevant or even if you should, it's the belief that there is/are not god(s).

I'm not trying to recreate Pascell's Wager, or even say you should believe. I am mearly trying to find out about this contradiction. How can atheists say there is/are no god(s) when the existance (Or non) thereof must be in doubt? Logically, they should be Agnostic, but after reading through the tread, it seems they have the same rock hard faith in their belief, even though they never can support it.

The same as every theist religion.

who cares if there is a god or not when his existence or non existence makes no difference?

who cares if there is a god if there is no way to know?

when there is no practical difference between there being a god and there not, i dont see the point of "holding out hope"

It's not that I didn't believe, it's that I had no conception of what it was and could not have a position on it. By that logic, I also didn't believe in clouds or trees or anything else I have seen or experienced in my entire life.
very true. and why i am confident in saying that we were all born atheists.



That makes that "atheism" irrelevant.

its not terribly relevant to ME i was just explaining to GoG why he was indeed atheist as a small child.

although there are people who are never particularly bothered with the idea of god one way or the other.

do you do anything about it? attend services, read scripture, pray, behave in a certain way?

I draw ethical inspiration from various religions and philosophies and then do what I think is right. When I die, I will find out whether or not the Gods that exist agree with my actions. It's what I do that matters...I'd rather live my life doing what is right regardless of the consequences afterwards than fear punishment for believing in the wrong God.

All that matters is that I am free.

During Galileo's trial, one of the criticisms laid against him was that for the heliocentric model of the solar system to be correct, the rest of the stars would have to be significantly further away from us than the sun and the planets.

Gailileo had zero evidence for this. None at all. Accordingly, the powers that be decided not to believe in it. They reasoned that having zero evidence of the existence of something may not be the perfect proof of its non existence but its a damned good reason not to believe in it.:)

he did have evidence for his claim. they just judged that it was not good enough evidence to make such a radical change in their idea of how the universe was arranged.

but over the course of time, it became more and more obvious that galileo was pretty much right.

proof is a wonderful thing.

its not terribly relevant to ME i was just explaining to GoG why he was indeed atheist as a small child.

although there are people who are never particularly bothered with the idea of god one way or the other.

Well, that's true. I don't think there is much more you can say about it than that; it's not an argument for atheism, for sure.

No you are wrong. Nobody needs to prove that the sky is blue or that poop comes out of your ass.

We can see when we look up or defecate. has no bearing on this discussion.

Now if you want to tell me about something that cannot be observed or understood by virtually everyone of their own accord, well thats where proof comes in handy. If you want to tell me that there is a god or that invisible monsters move my car keys around at night, well then I am going to need some proof.

That's fine, I agree. but it's still not proof that these things DON'T happen.

very true. and why i am confident in saying that we were all born atheists.

its not terribly relevant to ME i was just explaining to GoG why he was indeed atheist as a small child.

although there are people who are never particularly bothered with the idea of god one way or the other.

Actually, I would consider that an agnostic position, rather than an atheist one, but I'm splitting semantic hairs.

I draw ethical inspiration from various religions and philosophies and then do what I think is right. When I die, I will find out whether or not the Gods that exist agree with my actions. It's what I do that matters...I'd rather live my life doing what is right regardless of the consequences afterwards than fear punishment for believing in the wrong God.

All that matters is that I am free.

so youre faith includes the idea of an afterlife, that in that afterlife you retain at least some of your current consciousness and that you will have a chance to meet whatever gods might exist.

it would really suck to find out that your best, while very good, wasnt based on proper belief and thus you will have to spend an eternity in torment. (not an intended slam on your beliefs, just a stray thought that entered my head) you just never know what might please whatever god might exist.

he did have evidence for his claim. they just judged that it was not good enough evidence to make such a radical change in their idea of how the universe was arranged.

but over the course of time, it became more and more obvious that galileo was pretty much right.

proof is a wonderful thing.

No, you don't understand. There was no evidence at all for his claim that the stars were far away compared to the rest of the solar system. He had evidence for other parts of his heliocentric theory, but not that.

Due to this, the jury decided not to believe this part of his hypothesis.

I was giving you an example of people who believed that something did not exist because there was no proof or evidence for it, and they were wrong.

We are not talking about if belief in god(s) is/are relevant or even if you should, it's the belief that there is/are not god(s).

I'm not trying to recreate Pascell's Wager, or even say you should believe. I am mearly trying to find out about this contradiction. How can atheists say there is/are no god(s) when the existance (Or non) thereof must be in doubt? Logically, they should be Agnostic, but after reading through the tread, it seems they have the same rock hard faith in their belief, even though they never can support it.

The same as every theist religion.
You seem to overlook the fact that the proposition 'if a person believes there are no deities, then they are an atheist' has a materially different meaning to the proposition 'if a person is an atheist, then they believe that there are no deities'.

so youre faith includes the idea of an afterlife, that in that afterlife you retain at least some of your current consciousness and that you will have a chance to meet whatever gods might exist.

I feel there is sufficient reason for an afterlife to believe in it, even if I am only a shade of my former self.

it would really suck to find out that your best, while very good, wasnt based on proper belief and thus you will have to spend an eternity in torment. (not an intended slam on your beliefs, just a stray thought that entered my head) you just never know what might please whatever god might exist.

I'd rather face that hell than spend my life in the thrall of some tyrant that demands and values belief above right action.

I for one take the centuries of searching for evidence of god and failing to find it, as decent evidence of no god.

Technically speaking, you have a pretty persuasive argument. :)

We are not talking about if belief in god(s) is/are relevant or even if you should, it's the belief that there is/are not god(s).

I'm not trying to recreate Pascell's Wager, or even say you should believe. I am mearly trying to find out about this contradiction. How can atheists say there is/are no god(s) when the existance (Or non) thereof must be in doubt? Logically, they should be Agnostic, but after reading through the tread, it seems they have the same rock hard faith in their belief, even though they never can support it.

The same as every theist religion.

Is it possible that I will win the lottery every day for the rest of my life without ever buying a ticket? I guess so. So maybe I should entertain the idea rather than just dismissing it. No wait, that would just be silly.

My decision to ignore the possibility of winning the lottery is a logical one(anyone disagree?). Yet I do believe that it is possible so I geuss I should be agnostic about it.

Come on...what kind of idiot do you take me for?

Technically speaking, you have a pretty persuasive argument. :)

As has been said before, a lack of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am so sick of this 'well you can't prove there isn't' fucking bullshit. Just stop it. Stop it, it's stupid.

There are ton of things you can't prove that you don't believe or waste time with. If there is no reason to believe, it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it. There's no reason to believe. I can't disprove the existence of fucking Mario Mushrooms but I'm not going to waste any fucking time looking for them.

And don't give me that 'one million Elvis fans' bullshit. PT Barnum covered that nicely. (look it up)

As has been said before, a lack of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yeah, i think that genius Rumsfeld said it.

There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.- in a hopeful, faithful, and perhaps even religiously delusional moment

oh yeah ...

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

There are ton of things you can't prove that you don't believe or waste time with. If there is no reason to believe, it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it.

Obviously, there are a lot of people who have seen or experienced what they consider sufficient evidence for a God to believe in it.

As has been said before, a lack of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Indeed, it's not necessarily even in short supply. There may just have been a logistical stuff-up. Perhaps it has merely been sent to the wrong address, or maybe someone forgot to dot an 'i' or cross a 't' on the requisition form. Keeping an open mind is important.

As has been said before, a lack of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Thats what some people believe but not everyone. Astronomers at the SETI program say that so they can be optimistic about finding aliens but my astronomy professor and I disagree.

There is no contradiction. Atheists belief that god doesnt exist and the fact that they say its true is both a correct viewpoint. There is no proof whatsoever that the gods of myth and lore exist scientifically. Show me the proof of Zeus, Odin or Ishtar. Only then will i believe in any "proof" of the christian god. You see the proof that the biblical god exists is also very much intangible. This does not count as a "cant be seen or understood." The facts are simple. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Even taking the intelligent design theory that the days represent epochs of history. The first day having taken over 2.5 billion years in itself.

The truth about disproving our gods is that the ideas presented in the bible, Koran and Qabbala have been discredited completely. You literally cannot just discredit the bible..you simply cant find any evidence the events in question happened. The flood was localised to the black sea area. Before it was a sea it was a large river valley with two cliffs. In fact there are ancient villages thousands of years old 800 feet under the water. Fact. The survivors of this civilisation fled south. This is the true story of the flood. God warned no one, rain did not fall for fourty days and nights. Over thousands of years the story became lost in myth.

Primitive people cannot understand such concepts. This is why the concept of god exists. To explain that which we fear and cannot comprehend.
On the other hand Atheists saying there is no greater power is not correct. Though we know for sure all the great religious books are worthless tripe, let me elaborate on a few ancient gods that were ALOT more scientifically accurate then the bible.

The ancient Cimmerian creation myth speaks in timelines that can be measured in the Billions of years. They claim that 3 billion years ago, a planet in the system which had malevolent life struck the earth. The rest of it was flung out to a great distance in the solar system by the impact. Earth however was then seeded with the life of that world in the form of bacteria.

Of course them the myth and hoojibbery starts up with the gods and evil beings and the like. The point is however a much older religion managed to come up with a much more accurate history and timeline then the bible. This however is not proof of the existence of Marduk, Ishtar and Tiamat. The ancient religions of britain believed that their was a god of sun and stars and the moon. This in turn is also much more believable then the bible as it takes in to account how little we understand about our galaxy and universe...maybe its alive?

If you look at it from far away..galaxies are arranged in a honeycomb . To be honest..the idea we are simply atoms in the cellular structure of a massive being..is more believable then the bible. There are also more facts to support it then god.

So Atheists can believe what they like and be absolutely right. There is no leap of faith as there is 0 scientific evidence that the biblical god, the egyptian gods, the babylonian gods, the hellenic gods and the ancient mayan gods are real. In fact there is more evidence supporting the babylonian and mayan gods then there is supporting the biblical god.

The idea that its a leap of faith to say there is no god is ridiculous. There is 0 scientific evidence proving any religion.

Whether or not there is a greater power, or whether or not that greater power is already dead and gone [the "proof" people point at in quantam physics of gods existence, ie tampering with the universe itself.] is not the leap of faith atheists are being asked to make.

Atheists dont believe in religion, they know that the gods of the religions are not real. There is no faith needed to say that..as its the truth. Religion was invented thousands of years ago by near-apes to explain why lightning struck or the aurora borealis existed. As they had absolutely zero ability to understand, they simply allowed primitive tribal superstitions to become more advanced. That is how "god" came to be.

I myself do believe in something greater. I dont believe in gods. Whatever it was is totally alien to us and did not create us in their image. I dont believe it has all this great power to smite us. I do not believe in religion, its all useless tripe, organised religions are even more so.

Religion is a method of controlling people, making them behave and do the things you want them to. It had its uses before man could reason, but now its uses are done. All organised religion causes now is violence, death and sorrow. Simple people do find solace in it. Those that truly wish to believe the world is only five thousand years old may do so without any problems or malice from me.

I dont mean simple as in stupid either, I mean it as in salt of the earth people who are truly frightened by the idea of how much greater then universe is then us. The people who are scared of ideas greater then themselves and the sheer size of everything in the universe will and always will exist. The need to have an omnipotent, omniscient god responsible is simple enough and small enough for them to understand without fear. It gives a feeling of safety to those who truly believe. After all an infinite universe without a "super Dad" to take care of us is a lonely and scary thought.


After all without simple, religious people the iraq war could not have been fought, george bush could not have been a two term president. Al qeada could not be persecuting their jihad and drawing us back in to the fear of nuclear armageddon. The Taliban could not have done their great works, such as burying women up to their head in the sand and shooting them, or cutting off fingers that have nail polish.

Without Organised religion and religious leaders out to save the souls of mankind, these same people would have no one to lead them in their good works.

Atheists dont have to make a leap of faith to say that god doesnt exist. After all, if he truly did..think of what he would do to all those people that use his name in vain, using it to slay, murder, mutilate, rape and conquer. Using his name to denounce their fellow men and ostracise good decent people from the community.

If i were god, personally i would have had a few things to say to all those people. Replacing George bushes vocal chords with donkey vocal chords, mid speech is one though.

The proof god doesnt exist is in his inaction.

I am so sick of this 'well you can't prove there isn't' fucking bullshit. Just stop it. Stop it, it's stupid.

It's also key to keeping an open mind. Closing your mind either way is just foolish.

Yeah, i think that genius Rumsfeld said it.


And for one of the few times in his tenure he was actually right about something. Sadly the thing he was talking about was made up lies, much like God probably is....

Obviously, there are a lot of people who have seen or experienced what they consider sufficient evidence for a God to believe in it.
See last paragraph of my post.

It's also key to keeping an open mind. Closing your mind either way is just foolish.

No. Just fucking no.

An open mind is trying sushi even though you think it might be gross.

It is not believing any bullshit because someone waves around a book of fucking fairy tales.

It's also key to keeping an open mind. Closing your mind either way is just foolish.

I think its important to consider alot of things with an open mind. Like is it okay to abort fetus' or do I need to buy some more pop-tarts. But debating the existence of a God is a waste of time. I might as well stare at a vending machine and wonder where the coke can is that will get me free admission to Six Flags. its really pointless.

Thats what some people believe but not everyone. Astronomers at the SETI program say that so they can be optimistic about finding aliens but my astronomy professor and I disagree.

haha really? So it's your opinion that if we have no proof of something existing right now than it must not exist? using this throughout history would have destroyed a great many of the scientific advances.

Many times people have claimed something was wrong because we didn't have the proof of it, but later it was found to actually exist and we just didn't have the devices to monitor or measure it at that time....

haha really? So it's your opinion that if we have no proof of something existing right now than it must not exist? using this throughout history would have destroyed a great many of the scientific advances.

Many times people have claimed something was wrong because we didn't have the proof of it, but later it was found to actually exist and we just didn't have the devices to monitor or measure it at that time....
Yeah, heres the thing. Out of hundreds of fucking years of finding those answers, not once, not fucking once, has that answer turned out to be magic.

Its not a lack of proof in the existence of something greater. Its the lack of proof in the existence of god as the bible states it, or any of them state it. Atheists simply don't need to have faith to not believe.

As for looking for god, we could and should be able to look just fine, cause and effect. The proof of the biblical religions is literally not there..its completely disproven. The fact is god as presented in the bible is discredited scientifically.

No faith needed.

haha really? So it's your opinion that if we have no proof of something existing right now than it must not exist? using this throughout history would have destroyed a great many of the scientific advances.

No, we do not assume that something cannot exist because there is no evidence of it. We just say that it is more unlikely to be true than if there was evidence for it. You know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Does that make sense?

Many times people have claimed something was wrong because we didn't have the proof of it, but later it was found to actually exist and we just didn't have the devices to monitor or measure it at that time....

very true and very exciting! I love science!

The idea that its a leap of faith to say there is no god is ridiculous. There is 0 scientific evidence proving any religion.

There was 0 scientific evidence proving black holes at one time. 0 scientific evidence can become 1 scientific evidence over time and from there grow to more.


Atheists dont believe in religion, they know that the gods of the religions are not real. There is no faith needed to say that..as its the truth.

Congratulations! You sound just like a Fundi!

The proof god doesnt exist is in his inaction.

So if I hide in my house and ignore you, doing nothing all day... I do not exist?

There was 0 scientific evidence proving black holes at one time. 0 scientific evidence can become 1 scientific evidence over time and from there grow to more.

All righty then. Give us some evidence. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that there is a God.

No. Just fucking no.

Swearing doesn't make it so.

An open mind is trying sushi even though you think it might be gross.

It is not believing any bullshit because someone waves around a book of fucking fairy tales.

Agreed. Never said anyone should believe the bible. I'm agnostic, I don't actually think God exists but there is always a very very very very very very slim chance.

Hey Atheists, got a question for you.

I think I am running into a contradiction for atheism, namely that atheism makes the same ‘leap of faith’ that religions do.

To wit: science cannot of course test or provide direct proof of the existence of god(s). As it has been pointed out to countless Creationists on this board. Science is the realm of the natural world and god(s) belong to the supernatural. This excludes us from ever finding any definitive proof to the existence of god(s).

In the same vein, it is also, of course, impossible for science to prove a negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.

I’m busy with lesson planning today so I might not respond back till later, but I will be back. ;)

This has been my contention for quite some time. It requires as much faith to believe in the utter absence of any deity (Christian or otherwise) as it does to believe in a deity of any variety. When you come to that conclusion, the only logical position is agnosticism.

[QUOTE=Soyut;13010248]No, we do not assume that something cannot exist because there is no evidence of it. We just say that it is more unlikely to be true than if there was evidence for it. You know, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Does that make sense? /QUOTE]

Not really, I agree with your first part but again absence of evidence does not show evidence of absence. If Jim is hiding inside the couch and I look EVERYWHERE i can think of for him in the room, I yell for him, I insult his mother and himself and he does nothing. not a sound, not a peep not a movement. It doesn't mean that Jim isn't there, it just means that I haven't found evidence for him yet. Maybe I never will, maybe Jim doesn't really exist except in my head, or maybe he does. No way to know for sure. And that's the basic idea of Agnosticism.

Yeah, heres the thing. Out of hundreds of fucking years of finding those answers, not once, not fucking once, has that answer turned out to be magic.

But you can't say it never will because you can't know for sure. You can only say you don't think it will or you think it's idiotic to believe it will. I think the belief in God is idiotic, but it doesn't mean there's not the slimmest of slim chances that it is true. I doubt it. I would be stunned if it was. In fact i have bet my very life and well being on it not being true. But there's always that slim chance I'm wrong.

All righty then. Give us some evidence. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that there is a God.

like i said the burden of proof lies on anyone making a claim of certainty, whether it's for or against something. I'm not making any claims. I'm saying I don't know and I don't really worry about it.

All righty then. Give us some evidence. Like I said, the burden of proof lies with those who claim that there is a God.

As was stated before, the burden of proof is with whoever is making an absolute statement. If you say there is no deity, I want proof that there is no deity. The only stance that requires no proof is agnosticism because it stipulates that there is no definitive proof.

But you can't say it never will because you can't know for sure. You can only say you don't think it will or you think it's idiotic to believe it will. I think the belief in God is idiotic, but it doesn't mean there's not the slimmest of slim chances that it is true. I doubt it. I would be stunned if it was. In fact i have bet my very life and well being on it not being true. But there's always that slim chance I'm wrong.
I'm not betting on that anymore than the teacup. "Everythings possible" is a lovely hippified (and I do appreciate a little hippification) mental excercise, but some things are so unlikely as to be impossible by any reasonable consideration.

Ultimately you have to ask why you'd give the existance of a diety any more consideration the possiblity that the universe a glob of grease on its way to the floor (Byron Gyson's, I couldn't come up with my own and I'm tired of referencing the teacup...)

Ultimately you have to ask why you'd give the existance of a diety any more consideration the possiblity that the universe a glob of grease on its way to the floor (Byron Gyson's, I couldn't come up with my own and I'm tired of referencing the teacup...)

Because it's just another division used to divide people into groups and create anger against each other which is used to continue hiding the real people we should be angry at (the leaders who continue to destroy our world around us). Why help them divide us when with a simple "yes, ok, it's possible." can help stop a whole lot of anger and bitching? Let people believe what they want as long as they aren't bothering you. If someone does bother or push their idiotic theories onto me than i will destroy their belief system quickly, and with no belief system of my own there isn't much they can do to distract the conversation away from the lies and hypocrisy in their bibles and other religious texts.

Actually modern unconsciousable 'fundamentalism' has it's roots in a kind of mob mentality, it holds that if you hold something to be true hard enough it will be true, like self-will kinda stuff, which is why 'Christians' as an example label themselves this way, rather than 'this child's name is fred' it is 'this is a Christian child', the whole collective delusion. In this way the peddling of conspiracy-theory type ideas about the coming end of the world (global warming, war in the middle east etc) replaces an objective study of history and current affairs. It's also a reality-denial like mentality, it allows people to forget all their problems and inequities of the world and just say 'God will be coming soon so don't worry'. It's dangerous because it encourages regressive and wholly reactionary thought processes.

We are not talking about if belief in god(s) is/are relevant or even if you should, it's the belief that there is/are not god(s).

I'm not trying to recreate Pascell's Wager, or even say you should believe. I am mearly trying to find out about this contradiction. How can atheists say there is/are no god(s) when the existance (Or non) thereof must be in doubt? Logically, they should be Agnostic, but after reading through the tread, it seems they have the same rock hard faith in their belief, even though they never can support it.

The same as every theist religion.

But as an atheist, I'm perfectly open that I could, by some chance, be wrong. If there were evidence presented that shows God's existence, I'd believe. However, as long as there isn't any evidence, the only rational choice is to not believe. That is, to be a de facto atheist, even if technically you are agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. Even most "radical" atheists are at this point. (Like I said earlier, this is where even the "radical" Richard Dawkins places himself.)

Theistic believers, on the other hand, almost never accept evidence that disproves their specific deity. Christians insist that prayer cures people... even though people who are prayed for recover no better than those who are not prayed for. Many Christians (if not a majority, a very significant minority) reject Evolution because of faith. In religion, faith trumps all.

who cares if there is a god or not when his existence or non existence makes no difference?

who cares if there is a god if there is no way to know?

when there is no practical difference between there being a god and there not, i dont see the point of "holding out hope"
Indeed. My position is that if there is a God of the deist sort (which I find rather more probable than the Abrahamic God--largely because the deist God, at least, does not contradict Science, History, and basic rationality) it doesn't really matter anyway, because he has no affect on the Universe. A non-acting agent might as well not exist. To quote Pierre-Simon Laplace: "je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." ("I have no need of that hypothesis,"
his admirable reply to Napoleon when asked why his book did not mention God)

haha really? So it's your opinion that if we have no proof of something existing right now than it must not exist? using this throughout history would have destroyed a great many of the scientific advances.

Many times people have claimed something was wrong because we didn't have the proof of it, but later it was found to actually exist and we just didn't have the devices to monitor or measure it at that time....
True, but that's why you must be willing to change your mind as new evidence arises. Part of rationality is being open to new evidence. Indeed, that's the main difference between the two: faith is not open to new evidence. Faith fits new evidence to fit itself, if it pays attention at all. Rationality fits itself to the new evidence.

Remember, you can be rational and still be wrong if you don't see all the evidence. That's why science still continues to this day: we need to find new evidence that might contradict our current theories. That doesn't, however, make people who subscribed to those theories before the new evidence irrational. Indeed, it is irrational not to accept the scientific consensus without some sort of evidence against it.

Yeah, heres the thing. Out of hundreds of fucking years of finding those answers, not once, not fucking once, has that answer turned out to be magic.

It's like roulette! It hasn't landed on magic's number since it STARTED. It's the only safe bet! Magic is DUE, man. Magic is fucking due.

Yes. I know roulette doesn't work that way. That's the point.

Remember, you can be rational and still be wrong if you don't see all the evidence. That's why science still continues to this day: we need to find new evidence that might contradict our current theories.

But if you are saying that you know religion is wrong than you arent' going to be looking for new evidence. If you are looking than you obviously are admiting you don't know in which case you aren't really Atheist...

That doesn't, however, make people who subscribed to those theories before the new evidence irrational. Indeed, it is irrational not to accept the scientific consensus without some sort of evidence against it.

No, but it does make them look pretty stupid for attacking others when they don't know themselves. There's reason everyone laughs at the flat earthers who were ignorant to round earthers, they look like idiots now. I don't know about you but i'd rather when people look back at our society they saw a society that admited it didn't know everything and was alright with that.

I have been saying this forever. The truly rational ones are the agnostics.
So far this thread is proving it.

i dont know what HE is thinking but blue undies are SEXXXY!
Ah, now see THAT is absolutely false! BLACK undies are fer sexier! ;):D

honestly?
Do you mean that's what I am really driving at? Yes.

What? Did you think I asked because I was trying to trick you guys into believing in (a) god(s)?

You should know me better than THAT! If you believe there is/are no god(s), more power to you. I'll ask why just because I'm generally interested in people, but I don't see any need for me to make you change your beliefs; and especially there's no reason to try to convert you to mine.

I am, honestly, curious because otherwise it would seem that Atheism is based upon the same shaky ground that all theistic faiths are on (I.e. not reasoned, but based upon belief)... either that or all Atheists are actually Agnostics.

its because i feel that people pretend to be talking about some non-denominationally-associated god when they are really talking about whatever god they personally believe in.
Not me in particular.

do you really believe in an aloof god who has zero measurable effect in the world?
I find that more and more I lean towards Deitism, but that's just me personally. I also tend to have some very strange and complex beliefs and perhaps, if you're really curious, I'll TG them or explain in another thread.

who cares if there is a god or not when his existence or non existence makes no difference?

who cares if there is a god if there is no way to know?

when there is no practical difference between there being a god and there not, i dont see the point of "holding out hope"
And that is your belief.

Which is what I am bumping up against it seems.

You seem to overlook the fact that the proposition 'if a person believes there are no deities, then they are an atheist' has a materially different meaning to the proposition 'if a person is an atheist, then they believe that there are no deities'.
What difference am I missing here?

Is it possible that I will win the lottery every day for the rest of my life without ever buying a ticket? I guess so. So maybe I should entertain the idea rather than just dismissing it. No wait, that would just be silly.

My decision to ignore the possibility of winning the lottery is a logical one(anyone disagree?). Yet I do believe that it is possible so I geuss I should be agnostic about it.

Come on...what kind of idiot do you take me for?
I think you're missing the point. If you state "There is/are no god(s)" [I'm getting tired of typing that], you are making an assumption THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE!

If that's the case and what you believe, more power to you.

But it does mean that it is YOUR belief, not an actual reasoned one.

I am so sick of this 'well you can't prove there isn't' fucking bullshit. Just stop it. Stop it, it's stupid.

There are ton of things you can't prove that you don't believe or waste time with. If there is no reason to believe, it doesn't matter if there is evidence against it. There's no reason to believe. I can't disprove the existence of fucking Mario Mushrooms but I'm not going to waste any fucking time looking for them.

And don't give me that 'one million Elvis fans' bullshit. PT Barnum covered that nicely. (look it up)
So you choose to believe that there is/are no god(s) then, right?

There is no contradiction. Atheists belief that god doesnt exist and the fact that they say its true is both a correct viewpoint. There is no proof whatsoever that the gods of myth and lore exist scientifically.
You seemed to have missed the point of my question.

Hey Atheists, got a question for you.

I think I am running into a contradiction for atheism, namely that atheism makes the same ‘leap of faith’ that religions do.

To wit: science cannot of course test or provide direct proof of the existence of god(s). As it has been pointed out to countless Creationists on this board. Science is the realm of the natural world and god(s) belong to the supernatural. This excludes us from ever finding any definitive proof to the existence of god(s).

In the same vein, it is also, of course, impossible for science to prove a negative. One cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.

I’m busy with lesson planning today so I might not respond back till later, but I will be back. ;)

I tend to regard myself more of an agnostic than an atheist, but I'll try to answer anyway.

No, there's no proof god doesn't exist. And there's no proof that he does. What we can do, however, is consider how likely something is. To believe in the biblical god, the stories in the bible must seem likely to you on some level. In order to be able to call yourself Christian, it's a requirement to believe that 1) all humans live in sin, 2) a deity incarnated its "son", 3) said son preached, performed miracles and was crucified by the Romans to 4) rise from the dead and go to heaven.
Now, while most atheists will agree that there is a possiblity that a guy named Jesus walked around in Israel around 2000 years ago (despite there being no objective proof of his existence), they will have doubts regarding the resurrection bit. How likely does that seem?
And how likely do these other stories seem to you? Do they correlate to your personal experience, your observations of the world, your understanding of natural processes and phenomena? If the answer is no and you still believe, you've made a huge leap of faith. If the answer is no and you don't believe, you were just taking the next logical step.

I do think there's a huge difference between not believing in god, and believing there is no god. Both attitudes are lumped together as atheism, but one is a simple logical conclusion whereas the other does indeed require some faith in believing in the non-existance of a deity.

This has been my contention for quite some time. It requires as much faith to believe in the utter absence of any deity (Christian or otherwise) as it does to believe in a deity of any variety. When you come to that conclusion, the only logical position is agnosticism.
Indeed. Both sides (Theist and Atheist) seem to have a lot more in common.

Of course now that we know this, we shall both join forces and focus on our true enemy! The Agnostics! ;)

But as an atheist, I'm perfectly open that I could, by some chance, be wrong. If there were evidence presented that shows God's existence, I'd believe. However, as long as there isn't any evidence, the only rational choice is to not believe. That is, to be a de facto atheist, even if technically you are agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. Even most "radical" atheists are at this point. (Like I said earlier, this is where even the "radical" Richard Dawkins places himself.)
So... in other words there are no Atheists, just Agnostics with attitude problems? (Yes, the attitude problem part is meant as a joke)

Theistic believers, on the other hand, almost never accept evidence that disproves their specific deity. Christians insist that prayer cures people... even though people who are prayed for recover no better than those who are not prayed for.
Uh... careful, that doesn't actually state any evidence that disproves God, just that He/She/It didn't answer those prayers.

I do think there's a huge difference between not believing in god, and believing there is no god.
I think I am missing something here. Because you can not believe in God of course (Members of non-Abrahamic religions and so on), and you can not believe in god(s). But surely if you are rejecting ALL forms of deity, whatever they may be, are you not saying that there is/are no god(s)? Because if do make such a statement, that requires belief. If you have a maybe... isn't that Agnostic?

Edit: Dinner time, I might be back on later so sorry if I don't respond.

So in other words, god(s) are one big question mark where it’s pretty much impossible for us to say one way or another.

So here’s where I have my question, from the above it would seem that Agnosticism, the position that there may be a god(s), or there may not, but we don’t know and cannot know, would be the logical position for those folks who reason things out without going on something as asinine as a ‘feeling’ or ‘faith’ alone.

So where does the atheist absolute position that there is/are no god(s) come from? It would seem that this position is no more grounded in actual logic or reason than any other religion that claims their way is the one true way because they say so.

Am I missing something here then? Please explain.
Agnosticism is the only rational position, the one founded in philosophy at any rate, but many so-called 'soft' atheists take the agnostic position. Essentially for this atheist, if there is nothing to be known about God then there is no reason to believe in God.

It seems that if you try to ask for proof that god does not exist then the radical atheist gets angry.

And reasonably so... It cannot be proven that "something does not eixst."

I think I am missing something here. Because you can not believe in God of course (Members of non-Abrahamic religions and so on), and you can not believe in god(s). But surely if you are rejecting ALL forms of deity, whatever they may be, are you not saying that there is/are no god(s)? Because if do make such a statement, that requires belief. If you have a maybe... isn't that Agnostic?

Edit: Dinner time, I might be back on later so sorry if I don't respond.

It might be a grey area, I'm not sure. My understanding is that agnostics maintain that we cannot know if there is a god or not, and therefore take no position. Many atheists come from that line of thinking and sort of drift into atheism once they ask themselves the question of how likely they consider the existence of deities. They don't believe in the existence, but do not believe the non-existence. Me, I don't believe in god. But I don't go so far as to proclaim that god doesn't exist and cannot exist. It's unlikely, but possible.

Atheists who believe that god doesn't exist tend to be the ones who come to their conclusions after studying theological statements, like god being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They find logical fallacies in those statements and go on to proclaim that the existence of such a being is absurd and impossible.

If you ask the first about his believes, he'll most likely reply with a version of Russell's teapot and a statement like "I don't have reason to believe, so I don't believe"
If you ask the second, they'll quote prayer experiments showing that prayer doesn't work or explain to you that an omniscient god can't be omnipotent and that they therefore believe god can't exist.

I hope I clarfied that a bit, it's mostly a matter of perspective for the individual. One says "I don't believe", the other says "I believe he doesn't exist"...

Ok, here's my rant on the subject. I grew up Catholic, with priests as uncles and an aunt nun, and kinda religious parents. I've drifted from being religious ('cos I was taught it in school) to agnostic, to athiest after deciding that being agnostic is a soft option.

And I think there is evidence on both sides, despite claims that there's no evidence either way. Evidence for: the bible; the fact that millions of people over the years have believed in God. (Anything I'm missing? Feel free to add.)

Evidence against: the bible was written back when the earth was flat; the fact that having a religion is useful (encourages people to be good to each other, tells people that when they or loved ones die they will go to heaven, states that a god is looking out for you, etc) so there's an incentive to believe it; the complete lack of any material evidence that a God in fact exists.

So I sided with the second option. In saying that, I really don't like criticising anyone else's religious beliefs, as religion does have its benefits. I just figured that I don't need it and, on balance, don't believe it, so picked athiesm.

How's my argument?

Most atheists would state that they don't need religion to define or justify their existence.

A lot of people seem to need the comforting notion of some Grand Scheme instead of the idea that we are simply statistical oddities: life is a fluke, a lucky combination of factors that permits sentient entities.

Atheism doesnt require any "leap of faith".
You are assuming that they deny the existence of (a) God, rather than simply realising the overwhelming lack of any sort of evidence from any reliable source to support the conviction that (a) God does in fact exist.
If "faith" is believing in the existence of the unprovable, then atheism is believing that the unprovable cannot exist.

This is different to science in that science can say "We don't know yet".
Science will admit what it cannot yet explain. But it allows for sufficiently bright individuals to think about things and attempt to explain how the universe works.
We still don't know an awful lot, but science has done a hell of a lot more to explain our existence than the Bible or the Koran!

Ironically, religion tells you not to think, just accept what you are told, follow the rules or else you are a bad person.
Free will? I think not...

Religion was a handy tool for keeping civil order in darker times. And making money. People are too well educated now to blindly accept belief systems.
Not to say all religions are bad, but most do more harm than good by denying their followers the chance to think for themselves.

If you ask the first about his believes, he'll most likely reply with a version of Russell's teapot and a statement like "I don't have reason to believe, so I don't believe"
If you ask the second, they'll quote prayer experiments showing that prayer doesn't work or explain to you that an omniscient god can't be omnipotent and that they therefore believe god can't exist.

I hope I clarfied that a bit, it's mostly a matter of perspective for the individual. One says "I don't believe", the other says "I believe he doesn't exist"...
Hmm... Still sounds like splitting the same hair. The first one sound like more Agnostic, i.e. I don't believe in god(s) with (But I allow for some small probability that one/they might exist, small as it is) unsaid.

The second one makes a concrete statement, which is fine as that is their belief and no skin off my nose what they believe.

So it would seem more like the 'soft' Atheist would actually be Agnostic, not Atheist and the 'Hard' Atheist is making a statement of belief.

The OP is correct there are basicly two types of atheist which I shall describe as strong and weak.

A weak atheist will say that there is no evidance for the existance of God or gods, and so will refuse to belive such a proposition.

A strong atheist will declare that God or gods absolutly do not exist. These atheists in the light of no evidance either way are indeed engagineg in a system of belief.

Atheism doesnt require any "leap of faith".
You are assuming that they deny the existence of (a) God, rather than simply realising the overwhelming lack of any sort of evidence from any reliable source to support the conviction that (a) God does in fact exist.
If "faith" is believing in the existence of the unprovable, then atheism is believing that the unprovable cannot exist.
Uh... you just proved my point for me, that (I guess hard) Atheists are taking this non-existence on faith because it cannot ever be shown one way or another.

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”