First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Honest Atheists are Agnostic
20150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / England
Offline
Posted 4/8/10

Yei wrote:

Yes, exactly. Now where's the proof backing your hypothesis saying God does not exist? Wait, it's not a hypothesis, an atheist would claim it to already be a fact that God doesn't exist. Now what scientific experiment did you do to get to that conclusion?


I don't believe they exist either. I don't believe in anything that can't be proven (like God). And that's because I don't irrationally come to conclusions on things we have no way to test, and therefore, no way to know.

But you seem to have the same lack of understanding that many atheists have. There's a difference between simply not believing in God and saying God doesn't exist. The latter is a conclusion that needs evidence to be rationalized. The other makes no conclusion, it simply rejects an irrational one.

We're on the same page, except you have a different definition for atheist, and I'm not sure if you simply don't believe in God or have somehow concluded that God doesn't exist (which is what I think the definition of atheism is).


I think you're mistaken that I don't understand this issue - , just to break this down a bit, do you see Unicorns in a similar or different category to God. Would you say it's a fact that Unicorns don't exist? Would you say it's a fact that Father Christmas does not exist? If so, then I think I probably need to understand why proving God is a special case and needs extra evidence. If not, then I'd say that your ways of acting in every day life are probably out of step with the things that you believe or not, because you have to take many similar things as fact in order to live your daily life; for instance that your hand won't slip through the keyboard as you are typing, that a giant hammer won't fall out of the sky and bash you on the head, or that your dinner won't somehow this evening actually be a deadly poison and kill you. It's up to you if you feel you need extra evidence to call these things fact but personally I think strong belief based on the laws of science is good enough to use the term "fact", yes.
6511 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 4/8/10 , edited 4/8/10
Bah.

Argument One:
A strong athiest does not believe in god.

Conclusion:
An athiest does not believe in god.

The above does not reflect my belief, but someone who does not believe in god, simply does not believe in god. They are not agnostic, else they would term themselves agnostic and say they do not know. I may offend, but you're an @$$hole for trying to tell them that they actually do. They do not, fyi.

Argument Two:
Those who believe in God rely on faith and not proof. However they are logical beings that use their will and thought (free will and thought, mind you) for logical proof for their everyday interpretation of the world and universe in their lives.

Conclusion: Those who believe in God actually do not.

See? Effin' silly argument. Bullsh*t.

Believe what you will, do what you do. No way I trash anyone for belief, just actions. For instance, if you kill my sister, I don't care how you justify it regardless of religion, I will hunt you down
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/8/10

GundamMeister100 wrote:

I think you're mistaken that I don't understand this issue - , just to break this down a bit, do you see Unicorns in a similar or different category to God. Would you say it's a fact that Unicorns don't exist? Would you say it's a fact that Father Christmas does not exist? If so, then I think I probably need to understand why proving God is a special case and needs extra evidence.


God isn't a special case, science and rationality are clear; you need evidence to reach a conclusion, any conclusion, otherwise it's irrational. The existence of anything supernatural, like unicorns or deities, is unknowable because we have no way of collecting evidence.



If not, then I'd say that your ways of acting in every day life are probably out of step with the things that you believe or not, because you have to take many similar things as fact in order to live your daily life; for instance that your hand won't slip through the keyboard as you are typing, that a giant hammer won't fall out of the sky and bash you on the head, or that your dinner won't somehow this evening actually be a deadly poison and kill you. It's up to you if you feel you need extra evidence to call these things fact but personally I think strong belief based on the laws of science is good enough to use the term "fact", yes.


Actually I don't have to take them as fact, I can just not believe absurd, random things will happen. Obviously, they could, anything is possible, so I can't irrationally come to the conclusion that they could never happen. But I also don't believe they will, unless I have a reason to. I don't see the logic behind this argument.

I don't need any evidence at all to not believe these things will happen, because that's not a conclusion. Beliefs based on the laws of science are rational beliefs, that's why atheism goes against them.
6511 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 4/8/10 , edited 4/8/10
Third conclusion: It doesn't matter.

If you believe in God or not, is fine. If you believe the "belief in God" matters, you're just a d*ck. If God exists, I'm sure an all knowing being who created us and everything else, who even LET US *NOT* believe in God, is fine with it. Or is whatever God you believe in who is all merciful and good that friggin' trite, childish, and perverse for punishing his own "children" for just trying to live? FFS. If the God you believe in cares about such, then the God you believe in is really weak and petty.

BTW, I believe in God, nothing like that though.
20150 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / England
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

Yei wrote:

Actually I don't have to take them as fact, I can just not believe absurd, random things will happen. Obviously, they could, anything is possible, so I can't irrationally come to the conclusion that they could never happen. But I also don't believe they will, unless I have a reason to. I don't see the logic behind this argument.

I don't need any evidence at all to not believe these things will happen, because that's not a conclusion. Beliefs based on the laws of science are rational beliefs, that's why atheism goes against them.


I think this is as much a question about burden of proof as it is a question of fact, though. I'm quite sympathetic to skeptical arguments that we can't *know* anything for certain and can see that it also follows that we can't technically know that something is impossible either. So in that regard I see where you're coming from. However, in my opinion this doesn't force an atheist into the position of being an agnostic because I still think that it makes logical sense to say that I *know* that God doesn't exist because it fits with the framework of beliefs we have rgarding how the world works. For instance, one of God's attributes, at least according to Christianity is his ability to resurrect his body after being killed. According to science -not skeptical theories about knowledge, but our scientific framework for understanding the world - a person, once dead, cannot be brought back to life. This event has recurred so many times in my lifetime alone. Dead person stays dead. millions and millions of times, that it makes much more logical sense to me to query the source that claims it happened and to place the burden of proof there, than to overturn my rule that dead people stay dead.

I think it's perfectly logical to say that for a fact I know that a dead person will stay dead. Therefore it's logical to say that it is fact that God doesn't exist ( I know this is a christian concept but I think any concept of God grants him eternal life, which is clearly equally problematic) . I think that knowledge can be a transient thing. If someone presents some solid evidence that bodies can be resurrected then people will sit up and take note and if it's found to be the case then of course our framework of understanding will have altered quite radically. Yet, as it stands, it makes literally no sense to me to talk about God in terms of something that can or might exist ... so I do think the burden of proof is squarely on those who claim that he does exist, because scientifically or even historically speaking, there is no proof to even vaguely point in that direction.

If you believe in God then by default there's no such thing as Scientific fact. if you admit the possibility of the God you're suggesting that there's no such thing as scientific fact. If you believe in the truth and relevance of science however, then you do not believe in God.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

GundamMeister100 wrote:


Yei wrote:

Actually I don't have to take them as fact, I can just not believe absurd, random things will happen. Obviously, they could, anything is possible, so I can't irrationally come to the conclusion that they could never happen. But I also don't believe they will, unless I have a reason to. I don't see the logic behind this argument.

I don't need any evidence at all to not believe these things will happen, because that's not a conclusion. Beliefs based on the laws of science are rational beliefs, that's why atheism goes against them.


I think this is as much a question about burden of proof as it is a question of fact, though. I'm quite sympathetic to skeptical arguments that we can't *know* anything for certain and can see that it also follows that we can't technically know that something is impossible either. So in that regard I see where you're coming from. However, in my opinion this doesn't force an atheist into the position of being an agnostic because I still think that it makes logical sense to say that I *know* that God doesn't exist because it fits with the framework of beliefs we have rgarding how the world works. For instance, one of God's attributes, at least according to Christianity is his ability to resurrect his body after being killed. According to science -not skeptical theories about knowledge, but our scientific framework for understanding the world - a person, once dead, cannot be brought back to life. This event has recurred so many times in my lifetime alone. Dead person stays dead. millions and millions of times, that it makes much more logical sense to me to query the source that claims it happened and to place the burden of proof there, than to overturn my rule that dead people stay dead.

I think it's perfectly logical to say that for a fact I know that a dead person will stay dead. Therefore it's logical to say that it is fact that God doesn't exist ( I know this is a christian concept but I think any concept of God grants him eternal life, which is clearly equally problematic) . I think that knowledge can be a transient thing. If someone presents some solid evidence that bodies can be resurrected then people will sit up and take note and if it's found to be the case then of course our framework of understanding will have altered quite radically. Yet, as it stands, it makes literally no sense to me to talk about God in terms of something that can or might exist ... so I do think the burden of proof is squarely on those who claim that he does exist, because scientifically or even historically speaking, there is no proof to even vaguely point in that direction.
.


Here's the problem, like you said: "God" isn't defined by Christianity, and God is not a human. This is another problem I see with atheists or anti-religion people in general, there's a very weak understanding of God and deities. The most basic definition of a deity is a supernatural, omnipotent being. People have this idea of God automatically meaning a big man with a white beard living in the sky. Basic theology shows there are less insane descriptions of God. Like Gandhi's, or many more rational religious groups'. Gandhi's interpretation is that God is not a physical being, or even sentient, God is simply "love, benevolence, morality, truth, etc." Just the ultimate good that humans are supposed to follow, you can't visualize that version of God. Like karma; karma isn't a physical being we can see, you could describe it as the ultimate justice, and God could be defined similarly. And that's just one concept of God, there's thousands of others. Many of the more aggressive atheists I've seen have absolutely no understanding of the most basic theology and see God only as defined by fundamentalist Christians, not even the more unorthodox Christians who see God just similarly to Gandhi.

Atheism doesn't involve religion at all, it just deals with God(s), which is/are omnipotent, supernatural supreme beings. A supernatural being cannot be said to have "eternal life" or any life or death, it's not a living being, it's a vague omnipotent, supernatural being. It is perfectly rational to say it's a fact that a dead person will stay dead, but that's completely irrelevant. And we have no way to test the existence of or understand a being that is supernatural and omnipotent, so it is unknowable and any conclusions are irrational.



If you believe in God then by default there's no such thing as Scientific fact. if you admit the possibility of the God you're suggesting that there's no such thing as scientific fact. If you believe in the truth and relevance of science however, then you do not believe in God


If you believe in God, it says nothing about you view of scientific fact. If you admit the possibility of God, you're not suggesting anything about scientific fact; science has nothing to do with the supernatural. There's no science used to give us information on the supernatural.

And yes, if you're generally rational, you do not believe in God, and you don't believe in the non-existence of God either, or anything supernatural or unknowable.
28050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United states
Offline
Posted 4/11/10
If you an atheist, you do not have to prove anything. You just state that you don't believe in the spiritual.
Although you can try to find other solutions to the explanation 'god created everything' and by that way prove the theist wrong.

I'm a atheist myself and by your definition i would be dishonest because i believe in something with lack of evidence. Wrong.
I do not believe in the spiritual because of lack of evidence. That doesn't necessarily make me believe in something with the lack of evidence.
That makes me a person with no opinion on how the world function.
That said i could look into more scientific explanations to the questions answered by religions and such. The big bang theory is a fine example and DOES have the scientific proof to back it up. So if i were to believe in 'the big bang theory' that would NOT make me "dishonest".
On the other hand are religious people ignorant, because the wont see the fact and keep holding their belief in god in high regard,
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/11/10

aakast wrote:

If you an atheist, you do not have to prove anything. You just state that you don't believe in the spiritual.
Although you can try to find other solutions to the explanation 'god created everything' and by that way prove the theist wrong.

I'm a atheist myself and by your definition i would be dishonest because i believe in something with lack of evidence. Wrong.
I do not believe in the spiritual because of lack of evidence. That doesn't necessarily make me believe in something with the lack of evidence.
That makes me a person with no opinion on how the world function.
That said i could look into more scientific explanations to the questions answered by religions and such. The big bang theory is a fine example and DOES have the scientific proof to back it up. So if i were to believe in 'the big bang theory' that would NOT make me "dishonest".
On the other hand are religious people ignorant, because the wont see the fact and keep holding their belief in god in high regard,


Using your definition of atheism, atheists and agnostics have the same view. The real definition of atheism, the one most atheists express, is the belief that there is no God. So you would actually be an agnostic, not an atheist, by that definition. Which I think is the real definition.
28050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United states
Offline
Posted 4/11/10

Yei wrote:


aakast wrote:

If you an atheist, you do not have to prove anything. You just state that you don't believe in the spiritual.
Although you can try to find other solutions to the explanation 'god created everything' and by that way prove the theist wrong.

I'm a atheist myself and by your definition i would be dishonest because i believe in something with lack of evidence. Wrong.
I do not believe in the spiritual because of lack of evidence. That doesn't necessarily make me believe in something with the lack of evidence.
That makes me a person with no opinion on how the world function.
That said i could look into more scientific explanations to the questions answered by religions and such. The big bang theory is a fine example and DOES have the scientific proof to back it up. So if i were to believe in 'the big bang theory' that would NOT make me "dishonest".
On the other hand are religious people ignorant, because the wont see the fact and keep holding their belief in god in high regard,


Using your definition of atheism, atheists and agnostics have the same view. The real definition of atheism, the one most atheists express, is the belief that there is no God. So you would actually be an agnostic, not an atheist, by that definition. Which I think is the real definition.


Not really.
I do not believe that anything spiritual exist and never will.
That makes me a atheist.
Now my reason for being an atheist is the lack of evidence and therefore i naturally conclude that no such thing exists.

If i were to say:
I do not believe in anything spiritual.
That would make me a agnostic.
The reason however can be the same.

When i conclude that a god never will exist i am basing that on both the lack of evidence on the 'theistic' side and evidence on the scientific side, which pretty much slaughter the possibility of a god or rather the gods "invented" so far.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 4/11/10

aakast wrote:


Yei wrote:


aakast wrote:

If you an atheist, you do not have to prove anything. You just state that you don't believe in the spiritual.
Although you can try to find other solutions to the explanation 'god created everything' and by that way prove the theist wrong.

I'm a atheist myself and by your definition i would be dishonest because i believe in something with lack of evidence. Wrong.
I do not believe in the spiritual because of lack of evidence. That doesn't necessarily make me believe in something with the lack of evidence.
That makes me a person with no opinion on how the world function.
That said i could look into more scientific explanations to the questions answered by religions and such. The big bang theory is a fine example and DOES have the scientific proof to back it up. So if i were to believe in 'the big bang theory' that would NOT make me "dishonest".
On the other hand are religious people ignorant, because the wont see the fact and keep holding their belief in god in high regard,


Using your definition of atheism, atheists and agnostics have the same view. The real definition of atheism, the one most atheists express, is the belief that there is no God. So you would actually be an agnostic, not an atheist, by that definition. Which I think is the real definition.


Not really.
I do not believe that anything spiritual exist and never will.
That makes me a atheist.
Now my reason for being an atheist is the lack of evidence and therefore i naturally conclude that no such thing exists.

If i were to say:
I do not believe in anything spiritual.
That would make me a agnostic.
The reason however can be the same.

When i conclude that a god never will exist i am basing that on both the lack of evidence on the 'theistic' side and evidence on the scientific side, which pretty much slaughter the possibility of a god or rather the gods "invented" so far.


Ok, now you're saying something different. First you said "You just state that you don't believe in the spiritual" to be an atheist. And now it's "I do not believe that anything spiritual exist and never will. That makes me a atheist."

Maybe you made the first statement by mistake, because you understand the difference. So as an atheist, you've reached the conclusion that there is no God or anything spiritual. It's pretty common knowledge that you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, or prove anything about the supernatural or spiritual in general.

But you say the fact that there is no evidence to say God exists is proof God doesn't exist? That's not a rational argument. I don't have any proof to tell me that there's life outside this planet. Is that fact alone proof that there is no life outside of Earth? Obviously not, lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. So atheism is irrational because there is no evidence for it.
28050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / United states
Offline
Posted 4/11/10
It depends on how you see it. Because as a religious person you can just say 'well it is a god, we're talking about' to almost every argument.
Which is quite reasonably as you can't disprove the existence of a god in its definition alone.
Therefore the most obvious stance would be to have the theist to prove the existence of a god. Else we can conclude that a god simply do not exist unless proven, as we can't disprove it as per definition.

This does not relate to the agnostic view, which says we can't say wether or not a god exist, because humans doesn't have the necessary knowledge.
We can disprove that the christian view is wrong, the hindu way etc.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 4/15/10 , edited 4/15/10
An atheist is a person who holds no theistic belief, ie no belief in a deity or deities. An agnostic is a person who does not believe that the existence of such a deity or deities can be ascertained, stemming from whatever reason. Atheists rely on tools such as Occam's Razor and generally the burden of proof to support their views while agnostics rely greatly on scepticism and point out the limited capacity of knowing matters related to deities.

Condensed into a few words, an agnostic does not believe in knowledge of a deity or deities, ie whether it can be known whether such a deity or deities exist. An atheist on the other hand simply does not believe in a deity or deities. Neither of these are, in truth, positive beliefs in that they do not posit a contention or claim. There is not, in the true sense, a belief that god does not exist or that the existence cannot be ascertained, there is simply a lack of the posited beliefs that god exists and his existence can be ascertained. Disbelief is not a belief and the misunderstanding upon which this thread is based has been fostered by treating lack of belief as a belief rather than simply an absence which it is.


Carnifex wrote:

Bah.

Argument One:
A strong athiest does not believe in god.

Conclusion:
An athiest does not believe in god.

The above does not reflect my belief, but someone who does not believe in god, simply does not believe in god. They are not agnostic, else they would term themselves agnostic and say they do not know. I may offend, but you're an @$$hole for trying to tell them that they actually do. They do not, fyi.

Argument Two:
Those who believe in God rely on faith and not proof. However they are logical beings that use their will and thought (free will and thought, mind you) for logical proof for their everyday interpretation of the world and universe in their lives.

Conclusion: Those who believe in God actually do not.

See? Effin' silly argument. Bullsh*t.

Believe what you will, do what you do. No way I trash anyone for belief, just actions. For instance, if you kill my sister, I don't care how you justify it regardless of religion, I will hunt you down :)


This is the ED and it is called that for a reason. If you take offence or get heated because someone is trying to prove a point which may be contrary to common belief or your own views, I would suggest you start using the other areas of the forum in the time you would spend using ED.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.