A Question to Atheists

[Tristesse]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Possibly.

 

[outhouse]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

well im a atheist and I think god does exist.

In literature, In the minds and hearts of those who believe said literature.

 

[Falvlun]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I would say that I believe you probably are wrong, because that's why I'm an atheist-- I think the existence of God is unlikely. (I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist.)

Although, to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the "lack of belief in god" definition, since I think a good chunk of atheists who use it are resistant to the fact that they really do have the correlating belief: the belief that god doesn't exist, so I find it all to be a little dishonest. Also, the "lack of" definition tends to include people I don't think should be included, like true agnostics or children, etc.

 

[HerDotness]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

More than likely. I think science increasingly is demonstrating that the likelihood of gods existing is remote to impossible.

I could be wrong and would readily admit it if sufficient proof of the existence of some deity is ever presented to me.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Depends. Can you prove it?

 

[Willamena]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

Of course not. Disbelief doesn't have much of an impact on the world, at all.

Ideally.

Which is why I much prefer to define Atheism in terms of belief, so it can have an impact: the belief that god doesn't exist.

 

[Valjean]

You might be wrong, you might not. Basic atheism takes no side in the matter.

 

[manc]

That isn't what i meant. If we assume are talking about god as in the creator of life. Either he does or doesn't exist. One side is correct and one side isn't.

i agree but my point was,untill we know either way we dont know who is right and who is wrong.

 

[A Troubled Man]

i agree but my point was,untill we know either way we dont know who is right and who is wrong.

True, that is why we then rely on good old possibility and probability measures, coupled with a heaping dollop of the fundamental laws of physics, applying them in waves of logical reasoning to each and every claim theists are able to muster thus breaking down religious beliefs to that of myth and superstition. Viola, fence sitting then becomes somewhat pointless unto itself.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Neither verification nor falsification is possible for most concepts of God (hence the reason people have been debating them for so long without effect); attempting to rely on probability relies on a flawed premise for its application to metaphysical concepts such as god because it inherently assumes the chances can be determined, which requires identifying the chance of something being true as well as the chance of something being false, however that would require verification and falsification be possible - so at best, probability comes down to a guessing game, usually done by anti-theists, atheists or atheistic agnostics I might add.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Neither verification nor falsification is possible for most concepts of God (hence the reason people have been debating them for so long without effect); attempting to rely on probability relies on a flawed premise for its application to metaphysical concepts such as god because it inherently assumes the chances can be determined, which requires identifying the chance of something being true as well as the chance of something being false, however that would require verification and falsification be possible - so at best, probability comes down to a guessing game, usually done by anti-theists, atheists or atheistic agnostics I might add.

Both possibility and probability theory rely primarily on mathematics and events occurring. Often, we assign the value of '1' to unknown variables, in this case God and then proceed to test all non-deterministic events that might occur, in this case those events would be the existence or non-existence of God based on the claims of theists.

Simple really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither verification nor falsification is possible for most concepts of God (hence the reason people have been debating them for so long without effect); attempting to rely on probability relies on a flawed premise for its application to metaphysical concepts such as god because it inherently assumes the chances can be determined, which requires identifying the chance of something being true as well as the chance of something being false, however that would require verification and falsification be possible - so at best, probability comes down to a guessing game, usually done by anti-theists, atheists or atheistic agnostics I might add.

If a thing is not verifiable or falsifiable, then by definition, it's completely irrelevant to us. With the exception of deism, I would argue that relevancy is built into most god concepts, and therefore (somewhat counter-intuitively, I admit) an argument that they're unfalsifiable is implicitly an argument that they're actually false.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I don't know if you are wrong. I will assume your claim is false until you prove it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Both possibility and probability theory rely primarily on mathematics and events occurring. Often, we assign the value of '1' to unknown variables, in this case God and then proceed to test all non-deterministic events that might occur, in this case those events would be the existence or non-existence of God based on the claims of theists.

Simple really.

But that is just the problem, most of the claims are highly subjective and have nothing to suggest accuracy, therefore while it may be possible to test the more easily calculable claims that we have significant objective evidence against, those which inherently rely on constructing belief in such a way as to preclude evidential analysis are untestable.

If a thing is not verifiable or falsifiable, then by definition, it's completely irrelevant to us. With the exception of deism, I would argue that relevancy is built into most god concepts, and therefore (somewhat counter-intuitively, I admit) an argument that they're unfalsifiable is implicitly an argument that they're actually false.

Despite the awesome quote from Popper in my sig; I would not say it is completely irrelevant (especially since other people do not think it is and then attempt to use their beliefs on the issue to influence everyone else) I would instead suggest that discussion can only really result in alterations of understanding on the part of those individuals taking part or their audience (though mainly for those prepared to be philosophical about their own positions or who are easily swayed by impressive philosophical arguments regardless of their inability to be conclusive).

On the other hand, I agree that relevancy is built into most god concepts (otherwise why would people bother with it), but at the same time, for those god concepts that have withstood the test of time, being unfalsifiable is an essential characteristic.

 

[A Troubled Man]

But that is just the problem, most of the claims are highly subjective and have nothing to suggest accuracy, therefore while it may be possible to test the more easily calculable claims that we have significant objective evidence against, those which inherently rely on constructing belief in such a way as to preclude evidential analysis are untestable.

I would agree from our position that the claims of theists are highly subjective, especially those who claim they have "experiences" however there are those who claim much more than that in the respect that their gods are indeed interacting with the physical world in one way or another. If that is the case, those interactions can indeed be tested as events.

I also would agree that the more we test the evidence of nature, the lower the possibility and probability gods exist is evident.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That would depend on how those interactions are categorised and whether or not one of the central premises is (as I stated earlier is often the case) that the entity and its interactions are defined or described in such a way as to preclude evidence based analysis.... if you simply say that gods actions (and even the mechanism by which the outcomes of those actions are realised) are undetectable then it is impossible to test for them - in this way they become unfalsifiable assertions.

 

[A Troubled Man]

...if you simply say that gods actions (and even the mechanism by which the outcomes of those actions are realised) are undetectable then it is impossible to test for them - in this way they become unfalsifiable assertions.

Of course, anything that undetectable is untestable. However, if something does in fact interact with our physical world, it MUST be detectable, hence testable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Despite the awesome quote from Popper in my sig; I would not say it is completely irrelevant (especially since other people do not think it is and then attempt to use their beliefs on the issue to influence everyone else)

That's an effect of belief in god(s), not an effect of any actual god. I never said belief in god(s) was irrelevant.

would instead suggest that discussion can only really result in alterations of understanding on the part of those individuals taking part or their audience (though mainly for those prepared to be philosophical about their own positions or who are easily swayed by impressive philosophical arguments regardless of their inability to be conclusive).

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

On the other hand, I agree that relevancy is built into most god concepts (otherwise why would people bother with it), but at the same time, for those god concepts that have withstood the test of time, being unfalsifiable is an essential characteristic.

So? I'm not sure how this is an argument against my point.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Of course, anything that undetectable is untestable. However, if something does in fact interact with our physical world, it MUST be detectable, hence testable.

Theoretically, ONLY the outcomes themselves MUST be testable... which is why I talked about prediction... for example if your claims about such an entity would predict that it would take some action - then you could determine what the outcomes for that would be and watch for them. However, 'god works in mysterious ways' is often used to counter this proposition - indicating that for people who are willing to rationalise the inability to predict those outcomes, there is no way to test anything (other than the scope of their rationalisations).

That's an effect of belief in god(s), not an effect of any actual god. I never said belief in god(s) was irrelevant.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

So? I'm not sure how this is an argument against my point.

I agree

Basically, in such a situation, debate is for debate's sake only to amuse and inform about philosophic inquiry (and so forth), it may sway people about the validity of your argument, but the validity of your position is indeterminable.

It wasn't an argument against you.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If your definition of Atheism is merely "lack of belief in God," then when I tell you that God exists, am I wrong?

I don't see a need for a more complicated answer than:

yes.