Atheism - I don't understand it

[Caladan]

lol...I am as puzzled as ever. Its a logical conundrum. If there is no evidence of some statement X then there should be no reason to accept it. Right?

Now in place of X if I write "God doesnt exist" then I have the logical conclusion:

There is no evidence of the validity of the statement "God doesn't exist" hence there should be no reason to accept this statement.

(Unless of course, there is a reason like some of the posters said: their personal experiences etc)

I'm not sure you are aware of this, but your forumla is based on circular reasoning. The discussion and debate usually end when you ask people to prove a negative.
Let me play on evolution, as it is perhaps the most potent point of debate when it comes to designer/no design. The vast majority of evolutionary biologists understood that there is no evidence for design in nature nor a need for a designer, life has left us no evidence for such a design or a designer. Therefore the burden of proof falls on those who try to add a designer to a perfectly naturalistic phenomenon.
In addition can an objective and empiric evidence for a designer be successfully supplied? real hard physical facts, and not ideological or emotion based POVs?

 

[A-ManESL]

So, you have no belief as to whether my two-headed polka-dotted dragon-weasel exists? Nothing at all?

lol...I rely on gut feelings, the atheistic axiom doesnt apply for I don't accept it. Here I am just trying to understand what is the atheist's position.

Personal experiences, gut feelings that there is no God etc are some of the postions that have come up in this thread. I am trying to understand the other positions.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Here I am just trying to understand what is the atheist's position.

They have either broken their indoctrination and began to think for themselves or were never indoctrinated in the first place.

 

[A-ManESL]

I'm not sure you are aware of this, but your forumla is based on circular reasoning.

How is it circular reasoning (I honestly don't see it)?

Given an axiom I derive a conclusion from it. Atheists accept the axiom, it follows they ought to accept the conclusion.

Can you explain what you are saying with regard to this thread (and not to evolution etc for I will prefer if the discussion did not go in other channels)? Are you saying that the burden of proof should fall on those who are saying there is a God because the vast majority of scientists are saying otherwise. Wherever the burden lies, there is no formal deductive logic in claiming that the opposite is true unless proof of the opposite has been presented.

 

[Astravalon]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God".

Now replace X with "My two-headed polka-dotted dragon-weasel doesn't exist."

The way I see it, there are potentially gazillions of entities that we -- in this plane of existence -- can't possibly know exists or not. It would require omniscience to determine this for certain, plus an ability to transcend beyond our three-dimensional existence. Unless someone around here is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, they're not going to be able to obtain all the facts/evidence required to definitively determine that there isn't a two-headed polka-dotted dragon-weasel floating around out there somewhere (let alone whether or not those things even float). And if someone here were all those aforementioned "omni-s", he or she would, basically, be proof that there is a God, because that person would be God. Yay them!

As the saying goes, a conclusion is simply the point at which one has stopped thinking about that particular topic. As finite beings, we all have our saturation-points when it comes to just how much time we're going to invest in reaching our conclusions (at least, in the pro-active, pulling-out-our-hair and losing-sleep-over-it sense). But no matter what I call myself, for me to declare that my preferred saturation-point is As Far As It Goes, and that there's absolutely nothing to see beyond that point, does require the dreaded f-word: faith.

Anyway, all this is probably why -- crazy as it may sound -- I don't (currently) believe there's really any such thing as atheists, at least in the absolute sense of the term. (Does that make me an "a-atheist"? )


-

 

[A-ManESL]

Anyway, all this is probably why -- crazy as it may sound -- I don't (currently) believe there's really any such thing as atheists, at least in the absolute sense of the term. (Does that make me an "a-atheist"? )

lol! There are so many labels, aatheist is one of the funniest ones

 

[Caladan]

How is it circular reasoning (I honestly don't see it)?

Given an axiom I derive a conclusion from it. Atheists accept the axiom, it follows they ought to accept the conclusion.

Can you explain what you are saying with regard to this thread (and not to evolution etc for I will prefer if the discussion did not go in other channels)? Are you saying that the burden of proof should fall on those who are saying there is a God because the vast majority of scientists are saying otherwise. Wherever the burden lies, there is no formal deductive logic in claiming that the opposite is true.

I'll sum up. What you are doing in effect is asking us to prove a negative, while the burden of proof is actually on you. You are adding an 'extra' on natural life, or a God, therefore you need to provide the evidence for this God.

In regards to life and evolution, scientists observe that there is no evidence for a designer, which is very relevant to this thread. If you claim that there is a designer, or a creator, you should provide your evidence, and if you are interested we can review both sides of the debate and value the evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

its nothing more then a matter of education.


those who are educated and know how the bible was written see how man injected his favorite deities and used them as his own personal needs dictated

those who are educated can see the mistakes in ancient mans scripture

those who are educated see a clear track record of exactly how man has been creating deities for as long as man has been here.

 

[waitasec]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

what i don't understand is how can one be sure there is evidence for god

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or

i don't think it's a matter of "feeling".
do you believe in god because you feel like it?

i used to believe in the christian god. but then i started to stop ignoring my doubts about this god of the bible and the questions were never satisfied.

edit:
if my questions were satisfied then perhaps i would believe.
question is though...by what criteria is satisfaction achieved?

if god does exist, then i am absolutely convinced he has no concern about this little blue planet. just because i am sentient doesn't give me any extra value when comparing myself to all the other living creatures on this little blue planet.

2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

can you tell me the difference between empirical evidence and subjective evidence. see i have a hard time believing that there is an all powerful god out there who can't speak for himself, like the weather can, or an expression on someones face...

 

[A-ManESL]

I'll sum up. What you are doing in effect is asking us to prove a negative, while the burden of proof is actually on you. You are adding an 'extra' on natural life, or a God, therefore you need to provide the evidence for this God.

This isn't deductive logic I think. Firstly, what is a negative in the logical sense and not the language sense? Secondly why is the burden of proof on me? Is there a (deductive) logical explanation. Thirdly, even so, if I have failed to demonstrate anything and so have you, how does that prove anything?

 

[9Westy9]

Show me good evidence for God and I might change my mind

 

[Kerr]

Thank you for your reply. Don't you feel it would be also natural for you to be agnostic. Can one be an agnostic and an atheist?

No problem .

I am both. I am atheist in that I dont believe God exists, but I am an agnostic in that I do not claim to have any knowledge about if God exists.

 

[Astravalon]

I'll sum up. What you are doing in effect is asking us to prove a negative, while the burden of proof is actually on you. You are adding an 'extra' on natural life, or a God, therefore you need to provide the evidence for this God.

I suppose I see the absence of a God as the extra, just as others see the presence of God as being the extra. Evidently proving a positive -- God's absence -- has been as much of a challenge for mankind as proving the other positive -- God's presence -- has been, given that these sorts of discussions have been going on for ages.

In regards to life and evolution, scientists observe that there is no evidence for a designer, which is very relevant to this thread. If you claim that there is a designer, or a creator, you should provide your evidence, and if you are interested we can review both sides of the debate and value the evidence.

As far as evidence goes, it would seem that people have differing ideas of what constitutes that. Which goes back to the saturation-point and our limited ability as humans to transcend every possible dimension in order to acquire any and all evidence potentially available beyond this dimension (see post 45).
-

 

[micrurus]

I suppose I see the absence of a God as the extra, just as others see the presence of God as being the extra. Evidently proving a positive -- God's absence -- has been as much of a challenge for mankind as proving the other positive -- God's presence -- has been, given that these sorts of discussions have been going on for ages.

proving somethings existence is proving a positive, proving something's nonexistence is proving a negative. you cannot ask someone to prove a negative, especially when it comes to an unfalsifiable hypotheses.

It seems like you are trying to twist all that here in order to get rid of your burden of proof so please justify your statement that denying god's existence is a positive claim.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Before joining the forum I had never seriously conversed with an atheist person regarding God. If I remember correctly one of the first debates I got into RF was with an atheist whose basic point was something like - "I don't believe in God as there is no evidence for God". What I don't understand even today, is how can one be sure there is no evidence for God. In Islam we are taught that by following the straight part shown by the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ultimately God's knowledge is bestowed. That is to say, there is a pre-requisite for acquiring that evidence, and one has to strive for it.

Of course you are right that one cannot be sure no evidence exists for God. There could be evidence out there, waiting to be discovered. What I would say is simply that no such evidence has been discovered, and thus there is no reason to reject the possibility that there aren't any gods.

I would add that many religions and cults, and not just Islam, believe that following their own path is a pre-requisite for perceiving evidence that their (mutually incompatible) dogmas are true. In order to believe it's true, you first have to try to believe it's true. The "evidence" perceived by people who want their religion to be true is entirely mental--it consists of visions, dreams, feelings, personal convictions--and so it is of a very subjective and unreliable nature. We would expect, even if there were no God and no true prophets, that many people would perceive evidence for them -- inside their own minds.

Reliable evidence, on the other hand, does not depend on one's personal feelings, or whether one participates in particular rituals. No one needs, for example, to go into deep meditation and prayer, or to go on pilgrimage, or to "open your heart" to perceive the evidence for black holes scientists have uncovered. Otherwise the scientists who doubted the existence of black holes would all continue to doubt their existence today. Instead, the evidence forced many to change their minds. If OTOH the "evidence" that black holes exist only came in the form of feelings and visions inside one's head, and only after one undertakes the proper spiritual journey and enters the proper mental state, then we would have no right to affirm any certainty that black holes indeed exist. IMO all truth claims about the universe should be held to the same standard of evidence.

I do not understand the average atheists position clearly. Does he/she not believe in God because
1. He/she feels like it, or
2. He/she feels that if there was any evidence it would be known to him/her already and since nothing is known so there can't be any evidence.

I would rephrase entirely. I don't share theists' belief in God because when I ask them what evidence they have to support their conviction, they are not able to provide any evidence of a reliable nature.

 

[Me Myself]

It´s simple.

Most atheists are in disbelief about God as much as you could be in disbelief about an invisible unicorn puking invisible rainbows and and farting invisible soundless and smelless pixiedust all over your house.

You cannot prove such unicorn doesn´t exist, yet it would be reasonable to believe it doesnt exist unless someone gives you evidence for the claim.

If I tell you there is a zombie human hand in your room, but you cannot find it because it teleports away everytime you are near to find it, would you believe me? can you disprove it?

This is pretty much the atheist position, but replace the teleporting zombie hand with god

 

[Zoe Doidge]

This isn't deductive logic I think. Firstly, what is a negative in the logical sense and not the language sense?

A positive statement in this context is one that asserts something that exists, I.E. God exists. A negative statement would naturally be the opposite, I.E. God does not exist.

To take either of the above statements as fact should require evidence.

Secondly why is the burden of proof on me? Is there a (deductive) logical explanation.

It's always on the person making a claim, so in the case of strong atheism (God does not exist) it would be on the atheist as well as the theist. It doesn't matter that the strong atheist is making a negative claim, it's still a claim.

Weak atheists have no such burden; they are not claiming God exists/doesn't exist. They are simply claiming that there is insufficient evidence to show that God does exist, and therefore we should default to a stance of non-belief. Russell's teapot shows why this is the case, we'd have to accept any number of claims without evidence otherwise.

 

[Koldo]

By atheism I understand that this school of thought posits that there is no God.

By agnosticism I understand that this school of thought posits that there may be a God or may be not.

I asked this question because there are multiple ways people define 'atheism' and 'agnosticism'.

There are atheists who don't believe in God, those that believe God doesn't exist and those who claim that God doesn't exist. Therefore, your definition of 'atheism' only fits the last case. A better definition that encompasses all three groups is 'the lack of belief in ( the existence of ) God(s)'.

The label 'agnostic' also fits different groups of people, but, once again, the one that encompasses all groups, to the best of my knowledge, is 'a claim that one doesn't know whether God(s) exist'.

An agnostic atheist would say: ''I don't know if God(s) exist, but i lack the belief he/she/it/they do(es)".

The thing about lack of evidence could be formulated in the following manner:

1) The claim that 'X' creates the expectation for evidence that 'X', unless this evidence couldn't possibly exist.
2) If there is no expectation for evidence that 'X', and if 'X' doesn't present a logical contradiction, there is a reason to believe that 'X' is true.
2) If there is expectation for evidence that 'X', and it is not found or if the only form of evidence to be found is witness testimony(from someone other than yourself ), then there is no reason to believe that 'X ' is true.

Perhaps, someone out there could elaborate something better?

 

[camanintx]

Do agnostic atheists base this belief (or non-belief rather) on their gut feeling. If not, on what is this based?

Some atheists like myself base their non-belief not on a lack of evidence or gut feelings but on simple logic. Just as I can be sure that square circles do not exist, I have yet to encounter a logically consistent definition of God, therefore it doesn't exist.

 

[Sgloom]

i dont know for certain if any god exists, but so far i havent seen any indication of one so my stance as of now is that one does not exist. its as simple as that for me.
It would be a combination of gut feeling, lack of evidence and logic.
i can go on with alot of specifics, but it really just comes down to that.