Atheism - I don't understand it

[gnostic]

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

I am quite that some do.

But it is generalization.

There could be another reason or reasons. Simple reason(s).

Some people were originally brought up as a Christian or Muslim or Jew or whatever religion, but for whatever reason, choose to leave it. Perhaps because they no longer believe. Perhaps because they are angry with the religion or with the believers, like priest or cleric doing the opposite what they are preaching, or they were deceived. Perhaps because he saw injustice, committed in the name of that religion or that god.

It could be any number of reason for believers to become atheists. It could be combination of reasons.

But the main purpose of atheism is that they don't believe in the existence of a god or creator god.

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.

Atheists are not the only ones who want evidences for the existence of god.

I am agnostic, and I would prefer to have evidences too. I am skeptical of god and miracles, and for good reason. I see the world working without God, and therefore there are no need for a god. The world may not be perfect, but then again I don't need the world to be perfect in order to live in it.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism, is that atheist deal with the question of BELIEF, and NOT BELIEVING in the existence of god. Agnostic, on the other hand, deal with KNOWING. So agnostic would find that the existence of god or gods to be unknowable...unless evidences can be found to prove its existence.

I believe that someone have already given you description of "weak atheist". Well, weak agnostic is the same; they required evidences to be present before they decide to believe. Weak agnosticism is also called "empirical agnosticism". Here is definition of weak agnosticism (from Wiki):

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

I want more than just your belief or your scripture to believe in something. I would like TO KNOW for certainty that such being exist, before I choose to believe.

Even if you were to provide irrefutable evidences that god exist, I may or may not worship that god. I will believe, but I may not worship.

Do not confuse BELIEF with WORSHIP. They are not the same.

For example, I believe that the Sun will rise and set everyday (unless I'm living within or near the Arctic circle), doesn't mean that I'd worship the Sun.

Another example is that I can fly to Paris, in a plane (of course). Due to technology and engineering of plane, there is no doubt that it could fly. So I do believe that plane can fly, but that doesn't mean that I like flying.

Do you understand the difference between BELIEF and WORSHIP?

Of course, you have to belief, in order to worship. But you can also believe without worshipping.

To me, God has to demonstrate that he is "good", before I could worship him. Your scripture (Qur'an) and those of the Jew's and Christian's (scriptures) doesn't any way prove that he is good.

 

[A-ManESL]

A positive statement in this context is one that asserts something that exists, I.E. God exists.

I believe that's a philosophical approach. I was asking for a meaning within formal logic.

It's always on the person making a claim

Again my question was why? (and within the confines of formal deductive logic). Also, if no claim has been put forth regarding the existence of something do you a-priory assume it is false? Finally, if no proof is forthcoming from the person making the claim, why do you accept the opposite of the claim? Shouldn't you refuse to accept the claim and refuse to reject it as well?

 

[A-ManESL]

Of course, you have to belief, in order to worship. But you can also believe without worshipping.

I think the word "belief" is much misinterpreted. So without using the word belief my basic idea regarding God is this:

One can start with a gut feeling that something is true; thats not certain faith and perhaps should not be classified as such. He/she can start worshipping/following a path on the basis of that gut feeling. At that point there is no real faith. Real faith is not possible without certainty and that comes (according to the Quran) usually only after following the straight path for a certain period of time. What is really meant by the word faith, in this context, is "knowingness"; which is a kind of knowledge of God and an experience of how to see life.

 

[A-ManESL]

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.

In formal logic (and not philosophy) I do not still know what is the meaning of the term "positive claim". Can you tell me? (with a source if possible)

 

[Revoltingest]

One can start with a gut feeling that something is true; thats not certain faith and perhaps should not be classified as such. He/she can start worshipping/following a path on the basis of that gut feeling. At that point there is no real faith. Real faith is not possible without certainty and that comes (according to the Quran) usually only after following the straight path for a certain period of time.

That strikes me as a path to deluding oneself in the fashion of implanted memories, succumbing to the power of suggestion,
or the overwhelming influence of consensus of those around one. By that method, one could follow any path, & eventually believe
that it is true, ie, have faith in it. But many paths contradict each other, so clearly that does not reliably lead to any truth.
I prefer to believe only things which are demonstrable/verifiable by objective means.

 

[A-ManESL]

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.

You find it reasonable based on what exactly? Gut feeling? Experience? Logic?

 

[A-ManESL]

That strikes me as a path to deluding oneself in the fashion of implanted memories, succumbing to the power of suggestion,
or the overwhelming influence of consensus of those around one. By that method, one could follow any path, & eventually believe
that it is true, ie, have faith in it. But many paths contradict each other, so clearly that does not lead to any truth.

Firstly no paths contradict each other, (but I wouldnt like to divert the thread there). Secondly, its basically learning something after doing its pre-requisite; I wouldnt call it succumbing or deluding oneself. Similarly I wouldnt understanding a book on physics after reading A,B,C and then the english language deluding oneself. The relationship of that God's knowledge with all this worship etc is similarly superficial. However worship etc is neccessary just like ABC is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Firstly no paths contradict each other.....

Really?
No contradiction between Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, Wicca, Catholicism, Hinduism, Greek mythology,
Sikhism, Voodoo, Rastafarianism, Judaism, Norse mythology, various American Indian religions, etc?
No, I don't buy that. They have significant differences, & would only be equally true if they were equally false.

....its basically learning something after doing its pre-requisite; I wouldnt call it succumbing or deluding oneself. Similarly I wouldnt understanding a book on physics after reading A,B,C....

The difference here is striking. With physics, one can independently verify all that is claimed within the text.
Anyone can conduct experiments, verify physical laws & constants, derive additional relationships, & test those.
But religion offers no independent verification of the concepts by current & objective means. It's all about
how one feels about what someone else wrote back in history. Why would one be a Muslim if your method
could also lead one to become a Baptist or Amish?

 

[A-ManESL]

For the first point, I would really prefer that this thread did not get derailed. You are welcome to not accept it. This is a book that you may care to read if you have time. In reality Muslim, Baptist, Amish are differences only in form but not in spirit.

For the second point I would say one can independently verify all that is contained within the physics text provided one puts the time and the energy into it; and also possesses the intellectual capacity to understand the various intricacies and the patience to stick to it. Likewise for spiritual knowledge too, provided one has the patience, time, energy and innate capacity.

I have a question to ask you: Have you ever tried to follow any spiritual path? If so, would you care to share your experiences?

 

[Revoltingest]

For the first point, I would really prefer that this thread did not get derailed. You are welcome to not accept it. This is a book that you may care to read if you have time. In reality Muslim, Baptist, Amish are differences only in form but not in spirit.

Perhaps even atheists would be included in such a broad spirit, eh?

For the second point I would say one can independently verify all that is contained within the physics text provided one puts the time and the energy into it; and also possesses the intellectual capacity to understand the various intricacies and the patience to stick to it. Likewise for spiritual knowledge too, provided one has the patience, time, energy and innate capacity.

But in spiritual matters, I observe that different people reach greatly different conclusions, eg, number of gods, capabilities of their gods, views on what is good/evil.

I have a question to ask you: Have you ever tried to follow any spiritual path? If so, would you care to share your experiences?

I don't know how to define "spiritual path".
But I've never tried to discern anything supernatural.

 

[Desfox]

tl;dr? Well thats your decision

If neither side has the necessary evidence to prove their position, then both are clinging to "faith."

"faith" is not "blind faith."
Blind faith mean you believe that the wild tiger you just met in the wild will not attack you, you will befriend it, and eventually it will learn English after your careful teaching, despite there being zero evidence to suggest this.

Faith simply means that there is not absolute proof for a position, but you believe it any way. This applies to all scientific theories, and even scientific laws.

Scientific Law requires faith due to its definition:6a " a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions" (Law - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Notice that this definition means that A always applys as long as someone doesn't find a case where it does not.
Because of this, you must have faith in gravity. Why? Because you believe that a case will never be found where the current law is contradicted, even though it is "possible" for such a contradiction to be found.
Because of this, I can say that a perfectly sturdy chair will not hold me every time I sit down on it because "gravity" may suddenly act erratically, increasing my weight causing more downward force then the chair can support.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't "believe" laws, any sane and logical person would.

Thus, everything that people believe in, from religion, math, right and wrong, and even science, is a case of universal "faith"

Many people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory. As such, these people have faith.

Many people believe God doesn't exist. They point to many reasons why/how God does not exist, but they have no absolute proof. Thus they have faith.

One may believe there is a god or gods. They will say that the universe could not create itself, because when they look at the theory of evolution, they realize that it is in direct contradiction to the first and second law of thermodynamics. Laws trump theories. He has faith that the laws of thermodynamic will remain laws, and so chooses not to believe in evolution.

Therefore there must be an external force(outside of the universe) or how could it be created he thinks. Since the creation of the universe must be external he begins from this piece of evidence to search for what this "external force" or god, or gods really is. From this point on, he has faith that there is a god.

So the entire point of this long post that employs heavy repetition of the word faith, is that all "beliefs" require "faith" and that no one is safe from this. I have complete faith in my statement, feel free to develop your own belief on what I said.

 

[Falvlun]

You can define all belief as faith, but that only means that there are different levels of faith. It takes a whole lot less faith to believe the sun exists than that unicorns (or gods) do.

Or, you can just realize that belief and faith really do describe two different things, that sometimes overlap.

 

[Desfox]

You can define all belief as faith, but that only means that there are different levels of faith. It takes a whole lot less faith to believe the sun exists than that unicorns (or gods) do.

Yes, this is true. So if you wanted you could have a rang from blind faith(0) to rational faith(10). Not that it really affects my statement, but you have a point.

 

[micrurus]

In formal logic (and not philosophy) I do not still know what is the meaning of the term "positive claim". Can you tell me? (with a source if possible)

a positive claim: something is
a negative claim: something is not

to put it in context,
a positive claim: God exists (theism)
negative claim: God doesn't exist (atheism)

yet many atheists simply reject the claim 'God exists' arguing that this claim is unsupported.

I used the term "positive claim" for the sake of clarity while pointing out what I perceived to be contradictions in post #53, the term itself has little to do with logic.

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.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I believe that's a philosophical approach. I was asking for a meaning within formal logic.

Again my question was why? (and within the confines of formal deductive logic).

Formal logic is for mathematics. You’re (presumably) asking to be shown that the burden of proof is reasonable within deductive logic. How about this:

P1 - Assertions are made.
P2 - Assertions require evidence to be considered.
P3 - A person making a claim does so because he wants it to be considered.

C1 - A person making a claim must provide evidence for it.

Now it may be the case that P3 isn’t true, but if that’s the case then the person making the claim is just wasting everyone’s time and in that event I don’t much care what he does.

Also, if no claim has been put forth regarding the existence of something do you a-priory assume it is false?

Yes, although it should be noted that things can and do change.

Finally, if no proof is forthcoming from the person making the claim, why do you accept the opposite of the claim?

That’s a question for the strong atheists out there.

Shouldn't you refuse to accept the claim and refuse to reject it as well?

I’d agree with that.

 

[Koldo]

I feel ignored.

 

[A-ManESL]

a positive claim: something is
a negative claim: something is not

to put it in context,
a positive claim: God exists (theism)
negative claim: God doesn't exist (atheism)

yet many atheists simply reject the claim 'God exists' arguing that this claim is unsupported.

I used the term "positive claim" for the sake of clarity while pointing out what I perceived to be contradictions in post #53, the term itself has little to do with logic.

okay. Anyway, atheists who reject the claim that 'God exists' arguing that this claim is unsupported is fine. What I still don't understand is the position of the atheists who go on to make the claim that God doesn't exist and who moreover don't fall in any of the following categories:
1. They have personal reasons due to which they don't feel that God doesn't exist.
2. They feel that they are knowledgeable enough so that if there was a God they would have known about it.

I think the natural position for those who haven't got any extra knowledge which the rest are unaware of, or who are not guided by gut-feelings etc should be agnosticism; that is leaving open the possibility of God and not saying that God doesn't exist for sure.

 

[A-ManESL]

P1 - Assertions are made.
P2 - Assertions require evidence to be considered.
P3 - A person making a claim does so because he wants it to be considered.

C1 - A person making a claim must provide evidence for it.

I am not quite sure that an assertion requires evidence a-priori to be considered. A claim may be open, a conjecture may be made. It may very well be considered/investigated(by those interested) without assuming whether it is true or false or even decidable. I would personally find that reasonable.

 

[IKJICjames]

We live by FAITH, NOT by SIGHT!!!

 

[Koldo]

I am going to post my reply again to A-ManESL hoping i get a reply this time :

...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?