Atheism - I don't understand it

[micrurus]

2. They feel that they are knowledgeable enough so that if there was a God they would have known about it.

well you can deny the existence of particular gods when certain properties given to those gods have been proven to be false. One can for example refute the god of the bible because the earth has been proven to be older than 6000 years.

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.

agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. For example, I am an agnostic atheist because I do not believe in god yet I do not claim to know with certainty that god doesn't exist. for I think that absolute certainty is a red haring.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

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.

It does raise the question of why you would make a claim in the first place if you didn't already have some evidence of it being true (and indeed, why you would believe it to be true). In the case you describe you'd more likely be asking a question (does God exist?) which lends itself to unbiased investigation rather than making a factual statement (God does/doesn't exist).

 

[Astravalon]

proving something's nonexistence is proving a negative.

you cannot ask someone to prove a negative

Yet that doesn't seem to stop people from attempting to prove God's nonexistence.

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.

As I see it, there's plenty of proof and no burden at all in arriving at it. I see what I consider proof of His existence all around me. I would no more take on the burden of compensating for others' inability to perceive His existence than I would that of proving the existence of the color Blue to those unable to perceive color. However, not everyone who can't see would insist that Blue does not exist simply because no one has been able to prove it to their satisfaction. At the same time, Blue doesn't require them to believe it exists -- Blue carries on just fine either way.

And, again, this ties into my point in post 45; there's a huge difference between there being no evidence at all and simply being unable to get one's hands on any and all things that would serve as ample evidence for them.


-

One can for example refute the god of the bible because the earth has been proven to be older than 6000 years.

This is where I get skeptical.... The only way I could be absolutely sure of the earth's age is if I had been around since the beginning to see it for myself. See, for me, that would be rock-solid evidence. Otherwise, I'm being asked to just put my faith (yep, faith) in what others say about it, and they're all over the map on that subject, lol!

agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. For example, I am an agnostic atheist because I do not believe in god yet I do not claim to know with certainty that god doesn't exist. for I think that absolute certainty is a red haring.

Yet -- and this is fine -- you seem certain enough to feel comfortable discussing it more from the atheist's vantage point. I'm the same way, but on the theistic side of things.

Could I be wrong about there being a God? Sure. I'm not omniscient, so there's always room for me to be wrong on all sorts of things. But at this stage of my life, I couldn't declare that there's no God with a straight face. Not after all the things that have served as evidence for me. Such evidence is not, imo, something I should shove down anyone else's throat -- if their mind is already made up, it'll just make them dig their heels in even more. Maybe there's a reason not everyone is supposed to believe in a God during this earthly phase of existence. Personally, I no longer believe that their spiritual well-being is going to come to eternal harm because of it, since my perception of God is not that of a divine tyrant who will throw a hissy-fit if each and every individual doesn't give Him due respect from cradle to coffin.


.

 

[9Westy9]

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.

Most atheists are agnostic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most atheists are agnostic

... though I would differentiate between "philosophical" agnosticism and practical agnosticism.

For instance, I live my life as if it was a practical certainty that my local grocery store exists. I do this despite knowing that grocery stores cease to exist all the time... in my own personal experience, I had one disappear unexpectedly when the company made a surprise decision to close it, and I remember seeing the news coverage of when one actually blew up in a natural gas explosion. Nevertheless, when I drive to the store, I'm not formulating a contingency plan for how I'm going to get bread if it's not there, and I don't tell people that I'm "agnostic" about the existence of the grocery store.

While I recognize that human knowledge is limited and that I can't conclusively disprove that I'm not just a "brain in a jar" being fed false stimuli, so I can't be perfectly certain of anything when it comes right down to it, I don't think that describing myself as an "agnostic" in everyday speech really elicits an accurate impression of my views, since I leave much less room for the existence of God than I do for the non-existence of my grocery store.

 

[micrurus]

Yet that doesn't seem to stop people from attempting to prove God's nonexistence.

some properties given to certain gods can be disproven, but that doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

As I see it, there's plenty of proof and no burden at all in arriving at it. I see what I consider proof of His existence all around me. I would no more take on the burden of compensating for others' inability to perceive His existence than I would that of proving the existence of the color Blue to those unable to perceive color. However, not everyone who can't see would insist that Blue does not exist simply because no one has been able to prove it to their satisfaction. At the same time, Blue doesn't require them to believe it exists -- Blue carries on just fine either way.

Why don't you have the burden of proof?
I can say that the color blue has a wavelength of 450–475 nm, there are multiple ways of demonstrating the existence of colors to those who can't see them.

And, again, this ties into my point in post 45; there's a huge difference between there being no evidence at all and simply being unable to get one's hands on any and all things that would serve as ample evidence for them.

I'm not saying that there is no evidence, I am saying that no evidence has been presented to justify belief. And you may argue that many people have had plenty of personal evidence, but personal evidence is only valid to the person receiving it. There are plenty of people who have personal evidence for the existence of Nessie for example.

This is where I get skeptical.... The only way I could be absolutely sure of the earth's age is if I had been around since the beginning to see it for myself. See, for me, that would be rock-solid evidence. Otherwise, I'm being asked to just put my faith (yep, faith) in what others say about it, and they're all over the map on that subject, lol!

I have never counted to 10000000 yet still I know that 10000001 follows, I require no faith for this. I wasn't alive during the roman empire, does this mean that I rely on faith when I say that the Romans build the Colosseum?

theistic[/I] side of things.

Yes but my vantage point requires no evidence and no faith, yours requires either one or the other.

Could I be wrong about there being a God? Sure. I'm not omniscient, so there's always room for me to be wrong on all sorts of things. But at this stage of my life, I couldn't declare that there's no God with a straight face. Not after all the things that have served as evidence for me. Such evidence is not, imo, something I should shove down anyone else's throat -- if their mind is already made up, it'll just make them dig their heels in even more. Maybe there's a reason not everyone is supposed to believe in a God during this earthly phase of existence. Personally, I no longer believe that their spiritual well-being is going to come to eternal harm because of it, since my perception of God is not that of a divine tyrant who will throw a hissy-fit if each and every individual doesn't give Him due respect from cradle to coffin.

 

[A-ManESL]

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?

I did read your post the first time and understand it. But is there a question I am supposed to answer here?

 

[A-ManESL]

I do not claim to know with certainty that god doesn't exist.

Actually throughout this thread I am primarily addressing those who claim to know with certainty that God doesn't exist. Those who have an agnostic stance/are not bothered with God, that's all different and I understand their way of thinking. I was (and except for the few people who have clearly described their reasons, am still) not clear how people claim to know with certainty that God doesn't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So you're agnostic toward polytheism, then?

Here's my take on the issue:

- I see strong reasons to believe that religious beliefs can arise from things like human psychogy, not from the actions of any god(s)... and hopefully you can agree witb this, since the vast majority of the world's religions disagree with yours (and with each other), and they had to come from somewhere.

- My mental model of the world includes no gods at all, and it agrees remarkably well with my observations of the real world. When I look at the world and think "no gods exist", the world makes sense. At the same time, when I look at the world trying to imagine that a god (or many gods) existed, it would make much less sense.

- I recognize that theists tell me that belief in God lets their worldview make more sense, not less (how this could be I have no idea, but I recognize that this is what they say). However, a general principle of models is that when two models are equally good at making predictions, the difference between them is irrelevant. The difference between my view and a theist's view is God. Since my godless mental model works very well, if a theist's mental model worked just as well, then we could conclude that God doesn't matter... and since the God they're positing is (usually) a relevant god, we can reject that god as false.

That's my reasoning in a nutshell.

But I should also note something: part of what you said raises huge red flags for me: when you say that a person has to live as a Muslim before the truth of Islam will be revealed to him, I can't help but interpreting this as you saying that a person has to be trained and primed to believe in Islam before they'll find it believable. In my experience, things that are true don't work that way. I mean, I don't have to spend half an hour meditating on how hot it is before I'll notice the temperature outside, you know?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

And I wonder, does A-ManESL consider atheism / humanism / naturalism to be another "path" which is really the same as all these other paths? Does that mean A-ManESL ought to study atheism, and try to understand it, and follow its pre-requisites, so that he may one day be worthy of perceiving the "evidence" of god's nonexistence?

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?

... or, indeed, an atheist! Which is the only untrue belief!

*edit: I suppose A-ManESL's method would still get you to the truth 99.99% of the time, as long as the religion roulette wheel lands on anything other than atheism.

 

[A-ManESL]

So you're agnostic toward polytheism, then?

I don't bother with monotheism, polytheism etc much; and I rather take the position that these groupings of faiths are comparatively recent and are artificial. But all that will divert this thread.

But I should also note something: part of what you said raises huge red flags for me: when you say that a person has to live as a Muslim before the truth of Islam will be revealed to him, I can't help but interpreting this as you saying that a person has to be trained and primed to believe in Islam before they'll find it believable. In my experience, things that are true don't work that way. I mean, I don't have to spend half an hour meditating on how hot it is before I'll notice the temperature outside, you know?

The way I see it, is that right now I am a baby (in matters of faith). A baby won't notice a temperature outside and will keep playing.

By the way, here is a Quranic verse:

THE BEDOUIN say, “We have attained to faith.” Say [unto them, O Muhammad]: “You have not [yet] attained to faith; you should [rather] say, ‘We have [outwardly] surrendered’ - for [true] faith has not yet entered your hearts. But if you [truly] pay heed unto God and His Apostle, He will not let the least of your deeds go to waste: for, behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.”

 

[Falvlun]

... though I would differentiate between "philosophical" agnosticism and practical agnosticism.

For instance, I live my life as if it was a practical certainty that my local grocery store exists. I do this despite knowing that grocery stores cease to exist all the time... in my own personal experience, I had one disappear unexpectedly when the company made a surprise decision to close it, and I remember seeing the news coverage of when one actually blew up in a natural gas explosion. Nevertheless, when I drive to the store, I'm not formulating a contingency plan for how I'm going to get bread if it's not there, and I don't tell people that I'm "agnostic" about the existence of the grocery store.

While I recognize that human knowledge is limited and that I can't conclusively disprove that I'm not just a "brain in a jar" being fed false stimuli, so I can't be perfectly certain of anything when it comes right down to it, I don't think that describing myself as an "agnostic" in everyday speech really elicits an accurate impression of my views, since I leave much less room for the existence of God than I do for the non-existence of my grocery store.

Good point. For me, though, it's more about a "continuum of belief," which is essentially how strong a belief is, or how confident you are of its truth. On a scale of 0 - 100, my belief in the existence of my grocery store is 99.9 certain. Not positive, but close enough to operate as if it were. My belief in the existence of God is more like a 3.7. (Which on my scale, indicates disbelief... anything over a 50 is belief, anything under is disbelief. The closer to 100 or 0 the stronger the respective belief or disbelief.)

 

[Falvlun]

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.

I was thinking about this last night. I think the difference between the two words is that "belief" describes what is held to be true, while "faith" is a reason given for why that belief is held. Faith is sometimes used as synonymous with belief-- it is used to describe something that is held to be true-- but it generally only refers to religious beliefs.

 

[A-ManESL]

Sorry, I have nothing to say in this post. I just wanted to complete 1000 posts before going to bed- Please carry on.

 

[YmirGF]

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'm certainly not your typical atheist, that is for sure.

From my standpoint, I have outgrown the NEED for a god. If said being exists, that would be a cheery on the already wonderful cake of life, however that cake is just as tasty without the cherry. As I have progressed on my own inward path I have met various experiences that could be safely labelled as "god". I learned not to stop there (at my presumption) though. In my view, thoughts about god merely define separation from Oneness. That separation is an illusion.

You see, A-ManESL, it's not about evidence for or against god. Your religion, though interesting with its many quaint and convenient notions, is just not impressive enough for me to take it very seriously. The same can be said for most other religions, as well. Try to understand, in my mind, its not a question of if there is or is not a god, rather, it is more a case that the question is no longer being relevant.

 

[Desfox]

I was thinking about this last night. I think the difference between the two words is that "belief" describes what is held to be true, while "faith" is a reason given for why that belief is held. Faith is sometimes used as synonymous with belief-- it is used to describe something that is held to be true-- but it generally only refers to religious beliefs.

The idea that faith is the reason for the belief is applicable as far as I can tell.

Usually however, many people place faith as synonymous with blind faith, which are two very different terms, which is why I separated them.

It is true that it is generally applied to religion, which is why I enjoy applying it to science as the base concept applies just the same.

 

[Koldo]

I did read your post the first time and understand it. But is there a question I am supposed to answer here?

I was just expecting some sort of feedback.

 

[Falvlun]

The idea that faith is the reason for the belief is applicable as far as I can tell.

Usually however, many people place faith as synonymous with blind faith, which are two very different terms, which is why I separated them.

If faith is being used as synonymous with belief, then yes, there is a different between faith and blind faith. However, that's not usually how it is employed. It is used almost exclusively to refer to religious beliefs. There tends to be a different criteria of evidence used for religious beliefs than other sorts of beliefs, hence the development of the concept of "blind faith".

It is true that it is generally applied to religion, which is why I enjoy applying it to science as the base concept applies just the same.

Words develop connotations due to long association and usage. It seems like many religious people are desperately attempting to shed those connotations, even though they are well earned, by suddenly using a word to describe something that is actually a respectable way in which to discover reality.

 

[Astravalon]

some properties given to certain gods can be disproven, but that doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.

Okay, but the chief characteristic of atheism, as I'm understanding it, is that there is (probably) no God, not that God doesn't have certain properties. It goes without saying that if one thinks there's no God in the first place, then no properties tied to Him would exist either.

Why don't you have the burden of proof?

Because that which is considered as evidence is usually determined by the one asking for it. I'm unable to get inside another person's head and make them accept what I consider evidence.

I can say that the color blue has a wavelength of 450–475 nm, there are multiple ways of demonstrating the existence of colors to those who can't see them.

That's cool, as long as there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of them receiving the information those ways are designed to convey. If, for whatever reason, they are not able to get that information, that doesn't disprove the existence of Blue, it just proves that not everyone has the ability to perceive Blue.

I'm not saying that there is no evidence, I am saying that no evidence has been presented to justify belief.

Again, that depends on the individual, and what they consider "evidence".

Take the moon-landing for example. There are those who, in spite of the footage, insist it never happened. They say the footage was staged or something. For others, that same footage is ample evidence that it really happened. Same footage, labeled as evidence, completely different reactions.

This is why I don't feel that "burden to prove" with regards to God's existence, because what I consider so obvious as evidence does not necessarily amount to a hill of beans to those disinclined to believe He exists.

And you may argue that many people have had plenty of personal evidence, but personal evidence is only valid to the person receiving it.

This likely would explain why that which is considered evidence against there being a God isn't considered valid to everyone across the board either. It is, likewise, personal rather than general in scope. Otherwise, discussions such as this would've died out eons ago.

I have never counted to 10000000 yet still I know that 10000001 follows, I require no faith for this. I wasn't alive during the roman empire, does this mean that I rely on faith when I say that the Romans build the Colosseum?

Those appear to be two different things. Counting up numbers -- at least, the way we've been taught it -- comes pretty naturally, and we can do it here and now, where we can witness the execution of it.

As for reaching back through the shifting sands of history via the proclamations of those in whose knowledge I must place my faith -- that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

I can cite proof that we are told that the Romans built the Colosseum. While I have no real reason to question it, I also cannot prove that this is absolutely true, because I was not there when it happened. I'm not an eyewitness. Now, for practical purposes, I've gone through life happily accepting the statement "the Romans built the Colosseum". That works fine, at least until some "finding" crops up -- as they do every now and then -- turning that which has been, up to that point, accepted as gospel truth completely on it's ear.

Yes but my vantage point requires no evidence and no faith, yours requires either one or the other.

I think both vantage points can find what they consider evidence, and also are propelled by faith to some degree. Naturally, whatever position a person holds is going to be one that they think is obvious enough not to require much in the way of faith or evidence, but then again, who seriously adopts a belief that they think is totally unsupportable?





-

 

[micrurus]

Okay, but the chief characteristic of atheism, as I'm understanding it, is that there is (probably) no God, not that God doesn't have certain properties. It goes without saying that if one thinks there's no God in the first place, then no properties tied to Him would exist either.

let me explain with an example; I cannot disprove the claim that a transcendent deity exists because that claim is an unfalsifiable hypotheses. But I can disprove the god of the bible because the bible says that god created the earth around 6000 years ago and we know that the earth is much older than 6000 years.

Because that which is considered as evidence is usually determined by the one asking for it. I'm unable to get inside another person's head and make them accept what I consider evidence.

I was going to answer your post in more detail but it became apparent to me that your standards of evidence are completely different to my own. So Id like to ask you, How do you determine what is true and what if false?