Atheism is a reasonable position to hold

[Atomist]

it is too generalized, never underestimate the diversity of other people's belief systems. although i think it's because your definition of a god is different from mine.

i think the two of us are going to have to agree to disagree (even though we really agree), based on the usage of terms. and that's okay too, some might even say it's a reasonable position to hold. =)

I understand that it's probably too generalized but for the context of this tread it's perfectly fine. Because even if you believe in supernatural explanation for x but not god it's still reasonable to not believe in god.

 

[NeoSeeker]

All right then. That's not a position I agree with, but it's a real position.

Why is there no basis, no reason to have confidence? Is the existence of God something about which we cannot in principle have confidence in the truth or falsity? Or do we simply lack the relevant evidence?

We lack evidence. Athiests say that the lack of evidence is grounds not to believe in God. I agree completely that if there is a God we know nothing about it's characteristics. But if God is reduced to a force that controls the universe, that created the rules of physics, that may or may not be intelligent as we understand intelligence. If you admit that God could be viewed in this way, that there could be other aspects of our existence that we don't understand, things such as spirits and ghosts that have been reported for as long as humans have existed. It's not really a matter of belief, but of contemplation. Is everything as simple as it appears, you die your life is over or could there be an alternative? If you seek an alternative, you might stumble across if. If you are sure there is none, you can just wait and be surprised or congratulate yourself as you sink into oblivion. I am not knowledgeable enough to pronounce there is no God.

The question becomes, just what is God?

Depends on which God you're talking about. If you're talking about Gods such as the character of Yahweh depicted in the Christian Bible or or Allah in the Koran, then no, they definitely do not exist. Keep in mind that billions of people do believe these characters actually exist.

I agree.

Do you mean the "gods" of deism, pantheism, and the god that might be hiding behind my couch? I'm so radically uninterested in such gods that "apathy" seems far too weak a word.

Do you mean the "ground of all being" "gods" of some theologians who substitute bu... er... baloney... for careful thought? I'm too busy laughing to have much of an opinion.

Do you mean to ask if I live my life as if there were an invisible man in the sky, terribly concerned about precisely what I do with my naughty bits? I most definitely do not.

Why do the laws of physics exist? Is infinity something a human being can comprehend? Why couldn't there be a higher force, we don't understand? And if we don't understand how could we assume it is intelligent or not intelligent? We would not have a clue. There is enough we don't understand that we should not be making pronouncements of what could not exist.

PROOF FROM THE TRUTH FOR ATHEISTS

Let us first begin by admitting that we are not gods nor do we possess all knowledge. It is also necessary to remove from our minds and hearts any prejudices and prior notions of how everything came into being and how it is being sustained and perpetuated. This is the critical first step to gaining any true knowledge and establishing facts based on proof

Ask anyone the question: "Do you believe in God?" and you are sure to receive a variety of answers. The question should be "What do you believe about God?"

Think about this:

If there is a creation, there must be a Creator.

If there is a Creator, He must be the Sustainer.

The Creator Cannot Create Himself.

If He is the sole Creator/Sustainer -- He must be ONE.

God must be one. Otherwise we would see great differences and competition between the gods if there were more than one -- Alone.

Do we agree that this is a creation? Or do we accept that nothing came out of nothing to form this entire universe?
This is a very clear message from Allah, in the Quran. Something does not come out of nothing. So, there must be something in existence already which created all that we know to exist. And that "something" needs to be called upon in times of need and thanksgiving.
As Allah has said in His Book: "I only created you all to worship Me Alone."

He also says that we are all being tested by Him with regard to our wealth, families, children and social status.

Yep, that is the BIG question- who, what, where and how. I see nothing that indicates your line of divine reasoning is sound. I agree something created the universe, but the rest is just conjecture. What determines the "creator" as you call it, is a single intelligent divine being? The process could be so far removed from human understanding that you are just making wild guesses. I know nothing!

 

[DeitySlayer]

Freaker, do you accept that given that God created the Big Bang or similar, the rest of the Universe as we see it today could have developed through naturalistic processes?

Further, even if there was a Creator; how do you know it is as you define Him? Why not Vishnu or a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

And err...in case you haven't noticed, the climate and landscape of the Earth is in constant flux. Earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, volcanoes. Stars are exploding all the time. I don't see much 'order' in that. Actually, that corresponds far better with 'competing' gods.

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

Why do the laws of physics exist?

In other words: why is there something, rather than nothing? This seems like a profound question, but it's not. There's only one answer: whatever that something happens to be, something just is? The question is, what is the something-that-just-is actually like? What are the most fundamental properties of the universe we can talk intelligently about?

Is infinity something a human being can comprehend?

Not really, no.

Why couldn't there be a higher force, we don't understand?

There could be, but until we can understand it, what's the point? Most of us have abandoned developing promising lines of bul... baloney... to try to talk teenage girls into sl... kissing... us.

And if we don't understand how could we assume it is intelligent or not intelligent? We would not have a clue. There is enough we don't understand that we should not be making pronouncements of what could not exist.

Here's where I get a little irritated. Nobody is assuming any completely undefined speculative, hypothetical entity is not intelligent. Nobody is making any pronouncements about what could not exist. You are putting words in other people's mouths. Putting words in other people's mouths is lying. Lying is intellectually and morally reprehensible.

If you want to do more than develop a pseudo-intellectual rap that will get you laid, if you want to be taken seriously by intelligent people, you need to get your attitude towards intellectual honesty straightened out right away. Capisce?

 

[NeoSeeker]

Here's where I get a little irritated. Nobody is assuming any completely undefined speculative, hypothetical entity is not intelligent. Nobody is making any pronouncements about what could not exist. You are putting words in other people's mouths. Putting words in other people's mouths is lying. Lying is intellectually and morally reprehensible.

If you want to do more than develop a pseudo-intellectual rap that will get you laid, if you want to be taken seriously by intelligent people, you need to get your attitude towards intellectual honesty straightened out right away. Capisce?

It does not seem to take much to irritate you. Your counter is to accuse me of lying? Such dazzling intellect. I should just pack my bag and scurry away.

I'm fine with you limiting your beliefs to what can be proven and everything else falls into the category of "disbelief". Fine and dandy. Maybe I have Atheists all wrong. The belief is there is no God (however you want to categorize it, higher power, celestial committee), there is no spirit, once you die, your existence is over. Is this accurate?

 

[NeoSeeker]

If you are looking for a reasonable position, Agnostic is the better way to go. Just admit you don't have a clue. :yes:

 

[Tristesse]

If you are looking for a reasonable position, Agnostic is the better way to go. Just admit you don't have a clue. :yes:

You can be an atheist and admit you don't have a clue. Agnostics are atheists. Because,if you you're asked the question, do you believe a god exists? And your answer is "I don't know" well, congradulations, you don't believe a god exists. If your answer is anything other than yes, you're an atheist.

 

[NeoSeeker]

You can be an atheist and admit you don't have a clue. Agnostics are atheists. Because,if you you're asked the question, do you believe a god exists? And your answer is "I don't know" well, congradulations, you don't believe a god exists. If your answer is anything other than yes, you're an atheist.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't know what exists. True any God you can hold up to me, I'd have my doubts, especially the Christian God with all the specifics that the church tried to shove down my throat as a child and teen. But I'm not about to say there is nothing, there is no cosmic consciousness, no higher power, no celestial committee, no force. I think that distinction sets the Agnostic view apart from the "there is no God" Athiest view. You can say with confidence, "There is no God." I can't. Isn't that a significant difference in philosophy?

 

[Tristesse]

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't know what exists. True any God you can hold up to me, I'd have my doubts, especially the Christian God with all the specifics that the church tried to shove down my throat as a child and teen. But I'm not about to say there is nothing, there is no cosmic consciousness, no higher power, no celestial committee, no force. I think that distinction sets the Agnostic view apart from the "there is no God" Athiest view. You can say with confidence, "There is no God." I can't. Isn't that a significant difference in philosophy?

Ok, there are two categories you seem to be conflating. The first is the disbelief in a god, the second is the acceptance that there is no god. Disbelieving in a god does not necessarily mean that you accept the opposite view that there is no god. This might clarify it for you. Do you believe in a god or gods? If your answer is anything other than yes, and this includes "I don't know" than you're an atheist. You might not like the label, but by definition you're an atheist.

Because not knowing, means you don't have a belief in.

 

[NeoSeeker]

Ok, there are two categories you seem to be conflating. The first is the disbelief in a god, the second is the acceptance that there is no god. Disbelieving in a god does not necessarily mean that you accept the opposite view that there is no god. This might clarify it for you. Do you believe in a god or gods? If your answer is anything other than yes, and this includes "I don't know" than you're an atheist. You might not like the label, but by definition you're an atheist.

Because not knowing, means you don't have a belief in.

But there is a significant distinction in the two views. This from Wikipedia:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

 

[gnomon]

If you are looking for a reasonable position, Agnostic is the better way to go. Just admit you don't have a clue. :yes:

No.

It's a simple question. The question is if one believes there is a divine power that created the universe. Not whether or not I know if there is a divine power that created the universe. One is either atheistic or theistic.

The terms atheism and theism rely upon the term belief. Not knowledge. When you stated in another post that you don't know what exists in the context of the divine, supernatural, etc. I would say that is true of all of us.

The atheist is merely stating that in the lack of knowledge, i.e. evidence, than they do not believe. Remember that to believe in something is to assume something is true without evidence.

Or what Tristesse said.

 

[NeoSeeker]

No.

It's a simple question. The question is if one believes there is a divine power that created the universe. Not whether or not I know if there is a divine power that created the universe. One is either atheistic or theistic.

The terms atheism and theism rely upon the term belief. Not knowledge. When you stated in another post that you don't know what exists in the context of the divine, supernatural, etc. I would say that is true of all of us.

The atheist is merely stating that in the lack of knowledge, i.e. evidence, than they do not believe. Remember that to believe in something is to assume something is true without evidence.

Or what Tristesse said.

But what is your belief based on? You can make belief judgments based on what you know, but in reality you only know .5% knowledge (if that) vs 99.5% unknown. That's not a good position to be making judgments. Agnosticism best represents my position on the subject and is the most reasonable for those who question. Yes, it's just my opinion.

 

[Tristesse]

But there is a significant distinction in the two views. This from Wikipedia:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

Yes, there are different types of agnosticism. There is agnosticism as Huxley coined it, which is the god question is unknowable. And then there is the more common definition, which is the "I don't know" position. But atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic too, but I'm also an atheist. I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I don't believe in one. And when you've been presented with the question, you either believe it or you don't, there is no middle ground. Saying "I don't know" means you don't believe.

 

[gnomon]

But what is your belief based on? You can make belief judgments based on what you know, but in reality you only know .5% knowledge (if that) vs 99.5% unknown. That's not a good position to be making judgments. Agnosticism best represents my position on the subject and is the most reasonable for those who question. Yes, it's just my opinion.

That's why belief is the key term. Agnosticism states simply that one does not possess the knowledge to form a belief.

Well guess what, neither atheists nor theists are ever going to possess the knowledge to state with certainty that they know god exists or does not exist. Agnosticism is already implied in both positions regarding the existence of a deity.

That's why theists will talk about their faith. That's why atheists, beyond the apathetic sort, talk of their skepticism.

Stating one is an agnostic is more of a no duh position. I call myself an atheist. Am I agnostic? Of course. I believe everyone is. That or deluded.

But this is more of a pedantic argument than anything else. I would rather hear someone say they are agnostic than that of a "hard" or "soft" atheist, an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, etc.

Now apatheists, there's an interesting position. When so many people around you, pretty much anywhere you are, do hold theistic positions and live their lives according to that belief how can one be indifferent. I would seriously question anyone engaging on this forum calling themselves an apatheist. Maybe there just here for the cookies.

 

[NeoSeeker]

Yes, there are different types of agnosticism. There is agnosticism as Huxley coined it, which is the god question is unknowable. And then there is the more common definition, which is the "I don't know" position. But atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I'm an agnostic too, but I'm also an atheist. I don't know whether or not there is a god, but I don't believe in one. And when you've been presented with the question, you either believe it or you don't, there is no middle ground. Saying "I don't know" means you don't believe.

If a specific belief is held up, I can confidently say I don't belief, but that statement does not mean I am not willing to discount all divine possibilities. I think it is an important distinction. I'm open minded, I'm searching, but I've not found the answers yet. I don't mean to lump them all together, but many Atheists tend to express themselves with "rejection", as in "no, not possible", or at least that is the overall tone.

That's why belief is the key term. Agnosticism states simply that one does not possess the knowledge to form a belief.

Well guess what, neither atheists nor theists are ever going to possess the knowledge to state with certainty that they know god exists or does not exist. Agnosticism is already implied in both positions regarding the existence of a deity.

That's why theists will talk about their faith. That's why atheists, beyond the apathetic sort, talk of their skepticism.

Stating one is an agnostic is more of a no duh position. I call myself an atheist. Am I agnostic? Of course. I believe everyone is. That or deluded.

But obviously you feel the need to use the Atheist label just as I prefer Agnostic because of the difference in focus and no it's not pedantic at all, it's philosophical.

But this is more of a pedantic argument than anything else. I would rather hear someone say they are agnostic than that of a "hard" or "soft" atheist, an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, etc.

Now apatheists, there's an interesting position. When so many people around you, pretty much anywhere you are, do hold theistic positions and live their lives according to that belief how can one be indifferent. I would seriously question anyone engaging on this forum calling themselves an apatheist. Maybe there just here for the cookies.

Apathetic Atheists? Lol.

 

[gnomon]

But obviously you feel the need to use the Atheist label just as I prefer Agnostic because of the difference in focus and no it's not pedantic at all, it's philosophical.

Apathetic Atheists? Lol.

Well sure. But it's not a deep philosophy we are talking about here. I'll make this argument. Atheist has seven letters. Agnostic has eight letters. Therefore, calling myself an atheist is more efficient. Of course, then the theists will have everyone beat. But in the battle of the a- prefix I win.

 

[Tristesse]

If a specific belief is held up, I can confidently say I don't belief, but that statement does not mean I am not willing to discount all divine possibilities. I think it is an important distinction. I'm open minded, I'm searching, but I've not found the answers yet. I don't mean to lump them all together, but many Atheists tend to express themselves with "rejection", as in "no, not possible", or at least that is the overall tone.



But obviously you feel the need to use the Atheist label just as I prefer Agnostic because of the difference in focus and no it's not pedantic at all, it's philosophical.

Apathetic Atheists? Lol.

When did I say discount all divine possibilities? If they can present decent evidence for their claims, I'll believe it. I think you'll find that most atheists are open minded, and are willing to have their minds changed.

 

[NeoSeeker]

When did I say discount all divine possibilities? If they can present decent evidence for their claims, I'll believe it. I think you'll find that most atheists are open minded, and are willing to have their minds changed.

I did not say you or gnomon did. I'm saying that the overall tone in the average discussion questioning the Atheist position is expressed in absolutes. Maybe I need to be more sensitive to what I'm hearing.

 

[Tristesse]

I did not say you or gnomon did. I'm saying that the overall tone in the average discussion questioning the Atheist position is expressed in absolutes. Maybe I need to be more sensitive to what I'm hearing.

ok. I understand that it may sound like absolutes, and I'm probably guilty of sounding that way myself. But I can assure you, nothing I say is an absolute. Because absolute knowledge is a redherring. And when I make a statement like, I don't believe in a god, thats not an absolute.

 

[NeoSeeker]

ok. I understand that it may sound like absolutes, and I'm probably guilty of sounding that way myself. But I can assure you, nothing I say is an absolute. Because absolute knowledge is a redherring. And when I make a statement like, I don't believe in a god, thats not an absolute.

Thanks for the clarification and your patience. Am I really a closet Atheist?