Atheists: Is that your final answer?

[Aupmanyav]

I wouldn't define myself as agnostic, because I think there's a big difference between saying you don't know the answer to a question and saying you have an answer but would change it if loads of opposing evidence suddenly popped up. Agnostic, to me, says "I don't know", and atheist says "I know, but if new information comes my way I'll deal with it as it comes." I don't have a final answer, because the concept of having a final answer doesn't relate to the way I make my beliefs about these things. I'm sure some agnostics and atheists approach things differently, but that's how I view it.

Nice Inky, the case against existence of God is weighty. How can one be just an agnostic?

 

[Katzpur]

But rest assured, most hindus are theistic, though to the consternation of some people, most of them worship hundreds of Gods and Goddesses.

I'd probably lose track of them all, but who or what other people choose to worship (or not worship) has never caused me any heartburn.

 

[Alceste]

Okay, so I got myself into all kinds of trouble the other night by suggesting that atheists are closed-minded about the possibility of God existing. So I'm here to ask you, isn't an atheist who might be willing to change his mind about God existing really just an agnostic?

Maybe you'd get more traction with "closed-hearted". The sensation of some kind of relationship with some form of divinity does not happen in the mind, so we can't provoke the experience of divinity by "changing our minds" - we have to shut our minds up, breathe and be still. Then we can experience whatever "proof" there is to be had of whatever there is to be "proven" and decide for ourselves whether or not it merits taking on any additional beliefs / rituals / dogmas / theories / isms.

Some of us will experience divinity and still not be turned to religion (which is quite a separate issue from the sensation of experiencing divinity). I can say with confidence the world's organised religions are not for me, because I carry the whole universe in my heart. I don't "believe" in my mind, but I know in my heart that all the gods of all the world's religions are human constructs.

However, being an open-hearted atheist means you are changing all the time. Who can say tomorrow I won't construct myself a god to believe in?

So when an atheist tells me that if the supposedly non-existant God were to do such and such, he'd believe in Him, I counter with the statement that I don't believe he would. If he's an atheist, he's made up his mind already. Then all hell breaks loose and I have to run for my life.

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

My final answer is, there are as many gods as there are believers in gods, but none of these gods "exist" outside the consciousness and experience of their creators. I don't consider myself agnostic because I have very detailed and particular ideas about what gods are and how they came to be.

 

[Nepenthe]

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

I posted here on a similar thread but thought I'd jump in this one as well. So to parrot my response: I define myself as a strong atheist when it comes to the major Western monotheistic traditions: not only does a omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent God not exist, the very concept is a logical impossibility. So yes, that is my final answer in that God does not exist as traditionally defined by the major Western religions.

I would describe myself as a "weak" atheist when it comes to a deistic or pantheistic description of a Creator in that the concept is not amendable to philosophical or scientific inquiry and remains outside the realm of investigation. So in that definition I would be a Huxley agnostic: the question is unanswerable and always will be (as opposed to Russell whose agnosticism was more of the "not enough evidence exists either way" kinda guy). But that definition of a God would also make me an agnostic concerning pixies or duendes as they fall outside the realm of human inquiry ("they turn invisible when you get near them or they vibrate into a different dimension so only believers can sense their presence!").

So I'm a weak atheist when it comes to Spinoza's god, but a strong atheist concerning most Christian's God(s).

 

[Luminous]

Okay, so I got myself into all kinds of trouble the other night by suggesting that atheists are closed-minded about the possibility of God existing. So I'm here to ask you, isn't an atheist who might be willing to change his mind about God existing really just an agnostic?

I've always figured that agnostics (weak or strong) doubt the existance of God, but believe it's really impossible to know for sure. I've always thought that theists were absolutely convinced that there is a God and that atheists were absolutely convinced that there isn't one. So when an atheist tells me that if the supposedly non-existant God were to do such and such, he'd believe in Him, I counter with the statement that I don't believe he would. If he's an atheist, he's made up his mind already. Then all hell breaks loose and I have to run for my life.

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

i'm sure to some atheist, agnostic means i don't know; while atheist means i'm pretty sure there is no god.
agnostics don't have to dought the existance of God just if any religion accurately represents it, or ever will.

 

[Luminous]

I was once an agnostic (after ditching Christianity for good) because I knew that you couldn't disprove god, but I realize now that the real reason is because I was afraid of death. Think about it, what logical reason do we have to believe in any sort of gods? There is no evidence, and there never will be. The Bible is as credible as L. Ron Hubbard, and has caused millions of more deaths too.

I'm agnostic because you can't disprove god or some religons, i am not afraid of death as much as i am affraid that theists are right. to me 'gods' are higher beings that can go against laws of science. there are probably no gods. Bible causes no death, people cause death. Bible just a tool.
I have taken into account Pascal's wager: that is -that being atheist means either you don't live forever or you go to hell. but being theist means you either don't live forever or you do and be happy.
Well, this i a logical fallacy known as a false dilemma aka Either/or argument; this argument does not take into account that there is a change (equal to all others) that god will only let atheist live forever happily and that theists will go to hell or not live forever. Of course this 'atheist' means against religion; though there is a chance that not believing in God is the source of all eternal pleasure; which is what theist who go on pascals wager (subconsciously perhaps) really want/desire.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Greetings

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

Saying that Atheism is my final answer would be wrong. To me, atheism is the only the first answer I give when explaining how vast my religious beliefs are. So I guess not.

But yes, I am an atheist and I find it very unlikely that my belief will change in the sense that I will NOT end up believing in a personal deity.

Lets put it this way: Im literally putting my life on the line. If I was wrong then, according to most religions, I will burn in hell for eternity. And if I was wrong then I will gladly go and pay for my pure ignorance forever.

GhK.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'm agnostic because you can't disprove god or some religons....

But isn't the onus on the theist to supply evidence for their theism? I'm an atheist, and my atheism is not based on disproving anything but is bolstered by the fact that theism has offered nothing as proof (I'll use proof here loosely since it tends to make more sense as a mathematical term). It's up to the believer to support their claims and not the unbeliever to debunk or disprove.

The default position should be non-theism until evidence is offered to support theism. Both the theist and atheist believe in a universe dictated by physical laws- but the theist believes in something additional, an extra constituent called the supernatural, god(s), magic, or whatever. It's up to the claimant adding to the universal mix to offer evidence as to why that addition should be added. It's not up to the skeptic to disprove the unprovable.

Again, atheism is my final answer. An omnimax entity is contradictory and is as logically impossible as square circles.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, all you atheists... Your answer is, "There is no God." But... is that your final answer? And if it isn't, why don't you consider yourself agnostic?

Speaking for myself, my status as "atheist" is changeable, because it's not actually my fundamental position. At root, I'm a rational skeptic and, atheism, along with countless other conclusions, are merely the logical outcome of that worldview.

If I encountered objective proof for astrology, psychics, or god(s), I would have no problem changing my views about them.

Additionally, based on my fundamental position, I am both an atheist and agnostic. I am an atheist because I have an absence of belief in god(s). I am agnostic because I think it's highly unlikely that we can ever know one way or the other. The two are not mutually exclusive - and, in fact, I see it as the only purely scientific view to hold.

 

[Luminous]

But isn't the onus on the theist to supply evidence for their theism? I'm an atheist, and my atheism is not based on disproving anything but is bolstered by the fact that theism has offered nothing as proof (I'll use proof here loosely since it tends to make more sense as a mathematical term). It's up to the believer to support their claims and not the unbeliever to debunk or disprove.

though the last part is true, it is also true that absence of evidence is not [edit- good-enough] evidence of absence. this means you are entitled to be an atheist as much as you are entitled to be a theist: for there is equal amount of proof for both. therefore, it is the 'onus' of the one trying to convince to supply evidence for their claim.

The default position should be non-theism until evidence is offered to support theism. Both the theist and atheist believe in a universe dictated by physical laws- but the theist believes in something additional, an extra constituent called the supernatural, god(s), magic, or whatever. It's up to the claimant adding to the universal mix to offer evidence as to why that addition should be added. It's not up to the skeptic to disprove the unprovable.

This is all true. the default position should be non-theism, of which i belong. however, in this case the question is not "what is most likely" but "what is true".

Again, atheism is my final answer. An omnimax entity is contradictory and is as logically impossible as square circles.

the question is not is there an "omnimax entity" but "is there a higher being than human" or "were we created by a being". In anycase, the atheist stand is most logical and the agnostic stance most true.
Now, relating the some religions believing in an 'omnimax entity', for them i can offer no hope.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

though the last part is true, it is also true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, it is. Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence, but it is evidence of it.

This is basic statistics: the larger your sample size, the higher your degree of confidence that your sample reflects the population from which it is drawn.

Simplified example: say you have an opaque bag full of marbles. Initially, you know nothing about the marbles inside, so you pull them out one at a time; they're all blue. Over and over again, all blue.

Can you ever be 100% certain that there's not 1 red marble at the bottom of the bag? No, not until you look at every single marble. However, every marble you draw allows you to be more and more confident that your all-blue sample reflects the bag as a whole.

In a similar way, the more we look for God and don't find evidence of him, the more and more confident we can be in saying that God probably doesn't exist.

the question is not is there an "omnimax entity" but "is there a higher being than human" or "were we created by a being". In anycase, the atheist stand is most logical and the agnostic stance most true.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Logical consistency isn't a guarantee of truthfulness, but it is a requirement for it. If agnosticism is less logical than atheism, then I'm not sure how you can say that it's the "most true".

 

[Luminous]

Yes, it is. Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence, but it is evidence of it.

yes, i believe that's what i meant. sorry for my trip on words. there i fell for the fallacy of Equivocation. correction: "absence of evidence isn't good-enough evidence of absence."

This is basic statistics: the larger your sample size, the higher your degree of confidence that your sample reflects the population from which it is drawn.

Simplified example: say you have an opaque bag full of marbles. Initially, you know nothing about the marbles inside, so you pull them out one at a time; they're all blue. Over and over again, all blue.

Can you ever be 100% certain that there's not 1 red marble at the bottom of the bag? No, not until you look at every single marble. However, every marble you draw allows you to be more and more confident that your all-blue sample reflects the bag as a whole.

yes, i believe that is true. But there is no reason to say that the bag contains no red marbles. it is far more reasonable to admit that the bag most likely contains only blue marbles.

In a similar way, the more we look for God and don't find evidence of him, the more and more confident we can be in saying that God probably doesn't exist.

yes, my point exactly. God may exist, but that's unlikely and ilogical to believe unless you so chose to without the proof.

I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Logical consistency isn't a guarantee of truthfulness, but it is a requirement for it. If agnosticism is less logical than atheism, then I'm not sure how you can say that it's the "most true".

My words were not meant to imply that the agnostic stance is less logical then the atheist stance; just that agnosticism is not a stance at all. it is a truth. "I don't know and you don't either". therefore, logic has no berrings on it. It is the ultimate truth because no amount of evidence is ever proof. The most evidence can ever do is convice one that a position is the most logical to take, should be considered, is equal to another position, etc.

 

[Luminous]

In any case, all i meant is that the statement, "believe me becuase the burden rests on them to prove me wrong" is a logical fallacy; more specifically the fallacy of slinging Burden of Proof.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yes, it is. Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence, but it is evidence of it.

This is basic statistics: the larger your sample size, the higher your degree of confidence that your sample reflects the population from which it is drawn.

Simplified example: say you have an opaque bag full of marbles. Initially, you know nothing about the marbles inside, so you pull them out one at a time; they're all blue. Over and over again, all blue.

Can you ever be 100% certain that there's not 1 red marble at the bottom of the bag? No, not until you look at every single marble. However, every marble you draw allows you to be more and more confident that your all-blue sample reflects the bag as a whole.

In a similar way, the more we look for God and don't find evidence of him, the more and more confident we can be in saying that God probably doesn't exist.


I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion. Logical consistency isn't a guarantee of truthfulness, but it is a requirement for it. If agnosticism is less logical than atheism, then I'm not sure how you can say that it's the "most true".

Well put- far more so than my previous post. I can confidently predict that the universe operates on well tested physical principles, though I haven't- and humanity can never do so- overturn every cosmic stone and scrutinize every atom in existence for any evidence of magic. But there is a substantial "bag of blue marbles" that keeps producing blue spheres and not red ones, and that infinite Bag of Holding (yeah, I used a D&D reference... ) spittin' out blues is ample evidence that it will continue to spit 'em out.

 

[Luminous]

Well put- far more so than my previous post. I can confidently predict that the universe operates on well tested physical principles, though I haven't- and humanity can never do so- overturn every cosmic stone and scrutinize every atom in existence for any evidence of magic. But there is a substantial "bag of blue marbles" that keeps producing blue spheres and not red ones, and that infinite Bag of Holding (yeah, I used a D&D reference... ) spittin' out blues is ample evidence that it will continue to spit 'em out.

Here you are running into a Slippery Slope by falling for a backwards Gambler's Fallacy in which you Appeal to Tradition with Misleading Vividness. massing all these fallacies together makes the "use of fallacy" or "missuse of evidence" more difficult to spot or understand.

 

[Luminous]

In the end, i'm sure Dear Gautama would agree that all our positions are equally void and we are wasting time by debating without evidence.
Then again, this conversation has revealed to me that mine is a stance as well. Thank you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here you are running into a Slippery Slope by falling for a backwards Gambler's Fallacy in which you Appeal to Tradition with Misleading Vividness. massing all these fallacies together makes the "use of fallacy" or "missuse of evidence" more difficult to spot or understand.

There's no slippery slope, appeal to tradition or misleading vividness there, and your so-called "backwards Gambler's Fallacy" isn't a fallacy at all, but a principle of statistics.

 

[Luminous]

There's no slippery slope, appeal to tradition or misleading vividness there, and your so-called "backwards Gambler's Fallacy" isn't a fallacy at all, but a principle of statistics.

So then it must be a principle of statistics that the sun will always shine, becuase if you measure all those seconds that it has, then it'll probably keep having them(seconds of shine)?
In a slippery slope, one assumes that an event will inevitable happen from another(the sun will keep on shining becuase it has kept on shining). such is callled fallacy of predicting the future. there is no evidence, so there never will be?
Appealing to Tradition is saying that it happens traditionally (Sun shines) therefore it is favorable(sun should keep on shining).
misleading vividness is "event x occurs, therefore event x is likely to occur later."
Gamblers fallacy is that becuase it happens so much it is less likely to happen next. and the assertion asserted was that because it happens so much it is more likely it will keep happening.

 

[Nepenthe]

So then it must be a principle of statistics that the sun will always shine, becuase if you measure all those seconds that it has, then it'll probably keep having them(seconds of shine)?
In a slippery slope, one assumes that an event will inevitable happen from another(the sun will keep on shining becuase it has kept on shining). such is callled fallacy of predicting the future. there is no evidence, so there never will be?
Appealing to Tradition is saying that it happens traditionally (Sun shines) therefore it is favorable(sun should keep on shining).
misleading vividness is "event x occurs, therefore event x is likely to occur later."
Gamblers fallacy is that becuase it happens so much it is less likely to happen next. and the assertion asserted was that because it happens so much it is more likely it will keep happening.

In any case, all i meant is that the statement, "believe me becuase the burden rests on them to prove me wrong" is a logical fallacy; more specifically the fallacy of slinging

Burden of Proof

Nope. It would be a fallacy if the burden of proof request were impossible to achieve: X is to be preferred to Y because Y cannot be proven when the burden of proof is on Y, unless the necessary evidence for Y were overwhelmingly impossible. The burden is on the theist since the observable universe bears absolutely no evidence of intelligence, and the proofs necessary for theism have not been substantiated to any degree.

So then it must be a principle of statistics that the sun will always shine, becuase if you measure all those seconds that it has, then it'll probably keep having them(seconds of shine)?

No, the sun will not continue to shine- that would be a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. My point is that some constants are the consequence of mathematical certainties based on tested observations: the speed of light is a constant 299,792,458 metres per second, and that observation has nothing to do with the fallacy of a slippery slope. And the Gambler's Fallacy has nothing to do with my argument- not sure how you arrived at that here. And there was Inductive Reasoning in my post but nothing to do with any Appeals to Tradition, nor was there any inductive generalization.

...Wait a second. Non-theists debating..?!?!?! ***! :angel2:

 

[Alceste]

Here you are running into a Slippery Slope by falling for a backwards Gambler's Fallacy in which you Appeal to Tradition with Misleading Vividness. massing all these fallacies together makes the "use of fallacy" or "missuse of evidence" more difficult to spot or understand.

Hi, Luminous. Your BS detector needs refinement, in my view. None of the above apply to the observation that no-one will ever overturn every atom to disprove the existence of "magic", or to the fact that all the accumulated evidence falling into the category of "blue marbles" suggests there are probably no red marbles at the bottom of the bag.

Slippery slope would be: since we are pulling out all these blue marbles, sooner or later we are bound to crush the universe under the weight of black boulders. Gambler's fallacy would be: since we are pulling out nothing but blue marbles, the probability of pulling out a red one is increasing with every moment. Appeal to tradition would be: It would be wrong to pull anything but blue marbles, since only blue marbles have ever been pulled. Misleading vividness would be: While we have only ever pulled blue marbles from the bag, I once pulled one that was ever so slightly more purplish than the rest, therefore there must be a red marble in there somewhere.

Sugriva's post was beautifully logical, I'd say.