How I Feel About Atheists

[Koldo]

And there is evidence.

For one thing, existence as we experience and understand it is totally 'designed'. In fact, that's what scientists study: the design of physical existence. If there were no design, there would be nothing for scientists to study, and no way for them to study it. Also, everything that exists, exists in an interwoven net of cause and effect. Such that it would be illogical to assume that existence, itself, is somehow NOT caused, when everything that exists, is.

These observations do not constitute proof, but they certainly qualify as evidence.

That is a problematic statement. It implies that existence itself was caused by something that lacks existence. It is hard to imagine how that must be the case.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My definition of atheism is logical and reasonable.

Definitions are descriptions of what people mean when they use a word. I'm telling you that many people use the word atheist the way I do. That fact is what got that definition into dictionaries.

So are my observations about why so many atheists want to avoid my definition.

Your definition is too narrow and exclusive. It isn't useful to me. If I accepted it, I would have to say that I am not an atheist. That doesn't work for me.

But do you know who it does work for? Those trying to marginalize us by keeping our apparent numbers low. I'm guessing that only about 20% of people that do not believe in a god or gods fit your definition. Most of us seem to understand the limits of knowledge in this area including you and NoRightNoWrong, which is what makes us agnostics. You two choose to believe(I think), I don't.

Should I say that you're not a theist because you don't assert for a fact that gods exist? Is that a useful definition of theist? If not, why do you want to limit atheism to what many call strong atheism?

If you think my definition of atheism is wrong, then you should be able to offer better reasons for why that would be so.

I think I have, although I don't call your definition wrong as much as incomplete. An atheist is anybody that can truthfully answer "no" to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods." My answer is no. If I did, I'd be a theist.

Being agnostic only means that we can't reach our decision regarding the existence of gods, through acquired knowledge. But we can still reach a decision, and lots of atheists and theists do so, in spite of this agnosticism.

My decision is suspend belief and active disbelief. That's what makes me agnostic.

your being an atheist or a skeptic does not rest on your agnosticism

Correct. My atheism rests on the twin convictions that I should have a rational reason to believe that gods exist and that I don't have one. My skepticism rests on the singular belief that all ideas should be questioned. My agnosticism rests on my understanding that I cannot rule the possibility of gods in or out.

I am defining atheism as what it is. You can define yourself however you want. But I won't allow for or play into anyone's lies, or delusions.

What do you imagine my lies and delusions are? That I don't believe in gods? That that position is called atheism?

I know what atheism is, and what it isn't. And it isn't agnosticism, nor is it open-minded skepticism. It's the conviction that no gods exist, and that "God" is an imaginary entity that occurs only in the minds of many human beings, but that exists nowhere else.

You're a linguistic prescriptivist. You want to insist that words only be used in prescribed ways.

Language is dynamic. We're always coining new words, and using old words in new ways. I choose to use the word in a more modern way. Your job is not to fight that, but to try to understand what people mean when they use a word, even if it's not the way you use it, and even if it needs to be defined for you. It's pointless to do anything else.

 

[Altfish]

Give me the evidence that there is no possibility that a Creator or Intelligent Designer exists.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh, there is a possibility of a creator or an ID'er but as I said in my last post the evidence is not that any such entity exists; and I ask again.
Do you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Show me the evidence that it doesn't exist.

 

[Altfish]

I don't think even YOU understand your position. And I've heard it all before, in every permutation you can imagine. And still, it's nonsense. No evidence is not evidence. Ignorance is not validation. And I don't think you have a clue why this is so.

I'll ask again

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER?

Please answer that and you may begin to understand my position.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the fantasy that these "unbelief" atheists are trying to promote. But it's BS. Because atheism IS A POSITION, and therefor requires just as much justification as any other.

Sorry. That is simply not true. I take it that you are aware of Russel's Teapot?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I also looked over a number of the articles and found none that supported ID. Yes, they criticized various aspects of our current understanding, but they provided no evidence for ID.

A hint: even if the current thoery of evolution is found to be wrong, that *isn't* evidence for ID or creationism.

Of course there is no proof of an ID in any article. That isn't something anyone can prove or disprove. But there is scientific discovery and thought
that can lead to the possibility of one, rather than just relying on blind faith. And what is the current understanding in regards to science that disproves the possibility of the existence of an ID ? And , of course , if the current understanding of evolution was wrong you couldn't prove the existence of an ID. Evolution as many understand it may be absolutely correct, and that wouldn't mean that an ID didn't design the process of evolution. We are talking about hypothesis on the origins of existence as we know it. There is no way of proving or disproving any of this. But it is an innate human thought and part of our inner being to wonder and contemplate it. So we form frameworks of possibilities as to how we came into existence in the first place. It's human nature. From the first living human to the potential last. Some may decide it is futile to even think about this, and that is their framework of thinking. Science may not even be able or designed to answer this , ever. But as humans we use what we can understand to try and make some sense or form some possibilities of it all.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

science does offer some facts that can lead to an ID

Science offers ideas consistent with an intelligent designer, but none indicative of one. Evidence for an intelligent designer would be that which makes intelligent design more likely than blind, unguided processes.

There are some articles I have read that non religious , non ID biased scientists have written about how their studies have led them to the very possible reality of an ID.

That wouldn't be persuasive. I'd need to come to the same conclusion myself. At this point, I'm still at merely logically possible, that is, cannot be ruled out - not very possible.

Their studies on the nature of DNA and the improbability of proteins forming are so astronomical as to be virtually impossible

What study comments on the likelihood of proteins and nucleic acids requiring an intelligent designer? All I've seen are claims like Hoyle's fallacy, which frame the problem in terms of hundreds of independent events occurring simultaneously. Nobody is proposing that a 150 amino acid protein formed like a 747 assembled in a junkyard by a tornado.

it seems that any scientific papers or journals I may put forth you will not entertain or accept due to you concrete belief in the matter

Give me the argument and link to its support. I don't care to click on orphan links to try to decide why others think they demonstrate this or that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No evidence is not evidence.

The absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If nobody remembers seeing you at work yesterday, and your time card had not been stamped, you probably won't be paid if you claim that you were at work, and your appeals after being denied will be justifiably rejected as well.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Thank you for a polite and good-natured discussion. Yes, all of my beliefs are tentatively held since I understand that even the most certain ones might be wrong.

Incidentally, in case you were unaware, "It Ain't Necessarily So" is the title of a song from the musical Porgy and Bess: "The things that you're liable to read in the Bible, it ain't necessarily so"

I was unaware, thanks for that information. And thanks for being civil and good-natured as well. It is a breath of fresh air in a sea of negativity, arguments, and personal attacks. I tend to avoid arguing with people, although I fall into the trap sometime. Healthy, respectful debates of another's ideas and views are one thing. I just don't take too kindly to people trying to negate another's view or telling someone else their beliefs are just plain wrong. There is so much subjectivity and unique individualism in everyone's life experience. We will agree on some points and disagree on others, such is our nature and it is healthy. I find the world a better place when people can accept and try to understand someone else's views. Whether they disagree or not. The discussions are much more productive and meaningful in this way. People see the same thing in completely different ways and we shouldn't want to change their views. We may offer our own views and that person may change theirs but that is their choice. I just don't think everything in life is always as it appears and we believe certain things based on the fact that we have convinced ourselves that it is absolutely true when just maybe , if we were willing to see it differently, we would see it in a different way that is even better than we thought. This goes for myself. Not that we should change all of our views on what we hold dearly to be true but I think humans need to be more open to change and alternative views on some issues. It seems people are so unwilling to change in this world, on a microscopic and macroscopic level and that can lead to much grief and destruction in the lives of humans and whole societies. The saying , "some people never change " is often not a positive realization. I wish people would change more.... Thanks for reading my rant.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Oh, there is a possibility of a creator or an ID'er but as I said in my last post the evidence is not that any such entity exists; and I ask again.
Do you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Show me the evidence that it doesn't exist.

No , there is no evidence that an ID exists. But I don't understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy. Unless FSM is just a different title of an ID. In reference to an ID , who may be behind our existence , what part does the FSM play ? I'm not putting a physical description of a randomly imagined character on an ID. I'm talking about an intelligence that could have designed and created us and the universe as we see it. I don't place any form on him in any specific physical manner. I don't see what a FSM would have to do with that. Our very existence , along with the universe, creates a possibility that an ID is behind it. What would create the possibility of a FSM ? What is the means to what end of a FSM ? A FSM may exist in some universe and in some form with some purpose, but what would lead you to that possibility ? What would be the purpose of the FSM ? What has he supposedly done or what is his role in relation to Intelligent Design, which is the topic of this discussion ? We are speaking of the origins of the universe, the first cause of it all. That is the reason for the idea of there being an ID. What is the reason for the idea of the existence of a FSM ? Again , unless your idea of a FSM is what I mean by an ID. If not, there is no correlation.

 

[Polymath257]

And there is evidence.

For one thing, existence as we experience and understand it is totally 'designed'. In fact, that's what scientists study: the design of physical existence. If there were no design, there would be nothing for scientists to study, and no way for them to study it.

No, this is wrong. What is required for science is that the universe be *structured*, not that it be *designed*. the difference is significant here: design implies a designer, while structure does not. We see structure all over in our universe, but it is the structure that comes from natural laws. What we do not see is evidence of a *design*, which implies something intelligently using those natural laws for an end that was predetermined.

Also, everything that exists, exists in an interwoven net of cause and effect. Such that it would be illogical to assume that existence, itself, is somehow NOT caused, when everything that exists, is.

On the contrary, cause and effect are dependent on the existence of time, which is part of our universe. Hence, there cannot logically be a 'cause' for time and hence there cannot be a cause for our universe (for which I take to be all of existence). The point is that everything (edit: well, many things) *within* the universe has a cause within the universe. But the universe itself cannot.

These observations do not constitute proof, but they certainly qualify as evidence.

Exceedingly poor evidence, at best.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course there is no proof of an ID in any article. That isn't something anyone can prove or disprove.

Thank you. So it isn't a scientific matter. it isn't a logical matter or a matter of reason. Because it can neither be proved nor disproved, active belief or active disbelief are both non-reasonable.

But a *lack* of belief either way is completely reasonable.

But there is scientific discovery and thought
that can lead to the possibility of one, rather than just relying on blind faith. And what is the current understanding in regards to science that disproves the possibility of the existence of an ID ? And , of course , if the current understanding of evolution was wrong you couldn't prove the existence of an ID. Evolution as many understand it may be absolutely correct, and that wouldn't mean that an ID didn't design the process of evolution. We are talking about hypothesis on the origins of existence as we know it. There is no way of proving or disproving any of this. But it is an innate human thought and part of our inner being to wonder and contemplate it. So we form frameworks of possibilities as to how we came into existence in the first place. It's human nature. From the first living human to the potential last. Some may decide it is futile to even think about this, and that is their framework of thinking. Science may not even be able or designed to answer this , ever. But as humans we use what we can understand to try and make some sense or form some possibilities of it all.

And once again, it is *possible* our universe was created as a science project among a race of hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional beings. Given what we know scientifically, that is a *possibility* that is probably more likely than a lone creator.

But I consider this more likely possibility to be much less likely than deserves belief. There is more evidence for it as a possibility, but none for it as a reality.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry. That is simply not true. I take it that you are aware of Russel's Teapot?

Russell's Teapot example does not make the case for atheism not being a position.

 

[Willamena]

The same way that saying "you don't need to live in New York to be an American" means "no American would want to live in New York."

... IOW, not at all.

I don't see the analogy.

The absurdity of failing to make a claim about "no god" is that your position is no longer about god at all, so if that's atheism then the strong atheist is excluded.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see the analogy.

Then google any of the many Venn diagrams that show the relationship between atheism and strong atheism.

The absurdity of failing to make claim about "no god" is that your position is no longer about god at all, so if that's atheism then the strong atheist is excluded.

Atheism is not a position. This does not mean that atheists don't take any positions.

Strong atheism is a position, but a person does not have to be a strong atheist to be an atheist.

Short version: if you think that what I'm telling you is absurd, then you don't understand what I'm telling you.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

No, this is wrong. What is required for science is that the universe be *structured*, not that it be *designed*. the difference is significant here: design implies a designer, while structure does not. We see structure all over in our universe, but it is the structure that comes from natural laws. What we do not see is evidence of a *design*, which implies something intelligently using those natural laws for an end that was predetermined.



On the contrary, cause and effect are dependent on the existence of time, which is part of our universe. Hence, there cannot logically be a 'cause' for time and hence there cannot be a cause for our universe (for which I take to be all of existence). The point is that everything (edit: well, many things) *within* the universe has a cause within the universe. But the universe itself cannot.



Exceedingly poor evidence, at best.

I would say that the fact that anythings exists at all can reasonably imply that there may be a Designer behind it.
Again , you tell people they are wrong or that there interpretations are wrong. I don't agree with many of your statements and views but I never am so arrogant, bold, or narrow-minded enough to say you are wrong. Many of these topics are open to interpretation and your assessments aren't always going to be the same as everyone else. Perhaps you could say " I believe " or " it is my opinion " in these discussions dealing with subjective matters, instead of "you're wrong." It just is off-putting and comes across as arrogant and egotistical. Many of your claims are matters of opinion , they are not facts. They are just your interpretation. For one example : You say we do not see evidence of a "design." That is an absolute opinion of yours. I do see evidence of a design in nature, and so do so many others throughout the world, in all walks of life, in all areas of academics .I see design in natural laws. You are going to try and tell me what I do or don't see ? Are you to submit that your statement is true or factual and the rest of us are " wrong ? " You see it one way, others see it a different way. You opinions and views are not absolute truths in the eyes of others. Can you not comprehend this fact ?

 

[LuisDantas]

Russell's Teapot example does not make the case for atheism not being a position.

It shows how theism can be freely disregarded, though.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is not a position. This does not mean that atheists don't take any positions.

False distinction. Edit: Atheism is the position that the atheist takes.

I.e. the atheist takes a position. What is that position? Atheism.

Strong atheism is a position, but a person does not have to be a strong atheist to be an atheist.

Short version: if you think that what I'm telling you is absurd, then you don't understand what I'm telling you.

And a person cannot be a strong atheist if atheism isn't a position on the absence of god.

 

[PureX]

That is a problematic statement. It implies that existence itself was caused by something that lacks existence. It is hard to imagine how that must be the case.

I understand, and agree. Existence is a conundrum either way we look at it. But given this, the "evidence" as it exists supports causation, even though we can't determine what the cause was, or how it could have existed prior to existence.

Keep in mind that existence and the universe are more or less the same thing, from our perspective. But the universe could have a cause if existence were expanded beyond the limits of the universe that we know.

Though, in the end, that just moves the conundrum back a step, it doesn't really resolve it.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I'll ask again

DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER?

Please answer that and you may begin to understand my position.

This guy is hung up on this FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER . It seems to be his go to argument in his lack of understanding in this matter. I see he wants you to answer his ridiculous question yet he won't answer my variety of questions in response to him posting the same question to me about this FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER in connection to our discussion on the possibility of the existence of an Intelligent Designer. So it's not you, it makes no sense to me either. It has no correlation. I agree with you that he doesn't even understand his point.