Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[rjc34]

I definitely am one with the belief that gods are unknowable. I admit it is a belief.

I wonder however how 'unknown' claim works. Do they say "God is unknown to me" or "God is unknown to everyone"?
The second claim is still a belief.

God is unknown to me. I make no claims as to whether he exists or not, but I don't believe any of current theistic claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?'

Until we have complete knowledge of everything that's ever happened and everything that will happen throughout the history of the universe, there will always be unanswered questions. If that's a problem, it's one that all belief systems share equally.

Although thinking about it a bit more, belief systems which propose fewer unnecessary beings will have fewer unanswered questions. So your problem is bigger for those who believe in the universe + gods compared to those who just believe the universe exists. Adding gods into the mix adds a lot of additional unanswered questions that non-believers don't have to worry about.

 

[KCfromNC]

Perhaps it could be argued that they do make a claim, that to the best of their knowledge the evidence for a god is insufficient. (Compare for example to someone who is not convinced that cows exist.)

Agree with the rest of your post, but this last bit is kind of a stretch. Making claims about what you think you believe (or believe you think, or believe you believe, or think you think) are pretty low on the "faith required" scale. You don't get very far in life without assuming you can reliably know that you know what you know. Or believe that you know what you believe. Or know that you believe what you believe. Even pondering the opposite - that we don't reliably know what we know - leads down a "do I really know I don't reliably know what I know" kind of paradox. My head hurts just thinking about (or mistakenly thinking I'm thinking about it, as the case may be).

There's a chance people are being intentionally dishonest, but again that's not limited to non-believers. If someone says they don't believe, don't go to church, vote against religiously-motivated laws, and so on, they're probably being relatively honest. And heck, even if they're lying does that mean they have faith? I think it's a different question entirely.

 

[chris4243]

I'm going to have to disagree with your definition of agnosticism here... There are two definitions, you're thinking of the 'unknowable' definition, but there's also the more common (and applicable to this situation) 'unknown' definition.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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][2][3] 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,[clarification needed] rather than about any specific claim or belief.

"Agnostic" as a belief system is quite different than the popular "not picking a side" idea.

What you describe as an atheist is a 'weak atheist' or 'agnostic atheist'.

I'm including both weak/agnostic atheists and strong atheists under the same banner as atheist, but I consider also that most of them are not strong atheists despite how useful it is to think so. I'm sure there's also atheists who believe the earth is flat, but their holding that belief doesn't translate back to all atheists.

 

[chris4243]

Agree with the rest of your post, but this last bit is kind of a stretch. Making claims about what you think you believe (or believe you think, or believe you believe, or think you think) are pretty low on the "faith required" scale. You don't get very far in life without assuming you can reliably know that you know what you know. Or believe that you know what you believe. Or know that you believe what you believe. Even pondering the opposite - that we don't reliably know what we know - leads down a "do I really know I don't reliably know what I know" kind of paradox. My head hurts just thinking about (or mistakenly thinking I'm thinking about it, as the case may be).

I just meant it to show that being non-committal about the existence of an entity can be absurdly ridiculous, and that therefore it must be a claim of some kind.

As for not knowing, the only things I know to be true are tautologies. Everything else I deduce from unsupportable axioms. But for convenience I often assume that we are all using the same basic model and that I don't have to list the axioms when talking about that model. People would get really annoyed if before any science claim I were to announce that "assuming the universe is objectively observable and consistent, ...".

 

[rjc34]

"Agnostic" as a belief system is quite different than the popular "not picking a side" idea.

Yes, I realize this. Although the true 'popular' definition is more on the side of 'I don't know'. Saying I don't know puts you squarely in the side of non-belief in any particular religion which makes you a weak atheist as well.

I'm including both weak/agnostic atheists and strong atheists under the same banner as atheist, but I consider also that most of them are not strong atheists despite how useful it is to think so. I'm sure there's also atheists who believe the earth is flat, but their holding that belief doesn't translate back to all atheists.

No, it's not more useful to think so. I don't even know why you'd imply that? It's only useful to those who attempt to justify their beliefs by saying 'well it takes more faith to claim no gods exist!' which is a straw man for nearly every atheist.

 

[chris4243]

Doesn't a problem lie in, 'Where did it all come from?' Then you have The Big Bang but where did that come from? Being naturalistic sounds hip but once we get to the edge of where we understand nature to be things get weird. Such as with String Theory. Do you consider those other dimensions, if they exist, as part of nature? Then you have the different rules those dimensions are governed by. I don't believe in magic either but I think there is a lot more to 'it' than meets the eye.

"It all" came from a source that is eternal, from an infinite regression of causality, or from a violation of the law of cause and effect. And each of these also have materialistic examples. No one has yet come up with a scientific explanation with sufficient predictive capability to claim it as the explanation for where the universe came from.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, I realize this. Although the true 'popular' definition is more on the side of 'I don't know'. Saying I don't know puts you squarely in the side of non-belief in any particular religion which makes you a weak atheist as well.

Not necessarily. One can not know something but still believe it. Or one can not know something and not believe it.

For example, I don't know whether you have a dollar bill in your wallet, but I believe you do. I also don't know whether you have a hundred dollar bill in your wallet, but I don't believe you do.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows with 100% certainty whether there is or is not a god. Which means that everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is an agnostic.

No, it's not more useful to think so. I don't even know why you'd imply that? It's only useful to those who attempt to justify their beliefs by saying 'well it takes more faith to claim no gods exist!' which is a straw man for nearly every atheist.

Agreed.

 

[Hespera]

"It all" came from a source that is eternal, from an infinite regression of causality, or from a violation of the law of cause and effect. And each of these also have materialistic examples. No one has yet come up with a scientific explanation with sufficient predictive capability to claim it as the explanation for where the universe came from.

I dont see any value at all in the 'yet to come up with a scientific explanation" as a way of promoting the idea of a god, or an "eternal source"

We dont even know what time is. Its a couple of bridges too far, getting to that conclusion.

Science is in its infancy. At thei time of the american revolution people hadnt yet learned that there was no huge southern continent to match that in the north!

 

[rjc34]

Nobody, and I mean nobody, knows with 100% certainty whether there is or is not a god. Which means that everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is an agnostic.

It's not about actually knowing, but claiming to know. The Pope will tell you with 100% certainty that God exists and he speaks to him. I know a whole lot of Christians who would claim to know God exists based on personal experience.

 

[rjc34]

"It all" came from a source that is eternal, from an infinite regression of causality, or from a violation of the law of cause and effect. And each of these also have materialistic examples. No one has yet come up with a scientific explanation with sufficient predictive capability to claim it as the explanation for where the universe came from.

You should check out Lawrence Krauss' presentation entitled A Universe From Nothing.

 

[chris4243]

Yes, I realize this. Although the true 'popular' definition is more on the side of 'I don't know'. Saying I don't know puts you squarely in the side of non-belief in any particular religion which makes you a weak atheist as well.





No, it's not more useful to think so. I don't even know why you'd imply that? It's only useful to those who attempt to justify their beliefs by saying 'well it takes more faith to claim no gods exist!' which is a straw man for nearly every atheist.

And if you define an agnostic as a weak atheist, what then is an atheist but a strong atheist?

 

[Upisoft]

And if you define an agnostic as a weak atheist, what then is an atheist but a strong atheist?

Indeed. Why use the word "agnostic" to describe something about me? I.e. that I claim I don't know something. I'm not important. The real important question is "Is there God(s)?" and I believe that this question is unanswerable(edit: well, it is obviously answerable. I meant the real answer of this question is and will be unknown). Using it to describe "weak atheist" is a waste.

 

[Skaloop]

It's not about actually knowing, but claiming to know. The Pope will tell you with 100% certainty that God exists and he speaks to him. I know a whole lot of Christians who would claim to know God exists based on personal experience.

Yes, he can claim that, but he doesn't actually know. So he's not being honest with himself. So yes, someone like the Pope wouldn't consider himself an agnostic, but he should have the courage to admit that he isone.

 

[Tergle]

First off, this probably belongs in Philosophy, rather than Ethics and Morality.

Secondly, 'historical gospel' is not evidence any more than 'Little Red Riding Hood' is evidence for the existence of speaking, anthropomorphic wolves capable of imitating old women. Without ample physical evidence to back it up, the legitimacy of an old book as a source of truth is laughable.

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists. Complaints, complaints, complaints.

Even if a few parts of a story have a basis in truth, that does not mean the rest of the story does as well. For example, we know that the city of Troy existed, because we have found said city, but it would be foolish to assume that Scylla, Circe, Amazons, Cyclops, Achilles, Ares, and Athena all also existed because they are referenced in the same very, very old story.

That old canard? When do we get the flying spaghetti monter routine?

Thirdly, it requires no faith to be an atheist.

Wrong. It takes a whole lot of faith in being the follower of the guys that tell you atheism is sensible. Pure faith founded on emotionalism. Pessimism is hardly logic.

Religious people often seem to have trouble understanding this, and will go so far as to call any kind of assumption 'faith' in order to justify their own beliefs.

Many "religious people" came from out of the atheist herd mentality to making achoice based on sound reality. Dirt does not look like an accident bumping into other things in the dark making the situation that makes dirt. But alas atheism tells us just that.

I assume the sun will come up tomorrow. I assume that unicorns don't exist. I assume that ice cream will be cold, boiling water will be hot, and tides will follow a predictable pattern based on the revolution of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun.

= nothing as its cause? Absurdity fashioned into the ancient cult of atheism.

I also assume there is no god, because I haven't seen any evidence of one.

Try making something in a lab by first creating the universe that the making of a lab can be accomplished.

I assume we have all of these things in common except one, and to single any one of them out and call it a 'faith' is to stretch the meaning of that word until it encompasses any thought or concept and is rendered meaningless.

"Faith" as in biblical "faith" is far better defined as trust. As in trusting that dirt just didn't happen as a long process of nothing interacting with nothing. To believe something comes from nothing causing it is pure faith-based guesswork. No logic need apply.

For more clarification in a ear-caressing english accent, please enjoy the following videos:

Ahh, cliche replacing logic. Been there done that.

 

[Skaloop]

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists.

Then you haven't seen too many atheists. Sure, there are unhappy atheists, just as there are unhappy theists. Due to depression and the like. But show me an atheist who is unhappy because of his atheism, if you can. I certainly am not one of them.

 

[hollyda]

Then you haven't seen too many atheists. Sure, there are unhappy atheists, just as there are unhappy theists. Due to depression and the like. But show me an atheist who is unhappy because of his atheism, if you can. I certainly am not one of them.

The idea that atheists could be happy without God is very threatening to many Christians, so they chose to think we live in miserable denial.

Strangely, I was most miserable when I was a Christian. Go figure.

 

[Mling]

Laughable? I just don't see too many happy atheists. Complaints, complaints, complaints.

am much, much happier now than when I was Christian. Also, I'm much more functional as a person, and much more motivated to improve myself.

 

[Mling]

Then you haven't seen too many atheists. Sure, there are unhappy atheists, just as there are unhappy theists. Due to depression and the like. But show me an atheist who is unhappy because of his atheism, if you can. I certainly am not one of them.

I would actually not be surprised to find that, though I haven't met one personally. There are, I've heard, people who feel like it would be a good thing if there was a god, and want to believe in a god, but are so underwhelmed by any reason to believe that they simply can't. I've never heard of the inverse--somebody who wished there was no god, but was so overwhelmed by reasons to believe that they simply had to.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I just don't see too many happy atheists.

I'm happy. It's great to be alive!