A question for athiests

[Wiccan_Child]

I'll quite happily say that I'm not going to exclude the possibility of any gods, insofar as I'm not going to exclude the possibility of an invisible pink unicorn, or the flying spaghetti monster.

They're all just as likely as the other.

Pink invisible unicorns are actually less probable than FSMs and Jewish deities.. they're logically impossible.

How can something be pink (i.e., emitting a particular spectrum of EM radiation) and invisible (i.e., emitting an empty spectrum)?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are a couple of [true] atheists here who are willing to admit that they believe in one God less than Christians do.

That categorises all atheists. You may as well commend grass for being green (yellow grass notwithstanding ).

 

[nolongerhome]

As an agnostic, I would like to know what reason the atheists who assert that no God/s exist use as the basis for that assertion?

The fact that organised religions show evidence of being purely socio-cultural constructions, and that the dogma of organised religions should be rigorously questioned as a result because their claims for "absolute truth/morality" are spurious, is enough for me to believe that the God/s of all these religions are inventions.

The fact still remains that science can only tell us how things function within the limits of our system - it can't tell us how and/or why the system exists at all. The big bang theory is empirically based and there is reason to beleive the validity of it - but the big bang theory by itseld can't give us our final answer, because it begs the question - what caused the big bang?

I think it is right to question the belief systems handed down through thousands of years by people whose knowledge of the functioning of the universe required them to invent elaborate fictions to explain why the world is as it is, I think it is right to question the dogma of those belief systems, particularly when it leads to people being mistreated or discriminated against. At the same time I think we all need to recognise the limits of rationality, or empiricism and therefore of science. I think that if you recognise the limits of both organised religions and science you are still left in a position where it is impossible to rationally prove any metaphycial claims, and I mean metaphysical here in a broad sense to indicate anything that possibly exists outside of the physical reality in which we live.

 

[The Nihilist]

I would argue that making that assertion makes you something other than an atheist, and frankly, that particular claim is (IMO) as dubious as the claim that there is a god. Of course, that is only if is defined to be outside and beyond the universe since we can not make claims about that which is completely imperceivable to us. If, on the other hand, god is defined to exist within our perception, than that conclusion can be argued rationally.

Do you think it is equally dubious to assert that there are no ghosts?

 

[Alunyel]

How can something be pink (i.e., emitting a particular spectrum of EM radiation) and invisible (i.e., emitting an empty spectrum)?

*Pssst*That's the general idea.

Mutually exclusive attributes, just as many Christians attribute to God.

 

[Brother Cavil]

Do you think it is equally dubious to assert that there are no ghosts?

The difference is that ghosts are generally defined to exist in our 'universe', while god isn't. The moment god(or ghosts) enter 'existence' they become a question of evidence, and one for science, rationality and empiricism. At that point, we can safely discount their existence until evidence is provided in favor of the position that they do exist. Until then, one can not make any claims about the nature of that which doesn't exist within the physical universe.

 

[Brother Cavil]

Pink invisible unicorns are actually less probable than FSMs and Jewish deities.. they're logically impossible.

How can something be pink (i.e., emitting a particular spectrum of EM radiation) and invisible (i.e., emitting an empty spectrum)?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is defined to be both invisible and pink, thus invisible pink unicorns are not logically impossible and do exist(since anything we define must exist). She's also incredibly powerful, being both invisible and pink.

Does that make sense?

 

[Brother Cavil]

I think it is right to question the belief systems handed down through thousands of years by people whose knowledge of the functioning of the universe required them to invent elaborate fictions to explain why the world is as it is, I think it is right to question the dogma of those belief systems, particularly when it leads to people being mistreated or discriminated against. At the same time I think we all need to recognise the limits of rationality, or empiricism and therefore of science. I think that if you recognise the limits of both organised religions and science you are still left in a position where it is impossible to rationally prove any metaphycial claims, and I mean metaphysical here in a broad sense to indicate anything that possibly exists outside of the physical reality in which we live.

Nice Post.

 

[The Nihilist]

Dangit, this is the third argument I've had about atheism vs agnosticism in like a week. As soon as I feel like having a serious argument on the internet, I am starting a thread. (It could be weeks)

 

[nolongerhome]

Dangit, this is the third argument I've had about atheism vs agnosticism in like a week. As soon as I feel like having a serious argument on the internet, I am starting a thread. (It could be weeks)

I think I have to claim some responsibility for that, sorry!

 

[Alunyel]

As I understand it, it's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist, which is more or less what I consider myself.

Agnosticism is simply admitting it's impossible to know for certain.

Whereas atheism is consciously not believing in a deity.

I think it's highly unlikely there is a deity, I believe blind belief in any of them to be irrational, but I can't say for absolute certain whether or not there is without evidence.

 

[nolongerhome]

As I understand it, it's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist, which is more or less what I consider myself.

Agnosticism is simply admitting it's impossible to know for certain.

Whereas atheism is consciously not believing in a deity.

I think it's highly unlikely there is a deity, I believe blind belief in any of them to be irrational, but I can't say for absolute certain whether or not there is without evidence.

I guess my question is why would you consciously believe something when you admit there is no proof one way or the other?

I like to have a basis for my beliefs. If I don't have a basis, I suspend belief. It seems to me that what you are describing about involves as much belief without basis as someone that believes there is a God.

 

[tanzanos]

Lest we forget; the Abrahamic religions claim that God made man in His Image and Likeness. Now this can only mean that God looks human like and exhibits human traits. Now that we have a description of what he looks like and how he can act; the question begging to be answered is where is he hiding?

 

[quatona]

I guess my question is why would you consciously believe something when you admit there is no proof one way or the other?

I like to have a basis for my beliefs. If I don't have a basis, I suspend belief. It seems to me that what you are describing about involves as much belief without basis as someone that believes there is a God.

Personally, I think that for all practical purposes it is rational to act as though the fact that the supermarket that has been there and open for each and every day in the past 20 years will be still there and open today (even though there are plenty of possibilities as to why it might be closed - earthquake, bankruptcy, sudden and uannounced change of opening hours etc.). I.e. I will drive there in order to buy my food without spending much effort on doubts that it is there and open.
Whether this takes "as much belief" as it takes to believe it will be closed today is probably just a matter of semantics (because "belief" isn´t quantifiable, to begin with).

 

[Ayersy]

I guess my question is why would you consciously believe something when you admit there is no proof one way or the other?

I like to have a basis for my beliefs. If I don't have a basis, I suspend belief. It seems to me that what you are describing about involves as much belief without basis as someone that believes there is a God.

I don't believe in anything until there is proof FOR it, you can't prove something doesn't exist...if it doesn't exist. You can't provide evidence against something if its not there. If people believed in all things which weren't proven to be non-existant (Oooer, word salad probably coming up!), then we would logically have to believe in EVERYTHING. Magic, leprechauns, Big Foot, God, ghosts, Allah, Karma, Brahman, well mannered taxi-drivers, unicorns, talking goats, talking snakes, an interesting game of cricket, beer that doesn't give you hangovers...I could go on forever.

Point is, there no evidence against any of these NOT existing because they aren't there!

 

[tanzanos]

I don't believe in anything until there is proof FOR it, you can't prove something doesn't exist...if it doesn't exist. You can't provide evidence against something if its not there. If people believed in all things which weren't proven to be non-existant (Oooer, word salad probably coming up!), then we would logically have to believe in EVERYTHING. Magic, leprechauns, Big Foot, God, ghosts, Allah, Karma, Brahman, well mannered taxi-drivers, unicorns, talking goats, talking snakes, an interesting game of cricket, beer that doesn't give you hangovers...I could go on forever.

Point is, there no evidence against any of these NOT existing because they aren't there!

Are you Daft? There is no such thing as "Well mannered taxi drivers" Really now!

Arrr there me maytee! Yer blasphemous remarks shall be met with the sting of the almighty FSM's tentacles. May ye live to repent your heathen ways and eat more pasta!

 

[Eudaimonist]

I guess my question is why would you consciously believe something when you admit there is no proof one way or the other?

Proofs are for mathematics and alcohol, not for statements of a scientific or a philosophical sort.

I don't see why proof should be a requirement for belief in the nonexistence of something. While an absense of evidence might not be proof of absense, it is nevertheless evidence of absense. If gods remain so stubbornly hidden that they might as well not exist, it is reasonable to conclude that they don't exist. One might not have proven this beyond all doubt, but so what? Let's deal in human certainties rather than demanding what tends to be impossible -- proofs about what cannot or does not exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[CoderHead]

Am I the only atheist who does assert that there is no god?

I'm more like an agnostic atheist myself. I know for a fact that there's no way I can be sure gods do/don't exist, but my official stance on it is that I have no use for them one way or the other. I don't assert that there are no gods (I may elude to or even voice that opinion from time to time), but I'm pretty certain there aren't - and even if there are, they don't affect me at all. It's their followers I have to worry about.

However, Christianity is of special interest to me because I was raised in it and it's such a huge, intrusive part of the country in which I live. I want superstition out of our schools, our government, and my home.

 

[Tony Danza]

People around here say that the number one reason people aren't christians is because of christians themselves. As in...the really religious ones who go around trying to force it on people and preaching over people like there's no tomorrow...Is it true? I'm curious.

Nope, just genetically inclined to be analytical.

Sidenote: Though rabid Christian behavior was obviously not the origin of my Atheism, it is distasteful and certainly not helpful for the Christian cause, since I only walk away rolling my eyes instead of receiving the intended message. This, of course, can be said for all dogmatic and disrespectful people defending any belief. It's one thing to be passionate, another thing to be militant.

 

[tanzanos]

Nope, just genetically inclined to be analytical.

Sidenote: Though rabid Christian behavior was obviously not the origin of my Atheism, it is distasteful and certainly not helpful for the Christian cause, since I only walk away rolling my eyes instead of receiving the intended message. This, of course, can be said for all dogmatic and disrespectful people defending any belief. It's one thing to be passionate, another thing to be militant.

Touche! Excellent reply. I agree totally with you. Like my father used to say: "Celibacy is best practiced in moderation"!