Mekkala said:
Certainly. Start a new thread and I'll join you there.
It may be a little time, as I said I want to do more thinking. While I was examining the problem of evil to reply to another post, new issues for other areas of my thinking were brought to the fore - in particular the question of free will.
Anyway, your definition is fine except that you have *not* proven the truth of the things you have faith in. Until and unless you do that, your definition does not, as far as I can tell, fit the form of "faith" held by theists.
I'm not sure which theists you refer to. I am a member of the reformed church, but only recently, and so far my encounters of them are of an identical definition of the word "faith" as mine. I'm not sure what you are saying - that until I prove that God exists, my definition of "faith" does not fit that held by theists? And me proving something to you personally will change what other theists hold?
It seems like you are talking about two separate things here. I don't need to prove that my faith is based on truth to hold that meaning of faith. I merely need to think that it is based on truth to hold that definition of faith. I can have observed another person, and thought them trustworthy based on those observation, and then put my faith in them. Even if unbeknownst to me, that person is a liar and deceiver, and worthy of no trust.
I greatly dislike your insistence that we call ourselves atheists for prestige. Yes, I know, you're saying we just get that prestige in our own circles -- but if you had any idea what many of us go through, you'd know that no prestige in atheist circles is worth the bad effects. I am not allowed in my parents' house, nor am I allowed to speak to my siblings, because I am an atheist. Do you honestly think I'd give up my relationship with my family just so I can feel good around my buddies? Not to mention that most of my friends are theists, not atheists.
No, I think it plausible (not probable or improbable) that consciously or subconsciously you were warmed to the thought of prestige and arrogance that could be born of elevating your intellect to a state above that which you see in your family. You can now consider yourself more enlightened than them, liberated and free from the constraints of mythology. And to add to that, you will be mocked by most religious people for your lack of "faith" in the wrong sense, faith without proof. And such a mockery will serve as both a pain, but a pride builder, because it will remind yourself that you are smarter because you rely on proof and not in believing myths without proof. And then there is the praise that you can get from your fellow atheists who will affirm you in your intellectual greatness, making you feel secure with your decision.
I'm not saying you suffer nothing, and it seems that atheists do indeed get mocked. But I think that mockery is not so strong as the buildup of pride that some or many of you will feel. Considering oneself to be of greater intellect than those you know is quite a pride. I have lapsed into such boasting at times, and know how it feels.
So, in knowing myself, and my own potential, I think that the above is a plausible scenario. I don't know about you personally, or any of the atheists that post here.
I call myself an atheist because agnostics can either believe in God or not. Some do, some don't. Specifically, agnostics are split into two general groups -- the agnostic atheists, and the agnostic theists. I am one of the former. To call myself an agnostic does not say anything about whether or not I actually believe in God.
I must concede to you that there is more than one type of atheist. I was not aware of such multiple beliefs under the one title before I started this thread, and so I was responding to what you call strong atheists. My argument is still valid against them - and I hold this challenge up to any who answer negatively to the question "Is there a God?" From your writings it seems that you would have to agree with me, that what you call strong atheism has no merit, and is empty of rationality.
But here, this quote I have taken of yours above, seems to indicate that you consider the agnostic part of the definition the primary label, and the atheist part your leaning within. So would then the title agnostic be more accurate, and then express your leaning towards disbelief (atheism), rather than calling yourself an atheist and then explaining that you are not actually a full atheist?
I am an atheist, and your thread was directed at atheists. Perhaps you should change the title to "Argument against Strong Atheism". That would be more accurate.
I was not aware of such a distinction before I started. Would you consider my argument to be justified, so that strong atheism is to be considered irrational?
But applying this claim to all atheists is creating a strawman. You should specify that you're speaking of strong (or "gnostic") atheists, who actually do claim to know that God does not exist. Note, though, that strong atheists are very rare, compared to the numbers of agnostic atheists, and as far as I've seen, there is not a single strong atheist at these forums. You're probably wasting your time arguing against a position that nobody here holds.
I still think the title of agnostic is far more accurate, and less confusing, than atheist - but again I think it is part of the prestige of the title atheist that lures one to maintain it.
Now you're defining God in such a way that he cannot be found -- which means that he can never be proven not to exist, of course, no matter how much we know. So:
Not quite. I was saying that *if* we find no evidence of God, we can then conceive a possible world in which He has not interfered with the natural processes since the initial creation.
I however do not believe in that possible world, but rather a world in which God has actively worked in visible ways. I also believe that He, being the source of all life, cannot but be visible, in such a way that we cannot conceive of a possible world without Him. A world of evolution is such a world, but I do not believe it possible. Even if we concede (which I do not) the billions of years of evolution, the question of abiogenesis still leaves no room for anything but theism. But this is just the tip of what would be good to investigate in another thread.
Hmm... my point is that I can redefine "unicorn" in such a way that you can never find them even if they exist, just as easily as you can redefine "God" in such a way that you can never find him even if he exists.
Suppose, in my posts, I replaced "unicorn" with "extradimensional infinitely small invisible self-sustained unicorn"? You could never prove such a thing does not exist, yet do you believe something of that sort does, in fact, exist?
My point is that no atheist can prove that God does not exist. This is a logical argument against strong atheism. I do believe there is proof for God however, and this is why we ask the question "is there a God" in the first place. If you conceive of a creature that is an "extradimensional infinitely small invisible self-sustained unicorn", then you also offer no proof for it. Such a thing has no bearing on reality, in this life or the next. God, on the other hand, is evidenced through all things, and so we give arguments which we believe justify His existence. That is why people pay heed to the question of God and not to the impossible creature you described.
I'm reluctant to talk about all this though, because it's all to do with the probability of God's existence or non-existence. And that is a topic for another thread.
So let me know, everyone, do you consider there to be no grounds rationally for strong atheism? If so, we could consider this thread closed.
I see now more than ever before, that the question of atheism/agnosticism rests entirely on the question of the probability of there being a God. That is probably the most valuable lesson I will take from here.
