Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Upisoft]

fair enough, for the sake of the argument we'll just go with mine. or we could just get specific and say RCC or Pentecostal. Doesn't really matter here.

again its a false dichotomy in that you can believe and worship God or a god and still not know if it exists. knowledge is perfectly independent of belief. as I noted before faith itself is defined as belief without knowing.

So what is you point? Agnosticism is faith(by your definition), as it is belief (about what i can and can't know) without knowing for sure it is this way. But you can't say this for the atheism, unless you have strong atheist who actually believes that no gods exist. Then by your definition you can say they have faith.

However the faith usually is defined as having a object of it. And you have defined objectless faith. Do we have to play with words any more?

 

[jonsun80]

huh? Objectless faith? For the sake of the discussion the object is a variable in the equation and not relevant. I thought that was obvious....unless you're attempting a strawman or something.

I didn't say at all in anyway that agnosticism is faith. In fact I'm saying it's directly the opposite. I said faith and agnosticism can be and obviously does co-exist and are not mutually exclusive. If that's what you mean. No one has objective empirical proof of God, do you agree? ......But plenty believe anyway.

You are confusing the concepts of belief and knowledge. again agnosticism and gnosticism are epistemological statements on what can be known. theism and atheism are descriptors of belief.

so then the choices are agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist. and since no one can prove God, gnosticism isn't a logical or substantial stance either. with the God question you're asked what your beliefs are, not what you know or not.

So at best if you want to try to play a middle ground you could say is "I don't know what I believe"

Agnostic only becomes a legitimate answer in the way you're trying to use it if the question is "do you know if God exists?"

 

[Skaloop]

huh? Objectless faith? For the sake of the discussion the object is a variable in the equation and not relevant. I thought that was obvious....unless you're attempting a strawman or something.

I didn't say at all in anyway that agnosticism is faith. In fact I'm saying it's directly the opposite. I said faith and agnosticism can be and obviously does co-exist and are not mutually exclusive. If that's what you mean. No one has objective empirical proof of God, do you agree? ......But plenty believe anyway.

You are confusing the concepts of belief and knowledge. again agnosticism and gnosticism are epistemological statements on what can be known. theism and atheism are descriptors of belief.

so then the choices are agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist. and since no one can prove God, gnosticism isn't a logical or substantial stance either. with the God question you're asked what your beliefs are, not what you know or not.

So at best if you want to try to play a middle ground you could say is "I don't know what I believe"

Agnostic only becomes a legitimate answer in the way you're trying to use it if the question is "do you know if God exists?"

So, are you agnostic?

 

[jonsun80]

Yes I'm an agnostic theist. I strongly believe although I can't know for certain. I don't know if Im going to die tomorrow either, but I believe I probably won't although I can't be sure.

A group of people are standing around a small pond intending to have a swim. An agnostic points out there might be snakes in the pond. The theists decide to go ahead and believe there are and not go in the water, the atheists jump right in. After a little while of swimming no one has yet encountered a snake let alone been bitten. The agnostic points out that it still doesn't prove if there actually are snakes in the water or not and is open to the possibility that someone could still be bitten. Suddenly the agnostic gets a call from his mother and she asks if he is out swimming. He replies "i cant say for sure either way."

 

[hollyda]

Someone who doesn´t believe that gods exist.


1. Atheism doesn´t require me to believe that.
2. "Faith" in what exactly?
3. I just lack belief in one more deity than you do.

Well, I am an agnostic atheist.

You should know how it is: You lack belief in countless deities yourself - without any evidence.

As soon as you give a definition of "god" that renders this concept falsifiable I might try to consider it. Until then, if you demand for "proof" is ridiculous.


That may be true for my positive beliefs (which you do not know anything about). It is not true about my lacking beliefs.

I have nothing to contribute. I just think this post should be acknowledged (or, rather, I'd like to see a response) >.>

 

[Upisoft]

huh? Objectless faith? For the sake of the discussion the object is a variable in the equation and not relevant.

Well, my English maybe failing me at this moment, I'll try with examples:
The object of Christians faith is Jesus Christ.
One of the objects of the Egyptian mythology is Ra.

Question: What is the object of faith of a hard atheist that believes there is no God?

I didn't say at all in anyway that agnosticism is faith.

You defined faith as "belief without knowing".
1) belief: I believe ... that we can't know for sure if God(s) exist or not.
2) without knowing: I don't know .... that what I believe in 1) is necessarily true.

Given 1) and 2) by your definition I have faith.

I said faith and agnosticism can be and obviously does co-exist and are not mutually exclusive.

Look up. By your definition agnosticism is faith.

again agnosticism and gnosticism are epistemological statements on what can be known.

Statements on what basis? Are they true statements or not? Can you prove them?

theism and atheism are descriptors of belief.

or lack of belief in a deity (I've finished it for you)

so then the choices are agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist. and since no one can prove God gnosticism isn't a logical stance either. you're asked what your beliefs are, not what you know or not.

Again, agnosticism is not about knowledge. It is belief about the knowledge. The same way that theism is not a god, it is belief about a god.

 

[Gabe7]

So, an animal walks from the sand dunes of the desert into a deserted human city... The animal can look back and see desert. It can look forward and see non-desert. The animal can compare them.

You however claim that everything is made by God. You can't look around and see the desert, you only can see the city. How do you know it is a city and not a desert then?

I've seen the desert before. For four years I saw it every day. It has a distinct look and feel to it. There is a crispness to the night air and in the prime of the day it is like fuego.

 

[jonsun80]

Well, my English maybe failing me at this moment, I'll try with examples:
The object of Christians faith is Jesus Christ.
One of the objects of the Egyptian mythology is Ra.



Question: What is the object of faith of a hard atheist that believes there is no God?

first a hard atheist is generally noted as a gnostic atheist. so a hard atheist would say with certainty there is no gods. The object of an agnostic atheist is any god that can possibly be thought of or has been thought of. define it and they will deny it. and they will do so because you cannot prove it.

You defined faith as "belief without knowing".
1) belief: I believe ... that we can't know for sure if God(s) exist or not.
2) without knowing: I don't know .... that what I believe in 1) is necessarily true.

Given 1) and 2) by your definition I have faith.

1. I do not define faith as that, the dictionary does.
2. you do not simply believe that we can't know, that's just the truth.

you don't know because no one knows. but you're not currently worshiping any sort of God that could possibly be imagined or defined.

Look up. By your definition agnosticism is faith

No. that's like saying atheism is faith.

Statements on what basis? Are they true statements or not? Can you prove them?

are you familiar at all with the branch of philosophy called epistemology?

or lack of belief in a deity (I've finished it for you)

okay. redundant though.

Again, agnosticism is not about knowledge. It is belief about the knowledge. The same way that theism is not a god, it is belief about a god.

Then your answer to the question of do you belief in God is "I believe it can't be known" which is still a non sequitur. who cares if you believe it can't be known. you can still believe without knowing. again, no one objectively knows, yet they still believe.

I have an invisible alien in my pocket that cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, touched, or heard and does not give off any sort of radiation. now you cannot know if I actually have an alien in my pocket. Not that you believe you can't know, but literally there is no objective way of knowing it at all. you can believe me (or not) but you cannot ever know for certain. So I ask you, do you believe I have an alien in my pocket? and you answer with "it can't be known" or "I believe it can't be known" still does not follow the question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

God(s) was/were obvious to them and they wrote all about it.

Not obvious. Mainly just assumed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Upisoft]

I've seen the desert before. For four years I saw it every day. It has a distinct look and feel to it. There is a crispness to the night air and in the prime of the day it is like fuego.

The example was out of your comprehension then. Have you've been at place not created by your God?

 

[Upisoft]

you do not simply believe that we can't know, that's just the truth.

Prove it is the truth. The rest of the disquisition is meaningless until then.

 

[Spiritlight]

They are such sweeties they don't need evidence they just need criticism of organized religion. That and a few user accounts each on your local christian forum.

 

[jonsun80]

Prove it is the truth. The rest of the disquisition is meaningless until then.

that metaphysical things are unknowable? prove I have the alien in my pocket, or prove I don't, either way.


there's your proof.

 

[Upisoft]

that metaphysical things are unknowable? prove I have the alien in my pocket, or prove I don't, either way.


there's your proof.

"Alien in your pocket" is not metaphysical. Anyway, it does not have any connection to the proof I want. If your proof is only irrelevant statements, then sorry, I have nothing more to discuss.

 

[jonsun80]

I can see you've never studied or put much thought into this realm of philosophy and are just backpedaling with every fallacy you can imagine now.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

that metaphysical things are unknowable? prove I have the alien in my pocket, or prove I don't, either way.


there's your proof.

Your statement puts the burden of proof on you.

 

[jonsun80]

And how do you suppose I prove it?

 

[Upisoft]

And how do you suppose I prove it?

That is your problem. You insisted that it is true. I only believe it is true.

 

[jonsun80]

I thought there wasn't a difference?

 

[Upisoft]

OK, Santa.