Is athistiam a Religon?

[Eudaimonist]

Yes --- and they worship even more fervently than we do:

• They go to church 7 days a week.
  The pastor is the head of the house.
  The deacons are the members of their household.
  They tithe 100%.
  They baptize every day.
  They partake of the "lord's table" every day.
  They pray without ceasing.
  etc.

With some of the people who post around here, I can't tell if this post is tongue-in-cheek or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TooCurious]

With some of the people who post around here, I can't tell if this post is tongue-in-cheek or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I can't comment on whether it was tongue-in-cheek or not, but it was rather profoundly nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello, and Happy Birthday!

I can't comment on whether it was tongue-in-cheek or not, but it was rather profoundly nonsensical.

Did I say something wrong?

 

[Illuminatus]

Did I say something wrong?

I don't think so, just incomprehensible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think so, just incomprehensible.

They don't worship more fervently than we do???

You do realize that was a compliment, don't you?

 

[TooCurious]

Hello, and Happy Birthday!

Thank you for the birthday wishes!

Did I say something wrong?

As Illuminatus said, not wrong, just confusing.

You said to Illuminatus,

They don't worship more fervently than we do???

If you were referring to atheists, then no. Atheists do not worship at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for the birthday wishes!



As Illuminatus said, not wrong, just confusing.

You said to Illuminatus,

If you were referring to atheists, then no. Atheists do not worship at all.

Well, irregardless, I hope you had a great birthday, and didn't eat all the cake at once (like I would have)!

 

[Eudaimonist]

You do realize that was a compliment, don't you?

No, I didn't, but if you meant it as a compliment, I'll take it as one. Thanks.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ghazirizvi]

How is it absurd?

The only way I can try to explain this to you is by trying to use a real world example. Recently scientist discovered a whole array of animals that had never been discovered before. Now there wasnt any evidence to suggest these animals would exist, did that mean they didnt ? Well apparently they did.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4688000.stm

It tries to, but that doesn't mean they succeed....IOW, huh?

How does belief in God not succeed in explaining our existence ? Apparently for many people it does because many still continue to believe in God as people always have.

Let me guess, you didn't mean to misquote me so I'll let you try again.

My apologies. I did not mean to misquote you, believe me it was done un-intentionally. For the benifit of the discussion your words are quoted exactly below.

A lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that such a thing does not exist. Unless demonstration of the existence of such a being is provided, the belief remains justified.

This is wrong as I earlier said. Lack of evidence for an object does not justify believing that the object does not exist (e.g. the newly discovered animals I mentioned).

Atheism and Agnosticism are two completely different issues. Agnosticism doesn't even cover belief in a deity, but whether or not we can KNOW if such a deity exists. They aren't mutually exclusive, is what I meant to say.

I acknowledge the possibility of God and flat-out reject God's existence. Where's your world of difference now?

It would have been prudent to say that you acknowledged the possibility of God (at which point you were agnostic) until you made a decision to reject the possibility of God (when you became an athiest). It is still a world of difference.

I didn't claim I could prove it. You asked me to demonstrate it, not prove it. I did. I'm perfectly justified in believing that something does not exist due to a lack of evidence.

Sorry my mistake. I should not have said prove earlier. However you still have not demonstrated anything as said earlier.

Do you believe that pink bunnies exist on Mars?

Since I have not seen any evidence contrary to the existence of pink bunnies on mars, I really cannot comment on it intelligently. In short, they might exist as far as I know.

You didn't request empirical demonstration. It's not reductionism, and I essentially have claimed:

"There is no evidence for God, therefore I am justified in believing God does not exist".

Again see the beginning of my post.

 

[Incubusion]

The only way I can try to explain this to you is by trying to use a real world example. Recently scientist discovered a whole array of animals that had never been discovered before. Now there wasnt any evidence to suggest these animals would exist, did that mean they didnt ? Well apparently they did.

Source - (Can't post links.. silly limit)

However, there was no reason to believe those specific creatures existed. Evidence suggest we haven't found every single animal in existence, BUT there's no reason to believe specific creatures exist.

How does belief in God not succeed in explaining our existence ? Apparently for many people it does because many still continue to believe in God as people always have.

The number of people does not make it right. It is, logically speaking, not suffecient because it does not provide enough proof for itself beyond a book that's only proof of its factuality is it says it's right.

This is wrong as I earlier said. Lack of evidence for an object does not justify believing that the object does not exist (e.g. the newly discovered animals I mentioned).

No, no it doesn't, however just because a lack of evidence does not absolutely mean it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's logicial to believe it exists. To require something to be logical, first requires there's proof of such a thing.

Also, falsifiablity is very much so required. Otherwise we'd just believe under a few inches of dirt there are fairies in some places. I mean, there's no proof for or against it.

Since I have not seen any evidence contrary to the existence of pink bunnies on mars, I really cannot comment on it intelligently. In short, they might exist as far as I know.

A lack of atmosphere is a start. While there may be special pink bunnies, logically speaking we require proof to believe in something first

 

[ghazirizvi]

However, there was no reason to believe those specific creatures existed. Evidence suggest we haven't found every single animal in existence, BUT there's no reason to believe specific creatures exist.

I never said there was "evidence to believe those specific creatures existed". This discussion between me and Asimov started when he said he could demonstrate the existence of God and hence my rebuttal.

The number of people does not make it right. It is, logically speaking, not suffecient because it does not provide enough proof for itself beyond a book that's only proof of its factuality is it says it's right.

Man, again I did not say that belief in God was the right answer to our existence. I said for many people it is correct. For the sake of discussion the "theory of God" has no flaws in it as far as I can see, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Note here that I am not saying to you that the theory is the explanation for the universe, however what I am saying is that it is an explanation for the universe.

No, no it doesn't, however just because a lack of evidence does not absolutely mean it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's logicial to believe it exists.

Firstly that "absolutely" sort of skews the sentence a bit as it suggests that there is a greater possibility of the object not existing. So I would perfer the sentence without it, which I can acknowledge to be true.

Secondly as you said "lack of evidence does not absolutely mean it doesnt exist" doesnt mean there isnt a possibility that it exists. That is completely logical.

Thirdly I never said that I could demonstrate the existence of God however Asimov did claim he could demonstrate God's non-existence.

Also, falsifiablity is very much so required. Otherwise we'd just believe under a few inches of dirt there are fairies in some places. I mean, there's no proof for or against it.

Exactly. There is no proof for it or against it so how in the world can you claim that fairies cant exist in some places.

A lack of atmosphere is a start. While there may be special pink bunnies, logically speaking we require proof to believe in something first

Again logically speaking people may require proof to believe in something but I never said I could logically demonstrate the existence of God. Asimov did say he could demonstrate the non-existence of God, whether its logical or not I leave up to you.

 

[Asimov]

The only way I can try to explain this to you is by trying to use a real world example. Recently scientist discovered a whole array of animals that had never been discovered before. Now there wasnt any evidence to suggest these animals would exist, did that mean they didnt ? Well apparently they did.

Source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4688000.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4688000.stm

No, that's irrelevant, though. There was no evidence for those animals, so we had no reason to believe they existed. Until the point when they were discovered, I would be justified in saying that those animals did not exist.

Now, up until then...we had no concept of those new animals, true? So let's use a real-world example as well here:

You claim that Bigfoot exists.
I say "why should I believe that, there's no evidence to suggest that Bigfoot exists" (aside: You've now brought up a concept and are claiming it's existence...)
You say "well look at this video here!"
I say "that's interesting, but that video has been shown to be a hoax" (aside: the evidence is now refuted)
You say "well I still believe Bigfoot exists because people claim to have seen him!"
I say "personal testimony of an unverifiable event cannot be construed as evidence of anything."

etc...

Do you understand now what's going on here? Someone claims that a God exists, and I say no because they cannot demonstrate that a God exists.

Now, I don't KNOW if God exists or not (agnostic - don't know), but I'm still gonna say that God doesn't exist and bring up my reasons that people who claim that God exists cannot justify their reasons for believing so (atheist - disbelieve)

How does belief in God not succeed in explaining our existence ? Apparently for many people it does because many still continue to believe in God as people always have.

On a personal level, it allows people to have something that explains their own purpose in this world. I think the God concept is too incoherent to properly be called an explanation.

Since I have not seen any evidence contrary to the existence of pink bunnies on mars, I really cannot comment on it intelligently. In short, they might exist as far as I know.

Yea, but I'm not asking you whether or not you know. I'm asking whether or not you believe me if I say that pink bunnies exist on mars?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

ghazirizvi, I strongly suggest you look up "burden of proof" in Wikipedia. Otherwise this discussion will lead nowhere.

 

[ghazirizvi]

No, that's irrelevant, though. There was no evidence for those animals, so we had no reason to believe they existed. Until the point when they were discovered, I would be justified in saying that those animals did not exist.

Firstly why is the example irrelevant ?

Lastly you keep raising up this argument "I woul be justified in believing something didnt exist if there was lack of evidence for it". Why ? Why ? Why ? It does not make that statement right by you simply stating it. How does lack of evidence for an object suggest evidence for the non-existence of that object ?

You claim that Bigfoot exists.
I say "why should I believe that, there's no evidence to suggest that Bigfoot exists" (aside: You've now brought up a concept and are claiming it's existence...)
You say "well look at this video here!"
I say "that's interesting, but that video has been shown to be a hoax" (aside: the evidence is now refuted)
You say "well I still believe Bigfoot exists because people claim to have seen him!"
I say "personal testimony of an unverifiable event cannot be construed as evidence of anything."

etc...

This example is terribly wrong. Because I would never say "Bigfoot exists and I will prove it to you". I would say "Bigfoot may exist for all I know - I cannot deny the possibility he exists." Your example seems to be putting words into my moutth which were never there.

If however I were to say that God exists I would never say to you that "I could demonstrate his existence". All I would say to you is that I believe God exists because I find the Quran to be the truth (subjective evidence), because the "theory of God" also explains why throughout human history people have believed in a higher power (fact - that people have believed in a diety), and because the "theory of God" explains the existence of this universe (fact - that the universe exists) and lastly because there exists no evidence to suggest that God doesnt exist (fact).

Do you understand now what's going on here? Someone claims that a God exists, and I say no because they cannot demonstrate that a God exists.

So God doesnt exist because people cannot demonstrate his existence ? That is absurd to say the least. How many times must I say this "lack of evidence for an object does not constitute evidence for the objects non-existence"

Now, I don't KNOW if God exists or not (agnostic - don't know), but I'm still gonna say that God doesn't exist and bring up my reasons that people who claim that God exists cannot justify their reasons for believing so (atheist - disbelieve)

Athiesm is a belief. Agnosticism isnt. Agnosticism stems from objective understanding and requirment of proof for a claim. Athiesm doesnt. Athiesm and Agnosticism are completely different. So as you claim that if you dont KNOW if God exists then you are agnostic, however at one point in your life if you choose to BELIEVE God doesnt exist because people cannot justify his existence then you are athiest. You cannot be both. Pick one.

On a personal level, it allows people to have something that explains their own purpose in this world. I think the God concept is too incoherent to properly be called an explanation.

Please do tell why the God concept is too incoherent.

Yea, but I'm not asking you whether or not you know. I'm asking whether or not you believe me if I say that pink bunnies exist on mars?

There is a difference between knowing and believing. You either know something or you believe something unless what you know and believe are the same thing. You cannot do both in your mind. I think you are confusing believing with hoping. You dont know if God exists but you are hoping he doesnt because there seems to be in your mind nothing which can justify his existence.

As for pink bunnies, I told you I dont know if they exist but if I choose to believe your word then I would stop knowing they exist and start believing they do. There cant be certainty and doubt in your mind at the same time and that is what belief is (i.e. certainty in your mind). I seriously think you are confusing believing with hoping.

 

[ghazirizvi]

ghazirizvi, I strongly suggest you look up "burden of proof" in Wikipedia. Otherwise this discussion will lead nowhere.

Thank you for your concern. But you can be rest assured that I know what "burden of proof" means and its implications. I was not the one here who made a claim, Asimov did. I only challenged that claim. So do tell me why the Burden of Proof lies on me ? (that is what you are claiming right ?)

 

[Asimov]

Lastly you keep raising up this argument "I woul be justified in believing something didnt exist if there was lack of evidence for it". Why ? Why ? Why ? It does not make that statement right by you simply stating it. How does lack of evidence for an object suggest evidence for the non-existence of that object ?

Because if there is no evidence that something exists, there's no reason to believe it exists!

This example is terribly wrong. Because I would never say "Bigfoot exists and I will prove it to you". I would say "Bigfoot may exist for all I know - I cannot deny the possibility he exists." Your example seems to be putting words into my moutth which were never there.

I was speaking a hypothetical, relax.

So God doesnt exist because people cannot demonstrate his existence ? That is absurd to say the least. How many times must I say this "lack of evidence for an object does not constitute evidence for the objects non-existence"

How many times must I say that I'm not saying that? Jeez.

Athiesm is a belief. Agnosticism isnt. Agnosticism stems from objective understanding and requirment of proof for a claim. Athiesm doesnt. Athiesm and Agnosticism are completely different. So as you claim that if you dont KNOW if God exists then you are agnostic, however at one point in your life if you choose to BELIEVE God doesnt exist because people cannot justify his existence then you are athiest. You cannot be both. Pick one.

Agnosticism IS a belief! Look it up! Anything someone holds to be true - even if it is the claim that nobody can know if God exists or not - is a belief claim!

Please do tell why the God concept is too incoherent.

You've never heard of the omniscience/omnipotence problem?

There is a difference between knowing and believing. You either know something or you believe something unless what you know and believe are the same thing. You cannot do both in your mind. I think you are confusing believing with hoping. You dont know if God exists but you are hoping he doesnt because there seems to be in your mind nothing which can justify his existence.

Uh, no. Knowledge is a belief, justified belief.

I seriously think you are confusing believing with hoping.

And I seriously think you have no idea what is being said.

 

[ghazirizvi]

Because if there is no evidence that something exists, there's no reason to believe it exists!

I gave you a real life example which literally refuted the statement:

"If there is lack of evidence for an object then a person is justified in believing the object doesnt exist".

And all you replied was the irrelevant (IMO) Bigfoot example (I still dont understand how that "hypothetical" example has any relevence to this "debate") and the reiteration of the above mentioned statement. Please forgive me for I am slow but I still dont understand why you are justified in believing an object does not exist if there is lack of evidence for it (at least Illuminatus told me why: Occams Razor and Reductionism - however you earlier claimed you are not using reductionism [below] so I still dont see why).

You didn't request empirical demonstration. It's not reductionism, and I essentially have claimed:

"There is no evidence for God, therefore I am justified in believing God does not exist".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many times must I say that I'm not saying that? Jeez.

Let me guess you are saying that "lack of evidence constitutes a justified belief that an object does not exist" ? Almost the same thing as my previous statement considering we both know the discussion at hand is about your beliefs. My apologies in anycase.

Agnosticism IS a belief! Look it up! Anything someone holds to be true - even if it is the claim that nobody can know if God exists or not - is a belief claim!

The claim comes from the fact that humans do not have absolute knowledge of everything and God cannot be proven or disproven from an objective POV. Unless you can provide a counter-example to these facts I will hold them to be true. Some definitions consider Agnosticism to be a belief however it is atleast based on a rational understanding of this world however to my knowledge Atheism is pure belief unless you can prove to me otherwise.

You've never heard of the omniscience/omnipotence problem?

No.

Uh, no. Knowledge is a belief, justified belief.

Uh, no. Knowledge is a proven belief, not a justified belief. I said earlier...

There is a difference between knowing and believing. You either know something or you believe something unless what you know and believe are the same thing

Tell me what is specifically wrong with that statement, instead of dismissing it one word (i.e. "no").

Further wikipedia also states what I just stated....

Knowledge is distinct from belief and opinion. If someone claims to believe something, he is claiming that he thinks that it is the truth. But of course, it might turn out that he was mistaken, and that what he thought was true was actually false. This is not the case with knowledge. For example, suppose that Jeff thinks that a particular bridge is safe, and attempts to cross it; unfortunately the bridge collapses under his weight. We might say that Jeff believed that the bridge was safe, but that his belief was mistaken. We would not say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. For something to count as knowledge, it must be true.
Similarly, two people can believe things that are mutually contradictory, but they cannot know (unequivocally) things that are mutually contradictory. For example, Jeff can believe the bridge is safe, while Jenny believes it unsafe. But Jeff cannot know the bridge is safe and Jenny cannot know that the bridge is unsafe simultaneously. Two people cannot know contradictory things.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Knowledge_and_belief

And I seriously think you have no idea what is being said.

I think I have a pretty clear idea. However it is you, who instead of giving me proper answers to the points I raise, keep re-iterating one statement over and over again and keep giving me one line comments as if they can dismiss another POV without actually stating why.

 

[Asimov]

Then allow me to start over:

Knowledge: Justified True Belief.
Belief: Holding the position that x is true.
Atheism: Disbelief in God.
Theism: Belief in God.

Agnosticism: the philosophical view that the (truth) values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Reasons for my disbelief:
1. Argument from Non-Cognitivism: The argument which asserts that the word "god" has no meaning.
2. Lack of evidence.
3. The incoherent qualities of an infinite God - Omniscience implies total knowledge, omnipotence implies total power. If God knows all future action then God cannot be in complete power over his own actions and has no libertarian free will.

Reasons for disbelief in Abrahamic God:
1. The problem of Moral Responsibility.
2. Omniscience incompatibility with Libertarian Free Will.
3. Biblical errancy.
4. Transcendancy vs. Omnipresence.
5. All-Good vs. Omnipresence.
6. Hell vs. Omnipresence.

Shall we go from there?

 

[ghazirizvi]

Hey Asimov,

Sorry for the late reply, I have been kinda busy as of late.

Then allow me to start over:

Knowledge: Justified True Belief.
Belief: Holding the position that x is true.
Atheism: Disbelief in God.
Theism: Belief in God.

Fair enough except for the definition for Knoledge. It should read....

Knowledge: Proven belief.

Justifications arent always right, even for true things.

Agnosticism: the philosophical view that the (truth) values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

I wouldnt say its irrelevant but ok.

Reasons for my disbelief:

Argument from Non-Cognitivism: The argument which asserts that the word "god" has no meaning.

You are doing the same thing with this argument that Illuminatus tried to do (i.e. Occams Razor). Please read his conversation with me for a rebuttal (if its still not clear, I will explain further).

Lack of evidence.

This is ridiculous. How about the universe, our existence. For that is what the (for the sake of argument) "theory of God" tries to explain. If however you are talking about evidence which proves God's existence then I doubt you will find much which can be objectively conclusive. It is here that I must also point out no evidence to the contrary. So one of my reasons for believing in God is as you say "Lack of evidence"

The incoherent qualities of an infinite God - Omniscience implies total knowledge, omnipotence implies total power. If God knows all future action then God cannot be in complete power over his own actions and has no libertarian free will.

You misunderstand God (indeed we all do) because you are limiting him to a timeline yet at the same time you are claiming his omnipotence.

Reasons for disbelief in Abrahamic God:

1. The problem of Moral Responsibility.

What is the problem of moral responsibility ?

Omniscience incompatibility with Libertarian Free Will.

Again. Read above.

Biblical errancy.

Firstly this is a purely subjective matter (I think) unless there are proven facts which are contradicted in the bible.

Secondly the bible isnt the only holy book belonging to an Abrahamic Religion (there is also Tora [unless you count it in the bible] and Quran).

Transcendancy vs. Omnipresence.

I dont understand the conflict. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

All-Good vs. Omnipresence.

Again I dont understand the conflict.

Hell vs. Omnipresence

God is not part nor does he exist in his creation from an Islamic viewpoint. So this poses no problem for me.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I've never seen a contradiction between atheism and agnosticism. I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I don't know if God exists but until I see evidence of him, I'm not going to believe. Likewise I don't believe in Bunnies on Mars or in Snagblortsicans. If we had to disprove the existance of every concept man can invent we would never get anywhere.
I cannot disprove the existance of God any more than I can disprove the existance of Carl Sagan invisible Dragon but that doesn't mean I should believe in them.