Atheism is a faith.


Think about it:

Zero is the number that enumerates nothing, a number lacking a positive or negative value.

Black is the color of lightlessness, a color lacking red, blue, or green light.

Atheism is a faith that believes in godlessness, a faith lacking one or more gods.



Agnosticism is secular.

Agnostic belief, (or "faith",) pertains to the existence or non-existence of knowledge,
not to the existence or non-existence of gods, spiritual beings, or deities.




clarification of terms:

Quote :

" secular American Heritage: adj. 1 Worldly rather than spiritual. 2 Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3 Relating to or advocating secularism. 4 Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. Random House: adjective 1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests. 2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music. 3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects. 4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular). Merriam-Webster: adjective 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> 1 b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> 1 c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners> 2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest> ------------------------------------------------------------ agnostic American Heritage: n. 1a One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 1b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2 One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something. Random House: noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. Merriam-Webster: noun 1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics> ------------------------------------------------------------ atheist American Heritage: n. 1 One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Random House: noun 1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Merriam-Webster: noun 1 : one who believes that there is no deity. ------------------------------------------------------------ religion American Heritage: n. 1a Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 1b A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2 The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3 A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4 A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Random House: noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. Merriam-Webster: noun 1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> 1 b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural 1 b (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ------------------------------------------------------------ faith American Heritage: n. 1 Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2 Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust. 3 Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4 often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5 The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6 A set of principles or beliefs Random House: noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. Merriam-Webster: noun 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY 1 b (1) : fidelity to one's promises 1 b (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God 2 a (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion 2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 2 b (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> "

8/4/2007 10:28:13 AM

Athiesm isn't a faith. If you don't support religion, and you don't believe in a god, then that's not your "faith." Faith indicates something believed without scientific proof*


*the societal definition, not the Webster definition.

8/4/2007 11:00:23 AM

eh, Atheism is a belief that there isn't a god(s). Where as Agnosticism is a non-belief or doubt of god(s).

There societal definitions anyway

8/4/2007 11:08:34 AM

I don't believe in a god because I don't see a legitimate reason to believe in a god. I'm not being unreasonable and I don't have a better alternative. If you want to to label that as faith, I don't care. What's your point?

btw, there are no official definitions in the English language.

8/4/2007 11:12:21 AM

^what he said

"science is a faith!"
"atheism is a faith!"

stop projecting

8/4/2007 11:55:54 AM

Quote :

"Zero is the number that enumerates nothing, a number lacking a positive or negative value."

Depends on your perspective. In 2's compliment encoding, zero is a positive number.

8/4/2007 1:42:08 PM

where's Froshkiller when you need him

8/4/2007 2:17:50 PM

hanging out on the corner of overrated post and played out street

8/4/2007 2:35:17 PM

Yep, I have faith that Thor doesn't exist.

8/4/2007 4:43:51 PM

For the umpteenth time, there have been thousands of gods throughout the human history that people have believed and still believe in -- gods such as Zeus, Vishnu, Thor, Ra, etc. Do you have faith that all these gods don't exist? No? Well, I don't have faith that your god exists. And by the way

Quote :

"Zero is the number that enumerates nothing, a number lacking a positive or negative value."

If you wanna get mathematical, a set containing zero is not the same as a null set, i.e. a set containing nothing. Similarly, in both math and computer programming a variable with a value of zero is not the same as a variable with a null value. In other words zero and nothing are not the same thing, so try another anology.

Quote :

"Black is the color of lightlessness, a color lacking red, blue, or green light"

An object having a color black is not the same as an object having no color, so, again, try another anology.

</thread>

8/4/2007 5:05:30 PM

Based upon the definitions of two random words in the English language, you think you've proved that atheism requires faith?

Atheism does not require faith to assert that no gods exist. Technically, it has nothing to do with dieties. The word itself simply means "without religion." So even IF a god really did exist, an atheist would simply be one who does not adhere to the religion made for/set forth by that god.

And like I said, to be an atheist does not require faith. You don't have to "believe" that no gods exist. What you do need to have is skepticism. When undeniable proof (and no I don't mean your "divinely inspired" religious texts) appears that clearly shows that a god or gods exist, then all of the atheists in the world will be glad to acknowledge the existence of this god. Until then, there's no compelling evidence to even assume that it's true.

I am not required to believe anything you say just because you claim that your holy book has authority. I will not take your word for it, and I am not required to prove you wrong. The rule/convention is that YOU must provide the proof when you make a claim. YOU assert that there is a god, so YOU must provide the conclusive evidence of its existence. I don't really give a rat's ass what you "believe in," but before I can allow you to shove your agenda down my throat, you must verify for me that you are correct.

[/thread]

8/4/2007 5:09:18 PM

Quote :

"YOU assert that there is a god, so YOU must provide the conclusive evidence of its existence."

That's not necessarily true for many religious people. They believe that there is a god, and assert their will based on that belief. Many religious people feel that have genuinely felt the hand of god, and it's on this basis that they are religious, not merely their religious text.

And if someone truly believes that God exists, but can't prove it outside their own head, there's not much you can do to stop their religious rampages without somehow showing that what they may have felt as a religious experience was a dream or a delusion.

8/4/2007 5:16:35 PM

Isn't black also the combination of all pigments?
Therefore a color that contains all, but at the same time is nothing?

Deep stuff in this thread.....

8/4/2007 5:35:39 PM

Quote :

"Therefore a color that contains all, but at the same time is nothing?"

It absorbs all, but reflects nothing

Hardly a paradox there

8/4/2007 6:46:42 PM

God isn't falsifiable. So technically you can't be atheist in principle for anything that has to do with invisible magic. But while being technically agnostic to gods of all mythologies, you can be in practice a theistic, or without faith in any given god.

8/4/2007 7:09:47 PM

I have faith in my penis

8/4/2007 11:00:41 PM

Quote :

"hanging out on the corner of overrated post and played out street"

8/5/2007 5:20:51 AM

yeah. atheism is a faith, no doubts.

agnostics are the only people who even come close to reaching "no faith" or "no religion"

but this does bring up a significant point that people who pride themselves on rationalism would be wise to consider

8/5/2007 7:41:50 AM

Quote :

"I have faith in my penis"

With the advent of Viagra such faith may be well placed.

8/5/2007 9:28:39 AM

tu sabes

8/5/2007 10:23:35 AM

“yeah. atheism is a faith, no doubts.”

There are two ways of thinking of the word atheism that are at conflict here.

1) A lack of faith in any gods.

2) A faith that it’s impossible for gods to exist.

If you want to define it as number 2, that’s great, you’ve achieved your goal of calling it a faith, but it no longer applies to most self described atheists.

8/5/2007 10:24:46 AM

Quote :

"Athiesm isn't a faith. If you don't support religion, and you don't believe in a god, then that's not your "faith." ..."

It's true that simply not supporting religion and not believing in a god aren't grounds for that being your "faith", but that's not what I'm saying.

An agnostic doesn't support religion and doesn't believe in a god, but the reason is because they believe that that knowledge is unknowable. They haven't any faith when it comes to the existence or nonexistence of god(s), just faith in the existence or nonexistence of knowledge.

Quote :

"... Faith indicates something believed without scientific proof"

Exactly.
Atheists have no proof that no god or gods exist, yet they BELIEVE IT.
They have FAITH in that belief.

Quote :

"I don't believe in a god because I don't see a legitimate reason to believe in a god. I'm not being unreasonable and I don't have a better alternative. If you want to to label that as faith, I don't care. What's your point?"

So, you don't see a legitimate reason to believe in a god,
but do you see a legitimate reason to believe in absolute and complete godlessness?
Or do you believe that neither of those beliefs are knowable? or worth knowing?
You sound more like an agnostic or a non-theist than an atheist. (uh-oh, new term)

Quote :

"btw, there are no official definitions in the English language."

I know, that's why I put more than one source for each term,
and really just for a starting point...

(Although, a subset of the English language with clearly defined terminologies should always be maintained for academic purposes...blah blah)

Quote :

""science is a faith!" "atheism is a faith!" stop projecting"

While I understand that reaction,
the many laughable attempts to classify science as a faith are a completely different issue.

I'm saying that since zero is on the number spectrum,
and black is on the color spectrum,
then atheism is on the [theistic] faith spectrum.

IOW, the faith here is specifically on theism, namely: a-, mono-, and poly-
Science "faith", is on physical science stuff, not theism....

Quote :

"Depends on your perspective. In 2's compliment encoding, zero is a positive number."

lol

Quote :

"hanging out on the corner of overrated post and played out street"

rofl
for real

Quote :

"Do you have faith that all these gods don't exist? No? Well, I don't have faith that your god exists."

What's your point?
An atheist would answer, "Yes, I have faith that all these gods don't exist."
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
You aren't suggesting that belief in the nonexistence of a specific god or gods
is the same as belief in the nonexistence of [all] god or gods in general, are you?

Quote :

"If you wanna get mathematical, a set containing zero is not the same as a null set, i.e. a set containing nothing. Similarly, in both math and computer programming a variable with a value of zero is not the same as a variable with a null value. In other words zero and nothing are not the same thing, so try another anology."

I am very much aware of the difference between zero and null.
I am not using null in my example, because it doesn't apply.
But thanks for bringing it up, guy.
Here's how it would fit in:

How many gods do you have faith in, do you believe exist?
Atheist: 0
Monotheist: 1
Polytheist: 2 or more
Agnostic: null, it's unknowable

Quote :

"An object having a color black is not the same as an object having no color"

Um, yeah it is.
(btw, when I say black, I mean black.....not extremely dark purple)
Red=0 + Green=0 + Blue=0 = Black = no color
"The achromatic color value of minimum lightness or maximum darkness"
"complete absence of light; darkness"

Quote :

"</thread>"

Quote :

"Atheism does not require faith to assert that no gods exist."

Yes is does.
There is no proof that "no gods exist", so by definition,
belief in something without proof is faith.

Quote :

"Technically, it has nothing to do with dieties."

Uh, yes is does.
Theism has to do with gods, supreme beings, or divine spirits, etc.
...not religion.
Religion is the -ology, not the -ism.

Quote :

"The word itself simply means 'without religion.'"

No it doesn't.

Quote :

"So even IF a god really did exist, an atheist would simply be one who does not adhere to the religion made for/set forth by that god."

Whether or not IF a god really exists doesn't matter. You can't prove it either way.
That's why all theists, be they atheists, monotheists, or polytheists,
have faith in the existence or non-existence of deities.

People create religions around their [theistic] faith. This has nothing to do with religion.

Quote :

"You don't have to "believe" that no gods exist."

I'm saying that [real] atheists do. Otherwise, you're just an agnostic or non-theist.

Quote :

"What you do need to have is skepticism."

...like an agnostic. Or scientist.

Quote :

"When undeniable proof (and no I don't mean your "divinely inspired" religious texts) appears that clearly shows that a god or gods exist, then all of the atheists in the world will be glad to acknowledge the existence of this god. Until then, there's no compelling evidence to even assume that it's true."

Right, so you stay on the fence.
...and when undeniable proof appears that clearly shows that a god or gods DO NOT exist, then all of the monotheists and polytheists in the world will be glad to acknowledge the non-existence of gods. Until then, there's no compelling evidence to even assume that it's false.

Quote :

"[/thread]"

[old]

Quote :

"most self described atheists."

I'm obviously not talking about the [often incorrectly] self described.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 12:44:50 PM

I have faith that this thread will solve many problems.

8/5/2007 12:55:05 PM

Quote :

"Atheists have no proof that no god or gods exist, yet they BELIEVE IT. They have FAITH in that belief."

I also believe and have faith that the Earth exists, unicorns don't, I'm not a brain in a vat, the universe didn't appear 5 seconds ago and everyone has false memories, etc.

Quote :

"So, you don't see a legitimate reason to believe in a god, but do you see a legitimate reason to believe in absolute and complete godlessness?"

I see reasons, but

Quote :

"Or do you believe that neither of those beliefs are knowable? "

it's impossible to disprove the existence of nearly anything, especially higher powers or realities.

Quote :

"worth knowing?"

Absolutely.

Quote :

"You sound more like an agnostic or a non-theist than an atheist. (uh-oh, new term)"

You sound like McDanger. I see agnostics as being unable/unwilling to make an intelligent decision.

8/5/2007 1:23:48 PM

Quote :

"I also believe and have faith that the Earth exists, unicorns don't, I'm not a brain in a vat, the universe didn't appear 5 seconds ago and everyone has false memories, etc."

Right,
but I'm not talking about faith in general, but about theistic faith, of which I'm asserting includes atheism.

Quote :

"I see agnostics as being unable/unwilling to make an intelligent decision."

I disagree.
While some may fall into that category, not all do.
Some, by asserting and logically explaining their (non-theistic) belief in theistic "unknowability",
have willingly made "an intelligent decision".

When you said, "it's impossible to disprove the existence of nearly anything, especially higher powers or realities", you are making just such a decision...right?
While that decision doesn't make you an agnostic, it doesn't rule it out, either.
That decision doesn't speak to whether or not you believe in either the unknowability or the meaninglessness of such knowledge.
So you seem like you might be an agnostic, or perhaps a more general non-theist....

8/5/2007 1:59:30 PM

MAYBE THEY JUST DONT GIVE A SHIT

8/5/2007 4:17:00 PM

didn't really read the thread, but:

Quote :

" No? Well, I don't have faith that your god exists."

by the way you worded that, you are describing agnosticism.

if you are an atheist, you HAVE FAITH that god(s) doesn't/don't exist.

there is a difference--and atheism is a "faith" (or at least requires faith).

atheism is, to me, pretty much the stupidest of the three stances to take. Based solely on cold, hard facts and logic, you'd almost have to be agnostic. Faith in God (or gods) is still more sensible than atheism, because (either in reality or at least in your mind), you have something to gain.

8/5/2007 5:02:55 PM

One is the loneliest number, therefore monotheism is depressing.

See, I can draw poorly founded conclusions, too.

8/5/2007 5:09:06 PM

Quote :

"Faith in God (or gods) is still more sensible than atheism, because (either in reality or at least in your mind), you have something to gain."

What exactly do you have to gain by believing in a magical man living in the sky controlling your life?

8/5/2007 5:09:34 PM

"if you are an atheist, you HAVE FAITH that god(s) doesn't/don't exist"

Atheism is the absence of faith. Not a faith in the impossibility of gods.

I can't disprove Thor, or Zeus, or Yahweh, or any non-falsifiable invisible magic, so I can’t have faith that they don’t exist. So I’m strictly speaking agnostic towards anything I can’t disprove… including unicorns & leprechauns & witches & demons & Pegasus & angels.

I think that lack of faith makes me an atheist.

I suppose by those definitions I’m both agnostic (in that I can’t disprove invisible magic), and atheist (without faith in invisible magic).

But you can’t lump every would be atheist that disagrees with you into categories of either a Faith Based Atheist or a Ignorant Agnostic.

I can't disprove that there isn't another dimension where Harry Potter is real, but it would be silly to try to force me into a position of agnosticism towards that.

There really are faithless atheists out there, even if that is worded in terms religious people aren't used to thinking in.

8/5/2007 5:26:44 PM

Quote :

"I see agnostics as being unable/unwilling to make an intelligent decision."

Bullshit, we're just being reasonable. We, faced with no evidence in either direction, cannot make a decision. It's on atheists or theists to disprove or prove the existence of God. Strictly speaking, atheism is a belief that there are no gods (just as a theist has a belief that there is a god/gods). It seems people want to relax that meaning to "non-religious" or something, but that's just confusing.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 5:40:25 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit, we're just being reasonable"

Reasonable isn't the word for agnosticism. Even though you can't logically or definitively disprove something, you can still reasonably reject it because the idea is so preposterous (Richard Dawkins example: you don't need definitive proof to know that there is no ceramic teapot orbiting the sun).

The agnostic position trades off reasonable judgement in favor of ambiguity because people derive some sort of personal comfort from not having to face one of life's biggest questions. Also, it's a convenient conversation ender when people try to have tedious discussions about science vs religion.

Quote :

"I think that lack of faith makes me an atheist."

To put it more clearly, it's the belief that you don't need supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. That, of course, requires some assumption, but the reasons we should hold this assumption are very practical:

- We continually collect natural evidence to explain explain more and more natural phenomenon.
- This new evidence makes it more and more unlikely that supernatural reasons exist.
- The actual advance or science, technology, and humanity has no choice but to rely on natural explanations.

Religious faith doesn't appeal to this sense of practicality -- it's a completely different class of faith.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 6:32 PM. Reason : sdf]

8/5/2007 6:19:59 PM

I think it’s more confusing to try to use the word atheism in a way that both implies faith, and applies to virtually no one.

If it's easier for people who are accustomed to thinking in terms of faith to use the word non-religious, I don't see a problem with it though.

8/5/2007 6:23:10 PM

Quote :

"Reasonable isn't the word for agnosticism. Even though you can't logically or definitively disprove something, you can still reasonably reject it because the idea is so preposterous (Richard Dawkins example: you don't need definitive proof to know that there is no ceramic teapot orbiting the sun). The agnostic position trades off reasonable judgement in favor of ambiguity because people derive some sort of personal comfort from not having to face one of life's biggest questions. Also, it's a convenient conversation ender when people try to have tedious discussions about science vs religion."

No, it's not about being comfortable: there's nothing comfortable about not knowing for sure. I mean, what, you think I haven't seriously thought about this big question? Fuck you. In such a large case as this, God could or could not exist: either is equally plausible. It's lazy to default to "there is no god" without proof that he does NOT exist: that's a jump to a belief that I can't make. Agnostics aren't lazy or trying to avoid the issue: the fact is that the issue has not been settled or proven by either side (when both are equally plausible). And to be honest, I don't think anyone is ever going to succeed in doing either. I'm sorry you can't see that.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 6:33 PM. Reason : What I bolded is exactly your problem. No, "reasonable" is not jumping to a belief without proof.]

8/5/2007 6:28:59 PM

^Equally plausible? So do you or do you not believe there is a ceramic teapot orbiting the sun?

8/5/2007 6:34:14 PM

You know full well that that is a terrible analogy, since it relies on where the teapot is supposed to be (namely, not up there). It's such a shitty analogy that it's not even worth responding to.

The world could still exist and function if there were a God, just as if there weren't. I don't see how your teapot is even close to relevant or similar. Not to mention that people have different ideas of what's "preposterous," for you that might include there being a God. But you don't have proof that there isn't one.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 6:35:32 PM

That's the kind of evasion that perfectly suits an agnostic.

Terms like "plausible" or "reasonable" or "preposterous" refer to likelihoods, not definitive truths. When you enter the realm (reality) where the best you can do is talk about likelihoods, one position is definitely more likely (and more useful) than the other.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 6:44 PM. Reason : jklj]

8/5/2007 6:43:08 PM

Well good, if I seem to fit in with other agnostics. I don't think it's useless to speculate about either possibility, but to make the leap into belief that there IS or IS NOT a God is what I find ridiculous. The point being: it's not like I'm avoiding the whole issue by taking the only stance based on evidence. You can be as doubtful as you like, but that doesn't mean you KNOW anything.

One position really doesn't seem that much more plausible than the other, as much as you want to assert that.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 6:51 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 6:48:57 PM

I "know" it as well as I "know" there isn't a ceramic teapot orbiting the sun. You're less rational than a religious person if you believe that the existence of a teapot flying around the sun is just as plausible (likely) as its nonexistence.

From our best investigations and our best knowledge of science, I believe it's extremely unlikely that there is a teapot flying around the sun. This is the best anyone can "know" most things.

This is just a probabilistic explanation. I haven't proven to you that the teapot does not exist. Short of mathematical proofs, most reasoning -- including scientific reasoning -- accepts probabilistic explanations because they are still rational.

Now you are telling me that agnostics will not accept ANY probabilistic explanations for things? The more you explain, the more unreasonable your position becomes.

8/5/2007 7:41:14 PM

New term to mix in here guys - Deist

Wiki

Quote :

"Deism differs from theism in that according to Deism God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe..........Deists hold that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being."

Most of America's founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin were deist. I find it attractive since it lets one give probabilistic explanation to the origin of the big bang while still having an agnostic stance.

8/5/2007 7:58:00 PM

Ted Haggard, Richard Dawkins, StillFuchsia, and Benjamin Franklin walk into a bar, and the bartender tells them that he's taking bets on heads or tails for a coin that will land on heads 75% of the time.

Ted Haggard bets on tails, loses all his money, and goes home to praise the lord with his family.
Richard Dawkins bets on heads and buys drinks for himself and three of his buddies.
StillFuchsia doesn't bet at all and has a drink by herself in the corner.
Benjamin Franklin bets on heads, buys drinks for himself and all of his friends, and they all toast with "hallelujah."

8/5/2007 8:50:34 PM

Quote :

"Whether or not IF a god really exists doesn't matter. You can't prove it either way. That's why all theists, be they atheists, monotheists, or polytheists, have faith in the existence or non-existence of deities. People create religions around their [theistic] faith. This has nothing to do with religion."

You're still not getting it. By the convention of logic, you doubt everything until it is demonstrated/verified. That is not faith, that is simply an assumption which is subject to change given the right evidence. That's the difference. Atheists do not have faith that there is no god, they simply assume that no gods exist until such time that their existence can be proven. Theists, on the other hand, can't be bothered to let the facts interfere with their assumptions about the universe.

You are correct that it cannot be proven either way, but like I said, the atheists don't have to prove anything. People who believe in gods are the ones making all of the outrageous claims, so it is they who are responsible for supplying the proof to convince the rest of us. To place the burden of proof elsewhere is intellectually dishonest.

Quote :

"I'm saying that [real] atheists do. Otherwise, you're just an agnostic or non-theist."

No. Atheists will publicly proclaim their skepticism about the gods, but if extraordinary claims are backed by extraordinary evidence they will come around. Agnostics are basically fence-sitters, refusing to say one way or the other if gods do exist. But maybe I'm confusing atheists for non-theists?

[/quote...like an agnostic. Or scientist.[/quote]

It seems to me that agnostics are not so much skeptical as they are simply afraid to take a stance on the subject. It's not "until we hear otherwise, we have to work under the assumption that God is not there," it's "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God." Which is admittedly a very slight, subtle difference, but an important one.

Quote :

"Right, so you stay on the fence.[quote] I don't straddle the fence in any way, shape or form. It's pretty obvious what my stance is on the subject of whether or not gods exist. [quote]...and when undeniable proof appears that clearly shows that a god or gods DO NOT exist, then all of the monotheists and polytheists in the world will be glad to acknowledge the non-existence of gods. Until then, there's no compelling evidence to even assume that it's false."

That's never gonna happen. Proving that something does not exist would require searching through everything. A simple example would be proving that Jesus did not exist. In order to do that, you'd have to go through every last historical document and make sure that some guy named Jesus is not mentioned in any of them. That's a very unreasonable request, especially given that there are gaps in the historical record and that not everything is not known. It's also because of that last part that proving something doesn't exist is an impossible task. Therefore it falls to the other side to prove Jesus does exist (which is comparatively easy to do, because all they need to do is find one instance where Jesus is mentioned and they have their proof).

Moving beyond this analogy, it is impossible to prove that gods do not exist because that would require knowing every last thing about the universe. It's much easier for the theists to come up with proof than it is for the atheists/non-thesists/whoever doesn't think gods exist. All the theists have to do to win the argument is come up with one single piece of compelling evidence.

It's the most professional/ethical thing to do anyway. Making claims and then expecting someone else to do the work to verify them is the height of laziness. If you can't back up your claims, then why are you making them? Since it's impossible for the claim "gods do not exist" to be proven true, the next logical step is to try and claim that the opposite claim is true. But making that claim and then saying "prove I'm wrong" is unreasonable because we've already established that proving that gods do not exist is impossible. Either the proof [that gods exist] is out there somewhere or it isn't. If it is, then the theists should get off of their pews and go find it.

8/5/2007 9:02:27 PM

Quote :

"I "know" it as well as I "know" there isn't a ceramic teapot orbiting the sun. You're less rational than a religious person if you believe that the existence of a teapot flying around the sun is just as plausible (likely) as its nonexistence. From our best investigations and our best knowledge of science, I believe it's extremely unlikely that there is a teapot flying around the sun. This is the best anyone can "know" most things. This is just a probabilistic explanation. I haven't proven to you that the teapot does not exist. Short of mathematical proofs, most reasoning -- including scientific reasoning -- accepts probabilistic explanations because they are still rational. Now you are telling me that agnostics will not accept ANY probabilistic explanations for things? The more you explain, the more unreasonable your position becomes."

You still aren't seeing how absolutely ludicrous your analogy is.

And I know what it means to have a hypothesis (which you apparently take as the "probable" explanation), but that does not mean what you believe is backed up by any concrete facts. There are no "signs" that point to the existence or nonexistence of God (like, for example, not normally finding a teapot in orbit around the sun), so you can't even make extrapolations of a similar nature.

Quote :

"It seems to me that agnostics are not so much skeptical as they are simply afraid to take a stance on the subject. It's not "until we hear otherwise, we have to work under the assumption that God is not there," it's "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God." Which is admittedly a very slight, subtle difference, but an important one."

For the last fucking time, agnostics aren't afraid to take a stance. We're taking the only sane stance that can be taken without any evidence either way.

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 10:26:06 PM

I forgot to mention that the teapot is magical, so it can behave in ways that a normal teapot cannot. Do you still believe that we should consider the existence of this magical teapot?

8/5/2007 11:16:33 PM

Quote :

"Even though you can't logically or definitively disprove something, you can still reasonably reject it because the idea is so preposterous"

Quote :

"God could or could not exist: either is equally plausible"

Quote :

"Equally plausible? So do you or do you not believe there is a ceramic teapot orbiting the sun?"

Quote :

"people have different ideas of what's "preposterous"

Quote :

"magical teapot?"

I may be wrong, but this dialogue seems to be getting at the different levels of preposterousness among certain historical claims about god(s).

Someone might think about it along these lines:
It is only somewhat preposterous to claim that a "higher power", a "supreme being" created the big bang.
It is slightly more preposterous to claim that this "higher power" not only created the big bang, but did it in such a way as to intentionally have it result in the known universe.
It becomes quite a bit more preposterous to claim that life on Earth was intentioned by this "higher power".
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power" observes life on Earth.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power" interacts with life on Earth.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power" is human-like.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power" is male.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power" impregnated a human.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power's" son walked on water.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power's" son rose from the dead.
Even more preposterous would be to claim that this "higher power" demands faith in "him", else ye shall burn in hell with the devil, and not play harps in heaven with angels and your dead dog from your childhood.

IOW, many people, in rejecting the more preposterous geocentric and anthropocentric claims made throughout history by certain monotheists and polytheists, may think that they are now a non-theist or even an atheist. But upon closer thought, they may be a deist, or simply a non-religious monotheist or polytheist.

The anthropomorphization of monotheist and polytheist gods usually happens within a particular [culturally defined] religion. It's no surprise to me, really. Look at all the anthropomorphization of animals on commercials and movies. We humans are very (unfortunately IMO,) anthropocentric.

Quote :

"You're still not getting it. By the convention of logic, you doubt everything until it is demonstrated/verified. That is not faith, that is simply an assumption which is subject to change given the right evidence. That's the difference. Atheists do not have faith that there is no god, they simply assume that no gods exist until such time that their existence can be proven."

..and I'm saying that that isn't what [real] atheists are.
You are lumping many, if not most, [incorrectly] self-described atheists into your definition.
I am asserting that [real] atheists do not simply doubt the existence of god(s) because there is a lack of evidence, instead, quite like monotheists and polytheists, [real] atheists believe, WITHOUT PROOF, that god(s) don't/doesn't exist. They have no doubts about it. THEY HAVE UTTER AND COMPLETE FAITH IN IT.

You are describing a non-theist, not a (a-, mono-, or poly-,) theist.

Quote :

"the atheists don't have to prove anything."

Atheists don't have to prove anything any more that other theists have to prove anything, because there is no proof of the existence or non-existence of god(s). All theists (a-, mono-, or poly-,) have faith, and therefore no need for proof.

Quote :

"People who believe in gods are the ones making all of the outrageous claims"

Again, (you are the one not getting it,) outright proofless utter and complete belief and faith in god(s) is no less an "outrageous claim" in your words, than outright proofless utter and complete belief and faith in godlessness. THEY ARE ON THE SAME SPECTRUM.

Quote :

"Atheists will publicly proclaim their skepticism about the gods"

No.
Don't you get it? I'm putting forward a definition of atheist that many current so-called self-described atheists don't use. No [real] atheist proclaims skepticism about god(s), instead, quite the opposite, atheists proclaim unmovable faith, complete belief in godlessness, not simply skepticism. Skepticism is in the realm of non-theism, often agnosticism.

Quote :

"But maybe I'm confusing atheists for non-theists?"

Yep. Sorry for going all CAPS on you.....

Quote :

"proving something doesn't exist is an impossible task."

Right, so atheist's complete and utter belief of the non-existence of god(s) cannot reasonably be proven, therefore they have [theistic] faith.

Quote :

"If you can't back up your claims, then why are you making them?"

Because you have faith, duh.
In this case, theistic faith, because the claims have to do with (a-, mono-, and poly-,) theism.
This whole proof business you're talking about really misses the mark. That's more in the realm of non-theism. Whether one's "claim" is that god(s) exist or god(s) don't exist, the lack of proof, or the lack of even the possibility of proof simply cements the idea that such a claim is FAITH-BASED.


[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 8:39 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2007 8:34:50 AM

I agree with 392.

Also LowJack is an idiot. Comparing the likelyhood of God(s) to a teapot in space is stupid. One is an omnipotent, unfalsifiable being, the other is a man-made object with a defined creation, origin, and measurable locaton, speed and position.


That's a very good point about the anthropomorphic God.

I see it this way (as an agnostic). We put everything in the terms of our understanding. Until the last century, there was no concept of higher dimensions. It's only been very recently that concepts like 4th and 5th dimensional reality have come into play. Dark Matter, et al have begun to fundamentally change how we mentally percieve the universe around us.

So I could see how religions made God(s) out to be in human or animal form. How could someone even grasp God(s) in higher dimensions? Much like the example of a Flatlander looking at a Human, it wouldn't make any sense to us on an instinctual level to see a being on a higher plane of existance.

I think it's very plausible that there is/are God(s) out there. Even as direct observers. Hell it/they could be just as fucked up mentally as humans are, but just playing on a different scale and field. I mean could you imagine the hilarity a 4th or 5th dimensional being would have with us?

In the same way we like to claim dominance over our 2d world of microbes, it could very well be that we are fucking shit up in the higher dimensions and they are spraying their cans of bleach on us occasionally.

8/6/2007 8:54:36 AM

^I forgot to mention that the teapot is magical, so it can behave in ways that a normal teapot cannot. Do you still believe that we should consider the existence of this magical teapot?

8/6/2007 9:10:51 AM

there's no difference between the teapot and god. the only difference is that one makes more sense to us since we've grown up with the idea. both have equal evidence for their existence - in other words, zero.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 9:29 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 9:28:26 AM

Quote :

"I forgot to mention that the teapot is magical, so it can behave in ways that a normal teapot cannot. Do you still believe that we should consider the existence of this magical teapot?"

Then yes, I have faith that there COULD be a magical teapot. Sure we should consider it.

^Religion is not based on evidence, it's based on faith. You guys keep confusing religion and science here. If you HAVE faith, then evidence can affect that faith, for good or bad. If you do not have the initial faith in whatever belief we are talking about, evidence doesn't matter at all.

It's unfalsifiable, plain and simple. This is my huge problem with Organized religion AND the Athiests. Faith is an individual path.

8/6/2007 10:02:38 AM

Quote :

"This is my huge problem with Organized religion AND the Athiests. Faith is an individual path"

Yes. I agree completely.

But, there is nothing wrong with people forming groups, right?

It's not the mere existence of religion that's the problem, just the fact the large religions try to involve themselves in government, try to convert people, generally don't keep their beliefs to themselves. A church or a religion that does nothing to fuck with others (Amish? maybe,) would be ok, it's just that historically, churches and religions do everything they can to control and influence others. Shit, there are still theocracies today, aren't there? We've still got a long way to go.

The next logical step would be (brace yourself religious types,) atheist churches.

Yes, churches.

http://www.churchoffreethought.org/
http://www.churchofreality.org

I've decided that this is inevitable and good. (although, we'll see....)

from some blog:

Quote :

"Starting an atheist church and going after faith-based funding has the ancilliary benefit of irritating the theocrats. I am so totally against government sponsorship of religion, but so long as its legal, I think the most ethical course is to seek it for atheist organizations as well as thesitic ones. This should be used to support atheistic proslytizing and will make the valuable point that government funding of religion can cut both ways"

Just like this blog poster, I completely reject government sponsorship of religion, however, as long as advocating for atheist churches to receive federal faith-based organization funding serves to repeal the unjust faith-based funding bullshit, I'm all for it.

I also support new religions receiving the federal funds. Christians, Jews, and Muslims will not tolerate being treated equally with (A)atheists and new religions such as Scientology, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism), and the Church of the SubGenius. Thus, federal faith-based funding will become unpopular, and we can move to restore the first amendment. btw, that's not the point of this thread, just a tangent.

8/6/2007 10:30:15 AM