Atheism is DEAD!

[Riverwind]

Consider what you know and the evidence and come to a conclusion. It's as easy as that.

And if the evidence is inconclusive then one can only say that one cannot come to a conclusion. If people are agnostic is is most likely because they don't care about the issue. Saying they are lazy is as bizarre as calling someone lazy for not having an opinion on the stanley cup playoffs even though they have no interest in hockey. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

There's a difference..the provenance of those do not go back to distant primordial times nor do people generally have deeply personal spirtitual experiances with leprechauns.

Neither does the modern conceptions of Christianity. Mormonism, Methodism, and Protestantism. Even Catholicism is not that old. The Catholic Church picked and chose which things they were going to believe only a handful of centuries ago. The Reformation was around the same time. So yeah... primordial times is not exactly correct. Furthermore, believing something that simply isn't true for an extended period of time doesn't make it true. Blood-letting isn't a cure-all and the earth is not the center of the universe. Edited December 17, 2009 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

And if the evidence is inconclusive then one say that one cannot come to a conclusion. If people are agnostic is is most likely because they don't care about the issue. Saying they are lazy is as bizarre as calling someone lazy for not having an opinion on the stanley cup playoffs even though they have no interest in hockey.

I find it very difficult to believe someone that thinks there's a pretty good possibility that God exists would take the chance of not giving a crap about whether he exists or not. No one knows for sure if any non-existent thing doesn't exist. Scientists, zoologists, biologists, whatever.... believed that black swans did not exist. You know... until they turned up somewhere. It's pretty easy to prove the existence of God.

[Riverwind]

I find it very difficult to believe someone that thinks there's a pretty good possibility that God exists would take the chance of not giving a crap about whether he exists or not.

That is your opinion but why do you care? Do you think that thiests are going to be suddenly converted because all of the agnostists claim they are really atheists?

[cybercoma]

That is your opinion but why do you care? Do you think that thiests are going to be suddenly converted because all of the agnostists claim they are really atheists?

Why do you think I would care if theists "convert"?

[Riverwind]

Why do you think I would care if theists "convert"?

I was just speculating on why you would care what agnostics really think. Why do you? What relevance does it have to the point you want to make? Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

I was just speculating on why you would care what agnostics really think. Why do you? What relevance does it have to the point you want to make?

None. I'm just curious. Although, I suppose where I'm going is that we're atheists when it comes to Santa Clause, but in reality you can't disprove his existence, so we should all be agnostics with respect to Santa. It's a silly label, in my opinion, because at the end of the day they don't believe in God.

People want to say that atheists are people that BELIEVE God doesn't exist, but that's not exactly true and it's a little odd to phrase that you believe in something that's not. Most people would probably say, "I don't believe in God". The point is necessarily that they DO NOT believe, not that they positively believe something NOT to be the case.

I say agnostics are atheists because they share the characteristic that they do not believe in God. However, an atheist may take it a step further and say they believe god does not exist. I believe the defining characteristic of both is that they do not believe in God. What they do believe in is irrelevant because the entire point is that they don't believe in God.

The problem with agnosticism is that there are degrees. A person may believe that there is an equal chance that God does or does not exist; however, that could be in any proportion. They could believe that God very likely does exist, but there's a very slight chance that God does not exist. On the other hand, They could believe there's a very slight chance that God exists and God very likely does not exist. I'm curious what agnostics believe because in my experience most agnostics are from the last category, but that's not necessarily the case. Someone that considers his or herself religious and a believer, but has doubts ought to properly be called agnostic because they "don't know", yet they think it most likely that God exists. Most people, I suspect, would still label that person by their religion. Likewise, the atheist that is near certain God doesn't exist, but realizes that you can't entirely disprove something, so they allow for the fact that compelling evidence may prove otherwise, ought to still be considered atheist.

None of this is to say that both positions are equally valid. It is up to the religious person to prove their claim that God exists, as opposed to atheists proving the impossible (that something doesn't exist). So, until the religious can prove their claim, it's best to hold the agnostic position of "I don't know"; however, no one has been able to prove God's existence yet. For being millennia old, I'm fairly confident that one could say it's highly unlikely without too much problem because it ought to have been shown by now. Otherwise, we ought to just say "I don't know" about every last wild claim that anyone make that we know to be reasonably so very highly improbable as to be quite likely not true. If I told you those purple monkeys from earlier exist, would you simply say, "I don't know", or would you say quite confidently, "that's ridiculous"?

[Riverwind]

None of this is to say that both positions are equally valid. It is up to the religious person to prove their claim that God exists

Why does a theist who minds their own business have to prove anything? If they believe in a god then a god is real for them. An agnostic may be someone who accepts this yet does not share the belief.

Otherwise, we ought to just say "I don't know" about every last wild claim that anyone make that we know to be reasonably so very highly improbable as to be quite likely not true.

There is a huge difference between the physical and the spiritual. As soon as someone makes a claim about a direct physical intervention of a diety then they are making a claim about a physical reality and one would be right to be very skeptical without concrete evidence. The past lack of such concrete evidence would also suggest that the invention it is quite improbable. However, if someone only claims some spiritual connection to a supernatural entity then one cannot use past experience with the physical world to evaluate the probability of such a connection being real. In fact, given the huge number of people who do actually report such a connection one could argue that it is most likely real.

An agnostic that agrees with the distinction that I am making between the physical and spiritual could believe that a diety is likely to exist but is agnostic because they do not have the personal experience.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shwa]

None. I'm just curious.

Good posts!

Now, I have also heard the difference expressed as:

Atheists - can rationally prove that God does not exist;

Agnostics - cannot rationally prove that Goes does or does not exist;

Theist - can rationally prove that God exists.

I have also heard the difference between belief and faith is that belief is holding something to be true because of evidence, whereas faith is a belief without evidence.

So, supposing the above is fairly accurate, is faith (in anything) irrational?

[Shwa]

His definition is meaningless.

Regardless of any tests you may wish to apply, I was merely pointing out that you are claiming your conception of God to be 'supremer' than his.

[M.Dancer]

Neither does the modern conceptions of Christianity. Mormonism, Methodism, and Protestantism. Even Catholicism is not that old. The Catholic Church picked and chose which things they were going to believe only a handful of centuries ago. The Reformation was around the same time. So yeah... primordial times is not exactly correct. Furthermore, believing something that simply isn't true for an extended period of time doesn't make it true. Blood-letting isn't a cure-all and the earth is not the center of the universe.

All of those religions trace their pedigree back almost 7000 years...whether they have evolved their beliefs or or not is irrelevant.

[M.Dancer]

It's pretty easy to prove the existence of God.

Be the first to do so...

[GostHacked]

Does Santa exist? Does the Easter bunny exist? Do leprechauns exist? Does the Loch Ness monster exist? Do aliens exist? Does the tooth fairy exist?

Alright, here you go.

Does Santa Exist?

Easter Bunny?

Leperchauns?

Tooth Fairy?

These can be answered with no, they are characters fabricated by humans through stories. Loch Ness Monster? Possibly, but in the end, I don't know. There is some compelling evidence out there. Aliens? I will say yes. Like Douglas Adams said, if we are the only intelligent species in the universe, it would be a waste of space. But there is no proof yet that aliens do exist. So,I guess I have faith that there is other intelligent life out there.

I say agnostics are atheists because they share the characteristic that they do not believe in God.

Wrong the question is unknowable to agnostics.

However, an atheist may take it a step further and say they believe god does not exist.

Then that makes the atheist stance different from the agnostic view.

[cybercoma]

Why does a theist who minds their own business have to prove anything?

They don't, you missed the entire point.

There is a huge difference between the physical and the spiritual. As soon as someone makes a claim about a direct physical intervention of a diety then they are making a claim about a physical reality and one would be right to be very skeptical without concrete evidence. The past lack of such concrete evidence would also suggest that the invention it is quite improbable. However, if someone only claims some spiritual connection to a supernatural entity then one cannot use past experience with the physical world to evaluate the probability of such a connection being real. In fact, given the huge number of people who do actually report such a connection one could argue that it is most likely real.

Some metaphorical spiritual connection is not the concern, unless that "spiritual connection" is the substantive reason for doing appalling things in this world. Then a person has every right to be judged and have to validate their reasoning. Which would mean proving the existence of said entity, then proving that it holds legitimate authority requiring obedience. Simply proving its existence is not enough, considering there could be multiple gods or deities, or even a single god that is not benevolent.

An agnostic that agrees with the distinction that I am making between the physical and spiritual could believe that a diety is likely to exist but is agnostic because they do not have the personal experience.

They could. I don't disagree. However, personal definitions of spiritual connections are inconsequential to our discussion. Institutions are not developed around personal beliefs. Furthermore, it's unnecessary for a someone's own definition to be justified, just as you don't need to ask someone to justify their belief in ghosts. That, however, doesn't mean that a reasonable person wouldn't rightfully question someone's judgment if they believe in things that they cannot prove and have no rational evidence to support. That's why you would never accept testimony from someone in court when the only thing they could provide for evidence is "I just have a feeling he did it!" Of course, that person is entitled to their opinion, but reasonable minds would be right to question their judgment.

[cybercoma]

Good posts!

Now, I have also heard the difference expressed as:

Atheists - can rationally prove that God does not exist;

Agnostics - cannot rationally prove that Goes does or does not exist;

Theist - can rationally prove that God exists.

I have also heard the difference between belief and faith is that belief is holding something to be true because of evidence, whereas faith is a belief without evidence.

So, supposing the above is fairly accurate, is faith (in anything) irrational?

I'm probably not equipped to get into this part of the discussion; however, that's never stopped me before from trying.

Faith is important in many areas. To be sure, a person can have faith in particular values, rather than a deity or entity. We have faith in those things we find valuable. Which is why faith is necessarily a part of science. What science pursues is fundamentally tied to our values, both as individuals and as societies. Faith and conviction carve out a path amongst the infinite possibilities and guide our thoughts and ideas. Admittedly, this is an entirely different meaning of faith than you were using in this post, but this would be a rational faith because it's the selection of particular ends among infinite choices.

Religious faith is entirely different and would be better called religious conviction. Conviction does not choose among infinite choices, it ignores them. Faith is not belief without evidence, it is belief in spite of evidence to the contrary. When science chips away at the theories about the natural world that are espoused by religious texts, yet people still hold onto those convictions, they are ignoring contradictions and having faith in their convictions. They are giving up on choosing among ends and steadfastly holding onto a predetermined end. This is what is so damaging about religious faith.

Interestingly, Bertrand Russell considered communism and capitalism to be faiths not unlike that of religion. I can't know what he was thinking, but I would imagine it arose from some sort of reasoning like I've outlined here.

[cybercoma]

All of those religions trace their pedigree back almost 7000 years...whether they have evolved their beliefs or or not is irrelevant.

Did their Gods evolve in that time too? Or perhaps there is no Gods and its the laws of man being applied using the unprovable divine will as the claim to legitimacy of their authority? Seven thousand years ago (more like 700 years ago actually), people believed the earth was flat and that it was at the center of the universe. Copernicus smashed that one out of the park by proving that the universe was assembled in some other way entirely. So, being based on a pedigree that's 7000 years old means nothing, especially if you can't prove what you're claiming. Furthermore, it can't be disproved because there is no alternate assembly for the existence of a deity. Either you can show it exists or you can't. They haven't for 7000 years, so I'm going to just go ahead and assume, for the time being, that they can't.

[cybercoma]

Be the first to do so...

I can't, and no one else has provided compelling enough evidence to persuade me, that's why I don't believe it exists. Edited December 17, 2009 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

I can't, and no one else has provided compelling enough evidence to persuade me, that's why I don't believe it exists.

Did you not say "It's pretty easy to prove the existence of God." above ?

[cybercoma]

Alright, here you go.

Does Santa Exist?

Easter Bunny?

Leperchauns?

Tooth Fairy?

These can be answered with no, they are characters fabricated by humans through stories.

There are stories in the Bible fabricated by humans. Furthermore, the Church picked which stories would "make the cut".

Loch Ness Monster? Possibly, but in the end, I don't know.

You don't know because you haven't really considered it, or read enough about it. Don't take this the wrong way, but that's why I say it's the lazy answer. Perhaps I should say it's the "I don't care" answer instead. A creature the size of the Loch Ness monster could not possibly survive in those waters. The amount of food it would need to survive would be not even fit in that area. Furthermore, if there's only one, then it has no partner to mate with and will end up not existing very quickly. When it dies, because all living things die, the body should be easy to find. Sonar trawling in the loch have turned up nothing. There is heaps of evidence showing that the Loch Ness monster is not real. While the evidence supporting its existence are some doctored photos and hearsay. Once again, it's very easy to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster. Find it. Until then, the chances are so incredibly remote that any reasonable person would conclude that it very likely does not exist. That's not to say they would hold that position in light of new information, like someone proving it. However, until then it's a pretty safe bet that it's not out there.

Aliens? I will say yes. Like Douglas Adams said, if we are the only intelligent species in the universe, it would be a waste of space. But there is no proof yet that aliens do exist. So,I guess I have faith that there is other intelligent life out there.

The existence of aliens is a hell of a lot more likely than the existence of God. That I can agree about. That doesn't mean I think there's aliens out there. Intelligent life seems pretty remote; however, bacteria or other single-cell organisms are quite possible.

Wrong the question is unknowable to agnostics.

The question is unknowable is a hell of a lot different than saying, "I don't know". If the question is unknowable then you must orient your life one way or the other. Either the question is unknowable and you have faith that there is a God and hope you're right, or you have faith that there isn't a God and hope for the best.

Then that makes the atheist stance different from the agnostic view.

I'm not arguing that they're identical. I'm arguing that agnostics are weak atheists and in most cases they don't believe in God and just call themselves agnostics because they don't want to be bothered arguing, or they don't want to offend their familial or societal traditions.

[Riverwind]

Some metaphorical spiritual connection is not the concern, unless that "spiritual connection" is the substantive reason for doing appalling things in this world.

People justify doing appalling things for all kinds of reasons. It is a distraction to focus on the theist justifications. In fact, I would say that even if theists could prove the existence of god they could not possibly justify appalling things done in the name of that god. IOW - providing proof is irrevelent to the point you are making.

They could. I don't disagree. However, personal definitions of spiritual connections are inconsequential to our discussion. Institutions are not developed around personal beliefs.

Religious institutions provide a cultural and social framework that allows people to develop their personal connection with their deity. The institution is the means to the end - not the end in itself.

That, however, doesn't mean that a reasonable person wouldn't rightfully question someone's judgment if they believe in things that they cannot prove and have no rational evidence to support.

And reasonable people would question the judgment of someone who dismisses the value of having a spiritual connection to creator/diety when there is so much evidence showing that people with one do benefit from it.

That's why you would never accept testimony from someone in court when the only thing they could provide for evidence is "I just have a feeling he did it!" Of course, that person is entitled to their opinion, but reasonable minds would be right to question their judgment.

Of course, that is why I drew the clear line between the spiritual and the physical. Accusing someone of a crime is a statement about physical events and requires physical proof. Edited December 17, 2009 by Riverwind

[cybercoma]

Did you not say "It's pretty easy to prove the existence of God." above ?

It is. If something exists, you just have to find it to prove its existence. If after 7000 years, you don't find it, even though everyone on the planet has been looking, it's probably a safe bet to assume it doesn't exist (even though you can't positively prove a negative).

If God exists, it's pretty easy to prove the existence of God. Since no one has been able to easily prove the existence of God, I'm going to go way out on a limb and say God doesn't exist.

[M.Dancer]

Did their Gods evolve in that time too? .... Either you can show it exists or you can't. They haven't for 7000 years, so I'm going to just go ahead and assume, for the time being, that they can't.

I wouldn't know...I don't see why a god couldn't learn...I just happen to think a belief that is thousands of years old has more credibility than one dreampt up by a science fiction writer...

[M.Dancer]

It is. If something exists, you just have to find it to prove its existence. If after 7000 years, you don't find it, even though everyone on the planet has been looking, it's probably a safe bet to assume it doesn't exist.

Nearly 2,300 years ago, Democritus would put forth a theory that said everything was made of atoms.

Roughly 2,200 years later, the existence of atoms was conclusivley proven.

The length of time it take to prove something should have no bearing on whether the something is true or not.

[Michael Hardner]

It is. If something exists, you just have to find it to prove its existence. If after 7000 years, you don't find it, even though everyone on the planet has been looking, it's probably a safe bet to assume it doesn't exist (even though you can't positively prove a negative).

"probably" and "pretty safe" are red flags for "there is no proof"

If God exists, it's pretty easy to prove the existence of God. Since no one has been able to easily prove the existence of God, I'm going to go way out on a limb and say God doesn't exist.

Yeah, well Morris called it... you haven't done what everybody else hasn't done.

[Shwa]

I'm probably not equipped to get into this part of the discussion; however, that's never stopped me before from trying.

That was a pretty good try!

I think we need to settle something: You mention "religious faith" but is a simple belief in a higher power, God, creator or whatnot necessarily religious? That is, can faith ever be divorced from religious thought?

The reason I ask is that you give two samples of faith - one rational and the other not so much. Yet I think for many theists, their faith is more like your rational example than the religious example.