Why atheism doesn't make any sense

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan wrote:

I often wonder if the statistically low percentage of people who follow Buddhism has anything to do with the Buddhist teaching that there is no outside source of salvation.

Would you prefer believing there is no spoon against believing there's an awesome spoon instead, but you have to die to have at it ?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

... I do not think it makes logical sense to declare yourself either an atheist or a theist; if you use the rational argument and processes of philosophy, you cannot adequately determine which side is more likely to be correct with any degree of accuracy, and to somehow arrive at one of these two opposite belief sets means you are shutting the door on the other very real possibility.

Your concerns are noted, but if I may, I think the above quote is where you *could* be confused.

Theism is a theological outlook wherein a person believes there is a god or gods. Atheism is the outlook that doesn't believe. No one - strictly within this terminology - is trying to prove which is, "... likely to be correct". Many theists believe there is, but accept the possibility that there isn't. Similarly, many atheists believe there isn't but accept the possibility there may be. Adherence to the one doesn't preclude the possibility of a shift towards the other; at least not for everyone. In either case, no door has been shut.

Further, belief systems aren't often logical. By their nature, what one "believes" is something even they can't prove - or otherwise show in some objective way - otherwise it wouldn't be defined as belief - it'd be put forth as knowledge.

As a side note, I think everyone who's ever considered the issue has a "lean" one way or another; a propensity towards "there is" or "there is not". The task at hand - to my mind - is to 1) Discover where you already are -then- 2) Share, discuss and endeavor to understand the implications of your theology. I believe its far too central to the human mind to not have some theological orientation; even if one has yet to discover it.

Thanks again for bringing this up.

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Many theists believe there is, but accept the possibility that there isn't [a god].

I always assumed theists are at 100% belief and any lower would make one something else, by definition ? edit: And just doubting for a bit would make them burn in hell :devilish:

0 Replies

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28235 wrote:

Would you prefer believing there is no spoon against believing there's an awesome spoon instead, but you have to die to have at it ?

Thanks, Neo, but I prefer a "spork" myself.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;28236 wrote:

Theism is a theological outlook wherein a person believes there is a god or gods. Atheism is the outlook that doesn't believe. No one - strictly within this terminology - is trying to prove which is, "... likely to be correct". Many theists believe there is, but accept the possibility that there isn't. Similarly, many atheists believe there isn't but accept the possibility there may be. Adherence to the one doesn't preclude the possibility of a shift towards the other; at least not for everyone. In either case, no door has been shut.

Further, belief systems aren't often logical. By their nature, what one "believes" is something even they can't prove - or otherwise show in some objective way - otherwise it wouldn't be defined as belief - it'd be put forth as knowledge.

Atheism, according to the definition you will find in the dictionary, is still a belief. It is the belief that says there is no God. What you have written is exactly what I am trying to point out: both beliefs are not logical, and therefore it does not make much sense to hold debates on the subject. There is constant attention now on the "debate" with atheists and theists, with each side offering up their own "proofs", none of which are satisfactory. What I want to see is a real discussion, where people leave their belief at the door when they come in, and who can consider any option. This doesn't really happen much, and there is a lot of attacking on both sides, like in politics.

Quote:

As a side note, I think everyone who's ever considered the issue has a "lean" one way or another; a propensity towards "there is" or "there is not". The task at hand - to my mind - is to 1) Discover where you already are -then- 2) Share, discuss and endeavor to understand the implications of your theology. I believe its far too central to the human mind to not have some theological orientation; even if one has yet to discover it.

Yes. My main concern is that people keep an open mind. Some do, but like I said, I think most who are "atheists" and most who are "theists" do not have an open mind, or at least the arguments/attacks that they make seem to indicate that they don't. If you become one of the die-hard believers in either side, who is incapable to reason any further, and who cannot accept that his/her belief may be false, then you have "nuked the fridge". I think the way people view "atheist" and "religious" today means that you are limiting productive discourse on the topic, because people in each group, in general, seem to see the people in the other group as fools, and do their best to explain why (or make attacks).

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Atheism, according to the definition you will find in the dictionary, is still a belief. It is the belief or theory that says there is no God. What you have written is exactly what I am trying to point out: both beliefs are not logical, and therefore it does not make much sense to hold debates on the subject.

I don't agree with the dictionary definition, if I was to take it apart word by word, since believing there is no god means there must be a way to prove there is no god, so according to the definition: the atheist is as irrational in his belief as the (opposite) theist that is absolutely certain there is a god (also without proof). But can you have a dictionary definition say that an atheist is at next to 0% certainty of god's nonexistence, because definite 0% would require proof ?

1 Reply

@ariciunervos,

ariciunervos;28244 wrote:

I don't agree with the dictionary definition, if I was to take it apart word by word, since believing there is no god means there must be a way to prove there is no god, so according to the definition: the atheist is as irrational in his belief as the (opposite) theist that is absolutely certain there is a god (also without proof).

This is exactly where my problem is with atheists vs. theists. They are both irrational.

Quote:

But can you have a dictionary definition say that an atheist is at next to 0% certainty of god's nonexistence, because definite 0% would require proof ?

Sure, but that's not the definition. If you are unsure and recognize that either option is a possibility (however remotely possible), then you are an agnostic! Very Happy

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Sure, but that's not the definition. If you are unsure and recognize that either option is a possibility (however remotely possible), then you are an agnostic!

But that's what the definition implies, in my opinion. Believing something doesn't mean you base that belief on blind faith, you can base it on fact, proof, evidence or simply on judging probabilities, that is : I am entitled to believe the probability of gods to exists is practically zero, while if I were to write such a number down it would be something like 0,00000... and after an infinity of zeroes you place a 1 then add a percent sign.

Is than an agnostic ? With this logic you'd have to be an agnostic regarding blue striped flying pigs, pink horses living underground, the tooth fairy or gold thieving leprechauns. I think agnostics are more like 50% 50% belief-nonbelief, as opposed to an atheist which tends towards having 0% belief, if we can even use numbers to quantify such things.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Sure, but that's not the definition. If you are unsure and recognize that either option is a possibility (however remotely possible), then you are an agnostic!

I think you're mixing the definitions up. We can (and probably should) use definitions because they are the symbology of what we're typing (unless someone wants to make up their own words that we can use - which actually might be fun!). In any case, as it stands, the theist believes there is, the atheist believes there isn't and the agnostic makes no claim to believe on either side. You might want to look them up. Being "unsure" has nothing to do with it - I'd guess *most* people are unsure, and rightfully so. But I think I've already tried to point this out.

It seems as if you're still standing on the knowledge platform; of which theism and atheism have no part in. As long as you stand firm in a misunderstanding of what this terminology means, no productive discussion can be had.

I hope you take this in the sincere attempt to communicate that it is.

Keep the faith! Smile

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;28259 wrote:

I think you're mixing the definitions up. We can (and probably should) use definitions because they are the symbology of what we're typing (unless someone wants to make up their own words that we can use - which actually might be fun!). In any case, as it stands, the theist believes there is, the atheist believes there isn't and the agnostic makes no claim to believe on either side. You might want to look them up. Being "unsure" has nothing to do with it - I'd guess *most* people are unsure, and rightfully so. But I think I've already tried to point this out.

It seems as if you're still standing on the knowledge platform; of which theism and atheism have no part in. As long as you stand firm in a misunderstanding of what this terminology means, no productive discussion can be had.

I think you should look up the definitions...how many theists have you met who will admit to you that they doubt God? How many atheists will tell you there's also a good chance that God might exist? A "belief" (if you have to look this word up also, go ahead) is something which you hold to be true. Not something that is 80% likely to be true. If you claim a belief, then you are sure of it being true. Being sure does matter in the definition, because you can't say "I believe in God, but I'm not sure if that's right." Either you believe in God, you believe in no God, or you believe in not being able to know for sure.

If you want to have a different type of discussion about God, feel free to change the subject. But it is very relevant to discuss the meaning of people having an absolute belief in one thing or another here, and whether or not it makes sense. When you can't rationally conclude these things, you default to accepting your subconscious desire as truth. Like religious fundamentalists, you could be brainwashed to think one way starting as a kid, where fear is used to make you accept the views of your church. Or, like many modern teenage "atheists", you could join up because it's now the cool thing to do. (Believing or contemplating the idea of God is so 2000 years ago).

We also shouldn't make analogies with "belief" and science. A scientific theory is not the same thing as a belief. The former is considered to be the best possible explanation available for something as evidenced by experiment and agreed upon by colleagues, while understanding that there is probably more out there to learn. The latter involves an acceptance of truth.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;28259 wrote:

In any case, as it stands, the theist believes there is, the atheist believes there isn't and the agnostic makes no claim to believe on either side.

The definitions I once heard in a discussion ( I think it was on a PBS program with Bill Moyers) of the two terms are that an Atheist is one who refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of the existence of God, and an Agnostic is one who is willing to at least entertain the idea that it is possible. The word "belief" was never used in defining these terms because of its tendency to muddy the waters with its inherent connotations. "Belief" was left to the Theists, while "idea" was used when discussing Atheism and Agnosticism.

For the most part, this seems like a reasonable set of definitions. By these definitions, it seems as absurd to picture an Atheist saying "I believe there is no God" as it does picturing a Theist saying, "I have an idea that God exists."

Thoughts?
I'm wide open here.

0 Replies

@Stormalv,

Shoot, you all have me mixed up. I don't know now what I am.

Atheists make more sense to me because technically, Atheism is simply the rejection of theism not necessarily the rejection of God. It may be the rejection of a theistic deity or the idolatry of a God. Atheism is not the rejection of the possibility of there being a God or a divine creator.

Atheists tend to be more skeptical and desire to find empirical evidence for the existence of a God. As in Theism, there is no ONE thing that all Atheists subscribe to.

Also, would I be considered and Atheist if I said I do not believe in the Christian God that so many have painted a picture of and worship? This doesn't mean I don't believe in God, I just don't believe in that ideology of that particular God. Does it make sense?

When it's all said and done... it's just a descriptive word that is grossly taken out of context by parties on both sides of the fence.

2 Replies

@Justin,

For God Sake!!!!

God, the wonder, the mystery, is the unknown, and as such lends itself to unlimited definations, most definations Christians do not accept, the atheist just states he does not believe in your particular fantasy of certainty, its just one defination, and a poor one at that.

0 Replies

@Justin,

Justin;28290 wrote:

Shoot, you all have me mixed up. I don't know now what I am.

I'm with you there. Gotta love how language works, eh?

Along those lines, what is the difference, if any, between these three statements:

"I don't believe in God."
"I don't believe God exists."
"There is no God."

You can substitute "Supreme Being" or "Cosmic Force" or whatever alternate term you like if you are uncomfortable with the word "God," but in so doing be aware that this substitution subtly changes the implication and possible inferences of the three statements.

Me, I'm thinking of switching to Discordianism.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

...how many theists have you met who will admit to you that they doubt God? How many atheists will tell you there's also a good chance that God might exist?

Quite a few actually. But I think we're missing the mark here in trying to communicate. Take care and thanks again for the exchange

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Yea, good points. I think what mixes people up are the staunch, hard-line stances most folks entertain on theology. Folks end up with conceptions of what they've experienced, and that polarizes and confuses.

Belief systems are just that; nothing glamorous and they're certainly not knowledge. Accepting possibilities isn't a reason to believe, just as much as admitting less than full knowledge isn't a reason not to believe. Always there are emotional elements; conviction isn't evidence and hope isn't despair.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;28320 wrote:

Quite a few actually. But I think we're missing the mark here in trying to communicate. Take care and thanks again for the exchange

And while we're at it, let's not forget who's to blame for all this:

Tower of Babel |ˈbabəl; ˈbā-|
(in the Bible) a tower built in an attempt to reach heaven, which God frustrated by confusing the languages of its builders so that they could not understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9).
ORIGIN Babel from Hebrew Bā b el 'Babylon,' from Akkadian bāb ili 'gate of god.'

(From the little dictionary built into Mac OS X)

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

What about people like me who say "why worry about it?" I guess you could say I'm apathetic... There's so much more out there waiting to be discovered, why sit here and discuss a subject that truly is only proven through subjective evidence? It's kind of restricting...

Here is a good quote that discribes perfectly what I think.

"How do I define God? I don't.... People who find such conceptions important for themselves have every right to frame them as they like. Personally, I don't. That's why you haven't found my "thoughts on this critical question. I have none, because I see no need for them ."
-Noam Chomsky

1 Reply

@Afallucco,

Afallucco wrote:

What about people like me who say "why worry about it?" I guess you could say I'm apathetic... There's so much more out there waiting to be discovered, why sit here and discuss a subject that truly is only proven through subjective evidence? It's kind of restricting...

Here is a good quote that discribes perfectly what I think.

"How do I define God? I don't.... People who find such conceptions important for themselves have every right to frame them as they like. Personally, I don't. That's why you haven't found my "thoughts on this critical question. I have none, because I see no need for them ."
-Noam Chomsky

hey Afallucco
thats a good quote. My own reasoning for why people need to discuss a topic that seems it can never be simply and throughly described, is that people look for there meaning it different ways i.e. religion, and the only logical conclussion ive come to is, to each his own. Other then that, i dont believe any debate is useless if an individual can take some own meaning and change his ideas. The change is what really should be looked forward to. With constant change, it helps people gain knowledge of themselves and that also seems like a good reason to talk about such matters.

1 Reply

@Stormalv,

This is the first time I have read the original post in this thread and I couldn't help thinking about the Family Guy scene where Peter addresses Congress on behalf of a cigarette company.

Peter's entire argument against fining cigarette companies is "C'mon".

0 Replies

Why atheism doesn't make any sense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know