Atheist Discussion

It's a disagreement which will never be resolved. So long as inventions of gods conjured out of the air persist to be held up as equally as probable as reality I will have to step in to say, "Idon' tink zo."

0 Replies

Hey guys, I'm Eorl....newly hatched.

I'm two things...an atheist..one who does not believe in god. This I can defend absolutlely.

I'm also an atheist (anti-theist?)..one who believes god does not exist. This is a faith born of reason but I accept that it is a faith and is open to criticism for it's lack of absolute proof.

Perhaps this a stance others would find useful?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I'm also an atheist (anti-theist?)..one who believes god does not exist. This is a faith born of reason but I accept that it is a faith and is open to criticism for it's lack of absolute proof.

IMO, faith and reason are a contradiction in terms.

I do not believe in God either, and I don't need any proof. It is not necessary to prove that something does NOT exist. It is incumbent on those who believe, to supply the proof.

0 Replies

exactly, phoenix - and Frank.

0 Replies

Hey Phoenix!

I understand your point. You don't believe in God.

But do you also believe that God does not exist? I feel very strongly that he/she/they do not.

It's actually a stronger (ie more emotional) position than non-belief but weaker in the sense that it can't be proven.

I could "fall back" on non-belief and be more sure of my position, but I choose an active dis-belief instead. I think is a more aggressive and courageous stance, but one that I feel obliged to take.

0 Replies

Eorl- Let us say that I maintained that there is a part of the universe that is made out of cheese. Other people say that I don't know what I am talking about. It is not up to the other people to say that the moon is NOT made out of cheese. It would be incumbent upon ME to supply that proof.

Why did I pick such a silly example? I did that because I wanted to illustrate a point. The only difference between the postulate of the existence of God, and a cheesy universe, is the number of people who believe in a God.

The truth of a matter, does not lie in the number of people who believe it!

0 Replies

I agree with you Phoenix...but you didn't quite answer my question, do you believe that gods do not exist?

I think that many atheists do actually believe that, yet they take the safe position of not having the burden of proof.

Perhaps that also frees the atheist of any feelings of obligation associated with helping others "see the light" of reason?

The scientific method is a strong and powerful tool of reason, why should we not use it?

To throw another analogy into the mix...if I strongly believed a crime was being commited next door, but I could not prove it...am I free of any responsibility to try to prevent it?

I feel many atheists have taken the logical safe road that requires no action and allows religion to continue to prosper as a result.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I agree with you Phoenix...but you didn't quite answer my question, do you believe that gods do not exist?

Well, there IS a part of me that grapples with the idea that humanity is not at the top of the evolutionary ladder, but I can find no reason to believe that gods exist.

0 Replies

Fairy Nuff.

..and on that note, I'm off to bed! (midnight here)

..thanks for debating old ground with a new hatchling! I appreciate it!

0 Replies

Eorl- Glad to have you around!

0 Replies

I'm an atheist too, Eorl, with a different definition for myself than yours is for yourself. Mine is that a-theist means 'without theism'. It bespeaks void and absence rather than marking a presence.

You and Frank and others are all welcome to your own concepts about what you believe or not.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Eorl wrote:
I'm also an atheist (anti-theist?)..one who believes god does not exist. This is a faith born of reason but I accept that it is a faith and is open to criticism for it's lack of absolute proof.

IMO, faith and reason are a contradiction in terms.

I do not believe in God either, and I don't need any proof. It is not necessary to prove that something does NOT exist. It is incumbent on those who believe, to supply the proof.

To which Edgar added:

Quote:

exactly, phoenix - and Frank.

I agree...and always have.

But if someone then asserts...there are no gods...the burden of proof devolves onto that person.

I, Frank Apisa, DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD!

But I do not assert there are no gods...and anyone who does should furnish evidence...if not proof.

But this has been discussed to death...and it is obvious you atheists are not willing to acknowledge the obvious truth of the matter.

That is your loss...not mine.

0 Replies

Come on Frank ! What could possibly constitute the "evidence" for "non-existence" Laughing

Suppose I argue that "the ether doesn't exist". What I am really saying is that the term "ether" has no contribution to make to explain observations.
The term "a-etherist" would simply imply the acceptance of such a position. The term "agnostic etherist" would imply that there may be observations yet to come for which "ether" is needed, and the term "etherist" would imply such observations have already been made.

The key word in all this is not "truth" or "existence"....it is "explanation".
By analogy only the "atheist" has completely rejected "God" as an explanation for observation because he sees this as an ad hoc palliative precluding some forms of investigation. The rejection is pragmatic not ideological. Note also that is only when the quest for "explanation" is transcended, together with its asoociated concept of "evidence" that the terms "theist" and "atheist" can be be considered as equivocal because "belief" has no practical consequences.

0 Replies

Fresco

Let's take a look at the REAL question being asked when someone asks: Is there a God?

What is acually being asked is "What is the nature of Existence?" "What is THIS all about?"

Now...the theists respond..."This nature of existence involves a God...a creator God."

The atheists (at least some of them) respond: "The nature of existence DOES NOT involve any gods."

The agnostic responds..."I do not know what is involved in existence...and I do not have enough evidence to specifically include a God...or to specifically deny the possibility of gods. (Many enlightened atheists pretty much do the same thing!)

You asked

Quote:

Come on Frank ! What could possibly constitute the "evidence" for "non-existence"

I have not asked for "evidence" of "non-existence."

I have asked for evidence of a pro-active assertions made that some individuals assert that they KNOW the nature of existence...and it specifically excludes the possibility of gods.

In any case, as I have pointed out to Edgar several times...since there can be no evidence that there are no gods...AND FOR CERTAIN THERE CAN BE NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE NO GODS**...anyone asserting that there are no gods obviously is doing so as a guess (which is to say, they are expressing a belief!).

(** Please do not assume this means that I am also saying "There can be no evidence that there is a God....because I am not saying that!)

0 Replies

O.K....so you say the key word is "existence" but you don't know what it is....and I say the key word is "explanation" and "existence" is subservient to that. (e.g. "electrons exist" because they predict and hence explain observations ...even though nobody has ever seen one !)

Our chief area of disagreement is that I maintain that "existence" and "knowledge" are never absolute or objective...they are paradigm specific.
(e.g. "The four elements" Earth Air Fire and Water once were held to "exist" by practically all). I put it to you that the term "agnostic" is merely part of the historical paradigm surrounding the Theory of Evolution and provided a safe haven for those scientists who did not wish to deviate too far from established doctrine. Events have perhaps now moved on sufficiently in "science" to make such a term an anachronism since the status of "evidence" is shrouded in the mists of "probabalistic" existence.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

O.K....so you say the key word is "existence" but you don't know what it is....and I say the key word is "explanation" and "existence" is subservient to that. (e.g. "electrons exist" because they predict and hence explain observations ...even though nobody has ever seen one !)

Our chief area of disagreement is that I maintain that "existence" and "knowledge" are never absolute or objective...they are paradigm specific.
(e.g. "The four elements" Earth Air Fire and Water once were held to "exist" by practically all). I put it to you that the term "agnostic" is merely part of the historical paradigm surrounding the Theory of Evolution and provided a safe haven for those scientists who did not wish to deviate too far from established doctrine. Events have perhaps now moved on sufficiently in "science" to make such a term an anachronism since the status of "evidence" is shrouded in the mists of "probabalistic" existence.

And I say the term "theist" and "atheist" share the same liability. Both are belief systems based on damn near nothing.

So!

0 Replies

The history of the Earth and of the life that evolved on it makes the notion of a god so patently absurd that I state unequivocally that one does not exist. The Earth is like a mote of dust in the scheme of the universe. The formless material that cooled and formed a crust with seas, becoming receptive to bits of matter that became life and eventually us - All of it went on for millions of years. Somewhere near the end of it a microspeck on a speck voiced the concept of god. And Frank said, "That queers the whole atheist bit."

0 Replies

OK then, here is an interesting question....how many of you who claim to have no belief (either for or against the existence of gods) BEGAN with the thought "I believe there is no God" and gradually changed your view to propose that "I have no belief at all"

When I was young it occured to me..."perhaps there is no Santa Claus" and later..."perhaps there is no god"...and both of these thoughts grew to become strong convictions.

How many of you, faced with having to prove your belief that there are no Gods, have reasoned yourselves into the relative safe zone of agnosticism?

As for the issue of proof...there is an abundance of evidence for non-existence...for example, the very fact that with each passing century gods are held to be responsible for less and less as natural causes are gradually un-earthed. Mathematical extrapolation would demonstrate the eventual elimination of gods intervention in everything. Not proof...but evidence surely.

Faced with hostile religious interventions into my lifestyle and relative freedom, why would I not want more people to understand and accept my beliefs as valid?

It's funny, but it seems the only people less popular than athiests, are atheists with beliefs. They don't even get the respect of atheists!! Very Happy

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Faced with hostile religious interventions into my lifestyle and relative freedom, why would I not want more people to understand and accept my beliefs as valid?

I really don't give a flying flip if nobody agreed with me, or my beliefs. My only concern would be if I were discriminated against because of them!

0 Replies

I hate being called a atheist... just because there's no such thing as gods.

0 Replies

Atheist Discussion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know