Topic: Atheism

[Crumble]

Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god...

Now I'm confused.

I assert that there is no god. I believe that makes me an atheist by definition. If not, then what label should I use instead?

[RedRabbit]

Now I'm confused.

I assert that there is no god. I believe that makes me an atheist by definition. If not, then what label should I use instead?

Positive/strong if you make the claim and negative/weak atheist if you don't claim but don't believe.

I think what EG is getting at is that atheists don't generally assert the position, rather they take the opposite position of someone who claims belief. If you assert you surely fall into that category anyway, so all good.

[Corkboy]

Now I'm confused.

I assert that there is no god. I believe that makes me an atheist by definition. If not, then what label should I use instead?

Forget the labels. You can't be certain there is no god. While the chances of there being one might be vanishingly small, the only intellectually honest position is that there may be a god, because you can't prove a negative.

[ToneLa]

Now I'm confused.

I assert that there is no god. I believe that makes me an atheist by definition. If not, then what label should I use instead?

Atheism is "no god definitely,", you might want to consider agnosticism "dunno / can't prove it / don't care"

I tend to go with the latter, as in logic you can't prove a negative (EG, the world exists, so I can't "disprove" a God created it, and a frequent attempt to "prove" God created it is to point out it's there.... which is something of an impasse, with neither side changing their belief)

While you might go "of course there's no god", the burden of proof is interesting.

Personally, I'm happy to use god as an interchangeable word for nature, the universe, reality, in an informal context (I tend not to go around smashing down the logic of everyone who believes in God unless they are pushing it on me in a problematic way). But when you come to some fella in the sky with intentions, I think that's mankind arrogantly assuming any higher power would be in his image (therefore retroactively explaining why "god created us in his image" - that's us patting ourselves on that back that we're close to god) - on that tangent, there's things like gnosticism, and the idea of an uncaring, or uninvolved, or even unconscious god.

Alan Watts called this God belief  - Abrahamic religion - the ceramic model of the universe - EG, everything was manufactured as if out of clay; the opposite being the more zen / tao or Hindu "everything is", "everything be", "things grow" "reality is now", don't concern yourself with god as it doesn't matter. Watts had a nice turn of phrase: As apple trees (grow) apples, the universe "peoples" - has planets and people.

No belief changes that I still need to eat breakfast

[BoRed]

Forget the labels. You can't be certain there is no god. While the chances of there being one might be vanishingly small, the only intellectually honest position is that there may be a god, because you can't prove a negative.

That depends on the definition of "god". Most definitions currently in use are so full of contradictions that it can quite easily be proved that no such thing exists.

Science is full of proving negatives. There exists no even prime number larger than two.

[Corkboy]

That depends on the definition of "god". Most definitions currently in use are so full of contradictions that it can quite easily be proved that no such thing exists.

You can probably prove the non existence of an interventionist god, at least to a degree that would keep everyone except the most pedantic objector happy. However, I think it is impossible to disprove the existence of a "created-universe-and-then-fucked-off" type god. There is really no data either way.

[BoRed]

You can probably prove the non existence of an interventionist god, at least to a degree that would keep everyone except the most pedantic objector happy. However, I think it is impossible to disprove the existence of a "created-universe-and-then-fucked-off" type god. There is really no data either way.

Yeah, I agree with that, but as far as I know no established religion defines god in such limited terms.

[electricghost]

Now I'm confused.

I assert that there is no god. I believe that makes me an atheist by definition. If not, then what label should I use instead?

You are correct that does make you an atheist. The point I was making is that you do not need to assert this position to be an atheist, as RedRabbit explained.

The claim is that a god or gods exist

1 Accept the claim =  theist
2 Reject the claim =  atheist
3 Reject the claim and declare it to be false  = atheist

There are 3 distinct positions with regard to belief about the claim, 2 of them carry the atheist label

1 and 3 both carry a burden of proof, position 2 does not

[Inpeace]

Forget the labels. You can't be certain there is no god. While the chances of there being one might be vanishingly small, the only intellectually honest position is that there may be a god, because you can't prove a negative.

replace "god" with "Mars is made of cheese"  , the argument remains the same but I would not say the only intellectually honest position is that mars may be made of cheese.  If this is the case we would have to change the way we speak / see the world.

[Yorkykopite]

We've done tests on Mars of course. It isn't made of cheese.

One day a minor religious sect which claims that God lives in a cave in Alpha Centauri will also be disproved.

But the obscurantist argument that "there is a God somewhere even though I don't know where although I'm pretty sure she has purple hair" can NEVER be disproved. That God is always just out of sight.

[Corkboy]

For this soul needs to be honoured with a new dress woven
From green and blue things and arguments that cannot be proven.

[Crumble]

Forget the labels. You can't be certain there is no god. While the chances of there being one might be vanishingly small, the only intellectually honest position is that there may be a god, because you can't prove a negative.

Bertrand Russel's teapot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). It is intellectually dishonest to claim a position with no concrete supporting evidence and overwhelming circumstantial contrary evidence.

[Inpeace]

We've done tests on Mars of course. It isn't made of cheese.

One day a minor religious sect which claims that God lives in a cave in Alpha Centauri will also be disproved.

But the obscurantist argument that "there is a God somewhere even though I don't know where although I'm pretty sure she has purple hair" can NEVER be disproved. That God is always just out of sight.

following the above it would not be intellectually honest to refute claims that a purple haired God lives in a cave in Alpha Centauri - again if that is the case we as a society would have to make a significant change in the way we view and speak about things.

[Corkboy]

Bertrand Russell's teapot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). It is intellectually dishonest to claim a position with no concrete supporting evidence and overwhelming circumstantial contrary evidence.

That's not what Russell's Teapot means. If you make an unfalsifiable claim, the burden of proof is on you. I agree with that but it doesn't change what I posted.

[Corkboy]

Dawkins proposed a scale for such matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability#Dawkins.27_formulation

1.Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2.De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5.Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

A quote from that wiki....

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

[Yorkykopite]

following the above it would not be intellectually honest to refute claims that a purple haired God lives in a cave in Alpha Centauri - again if that is the case we as a society would have to make a significant change in the way we view and speak about things.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm assuming that some day in the future - five more centuries? - we'll have explored every nook and cranny in Alpha Centauri. By that stage it's more than likely that we'll have refuted the idea of the religious sect which claims God lives in a cave somewhere in that star system.   

[ToneLa]

Dawkins is too hard line. Believing in nothing is still belief. I don't think he grasps every religion as well as Watts.

Any kind of theism is a belief system. Atheism is a belief.

How does he explain what there is?

I'm Zen. It just is. Past your subjective experience, it's not reality. It came about because it came about. Once you grasp that... 

[Corkboy]

Dawkins is too hard line. Believing in nothing is still belief. I don't think he grasps every religion as well as Watts.

Any kind of theism is a belief system. Atheism is a belief.

In the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Yorkykopite]

Dawkins is too hard line. Believing in nothing is still belief. I don't think he grasps every religion as well as Watts.

Any kind of theism is a belief system. Atheism is a belief.

It's actually the absence of belief. And it certainly isn't a "system".

Is Dawkins "too hard line." You hear that accusation a lot from believers. But it seems misplaced to me. We know what religious "hard liners" are capable of and therefore the implied comparison seems almost wilfully stupid. Dawkins has never killed anyone or inspired his admirers to kill anyone. He has never tried to force people to agree with him or punished those who don't. He's never forcibly mutilated a child or a young woman. He's never set a picket outside a church or mosque let alone set fire to one. All he's done is argue. Many people don't like his 'tone of voice' when he does argue, and others wish he was a tad more courteous when dismissing religious notions, but I'm not sure that means he's a hard-liner.

As for the idea that Dawkins "believes in nothing", that can't be right surely. He believes in the processes and rationales of scientific inquiry. He seems a liberal-minded sort of chap, not a nihilist. I suppose one could even say that he has replaced a belief in God with a belief in humanity.

[Inpeace]

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm assuming that some day in the future - five more centuries? - we'll have explored every nook and cranny in Alpha Centauri. By that stage it's more than likely that we'll have refuted the idea of the religious sect which claims God lives in a cave somewhere in that star system.

Sorry I do understand your point but I don't agree, there are many things in everyday life that we discount although we have no proof they are not real.  Ghosts, Fairies, Invisible goblins, people living at the very core of the earth but we do not feel the proviso to indicate that you cant be certain that they do not exist.  Why treat the belief of God any differently?

[ToneLa]

It's actually the absence of belief. And it certainly isn't a "system".

Is Dawkins "too hard line." You hear that accusation a lot from believers. But it seems misplaced to me. We know what religious "hard liners" are capable of and therefore the implied comparison seems almost wilfully stupid. Dawkins has never killed anyone or inspired his admirers to kill anyone. He has never tried to force people to agree with him or punished those who don't. He's never forcibly mutilated a child or a young woman. He's never set a picket outside a church or mosque let alone set fire to one. All he's done is argue. Many people don't like his 'tone of voice' when he does argue, and others wish he was a tad more courteous when dismissing religious notions, but I'm not sure that means he's a hard-liner.

As for the idea that Dawkins "believes in nothing", that can't be right surely. He believes in the processes and rationales of scientific inquiry. He seems a liberal-minded sort of chap, not a nihilist. I suppose one could even say that he has replaced a belief in God with a belief in humanity.

Absence of belief is still belief.

I don't know why you are giving examples of disturbing concepts to me.

Dawkins to me, simply deals with a narrow field - "No god ism", "Dawkinsism".

Here is the problem: There is a universe, and you are in it. Why?

Atheism does not answer that question.

Personally, I do not trouble myself with why.

[Yorkykopite]

Sorry I do understand your point but I don't agree, there are many things in everyday life that we discount although we have no proof they are not real.  Ghosts, Fairies, Invisible goblins, people living at the very core of the earth but we do not feel the proviso to indicate that you cant be certain that they do not exist.  Why treat the belief of God any differently?

But if you specify that the Fairy lives in your garden shed and assert confidently that she can be seen every morning at 7am you do put yourself in the line of fire. Such an assertion can be proved and disproved. Same with my make-believe religious sect that declares God lives in a cave in Alpha Centauri. For the moment they can keep saying this knowing a refutation is impossible. But they'll be on rockier ground an epoch from now when the first colonists arrive to check out the cave.

That's all.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Here is the problem: There is a universe, and you are in it. Why?

Atheism does not answer that question.

Personally, I do not trouble myself with why.

I'm not sure absence of belief is a belief. If I have cake, I have cake, if cake is absent, I'm just hungry - it's not a different kind of cake that I can eat. It's just not there.

[ToneLa]

Fair point. Denial of belief may be a better term than absence.

Once you entertain the concept, that's when it begins. What do toddlers and animals believe? They're in our reality.

[electricghost]

Absence of belief is still belief.

What do you mean, what is this belief you think an atheist holds ?

Here is the problem: There is a universe, and you are in it. Why?

Why are you starting with "why" ?   This already assumes that there is a why, the better question is there is a universe, and you are in it, how ?

Atheism does not answer that question.

Indeed, and it does't attempt to

[Corkboy]

The fact it doesn't attempt to is why it is not satisfactory.

The fact that you think it should shows you really don't understand it.

[ToneLa]

I've been down the atheism road. I don't care for others to tell me what I understand, sorry.  That sounds like a knock.

Asking Why, should not be taboo

Convince me, if you want? 

[Corkboy]

I don't care for others to tell me what I understand, sorry.

Convince me, if you want? 

You're not a very clear thinker, are you?

[ToneLa]

You can have a go at me personally, but I don't have questions like you might.

What do you have to offer me?  Serious, open question. Corkboy?

[Corkboy]

You can have a go at me personally, but I don't have questions like you might.

What do you have to offer me?  Serious, open question. Corkboy?

I don't think I can say anything to you that might assist. You appear to be pretty impervious. Maybe read the thread?

[ToneLa]

I've read it. You are happy to slur me with an "unclear mind" but not offer help. Top marks 

Atheism per se isn't compatible for what's happened to me. It has failed, in fact.

[Xabi Gerrard]

I've read it. You are happy to slur me with an "unclear mind" but not offer help. Top marks 

Atheism per se isn't compatible for what's happened to me. It has failed, in fact.

That's Corkboy's modus operandi. He's not very good at debating 

[ToneLa]

Oh. Thanks for the heads up Xabi

I can do without trolls, I'll add him to my ignore list

[Yanwoo]

That's Corkboy's modus operandi. He's not very good at debating 

Agreed! This is the third time in this thread he's resorted to these kinds of comments. It's unnecessary.

I don't think it's too much to ask for civility and respect in debate.

[electricghost]

I've been down the atheism road. I don't care for others to tell me what I understand, sorry.  That sounds like a knock.

Asking Why, should not be taboo

Convince me, if you want? 

What was it that made you no longer identify as an atheist, if you don't mind sharing ?

[Antoine Lavoisier]

Oh you last three get a grip!

[RedRabbit]

Absence of belief is still belief.

I don't know why you are giving examples of disturbing concepts to me.

Dawkins to me, simply deals with a narrow field - "No god ism", "Dawkinsism".

Here is the problem: There is a universe, and you are in it. Why?

Atheism does not answer that question.

Personally, I do not trouble myself with why.

Asking why the universe began to an atheist is pointless. They are in no way connected.


Try this:

Here is the problem: there is a universe and you are in it. Why?

Theism does not answer that question.

[ToneLa]

Asking why the universe began to an atheist is pointless. They are in no way connected.


Try this:

Here is the problem: there is a universe and you are in it. Why?

Theism does not answer that question.

I would like you to answer what does answer the question

[ggcc14]

Forget the labels. You can't be certain there is no god. While the chances of there being one might be vanishingly small, the only intellectually honest position is that there may be a god, because you can't prove a negative.

So intellectually honestly you'd have to say there maybe invisible pigs flying around doing invisible dumps on our head too, right? Because you can't disprove that?

Sorry to wade in with abit of silliness anyway, enjoyed reading the debate above.

[ToneLa]

What was it that made you no longer identify as an atheist, if you don't mind sharing ?

When my mother died of cancer I understood the concept of suffering, or my brother in law killled by a bad driver, there were certain senses of logic missing. Atheism left a big hole as to why, no answers. It was an experience based thing.

I am not an atheist because it doesn't explain anything.

In terms of me personally, atheism hasn't helped -  death is a natural process, atheism seemed so incomplete. I have accepted death happens, it is natural.

Atheism became a big blank for me then

Experience is the best teacher

Atheism is just blank

There is no god

There are just choices and decisions and chance