Atheists, a few questions to you...

[transplant99]

Actually it is entirely up to those who "believe" to prove the existence of their specific God

Sorry man. I dont have to prove anything to anybody for anything I believe. I dont preach it and i dont try to get anyone to conform to anything....so no, I have to prove nothing.

as they wish the masses to believe.

They can believe whatever they choose. they certainly dont need to prove it to me for them to beleve it.

So the question should be...I believe in "Thor, Zeuss, God, Mohammed, Brahma, Shiva, Krishna" because I have proof of the same.

lost me here.

If the standards of those who believe without proof are greater than those who desire proof to believe, then so be it

That's your interpretation I guess. I need no one to prove anything to me either way.

I do need someone who tells me they have the "truth" to prove it though....as Atheist above claimed so vehemently.

Hypocrisy is in the eye of the believer?

Hypocrisy is saying one thing is an absolute truth without any scientific resource to back it up when that same person asks others to prove scientifically that there is a god.

Its a double-standard.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nope...do you have any there isn't?

See this works both ways contrary to what many say.

Anyone can believe in anything they want (or not as may be the case) without having to "prove" it is real. It's kind of tough to prove a belief anyhow...that's why it's a belief to begin with.

Maybe not for you and the non-believers, but for millions, maybe billions more, there has been plenty. Your definition of what that "proof" must or may be, makes not a lick of difference to someone else.

Interesting you say this as there are claims by several individuals throughout human history that they were indeed a direct descendant from their particular god...I think you are showing your true colors here Lanny. Christianity is not the only religion around dude, and certainly not the only one who professes to follow a supreme being.

Again with hammering christianity. That's fine, I don't follow the religion myself. I do wonder though if you truly believe that the vast majority of those who do are really not living to their "christian" ideals. I would venture to guess that most of them are humble hard-working people who put priorities on the important things in life. But hey, stero-typing an entire group for the acts of a few is a longtime human pastime.

You cant do that transplant...you simply cannot say that because a theist happens to believe in a specific God that we must accept their version of God without question. We do not have to provide any proof that their version doesnt exist...we didnt come up with that particular version. So when Joseph Smith deluded millions of Mormons into believing his story that doesnt make it right...does it?

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I hate to inform you but....this is a typical Straw Man argument.

This is a problem of semantics, not a straw man. The definition of atheism that you give is a weak definition, and I could just as easily find other definitions of atheism that take the stronger position. In my experience studying the philosophy of religion 'atheism' is generally defined by the stronger position in which it requires a belief in a positive statement. If a person wants to adapt the weaker position I would say that it's not the best use of the term, but it changes the nature of the debate. In that case you would be defining 'atheism' as an abstinence from belief either way, which I would say is silly because that's 'agnosticism', but then of course you wouldn't have to prove anything because you wouldn't have a belief in a positive statement. It's just making the usage of 'atheism' redundant.

[transplant99]

you simply cannot say that because a theist happens to believe in a specific God that we must accept their version of God without question

you dont have to accept it...who said you did?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sorry man. I dont have to prove anything to anybody for anything I believe. I dont preach it and i dont try to get anyone to conform to anything....so no, I have to prove nothing.



They can believe whatever they choose. they certainly dont need to prove it to me for them to beleve it.




lost me here.




That's your interpretation I guess. I need no one to prove anything to me either way.

I do need someone who tells me they have the "truth" to prove it though....as Atheist above claimed so vehemently.




Hypocrisy is saying one thing is an absolute truth without any scientific resource to back it up when that same person asks others to prove scientifically that there is a god.

Its a double-standard.

Well the issue is...you "may not preach", but millions do. So...it is entirely up to the theist to prove his position unequivocally. Believe in your God...believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Green Teapot orbiting the sun...who gives a flying fark...try to get the people to buy in....provide proof.
I didnt see anyone suggest they had proof transplant...they simply pointed out there was "no proof". IF however you have evidence otherwise, Im sure there would be millions waiting to hear what you have to say.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

This is a problem of semantics, not a straw man. The definition of atheism that you give is a weak definition, and I could just as easily find other definitions of atheism that take the stronger position. In my experience studying the philosophy of religion 'atheism' is generally defined by the stronger position in which it requires a belief in a positive statement. If a person wants to adapt the weaker position I would say that it's not the best use of the term, but it changes the nature of the debate. In that case you would be defining 'atheism' as an abstinence from belief either way, which I would say is silly because that's 'agnosticism', but then of course you wouldn't have to prove anything because you wouldn't have a belief in a positive statement. It's just making the usage of 'atheism' redundant.

Id love to hear more about your version of Atheism...
why dont you come over here... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php ... and discuss it. Im sure many would be very interested to hear about other versions or philosophies. The forum has many theists and atheists who are educated far beyond myself...it would be great to see what you could do over there.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Because that is the way reality works. It is a lot easier to answer the question based on reason and logic than it is to answer that question based on faith.

My point is that there are certain questions based on faith that are easier to think of answers to than other questions based on faith.

I'm not even sure why you typed the first part of your response, because the only thing you do is go on further to qualify my response to you.

Perhaps you should have paid more attention to my last line: "The ease of answering one question and the difficulty of answering the other doesn't affect the correctness of the belief."
As long as both statements could hypothetically be proven false, the fact that it's harder to think about a way of disproving one than it is to think of a way of disproving the other doesn't tell you anything about one being more true than the other.

[Burninator]

I'm quite surprised so many people disagree with Photon, I thought his post was spot on. Of course I am not agnostic so I can't necessary defend that position, but I'll try to clarify the case for atheism.

Originally Posted by llama64

I'd argue for the opposite case.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Science hasn't demonstrated there is a God so therefore there is no god. But Science also hasn't ruled out the possibility of God. This leaves the Atheist with what constitutes as a belief.

Atheism has nothing to do with science proving their isn't a god, because it's impossible to prove a negative. The only way I would accept calling atheism a belief would be semantics in that you could one would have a belief in anything (gravity, science, etc). Comparing the belief of atheism to theism is NOT the same.

Agnostics are similar to Atheists except that they will not declare that god does not exist because there is no evidence to state such. Instead, they leave open the possibility since that seems to be what reality presents according to all accounts.

Most atheists would believe in a god if their was proof for it. I'll give a simple break down. Keep in mind this is my interpretation of an agnostic.

Agnostic - acknowledges the possibility of a god, but will not say one does/doesn't exist. Some may believe the proof of a god will come either proving that there is one, or that there is not one. Also some may believe that the answer will never come, and it is impossible to ever know the existence of a god.

Atheist - doesn't acknowledge the possibility of a god because there is no proof for one. Most would change their minds if there was proven evidence of a god. Some won't. And some (Dawkins) believe that eventually there will be evidence that will prove god doesn't exist. (but that is Dawkin's belief which doesn't have any bearing on atheism itself)

To break down the argument of "atheism is a belief too" even further I'll use another example. I don't in any way mean to be insulting, but I am going to replace god with unicorns. As an atheist, I would say there is no unicorns because we have no proof for them. This is not having faith. Faith is a Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. And since you can't prove a negative, no atheism is not a belief. It's what Photon said, a default stance when presented with lack of evidence.

Personally I tend towards Agnosticism since it fits my overall approach to gaining knowledge better. Most "Atheists" I know tend to be nearly as irritating as door to door Mormons in trying to spread their belief system. Atheism somehow as taken on the mantle of a movement if not a religion. Agnostics just don't give a damn.

There are people on every end of every spectrum that give their "ism" a bad name. Just because the atheists you know are jerks, doesn't mean we all are. I rarely talk about god, and when I do I am careful to pick my battles because it's a very touchy subject for some. I've tried to push someone toward atheism. But I sure as crap have had many a people of the theism side push me toward that.

[transplant99]

I didnt see anyone suggest they had proof transplant...

Thor claims he has and knows the "truth"....Im saying if he does, to prove it's the truth. Afterall, that is his predication for not believeing in a god...no scientific fact of it.

No one who said they believe in God in this thread has said they have proof either...yet it gets weighted so much more heavily to one than the other.

Double-standard.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Id love to hear more about your version of Atheism...
why dont you come over here... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php ... and discuss it. Im sure many would be very interested to hear about other versions or philosophies.

I have previously debated on that board, and I have plenty of respect for it's membership and the quality of knowledgeable discussion to be had on it. But that doesn't invalidate the usage of 'atheism' that I've encountered, and which is also supported by other authorities.

In any case, I've already granted that a weaker definition of 'atheism' changes the argument completely, so I see little need for a semantic debate that will go nowhere. I'd rather not get bogged down in that so long as we can understand what each other is getting at, which I think we can.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Thor claims he has and knows the "truth"....Im saying if he does, to prove it's the truth. Afterall, that is his predication for not believeing in a god...no scientific fact of it.

No one who said they believe in God in this thread has said they have proof either...yet it gets weighted so much more heavily to one than the other.

Double-standard.

I went and read Thor's statements and dont see him pointing out that he knows unequivacally there is no God. I also didnt see him suggesting that he has any truth...I did see him suggesting he believes that its time for reality vs fantasy. That certainly irks many theists. Too bad.
You dont see channel after channel of atheists crying for money...or atheists scamming millions out of their lambs for fake healings. The double standard starts and ends with theists.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

My response to this would be the same as llama's.

There is no proof of the correctness of religious belief, nor is there proof of the correctness of atheistic belief. There is a subtle difference between not believing in something vs. believing not something. Also, I would not go so far as to say that atheism is a natural, rational default. Given that proof cannot be given either way, but there have been countless individual accounts of religious experience some might argue that the more rational default position (if one were forced to take a position) would be to accept some form of religious belief. Personally, seeing as we're not forced to take a position, I would say an admittance that you can't know either way and so refusing to either believe or refute (agnosticism) is a reasonable choice.

I'll have to disagree. Simply becuase individual accounts of religious experience or anything similar is not evidence. By your argument the rational position would be to believe in unicorns, Bigfoot, ghosts, ouija boards, mermaids, fairies etc. Because of all of those have countless personal experience. When speaking to a skeptic like photon and myself, anecdotal accounts are not evidence. Starting point maybe, but not evidence, not even close.

Anyways, atheism is faith based because it is a belief in a positive statement (there is no god) which cannot be supported by evidence.

I didn't say that religion was about critically challenging things. He did say that religion is about not challenging things critically. My point was that religion is not about avoiding challenging things critically, that a person may be religious and still challenge things critically without being in conflict with their faith and spiritual belief.

Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude or condescending on this. I just wanted to clarify, so that semantics aren't a problem in the debate.

But like I said in my previous post. Faith is a Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Since you can't prove a negative, I don't see how atheism is a belief (beyond semantics, which we are probably arguing anyway). I am intested in your opinion on this.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I'll have to disagree. Simply becuase individual accounts of religious experience or anything similar is not evidence. By your argument the rational position would be to believe in unicorns, Bigfoot, ghosts, ouija boards, mermaids, fairies etc.

I hadn't meant that as my position, merely that some would argue that way. I do think it could be possible as a rational position to take though, given that a person may see it as a choice between two options they couldn't prove, and it would be better for their lives to accept the norms of their community.

But like I said in my previous post. Faith is a Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Since you can't prove a negative, I don't see how atheism is a belief (beyond semantics, which we are probably arguing anyway). I am intested in your opinion on this.

I think we are arguing semantics.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by troutman

You are not really an agnostic. An agnostic says we cannot know if there are gods. You definitely seem to believe there is some kind of god.

Not true. There are many different forms of agnosticism, and someone who holds the opinion that the existance of god is unknowable, yet chooses to believe in god is called an agnostic theist. The agnostic label doesn't answer whether you believe god exists or not; merely whether you believe the existance of god can be known.

[Sparks]

Great posts, Burninator.

[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

I'd argue for the opposite case.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Science hasn't demonstrated there is a God so therefore there is no god. But Science also hasn't ruled out the possibility of God. This leaves the Atheist with what constitutes as a belief.

I would make that "Science hasn't demonstrated there is evidence of a God so therefore I will not believe in God at this time." Every atheist of course is different, but I would say the vast majority would change their mind given evidence.

So it's not a belief, it's a withholding of belief. An unwillingness to commit either way. That's why I think agnostic is more faith based because an agnostic has committed, committed to the position that it is unknowable for all time.

Also it can be confusing because many atheists are strong atheists with regards to the God of the Bible, but weak atheists with regards to an undefined God. Meaning they do believe that given the amount of contrary evidence that there is no God of the Bible. But with the undefined concept of some being outside our reality they're weak atheists meaning they don't believe in it because there's no evidence.

That's why I always try to make sure it's clear what's being discussed.

Agnostics are similar to Atheists except that they will not declare that god does not exist because there is no evidence to state such. Instead, they leave open the possibility since that seems to be what reality presents according to all accounts.

Not really, to me an agnostic isn't open to the possibility, an agnostic thinks that there can be no resolution to the question by definition. But I see what you mean, in that respect an atheist and agnostic can be similar. I have seen the term agnostic deist and agnostic nondeist used as well to define a person who thinks that the existence of God is unknown or is unknowable, but chooses to believe or chooses not to believe respectively.

See what I mean, our definitions of the words are almost reversed.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

My response to this would be the same as llama's.
There is no proof of the correctness of religious belief, nor is there proof of the correctness of atheistic belief. There is a subtle difference between not believing in something vs. believing not something. Also, I would not go so far as to say that atheism is a natural, rational default. Given that proof cannot be given either way, but there have been countless individual accounts of religious experience some might argue that the more rational default position (if one were forced to take a position) would be to accept some form of religious belief. Personally, seeing as we're not forced to take a position, I would say an admittance that you can't know either way and so refusing to either believe or refute (agnosticism) is a reasonable choice.

On the opposite side of countless individual accounts of religious experience though I would place the fallibility of people's perceptions, the ease of which they are deceived, the unreliability of memory, etc. And I agree that refusing to believe or refute is reasonable, though my definitions seem to be a bit different (see above).

Anyways, atheism is faith based because it is a belief in a positive statement (there is no god) which cannot be supported by evidence.

Taking the default position based on lack of evidence isn't faith, it's reason. The lack of belief isn't faith.

And when you say "there is no god" what god do you mean? Do you mean the God of the Bible? Because many atheists would likely have much evidence that supports that the God of the Bible doesn't exist (given the validity of the claims made by the Bible and some of the people who follow it). That's important because an atheist might give a different answer to "Do you believe in a god who is just out there" and "Do you believe in the God of the bible who interacts with people".

I didn't say that religion was about critically challenging things. He did say that religion is about not challenging things critically. My point was that religion is not about avoiding challenging things critically, that a person may be religious and still challenge things critically without being in conflict with their faith and spiritual belief.

Ah ok. Yeah I agree, though many scientists that I know that are religious know full well their believe is irrational and not based on anything beyond their own faith.

Actually, atheism is the belief that there is no god.

EDIT: I don't mean to be rude or condescending on this. I just wanted to clarify, so that semantics aren't a problem in the debate.

No worries, I agree semantics in this can be a huge problem. From Wikipedia: Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4]

So we're both right

That's just stereotyping. I'm sure there are many theists who would be willing to abandon their faith if it could be proven that their faith was misplaced, just as I'm sure there are many atheist who would be willing to change their minds in the face of proof. I would also think that there are many theists and atheists who would not be willing to change their opinions in the face of proof. Either way, it's not a big deal cause there isn't going to be any proof either way on the big questions of spirituality and religion vs. atheism.

Fair enough, though the question of would theists abandon their faith is moot because by definition faith is belief without evidence.

And while there's no evidence that an atheist would not change their position, there IS evidence that some theists would not. Just observe the willingness of religious groups to ignore evidence and continue believing things like young earth creation and such.

EDIT: Sorry, teaches me to not read the thread before responding, I see the whole thing that we're arguing semantics is covered

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cheese

I went and read Thor's statements and dont see him pointing out that he knows unequivacally there is no God. I also didnt see him suggesting that he has any truth...I did see him suggesting he believes that its time for reality vs fantasy. That certainly irks many theists. Too bad.

Really should read closer then.

4. Are you as an Atheist looking for a more focused plan and leadership online or locally to focus your efforts? Or would you prefer to not be involved in any Atheistic movements?

I am starting to get more involved, to be honest I was like most Atheists where I felt a movement was much like religion and therefore it was something wrong for our belief system. I see know that promoting truth, critical thinking, reasoning, healthy skepticism/debate, etc.. is not a bad thing! If the world isn't exposed to the option of religion and that smart sensible people are not speaking out then obviously we rely on religion beating itself up which of course it will do as more people become educated and truly examine the nonsense of the bible and its beginnings.

Too bad indeed.

You dont see channel after channel of atheists crying for money...or atheists scamming millions out of their lambs for fake healings. The double standard starts and ends with theists.

I ask no one for anything...I think you too have decided to brush all with the wide brush.

[FlamesAddiction]

I can completely understand people being sceptical about religion, however, I don't understand the atheist position of disbelieving with absolute certainty that their is no higher existence. That just strikes me as human arrogance to think that we know that much about the universe.

To me, it would be like stating with absolute certainty that there is no life on other planets. We have no evidence that there is, but I think most science-minded people would agree that it is entirely possible. If the atheist default position is that there is no god because there is no evidence that there is, then shouldn't they have the same default position about the existence of extra-terrestrial life? I wonder how many maintain that consistancy?

I see "god" or religion the same way. What we actually know scientifically about the nature of our existence is very minimal. It could even be less than what we know about outer space. Our human brains are very limited in what they perceive and there could very well be elements of our natural world that we are completely unaware... such as; alternate realms of existing. In fact, I think the idea of alternate dimensions and planes is often visited by science. Scientists are always discovering new natural phenomena that were at one time inconceivable. For those that think science has disproven religion, I don't think you are giving science enough credit. Somethings take a lot longer to prove. We just started exploring our own solar system, so I think it's a little premature to think that science should have already solved the mystery of religion.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I can completely understand people being sceptical about religion, however, I don't understand the atheist position of disbelieving with absolute certainty that their is no higher existence. That just strikes me as human arrogance to think that we know that much about the universe.

Show me this atheist that would say they know with absolute certainty that there is no higher existence. And anyone with a mind to science knows that our understanding changes and improves from moment to moment.

To me, it would be like stating with absolute certainty that there is no life on other planets. We have no evidence that there is, but I think most science-minded people would agree that it is entirely possible. If the atheist default position is that there is no god because there is no evidence that there is, then shouldn't they have the same default position about the existence of extra-terrestrial life? I wonder how many maintain that consistancy?

Well yeah, the default position IS there is no life on other planets, because we haven't found any yet! However your analogy is flawed since we have conclusive evidence that there is life on one planet. Ours. So it's proven that it is possible for life to develop on a planet. There's no such support for the existence of God. The things you are comparing aren't alike, so there can't be the consistency you see lacking.

For those that think science has disproven religion, I don't think you are giving science enough credit. Somethings take a lot longer to prove. We just started exploring our own solar system, so I think it's a little premature to think that science should have already solved the mystery of religion.

Who are these people that think science has disproven religion? Which religion? Anyone science minded is (or at least should be) fully willing to entertain new evidence. EDIT: I do agree that we still only scratch the surface of understanding of reality.

Some specific claims in religion DO fall inside science, specifically those that touch reality. Things like claiming the earth is 6000 years old, claiming that prayer affects the health of people, or claiming that a religious life will be a better life, these are things that can (and have) been tested scientifically, and those claims can be shown to have or not have merit.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Really should read closer then.

Too bad indeed.

I ask no one for anything...I think you too have decided to brush all with the wide brush.

Yeesh...thats really pulling at straws my friend.

I see know that promoting truth, critical thinking, reasoning, healthy skepticism/debate, etc.. is not a bad thing!

That doesnt appear to be more than the fact that he feels he will only deal with truth or anything that can be proven. I dont see the parallel you were drawing...but I shouldnt speak for him.
I dont paint all theists with the same brush...but I certainly paint their choice of kool-aid. The vast majority of theists use their specific brand as a networking and social tool. When it comes to actual dogma most havent got a clue what the word dogma means, let alone what is actually written in their tome(s).
The vast majority of atheists who turned from any theism turned once they actually delved further into the backgrounds of their religion. Education and the educated almost always turn away from dogma. That is probably part of the truth mentioned above.