Atheists, a few questions to you...

[jammies]

Knowledge is not fact, knowledge is based on facts, which is why it is never certain - if your facts are wrong, what you know is wrong. This is counter-intuitive but nevertheless correct; all knowledge is provisional and subject to revision, because it is based on what has been found to be true, which is not necessarily the same as what is actually true.

Belief, however, does not base itself on what has been found to be true, but rather the truth is based upon what is believed. It is the opposite of knowledge in every way - one proceeds from fact to conclusion, the other proceeds from conclusion to fact.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I personally KNOW there is no god, I do not BELIEVE there is no god. My reasoning is set out as follows:

There can be no such thing as a natural god, for a god whose powers are limited to the physical realm is not a god at all.

The supernatural can be defined as what is inexplicable by science. We have encountered no physical phenomenon that is not explicable by science. Therefore the supernatural is impossible.

If there is no possibility of the supernatural, there is no possibility of god.

This is the difference between knowledge and faith; I KNOW there is no god because the supernatural not only is unlikely, it is impossible. I don't believe this - I know it. This doesn't mean I can't be wrong if evidence to the contrary comes into existence; if science came up against the truly inexplicable, the basis of my knowledge would be undermined and I what I know would have to change.

It is possible to be a theist that knows there is a god; all that it takes is to find some gap in science that can only be explained by the supernatural. Such knowledge would be incomplete and mistaken, in my view, but that does not mean it is a matter of faith.

The majority of theists, however, are subscribers to belief, not knowledge. There are a minority of atheists of the same, lamentable mindset. Zealots do not come from those who know - they come from those who believe. It behooves both theists, agnostics and atheists to increase the sum of knowledge in the world and encourage those who merely believe to transcend that limiting horizon.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

I'm not going to go through old threads and specifically point people out, but I can't remember too many atheists agreeing with theists that their view could be correct. I also don't think too many people would argue until they were blue in the face if they thought there was a chance they were wrong. I guess I am being overly general, but there are plenty of times that I have encountered (including on these boards) atheists who state positively that their is no god, higher power, or basis for any religion.

Am I totally off here, but isn't it the position of atheists that there is no "god", or higher power? That sounds pretty definitive.

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.

Really? That is the default position? Why wouldn't it be "maybe there is, maybe there isn't"... I just don't get that perspective. It's just as scientifically valid to think that way.

I also don't agree that the comparison in invalid. Sure, you can say that life already exists on one planet... but I can also say that reality exists on one plane, so therefore it can exist on others making for the possibilty of existing outside this reality (ie. an afterlife or before life - the foundation of many religions). I'm not confident enough to say 100% that such things exist, but my default position would be, "why not"!

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.

But do any of those specific examples mean anything about the underlying question? These were all ideas put forward by humans in the first place.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm not going to go through old threads and specifically point people out, but I can't remember too many atheists agreeing with theists that their view could be correct. I also don't think too many people would argue until they were blue in the face if they thought there was a chance they were wrong. I guess I am being overly general, but there are plenty of times that I have encountered (including on these boards) atheists who state positively that their is no god, higher power, or basis for any religion.

Am I totally off here, but isn't it the position of atheists that there is no "god", or higher power? That sounds pretty definitive.

I think it was mentioned earlier, atheism can differ in definition. To some atheism is simply the position of absence of belief in a god, to others it is that there is no god. To either, if evidence was provided then they'd likely change their minds.

And yeah sometimes people can get zealous and overstate their positions. And some may be strong atheists saying that there is no god, but I think it's important to find out why they believe that. Often the definition of god is important as well, is it the god of the bible, or some undefined god that has no direct influence on things?

Really? That is the default position? Why wouldn't it be "maybe there is, maybe there isn't"... I just don't get that perspective. It's just as scientifically valid to think that way.

Semantics.. when I say the default position is that there is no life on other planets, of course I mean that the possibility exists (I think it's highly probably actually). But until we find it we can't say there is, we say we haven't found it yet.

I also don't agree that the comparison in invalid. Sure, you can say that life already exists on one planet... but I can also say that reality exists on one plane, so therefore it can exist on others making for the possibilty of existing outside this reality (ie. an afterlife or before life - the foundation of many religions). I'm not confident enough to say 100% that such things exist, but my default position would be, "why not"!

Ah but I can prove other planets exist , you cannot yet demonstrate other planes. If there were other planes shown to exist I would say yes the comparison would be more valid.

And science's can also ask "why not?", without questions there would be no science. With science the questions need to be answered with evidence. And in the situation of a why not question that cannot be answered for sure, as evidence builds up on one side or another it can become more reasonable to take one side or another. One can ask "why not" for gravity to just stop working tomorrow, but given what we know it's unlikely, and not something one should be planning for.

The classic example is the hoof print in your yard.. it could be made by a unicorn, a zebra, or a horse. You can't prove any of them, but you can sure say something about the likelihood. And that gets back to atheists, someone like Dawkins believes he has enough evidence to be reasonably assured of his position. He's not just throwing a blind dart.

But do any of those specific examples mean anything about the underlying question? These were all ideas put forward by humans in the first place.

Sure they do, about one specific god anyway. If a god is defined as having specific properties and such then we can at least say something about it. If nothing else we could say that the god of people in group A who believe x y and z about god doesn't exist because x is shown to be wrong, y never happens and z always turns out as q. Of course that doesn't prove there is no god, just that one interpretation of god is incorrect.

[Cain]

I am saddened I missed the infancy of this thread, the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is an interesting one. Agnosticism is not a one definition classification...that is, not all agnostics are alike in what they believe. I like to think of it as a spectrum as put forth a bit earlier.

Theist--------------Atheist

So the two extremes at either end, and agnostics fill up the entire middle. You can be agnostic and still lean towards a side, you are just acknowledging what you see the probability like.

Myself, I do consider myself an agnostic, but I do heavily lean towards atheism. We have neither proven nor disproven the existence of a god, though it remains a possibility. You can make the argument that a creator is a very remote and much more unlikely scenario than others, but there is an infinitesimal chance that it is correct.

Similarly, the distinction concerning agnostics believing that it can never be resolved is not necessarily true either. Some do believe that it is one of those mysteries that will never be solved, but it is not a fundamental part of being an agnostic.

A quote by Sagan: "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

And in contrast, a quote for Dawkins: "There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?"

Clearly Dawkins is making a jab at the agnostic stance...but I do agree with Sagan still. I can't discount fairies. I just can't. There is again an incredibly small chance that there is a fairy in my closet....I really really doubt it...but hey...it could be invisible or something!

I guess you can make agnosticism out to be a ridiculous stance in some ways, but in my heart I truly believe that the lack of judgement that agnosticism makes is a strength and not a weakness...we don't know a lot about this world, and everyday we realize we were wrong about something, so I don't feel badly about keeping a very open mind about things, even if I lean in a certain direction concerning something.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by jammies

The supernatural can be defined as what is inexplicable by science. We have encountered no physical phenomenon that is not explicable by science. Therefore the supernatural is impossible.

The Placebo Effect.

[Save Us Sutter]

Originally Posted by driveway

The Placebo Effect.

The Placebo Effect is hardly supernatural.

There are many ways our thoughs and emotions affect our physical health and that is just one of them. The thought that we are doing something to help (ie taking what we think is a tylenol) actually does physically help.

Same as emotional stress weakening the immune system.

Mind and body are one thing. Strange to think that is supernatural.

And thanks Cheese for posting that link, some great discussion on there for sure. I am currently reading through the 11+ page thread on consiousness.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Save Us Sutter

The Placebo Effect is hardly supernatural.

There are many ways our thoughs and emotions affect our physical health and that is just one of them. The thought that we are doing something to help (ie taking what we think is a tylenol) actually does physically help.

I wasn't trying to imply that it was supernatural, it is however a "physical phenomenon" for which there is no scientific explanation (beyond the very basic 'if you think you should get better, you might'). The same can be said for both Dark Energy and Dark Matter. These are physical phenomenon which can be shown to exist, but cannot be explained, ditto the origin of life. We know that life began somewhere, sometime, but we have no idea how, when, or where.

Personally, I fall pretty squarely on the Materialist and Humanist side of the debate. I am convinced that all human religions are inventions and none of them have any claim to capital 'T' Truth, however in a universe where seventy to ninety percent of all matter and energy remain invisible and mysterious to us I find myself unable to conclusively claim that there is no such thing as "God".

[comrade]

Originally Posted by driveway

Personally, I fall pretty squarely on the Materialist and Humanist side of the debate. I am convinced that all human religions are inventions and none of them have any claim to capital 'T' Truth, however in a universe where seventy to ninety percent of all matter and energy remain invisible and mysterious to us I find myself unable to conclusively claim that there is no such thing as "God".

What if, like all other physical phenomena before them, we were to discover and explain what dark matter and energy are? Would this change your position? Or would you merely point to something else that has not been explained?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by driveway

I wasn't trying to imply that it was supernatural, it is however a "physical phenomenon" for which there is no scientific explanation (beyond the very basic 'if you think you should get better, you might'). The same can be said for both Dark Energy and Dark Matter. These are physical phenomenon which can be shown to exist, but cannot be explained, ditto the origin of life. We know that life began somewhere, sometime, but we have no idea how, when, or where.

Eh? Try this link: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...1E83414B7F0000
The scientific explanation for the placebo effect is that the brain and nervous system have a profound effect on the rest of the body that can ameliorate or worsen the symptoms or even severity of illness or injury. You are confusing "explanation" with "complete understanding".

As far as dark matter and dark energy are concerned - in the first place, neither has been proven to exist; in the second case, these concepts are products of science, not ideas outside of science; and in the third place, if either does end up being proven to exist, this will be another affirmation of science, not of the supernatural. Lastly, there are several competing theories about the origins of life, and we have much more than a vague idea of how it came about.

My point may be more succintly put thusly: we know enough to be certain that we what do not know does not need the supernatural to explain it. If the universe does not include the supernatural, it does not include a god.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

I was baptised when I was a baby, so I didn't have much say. I will not be baptising my children. If they chose to be baptised into a religion when they are older I would be fine with it. Because it is their choice.

My daughter goes to Catholic school. Even though nobody in our family is Catholic. Why? Because it is two blocks away. When she is old enough for middle school in 2 years she will be going to a public school. Because it is 2 blocks away.

As for circumcision? I was circumcised when I was a baby. I am very thankfull that my parents had it done when I was a baby. Seven months ago I had my baby son circumcised. It wasn't even a debate in my house.

Couple of questions. #1 If that Catholic school was a scientology school or Islamic school would you still have sent her there?

Why are you thankful your parents circumcised you?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Dion

Actually I lose. You quoting a post of mine to support your radical views is something I don't approve of. My error for posting in this thread.

I suppose its radical to not imagine the world being controlled by a magical being who is at times generous and other time brutally vengeful.

I'm the radical

[Thor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Very interesting thread to read through. I find it somewhat interesting that most of the atheists claim to not try and spread their atheism. As an agnostic (I believe in something, but make no definate claims to a specific religon), I find that many of the atheists are just as pushy as the followers of organized religon. I have a feeling that not everyone in being totally honest.

Fair.

Honestly I'd preferred I stayed out of this thread completely, but I was really curious to hear what other Atheists would say and considering the results Calgary Puck again proves why its such a kick ass website. These kinds of discussions on other websites often get deleted, closed, or removed from public viewing. Its nice to see we can debate and not turn it ugly.

But again, I did want to mention I asked for Atheists to reply

[Thor]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Religion is not a slope down to agnosticism. Agnosticism is non-religious. A better representation might be a sort of U-shaped graph moving from religious extremism on one side down to agnosticism in the middle, and up to atheistic extremism on the other. Atheism and theism are alike in that they are both faith-based positions, agnosticism is not.

Belief in Santa Clause is a faith based ideology. Atheism is debated often on what it truly means, but my and many version of it is we see the world without magical beings dictating our lives and focus our energy on the 'real' world.

I would say religion is more about faith and values. How can you say religion is about not critically challenging things when many of the people responsible for scientific progress are religious people?

Considering the recent 100 or so years are the rise of Atheism, I would say for a long long time some of the greatest minds have never been able to speak their minds for fear of death. Its only recently in human history you can say "there is no god" and not be killed for it.

A great deal of the brightest minds today meet annually in the USA, UK and other western countries to discuss a world from a non theistic viewpoint. Its growing and a great deal of religion is still existing because of tradition, upbringing and societal pressures. We all know that in some countries its still harmful to your own career to be an atheist.

That seems terribly naive to me. World conflicts aren't 'almost always based on Theism' but they are almost always based on resources and dominance.

They are in a historical sense the huge majority of reasons for war. They are currently the major reason for many of the worlds conflicts and tensions amongst nation states. Religious dominance is a massive reason for the crusades, and the bible supports those crusades fully and completely.

Where is this harmful to your future. As I've argued in other threads, greater diversity in programs of education is beneficial to learning. This seems like a terribly prejudiced position.

Evangelicals feel the 2nd coming is near, so why should they worry about pollution or environmental issues. Almost 50% of Americans think evolution is a controversial theory! We have a few museums now showing that the planet is 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs walked recently amongst adam/eve.

Diversity is key. Religion discourages diversity, religion hates reason/logic. They do not want the bible challenged, they do not want historical documents which shed negative light on the church public, they do not want free thinking when it comes to religion. Each relgion believes they are right and the rest will burn in hell. So much for "lets all just get along."

Me thinks you should step on back from some of your stereotypes and reevaluate what people on both sides of that 'war' are really like.

Considering I'm a part of a very small percentage of this world, I think its the 90% of this world that needs to re-evaluate itself. Religion is destroying this world, its divisive, its harmful to scientific progress, and its ultimately something the human race needs to grow up from.

If not, why aren't Catholics cheering for believers of Odin and Seuss? BTW those do exist today. Because each theism thinks they are right, and often will kill/fight to defend it.

While there are no Atheist suicide bombers trying to kill those who don't share our belief. Our crime, is just asking people to think of a non theistic world where we don't separate and hate based on a god that doesn't exist.

The irony of your post is shockingly obvious.

You, sir, are a zealot.

Well, my belief system won't destroy the world with wars, suicide bombers, schools being forced to teach "intelligent design" as a science, etc..

Atheists ask one thing. Question your beliefs, investigate the beginnings of your beliefs, and determine if it holds validity to believe in it.

Your belief asks that if I don't agree, I will be sent to burn in all eternity in hell for even questioning the existence of the holy spirit.

Who's the Zealot?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Cheese

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.

Straw dogs!

Listen, I have read the Satanic Verses, I have read the debate on the Koran and one of its most sympathetic historians (lost her name, Swedish I believe) said she feels badly about how the overwhelming historical documents put Islam in such a bad light because of its very precarious beginnings.

We have given Judaism and Christianity such a free ride because of religious fear for a almost 2 thousand years.

To vastly simplify my stance, is that there is such a huge volume of contradictory dogma, questionable historical data, and then the best anti theist thing itself; the bible.

What to me is most difficult to accept is that people with faith are so often completely unaware of the historical problems, the brutal problems with the original biblical texts.

I research and learn these things, and yet those who believe in the Bible do not and will not. Blaming that its just faith, who needs to actually go and debate the ridiculous documents and historical research which puts religion to such a difficult litmus test.

I mean recently a religious friend debated with me the virgin birth, something common amongst deity's from ancient times. The story of jesus and much of the bible is a compilation (a greatest hits if you will) of pre-Christian gods.

But so many of the faithful do not know this, nor the 100's of other interesting contradictions, fallacy's, etc.. Simply because faith just asks you to believe, not research it...

I still think that the modern age which allows free religion is the most dangerous moment of human history for religion. It allows open debate, and thus I still believe a growth in atheism will occur because people are no longer in fear of their lives if they doubt great theistic religions.

[flamesfever]

What positives do you atheists see for religion?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

What positives do you atheists see for religion?

Positives? I would think that most atheists would like to see religion go the way of the dodo bird.
I would think that question would be better answered by theists...what positives can you see for religion as an insider? Outside of the USA, and mostly the southern USA, the western world is turning their back on organized religion in huge waves...do you think that the tide can be turned? How and Why?
With the average person getting advanced education how can the church forcefeed fantasy as opposed to reality?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by octothorp

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.

This isnt necessarily my position, however there is a large contingent that suggest its the agnostic who is keeping religion alive. Those who fence sit, go to church at Christmas or Easter only, mark Christian on forms because there is no "agnostic" to tick off. A snippet....

But what of the agnostic. On what basis have they even proposed, that the God concept should be at least considered a possibility, however remote that possibility is. Well, it is not a position based on faith, if agnostics could be convinced based on faith, then they wouldn't need the 'crutch' of agnosticism. On the other hand, how can they come to a conclusion of holding God up, in the realm of maybe, however small that maybe is, if there is no evidence to support that position.
Agnosticism then, seems to be a none decision, it is really intellectual weakness and dare I say, cowardice. It is a position based on an inability to make a choice one way or another. Now when I say cowardice, I am really talking about that of the intellectual elite, the one's who push the agnostic position at the expense of reason and indeed, often in defense of religious extremism. Not necessarily openly, but it is implicit, in the very protection of the agnostic position. Of course I am not saying that agnostic intellectuals support religious extremism directly or even deliberately, but what I am saying, is that the agnostic position, does often give shelter to the more extreme position, and it particularly does, when these agnostics refuse to condemn the extreme violence perpetuated in the name of religion.

Link to article

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Positives? I would think that most atheists would like to see religion go the way of the dodo bird.
I would think that question would be better answered by theists...what positives can you see for religion as an insider? Outside of the USA, and mostly the southern USA, the western world is turning their back on organized religion in huge waves...do you think that the tide can be turned? How and Why?
With the average person getting advanced education how can the church forcefeed fantasy as opposed to reality?

I think our world view may be slightly different. I don't see the average person in the world getting advanced education. I see mostly poor uneducated masses that need religion to make their life meaningful, and to make society a little more stable.

I feel atheists tend to justify their stand by focusing on the negatives and ignoring any good that religion has to offer.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think our world view may be slightly different. I don't see the average person in the world getting advanced education. I see mostly poor uneducated masses that need religion to make their life meaningful, and to make society a little more stable. I feel atheists tend to justify their stand by ignoring any good that religion has to offer.

When I mentioned educated... I meant an extension of my previous comment, meaning the education of the western world. Obviously the only areas in the world where religion is on the increase is places like Africa and South America et al. Extremely poor, uneducated people who reach for anything to keep a positive outlook. Christians do a fabulous job preying on these people and the position they are in. Heck if they didnt Christianity would be nearing extinction.
Maybe you could let us know what good religion does that could not, or would not, be done by those outside the covers of institutionalized fantasy?

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by jammies

If the universe does not include the supernatural, it does not include a god.

I found this statement interesting. What do you make of people that believe that the nature of God is infinitesimally logical?