Atheists Threaten to Sue Over Sign

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by pylon

And I find it offensive that religion has a place in the formation of government, military decisions, and our education system, so I guess it is par for the course then.

I'm honestly not sure what your response has to do with my post. Are you suggesting that atheism is a religion? To conclude that "religion" has a place in the formation of our government, military decisions and education is a stretch, in that you have not very clearly underscored what religion is. Furthermore, how many of these influnces are indistinguishably cultural? The Western world is inherently Christian, which is inherently Greco-Roman and Jewish. There is no sense in being bitter about your heritage: it is what it is.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Daradon

No, Reg is right. It's something those that do have belief in God have cooked up as an incorrect definition in the argument. The way in which the person is using the word 'faith' is very different in both examples. To substitute it back and forth is incorrect.

Atheism is NOT based on faith. At the best you can say, 'I have faith that there is no god.' But that is a very different way to use the word than is used in religious faith or faith in a god that cannot be proven. Not to mention, most atheists don't describe it or look at it that way anyway.

The existence of a god cannot be proven either way. I hear you saying that there is a difference, but you are basically just waving your hands. Faith is required both ways.

[GGG]

Ture Atheism requires the opposite of faith. A decision to choose to believe in only what is scientifically proven.

However most non-religous people I know who would call themselves athiest don't meet this standard as many seem to like the concept of 'luck' or tend to make destiny type comments or meant to be type comments.

What bugs me is activist people in general. Evangelical Christians, Environmental protesters, G8 protesters, Activist Athiests, Extreme Feminists. Not everything needs to be a battle.

If these seven firemen were all Christian then this is an appropriate way to honour their beliefs and sacrifices. If one of the firemen who died did not believe in Heaven then this would be inappropriate as it would be exclusionary to the group being honoured.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

You can be atheist and agnostic or theistic and agnostic, agnostic describes something different than atheism does.

Atheism doesn't place faith in anything, it simply is the lack of belief in the existence of god(s).

Theism doesn't place faith in anything either, it's simply belief in the existence of god(s).

Well, this may come down to an issue of whose definition you go with, but in my experience with the subject, atheism is more than the lack of belief in the existence of god(s), it is the positive belief that there are no gods/deities.

Again based on my experience, I don't know of anyone who would define himself/herself as an atheist that would take the position that some forms of gods are possible, and, as such, I don't see how you can be an athiest and agnostic.

Finally, I don't see how you can have a positive belief that a god exists without relying on faith to at least some degree.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Nah, it's a religion because it is based on faith. I get why you don't like that though. Get's in the way of being a smug know-it-all. Your position is no less faith based than any other religion however, and using clumsy analogies that don't actually work doesn't change anything. Sorry.

This has nothing to do with being a smug know-it-all. Not only do you need to present us with a clear, operational definition for religion to which atheism conforms, you now also need to provide some sense for how you are using "faith" to describe its adherence. Really? What do you mean by "faith"?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ark2

The existence of a god cannot be proven either way.

Sure it can, depending on your definition of god.

If your definition of god includes characteristics that affect what we can observe about the universe, then that means that god's existence can be determined.

Example: If one of that god's characteristics is if you say their name 3 times they'll visibly appear before you, you can prove or disprove that gods' existence by saying their name 3 times. If they appear, there you go. If they don't, that particular god (defined by their characteristics) does not exist.

The definition might be wrong, but then if you change the definition then we're talking about a different god.

If the definition of god is so fuzzy and nebulous that there's no possible way to determine if they exist or not, then talking about their existence is a futile conversation anyway since why discuss something that never has any impact on anything?

Originally Posted by Ark2

I hear you saying that there is a difference, but you are basically just waving your hands. Faith is required both ways.

What faith is required to say Santa does not exist? It's a provisional position based on current knowledge.

[evman150]

Ark2 is like the closeted homosexual who brags to his friends about how much pus*sy he gets.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Keep on spinning around in circles with your fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you!!".

It's actually quite tragically amusing.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure it can, depending on your definition of god.

If your definition of god includes characteristics that affect what we can observe about the universe, then that means that god's existence can be determined.

Not necessarily. One could take the position that we live in bubble universe created by a god which has unfolded according to his plan by way of laws/mechanisms he chose, which explains the existence of human life against nearly insurmountable odds and the beauty and symmetry underlying physical laws. There's no way to prove or disprove that, so saying "no, that's not correct, no gods exist" is a leap of faith just as believing in it without evidence is.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Well, this may come down to an issue of whose definition you go with, but in my experience with the subject, atheism is more than the lack of belief in the existence of god(s), it is the positive belief that there are no gods/deities.

That's the difference between a weak atheist and a strong atheist, a weak atheist does not believe there is a god(s), a strong atheist believes there are is no god(s).

But like I said, it comes down to definitions of god too. Even Richard Dawkins, the most atheist of atheists changes his "degree" of confidence in his atheism down on a scale of 1 to 7 if you go from the god of the Bible to a deistic non-interventionalist god.

Originally Posted by Mike F

Again based on my experience, I don't know of anyone who would define himself/herself as an atheist that would take the position that some forms of gods are possible, and, as such, I don't see how you can be an athiest and agnostic.

As I mentioned, even Dawkins does depending on the definition of god. In my experience most atheists take the position that some form of god is possible, just that there isn't any evidence, so they do not believe until there is a reason to believe.

Atheism is a statement about belief. Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. Belief can be informed by knowledge, but it doesn't have to be.

So an atheist agnostic would say that they do not believe there are god(s), and does not know there are god(s) (or thinks the premise of god(s) is inherently unknowable, weak vs strong agnosticism).

An atheist gnostic would say they believe the god of the Bible (for example) does not exist, and they know he does not exist because of whatever reasons they feel inform their knowledge (logical contradictions, positive evidence to the contrary, etc).

A theistic agnostic would say they do believe there are god(s), but that they do not know / do not have knowledge (or cannot know/prove) that god(s) exist.

A theistic gnostic would say they believe there are god(s), and that they know / have knowledge that demonstrates that god(s) exist.

Originally Posted by Mike F

Finally, I don't see how you can have a positive belief that a god exists without relying on faith to at least some degree.

I agree, at least in this universe and what we observe. This doesn't necessarily have to be true (my example of a god that appeared on demand) though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Ark2

The existence of a god cannot be proven either way. I hear you saying that there is a difference, but you are basically just waving your hands. Faith is required both ways.

The absense of faith is very different than believing that there is nothing to believe in. It's not just semantics. Not to mention the second would make no sense anyway.

Faith is not required to be an atheist. It's only saying, I have seen nothing to believe in the first place. They are not taking a leap to believe in nothing. They are not putting their 'faith' in nothing.

It's an illogical, philosophically unsound argument you are presenting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Not necessarily. One could take the position that we live in bubble universe created by a god which has unfolded according to his plan by way of laws/mechanisms he chose, which explains the existence of life against nearly insurmountable odds and the beauty and symmetry underlying physical laws. There's no way to prove or disprove that, so saying "no, that's not correct, no gods exist" is a leap of faith just as believing in it without evidence is.

Right, by that definition of god we can't determine if they exist or not, and saying they categorically do not exist would be a leap of faith I agree.

But discussion of a god that appears exactly if everything occurred according to natural laws is kind of useless IMO, it's like trying to convince someone the universe was created ex nihilo last Tuesday, with everyone's memories, the appearance of age, etc all in place. There's no way to prove or disprove it, so it's only useful to keep stoners busy.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by photon

Right, by that definition of god we can't determine if they exist or not, and saying they categorically do not exist would be a leap of faith I agree.

But discussion of a god that appears exactly if everything occurred according to natural laws is kind of useless IMO, it's like trying to convince someone the universe was created ex nihilo last Tuesday, with everyone's memories, the appearance of age, etc all in place. There's no way to prove or disprove it, so it's only useful to keep stoners busy.

It may be useless, but it's pretty close to the view more and more people of faith outside of the regular church going crowd adopt, even if they wouldn't summarize it so concisely. They acknowledge the evil in the world and don't try to defend an everyday hands on new testament God, but still see the universe as a divine creation based on lingering religiosity and a desire for the comfort they find in the notion.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mike F

It may be useless, but it's pretty close to the view more and more people of faith outside of the regular church going crowd adopt, even if they wouldn't summarize it so concisely. They acknowledge the evil in the world and don't try to defend an everyday hands on new testament God, but still see the universe as a divine creation based on lingering religiosity and a desire for the comfort they find in the notion.

I would add that many even of the non church goers still pray and ask for a non-intervening God to intervene and believe that their behaviours here will affect the afterlife although many will have rationalized 'ethical' behaviour as the standard rather than 'Catholic' or 'protestant' rules of behaviour.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Mike F

It may be useless, but it's pretty close to the view more and more people of faith outside of the regular church going crowd adopt, even if they wouldn't summarize it so concisely. They acknowledge the evil in the world and don't try to defend an everyday hands on new testament God, but still see the universe as a divine creation based on lingering religiosity and a desire for the comfort they find in the notion.

Yeah I'd probably agree with that.

They're theistic agnostics They believe in god(s) but don't have any knowledge (evidence) to support it.

Or they're deists.

[flylock shox]

I, for one, would find Ark2's arguments much more persuasive if he included some content from the You Love You Lose thread in them.

I'd believe just about anything most of those gals have to say.

[Stillman16]

Both sides of the argument use the scientific method to arive at their HYPOTHOSIS.

Both sides use the evidence presented, and develop a hypothesis.

The Religous choose to believe conservatively in what they were brought up with, having faith that it was the truth, with no evidence/or not enough (in their view) to the contrary.

Atheists however, choose to take that same information, and feel that the scientific evidence has poked enough holes in the religous beliefs to disregard those teachings/beliefs, and develop a new hypothesis-Atheism.

Neither side is likely to be proven outright (unless God shows him/herself). But at one time people believed that the Earth was flat, and that Earth was the center of the universe. So, like those hypothesis`, people will likely change their hypothesis`as evidence presents itself-hence the trend toward Atheism (more evidence continues to be found to support it).

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Both sides of the argument use the scientific method to arive at their HYPOTHOSIS.

Erm, what?

Most if not all theists do NOT use the scientific method to arrive at their position.

And the processes you explained was not using the scientific method at all.

[Stillman16]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Erm, what?

Most if not all theists do NOT use the scientific method to arrive at their position.

And the processes you explained was not using the scientific method at all.

Maybe not knowingly, but:

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I would argue that no matter how devout the person, religous or atheist, they are constantly presented with evidence that challenges their beliefs, and as such are constantly using the scientific method to re-analyze their position. The evidence may or may not change their position, and may only shift it.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Stillman16

Maybe not knowingly, but:

The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I would argue that no matter how devout the person, religous or atheist, they are constantly presented with evidence that challenges their beliefs, and as such are constantly using the scientific method to re-analyze their position. The evidence may or may not change their position, and may only shift it.

Oh, I don't have any problem with the definition. I'm just wondering how you are interpeting it or applying it in this situation.

Just because you are presented with challenges or evidence for or against your beliefs doesn't mean you are using the scientific method to choose your position. Not even close.

The human mind doesn't use the scientific method by default when sifting through information. If it did, we would be a lot closer on a lot of different issues.

EDIT: Just thinking your way through a situation, debate, problem, or your beliefs systems is not using the scientific method. And that's assuming people are giving it a good effort at thinking, which often they are not.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I bet there's a lot of atheists sitting in pews every Sunday. Dragged along or going through the motions to keep the family peace.

And a whole bunch behind the pulpit too, for various reasons. Greed being one.