Atheism...what the?

[Groenepuntmuts]

I've been wondering about this for a while. assuming most atheists are atheist because they've thought about it, I can draw the conclusion, that they are people, who think about god and religion.

but, there is no proof god doesn't exist! so how can you say he does indeed not exist? myself, I know, that I do not know, to quote a famous philosopher.
therefore I am neither atheist nor believer in a divine being.

but please explain me atheists, why?

[Calamari]

There is no proof that God exists either, it works both ways. Also some people may consider themselves athiests out of apathy for religion in general rather than the dislike of a faith and/or the proof involved.

[Luxchamp]

god never answered my prayers, the local clergy looks like a bunch of pedophiles, sooo...my enthusiasm for god & religion is pretty lowish...

[boofhead]

Because they actually worship verifiable human perceptions more than God, probably.

[Cluny the Scourge]

But, there is no proof god doesn't exist! so how can you say he does indeed not exist? myself, I know, that I do not know, to quote a famous philosopher.
therefore I am neither atheist nor believer in a divine being.

but please explain me atheists, why?

You mean you're agnostic.

What you have to understand is that what most atheists mean when they say:

"There is no God"

is

"There is no personality-God who has a mind like ours, thinks, answers our prayers, intervenes on Earth with miracles and divine judgement, created or designed our race and our planet, and has a cosmic plan for us,"

because that's what the overwhelming majority of theists mean when they say

"There is a God."

Atheists feel that it is logical to ASSUME there is no such preposterous God because there is no evidence to indicate that there is one. That's how the scientific method works: Whatever the current preponderance of evidence indicates is the truth, we take to be the truth, keeping in mind that "the truth" in the logical sense actually only ever means "a 99.9% likelihood".

And that's how logic and reasoning works:

No-one needs to provide proof that God does NOT exist.

Not believing in something - anything - is the default setting.

Then comes evidence -

- then comes thought -

- then comes belief.

You cannot bypass these stages. If you start with belief, instead of evidence, you have gone temporarily insane. A deranged mind is capable of dreaming anything into existence.

Now, an atheist or an agnostic may still feel that much about the unexplained nature of the universe is so far beyond our understanding that it is probably ineffable - that it cannot be known by the human mind.

In that case they have cosmic feelings and experience awe that may give them the emotions of religion. But emotions are not the same as doctrine. There is no excusable series of intermediary steps between that feeling of awe and making up a structure of artificial rules and dogmas and rituals and then having the outrageous lying bare-facedness to say:

"This is the Truth." (100% - and without a scrap of supportable evidence)

And for every single one of those myriad structures to claim this exact same thing when they know perfectly well there are and have been many hundreds or thousands of others who claimed the exact same thing since the dawn of civilisation.

Now an atheist can always have their mind swayed - all you have to do is provide new evidence to indicate the existence of a God. Then the scientific method will indicate that what is "the truth" will have to be reappraised. BUT...

...a religious person will NEVER have their mind swayed, not in the face of EVIDENCE, not in the face of ANYTHING. That is the nature of faith. A faith that can be moved by evidence is no faith at all.

That's why religion is a form of insanity.

And that is why non-belief is the only correct conclusion. A mind that can conclude anything else is a weak mind.

[saglam2000]

That's why religion is a form of insanity.

And that is why non-belief is the only correct conclusion. A mind that can conclude anything else is a weak mind.

wow that is what i have been trying to tell people for a long time.

and anyway, if god exists and he loved you all, what's up with all the crap in the world? and if god exists just to make everybody miserable then......we should be dead. so in conclusion god exists in our mind, like the boogyman, or the French resistance, so if nobody believes in "god" he doesn't exist.

(there is only one god and that is Mirage41)(i love BC)

[Miraj]

but please explain me atheists, why?

Because the onus is on those making the positive claims to prove themselves.. not the atheists.

[KoS]

Blaise Pascal's wager is a good explanation of this. What Pascal basically said (and I'm going off memory and not Wikipedia here, so bear with me) is that belief is the ultimate wager. There is no proof there is a God, but no proof there isn't... and there's no way to know for sure until after you're dead. If you believed in God during your lifetime, after you're dead, you will be rewarded by an eternal afterlife or whatever your chosen religion dictates shall happen after death. But if you don't believe in God, you live your life, you die and - guess what - there is a God, then you're going to hell, essentially. Contrastly, if you believe in God during your life, then you die and there isn't a God, then nothing happens. It's really just a huge bet... but instead of money, you're betting with your soul. Pascal's conclusion is that it is safer either way to assume that there is a God then to assume there is not.

See, I'm Catholic. (Sounds a bit like a punchline after all that, lol.) Yep, I was born and raised to an Italian Catholic family. My mother once called me an athiest (not sure whether she was sarcastic or not), and since that point I've been doing all I can to prove that I actually do believe in God. After all, if I don't, and when I die I find out that there actually is, I'm not exactly in the best possible situation.

Slightly off-topic, but: For all of you protestants, atheists, agnostics, or non-catholics of any kind, I would just like to inform you that just because some of the priests in my religion are pedophiles, that doesn't make us all insane. Whenever I go to the Catholic cemetery where my grandparents are buried, I look out over literally thousands of gravesites, some dating back to the 1920s, and think: Each and every one of these people were Catholics. They went to mass, they believed in God, and so by default they are now in God's good graces now that they are no longer living. Look at the middle ages; the Catholic Church dominated all of Western Europe. Very few questioned its authority then, and I'd actually say that the Church is more pure now than in was about a thousand years ago. So why was it right then but wrong now?

Also, I'm not considering changing my religion or even dropping it altogether. I am a Catholic, I was born a Catholic, and I will in all probability die a Catholic. I don't think any religion is right or wrong; after all, I'm not a televangelist. You're a Protestant? Cool. You're agnostic? Fine by me. You're an athiest? No problem. I think it's everybody's own personal business, but I stand by the beliefs of the religion that my ancestors have worshiped for at least a thousand years.

(Pkease don't hate me for being Catholic. Literally, it's not my fault. )

[Cluny the Scourge]

Blaise Pascal's wager is a good explanation of this. What Pascal basically said (and I'm going off memory and not Wikipedia here, so bear with me) is that belief is the ultimate wager. There is no proof there is a God, but no proof there isn't... and there's no way to know for sure until after you're dead. If you believed in God during your lifetime, after you're dead, you will be rewarded by an eternal afterlife or whatever your chosen religion dictates shall happen after death. But if you don't believe in God, you live your life, you die and - guess what - there is a God, then you're going to hell, essentially. Contrastly, if you believe in God during your life, then you die and there isn't a God, then nothing happens. It's really just a huge bet... but instead of money, you're betting with your soul. Pascal's conclusion is that it is safer either way to assume that there is a God then to assume there is not.

See, I'm Catholic. (Sounds a bit like a punchline after all that, lol.) Yep, I was born and raised to an Italian Catholic family. My mother once called me an athiest (not sure whether she was sarcastic or not), and since that point I've been doing all I can to prove that I actually do believe in God. After all, if I don't, and when I die I find out that there actually is, I'm not exactly in the best possible situation.

Prove to whom? Your mother, or God? If there is a God then He will know whether or not you believe in Him, and going through the motions of "proving" that you believe to your mother isn't going to fool Him if you don't.

Pascal's Wager is an utterly bankrupt concept. Either you genuinely believe or you don't. God will know one way or the other. If He existed then He could not be deceived with lawyer's tricks like that.

Also, I'm not considering changing my religion or even dropping it altogether. I am a Catholic, I was born a Catholic, and I will in all probability die a Catholic. I don't think any religion is right or wrong; after all, I'm not a televangelist. You're a Protestant? Cool. You're agnostic? Fine by me. You're an athiest? No problem. I think it's everybody's own personal business, but I stand by the beliefs of the religion that my ancestors have worshiped for at least a thousand years.

(Pkease don't hate me for being Catholic. Literally, it's not my fault. )

Meaning that you abdicate responsibility for your own beliefs, which is unimpressive. Catholic dogma asserts that people should live in a certain way, and there are consequences for that way of living which are not universally beneficial.

Like it or not, but when you openly avow your religion you are endorsing the consequences that religion has for the world - the retardation of medical advances and the consequent unnecessary suffering of future patients; the AIDS holocaust in Africa; women denied abortion rights, etc.

You cannot wash your hands of all this. Either you believe in it, or you don't. There is no comfortable middle ground.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I've been wondering about this for a while. assuming most atheists are atheist because they've thought about it, I can draw the conclusion, that they are people, who think about god and religion.

Yes.

but, there is no proof god doesn't exist! so how can you say he does indeed not exist?

Since you can't prove a negative, that line could be used in relation to the non-existence of anything. There's no proof unicorns don't exist either. Or fairies. So how can you say they don't exist?

Does this mean you now believe in unicorns and fairies?

myself, I know, that I do not know,

Nobody knows. Big deal.

to quote a famous philosopher.
therefore I am neither atheist nor believer in a divine being.

I hate to break it to you, but if you are not a believer in any divine being, you're an atheist. You seem to be labouring under the common misapprehension that atheism is the denial of the existence of any God. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in any God or gods.

You have no such belief? Then you're an atheist. Congratulations, welcome to the club.

[Chaigidel]

almost all atheists claim the position of probability , they say the probability of god is low according to the evidence.


but lack of belief again is the same thing as a choice of belief, im sorry we can have it out again tg, but I cant let you spread the lie of nonresponsibility for your choices on the metaphysical.

[Kiljaden]

lack of belief again is the same thing as a choice of belief, im sorry we can have it out again tg, but I cant let you spread the lie of nonresponsibility for your choices on the metaphysical.

Your friend Steven approaches you and tells you, "I believe in invisible pink elephants that you cannot see, feel, touch, hear, or taste!"

Is your first reaction going to by "Why?" or "Explain yourself.", or are you simply going to say "I won't question it because it requires no proof to believe something like that."

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

almost all atheists claim the position of probability , they say the probability of god is low according to the evidence.

Sure.

but lack of belief again is the same thing as a choice of belief

Total twaddle.

I cant let you spread the lie of nonresponsibility for your choices on the metaphysical.

Bad luck. You've tried to play this game several times and each time you've managed to convince one person - yourself. Go and play somewhere else kiddo.

[Kiljaden]

Atheism is generally simply saying that because there is no evidence or way to determine God's existence, that the default position is to lack a belief in God. All people are Atheists to some respect. Christians are atheistic to Thor, Odin, Zeus, Allah, Krishna, etc. Christians do not believe in the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, or santa claus for the same reason that atheists do not believe in God - there is no reason to, they are imaginary and created by human minds and there's NO PROOF or EVIDENCE or any way to test God's existence, so there's no reason to believe in God.

Atheism and Theism are on 7-point scale as accurately outlined in the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

1 - Strong Theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

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

3 - Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

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

5 - Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6 - Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot 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.'

Most atheists are 5-6, whereas most outwardly religious folk are 1-2. Richard Dawkins himself is a 6, only the basis that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Being 4, 5, or 6 on the scale requires no burden of proof, whereas being 7 does. Likewise, being 3 on the scale effectively requires no burden of proof (as the person is relying on the comfort blanket approach to God), whereas 1 and 2 do.

I'd say the second-least populated group is 4 (second to group 7), as few people are agnostic enough to lack a belief, but theistic enough to say that there's a 50% chance that God could exist. Also, group 4 is a very weak stance to have, and will neither save you from the divine philosophical thought-hole as you would most likely still fear God's retribution, nor will it save you from eternal damnation.

[Zuwxiv]

Christians do not believe in santa claus for the same reason that atheists do not believe in God - there is no reason to, they are imaginary and created by human minds and there's NO PROOF or EVIDENCE or any way to test existence, so there's no reason to believe.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SSSSANTA CLAUS! NOOOOO!




On a slightly more serious note: Doubt is a very critical (in fact, necessary) part of faith. On the subject of religion, this changes an already conflict-ridden subject into a very dangerous one: someone who accepts something as true, for their whole life, without ever questioning it or thinking about it - what kind of mind is that? What sort of egregious waste of human capability for independence is that? When all the faculties of thought are granted to an individual, squandering them on absolutely blind subjection to one concept is surely something that can be described as sinful.

This applies to those who blindly follow a god or none at all, or anything for that matter: politics, personal relationships, trends. "Doubts are such tiny things; those who have no room for them must have no room for thoughts either," and it is a dangerous person who can be so certain of one thing that mere facts can not shake him.

I would argue that, in order to truly believe in something, you must at some time have questioned it. If you do not doubt, you accept as true; it is only through looking at it, thinking of it in multiple perspectives, that you may finally come to believe in it - for belief in any thing implies non-belief in the opposite. If you have never considered that which you rule out through your conclusion, then your conclusion is faulty.

I don't know where I stand on the issue of religion. There are some fundamental problems I have with condemning people; I can not imagine a god so vindictive and malevolent that he would condemn to eternal punishment the majority of the globe (and for most religions, the vast majority.) Even if irrefutable proof of His existence were given to me, I would not worship a God I consider cruel. This singular point makes me believe that if there is a God, then the only qualification for acceptance is being a generally good person; and I can't help but wonder if that is the goal anyway - a goal that many religious people seem to miss by a large mark.

I have the rest of my life ahead of me to decide, but I have resigned myself not to accept. I will question, because only questions bring answers.

[Axeman]

Atheism is generally simply saying that because there is no evidence or way to determine God's existence, that the default position is to lack a belief in God. All people are Atheists to some respect. Christians are atheistic to Thor, Odin, Zeus, Allah, Krishna, etc. Christians do not believe in the tooth fairy, the flying spaghetti monster, or santa claus for the same reason that atheists do not believe in God - there is no reason to, they are imaginary and created by human minds and there's NO PROOF or EVIDENCE or any way to test God's existence, so there's no reason to believe in God.

Atheism and Theism are on 7-point scale as accurately outlined in the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

1 - Strong Theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

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

3 - Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

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

5 - Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6 - Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot 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.'

Most atheists are 5-6, whereas most outwardly religious folk are 1-2. Richard Dawkins himself is a 6, only the basis that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Being 4, 5, or 6 on the scale requires no burden of proof, whereas being 7 does. Likewise, being 3 on the scale effectively requires no burden of proof (as the person is relying on the comfort blanket approach to God), whereas 1 and 2 do.

I'd say the second-least populated group is 4 (second to group 7), as few people are agnostic enough to lack a belief, but theistic enough to say that there's a 50% chance that God could exist. Also, group 4 is a very weak stance to have, and will neither save you from the divine philosophical thought-hole as you would most likely still fear God's retribution, nor will it save you from eternal damnation.

Thats a pretty good scale. That would make me a 5

[Chaigidel]

but its not invisible pink elephants thats an incorrect correlation -- the monotheistic texts paint god as without form distinguishable, the holy of holies in the first temple was an EMPTY SPACE.-- god is not a physical form; therefore you can discount invisible pink elephants because you have defined defeatable parameters.

Unknowable, Unspeakble, and Unimaginable actually defend themselves quite well against such comparisons--- god is not a parameter defined the same way as invisible pink elephants

[Cluny the Scourge]

but its not invisible pink elephants thats an incorrect correlation -- the monotheistic texts paint god as without form distinguishable, the holy of holies in the first temple was an EMPTY SPACE.-- god is not a physical form; therefore you can discount invisible pink elephants because you have defined defeatable parameters.

Unknowable, Unspeakble, and Unimaginable actually defend themselves quite well against such comparisons--- god is not a parameter defined the same way as invisible pink elephants

Wrong. If the elephants are invisible and incorporeal - cannot be touched or otherwise experienced by the human senses as Kiljaden describes (see, felt, touched, tasted) then they have PRECISELY the same ineffability as God. God is ineffable because you cannot sense Him or detect Him by instruments - the unicorns/dragons/pink elephants/leprechauns-in-my-pocket likewise. The parameters you suggest are meaningless.

[Ummon]

Wrong. If the elephants are invisible and incorporeal - cannot be touched or otherwise experienced by the human senses as Kiljaden describes (see, felt, touched, tasted) then they have PRECISELY the same ineffability as God. God is ineffable because you cannot sense Him or detect Him by instruments - the unicorns/dragons/pink elephants/leprechauns-in-my-pocket likewise. The parameters you suggest are meaningless.

If the elephant exists, I can devise a tool to detect existence, therefore detecting the elephant. Otherwise, the elephant must possess a way to avoid detection, and the only way to avoid any possible form of detection is omnipotence, the ability to perform any deed by mere desire.

If the Elephant possesses such quality, the Elephant is identical to God.

[Zhuge_Liang]

If the elephant exists, I can devise a tool to detect existence, therefore detecting the elephant. Otherwise, the elephant must possess a way to avoid detection, and the only way to avoid any possible form of detection is omnipotence, the ability to perform any deed by mere desire.

If the Elephant possesses such quality, the Elephant is identical to God.

This makes no sense. Omnipotence means unlimited power. In order for power of any kind to be weilded it must first exist. If it exists in any form, it can be detected, even if by no other means than being compred to nothing. The 'power to disguise power' would be the removal of the power itself, conveinent, as this would equate to no god at all.

Does anybody here realize that science and religion go hand in hand?

Religion contradicts science in most of it's teachings.