Atheists please

[Mr. Igg]

+1

The atheist assumes nothing. The theist says "we believe in God" and tries to explain. The atheist isn't convinced.

The atheist does not say with 100% certainty there is no "God" - the atheist simply says "show me."

The theist says with 100% certainty that there IS a "God" - then says "prove to me that I'm wrong"

The atheist says, it's not for me to prove anything, I didn't say there was a "God" in the first place.

OK. In my question to get my mind wrapped around the terminology, let me offer an example: I have a colleague who has a doctorate in philosophy and teaches doctoral courses in the philosophy of science. He knows his stuff. Philosophically, he assumes materialism (i.e., not dualism). IOW, he believes matter is all there is, hence, in his mind a spirit (a necessary component of many faith traditions) cannot exist. He's an atheist, but he makes assumptions that define a playing field.

I'm not saying you do that, or are trying to do that; but, I wanted to keep in play that at least some atheists (in my experience) to make assumptions that define the field on which they play. Or would you say he's not actually an atheist, because he does make a philosophical asumption about the world?

I've got to run...car needs an oil change. I've very much enjoyed following this discussion and look forward to returning to it later! <insert hat tip to all>

 

[mmack66]

this was helpful, but let me ask so that i track with you: What's an agnostic? Maybe it's my old latin classes (in public high school! ) coming to the fore, but i thought atheism (a-theism) was a declaritive statement that there is no (a-) god; whereas, agnostics were the probablistic camp (it's possible, but not probable, there's a god). In that possibly simplistic categorization, atheism is a strong assertion. I just want to ensure i understand the construct definitions in play, to make sure i'm on your page.

+1

 

[fleshdunce]

I'm going to be as polite about this as I can -
you're wrong.

It's not about saying that gods do or don't definitively exist.

You, for example are an atheist already. You don't believe in Buddha. You don't believe in Ra. I just take it one more step further and say that I don't believe that Jehovah / Jesus exists. I'm not saying that it DOESN'T exist - but I am saying that I see no evidence that's compelling enough to say that the deity DOES exist.

I AM reasonably certain that I'm right about this, BUT as any atheist will tell you, it's always possible that we're wrong. Presented with adequate evidence, we'd change our minds. It's just that the evidence so far shown is inadequate at best.

If there's any "belief structure", it's a belief that evidence is important for conclusions. I suppose that's as close to a generic structure as you can get for atheists in general - otherwise, it's not a matter of faith or belief.


To put it another way - take Santa Claus. The guy actually existed- we have historical records about his basis, etc etc. Ask yourself "why don't I believe in the myth of Santa bouncing all over the world and delivering toys to boys and girls?" Then take that answer, and substitute the word "god" for "santa". I hope that makes sense, and again, I hope I'm staying polite here. It's sometimes hard to judge my own tone on these forums.

I think you are getting thrown off by the specific wording I used. Someone else understood what I was trying to say better. Faith, belief, to me it is all part of your worldview, and as an atheist you hold a certain worldview and that is what I meant by a belief structure and faith. You have a set of beliefs and faith that for certain a God or supreme being(s) does not exist, just as those who do believe have a faith and belief structure stemming from their stance that such a being or beings do in fact exist.

The second bolded point is you agreeing with exactly what I said. Just as there is a wide variety of sects within each religion and an infinitely diverse set of opinions about various things within that belief structure the same is true for Atheism. I never meant to imply that Atheists are some monolith (nor is any religion in the world). But Atheists hold a certain worldview stemming from their belief in no God just as those who do believe have a worldview which is influenced by their belief in a God or Gods.

In the first bolded part it is fine that you find the evidence inadequate, but the evidence against the existence of such a being is inadequate as well. There is nothing here on Earth that one can cite or look to to definitively prove that there is not any sort of being who either created the Universe, influences the universe etc. The burden of proof goes either way. To say that such a being doesn't exist would require definitive proof just as saying that a being definitively does exist.

As for Santa Claus, Santa Claus (like the unicorn example given earlier in the thread) would be something in existence on this planet, unlike God or any other surpreme beings that one may choose to believe in. We can see that there is no Santa Claus here and now which is evidence that he doesn't exist. Beliefs in God or a God include the fact that this being or set of beings does not live or reside on this planet or even within our state of being which is why there is currently no evidence available.

Hopefully that clarifies more of what I am saying. For an atheist cannot show proof that a higher being of some sort does not exist just as a believer cannot show proof that it does exist. For an atheist to state definitively that there is no God or Gods the burden of proof moves onto that atheist to provide evidence to prove that this is so. Sure, you find the evidence to be lacking as proof of such a being, but just because you find that evidence lacking doesn't serve as proof that the being does not exist. I ask you to show me evidence that such a being definitely does not exist.

As I stated before, I am not even a religious person. I just find that though there is no evidence convincing me for sure that there is any sort of supreme being doesn't mean I can automatically assume that one doesn't exist as I have yet to see any evidence proving that to me.

 

[fleshdunce]

Originally Posted by mr. Igg View Post

this was helpful, but let me ask so that i track with you: What's an agnostic? Maybe it's my old latin classes (in public high school! ) coming to the fore, but i thought atheism (a-theism) was a declaritive statement that there is no (a-) god; whereas, agnostics were the probablistic camp (it's possible, but not probable, there's a god). In that possibly simplistic categorization, atheism is a strong assertion. I just want to ensure i understand the construct definitions in play, to make sure i'm on your page.

This was another thing I was getting at earlier in the thread and really what I am making my whole points off of. An atheist by definition believes that there is definitively no god or any higher being of any sort. An agnostic on the other hand believes that there is no evidence either way. Nothing proves that a higher being, usually God in the western world, does exist, but there is also no proof that a higher being doesn't exist. The agnostic chooses neither side as either one is a definitive 100% statement that there is either a God or no God. If you don't fall in this 100% category then you don't really hold atheist beliefs.

 

[masonjarjar]

I'm not saying you do that, or are trying to do that; but, I wanted to keep in play that at least some atheists (in my experience) to make assumptions that define the field on which they play. Or would you say he's not actually an atheist, because he does make a philosophical asumption about the world?

When I said "assumes nothing" what I meant was, assumes "no god"..

What I was getting at was that I think many Theists operate from the assumption that Atheists are somehow "fighting against God" or somehow must "be mad at God" and operate from that point of view that we're trying to "knock God off the playing field."

My playing field is "no god" - all I ask is that for someone to try to meet me there, then convince me that I'm wrong.

But what I get is, the playing field is "God" and the Theist says "show me I'm wrong" - to which I respond, ok, show me the Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage isn't there either.

 

[rainman]

The problem is that atheists will say that we are the product of evolution. What made the elements needed for the evolution? Even if you don't subscribe to a paticular religion I find it easier to believe in a creator than all of the matter in the universe appearing out of nowhere.


Albert Einstein believed in a creator and a life after this one. He was a smart guy.

So did Darwin at the end of his life which doesn't get brought up much.

 

[masonjarjar]

As for Santa Claus, Santa Claus (like the unicorn example given earlier in the thread) would be something in existence on this planet, unlike God or any other surpreme beings that one may choose to believe in. We can see that there is no Santa Claus here and now which is evidence that he doesn't exist. Beliefs in God or a God include the fact that this being or set of beings does not live or reside on this planet or even within our state of being which is why there is currently no evidence available.

Hopefully that clarifies more of what I am saying. For an atheist cannot show proof that a higher being of some sort does not exist just as a believer cannot show proof that it does exist. For an atheist to state definitively that there is no God or Gods the burden of proof moves onto that atheist to provide evidence to prove that this is so. Sure, you find the evidence to be lacking as proof of such a being, but just because you find that evidence lacking doesn't serve as proof that the being does not exist. I ask you to show me evidence that such a being definitely does not exist.

There IS a great invisible Unicorn.

I'm 100% certain, and I talk to him every day.

He comes to me in my dreams and tells me what to do.

When good things happen for me, I thank the Unicorn.

Of course you would say that he doesn't exist and I'm delusional.

But would you be able to prove it?

Does it matter if one person or several million believe?

 

[fleshdunce]

There IS a great invisible Unicorn.

I'm 100&#37; certain, and I talk to him every day.

He comes to me in my dreams and tells me what to do.

When good things happen for me, I thank the Unicorn.

Of course you would say that he doesn't exist and I'm delusional.

But would you be able to prove it?

Does it matter if one person or several million believe?

I understand what you are trying to say. Belief in something that you cannot see, prove, things like that is irrational. That is what you believe, however, others do not feel the same way, and that is still not proof. That is not evidence and this is my main point.

I am saying that I believe it is irrational to believe 100% there is no higher being, just as it is irrational to believe 100% that there is one because I do not see convincing evidence pointing me in either direction. These are all different views, beliefs, worldviews, or however you want to call them.

 

[tlanning]

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers

Anyway, the original post asked for Atheist orientated resources. I recently found this fairly long but very good video on youtube by the user QualiaSoup:
[YOUTUBE]WV_REEdvxo[/YOUTUBE]
This really sums up my views on belief very well, especially the part about the burden of proof. I really don't mind what people believe, but if you try to impose your views on me or others then they should be supported by evidence.

Just to clarify, I stated that I knew, and I meant, under my command, during intense combat. This encompassed most US Marines on Foreign Soil

 

[masonjarjar]

The problem is that atheists will say that we are the product of evolution. What made the elements needed for the evolution? Even if you don't subscribe to a paticular religion I find it easier to believe in a creator than all of the matter in the universe appearing out of nowhere.

A long time ago it was easier to believe that you could please the volcano god by sacrificing a virgin to it that it was to study geology and try to figure out what was actually happening.

Some of us don't want easy answers to difficult questions.



And I don't see Evolution as a religious issue anyway, it's a science issue.

It's the best science we have. Regardless of what your faith might be, it's the best science we have that explains how we came to be.

And the "universe appearing out of nowhere" isn't a question of evolution, it's a question of cosmology. Science (ie, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics) is just beginning to scratch the surfaces of that question.. Give 'em time.. The great thing about science is that it eventually finds the truth. We once thought the Earth was flat, now we don't. The wheels of science will keep turning. My only sadness is I won't live to see what it discovers in 100 or 200 years.

 

[ouch]

And for people who insist that atheism is a belief structure like religion, there's a great analogy that's descriptive and useful:

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.

Here's a better one-

saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

[rainman]

Where did any matter or energy come from? You still have to believe in science.

The earth was flat.

I bet a scientist use to tell people that until it was proven otherwise. Everything that is said now that is supposed to be fact may completely change in 100 years yet you still want me to "believe" in science in present day.

A long time ago it was easier to believe that you could please the volcano god by sacrificing a virgin to it that it was to study geology and try to figure out what was actually happening.

Some of us don't want easy answers to difficult questions.



And I don't see Evolution as a religious issue anyway, it's a science issue.

It's the best science we have. Regardless of what your faith might be, it's the best science we have that explains how we came to be.

And the "universe appearing out of nowhere" isn't a question of evolution, it's a question of cosmology. Science (ie, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics) is just beginning to scratch the surfaces of that question.. Give 'em time.. The great thing about science is that it eventually finds the truth. We once thought the Earth was flat, now we don't. The wheels of science will keep turning. My only sadness is I won't live to see what it discovers in 100 or 200 years.

 

[fleshdunce]

A long time ago it was easier to believe that you could please the volcano god by sacrificing a virgin to it that it was to study geology and try to figure out what was actually happening.

Some of us don't want easy answers to difficult questions.



And I don't see Evolution as a religious issue anyway, it's a science issue.

It's the best science we have. Regardless of what your faith might be, it's the best science we have that explains how we came to be.

And the "universe appearing out of nowhere" isn't a question of evolution, it's a question of cosmology. Science (ie, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics) is just beginning to scratch the surfaces of that question.. Give 'em time.. The great thing about science is that it eventually finds the truth. We once thought the Earth was flat, now we don't. The wheels of science will keep turning. My only sadness is I won't live to see what it discovers in 100 or 200 years.

This seems more akin to my skepticism of total denial of the possibility of belief in a higher being. Who is to say that in hundreds of years science won't discover evidence of a "soul" or something similar? Or a being or force or some sort of the sort guiding the universe in one direction or another?

Hope I don't seem like I am trolling or anything as this is not my intention, but I do enjoy such discussions about differing beliefs and worldviews.

 

[richmondesi]

A couple of thoughts. It was said that if God came to Earth, atheists would change their minds and become believers. Well, there are claims that this happened 2000 years ago, and their have been many who deny that. So, if God did come today, 2000 years in the future there would still be those that deny it happened irrespective of the recorded evidence provided.

I appreciate the admissions in this thread that assumptions determine your position on this matter. Until we can agree on basic fundamentals, there is no hope of coming to agreement on the deeper questions. So, debate of these issues is silly because neither side is willing to budge on their assumptions. This is ok.

I'd submit that the OP be respected and resources for atheists be discussed without interjecting debate between believers and nonbelievers.

Cheers,

 

[rainman]

Well said. What is considered supernatural now, may just be considered natural in the future.

This seems more akin to my skepticism of total denial of the possibility of belief in a higher being. Who is to say that in hundreds of years science won't discover evidence of a "soul" or something similar? Or a being or force or some sort of the sort guiding the universe in one direction or another?

Hope I don't seem like I am trolling or anything as this is not my intention, but I do enjoy such discussions about differing beliefs and worldviews.

 

[Emmett]

Where did any matter or energy come from? You still have to believe in science.

The earth was flat.

I bet a scientist use to tell people that until it was proven otherwise. Everything that is said now that is supposed to be fact may completely change in 100 years yet you still want me to "believe" in science in present day.

You don't believe in science. Belief in the scientific method as the best way to gain understanding of the world, yes. But you don't believe in science itself--it's evidence-based. Conclusions are drawn on available evidence and more evidence is constantly being collected and analyzed. Views on science change all the time, but not via belief. They change as a result of new evidence that shows prior conclusions to be incorrect.

 

[masonjarjar]

This seems more akin to my skepticism of total denial of the possibility of belief in a higher being. Who is to say that in hundreds of years science won't discover evidence of a "soul" or something similar? Or a being or force or some sort of the sort guiding the universe in one direction or another?

Hope I don't seem like I am trolling or anything as this is not my intention, but I do enjoy such discussions about differing beliefs and worldviews.

Hey, if science could verify anything "supernatural" I would be cool with that.

Who's to say?

Exactly.

Who's to say science won't show us God?

Who's to say science won't show us that Evolution is 100% correct?

I wish I could be there for the future when it came..

 

[rainman]

You don't believe in science.

I guess you're right. I don't.

A scientists research and findings also greatly depend on the view of the one providing the grant money or to further previous work influenced by the same effect.

You don't believe in science. Belief in the scientific method as the best way to gain understanding of the world, yes. But you don't believe in science itself--it's evidence-based. Conclusions are drawn on available evidence and more evidence is constantly being collected and analyzed. Views on science change all the time, but not via belief. They change as a result of new evidence that shows prior conclusions to be incorrect.

 

[heirkb]

I don't really care to argue about the semantics, I'm just of the belief that I need real evidence to believe in a god. I don't say god doesn't exist, but I do think it's highly improbable that god exists. The only reason I don't say god doesn't exist is that I can't prove it, so the statement would be just as unempirical as saying god does exist. I always thought that was agnosticism, but whatever the name people wish to call it, that's what I think...
I'm enjoying this thread so far (except for the arguments about semantics. They're getting repetitive and I just need to do my research on it )

 

[dpmtherrien]

I happened on this site by chance, I was just clicking around, and I read through all of the posts. I didn't see any mention of this, and if there was than I missed it. But has anyone given any thought to the fact that: "More people have been killed in the name of God than in all of the world's wars, catastrophe's, disease, etc." I'm not taking a stand on either side, but doesn't that make you wonder?