All this crap about how atheism is bad and stuff is getting old. The atheist argument, in a nutshell, is that there is no god. Instead of theists saying that atheists are stupid, why don’t they say how theists themselves are smart?
Of course there is a problem with that because if the voice of a minority falls silent, the voice of the majority is assumed to be widespread. Which is dangerous.
The real problem with that whole debate is that neither side will admit their ignorance. You can’t prove there is a god any more so than someone can prove that there isn’t. Athiest and theists are all just a bunch of self riteous ignorant faith mongers. The arguements for both are the same. How much more boring or moot could a conversation be?
The basic atheistic stance goes kinda like this:
I don't know if there is a god or not, but given the evidence, or lack thereof, the existence of a god is simply not justified.There is no assertion of a positive (like “there is no god”). And there is blatant admission of ignorance. Some say for sure that “there is no god” but thats not what its about at the basic level.
The theistic stance on the other hand (9 times out of 10) goes like this:
There is a god.This is typically how it goes. Blatant assertion of a positive. No admission of ignorance.
This is a false statement.
I’ve never met an atheist who claims the universe is godless and then backs the claim up with “you have to have faith that the universe is godless”. The universe being godless is backed up by the fact that the negative of that claim is not justified.
No, it’s “without belief in gods/godesses”.
Atheism describes people who do not have faith in supernatural dieties. No more, no less.
Yes, some people confuse definitions, but let them, and we will correct them.
Aye, makes the world an interesting and scary place. It’s a survival trait I think.
-Mach
Well, when you’re incorrect, I suppose it can’t be more moot.
Atheism is NOT having a belief that gods and godesses exist.
That can be reasoned…i.e. there is no evidence and no evidence in theory can exist.
It’s moot alright, but only in this way.
Atheism: reasonable
Theism: not reasonable
-Mach
You are right, I left this part out. What you just said, comes before the part I said.
This is only true if “reasonable” means something like “that which has been reasoned” (which it does). I think many people think that “reasonable” is synonymous with “correct”, which is not the case.
Reasoning is good. Faith is belief without reason. Therefore faith is unreasonable, and therefore it is bad.
So you’re saying that atheists have better reason to believe there’s no diety than theists do to believe that there is? I think you’re just using the term “reason” to defend your view. Please explain more of it to me so that I can understand. Or give me examples of both lines of thinking so that I can see how they aren’t the same.
Also…
The basic atheistic stance goes kinda like this:
Code:
I don’t know if there is a god or not, but given the evidence, or lack thereof, the existence of a god is simply not justified.
This seems like an agnostic stance to me. If it’s not, then explain agnosticism so that I can understand more about it as well.
Agnostics are 50/50 on the issue – they feel that both the existence and non-existence of gods are equiprobable and that we will never be able to find out which side the coin lands on. An atheist feels that the odds are greater than 50% that there are no gods whereas a theist feels that there is a greater than 50% chance that there are gods.
Certainty isn’t something anyone can have on the issue of an unknown.
Agnosticism might as well be called pure-middle-of-the-road-ism. True agnosticism, definitionaly, is a person who is not prepared to make a judgment call, either for or against either side. This kind of person, I’d bet a million dollars, probably does not exist.
I’ve seen this conversation occur many times. Here’s how it goes.
Jon and Bob exist at time = 0 (or “t0”), and they exist separately from each other. At this time their mental library contains the same exact “set of books”. Then at t1 Jon acquires some sort of knowledge, and Bob is oblivious to Jon’s acquisition. This knowledge is of great importance to Jon, and through arbitrary means, has come to accept it as fact. Meanwhile Bob is lacking this knowledge and knows nothing of it.
Then t2 rolls around and Jon approaches Bob, and inquires about his new knowledge to Bob. Bob says he does not have this knowledge. Jon then tries to teach Bob about the knowledge. Jon tries and tries to get Bob to believe him but is unsuccessful. Regardless of Bob’s capacity to be convinced, it is still Jon’s responsibility and obligation to provide sufficient justification to Bob. It is impossible for Bob to provide sufficient justification for the “false-ness” of Jon’s knowledge.
This is known as the Burden of Proof. Learn it. Apply it. (Google it if you don’t believe me)
Go back to the beginning of this story and replace Jon’s knowledge with “theism”. Neither of them have theism at t0. At t1 Jon acquires theism, and Bob is without theism. At t1 Bob is not rejecting theism, he simply lacks it. Then at t2 Jon tries to spread theism to Bob. Bob is unconvinced of this theism. Bob LACKS theism, and because the english language requires a word to describe everything, Bob is labled an “a-theist”.
Bob “lacks the belief in god”. If Bob chooses to say that there is no such thing as a god, then he’s dabbling in a different kind of “ism”. At t<1 Bob would have no reason to say “there is no god”, nor would he have any reason to say it after t1.
Atheism in simplest terms is “lack of belief in a god”, and 99.99999999999999% of the time it also entails “living as if there is no god”.
This last part is what separates atheists from the so-called agnostics. Its the ability to not adopt a piece of “knowledge” because it is unjustified.
But what if both people had knowledge at t0, but Bob eventually decides that the information they had was unsuitable (for whatever reason)?
I think this more accurately describes the situation. After all, if you look back through history, gods have always been there. Many philosophies have relegated them to a position of non-importance (and even non-existence), but the default has always seemed to be theism of some flavor or another.
So you are saying that the concept of “god” pre-existed man’s ability to know it?
The analogy works. When you were born, did you have knowledge of god, and then later you realized that it was wrong? Or did you have no knowledge at all, and then someone told you about god?
You are born with no knowledge. People’s stories of gods have existed for a long time. Stories are man made, and passed on by man.
I think I’m agnostic and I exist.
I’d argue that man has an innate desire to believe in gods and will create them. So, it becomes one of those things like language – is it innate because humans will invent it no matter what, or is it learned because languages are different? Gods and spirits operate in a similar fashion.
So you are 100% asserting that the likelihood of the existence of a god is exactly 50%?
Sure thing.
I think he is 100% assuming that the likelihood of the existence of a god is exactly 50%. I’m sure it’s either 100% or 0%. The average of those would be 50%.
No, he is on the fence about whether or not he is a god. Not about the existence so much as the state of being. Different kettle of fish.
The quibble begins when the definitions become static. Those who dabble in absolutes -ie- there IS a god, and there ISN’T a god are, to put it mildly, ‘extreme’ in their views. Most people fall along a continuum and very few visit either end of the extremes.
There have been efforts to describe the continuum as ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ theism or atheism.
I consider myself a ‘hard’ agnostic, which means that I find scientific methodology better equipped to explain the universe and my place in it than can faith-without-evidence religion and a god. But science has yet to explain everything and probably never will. The man behind the curtain remains a possible.
Smears is correct to say that the “argument” is moot. One can neither prove or disprove what is mere speculation. I have no interest in my past lives, nor in possible lives after my ‘death’ in this one. I’m having enough fun trying to live in the present. 
Recognising that there are absolutes is not the same thing as asserting an absolute.
“Existence” is a binary property. Either it is true, or it is false. Something cannot kind of exist. Either it does or it doesn’t. The only problem comes in when one actualy asserts that in fact something does exist. Upon this claim, evidence, justification and proof are required.
Say you’re in your basement. There is a lightswitch that controls a perfectly functioning light in the room up stairs. From the basement, you have no way of knowing whether or not the light is on or not, but you know that the switch works, but you also don’t know which way the switch is oriented. It is most definitly logical to say that the light is either on or off, because there are only two options. But since you don’t know which way the switch is oriented, you can only make an assumption toward either case. You could even say that “because light switches are usualy oriented with the ‘on’ setting toward the top, if i flip the switch up, its probably on upstairs.” This is what is known as reasoning. The next step would be to test your theory, which involves actually going upstairs for verification.
Any claim that is made requires verification. Theism is the claim, atheism is the state of not accepting the claim. Atheism is not a claim.
I agree that ‘kind of’ is nonsense. But you might want to define “exist” when making the claim about an absolute.