I believe in Atheism...

[Jadedcarguy]

1 - way back when (say, oh, 5000 years ago), looking up at the sky and thinking "hey, I might be able to do that" was looney! The only difference is science and engineering at the time...so - does that count??

In and of itself, no. Wondering if something can be done is not loony. Assigning deities to what one doesn't understand is loony. Notice that the two are not one and the same, nor are they intertwined in any way.

You want to talk about gods? Fine. You want to talk about the mechanics of flight and when our tech made it possible? Start another thread. I'm done with it.

2 - what about other dimension or other universes? We don't know if they exist (mathematically possible, even mathematically 'proven'... ) but not in physics at this moment in time (and perhaps never). Mathematically, there is evidence.

How do those compare to divinities?

They don't. All kinds of unproven things are 'mathematically possible'. Show me a mathematical equation that makes a god possible. It doesn't exist.

(and I've also got to agree, some of the specific 'divine' references have come out confusing...)

Notice that I've clarified my usage of the word. Twice now.

[Slytovhand]

In and of itself, no. Wondering if something can be done is not loony. Assigning deities to what one doesn't understand is loony. Notice that the two are not one and the same, nor are they intertwined in any way.

You want to talk about gods? Fine. You want to talk about the mechanics of flight and when our tech made it possible? Start another thread. I'm done with it.

Working with the theories and 'sciences' of the time is looney? Remember, the concept of 'science' is incredibly new as far as humanity is concerned.

As for this discussion, it revolves around the idea of what 'atheism' is, and where it comes from. By definition, this means comparing religion and science. It started from the difference between 'knowledge' (ie - evidence and proof), vs 'belief' (ie - theories, ideas etc).

They don't. All kinds of unproven things are 'mathematically possible'. Show me a mathematical equation that makes a god possible. It doesn't exist.

No, you won't.. but I'm reminded of a joke that fits in perfectly here:

One day in the not too distant future, the worlds scientists have worked out completely the human genome, and also all the physics that prove evolution. They approach God, to say that since they've proven such things, they've also proven God doesn't exist. God says "Fine, please demonstrate this for me". The scientists say "Sure, I'll just grab this handful of dirt...". God intervenes and says "Hang on - you get your own dirt!"

So... part of my beliefs come about because mathematics and physics works so well, so succinctly, and because rational judgements can be made regarding the unvierse. The universe is logical and rational.

Now, the word 'god' doesn't sit comfortably with me, but I have no problem with thinking this universe (and, theoretically, any others) were 'made'.

Notice that I've clarified my usage of the word. Twice now.

Yes, I know... just mentioning it, tis all

[Jadedcarguy]

Working with the theories and 'sciences' of the time is looney? Remember, the concept of 'science' is incredibly new as far as humanity is concerned.

It's loony if it involves making up a deity to explain things. I don't care how long a go it was, even if it was the "science" of the time.

Seeing an animal take flight and wondering how you could do it is not loony.

As for this discussion, it revolves around the idea of what 'atheism' is, and where it comes from. By definition, this means comparing religion and science. It started from the difference between 'knowledge' (ie - evidence and proof), vs 'belief' (ie - theories, ideas etc).

It equates a completely different kind of belief and faith than religion is based on with calling someone stupid for having it. Two very different things.

[Slytovhand]

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

I was thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that many notable persons throughout history have done - it is more rational to believe in some form of deity (not saying what type... only that one should exist) than to say that it is impossible for any to exist based on 'evidence'. Why? Because 'science' is there to disprove theories. Divinity is not one of those things it can actually go near.

To actually say that there is no evidence for a deity is enough to categorically deny the possibility is, therefore, irrational. Doubt? Sure. To call any such circumstance 'bullshit'...nuh-uh! It thus falls into something basically the same as the religious nuts who "know" that what they think is the truth, and everything else is....say... bullshit??

[Jadedcarguy]

Are you actually implying that believing in something that science has yet to prove (and, according to this forum, doesn't even have the 'right' to even look into) is 'stupid'? (or am I misinterpreting that sentence??)

It would help if you would quote the sentence in question, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

If you believe in something unproven by science and without any evidence to imply it could exist or be done, yes you are silly. If something is theoretically possible but yet unproven, it isn't necessarily 'stupid' to believe it could happen someday, similar to the work done with the Large Hadron Collider. They are looking for something that hasn't been seen but should exist. That's not stupid, it's called exploration and experimentation. So far nothing has been found to imply a deity, no matter how much someone wants to believe that the universe was 'made'.

I was thinking about this today, and I came to a conclusion that many notable persons throughout history have done - it is more rational to believe in some form of deity (not saying what type... only that one should exist) than to say that it is impossible for any to exist based on 'evidence'. Why? Because 'science' is there to disprove theories. Divinity is not one of those things it can actually go near.

I have never said it is impossible. Never, not once, ever. A deity could exist without any evidence in out testable world if it is outside of our plane of existence. If, however it has influence of any kind in our plane, that would have to leave some kind of mark or clue or evidence. There isn't any.

It is unlikely that such a being exists. I never said it couldn't exist. As I said earlier, the burden of proof rests with the person making the claim, I am under no pressure to disprove any god. You seem to be under the impression that I'm claiming to have evidence against gods. I don't. I am saying that evidence for their existence is seriously lacking. Big difference.

To actually say that there is no evidence for a deity is enough to categorically deny the possibility is, therefore, irrational. Doubt? Sure. To call any such circumstance 'bullshit'...nuh-uh! It thus falls into something basically the same as the religious nuts who "know" that what they think is the truth, and everything else is....say... bullshit??

Until evidence for a deity comes up, claiming that one exists and has influence of any kind in someone's life is bullshit. Nothing has been observed, detected, recorded, or otherwise to indicate anything else. God-belief is about emotion and faith, which is belief without evidence, not about facts and proof.

I don't believe in Unicorns, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, The Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra or any other cryptozoological critters either, and there is a hell of a lot more evidence for them than there is for any kind of god. Deities have come and gone countless times since humanity climbed out of the trees. Like belief in a flat earth, a pillar of turtles, an earth-centric universe, and so on, myths about gods are slowly being replaced with proven facts.

If you want to believe, have fun with it. I won't tell you not to. Just understand where I'm coming from when I say it isn't something I'd put stock in. I lack belief in deities because it is something that I can't reconcile with what I know is true and real. If something comes along to change that, so be it. I'll modify my stance at that time.

[Jadedcarguy]

OK, after my last post I've been kicking around some thoughts that I think I need to put down here, mainly the misconceptions about what atheism is and what it isn't.

Atheism is exactly that: a-theism, or lack of gods. Some one who is asexual doesn't have sex and has no desire to. I have no gods and have no desire to acquire any. The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.


"But Jaded, that makes you agnostic LOL!!1!"

No, it doesn't. Agnostic is, in my opinion, a safe place. An agnostic will say "I really don't know if gods are real." An atheist will say "I don't have a belief in any gods." The difference is that an agnostic is trying not to alienate the believers or the nonbelievers, an atheist stopped caring who he/she pisses off quite some time ago. Not that I'm trying to piss anyone off, just that if my lack of belief makes you uncomfortable, well, fuck off. That's your problem.

The believer in a god or religion is going to do one of two or possibly three things:

1)Continue to believe until the day they die, shunning all information that refutes their faith.

2)Start to investigate their faith when they come across inconsistencies in the doctrine, realize that their holy texts are in fact fallible, and lose their faith. This is what I did.

3)Realize that the texts aren't ironclad and contain errors, yet continue in the faith anyway, because it makes them 'feel good'. I think this represents the majority of Christians.


In any case, it takes a great deal of denial and closed-mindedness to continue in any faith when the vast majority of scientific knowledge is in conflict with its major tenets.

[AFPheonix]

Except that of you pick apart the word "agnostic" the way you picked apart "athiest", you will find that you come up with something like "without knowledge". It's not being wishy washy, it's just acknowledging that we simply do not have the knowledge one way or another to make a claim. Agnosticism can run the gamut from mild belief in the possibility of a god, or more to where I am, where the existence of such is unlikely, but not particularly provable one way or another.

[Flyndaran]

Can I call all of us that don't believe in unicorns a-unicorn-ites? Why must only we atheists get saddled with names for not believing in the absurd?
All we are a-leprechaun-ites a-X-ites ad infinitum for not believing in all the impossible but also linguistically impossible to prove nonsense?

[Boozy]

Can I call all of us that don't believe in unicorns a-unicorn-ites? Why must only we atheists get saddled with names for not believing in the absurd?

The subject of unicorn-belief comes up so seldomly and has such little bearing in modern culture and philosophy that there's no need for a term to desribe people who believe/don't believe in them.

I was being a bit pedantic there. I do understand what your point is, but I think you can also recognize that religion is a major force in the world, so we need words to describe how people feel about it.

[Pedersen]

So... part of my beliefs come about because mathematics and physics works so well, so succinctly, and because rational judgements can be made regarding the unvierse. The universe is logical and rational.

Slyt, this has been bothering me for a couple of days, and I'm hoping that I've misunderstood. But my understanding of what you've said is, basically, this: Since the universe makes sense, there is some sort of deific entity out there.

Which, if we extrapolate the whole rational/makes sense bit, we eventually come down to a statement like "Since cause precedes effect, there's a deity of some sort."

I know I've misunderstood, but that's what I've understood. Please tell me what I got wrong.

[Evandril]

Atheism is exactly that: a-theism, or lack of gods. Some one who is asexual doesn't have sex and has no desire to. I have no gods and have no desire to acquire any. The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

No, it doesn't. Agnostic is, in my opinion, a safe place. An agnostic will say "I really don't know if gods are real." An atheist will say "I don't have a belief in any gods." The difference is that an agnostic is trying not to alienate the believers or the nonbelievers, an atheist stopped caring who he/she pisses off quite some time ago. Not that I'm trying to piss anyone off, just that if my lack of belief makes you uncomfortable, well, fuck off. That's your problem.

Wow, I'm trying not to piss people off now...now *THAT* is a shocker. Personally, I thought it was that I didn't *care* if there might be a god/goddess or not, or many of 'em, I'm going to live my life how I see fit...Guess I'm wrong

In any case, it takes a great deal of denial and closed-mindedness to continue in any faith when the vast majority of scientific knowledge is in conflict with its major tenets.

You do realize that statement is highly insulting to anyone who *does* hold religious beliefs, for no apparent gain, do you not? And is the same reason quite a few people (myself included) highly dislike xtains? I don't care what your beliefs are or are not...but to tell me *mine* are wrong...That I dislike.

Btw, how much scientific knowledge is in conflict with *itself*?

[Jadedcarguy]

Except that of you pick apart the word "agnostic" the way you picked apart "athiest", you will find that you come up with something like "without knowledge". It's not being wishy washy, it's just acknowledging that we simply do not have the knowledge one way or another to make a claim. Agnosticism can run the gamut from mild belief in the possibility of a god, or more to where I am, where the existence of such is unlikely, but not particularly provable one way or another.

Not trying to make agnostics sound wishy washy. Sorry if I gave that impression.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

Uh, yeah. I knew that.

Wow, I'm trying not to piss people off now...now *THAT* is a shocker. Personally, I thought it was that I didn't *care* if there might be a god/goddess or not, or many of 'em, I'm going to live my life how I see fit...Guess I'm wrong

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

You do realize that statement is highly insulting to anyone who *does* hold religious beliefs, for no apparent gain, do you not?

Many religious people make a hobby out of taking insult to anything that doesn't tow their particular line. Look at the pointless outrage over the atheist adverts on the London bendy-buses. They quickly forget that they are a response to all the pro-Xtian ads that have been inside and outside of the buses for years, but now someone is saying something different, and they are all frothy over it. It's hypocrisy honed to an art form.

And is the same reason quite a few people (myself included) highly dislike xtains? I don't care what your beliefs are or are not...but to tell me *mine* are wrong...That I dislike.

If you hold a religious belief that works for you, run with it.

If you have a particular belief that has been insulted here, ask yourself why you're insulted. Did a statement made by me or someone else cause your faith to falter or fail? If not, why be insulted?

I have been listening to Xtian criticism of atheism for quite a while and it's water off of a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. I don't take insult unless they call me stupid. At that point the discussion is over.

True faith, no matter what flavor it is, is not swayed by a negative critique. If you are offended then your faith isn't all that strong to begin with. That's not meant to be an insult, it's just an observation.

Btw, how much scientific knowledge is in conflict with *itself*?

Good science is not in conflict with itself. If new evidence is brought forth that conflicts a standing theory, the theory is either modified to work with the new evidence, or if that can't be done, the theory is scrapped altogether.

Do you have any examples of conflicting science you'd like to hold up?

BTW, if you say Evolution and ID, you fail.

[Evandril]

If you believe in something unproven by science and without any evidence to imply it could exist or be done, yes you are silly.
Until evidence for a deity comes up, claiming that one exists and has influence of any kind in someone's life is bullshit.

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

The first two statements do not support the third. The impression you've given is that if we do not believe the way you do, we are wrong. As I've said, quite often, believe what you want, but don't tell ME how to believe. If you don't like the xtians doing it to you, then do not do it to others.

If you have a particular belief that has been insulted here, ask yourself why you're insulted. Did a statement made by me or someone else cause your faith to falter or fail? If not, why be insulted?

So if I were to say all left handed people, or all of X race are silly/full of BS, and they are offended, that makes them less left handed, or not a member of their race anymore? The statements were not directed at their beliefs, they were directed at the individuals themselves.

The a- prefix simply means without, not that I'm 100% sure that they aren't real, just that I find no reason to believe.?

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nowhere in the definition room for doubt. If someone calls themselves a Christian, but is only fairly sure that their god exists...I'd not agree with the title they give themselves. I'm fairly sure an honest Christian priest would tell the person if they didn't believe fully, they were not saved, as well.

Good science is not in conflict with itself. If new evidence is brought forth that conflicts a standing theory, the theory is either modified to work with the new evidence, or if that can't be done, the theory is scrapped altogether.

Do you have any examples of conflicting science you'd like to hold up?

Almost any theoretical postition has some scientist trying to prove the opposite...If you want easy examples, look at what's been 'proven' to be good/bad for you, and why. That's the *nature* of science, you find something you don't know about, form a theory, and try and see if it's right...Then try and find out where it's wrong, since there aren't very many absolutes around. If you stop looking once you think something is 'proven'...You're in for some VERY rude awakenings a bit down the line.

[Jadedcarguy]

The impression you've given is that if we do not believe the way you do, we are wrong.

I'm giving my opinion. If you don't share it, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I am refuting points you have brought up that I disagree with. It's called debate.

So if I were to say all left handed people, or all of X race are silly/full of BS, and they are offended, that makes them less left handed, or not a member of their race anymore?

What? Where are you getting that?

I'm disagreeing with most religious doctrine, which last I checked was something you chose to believe. Left-handedness or race are not things you choose.

athe·ism
1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

I see nowhere in the definition room for doubt. If someone calls themselves a Christian, but is only fairly sure that their god exists...I'd not agree with the title they give themselves. I'm fairly sure an honest Christian priest would tell the person if they didn't believe fully, they were not saved, as well.

Even Richard Dawkins says there is room for doubt. Most atheists I know have said at one point or another that if good evidence for a deity were found/discovered/stumbled upon/handed down from on high then they would change their position. So far no good evidence or in most cases any evidence has surfaced.

One more time for those who have missed it. Atheists by and large do not insist beyond any doubt that there isn't a god. Most of them will allow for the possibility if evidence can be presented. Capiche?

Almost any theoretical postition has some scientist trying to prove the opposite...If you want easy examples, look at what's been 'proven' to be good/bad for you, and why.

Almost as a rule, if a scientist is trying to prove any well established theory wrong, they likely have an agenda or their continued grants are dependent on proving the theory wrong.

That's the *nature* of science, you find something you don't know about, form a theory, and try and see if it's right

Who told you that?

Science work, whether it's in biology, chemistry, physics, etc, starts with an idea, which is based on what you think is correct based on observation. This idea is called a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is a well established explanation that uses known facts to explain a function, such as gravity, evolution, light rays, sound waves, and so on. A hypothesis can become a theory once it has been supported by research and/or experimentation, and new data and evidence is found that supports it.

.Then try and find out where it's wrong, since there aren't very many absolutes around.

Also wrong. You don't try to find out where it's wrong, you examine new evidence as it is processed or discovered and see if it fits the theory. If it does, great. If not, does it disprove it or take you in a new direction? Most likely the latter because as I said a theory is an explanation based on known facts. New facts usually don't disprove it, they just modify our understanding of it.

If you stop looking once you think something is 'proven'...You're in for some VERY rude awakenings a bit down the line.

This I agree with.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, for fuck sake.

Zeus? Bullshit. Apollo? Bullshit. Athena? Bullshit. <Insert Greek God Here>? Bullshit. Horus? Bullshit. Ra? Bullshit. Hathor? Bullshit. Sekhmet? Bullshit. Geb? Bullshit. Nut? Bullshit? Thoth? Bullshit. Sobek? Bullshit. <Insert Egyptian God Here>? Bullshit.

Vishnu? Bullshit. Zoroaster? Bullshit. Buddha? Bullshit. Thetans? Bullshit. Mithra? Bullshit. <Insert currently worshipped non-Christian God here>? Bullshit.

Baldr? Bullshit. Forseti? Bullshit. Höðr? Bullshit. Thor? Bullshit. <Insert Norse God here>? Bullshit. Atlacamani? Bullshit. Chantico? Bullshit. Cinteotl? Bullshit. <Insert Aztec God here>? Bullshit. Ah Peku? Bullshit. Hunab Ku? Bullshit. Balam? Bullshit. Ekchuah? Bullshit. Kinich Ahau? Bullshit. <Insert Mayan God here>? Bullshit.

Hachiman? Bullshit. Benzai? Bullshit. Jikoku? Bullshit. Hoderi? Bullshit. <Insert Japanese God here>? Bullshit.

Do I need to elaborate any further? The preceding list is only a small sliver of the gods who are/were believed in at one point in time or possibly now. Why should Yahweh/Jehovah/Jesus garner any more respect when the evidence for their existence is as flimsy as the gods in the 'bullshit' list I just posted? Why?

.....

Well, I'm not trying to piss people off either. My point is that if someone gets angry because I don't share their particular flavor of belief, too bad. That truly is their problem.

Nope - don't buy it! That entire 'bullshit' post was one massive piss-off session.

I mean, it's one thing to say "I don't believe, and there's no evidence to support", and quite another to say "What you believe is total bullshit... and you're stupid to believe such things" (which is also a term you used).

No, this has nothing to do with questioning of one's faith - this has to do with blatantly insulting someone just because they hold a different belief to you. This thread is a debate and discussion - not an insult session.....


Pedersen... well, sort of - but then again... not!

The basic question comes back to how all this started. Was it by accident, was it 'designed', was it one of many versions and we're just the latest?

If option A)... I'd say it's pretty unlikely that we'd have all this organised order.. as a one off. Winning lotto would have better odds than flipping a coin in comparison. And "It just is" doesn't add up to me... as Philip Davies said, there's something fishy going on.

Option C)... that there have been numerous universes in existence, and this is just another model. Yeah, fair enough. Still leaves a fair bit for 'randomness', and I'm not sure I can believe in the idea that universal (multiversal?) physics changes each time a new universe is created.. that doesn't make a lot of sense... how do the laws of physics evolve as it were? Just because something doesn't work in one universe (or part of the universe) doesn't mean it's going to adapt.

So... option B)... we have this wonderful universe, with it's wonderful laws of physics that makes rational sense, that is predictable, and doesn't instantaneously implode on itself..and just happens to be life-conducive in a stable environment...if you wanted to design a universe, this is what you'd be doing. Sure, bad argument in and of itself, but I hope you get the idea. Now, I'm not using the term 'god' here.. only 'designer'. As I've mentioned before, nothing saying this isn't some lab experiment.