Atheism = Farce!

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

One can't know that what other's believe to be true is not true absolutely, but one can be absolutely sure of what one believes and disbelieves in oneself.

I wonder if one can be absolutely sure of what one believes and disbelieves in oneself.
I know in myself, I would hesitate to claim any particular belief ... except such as are analytic or mathematical ... as being set in stone.
They all waver at least a bit.

And I think that one certainly can know that another's belief is not true absolutely, or even at all.
Someone could spout absolute nonsense.
"2 + 2 = 5," for example.
I could know that was false. Even absolutely false.

But putting both these aside, if one could know that he definitely believes there is no god ... does the question still not remain open of whether he is an agnostic or an atheist?

Because an agnostic is so because he doesn't have knowledge. For the agnostic, his own belief is not sufficient.
He may have a hunch that god exists or, more likely, that god doesn't exist.
But short of grounds for certainty, he describes himself as agnostic on that point.
Does this not imply that an atheist must be one who believes he has certain knowledge that god does not exist?

Or maybe you would say, whatever definition we have of 'agnostic,' an 'atheist,' for you, is simply one who has a belief, tout court, that god does not exist.

That would leave unanswered the question of how you would distinguish between that 'atheist' and the 'agnostic' who also has a belief that god does not exist.

But if you say, "never mind, this is my definition of 'atheist' ... someone with a belief that god does not exist" ... then I suppose I have no answer for you and can't deny that, under your definition, you are an atheist.

(If this seems to you a bit unclear, it does to me too. This is not a day I should be posting on the board ... lots and lots to do, irl.)

I think relatively strong belief isn't a strong enough phrase to describe how much I believe that x is true. :tongue: I admit, technically I'm an agnostic. But for all practical purposes I am an atheist.

That's how I would describe myself, on the same grounds.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I wonder if one can be absolutely sure of what one believes and disbelieves in oneself.
I know in myself, I would hesitate to claim any particular belief ... except such as are analytic or mathematical ... as being set in stone.
They all waver at least a bit.

And I think that one certainly can know that another's belief is not true absolutely, or even at all.
Someone could spout absolute nonsense.
"2 + 2 = 5," for example.
I could know that was false. Even absolutely false.

Ah you and your fonts! LOL I always end up in unexpected type face :biggrin1:

Well in this case what I'm saying is that it sort of doesn't matter whether I know something absolutely about someone else's belief, they believe it and that's all there is to it. I still can't disprove their belief even if I do think I know they're absolutely wrong. They will likely continue to believe (because that is the nature of faith) regardless of my view. I simply disbelieve their assertion and leave it at that unless there is a compelling reason to refute them.

But putting both these aside, if one could know that he definitely believes there is no god ... does the question still not remain open of whether he is an agnostic or an atheist?

Because an agnostic is so because he doesn't have knowledge. For the agnostic, his own belief is not sufficient.
He may have a hunch that god exists or, more likely, that god doesn't exist.
But short of grounds for certainty, he describes himself as agnostic on that point.
Does this not imply that an atheist must be one who believes he has certain knowledge that god does not exist?

Or maybe you would say, whatever definition we have of 'agnostic,' an 'atheist,' for you, is simply one who has a belief, tout court, that god does not exist.

That would leave unanswered the question of how you would distinguish between that 'atheist' and the 'agnostic' who also has a belief that god does not exist.

But if you say, "never mind, this is my definition of 'atheist' ... someone with a belief that god does not exist" ... then I suppose I have no answer for you and can't deny that, under your definition, you are an atheist.

(If this seems to you a bit unclear, it does to me too. This is not a day I should be posting on the board ... lots and lots to do, irl.)

This is why I use the term "disbelief" rather than saying "I believe god does not exist", because there is no belief involved.

Faced with a given person's proposition that they believe in god I do not think "I believe god does not exist" (unless I'm shorthanding and being lazy), I simply disbelieve the person's proposition that their faith means that god does exist.

Just as a person of faith is not obliged to doubt just because I disbelieve in their god there is no opposite obligation for me to consider the possibility that my disbelief in their god is incorrect just because this person believes in god.

Ultimately faith in god is speculative, and I am not obliged to speculate that god exists just because other's fervently believe he does. therefore I am also not obliged to know absolutely that god does not exist just because I disbelieve in god.

The problem is that their is no question being asked on both sides, and people presume there must be. I don't expect a person of faith to disbelieve in their deity simply because I disbelieve in him and they are not expected to prove beyond doubt that he does exist to justify their faith and there is no concurrent expectation that I consider that god might exist and therefore seek to prove beyond doubt that he does not to justify my disbelief just because someone else does believe in him.

The difference is between belief and disbelief. Not between two kinds of opposing belief.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

This is why I use the term "disbelief" rather than saying "I believe god does not exist", because there is no belief involved.

Faced with a given person's proposition that they believe in god I do not think "I believe god does not exist" (unless I'm shorthanding and being lazy), I simply disbelieve the person's proposition that their faith means that god does exist.

To me, saying "I disbelieve that god exists" is further from atheism than saying "I believe that god does not exist," though both, to my mind, really fall within agnosticism's bailiwick.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

To me, saying "I disbelieve that god exists" is further from atheism than saying "I believe that god does not exist," though both, to my mind, really fall within agnosticism's bailiwick.

Atheism ( I suppose to me) is not believing in god, it's not believing god does not exist despite how the term has been misused and reinterpreted.

As an atheist it would be almost antithetical to have a belief that god does not exist since that would imply god might exist and must be believed not to.

Atheism is essentially an absence of belief in god, that's exactly what the greek root of the word means, it does not mean a belief that god does not exist.

Agnosticism is the acceptance that one cannot know if god exists or not hence its greek root meaning an absence of knowledge.

 

[Bbucko]

Religion/spirituality is a system of belief, not knowledge. Some things are simply unknowable, like the number of galaxies in an infinite universe.

When it comes to belief systems, which, again, involve the unknowable, room should always be left for doubt if one's mind is truly open involving the potentialities involved in the unknowable. I consider myself to have an actively curious and open mind and have knowledge of many things that have been measured and verified; beyond that concrete knowledge I have beliefs about a whole range of things which cannot be measured and verified, which I allow to shift and evolve as new experiences enter my life.

For as long as I can remember, extending far back into my childhood, I have denied the existence of a personal deity yet have firmly believed that the universe is utterly alive with energy, much of which has a consciousness to one degree or another. I have no idea where this belief came from, as it has nothing to do with the limited and largely ignorant "education" related to matters of the spirit that I received as a child or as a young man. It's certainly not Christianity nor Atheism, which were the two external influences to which I was exposed growing up.

My allowance for doubt has caused this essential principle to evolve, deconstruct and reconstruct itself many times over my life, in response to both life experience and in contemplating how the various consequences these experiences have affected me. But the core concept remains stubbornly intact.

 

[Calboner]

To me, saying "I disbelieve that god exists" is further from atheism than saying "I believe that god does not exist," though both, to my mind, really fall within agnosticism's bailiwick.

Atheism ( I suppose to me) is not believing in god, it's not believing god does not exist despite how the term has been misused and reinterpreted.

I have noticed that self-described atheists like to define atheism as "disbelief in the existence of any god," while theists like to define it as "denial of the existence of any god." (I say "self-described atheists" rather than simply "atheists" since the very definition of the term "atheist" is the issue here.) I have found some self-described atheists to be impassioned to the point of irrationality in this matter. It has happened to me twice in on-line discussions that when I have supplied evidence from the Oxford English Dictionary to show that the second definition ("denial of the existence of any god") has as much historical basis as the first, my atheist interlocutors became irate and abusive, and would not even acknowledge the facts that I had just put in front of them.

The OED entry for "atheism" reads: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." The entry for "atheist" reads: "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God." The latter entry is supported by numerous texts that support the "denial" as well as the "disbelief" interpretation. When I quoted these texts, my interlocutors either disregarded them or falsely described them.

I have come to the conclusion that trying to argue with self-described atheists on this point is a waste of time unless you just want to have a fight. I salute Hilaire for having the grace to offer his definition as merely his own preference. For my part, I am also inclined to favor the definition in terms of "disbelief" over the one in terms of "denial." However, I do not like to describe myself as an atheist, for two reasons: one, the term is so commonly interpreted to mean "denial of the existence of God"; and two, I have found that people who describe themselves as atheists tend to exhibit a contempt for religious belief that I do not share (though I have contempt for some particular religious beliefs).

The term "disbelief" has difficulties of its own, though. Is it equivalent to "lack of belief"? I think not. One cannot say that, e.g., the ancient Etruscans disbelieved in YHWH (the God of the Israelites), as they cannot ever have had occasion to hear of such a being. In the OED, the gloss on "disbelief" reads: "The action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief," while that on "disbelieve" reads: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of . . . b. a person in making a statement."

So atheism, understood as a form of disbelief, is not simply the absence of belief in the existence of any god, but the refusal of credence to any idea that some god exists. It is thus an attitude toward theistic beliefs rather than a belief in its own right. If this is so, then it is simply senseless to speak of "proving" atheism, or of atheism being "true" or "false." One can argue about whether atheism is justified or unjustified, reasonable or unreasonable, or wise or foolish, but as a matter of logic, the predicates "true" and "false" do not apply to it, and neither does the verb "prove."

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I have come to the conclusion that trying to argue with self-described atheists on this point is a waste of time unless you just want to have a fight.

I'm sure you're right.

So atheism, understood as a form of disbelief, is not simply the absence of belief in the existence of any god, but the refusal of credence to any idea that some god exists. It is thus an attitude toward theistic beliefs rather than a belief in its own right.

It may involve an 'attitude,' but surely it also involves specific beliefs that the atheist finds contradictory to those he believes implicit in theism.

If this is so, then it is simply senseless to speak of "proving" atheism, or of atheism being "true" or "false." One can argue about whether atheism is justified or unjustified, reasonable or unreasonable, or wise or foolish, but as a matter of logic, the predicates "true" and "false" do not apply to it, and neither does the verb "prove."

But they might be applicable at only one remove.
The premises and logic applied by a particular atheist in reaching his position might well take those predicates.
So if 'atheism' in principle might not take them, a particular case of atheism, proceeding from a particular supporting argument, might take them, no?
"His atheism is false, or absurd, or incoherent ..."

 

[Calboner]

It may involve an 'attitude,' but surely it also involves specific beliefs that the atheist finds contradictory to those he believes implicit in theism.



But they might be applicable at only one remove.
The premises and logic applied by a particular atheist in reaching his position might well take those predicates.
So if 'atheism' in principle might not take them, a particular case of atheism, proceeding from a particular supporting argument, might take them, no?

Yes; but that is precisely why it is utter nonsense to say that "atheism is a religion," or "atheism is a faith," as religionists like to do. One person might be an atheist simply because he has never encountered a version of theism that seemed to him credible; another might be an atheist on grounds of a commitment to materialism; another might be an atheist on grounds of a commitment to some kind of wild spiritualism; and so on.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Yes; but that is precisely why it is utter nonsense to say that "atheism is a religion," or "atheism is a faith," as religionists like to do. One person might be an atheist simply because he has never encountered a version of theism that seemed to him credible; another might be an atheist on grounds of a commitment to materialism; another might be an atheist on grounds of a commitment to some kind of wild spiritualism; and so on.

I see your point.
But in quite another sense, I think one can make a sort of religion of any belief.
When one falls in love with a belief, believe it's ennobling, and important that others share it, etc.
Not the sense you mean, I realize.

All that said, I have never called atheism a religion and usually find the notion quite a stretch.

(Not quite sure how an atheist could become so "on grounds of a commitment to some kind of wild spiritualism." But I suppose there are many roads to Rome.)

 

[Calboner]

(Not quite sure how an atheist could become so "on grounds of a commitment to some kind of wild spiritualism." But I suppose there are many roads to Rome.)

Maybe I should have said "animism." I just mean that someone who is convinced that the world is filled with finite spirits may regard the idea of a single infinite spirit as pointless and incredible.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Maybe I should have said "animism." I just mean that someone who is convinced that the world is filled with finite spirits may regard the idea of a single infinite spirit as pointless and incredible.

Yeah, I can see that.

 

[deleted157868]

If evolution is true, why can't we talk monkey?

 

[Calboner]

If evolution is true, why can't we talk monkey?

Obviously, you don't understand the theory of evolution. Let this expert explain it to you.

 

[spiritsong72]

So do you really think there is a chance that The Great Pumpkin exists?

HE BETTER, GODDAMMIT!!! I swear to God every Halloween I'm pulling for Linus to finally, FINALLY have proof the Great Pumpkin exists. Instead, each and every fucking Halloween I'm ranting and raving and fighting back righteous tears right along with Linus as the credits roll by! :rippedhand:

 

[deleted157868]

Obviously, you don't understand the theory of evolution. Let this expert explain it to you.

Well, if god doesnt exist, why does god exist?

 

[Pendlum]

Wow, what an argument.

 

[Calboner]

Well, if god doesnt exist, why does god exist?

This argument is absolutely unanswerable. :notworthy:

 

[deleted157868]

Wow, what an argument.

Lol if you think I'm being serious.

 

[Drifterwood]

My "Atheism" (I'm also abluist etc etc etc) is simply that I do not think that we need convoluted metaphysical explanations for existence and our particular little bit of it.

That religionists then construct dogma around their own explanation and hold out that these are articles of faith, is ridiculous to me and their repercussions are plain for all to see.

I do not consider that there need be any article of faith, any belief in order to be in touch with, experience and embrace what we can call the spiritual side of the human nature.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Because an agnostic is so because he doesn't have knowledge. For the agnostic, his own belief is not sufficient.
He may have a hunch that god exists or, more likely, that god doesn't exist.
But short of grounds for certainty, he describes himself as agnostic on that point.
Does this not imply that an atheist must be one who believes he has certain knowledge that god does not exist?

Or maybe you would say, whatever definition we have of 'agnostic,' an 'atheist,' for you, is simply one who has a belief, tout court, that god does not exist.

That would leave unanswered the question of how you would distinguish between that 'atheist' and the 'agnostic' who also has a belief that god does not exist.

I re-read this and felt I could be clearer on some things.

In my understanding of the terms an Agnostic is someone who accepts that they cannot know for sure that god exists or does not. Presumably some will therefore presume that he does not for all intents and purposes, though just as many simply do not presume either way in my experience.

However the point is that positive proof either way is the root of their position. Which is to say, An Agnostic faced with no way of disproving God or proving God after having looked for ways of doing so, presumes that the question must be unanswerable. Therefore proof, or at least the need for it, is at the root of their position.

An atheist does not need to look for proof, or to pretend to have knowledge of proof which the agnostic seeks but cannot find. An atheist like me was posed the question of god's existence based on other people's belief in it, and simply found no reason on the basis of the available facts to lend any credence to the belief in the possibility of the existence of god. I don't need proof that god does not exist in order to make up my mind as the agnostic does, since the proposed question contains nothing in it I find compelling enough for me to look for such proof.

Using my tree in the park analogy from earlier I do not need to look for evidence of the invisible tree you believe in because your belief is not compellingly plausible enough to make me do so. However an agnostic might indeed find your belief in the tree compelling enough to look for such evidence and not being able to find it would simply say that they cannot find evidence enough which proves or disproves your belief in the invisible tree and are therefore unable to make an absolute personal decision on the invisible trees existence, even if they tend to think that it probably does not exist.

One of the differences between the agnostic and the atheist in this analogy is that the atheist sees the physically apparent trees in the park and judges the plausibility of you belief in the existence of the invisible tree against the known proofs of the existence of the physically apparent ones, where as the agnostic essentially ignores the proofs of the existence of the physically apparent trees and presumes that your belief in the invisible tree is enough to assume that the invisible tree might exist despite all appearances to the contrary. The agnostic's position ultimately leaves them relying purely on one source of evidence, your belief in the invisible tree. Whereas the atheist's position allows them to discount that source of evidence in favour of the more abundantly plausible sources which can be readily checked against your assertion.

Beyond that the atheist has no need to proceed. they do not absolutely have to prove your belief is wrong in order to disbelieve it, because it is your belief in the invisible tree they find implausible and not the invisible tree's proposed existence and therefore they do not need to check that there might be a way to prove or disprove it.