ok then, prove to me he doesn't exist.
Printable View
*headdesk.png x10
What a load of crap. "An atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God" is exactly the same as saying "to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...". "Rejects belief in god" is no different to "believes that it is false or probably false that there is a god". If you are saying that god is false or probably false, you are rejecting the belief that it is true. Somebody please explain to me how they are different statements.Quote:
Reflection on this should lead to a more adequate statement of what atheism is and indeed as well to what an agnostic or religious response to atheism should be. Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived): for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God (the God of Luther and Calvin, Aquinas, and Maimonides), he rejects belief in God because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers, he rejects belief in God because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or “God” is simply a symbolic term for moral ideals.
Come to think of it, nobody has really sufficiently explained this point. The concept of god i am debating is not necessarily the biblical god. Rather the general concept of creationism. In which case it could be said that evidence for creationism is all around us. We exist, and we are the evidence, to a creationist. You may say, and fairly so, that this is an incoherent or unintelligible application of logic, but it serves as much as "evidence" for creationism as does an atheist's "evidence" that because this is all the evidence we have of existence (in other words, we only know that we exist, not that we were created), god must be false. In BOTH cases there is no link to the final conclusion. Therefore BOTH claims are incoherent and unintelligible.Quote:
This atheism is a much more complex notion, as are its various reflective rejections. It is clear from what has been said about the concept of God in developed forms of Judeo-Christianity that the more crucial form of atheist rejection is not the assertion that it is false that there is a God but instead the rejection of belief in God because the concept of God is said not to make sense—to be in some important way incoherent or unintelligible.
I'm not disputing this. I'm not trying to say to people that believing in god is righteous because following atheism is not. All i'm trying to do is to illuminate the idea that atheism is fallacious and contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by apachama
Why doesn't atheism require verification nor falsification? The idea that there is no god is impossible to prove, and i don't see how anybody could disagree with that. So is it not also true that "the concept of god is a false concept" is meaningless as a logical statement because it is impossible to prove or disprove? Similarly, that means there is no reason to entertain the idea.
My real problem with atheism is that, at least in today's world, it seems to be applied more as a reaction to religion than an independent system of thought. It seems to be filled with people who are merely disgruntled at the idea of god, and the idiotic practises of the church, the dangerous and saddening brainwashing of children (and these are valid feelings and positions), and so they simply jump to the most opposite position they can find, not seeming to realise that, since their arguments against god are based on something that cannot be proved nor disproved (god himself), their own arguments are invalid and pointless, since they also cannot be proved nor disproved. After all, how can they be if they are attacking something of that nature?
And so both views are flawed if you ask me. I would like to live in a world where people just didn't even give regard to the concept of god for a while. A world where people just looked at themselves and the people around them and immersed themselves in the emotions we know are real, got to know themselves a little better instead of getting tied up in unattainable truths.
Yeah, see?
Bullshit, more bullshit, and a little understanding.
What you are saying aobut atheists is like saying Christianity = Hinduism.
You know, Seismosaur, i may be willing to admit i'm wrong and that i've misunderstood atheism if you would take the time to explain your position, rather than just posting annoyed responses that have no substance. This is meant to be a debate, not schoolyard argument.
Because, this is incredibly simple:
Atheism -- Lack of theism. END. Stop. NOTHING ELSE.
You're arguing apart of a definition that doesn't exist.
Hmmm... he sort of slides around the faith issue by saying that his belief in the absence of God is an objective one, thus not requiring faith. If we define God as an old man literally flying around the Earth on a cloud, yes, disbelief in such a being is objectively justified. However, few beliefs regarding deities can be so easily tested, since we have no idea what God is, what he does, where he is, or why he is.
On the same note, I don't think the Pluto/bigfoot analogies are relevant. With pluto, we can observe and measure it and thus make predictions (like calculating time of arrival based on average velocity.) Bigfoot, though we haven't observed him/her, is a physical object that we know would require physical evidence as proof. However, God is different because we don't know if he can be proven objectively (perhaps he's of a higher dimension that can't be tested.) Hell, we don't even know what sort of evidence we're looking for either.
Looking for evidence of God is like searching for an unknown item in a ball pen... the evidence could be a box, one of the balls, all the balls, the air between the balls, the pen holding the balls... we don't even know. Thus, any claim to subjectivity is pointless. Believing unknown object exists or doesn't exist requires faith either way.
The guy said he "believes there is no god." Since he can't back up that statement objectively, he's got to have faith in it. See what I'm getting at?
Where did i ever argue that atheism isn't lack of theism? It very much is lack of theism, but that's NOT the end of it. If atheism were just the lack of theism there would be no need for atheism to exist. Atheism is not agnosticism! Don't people understand this?
theism-------agnosticism-------atheism
(belief)_____lack of belief______(belief)
Am i wrong? I am willing to admit i'm wrong if somebody would explain to me how atheism is solely a lack of theism, and at the same time different than hard-lined agnosticism. Nobody can though.
From wikipedia:
From Britannica:Quote:
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:Quote:
[Atheism is] in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
How do any of these examples place atheism in a position of only lack of theism. They all affirm that atheism denies or rejects or negates the existence of god. This is not simply a lack of belief. This is a belief. It has passed the middle of the spectrum and landed on the other side of the fence, rendering it with its own positive claims.Quote:
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
It's not that i'm arguing something that isn't there, it's that atheists leave out a major part of atheism for the convenience of avoiding a burden of proof that they rightly own.
There is more than one kind of lack of belief:
Agnostics lack the belief because they think each possibility has the same weight.
Some atheists lack the belief because 'god' is a completely unsubstantiated claim and thus should be given as much attention as the existence of goblins, unreachable parallel universes and prafturs. (I just made that last one up)
Besides, most agnostics aren't so agnostic when it comes to the FSM and other 'non-mainstream' possibilities. That's silly.
Gah.
All of you are wrong.
Look at the word.
A - the - ism
A theism.
Without/No theism.
As in someone who isn't a theist.
Agnostic = Atheist as much as Baptist = Christian.
You don't have to have any belief involved with atheism, it's simply not being theist.
But agnosticism isn't a subset of Atheism, though they can influence each other sometimes.
The question: "Is there a God?"
Theist: "Yes."
Atheist: "No."
Agnostic: "Don't know."
Technically, both theists and atheists are a little agnostic because neither knows for sure if there is a God. Though most atheists may lean to the agnostic side, they still believe there is no god... which is a belief.
Agnostics do not believe there is a god, therefore ARN'T theists so ARE atheists.
Atheist isn't as contrast to Theism as you seem to think.
Belief - no belief
Not
Belief -> No belief -> Negative Belief
Well my mistake, I though agnostics simply declined to believe either way. Apparently the Merriam-Webster online dictionary is wrong too. :/
And theism and atheism are pretty darn contrasting... like black and white really.
Interestingly, if I were to turn your reasoning around, I could say theists don't believe anything. If atheists believe in "not-God", then theists believe there is no "not-God". Therefore, theists have no belief, while atheists do. See what I'm getting at?
It isn't 1 - 0 - -1 though.
It's 1 or 0.
:shakehead:
No.
There are two choices.
Either you believe something is true, or you do no believe it is true.
Agnostics are not atheists. Agnostics CAN be atheist in tendency but they can also be theist in tendency. Pure agnosticism is the lack of belief. Agnosticism leaves the question of the existence of god open. Hard-lined agnostics do not deny the existence of god. Why is that concept so impossible for people to comprehend? A person doesn't have to reply either yes or no to a question.
When asked if you believe in god, if you were a believer your response would be yes, if atheist it would be no, if agnostic it would be neither. Agnosticism is not atheism
theist--agnostic--atheist
yes----don't know----no
It's not rocket science. You can't change the laws of logic to fit your belief that there is no god.
Nobody is questioning that atheism is a-theism in the same way a piece of music with no tonal centre is a-tonal. We get that. But that doesn't exclude the presence of a belief. There's no link between lack of theism and lack of belief.
Once again:
From Britannica:
Quote:
This is an accurate portrayal of the situation here. Atheism is not agnosticism, and a denial is more then a lack of belief. Nobody has succeeded in providing a solid argument to the contrary.Quote:
[Atheism is] in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.
AGNOSTICS DO NOT BELIEVE THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT THEISTS AND THE LACK OF BEING A THEIST IS CALLED BEING ATHEIST.
What. Do you. Not. Get?
Lol. Take it ardent.
Do you just not want to look at what we've been saying?
Agnostics do not believe. Agnostics don't not believe. Atheism is not believing. Agnostics don't not believe. Agnostics don't not believe. Agnostics don't not believe. How many other ways can it be said? Why does a person HAVE to either believe or not believe? Do you not see the possibility of a lack of belief? That means a complete void where others have their beliefs.
Can you honestly not comprehend the notion that agnostics do not deny the existence of god?
WTF. Semantics.
It's not as trivial as semantics... there's a definite separation between Atheists and agnostics.
There aren't just Atheist-agnostics, but there are Theistic-agnostics, political-agnostics, and... pretty much anything else. And agnostic is someone who doesn't take either side in a subject. The term usually refers to pure, religious agnostics simply because a lot of people prefer to take either side in the matter.
What Seis doesn't seem to understand is that people can choose to not choose a side in this debate.
I'm going to put it bluntly here:
You fail
Now for tl;dr:
Firstly, the pluto and Bigfoot analogies are perfectly fine. The Pluto analogy was used as a contrast to something like Bigfoot, because with Pluto, we can observe it, but we haven't seen it do a complete orbit. However, we were able to find out through observing it enough to calculate its orbital trajectory.
As for Bigfoot, there is no real evidence to point out its existence, or even better, you can't prove that there are magic pixies in your garden, and I can't disprove that. Therefore, whilst it is true that you can't prove/disprove it, the point becomes irrelevant because the focus shifts onto whether it is reasonable to believe in it or not. If one can't find a good reason to believe, then they can choose to not believe because the idea can be considered absurd.
I don't believe in God for the same reasons I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Magic Pixies, because to me, all of those ideas are absurd. I put the idea of God on the same level as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, both to me seem absurd and to me have no good reason to believe in either. God is a concept that is parallel to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You can't verify objectively either of them, nor can you falsify. Therefore, if you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn because there is no good reason to believe or because you find the idea absurd, then under the same logic, and can dismiss the idea of God.
It does not take to faith to disbelieve, otherwise you can claim I have faith in the non-existence of the FSM. What the guy on the video was talking about was why in terms of practical knowledge, which is everyday and applicable knowledge, that he feels justified to say there is no God, because there is nothing to show for the existence of God. Whilst he can never be sure, that doesn't stop him from not believing and disregarding the idea until someone can give him a good reason to believe. This may not as proof, but until that reason is found, he (like me) will simply disregard the idea and not believe.
Fixed it.
Ha. But really... this is all I'm saying:
Atheists feel that since no objective evidence can be collected regarding God, he might as well not exist with respect to practical scientific knowledge. However, since there's a 50/50 chance that anything unseen really does exist, they put all their faith in science and choose to believe that God doesn't exist because he's not compatible with scientific observation.
The reason I feel the Pluto/bigfoot analogies are weak is that they concern objects that can be objectively (or theoretically in bigfoot's case) verified whereas we don't even know if God can be.
Also, God really can't be equated with FSM or any other mythical creatures because - if we assume God is the creator of all - then there is reason to believe his existence (because we exist) while there is little reason to believe to believe in random creatures like pixies or invisible unicorns.
If there's a 50% chance of God existing, the same applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So why don't you believe in the FSM?
However, he also went and used the magic pixies and so forth as analogies. Like I said, the Pluto analogy was used as a contrast to highlight the difference between something we can observe and verify, even the orbital trajectory which we have not seen completed, but have still calculated to a fairly accurate degree.
No special pleading!
The FSM is also assumed to have created us all. For example from Wikipedia:
Not only that, but with the FSM, there seems to be a better reason to believe in him due to the fact he willingly intervenes to make sure we are all-fooled into thinking that the Universe is older or without a deity.Quote:
The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."[13] The Monster's intoxication was supposedly the cause for a flawed earth. All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith — a form of the Omphalos hypothesis. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."[3]
So if you are going to do some special pleading, I can also put the FSM at the same level, or even above your God, because of what the doctrine has outlined.
And yet, why don't you believe in the FSM? What are your reasons for not believing, even though you can't prove nor disprove the existence of the FSM?