I don't believe in Atheists

[Caspian]

Sure, I know there are plenty of people who claim to have had a personal experience with atheism, but I just don't buy it. I think they're just expressing their own personal need to disbelieve in something.

Scientifically, it is impossible to prove non-existence. That means that, from a scientific perspective, you actually can't prove that there aren't elves living in my apartment. All you can do is offer counter-examples—you've never found any elves. At the best, a scientific enquiry can convince us that it is very unlikely that there are elves in my apartment.

The logical reason for this rule against proving a nonexistence is simple. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean its not there. To use a slightly less fantastic example: Herman Melville was convinced that the "Blue Whale" was a myth, and that the sperm whale was undoubtedly the largest creature on earth. He had never seen a blue whale. Many scientists of his day agreed with him. Yet blue whales do exist. Likewise, logically, scientifically, the fact that I have never seen an elf does not mean that they aren't here. Even if there was absolutely no evidence for the existence of elves, it is not logically possible to rule out the existence completely.

As for God, the same applies. Even if there were no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, the basic rules of logic say that it is not possible to rule out his existence completely. But there is evidence for God's existence. People may debate the interpretation or the validity of that evidence, but it does exist. The testamony of multitudes beyond counting is evidence. The existence of this world is evidence. The concepts of good and evil, and the fact that human beings understand them, are evidence. There is evidence scattered throughout the universe.

I can accept that this evidence is unconvincing to some people. I can accept agnosticism as a philosophical position. I happen to think that it is an intellectually cowardly position, (but that's a discussion for another place)I believe it. But atheism is simply not tenable. To say with certainty that no God exists displays either arrogance or ignorance.

And I just don't buy it.

[Hegemon]

It seems to me that people can also find evidence that there is in fact no God. The fact that the Earth exists can be attributed to science, good and evil to philosophical notions. While I do agree with you that you cannot completely disprove His existence, it has yet to be completely proven. That being said, is it really any worse to believe in something that cannot be proven than it is to believe in something that has yet to be proven? We cannot prove that you do not have any elves living in your house, but do you or do you not believe that there are elves there?

And we will leave agnosticism for another day.

[Caspian]

Well, firstly what you are doing is not presenting evidence for the non-existance of God but rather presenting an alternate explanation for my interpretation of the evidence.

A good example of evidence for the non-existance of God is, say, the existance of evil in the world.

And no, I don't believe that there are elves in my apartment. However, I don't go around calling myself an "anelfist" (or whatever) either.

Atheism, as a philosophical position, is the positive affirmation of a negative. That is—atheism doesn't say "God hasn't been proven", that's agnosticism. Atheism says "there is no God". I don't think that's philosophically tenable.

[Hegemon]

Actually, my reasoning for being agnostic is due to the lack of evidence and the fact that I am not willing to rule the possibility out.... That and the fact that I am sorta inclined to believe He exists (that's a whole other matter)...

But it seems to me that when you say that there is a God, you are doing it on evidence that does not amount to proof. And that evidence can in fact be attributed to alternative possibilities. So I cannot see how believing in something that cannot be proven is all that different from believing in something that has not been proven. In either case, it requires a leap of faith, although those leaps are in diametrically opposed directions.

[Caspian]

The difference is that theism is believing in something that hasn't been proven, while atheism is believing in the non-existance of something that hasn't been disproven. And logically that's not quite the same thing.

[edit]When I say "logically" I mean "within and according to the rules of classical logic."

[Jebus]

So Caspian, I'm guessing you also believe in the existance of the invisible pink unicorn, spaghetti monster and the rest?

[suminonA]

Atheism, as a philosophical position, is the positive affirmation of a negative. That is—atheism doesn't say "God hasn't been proven", that's agnosticism. Atheism says "there is no God". I don't think that's philosophically tenable.

Has it occurred to you that the definition you are talking about might be useless?

I consider myself an atheist, by the next definition: “There is no such deity”. That means that I choose not to believe in something based on insufficient evidence (by my own standards). I can believe there is a spoon, but I don’t believe that what a particular person calls “God/Allah/Buddha” etc. exists.

I accept that there might be a deity that no one has “discovered” yet because as you say, you cannot rule a negative existence. Still, this is not agnosticism. What agnostics say is that “you cannot know if a deity exists even if it slaps you in the face” (because we are so imperfect that are not capable of recognizing it).

As an atheist, if a deity would slap me in the face, I would take it into consideration.

A.

(edited for fixing some words)

[Hegemon]

I am actually an agnostic because I have yet to be given cogent evidence that will persuade me into believing one way or another.

So if a deity slaps me in the face, I will say, "hey, what the hell did you do that for? You could have just said hi, or perhaps taken me out for dinner. What the hell is wrong with you?" and then from that point forward I would be a believer.

[Jebus]

Yea, I'd have to agree with John's sentiment on the face slapping.

[suminonA]

I am actually an agnostic because I have yet to be given cogent evidence that will persuade me into believing one way or another.

So if a deity slaps me in the face, I will say, "hey, what the hell did you do that for? You could have just said hi, or perhaps taken me out for dinner. What the hell is wrong with you?" and then from that point forward I would be a believer.

If you say that you can be convinced, then you are not an agnostic.

A.

[Jebus]

I disagree, but I think it's a discussion for another thread.

EDIT: Rather, THE other thread.

[Hegemon]

Empirical/weak/negative agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

Edit: I sort of agree with Jebus, but I suppose it can actually belong here because it seems that it relates to his definition of atheism.

[suminonA]

Oh, one more thing: The advantage of being an atheist is that life has meaning even if there is no deity.
The fact that IPU exists or not is irrelevant to me.

I've made my choice, and I stand for the consequences.

A.

[pooka]

The position that there is no God has to be tenable, in my cosmology, so that we have free will. If it is impossible to disbelieve in God, there is nothing remarkable about believing in God.

[anonshadow]

I am actually an agnostic because I have yet to be given cogent evidence that will persuade me into believing one way or another.

So if a deity slaps me in the face, I will say, "hey, what the hell did you do that for? You could have just said hi, or perhaps taken me out for dinner. What the hell is wrong with you?" and then from that point forward I would be a believer.

If you say that you can be convinced, then you are not an agnostic.

I disagree. Being agnostic means that you are unsure, and believe that it cannot be proven. If someone does, in fact, prove it, despite your educated guess that they could not, well, sure, you're convinced. I don't think that it is a bad thing to be able to admit that you're wrong, or that someone else is right, when offered real proof, nor does it invalidate your current beliefs in any way.

[hive_king]

For some reason, this is reminding me of a quote from Alice through the looking glass:

'Do you know, I always thought Unicorns were fabulous monsters, too? I never saw one alive before!'
'Well, now that we have seen each other,' said the Unicorn, 'if you believe in me, I'll believe in you.'"
--Lewis Carroll

And no, I don't believe that there are elves in my apartment. However, I don't go around calling myself an "anelfist" (or whatever) either.

Would you maybe call yourself an "anelfist" if everyone else around you was actively convinced there were elves hiding in your apartment and that you would suffer for eternity if you didn't believe in them?

[Hegemon]

Maybe he would be an agnoelfist?

[Caspian]

Would you maybe call yourself an "anelfist" if everyone else around you was actively convinced there were elves hiding in your apartment and that you would suffer for eternity if you didn't believe in them?

Well... let's—for the moment—ignore the very bad theology of "suffer for eternity if you didn't believe in them".

If everyone around me was actively convinced there were elves hiding in my apartment I would probably not be an anelfist. I would certainly be much more likely to believe in them. Especially if the people who believed in elves were as intelligent as the people who believe in God.

And you're assuming that the only evidence for God's existance is the faith/opinion/testimony of the vast majority of humanity—including most of the greatest thinkers of history. But the evidence [note—I say "evidence", not "proof"] for God's existance is more varied than that. That alone should be enough for any rational person to take the possibility of God's existance very seriously indeed.

But the existance of God also has further evidences. An extremely non-comprehensive list:

1) The existance of the universe. Although it can be, has been and I think always will be interpreted differently by different people, the fact of existance certainly raises a variety of philosophical questions. Where did we come from? Astro-physicists can hypothesise the history of the universe as far back as a fraction of a fraction of a second into its existance and still not answer the question philosophically. What happened in that fraction of a fraction of a second? The natural world (at least, according to any comprehensable definition of the word "natural") cannot have existed forever. This same injunction does not hold on some un-or-super natural being we can term "god".

2)The beauty and complexity of that universe. Greatly a matter of opinion, I suppose, but the beauty of the universe suggests not just mindless forces, but an artist. The universe is a work of art.

3) The existance in human consciousness of a concept of "good". A common argument against God's existance is that there is too much suffering and evil in the world for any God to possibly exist. But by what ruler do we measure the universe? For this argument to have any validity it is understood that there is some standard of perfection to which the universe fails to live up. Where does this idea of perfection come from? Do we imagine that it is simply our own preference? If so, then on what grounds can we fault God (or the universe, or whatever) for failing to live up to it. Some may argue that it is simply a process of seeing the world and idealizing it in our own minds to a perfection that does not actually exist, but how do we know which direction is "idealizing"? On what grounds do we know that we aren't imagining a worse universe?

4) My own personal experience with what classical philosophers call "the sublime". Sometimes (and the testamony of others convinces me that I am not alone in this) I feel a personal contact with the overwhelmingly beatiful, the unimaginably huge, the terrifyingly good. Sometimes I speak into the darkness and feel that the darkness is listening. It can be argued away or ratinalized, but it happens, and not just to me.

[neo-dragon]

Admit it, this thread was made for the sole purpose of bringing Steve out of hiding and onto the new pweb, because if this thread doesn't, nothing will!

Seriously though, I "get" athism even if I don't agree with it. While not all of them do, there's no reason why an atheist can't acknowledge the possibility that he/she might be wrong. I believe in God, but it's really not that hard for me to understand why one wouldn't believe in him. I don't know if that makes me a bad Christian, but I know that if I had been raised under different circumstances I could very well be an atheist myself. The evidence that you speak of certainly means a lot to you, Caspian, and it means something to me as well, but seeing it the way in which a believer does requires... I don't know... Something. A personal feeling, experience, outlook on life, or upbringing. Some call it insanity. Others call it wishful thinking. Still, some call it faith. Regardless, if you don't have it, the idea of God will seem no more real to you than a fairy tale.

[wigginboy]

Admit it, this thread was made for the sole purpose of bringing Steve out of hiding and onto the new pweb, because if this thread doesn't, nothing will!

haha, to be quite honest, even though i dont think he liked me much on the old pweb, i kinda miss sywak.

[mr_thebrain]

whatever the definition may be. whether i'm atheist or agnostic or whatever...

i think of it like this: if there is a god, then he hates me. i'd rather not have a diety dislike me, so i'd much rather believe that there is no diety.

on the other hand, god does hate me.

so we have an understanding. i stay out of god's way, god stays out of my way.

[neo-dragon]

Incidentally, I understand atheists, but I don't understand people who think that God hates them.

*edit*
Let me elaborate on that. It's just plain arrogent. The idea that the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the entire universe and every human soul has a grudge against you personally suggests that you're quite a bit more important than the rest of the human race. Besides, why would God hate someone who he made in his own image?

[zeroguy]

The natural world (at least, according to any comprehensable definition of the word "natural") cannot have existed forever.

Why not?

[Jebus]

Let me elaborate on that. It's just plain arrogent. The idea that the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the entire universe and every human soul has a grudge against you personally suggests that you're quite a bit more important than the rest of the human race. Besides, why would God hate someone who he made in his own image?

Some people believe God wants those he makes in his own image to suffer in hell forever because they didn't believe in him. Sounds pretty petty to me.

[Dr. Mobius]

I'm agnostic simply because I don't care enough one way or the other. If god(s) exists, great; if not, oh well. There's too much to experience in life to waste time worrying about what's going to happen afterwards.

[suminonA]

Empirical/weak/negative agnosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

Ok, I see where the “confusion” comes from.
[joke]
With that, you can call me a “weak agnostic”, to which I would answer: “What, now I’m not only an agnostic, but a weak one too?”
[/joke]

I use the terms agnosticism/atheism based on their literal meaning:
Agnosticism = impossible to know
Atheism = (having) no deity

There are, as this discussion reveals, at least these flavors:
1) Strong agnosticism = impossible to know, not yet, not EVER
2) Weak agnosticism = impossible to know, al least not yet
3) Weak atheism = no deity, at least not yet
4) Strong atheism = no deity, not yet, not EVER

Among those, I (just as Caspian who started this thread) think that the position of a strong atheist is not “valid”, because “no proof yet” does not mean “no proof ever” when it comes to the existence of deities.
And the “difficulty” does not come from the infinite number of possibilities, but from the fact that their properties are not fully known. For example, no one can disprove the existence of a deity that has the characteristic (by “own choice”) that it cannot be proven to exist.

Note: There could be a proof if the set of “possible deities” were “exhaustively enumerable”. Just like the fact that there is no natural number to have the square 2, even if there are infinitely many natural numbers. It’s not that nobody found yet that number, the positive proof of negative existence is based on the known properties of all the natural numbers.

For that reason for me 4) is not interesting at all, and even more, it’s “out of the picture”.

At the other extreme, option 1) is “valid” exactly because one cannot prove that there is no deity who has chosen not to be ever understood by mere Humans. For the strong agnostics, any comprehensible deity is not a real deity, but a very powerful entity as compared to the imperfect Humans.

Now, you may argue that 2) and 3) are the same, because they leave the possibility of being convinced by (or converted to) theism. Yet for me the difference is that 2) states that the lack of proof is caused by the imperfection of our senses, while 3) simply states the lack of sufficient proof.

If that distinction is not true, then I wonder why the term “agnostic” was introduced at all.

Therefore, I don’t want to be associated with the term “agnostic”. I do trust my senses. I believe that if I was to see proof, I would be able to take it under consideration.

That leaves me with 3) --> atheism.

I am actually an agnostic because I have yet to be given cogent evidence that will persuade me into believing one way or another.

So if a deity slaps me in the face, I will say, "hey, what the hell did you do that for? You could have just said hi, or perhaps taken me out for dinner. What the hell is wrong with you?" and then from that point forward I would be a believer.

If you say that you can be convinced, then you are not an agnostic.

I disagree. Being agnostic means that you are unsure, and believe that it cannot be proven. If someone does, in fact, prove it, despite your educated guess that they could not, well, sure, you're convinced.

We disagree because when I say “agonistic” I look at its original literal meaning, while you are thinking about “weak agnostic”. I hope this post made it clear where I stand.

I don't think that it is a bad thing to be able to admit that you're wrong, or that someone else is right, when offered real proof, nor does it invalidate your current beliefs in any way.

Well, if someone else is right and offers real proof, it does invalidate your current beliefs on that matter. That’s what being wrong means.

I'm agnostic simply because I don't care enough one way or the other. If god(s) exists, great; if not, oh well. There's too much to experience in life to waste time worrying about what's going to happen afterwards.

That’s misusing the term “agnostic”. You place yourself outside religion. That’s a lot “closer” to atheism.

A.

[suminonA]

And you're assuming that the only evidence for God's existance is the faith/opinion/testimony of the vast majority of humanity—including most of the greatest thinkers of history. But the evidence [note—I say "evidence", not "proof"] for God's existance is more varied than that. That alone should be enough for any rational person to take the possibility of God's existance very seriously indeed.

I myself take it very seriously indeed. Yet I’m still forced by my rationality to come to the conclusion that the evidence I’ve seen is not enough.


I’ll comment on your list, not to prove or disprove anything, but to let you see my (atheistic) perspective on those items:

But the existance of God also has further evidences. An extremely non-comprehensive list:

1) The existance of the universe. Although it can be, has been and I think always will be interpreted differently by different people, the fact of existance certainly raises a variety of philosophical questions. Where did we come from? Astro-physicists can hypothesise the history of the universe as far back as a fraction of a fraction of a second into its existance and still not answer the question philosophically. What happened in that fraction of a fraction of a second? The natural world (at least, according to any comprehensable definition of the word "natural") cannot have existed forever. This same injunction does not hold on some un-or-super natural being we can term "god".

2)The beauty and complexity of that universe. Greatly a matter of opinion, I suppose, but the beauty of the universe suggests not just mindless forces, but an artist. The universe is a work of art.

3) The existance in human consciousness of a concept of "good". A common argument against God's existance is that there is too much suffering and evil in the world for any God to possibly exist. But by what ruler do we measure the universe? For this argument to have any validity it is understood that there is some standard of perfection to which the universe fails to live up. Where does this idea of perfection come from? Do we imagine that it is simply our own preference? If so, then on what grounds can we fault God (or the universe, or whatever) for failing to live up to it. Some may argue that it is simply a process of seeing the world and idealizing it in our own minds to a perfection that does not actually exist, but how do we know which direction is "idealizing"? On what grounds do we know that we aren't imagining a worse universe?

4) My own personal experience with what classical philosophers call "the sublime". Sometimes (and the testamony of others convinces me that I am not alone in this) I feel a personal contact with the overwhelmingly beatiful, the unimaginably huge, the terrifyingly good. Sometimes I speak into the darkness and feel that the darkness is listening. It can be argued away or ratinalized, but it happens, and not just to me.

1) Are you sure that the mere existence of the Universe needs a deity to create it (“in six days”)? Maybe it was just an energy fluctuation accident.
And how do you know that the natural Universe cannot have existed forever? To say that because science didn’t find a proof yet is just like strong atheists claiming there are no deities at all. Do you, as a theist, accept the possibility that this Universe is just an instance of an infinite cycle of Big-Bangs and Big-Crunches?

2) I agree that there is an intrinsic beauty to this Universe. And so incredibly complex. And it works so fine! But who’s to tell us that our criteria for “beautiful” are “right” ?
And if you’re going to say that the probability of this Universe to be the way it is just because of an “accident” is so small that “someone had to set it right” in the beginning, then I’ll ask you: Have you ever heard of the “strong anthropic principle”? What it basically says is that the Universe could have been any other way. But in most of the cases we (complex biological life) wouldn’t have been here to see it. So we can talk about it because it is the way it is, there is no need to have been created FOR us.

3) You say it yourself. There is no “ideal” set of values. What we consider “good” today has varied greatly through history. Think about the “value/goodness” of women as portrayed by religion, and tell me if it seems to be consistent by any “rational” standards. It is al Human construct, as far as I’m concerned. No need for a “perfect” deity to have done it.

4) No argument about that. You trust your senses just as I do. And it is possible that given the same experiences we would still interpret them differently.

A.

[suminonA]

whatever the definition may be. whether i'm atheist or agnostic or whatever...

i think of it like this: if there is a god, then he hates me. i'd rather not have a diety dislike me, so i'd much rather believe that there is no diety.

on the other hand, god does hate me.

Incidentally, I understand atheists, but I don't understand people who think that God hates them.

*edit*
Let me elaborate on that. It's just plain arrogent. The idea that the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the entire universe and every human soul has a grudge against you personally suggests that you're quite a bit more important than the rest of the human race. Besides, why would God hate someone who he made in his own image?

What if I replace “hate/dislike” with “ignore” (in mr_thebrain’s post)?

A.

[hive_king]

One major problem with thiesm... where did God come from? No one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to answer that question. An all powerful deity seems even less likely to just happen than the universe. And we can at least approximate the laws of the universe and how things work... We don't know how God exerts his power. Or where he is (heaven, but where is heaven). We don't know where God got HIS sense of beauty, or HIS morals. So many questions are raised by theism.

[neo-dragon]

Let me elaborate on that. It's just plain arrogent. The idea that the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the entire universe and every human soul has a grudge against you personally suggests that you're quite a bit more important than the rest of the human race. Besides, why would God hate someone who he made in his own image?

Some people believe God wants those he makes in his own image to suffer in hell forever because they didn't believe in him. Sounds pretty petty to me.

But some believe that God is doing his best to save us from that fate, going so far as to send his son to suffer and die. But ultimately, it's our choice and we simply can't have what he's offering if we reject it.

What if I replace “hate/dislike” with “ignore” (in mr_thebrain’s post)?

A.

Isn't that something like the agnostic view then? It's less arogant than thinking that God's out to get you, at least.

One major problem with thiesm... where did God come from? No one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to answer that question. An all powerful deity seems even less likely to just happen than the universe. And we can at least approximate the laws of the universe and how things work... We don't know how God exerts his power. Or where he is (heaven, but where is heaven). We don't know where God got HIS sense of beauty, or HIS morals. So many questions are raised by theism.

Maybe God started out as something really simple, and evolved into the ultimate lifeform... I don't know. It's just a thought.

[Jebus]

What I said had nothing to do with what you said, neo-dragon.

I talked about God punishing people (quite severely, really) who don't follow him.

You talked about God trying to help people and not being able to.

See how they're different?

[neo-dragon]

It's only a difference in interpretation. You see God as punishing people for not following him. I see the same result, but interpret it as God's hands being tied on the matter because he gave us free will. It's the difference between saying, "I'm warning you, follow me or I'll send you to Hell!" and "I'm warning you, if you don't follow me I won't be able to save you from Hell."

[Jebus]

Gods hands are tied in the matter of whether people follow Him or not. I don't see them being tied in the matter of going to Hell or not. Not following God does not have to mean going to hell, many religions don't equate the two things.

[neo-dragon]

Truth be told, Hell is a tough concept for me. I've heard it suggested that perhaps it's not a literal Hell with the fire and brimstone and all that, but rather, an eternity of being denied existing in the presence of God is "Hell". So, maybe if you reject God you simply can't exist in his presence. It's not his decision, it's yours. And thus, by default, you're in "Hell". The student who refuses to study or do the work won't graduate and leave school. It's not the teacher's choice, it's the student's. One of my profs always used to say, "I don't fail any students, they fail themselves." Like most professors/teachers, he genuinely wanted us all to pass and did everything in his power to make it happen. But still, some students don't do their part. Their failure isn't really a punishment, it's just an unfortunate end result.

[Jebus]

Well my original point was directed at those who do believe in a torturous version of hell, rather then some wishy-washy unexplainable "absence of God" theory.