I don't believe in Atheists

[primevere]

Atheists say that there is no God and that they believe that there isn't, yet at some point there was a belief that God did exist and since they then don't have the proof to support that idea then they believe that there isn't a God at all... there is still a belief present at some point.

[hive_king]

Atheists say that there is no God and that they believe that there isn't, yet at some point there was a belief that God did exist and since they then don't have the proof to support that idea then they believe that there isn't a God at all... there is still a belief present at some point.

I'd hate to destroy your lovely argument, but it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove there isn't a small invisible, indetectable turtle on your head. You can't logically disprove it. It may be so unlikely that you know it to probably be false, but it can't be proved.

[suminonA]

I'd hate to destroy your lovely argument, but it is impossible to prove a negative. Prove there isn't a small invisible, indetectable turtle on your head. You can't logically disprove it. It may be so unlikely that you know it to probably be false, but it can't be proved.

I agree with you when we’re talking about metaphysics (as we do here).
But you said “it is impossible to prove a negative”, yet there are logical concepts (like a rational square root of 2) and physical things in confined space (there is no car in my bedroom) can be proven not to exist.
Just wanted to clarify the context.

A.

[Boothby]

I can unequivocally PROOVE the existence of GOD.

Just tell me what God is (so I can understand what it is whose existence I'm proving), and I'll prove it.

[Boothby]

Atheists say that there is no God and that they believe that there isn't, yet at some point there was a belief that God did exist and since they then don't have the proof to support that idea then they believe that there isn't a God at all... there is still a belief present at some point.

When I disprove a theory, I do not have to "believe" it first to disprove it. I can assume it for the sake of the discussion, but it doesn't mean I believe it.

[suminonA]

I can unequivocally PROOVE the existence of GOD.

Just tell me what God is (so I can understand what it is whose existence I'm proving), and I'll prove it.

How can you be sure that you can prove the existence of ANY deity?

A.

[eriador]

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?

Well, extending that logic, anybody who professes to believe in any philosophy of love is just as selfish. Why would God love you any more than anybody else? It makes just as little sense.

By the way, please don't tell me that love and hate are different, becuase they aren't, they are opposite ends of the same feeling, the true opposite of love (or hate) is indifference.

-------------------------

I also must quibble with the terminology everbody is using. Atheism shouldn't be used as a term. We don't have a term for somebody who doesn't believe in Zeus or astrology, they're just reasonable people. In the same way, we shouldn't have to have a term for somebody who uses common sense.
[I'll edit and make this paragraph more coherent]

[suminonA]

I also must quibble with the terminology everbody is using. Atheism shouldn't be used as a term. We don't have a term for somebody who doesn't believe in Zeus or astrology, they're just reasonable people. In the same way, we shouldn't have to have a term for somebody who uses common sense.
[I'll edit and make this paragraph more coherent]

Well, technically, “atheists” don’t believe in ANY deity. So somebody who doesn’t believe in “Zeus” is as atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in “Allah”.
Yet there are various flavors of atheism, and I myself don’t go with the strongest of them, because I think that is as “unreasonable” as any extreme.

As for the label of reasonable people, be careful not to offend those that have more faith than you.

A.

[Dr. Mobius]

I have faith in my unreasonable amount of reason.

[eriador]

Well, technically, “atheists” don’t believe in ANY deity. So somebody who doesn’t believe in “Zeus” is as atheist as someone who doesn’t believe in “Allah”.

No, that's not right. An atheist doesn't belive in a theistic god. An atheist can belive in a (non theistic) deity (or deities) that has not intervened in history.

--------------

As for the label of reasonable people, be careful not to offend those that have more faith than you.

Just because I don't believe in any sort of god doesn't mean I don't have faith. In fact, I probably have just as much or more faith than many people who haven't seriously considered their beliefs and come to a decision that has no dogmatic influences.

[suminonA]

What exactly is a :

(non theistic) deity (or deities) that has not intervened in history.

Can you give some example(s) ?

--------------

Just because I don't believe in any sort of god doesn't mean I don't have faith. In fact, I probably have just as much or more faith than many people who haven't seriously considered their beliefs and come to a decision that has no dogmatic influences.

What is it that you have faith in?

A.

[hive_king]

Eriador is referring to the "divine clockmaker" theory- that God created the universe, set everything in motion, and then just stepped back to let the system run itself, not interfering at all. However, this is more properly called "deism".

[eriador]

Yes, an atheist can believe in a "divine clockmaker"

Thank you for clarifying.

[suminonA]

Yes, an atheist can believe in a "divine clockmaker"

Are you such an atheist?

A.

[eriador]

No, I am not an atheist.

I am a reasonable person who holds no beliefs about the existence of a divine something-or-other.

[suminonA]

Does that make you a totally unreligious person? What are you, apart from "reasonable"?
BTW, can a theist be reasonable? But an atheist?

A.

[eriador]

Yep, pretty much.

However, that does not mean that I don't have moral beliefs that I follow, it's just that I don't have any spiritual beliefs (that affirm the existence of something, I have plenty of spirtual beliefs affirming the non-existence of deities).

To answer your second question, no, I don't think so. To me it seems obvious that there is no reason to believe in a divine being of any sort. I have to say, an atheist (a deist, who does not believe in a theistic God) seems (to me) to be less reasonable than somebody who sees evidence of God interfering in history as proof of the existence of a God.

[suminonA]

I see. (I share your view that religion is not an absolute prerequisite for morality)

You also said in a previous post that you have some kind of faith, equally if not even stronger than some of the theists. What is that about?

I have to say, an atheist (a deist, who does not believe in a theistic God) seems (to me) to be less reasonable than somebody who sees evidence of God interfering in history as proof of the existence of a God.

You mean that the “evidence of God interfering in history” that theists see should convince also the atheists, while you remain reasonable in not considering it at all? What reason do you have not to believe in a given deity?

--

You say that you hold the belief that many (maybe all?) of the deities (theistic or not) that people talk about don’t exist. Doesn’t that make you an atheist as a consequence (as opposed to “by choice”)? Or in order to be an atheist you have to believe in some sort of “divine clockmaster”?

Finally, do you agree that history of the Universe is what it is, with no need of a (theistic) deity to have been involved in its development? (not talking about origins, yet )

A.

[eriador]

1. My faith. I have considered all of my spiritual ideas carefully and see no reason to believe in any God. Because there is no way to prove my beliefs, I have faith, just like all people (excepting, perhaps, agnostics). I say it's stronger because I have carefully considered what I think, unlike some religious people who have not spent as much time thinking about their beliefs.

2. Theist's being more reasonable than Deists: A theist sees evidence for God in the world around them. I personally don't agree that what they see is evidence for a God, but they do. However, a deist sees no evidence of there being a God, but still believe there is one. It doesn't make sense to me. It seems more reasonable to belive in something and have evidence, but people who have no evidence to back up what they believe, they strike me as quite unreasonable.

3. Am I an atheist anyway? No, I think I go beyond being an atheist, in that I believe in absolutely no divine being. I also don't think "atheist" is needed as a term, and I identify myself as not being an atheist. You can still think of me that way, but please keep in mind that my beliefs are more complex than the term conveys.

4. Yes, there is no need for any divine being to have existed or exist for the universe to be as it is.

[suminonA]

Thanks

For me, what you say in the 4th point is what makes you an atheist. But that is in no way meant to offend you. It's just the definition that I use

----
edit to add:

BTW, have you thought that maybe the atheists/deists (by your definition) don't necessarily believe in a deity, but they simply don't consider the inexistence of such a deity a FACT, as it may be proven wrong at any moment in the future?

A.

[eriador]

No offense taken.

In response to your BTW, that would be an agnostic, somebody who isn't sure...
If I'm understanding you correctly, that is.

[suminonA]

For me, an agnostic is someone who claims that the existence of any given deity can't be proven either way by the inherently flawed humans. That's what the original term stands for. Yet, I might be wrong.

Someone who isn't sure, is just that, unsure. What would be relevant at that point is if they are actively looking for a solution or are passively waiting for the truth to be revealed to them.

That's why I ask all those questions, to see what definitions are implied by the others.

A.

[eriador]

Okay, we have different views of the definition of agnostic.

To me, the distinction you make is useless, people who are unsure and people who don't think it can be proved either way are all agnostics to me.

[Boothby]

...still waiting for that definition

[suminonA]

...still waiting for that definition

Ok, take the IPU for starters. And then the FSM.

A.

[eriador]

Okay, I know there has been some interest (not a bunch, but some) in my beliefs in the absolute non-existence of any deity. If you were interested, Julia Sweeny, known from SNL, and several films, has a great interview with Terry Gross about how she "gave up God" and became an atheist. If you have time on your hands and are interested in the idea of beleiving in no God, give it a listen here.[/u]

[Yebra]

We exist in a 'perfect universe' because we would not be able to exist in an imperfect one. There is beauty in the universe, but there is also beauty in fractals which result from simple repeating rules. The existence of beauty does not mean that there is an artist. Things we do not understand are a question mark, a question mark does not automatically mean 'God did it' and to say so assigns God an ever weakening role as more is discovered.

As long as the Universe can be rationalized without the existence of a God, the burden of proof falls upon the believers to show why we should believe something unnecessary to our understanding of the Universe needs to exist.

[hive_king]

I disagree that we live in a perfect universe. We live in an imperfect univese, but it just happens to be good enough that we can live here anyways. I mean, every earthquake, tsunami, hurricane, and tornado is proof of an imperfect universe. Every epidemic that wipes out thousands of people is proof of an imperfect universe. Every movie with Ice Cube in it is proof of an imperfect universe.

[eriador]

Yebra, that's one of the thinks that I like to hear said. Just because something wasn't created by a God doesn't mean that it can't be beautiful. People need to be able to see the beauty in the world around them without having to attribute it to somebody.

[jotabe]

Not a perfect universe... but the best universe possible. Subtle difference.

[Yebra]

I meant 'perfect' as in the ol' 'This universe is just PERFECT for human life' as opposed to all those universes that aren't...and hence don't have people in them. The fact that the Universe contains so many things that are likely to kill us is apparently irrelevant to those that live in the perfect world.

I think Douglas Adams put it best with his puddle analogy, a puddle wakes up in the morning and looks around his world, it lives in a hole that is exactly the right shape for it. In fact, it's so perfect, it must have been made just for it!

But as the day goes on, the puddle starts to evaporate, all the time uncomprehending because it KNOWS that the perfect hole was made for it and everything will be ok.

[jotabe]

good ol' weak anthropic principle

[suminonA]

good ol' weak anthropic principle

Out of curiosity: Do you believe in (i.e. accept) that principle?

A.

[jotabe]

As a scientist, i accept the weak one, but hope to be able to overcome it. As a believer, the strong is a given, but it is not a scientifical stance.

[Matty]

Just a word about the whole "you can't prove a negative" thing:

I think someone used the example of an undetectable turtle; prove one is not on your head. Simple. I define an undetectable turtle as a turtle which can never have any effect on anything. As it happens, a nonexistent turtle has the exact same property. Therefore, by the transitive property, stay with me, an undetectable turtle IS a nonexistent turtle. If I perform every possible test for the presence of a turtle and do not find one, then there is an undetectable turtle on my head. Therefore, there is a nonexistent turtle on my head. Therefore, the turtle on my head does not exist. Therefore, there is not a turtle on my head. I have just proved a negative!

Duh.

So in response to the original topic: An atheist is simply someone who has come to the conclusion that God has had no effect on anything (the universe, history, individuals), and therefore, he doesn't exist. A perfectly tenable position.