I think it's fairly likely that many of the atheists here, in addition to the ones above, are also agnostic. So I doubt you'll get much guff from us.
Unless you're one of those phony "agnostics" who's actually just a wishy-washy theist.
In Judaism you're not supposed to spell out the word G-d. I don't always use the hyphen but I do feel more comfortable doing so.
True, you cannot prove in either G-d or a flying spaghetti monster. However, that is the extent of their similarities. Saying the Easter bunny doesn't exist does not prove that G-d doesn't exist either.
But the idea that Einstein thought the universe is not random could be interpreted in other ways; what is causing the universe not to be random? As for quantum physics, you're right- scientists as I know believe the universe is moving towards greater randomness and entropy. However, as we still have not found an over-arching theory that combines quantum mechanics and relativity (string theory has yet to be proven), we cannot say 100%.
What is a "phony agnostic"? I will openly admit that I leaned more towards atheism years ago but am not leaning more towards theism in my early 30s... but as I'm not 100% either way I label myself "agnostic".I think it's fairly likely that many of the atheists here, in addition to the ones above, are also agnostic. So I doubt you'll get much guff from us.
Unless you're one of those phony "agnostics" who's actually just a wishy-washy theist.
I wasn't going to make an issue of it when you first said it, but I think this needs to be addressed. You cannot honestly interpret Einstein's statements on the subject to support the idea that Einstein believed in a typical monotheistic god. He himself said what he meant by those statements, and unless you're Edgar Allen Poe or you present evidence of Einstein equivocating on the subject, you more or less have to go with what the man said he meant.Nicole Friedman said:
Nor does it prove the existence of any gods. And you're goinig to run face-first into the concept of burden of proof. This is a friendly heads-up on how this line of reasoning typically goes.
Most of my life I've been an empiricist; I like to be able to see evidence for something before believing in it, no matter what it is. Perhaps this was rebellion as I grew up with a mother who believed in everything paranormal and spiritual:}
Please see my response about the flying spaghetti monster:} I wish unicorns existed!Welcome to the forum.
Christopher Hitchens was once asked by an American, "Do you love us or hate us (i.e. Americans)?", to which Hitchens replied, "It depends on how you behave." I believe such a response should apply to everyone.
Addressing your opening post, I am curious, would you also refuse to say that unicorns do not exist? Would you label yourself as an agnostic about the unicorn question or as an aunicornist?
I find it a little unfortunate that atheism requires its own label. I can't think of any other belief, the doubt of which attracts a label other than 'scepticism'. One is a sceptic of UFOs, conspiracy theories, ghosts, the afterlife, psychics, divination, dowsing, climate change, the holocaust and fairies, but if we're discussing gods, one is either an agnostic or an atheist or an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist or a deist or a theist or a pantheist or an ignostic. How much do you believe or not believe in gods? Just a little or a fair bit or a lot or completely? Only with god beliefs is such detailed definition of one's position demanded.
I wish it weren't so, but alas! For what it's worth, I don't believe in any gods, I doubt the existence of gods, but I cannot categorically say that I know that gods do not exist. Therefore, based on accepted definitions, I am a... sceptic.
Ah, but noting the Easter Bunny is fiction suggests an avenue to explore re gods being fictional beings as well. People like to make such creatures up.
Not really arguing with your statement, but there is a lot of honest disagreement, even among atheists and agnostics, about exactly what these words mean. As I recall, we had a very long thread discussing the question "are newborn infants atheist?"
I understand that:} However, I never said that I have empirical evidence of G-d's existence, aside from some interesting quandries presented by quantum physics. (The old someone has to be watching an electron for it to exist scenario). I personally believe that when it comes down to G-d, it's about faith and philosophy- if you believe in G-d, do you really need empirical evidence? I know that is obviously not enough to satisfy most people who call themselves skeptics, but that is probably the reason that this debate will never die. Personally I do not believe that this debate will ever be settled in anyone's lifetime. Why? Let's take the big bang. We know it happened but we do not yet know its cause or what (if anything) came before it. Let's say that one day we do find an answer to the cause or what came before it... but then what came before that? Either our universe had a beginning or it's always been... either way we may always be left with more and more questions. Can we ever find evidence or proof in the future that satisfies those questions and prove without a doubt that G-d doesn't exist? Anything is possible- I just highly doubt that will ever happen.I wasn't going to make an issue of it when you first said it, but I think this needs to be addressed. You cannot honestly interpret Einstein's statements on the subject to support the idea that Einstein believed in a typical monotheistic god. He himself said what he meant by those statements, and unless you're Edgar Allen Poe or you present evidence of Einstein equivocating on the subject, you more or less have to go with what the man said he meant.
You can interpret the scientific data differently than Einstein did, of course. That's a whole other issue.
Nor does it prove the existence of any gods. And you're goinig to run face-first into the concept of burden of proof. This is a friendly heads-up on how this line of reasoning typically goes.