How do you view atheism?

[Igopogo]

Where is the evidence that the universe was created? Where is the evidence that there is anything else besides the universe?

There isn't, but there are only three possibilities:

1) The universe was created

2) The universe always existed (for infinity)

3) the universe doesnt' exist - it's all a bad dream

Just because the universe may have been created, doesn't imply that someone/something created it. It could still be a chance event, (like big bang theory) that created it.

 

[Malachi151]

I suspect the position Malachi is advocating is that given by the poll answer "Embracing atheism is one of the ultimate goals for the salvation of humanity". I don't see too much discussion of the social aspect implicit in that so far, so I'll jump in. Malachi is a commie, and as such, I view his statements on atheism with a bit of suspicion. I don't think he's ultimately concerned with atheism as a personal belief, my suspicion is that he's concerned with an atheist society, somewhat akin to the Soviet Union's atheism. And of course, right now it's easy to place atheism as a sort of opposite of theocracies, which people are paying a fair amount of attention to right now and most people on this board would agree are bad things. But an atheist state is not the opposite of a religious state (which is why it was stupid to stick the phrase "under God" in the pledge to try to counter the Soviets). The opposite of BOTH atheist and a religious state is a completely secular state, which wants nothing to do with religion.

I bring this up because, while I'm fine with atheism and consider myself a bit of a weak atheist, when a commie starts talking about societal goals for things that I regard as personal choice or viewpoint, well, that makes me edge a little closer to all the libertarians out there (a group I'm normally not all that fond of). Maybe I'm wrong, maybe that's not what Malachi was trying to get at, but that's what struck me upon reading the poll, and it's something I didn't see people talking about.

Why must people keep blathering that "I'm a commie", when I've said repeatdly that I think Communism has no hope of success?

I've run my own business, I'm currently applying for a patent, I've bought remodeled and sold homes for profit, and I plan to start a new business soon, as well as selling my patent when it finally comes through, I'm preparing for the GMAT now to get my MBA.

Atheism isn't a belief at all, atheism is just the normal view of the world unclouded by supersticious lies.

Two ways to see the world, as it is, or as part of a set of lies, i.e. athiesm or theism.

Umm... there is no such thing as "an atheist state". Who said anything about "the state" anyway? I'm talking about society, and as Thomas Paine said, society and the state are two separate things.

Animals and babies are atheist. Its just not having a view of the world that involves the supernatural, that's all, nothing funky about that.

Hmm.. now, let's see, do you think it would be good if the majority of people in society believed that sea monsters would eat anyone who entered the ocean? Do you think that if people believed that that it would be HELPFUL to society to dispell that delusion?

Or do you see that as simply a matter of personal choice that has no real baring on humanity and you could care less if people believe in lies all their lives?

The idea that we should live ina society that intentionally promotes deliusional ideas that deeply alter people's ability to understand reality is idiotic. To not understand the relationship between religion and oppression is again idiotic.

All you have to do is look at the Middle East. Do you think those people are suffering because of their religons delusions? I do.

Christian America is to an atheist society as the Middle East is to Christian America.

i.e. its only steps on a ladder. The difference between fundamentalism and liberal religious views is the same as the difference between liberal religious views and atheism. The human condition is improved with each step. The separation of Church and State did wonders for humanity, just look at what it has lead to. Its safe to say that without that step we would not have landed on the moon, and probably not even have much in the way of medicine or computers, etc.

Religion is a lie, period. That we should tolerate brainwashing people with lies is idiotic. Religious views are not like being gay, or black, etc. All religious views are socially enforced lies, they aren't something that you are born with, they aren't something natural, they are a product of only one thing, people lying to other people and manipulating them. Religion is a social tool for polical control, its that simple, thats all it ever has been, that's what its purpose is, to make it easier to oppress people.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I expect nothing, which is why I asked politely.

Definitive claims require definitive evidence.

By your statement I assumed that you could put the issue of "Nessie" to bed for good.

Perhaps I was wrong...

Can you make the same concession?

Oh, just let me again.

Look, anybody who actually thinks there is even the minutest chance a giant prehistoric sea-lizard is kicking the can around a small lake in one of the most densely populated and developed small islands in the world and has never been definitively seen or photographed or detetcted by any of the numerous submarine and sonar sweeps and assorted other scientific expiditions is blatantly delusional and should be locked up in a padded cell for their own protection.

Now in the absence of the above mentioned attempts at detection I would have said that it could exist although it would be so enormously unlikely as to render serious consideration completely ludicrous. However, in the light of the above, no, it cannot and does not exist.

 

[fishbob]

So there fore you can not proove dragons do not exist just like you can't proove god doesn't exist .

I can't prove god isn't pink with purple polka dots, and doesn't walk with a limp, and doesn't smoke cuban cigars. But hey, that wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Martin]

The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win

No, that's not a problem. Remember, the list was

(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.

So long as we include all logically possible Gods and combinations thereof, the list is exhaustive. One of these must be correct.

The lottery analogy essentially says that since one of these must be true we cannot assign zero probability to them all. There's one minor flaw in the analogy.

No one actually does this.

Some assign zero probability to all but one. Others, very nearly zero to all, or all but one, or whatever. No one assigns zero probability to all, since this would mean rejecting both the statement 'no god(s) exist' and 'at least one god exists'. Which would be pretty f*cking stupid, to say the least. Of course, in the lottery we have no reason to suppose that one ticket is more likely to win than any other. Not so in this case.

 

[jim_scotti]

Sometimes Im an atheist and sometimes Im not. During the playoffs I find myself praying quite a bit.

I gave up prayer when I realised it didn't seem to make any difference in the outcome of the event I prayed for - that was about the time I also gave up the superstition of religion....

Now, whether or not I am wearing my favorite team's cap or World Series commemorative T-shirt and how that affects the outcome of todays game - now that is another story..... (Dang superstitions - at least I don't worry about the chalk line when I come off the field each inning when I'm playing softball....)

Jim.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You're my hero Malachi151



That last post was phenomenal, couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[sorgoth]

Atheism - the belief that no gods exist - is just as unfounded as any flavour of theism. There is no evidence pointing to the existence of a god, but there is no credible evidence the other way either; therefore, it is rational to suspend judgement. I think what is commonly referred to as atheism, or perhaps "weak atheism", is really a form of agnosticism; that is, the position of a "lack of belief" in the existence of a god.

I consider the embracing of agnosticism one of the long-term goals for our species.

There is no evidence that I am not a clone of your mother, then mutated by impossible to track aliens.

You can't prove that there aren't any red swans.

You can't prove that I'm not constantly followed around by a String (In the physicists sense) sized dragon.

You can't prove that you're not in the Matrix.


Proving a negative is pretty much impossible most of the time.

If there is no proof for it, then it makes sense to not believe in it.
If there does happen to be proof for it at a certain point, then believe in it.

Edit: I consider myself an atheist, but that Does not mean that I am unable to change my mind given the right circumstances .

You act as if, just because I'm an atheist I still wouldn't believe in God if angels came up to me and took me for a walk around town.

 

[Graham]

There isn't, but there are only three possibilities:

1) The universe was created

2) The universe always existed (for infinity)

3) the universe doesnt' exist - it's all a bad dream

Just because the universe may have been created, doesn't imply that someone/something created it. It could still be a chance event, (like big bang theory) that created it.

I would just add option:

4) the universe (as we describe it) came into being from something (popularly and incorrectly known as nothing) else.

There are also numerous other options that I'm too tired too innumerate and, I'm willing to bet, numerous more that, sadly, neither you nor I am ever likely to be inteligent or experienced enough to some up with.

Graham

 

[Cecil]

With that kind of logic you can prove basically everything!

You can prove that there indeed has to be a teapot orbitting the sun, since there is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a red iron teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a blue tin teapot to do aforesaid. There is an infinitesimal small probabiltity for a green teapot with n red dots to do aforesaid.

But is there really a teapot?

The problem why your analogy doesn't work is that you know for sure that at least one ticket in the lottery has to win.

Yes, there is a very small probability that a teapot currently orbits the sun. This does not IMPLY that there is one, only that it is not rational to believe that no such teapot exists.

One ticket in the lottery has to win, just as one proposition in the set of propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...

must necessarily be true. It is not rational to BELIEVE of every ticket that it is a losing ticket, and likewise it is not rational to BELIEVE any of the above propositions false. One may think it very very unlikely that any particular one is true, but believing it to be false it irrational.

To parrot an old cliche, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited to add: There is a difference between "disbelieving" a proposition (ie, believing it to be false) and "not believing" a proposition.

 

[Graham]

Yes, one ticket in the lottery has to win, just as one proposition in the set of propositions:
(1) No gods exist.
(2) God g1 exists.
(3) God g2 exists.
(4) God g3 exists.
...

must necessarily be true. It is not rational to BELIEVE of every ticket that it is a losing ticket, and likewise it is not rational to BELIEVE any of the above propositions false. One may think it very very unlikely that any particular one is true, but believing it to be false it irrational.

To parrot an old cliche, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited to add: There is a difference between "disbelieving" a proposition (ie, believing it to be false) and "not believing" a proposition.

Except that "no God Exists" has a far greater weight of probablility than all of the "God a/b/c/d/e/f/g!'s you can ever think of.

We know that there are any number of balls marked "no god" can be drawn and still thelottery will be valid.

We know that only one of the "god balls can be drawn without the lottery being logically invalidated.

For a draw of five numbers, which five will you pick?

Graham

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Except that "no God Exists" has a far greater weight of probability than all of the "God a/b/c/d/e/f/g!'s you can ever think of.

We know that there are any number of balls marked "no god" can be drawn and still thelottery will be valid.

We know that only one of the "god balls can be drawn without the lottery being logically invalidated.

For a draw of five numbers, which five will you pick?

Graham

Hmmm I think that a MATHmatical statistical model would find, without any other restrictions, the probability of any case is the same.
The philosophical weighting of the various possibility is a completely differently case.


The problem I have with both true believers and atheists are that they are both absolutist positions with the atheists having a harder road to hoe as a negative hypothesis is impossible to prove, whereas believers can assign any phenomenon ( such as a window stain) to be the affirmation of thier believe

 

[Tricky]

The problem I have with both true believers and atheists are that they are both absolutist positions...

That is a common misconceptionabout atheists and one reason why I describe myself as an "agnostic" to those who do not understand what atheism means. The overwhelmingly vast majority of atheists simply say they see no evidence for a god, not that there absolutely cannot be one.

By the same token, few "true believers" would claim that their concept of God is absolutely correct, in fact almost all say, at some point, that it is impossible for a human to understand the mind of God.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If a god has a mind, then we have to be able to see it, cause that would mean it's made of matter. Since gods aren't matter, they cannot have minds.

 

[Cecil]

Except that "no God Exists" has a far greater weight of probablility than all of the "God a/b/c/d/e/f/g!'s you can ever think of.

How do you know this?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You have to be matter to exist. And ideas are even matter because you have a brain that comes up with them, and that is matter.

For there to be gods...they only exist as ideas do, in our brain matter...but if you don't believe in them, then they can't exist for you.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

That is a common misconceptionabout atheists and one reason why I describe myself as an "agnostic" to those who do not understand what atheism means. The overwhelmingly vast majority of atheists simply say they see no evidence for a god, not that there absolutely cannot be one.

By the same token, few "true believers" would claim that their concept of God is absolutely correct, in fact almost all say, at some point, that it is impossible for a human to understand the mind of God.

No sir the predominate position of an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, by definition.
An agnostic ( which I define myself as ) is a person who believes only things that can be demonstrated by evidence.

 

[Malachi151]

No sir the predominate position of an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, by definition.
An agnostic ( which I define myself as ) is a person who believes only things that can be demonstrated by evidence.

The "agnostic" (which literally means: to deny divine knowledge, and SHOULD be pronounced a-nostic) position is that everything is possible which has not been disproven.

This "should" mean that your view that "god" might exist is the same as you view that "giant pink planet eating space monkey's" might exist.

The existance of either has not been disproven. In fact according to the "agnostic" position anything anyone can image is equally likely to be real and you hold out the possibility that it may in fact be real.

The atheist position is different though, and works on a quite a bit more logic and intelligence.

You see, the atheist position basically says that if something is claimed to be real, for which there is no proof at all, and for which there are known motives for people to lie about the existance of this thing, and the only source of the concept of the existance of this thing in the first place is lies, misconceptions, and ignorance, then it is unlikely beyond a reaonsable doubt that said thing exists at all.

For someone to claim that something exists without any proof or reason to believe it to be so makes it LESS likely that said thing exists than if said thing was never mentioned at all.

When you understand the anthropological process of the development of religion then there is zero reason to believe that a god might exist.

Its like your father telling you a bedtime story about your long lost uncle who was a King of Ireland, and then years later he tell you that it was just a story and he never had any brothers, and then you stilling going on to believe that you still "might" have a long lost uncle that's a King of Ireland.

You have to bea moron to still believe that you might "really" have a long lost uncle anymore. Is it still technically possible? yeah, sure it is, its as possible as it is for anyone to have a long lost uncle, and you can never prove that you don't have a long lost uncle, because if you could then he wouldn't be lost!

But the fact that your dad lied to you about having a long lost uncle certinaly doesn't lend any credence to the idea that you may REALLY have one.

The fact that thousands of cultures made up ideas about spirits and gods does nothing at all to lend any credence to the idea that a "god" might exist. The whole thing was purely an invention of the mind of man in the first place. Duh!

Its a lie that was made up for VERY earthly reasons. It played a very EARTLHY role in human culture. Why the hell would a human social phenomenon be likely to be real? The only way, IMO, that anyone can believe in god, is to be either ignorant, stupid, or both. I think that for most people its simply ignorance, and I can't really fault people for being ignorant or stupid. Stupidity is genetic and ignorance is ultimately a product of society, so I don't blame people for their own ignorance or their own stupidity, but by the same token I have no patience for it either. I've got limited time to live, the least of my concerns is lowering myself to the stupidity or ignorance of others.

Yes I do have contempt for everyone who is not atheist, and I like it that way

I have zero respect for religion, anymore than I have respect for any other lies. Relgion is the biggest and worst lie on earth. As far as I'm concerned too the Catholic Church is the most vial organization on earth as well. That the Vatican is respected in this day and age is an insult to all humanity IMO. Its the most repulsive organization in the history of man IMO.

Just look at Mexico. You want to know the one real difference between Mexico and the USA? The Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has destroyed that nation. The history of Mexico is a sad one. As much promise as America, but dominated by the Vatican instead of separation of Church and State, the resutls are proof of how disgusting that instituion is. Mexico could be equal to the US. It isn't because of the "Church".

Sinead O'Connor goes down in my book as one of the greatest people of the past 30 years just for riping up the picture of the Pope in live national TV. That was a true act of courage and one of the greatest things I've ever seen.

 

[Valiant Dancer]

Is it possible we're BOTH right??

From the website above: Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Your definition of atheist only includes strong atheism. Even the website you quote mentions that actively denying a diety is a sub-set of atheism. The definition you give for atheism is, therefore, incomplete.

The definition you have of atheism is too narrow.

 

[mstricky]

I don't believe there is a God but I do believe we live on after our bodies die. I also believe that we are not the only planet that supports life, the universe is vast and probably holds several planets and suns similar to our system.
Although I don't believe there is a God, I do think there is some sort of intelligence from which everything stems. I do believe we evolved but at some stage spirits took over the human body possibly at the time we developed a conscience. When we die I believe we revert to the spirit dimension.
Religion in my opinion, is man made/written and just a well thought out way of keeping down the masses.
The thought of there being an intelligence somewhere, somehow, has a similar effect on me, I suppose, as religion has on the God worshippers. i.e. it keeps me on my toes and prevents me from doing wrong