How do you view atheism?

[Lord Emsworth]

Not true. Winning numbers which no one forsaw, and therefore , for which no ticket exists, occur all the time...

But the possibility to draw a winning ticket (or fill in the right number) has to exist before the drawing, or else it is not a lottery but a scam.

Wheter somebody draws that winning ticket (or fills in the right numbers) or not is immaterial

 

[Kodiak]

But the possibility to draw a winning ticket (or fill in the right number) has to exist before the drawing, or else it is not a lottery but a scam.

Wheter somebody draws that winning ticket (or fills in the right numbers) or not is immaterial

Though I agree that there is no evidence to suggest god's existence, that does make the existence of god an impossibility.

The virtue of being an agnostic is the ability to accept the fact that, however unlikely, one might be wrong about the nonexistence of god(s).

Again, it comes down to "Agnostic in priciple; Atheist in Pratice" - I do not think there is a god(s), though I can accept the fact that, though no evidence exists, I could still be wrong.

 

[BillyTK]

I'm more of an apathist than an athiest. Whether god/s exist or not, I carnt seem to muster up the effort to be concerned; particularly as there is no proof either way.

 

[fishbob]

What about the "eyewitness testimony" of Moses, Abraham, David, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, Matthew, Thomas and others?

Second or third or twelfth hand hearsay.

 

[Chanileslie]

I'm a hardcore atheist. I don't think it is a personal choice much more than I don't see any evidence to support a supreme being. I don't believe that atheism should be a forced position; I could honestly care less what people believe as long as they don't try to force me to believe and they are not causing harm to others.

I find such propositions as Pascal's wager to be absurd because if there is no god, you have wasted time and energy believing in that which there is no evidence to support and I find that to be an intellectually dishonest position.

 

[Kodiak]

fishbob's sig: Yesterday's paranoia is today's Republican fund-raiser. - Zippy, May 2003

In the meantime, the Dems are raising funds for tomorrow's...

 

[Chanileslie]

Though I agree that there is no evidence to suggest god's existence, that does make the existence of god an impossibility.

The virtue of being an agnostic is the ability to accept the fact that, however unlikely, one might be wrong about the nonexistence of god(s).

Again, it comes down to "Agnostic in priciple; Atheist in Pratice" - I do not think there is a god(s), though I can accept the fact that, though no evidence exists, I could still be wrong.

Really now? I wouldn't consider myself an agnostic in the least, although I can accept if I am wrong, but I will need some evidence to make that conclusion. I am an atheist, and I am sure gods don't exist because we lack evidence for such beings and it maybe possible, but it is hardly plausible. Not only that, but god(s) and religion changes from culture to culture and from era to era, and this just shows that is more of a construct and function of the society within which that god(s) or relgion(s) is/are found in the era within which it is found.

I am not saying that if evidence were found that god(s) existed that I would not consider that evidence. If it were strong, verifiable, quantifiable evidence, I would change my opinion, but alas I don't see that evidence anywhere, and in thousands of years of looking, it hasn't been found as of yet. I will not believe until such a time as evidence is produced.

At this juncture, religion is mutable, and that is a big point against it since it is the very religion that propounds that god(s) exist. No religion has survived intact (in the same form with the same beliefs that it began with) after a few years much less hundreds or thousands of years. We can see some fine examples of this in some of the most well documented religions such as christian mythology, ancient Egypt mythology, Greek mythology, ect. These are religions that changed and adapted over time to changing societies to the point where their gods even have changed positions on major issues overtime following the patterns of the society within that religion is lodged.

So is it plausible to believe? No. Is it rational to believe that we don't know? I don't believe so since there is absolutely no evidence nor even any consistency within the belief systems themselves that would support the existence of a supreme being. Not only that but I think I don't know is a much more plausible and possible answer.

 

[Kodiak]

Really now? I wouldn't consider myself an agnostic in the least, although I can accept if I am wrong, but I will need some evidence to make that conclusion. I am an atheist, and I am sure gods don't exist because we lack evidence for such beings and it maybe possible, but it is hardly plausible. Not only that, but god(s) and religion changes from culture to culture and from era to era, and this just shows that is more of a construct and function of the society within which that god(s) or relgion(s) is/are found in the era within which it is found.

I am not saying that if evidence were found that god(s) existed that I would not consider that evidence. If it were strong, verifiable, quantifiable evidence, I would change my opinion, but alas I don't see that evidence anywhere, and in thousands of years of looking, it hasn't been found as of yet. I will not believe until such a time as evidence is produced.

At this juncture, religion is mutable, and that is a big point against it since it is the very religion that propounds that god(s) exist. No religion has survived intact (in the same form with the same beliefs that it began with) after a few years much less hundreds or thousands of years. We can see some fine examples of this in some of the most well documented religions such as christian mythology, ancient Egypt mythology, Greek mythology, ect. These are religions that changed and adapted over time to changing societies to the point where their gods even have changed positions on major issues overtime following the patterns of the society within that religion is lodged.

So is it plausible to believe? No. Is it rational to believe that we don't know? I don't believe so since there is absolutely no evidence nor even any consistency within the belief systems themselves that would support the existence of a supreme being. Not only that but I think I don't know is a much more plausible and possible answer.

You sound like an agnostic to me, given my understanding of the terms...

Atheist - one who denies (declares untrue) the existence of god.

Agnostic - one who thinks that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

 

[Valiant Dancer]

You sound like an agnostic to me, given my understanding of the terms...

Atheist - one who denies (declares untrue) the existence of god.

Agnostic - one who thinks that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Atheists lack a God belief. They do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything. Newborns are atheists. They have no concept of a God. That gets taught later (as most philosophies are).

 

[Kodiak]

Atheists lack a God belief. They do not necessarily have to deny the existance of anything. Newborns are atheists. They have no concept of a God. That gets taught later (as most philosophies are).

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".

 

[LCBOY]

Well, I was going to ignore this comment, as its an old and tired one, but I'll poke it with a stick...

Do you beleive that dragons exist?

Can you prove that they do not?

Let's make three terms:

Dragonist = someone who believes in dragons
Adragonist = someone who beleives that dragons do not exist
agdragonist = someone who says that they aren't sure if dragons exist or not becuase its impossible for them to prove that they don't exist.

You would classify yourself as an agdragonist I assume.

I'm 100% positive that "god" does not exist. "God" has no meaning, and there is not one single thing that leads to the suspicion that "god" miight exist if "god" could even be defined.

The entire "god" concept does not even make sense.

No, I am an athiest, 100% confident that "god" does not exist, 100% confident that there is no "heaven" and no "hell", no "afterlife" (they call it death for a reason), and nothing "supernatural" at all, i.e. I am a materialist, and IMO the only that makes any sense is materialism.

Wow!, I've been gone a while. But I see that the same typical anti-religion blather is still going on. Good to see that certain things don't ever change. That's why I like coming to JREF.

As for dragons, they do exist. I've seen them and so have many others. As for evidence, check out the link.

dragon link

OK, Malachi151, now do you believe...

 

[Chanileslie]

You sound like an agnostic to me, given my understanding of the terms...

Atheist - one who denies (declares untrue) the existence of god.

Agnostic - one who thinks that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

No, an athiest is one who lacks belief in or does not believe in a god. I am one such. I don't even think one is possible much less plausible.

I don't think it is unknown nor unknowable, and I feel it is absurd to assume that something with no evidence other than, "BillyJoBob over there believes and that's good enough for me."

There is no ultimate reality of god simply because god does not exist. Now, should on some strange off chance, evidence shows that I am wrong, well I consider myself a scientist, I will review the evidence and will change my opinion if the evidence is verifiable and quantifiable.

 

[Chanileslie]

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".

By the very word lack of belief it indicates that atheists do not believe in god(s). The rest is just word twisting. There is no god. And if you want me to believe in such an improbable thing, then pony up the evidence.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Kimodo dragons, I hear their bites are freakishly deadly.

Hey, the people that worship gods think they have evidence. That's the problem.

 

[Schizobunny]

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.

I would just like to point out that your reasoning also applies to fairies and leprecans.

 

[Schizobunny]

That's not the same thing. Dragons as we have defined them are limited to living on the Earth. Since we have explored the vast majority of the surface and seen no dragons, it is rational to conclude that dragons do not exist. "God", since it created the universe, must necessarily exist outside of the universe. Therefore, we can accumulate no evidence at all about the existence of a god.

Your reasoning makes no sense. You are implying that because we have explored a vast majority of the Earth that we know of everything on the Earth and that is not true. We have trillions of more insects, bacteria, and animals to discover. So there fore you can not proove dragons do not exist just like you can't proove god doesn't exist so there fore it makes perfect sense to assume there is no god.

 

[Otther]

By deffinition atheism does not require one to deny god's existance, just to not believe in it. So atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

And kudos Kodiak for your level headed rationalism.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

 

[ssibal]

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

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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

Hey, I'm totally with you on that!