Why I'm not an Atheist

[Strong Badam]

What is this forum now, the debate hall?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, there used to be more debating here than in the hall. Now it has been reduced to insignificant comments.

 

[Chuee]

you can assert something without being 100% sure. people do this all the time.

but what you said was not even remotely true
Not even a majority of Atheists would tell you they have proof that God does not exist.
The only popular Atheist I have heard say God doesn't exist is Peter Atkins, and you probably shouldn't take most of what he says seriously, seeing as he's more radical than the others.

 

[Dre89]

John- Most atheists don't say 'God does not exist'. That is specifically positive atheism. Most atheists are negative atheists, meaning they think 'God may or may not exist, but I currently have no reason to believe he does exist'.

It's a negative assertion. Kinda like how you can't prove that an elephant won't charge into room the next moment, but it's not reasonable to believe that will happen, because there's no evidence to suggest it would.

They are rejecting argument/supposed evidence for God, so that is somewhat positive, but they don't have a burden of proof to show that God does not exist, unless they are a positive atheist.

I of course think atheism (and most types of agnosticism) are as equally metaphysically positive as theism, but I'm an outlier in that regard and we already discussed that.

 

[john!]

"positive atheism" and "negative atheism" are terms that some atheists invented to try and dissociate themselves from radical gnostic atheists who are obviously as bad as religious fundamentalists.

the only difference between both types of atheism is the amount of certainty they have in their belief. neither type is 100% certain, nor 0% certain... both types are somewhere in between. both types believe that god doesn't exist. both types require proof. there is no fundamental difference between them that lets one side get off scot-free without a burden of proof.

the act of calling oneself an atheist is EQUIVALENT to saying that, to some degree, you believe god doesn't exist. the only difference between these two types is the degree of certainty.

i am a weak theist: i believe that god may or may not exist, but i have seen more evidence in favor of god, so i think it's slightly more likely that he exists. do i not have a burden of proof either?

 

[GwJ]

You have a BoP because you claim something (probably) exists. You're not able to escape the BoP if you're a theist, period.

 

[john!]

You have a BoP because you claim something (probably) exists. You're not able to escape the BoP if you're a theist, period.

i fully agree. theism is the other side of the same coin, and neither side is exempt from the BOP

 

[Corigames]

... you're an atheist and not a pure agnostic...

You did not read a word I wrote.

/unsubscribed

 

[john!]

"john, i'm telling you all the Truths about Atheism, why won't you accept them?"

seen it a million times. more cult-like behavior.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

i fully agree. theism is the other side of the same coin, and neither side is exempt from the BOP

Yes, just like in every other debate where one person proposes the existence of something with absolutely no evidence and the other rejects that proposition, both sides have the burden of proof. Like with the elephant in your refrigerator, the invisible dragon in your back yard, and the Juju spirit infecting your friend, who can only be cleansed through crucifixion.

"john, i'm telling you all the Truths about Atheism, why won't you accept them?"

seen it a million times. more cult-like behavior.

A: "All christians believe in the young earth. They're *******. LOL."
B: "Err... No, we don't. I'm a christian, and I don't believe that."
A: " "john, i'm telling you all the Truths about christianity, why won't you accept them?" Seen it a million times. More cult-like behavior".

Moron.

 

[GwJ]

i fully agree. theism is the other side of the same coin, and neither side is exempt from the BOP

You're very good at changing what I say, aren't you? Atheists like myself have no burden of proof to disprove god because "God does not exist" is not we're asserting.

 

[kataklysm336]

the act of calling oneself an atheist is EQUIVALENT to saying that, to some degree, you believe god doesn't exist. the only difference between these two types is the degree of certainty.

The difference is one can assert that "God doesn't exist", this is 100% certainty. The problem is most atheists don't make this claim, they instead say "God could exist, I just have no reason to believe he does" which is much different.

i am a weak theist: i believe that god may or may not exist, but i have seen more evidence in favor of god, so i think it's slightly more likely that he exists. do i not have a burden of proof either?

Yes, you still have the burden of proof because of the statement "I have seen more evidence in favor of god". You would need to show what this evidence is, then show how only God could have done it. The atheist cannot provide such evidence in the same way you cannot provide evidence there are no unicorns. They could exist, but don't. The only evidence that they don't exist is that there is no evidence that they do exist.

 

[GwJ]

john, I don't think you understood any of my "X in a box" examples.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Why is this thread all about repeating things that have been said a dozen times? And with the same people?

 

[GwJ]

Because we can't get anywhere without them understanding what's already been said.

 

[Sucumbio]

This blog has almost as many views as the featured blog archive. inSANE.

 

[john!]

all three replies to my post were rewordings of the flying spaghetti monster argument. search this thread for what i have to say about it. i think dre posted about it too.

in short: i DO have evidence against the flying spaghetti monster because you add specific unnecessary properties (he's made out of pasta, he can fly, etc.) that reduce the probability of the FSM existing. god doesn't have this problem because the only property i assign to god is that he created the universe. and guess what? despite the law of conservation of energy, the universe is here! it acts as evidence in favor of god, because the physical laws we know of now would typically prevent something coming appearing from nothing. a "supernatural" explanation is perfectly reasonable.

Why is this thread all about repeating things that have been said a dozen times? And with the same people?

deprogramming a modern atheist is EXTREMELY difficult. i can personally recall only a few instances of success, and those only occur with atheists that are very open-minded.

 

[Sucumbio]

it acts as evidence in favor of god, because the physical laws we know of now would typically prevent something coming appearing from nothing. a "supernatural" explanation is perfectly reasonable.

Reasonable, no. Easy, yes. Reasonable implies applying reason, which stems from rationality, which stems from logic. There's nothing logical about saying "because there's no evidence that something can come from nothing that we can determine from our limited and miniscule perspective then it stands to reason that God must have done it."

That's actually quite unreasonable. It's something you'd have to take on faith. Which not everyone has in abundance, or even a little.

BTW have you considered the possibility that the known universe didn't "start" from nothing, but instead always existed and that time is simply the process from expansion to eventual collapse and back again? -source

Just sayin'. I think such a theory is far more -reasonable- than "God did it."

 

[john!]

why is belief in a big bounce theory reasonable, but belief in a deity isn't? you're just calling it "reasonable" because it's what you happen to believe.

and a big bounce still doesn't rule out the possibility of a deity, by the way.

 

[GwJ]

It's easy to say the big bang theory is reasonable and a deity is not because of what they imply. The BBT is a natural explanation to the universe. A deity is a supernatural explanation.

We know of absolutely nothing that has ever happened in the history of ever that has happened that was supernatural, nor do we have absolutely any evidence of the supernatural existing outside of those ghost people.

The BBT is just the scientific community's best natural explanation for the universe given what we know.

 

[Sucumbio]

why is belief in a big bounce theory reasonable, but belief in a deity isn't? you're just calling it "reasonable" because it's what you happen to believe.

Reasonable

a : being in accordance with reason
b : not extreme or excessive <- dat right there
c : moderate, fair

It may not feel excessive to believe in God, but when you consider the alternative - science - yeah, it's extreme. Science is tangible, provable, and rooted in sound methodology. Faith proclaims an all powerful being whose only "evidence" is that we and the universe exist. That's not exactly convincing, is it? Wouldn't you or anyone want more than just to look around and say "well, it's all here, so it must be thanks to God." Why must it? Can it not be here for its own sake, and having nothing to do with some made-up god-thing?

and a big bounce still doesn't rule out the possibility of a deity, by the way.

Well, of course, but that's not what you were arguing. You were saying that God was the start of it all, and that's what I took issue with. I don't discount that after the universe began that a God-like entity could exist, and could even have created us, and even in their image.

 

[kataklysm336]

all three replies to my post were rewordings of the flying spaghetti monster argument. search this thread for what i have to say about it. i think dre posted about it too.

in short: i DO have evidence against the flying spaghetti monster because you add specific unnecessary properties (he's made out of pasta, he can fly, etc.) that reduce the probability of the FSM existing.

Strawman. I never mentioned anything like that, as we were talking about BoP. I showed why in your "weak theist" example you would still have the burden of proof, whereas an atheist wouldn't. Are you now suggesting the atheist doesn't have the BoP?

 

[john!]

so you want evidence against unicorns?

well we haven't seen any unicorns or identified any heritable genetic anomaly that would produce a unicorn, so it's reasonable to think that a unicorn doesn't exist because our world can be explained without them. they might exist in some unexplored area, but the probability is low.

 

[kataklysm336]

so you want evidence against God?

well we haven't seen any God or identified any way something can be non-physical, so it's reasonable to think that God doesn't exist because our world can be explained without him. He might exist in some unexplored area, but the probability is low.

There you go.

 

[resTy]

This thread is really gay. Just tellin' you kids know this.

 

[john!]

This thread is really gay. Just tellin' you kids know this.

you're just saying that because unicorns

 

[Sucumbio]

^ this guy knows what's up

 

[GwJ]

so you want evidence against unicorns?

well we haven't seen any unicorns or identified any heritable genetic anomaly that would produce a unicorn, so it's reasonable to think that a unicorn doesn't exist because our world can be explained without them. they might exist in some unexplored area, but the probability is low.

Lol.

I lol'd.

 

[NTA]

Seems legit. Going to have to come back here ;o

 

[john!]

Lol.

I lol'd.

oh, sorry. let me give an answer that a dumb *** atheist would approve of:

OF COURSE UNICORNS DON'T EXIST, STUPID! HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE? HUH?!

 

[GwJ]

I'm not lol'ing because the answer was inappropriate.

 

[§witch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

Get on my level, children.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

He lol'd because he probably thinks what you just said about the unicorn applies nicely to the conception of God. As for things being repeated like I mentioned before, you're a part of that as well John.

@§witch Awesome, just awesome. Never knew there was a word for that, I mentioned that state before and I am more or less like an apatheist (in feeling) agnostic (in certainty) positive atheist (in belief). Seems like the most logical and healthy stance on it, in my opinion.

 

[john!]

apatheism is a good example of a position that atheists would call "atheist" and everyone else would call "agnostic"

 

[Strong Badam]

so you want evidence against unicorns?

well we haven't seen any unicorns or identified any heritable genetic anomaly that would produce a unicorn, so it's reasonable to think that a unicorn doesn't exist because our world can be explained without them. they might exist in some unexplored area, but the probability is low.

so you want evidence against gods?

well we haven't seen any gods or identified any heritable genetic anomaly that would produce a god, so it's reasonable to think that a god doesn't exist because our world can be explained without them. they might exist in some unexplored area, but the probability is low.

huehuehuehuehue

 

[§witch]

apatheism is a good example of a position that atheists would call "atheist" and everyone else would call "agnostic"

No it isn't. The argument is that it doesn't matter either way because if there is a god he doesn't seem to give a **** about us.

 

[john!]

huehuehuehuehue

now the question is, can our universe be explained without a god?

this is what i mean when i say that atheists have to give their own explanation for things instead of just dismissing the theist's point of view

 

[Chuee]

so you want evidence against unicorns?

well we haven't seen any unicorns or identified any heritable genetic anomaly that would produce a unicorn, so it's reasonable to think that a unicorn doesn't exist because our world can be explained without them. they might exist in some unexplored area, but the probability is low.

Except that's not even evidence against Unicorns because just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A unicorn could easily exist on another life-habitable planet. Therefore you don't have any proof against the existence of Unicorns.

@at the universe not being able to be explained without God
That's an argument from ignorance/god of the gaps argument. Modern science hasn't gotten that far yet. That's like someone saying back in the 19th century that we can't explain the origin of the Earth and our Solar System without God therefore theism is more probable.

 

[GwJ]

now the question is, can our universe be explained without a god?

this is what i mean when i say that atheists have to give their own explanation for things instead of just dismissing the theist's point of view

Uh, no. There you are again shifting your burden of proof. If you are really going to shift the BoP onto me based on the reasoning behind that post, then your belief in god is an argument from ignorance by the looks of it.

I can't imagine how the universe could exist without god, therefore god.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Its nice to see we're finally close to making some progress on this ******** debate.

>:[