Ask an atheist

[john!]

Atheism is a choice, not a neutral mindset. Pure agnosticism is the only neutral mindset. Choices require justification. Atheism requires justification.

 

[rvkevin]

To argue there is no God

Who is arguing this point?

Atheist: Someone who rejects the statement "A god or gods exist."

This does not mean that they make the statement "No gods exist."

I do not believe there is no Big Foot, but I don't believe he exists either. If you scan the forests indefinitely, you may find a creature that fits the description, therefore I am open to the possibility that he exists, but at this time, I do not think there is sufficient reason to believe that Big Foot exists. Replace Big Foot and God and you have the agnostic atheist's position.

 

[masterdrenin]

http://www.youtube.com/user/EdwardCurrent#p/u/64/DSzttF8EXrE

This is a satire. Don't take it too seriously!
I don't care much for Christianity though ;P

 

[Dre89]

Who is arguing this point?

Atheist: Someone who rejects the statement "A god or gods exist."

This does not mean that they make the statement "No gods exist."

I do not believe there is no Big Foot, but I don't believe he exists either. If you scan the forests indefinitely, you may find a creature that fits the description, therefore I am open to the possibility that he exists, but at this time, I do not think there is sufficient reason to believe that Big Foot exists. Replace Big Foot and God and you have the agnostic atheist's position.

Again, it's a yes-no question.

If you reject that God exists, then you have to accept that He doesn't.

 

[rvkevin]

Again, it's a yes-no question.

If you reject that God exists, then you have to accept that He doesn't.

You are in a room with no windows, you have been there for a long time so you don't know the current weather situation.

You are asked whether you accept the statement "It is sunny outside."

Do you believe it is sunny outside?

If you say you don't believe, are you saying that you believe it is not sunny?

 

[Dre89]

But that's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

An agnostic doesn't know whether God exists or not.

And agnostic doesn't say the yes is wrong.

An atheist actually believes that God doesn't exist.

 

[rvkevin]

But that's the difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

An agnostic doesn't know whether God exists or not.

And agnostic doesn't say the yes is wrong.

An atheist actually believes that God doesn't exist.

Atheist: someone who does not believe that a god exists.

Atheist and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

 

[john!]

Kevin, you keep pressing us with your definition of "atheist"... your definition doesn't work, because it includes pure agnosticism as well.

 

[Dre89]

Kevin that's not much different to what I said.

Therefore, not only do they have to refute various God theories, but show it is more likely that God does not exist. This means that they also have to explain how a natural entity is responsible for the causality of the universe, despite that no natural entity in the history of scientific observation has possessed those sort of traits.

 

[rvkevin]

Kevin, you keep pressing us with your definition of "atheist"... your definition doesn't work, because it includes pure agnosticism as well.

Atheist and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Kevin that's not much different to what I said.

Its the difference between gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism. A big difference in positions. To equate the two is to build a straw man.

 

[Mewter]

In my honest opinion, I think that someone can be atheist toward religious gods and agnostic toward a deistic one.

 

[rvkevin]

In my honest opinion, I think that someone can be atheist toward religious gods and agnostic toward a deistic one.

You can also be agnostic toward religious gods and agnostic towards a deistic one and still be an atheist.

Agnosticism and atheism are labels to two different questions.

Just clarifying, what you said was correct.

 

[john!]

Atheist and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes. I know.

By "pure agnosticism" I mean someone who doesn't lean towards theism or atheism (hence the "pure"). Someone who has no idea whether God exists or not. Your definition of atheism includes this. I think that's wrong.

 

[rvkevin]

Yes. I know.

By "pure agnosticism" I mean someone who doesn't lean towards theism or atheism (hence the "pure").

See below for why this is absurd.

Someone who has no idea whether God exists or not. Your definition of atheism includes this.

I know it includes this. If I ask you "Do you believe in god" and you answer yes, you are a theist; if not, you are an atheist.

At the end of the day labels are just labels anyways....

It's still important to know what each label states because otherwise they are vulnerable to misrepresentation.

Here's an extreme example: Someone says this is what a Christian believes: http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t#p/f/14/3SDCC2J-uPA and if you don't believe that you're not a Christian. When your opponent distorts the label to the point that no one holds that position, discussion breaks down.

 

[masterdrenin]

At the end of the day labels are just labels anyways....
They only scratch the surface.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

I mainly believe simply because it encourages one to "do good" as many people put it.

I mean really:

• Never disrespect one's parents.
• Give to needy.
• Discourage violence.
• Be accepting (albeit sadly many Christians still find it difficult to accept homosexuals).

And so forth...
I don't know much about the complete ways of Catholicism, considering there is an extremely small minority of Catholics/Christians in my country; the majority of the population (97-99%) is Islamic.
They're both Monotheistic Religions, and have similar ways about them, but they're quite different at the same time.

 

[john!]

Well if you're an atheist (kevin's definition), and you are NOT a pure agnostic, then you are making a choice. Choices require justification. Atheism requires justification.

Also kevin, post count doesn't count in here, so instead of editing your posts while others are posting and confusing people, just make a new post. Nobody will mind...

 

[rvkevin]

Well if you're an atheist (kevin's definition), and you are NOT a pure agnostic, then you are making a choice. Choices require justification. Atheism requires justification.

Theism regards what you claim to believe. Gnosticism regards what you claim to know.
Atheism means that you don't believe "that a God exists". Agnosticism means that you don't know "that a God does or does not exists."

Most atheists are also agnostic.

 

[masterdrenin]

For me God is just a metaphor. (i.e. pantheism)

I'm most closely related to Sikhism (both my parents are Sikh)
I like the practical aspects of it such as
-All peoples of the world are equal
-Women are equal
-Speak and live truthfully
-Donate 10% of wealth to charity
-Practice humility, kindness, compassion, love, etc.
-Avoid anger, egoism, avarice, lust, pride, hatred, hostility, etc.

It's a pretty practical religion, which is what I like about it.
I also enjoy Buddhism, Taoism, and Jainism quit a bit. Western religions aren't my thing.

 

[john!]

What about agnostic theists then? Do they believe? If so, why not agnostic atheists?

 

[rvkevin]

What about agnostic theists then? Do they believe? If so, why not agnostic atheists?

Agnostic theists believe God exists but do not believe to know God exists. Agnostic atheists, don't believe God exists, but don't claim to know God does not exist.

The reason why agnostic theists believe god exists is because of the theist term.

 

[Diakonos]

I've been dying to respond. I haven't had the time to do your thoughts justice, nor will I in the very near future.

Rvkevin, I really like your responses. I think it's very hard to get a good flow of ideas when having to respond to multiple people and discussons. If you're interested in honest discussion, could you PM me? Specifically, since you seem to agree that the lack of existence of God, or (its) existence is impsssible to prove/deduce, can you tell me why you lean towards the atheistic side and not the deistic/theistic?

 

[john!]

Agnostic theists believe God exists but do not believe to know God exists. Agnostic atheists, don't believe God exists, but don't claim to know God does not exist.

The reason why agnostic theists believe god exists is because of the theist term.

You're looking at agnostic/gnostic in a binary way. It's actually a spectrum. There are strong believers, weak believers, and a bunch in between.

So would you say that non-agnostic atheists (aka strong atheists) have belief?

 

[rvkevin]

You're looking at agnostic/gnostic in a binary way. It's actually a spectrum.

Gnosticism is what you claim to know. You either claim to know it or not. The level of certainty you need to have for you to consider it knowledge may be different than someone else, (You might need 95% confidence to consider it knowledge while I might be 99% confident).

So would you say that non-agnostic atheists (aka strong atheists) have belief?

Yes, but I have never heard anyone make this claim, so it is almost pointless to talk about.

 

[masterdrenin]

While that is true, what his theory DOES prove is that the existance of God cannot possibly be proven correct through debate, as humans are incapable of conceiving such an argument about something that defies the laws of the universe, as our very thoughts are bound by it.

Perhaps I should further simplify his breaking down of the "cause and effect" argument.

The argument assumes that outside the universe the laws of the universe (such as cause and effect) don't apply. This is where god exists and where he created the universe. But if the universe exists in this area of no rules, and laws are only contained WITHIN the universe, then why does the universe itself have to follow the laws of cause and effect? (the universe is only the container for these laws after all). The answer is simply that it doesn't have to follow any laws in order to exist, and thus there is no NEED for a creator to exist.

So while I can't prove that God does NOT exist, neither can you prove that God DOES exist.

food for thought.

Agnosticism2gud

It is not knowable...

 

[jivegamer]

Strong Atheists phrase things as if they have a belief. In actuality, they are just strongly exclaiming how much they don't believe in something

I know I posted this earlier, but it got swallowed up quickly, so I'll put up this video again, just because I think he has a lot of good points to make about the vulgarism of some "new atheists."

 

[Dre89]

Masterdrenin religions aren't here to comply with your personal moral standings.

You're not supposed to favour certain religions simply because they accomodate your personal moral beliefs, you're supposed to favour one because you have logical reasons to believe it is the objective truth of the world.

 

[masterdrenin]

Masterdrenin religions aren't here to comply with your personal moral standings.

You're not supposed to favour certain religions simply because they accomodate your personal moral beliefs, you're supposed to favour one because you have logical reasons to believe it is the objective truth of the world.

Your opinion bro.
I like how you're telling me what I am "supposed to" favour
Also, lol @ "the objective truth".

PS: I also like how you spell "favour". Commenwealth countries! haha

 

[rvkevin]

I know I posted this earlier, but it got swallowed up quickly, so I'll put up this video again, just because I think he has a lot of good points to make about the vulgarism of some "new atheists."

I can't (under)stand his accent. Is there a transcript?

You're not supposed to favour certain religions simply because they accomodate your personal moral beliefs, you're supposed to favour one because you have logical reasons to believe it is the objective truth of the world.

What logical reasons?

 

[jivegamer]

I can't (under)stand his accent. Is there a transcript?

He's Slovenian LOL

Sorry, I don't think so

He's basically saying that a lot of the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennet are scientific determinists who basically argue for atheism in the same way that religious zealots argue for their religion. It is lacking proper philosophical nuance/understanding.

 

[john!]

Gnosticism is what you claim to know. You either claim to know it or not. The level of certainty you need to have for you to consider it knowledge may be different than someone else, (You might need 95% confidence to consider it knowledge while I might be 99% confident).

No, there are different degrees to which people can claim to know something. They can be totally sure, kind of sure, somewhat sure, not quite sure, etc. See below.

Yes, but I have never heard anyone make this claim, so it is almost pointless to talk about.

But it's very important. If strong atheism is a belief, how can weak atheism (agnostic atheism) not be a belief? Where on the hypothetical scale of

"I know God doesn't exist" (atheist, 100% gnostic, 0% agnostic)
"I am very sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 80% gnostic, 20% agnostic)
"I am pretty sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 60% gnostic, 40% agnostic)
"I am somewhat sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 40% gnostic, 60% agnostic)
"I am a bit sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 20% gnostic, 80% agnostic)
"I am not sure if God exists or doesn't exist" (agnostic, 0% gnostic, 100% agnostic)

does it change from belief to nonbelief?

 

[rvkevin]

He's basically saying that a lot of the "new atheists" like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennet are scientific determinists who basically argue for atheism in the same way that religious zealots argue for their religion. It is lacking proper philosophical nuance/understanding.

I think the best difference between atheists and theists to show this to be wrong is what we think should be taught to children. Atheists think that we should teach children reason and to think for themselves, whereas the religious each have their own story. I'm not sure what you're saying is lacking in proper philosophical understanding since Dennet is a philosopher. I'm not sure if scientific determinists is an accurate term for the bunch. Hitchens is a journalist with no scientific credentials that I know of, Dawkins openly states that he is an agnostic atheist, which precludes him from being a materialist. Can't say for sure about Harris, other than labeling him an anti-theist. So it seems like Slavoj got it wrong from the start.


"I know God doesn't exist" (atheist, 99% confident there is no god)"
Gnostic atheism. I know there is no god.
"I am very sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 95% confident there is no god)"
Strong atheism. I believe there is no god.
"I am fairly sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 80% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am pretty sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 60% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am somewhat sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 40% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am a bit sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 20% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am not sure if God exists or doesn't exist" (agnostic, 0% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.

"does it change from belief to nonbelief?"

Yes, its whatever your threshold for holding to know or believe a claim. If something is 99.99999999 (Whatever your threshold is) certain, you will claim to know it (I know the sun will rise tomorrow). If you are certain, but not as certain (For example, 95%), you will claim to believe it (I believe a particular move in Chess is the best one). When you get into the lower confidence levels, you will not claim to believe them. The best example would be flipping a fair coin. I know I have a 50-50 chance of heads, but I would never claim to believe the statement "I will flip heads", even though I have a %50 chance of being correct. Now if that coin had two heads, I would claim to know the statement "I will flip heads" to be true.

 

[Sucumbio]

If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered good, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)? If an action done by a moral agent (Humans) would be considered bad, why would it be different for another moral agent (God)?

It depends on your view of morality in terms of whether or not you think it's dynamic. If we suppose for a moment that God is superior to Humans in every way imaginable, then he would also be morally superior. This in turn does beg a question, how is it morally superior for God to allow bad things to happen to innocent people? The answer lies in how you define morality for human vs how you define it for God.

If you consider them the same, then God is NOT morally superior, in fact he's morally bankrupt in many regards.

If you consider God inferior to Humans in terms of morality, then you can also justify the stance that God is painfully and downright evil when considering the suffering humans undergoe.

If you consider God superior to Humans, and in terms of morality, then you can imagine that its possible our standard of morality is limited. Our understanding is limited... what we believe to be moral, may in fact be heinously immoral.

MY stance, is that God is so far beyond our comprehension in method, mode and modulation that our primative concepts of morality are too far below the standard by which Gods are measured for us to have any competant way of analizing God-morals. Or even comparing them to human morals.

I don't think that comparing natural laws and morality is a good analogy because one is an observation while the other is an abstract concept.

You don't think it's a good analogy because it demonstrates exactly what I'm saying??? >.> Subjective: born of the abstract computations of the mind. Objective: born of the witnessed events by the mind.

I think a better comparison would be to game theory. In game theory, there are assumptions that both parties are rational. In game theory, you can "prescribe" the actions of both parties. However, these assumptions are not always met in the real world, not everyone is perfectly rational (For example, it is easy to find a scenario where most people when given the choice of receiving zero or one dollar, they will choose zero, and it is backed up by experiment) and therefore different conclusions are made. In game theory, there is no duty to try and maximize your gain, but if you don't then you are not considered rational. The same could be said for morality.

Interesting, actually. Game theory IIRC attempts to categorically analyze behavior by weighing the successes of the whole by maximizing the successes of the parts? Or something like that... actually lemme just check, lol

"Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others."

Hm.... err ok so not as I thought exactly... I suppose this could be applied to morality and used as an argument for it being objectively accomplished. Good show.

Some have suggested that the ability to reflect on decisions is a notable difference that makes humans moral agents while the rest of the animal kingdom aren't. Like I said above, differences in reasoning capacity and knowledge on a subject is not grounds to claim the conclusion is subjective. The simplest example would be if two people differed on the answer to 2+2. Just because two people disagree on a subject does not mean that there is not an objectively correct conclusion.

Ah, but the difference he refers to is not just mental capacity or even basic understanding. It's a fundamental difference that precludes your example. It's not like comparing 2 people who disagree on mathematics. It's like a dog and person disagreeing on mathematics. The dog simply -can't- fathom math. A human can because of their subjective reasoning skills. Cogito ergo sum.

If you use faith, and determine that a God exists, how do you choose to practice a particular religion over another?

I answered this, "accuracy." The 1st question to answer is "does god exist?" answer: yes. Reason? none provided, based on faith. the 2nd question then becomes "which religion do you believe in?" the answer: Catholicism. reason: it is the original christian religion. Unlike my episcopal family, I choose to go with the original source. And unlike my jewish couterparts I choose to believe that Jesus is the messiah, as fortold in the Old Testement, and yadda yadda. So yeah. Accuracy.

What prevents someone who holds Fideism from saying 'X is a moral act (because God commands it!)', whether X is killing an abortion doctor, flying planes into buildings, killing a cartoonist over a cartoon, discriminating against another ethnicity, or discriminating against women?" If they use Fideism to conclude that there is a god, what prevents them from taking unjustified claims (like the ones above) by using faith over reason about what the God commands and to conclude it to be their objective purpose to fulfill said commands. This issue involves God, so reason gets checked at the door, figuratively speaking.

The truths by which we live are such regardless of how we arrive at them. So ... in answer to your question, there's nothing stopping people from believing "God says so, so it must be true," fidiest or otherwise. But I do understand your concern, that as such one who abandons reason in place of faith may be prone to do so whenever it suits them, or at a dangerous impass. This isn't unknown in practical terms, there are several examples of this in the world. I guess you'll just have to be careful who you associate yourself with ^^ I personally do not abandon reason anytime it suits me. For instance, I do not believe the earth was created in 6 days as is said in Gensis. Faith regardless, I KNOW the earth is billions of years old. I can't emphasize enough how much I really do not leave up to faith alone. Most if not all the ideas I have on my relgion are based in some fact-finding. It's the truly mysterious things that have no apparent or readily apparent proof that I rely solely on faith to reconcile. things like, the existence of god, the works of his miracles and the miracles performed by other humans, etc. parlor tricks magic. maybe... but as for morality, I don't even rely on the bible for that, I have my own moral code, and its not based in the teachings of the bible.

If churches were only for a social network, there would be no vocal atheists.

touche

 

[jivegamer]

I remember getting into these arguments on 1up.com years ago...


What is it with video games and religion ?_?

 

[Sucumbio]

I remember getting into these arguments on 1up.com years ago...


What is it with video games and religion ?_?

Actually, I always loved Dragon Warrior VIII for its similar references to religion. "confession" for saving, etc. neat touch.

 

[rvkevin]

You don't think it's a good analogy because it demonstrates exactly what I'm saying?

I could make the analogy fit for evolution as well, but I think game theory conveys the point clearer since the terms are more similar. The problem with comparing it to some natural laws is that they are just constants that are directly measurable, they are not a model that has assumptions.

It's the truly mysterious things that have no apparent or readily apparent proof that I rely solely on faith to reconcile. things like, the existence of god, the works of his miracles and the miracles performed by other humans, etc. parlor tricks magic. maybe...

Then what's the point of believing if you're just going to use it to fill a gap in knowledge? Why not just say "I don't know,"? Isn't "I don't know" the more honest answer? Just because of Pascal's wager?

but as for morality, I don't even rely on the bible for that, I have my own moral code, and its not based in the teachings of the bible.

Didn't see that one coming, I doubt you would qualify as a practicing Catholic…so, what's the point in believing?

 

[john!]

Yes, its whatever your threshold for holding to know or believe a claim. If something is 99.99999999 (Whatever your threshold is) certain, you will claim to know it (I know the sun will rise tomorrow). If you are certain, but not as certain (For example, 95%), you will claim to believe it (I believe a particular move in Chess is the best one). When you get into the lower confidence levels, you will not claim to believe them. The best example would be flipping a fair coin. I know I have a 50-50 chance of heads, but I would never claim to believe the statement "I will flip heads", even though I have a %50 chance of being correct. Now if that coin had two heads, I would claim to know the statement "I will flip heads" to be true.

That sounds awfully fuzzy and inaccurate. You're saying that our language shifts from certainty to belief to nonbelief as we move down the scale, AND that this classification is dependent on the person saying it?

The fact is that strong atheism is a strong belief, weak atheism is a weak belief (although still a belief), and pure agnosticism is no belief at all. Makes sense, right?

 

[jivegamer]

That sounds awfully fuzzy and inaccurate. You're saying that our language shifts from certainty to belief to nonbelief as we move down the scale, AND that this classification is dependent on the person saying it?

The fact is that strong atheism is a strong belief, weak atheism is a weak belief (although still a belief), and pure agnosticism is no belief at all. Makes sense, right?

I found a good article explaining atheism and agnosticism, so let's see if that doesn't bring forth some clarifications

 

[rvkevin]

That sounds awfully fuzzy and inaccurate. You're saying that our language shifts from certainty to belief to nonbelief as we move down the scale, AND that this classification is dependent on the person saying it?

I don't see the problem with this. What exactly does it mean to have a strong belief? Is a strong belief the same for everyone? Is the threshold for evidence the same for each person to acquire a new belief? Apparently not.

The fact is that strong atheism is a strong belief, weak atheism is a weak belief (although still a belief), and pure agnosticism is no belief at all. Makes sense, right?

The term pure agnosticism precludes the belief in God, ergo they are atheists.

Edit: If you want to make it a spectrum, I suggest that you leave out the term belief and just say that you are X% confident that a particular God does or does not exist. The difference between strong and weak atheism is that strong atheists accept the claim "There is no god or gods," to be true whereas a weak atheist does not. Belief is a binary position. Provide a counterexample if you want to show otherwise.

 

[Fatmanonice]

Agnostics don't believe in anything, isn't that right? Therefore, they fail worse than people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

I might be wrong.

I know for sure that nihilists believe in nothing.

No, that's not right at all. Theological thought is divided into two large categories with two subcategories each. The two big categories are Gnostic and Agnostic, the four small categories are gnostic-theist, gnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist, and agnostic-atheist. Here's a brief description of each:

Gnostic-theist- You definately believe that there is a higher power.

Gnostic-atheist- You definately believe that there is not a higher power.

Agnostic-theist- You are undecided but you at least entertain the possibility of a higher power although usually defined outside the defintions of the major religions. This is what I am.

Agnostic-theist- You are undecided but you lean more towards there not being a higher power and usually don't care either way. From what I've seen, these people are usually the least involved in theological debate.

Also, the flying spaghetti monster is a parody of Creationist thought and meant to mock the idea that creationism is a science. It's not really a real religion but was mainly created to make fun of how some schools in America require teaching the Christian Bible as part of their curriculum.