Another one for Atheists.
Offline since atheists seem to be big fans of rationality and logic, how can one rationally claim that thinking there is no god is any less a belief system than believing there IS one? it makes no logical sense. prescribing to a certain set of viewpoints, weather supported by scientific evidence or not, is a belief system. pure and simple. "i believe that the sun is a star" "i believe god exists" i believe god does not exist" "i believe nobody knows weather god exists or not" how are ALL of these things not BELIEFS?
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
True. Good point.
Fortunately, rational beliefs are based on facts, and so have a fairly good probability of being true.
i dont disagree at all. that being said, there are no more scientific facts suggesting that there is no god than there are scientific facts suggesting the is a god. so both arguments rely on faith in things that cannot be or have not been concretely observed.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
In that case, why believe either of these things? As Carl Sagan said, "Really, it's ok to wait for the evidence to come in." He was talking about alien life, but it is still applicable.
am i wrong? if so, how?
please dispense with the attacks. if you think im wrong explain why. otherwise dont waste my time.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
Shitrock, I agree with most of your post except when you seem to define atheism as an acceptance of the claim "gods do not exist," which isn't necessarily true. Some, perhaps most, atheists—such as myself—are simply without theistic belief.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
*shrug*
Not my place to say, strong atheism isn't my position, but I think there might be one or two here that may give you their point of view on what evidence there may be for no god whatsoever.
i believe what i believe based on my observation of life, the universe, and everything. however, i dont know everything so i dont rule out the possibility that i am wrong.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
i understand. but you DO believe in a certain set of viewpoints on the subject. do you not?
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
A belief is an assertion of knowledge, as you seem to understand with your example statements of "I believe that the sun is a star" and "I believe god exists". Those assertions are making an claim on how the universe works or is; saying "I believe X" is like saying "X is true". People who make these knowledge claims are burdened with supporting them, since they are trying to describe what they claim is real. With me so far?
Saying "I do not believe the sun is up" is stating a lack of belief in the sun being up; this is not the same as saying "I believe the sun is not up", however, and that's where people get confused. A lack of something is not the same as the opposite of something, so a lack of belief in a claim is not the same as a belief against that claim.
You can believe something is true ("god exists" ), or false ("god does not exist" ), or not have a position on it ("don't know if god exists" ). The focus is on the statement of knowledge.
So, you can believe something with or without evidence, or you can disbelieve with or without evidence. Most of the atheists here are (I think) agnostic atheists, meaning they don't have evidence of any god, and therefore do not believe; this is the "I don't believe that god exists" side. I can think of one person who claims to have knowledge that a god does not exist, making him a gnostic atheist ("I believe that god does not exist" ).
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
I post that cat picture in response to things that have been dealt with here numerous times.
Basically there is also an equal ammount of evidence for and against a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Saturn. When there is no evidence either way it is logical to not believe something exists.
As to the Christian god - there is evidence against - as omnipotence and omniscience are broken concpets.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
Because of that word you used... "System."
System: an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
Question: Do you believe there is a god?
Answer: No.
Done.
No system.
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
Yes. I believe there is insufficient evidence to justify accepting theism, that many concepts of a deity (the causer of causality) are incoherent and contradictory and therefore explicitly reject those particular conceptions, the current diversity of life emerged through evolutionary processes occurring over a large timespan and therefore young earth creationism is false, etc. Your question seems to have been intended to make a point but I cannot fathom what it's supposed to be.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
the only difference between these statements is the syntax.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
first, you assume that god cannot have been the driving force for evolutionary processes over a large timespan. i dont believe in the young earth creationism idea either.
second, my point is that those beliefs that you have cannot be scientifically investigated or observed. so it is a faith.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
so sorry. your simple belief that god does not exist is just that. a belief. a faith.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
No need to apologize. Perhaps I've jumped the gun.
Before we continue, I will be happy to concede that you might be correct within your own definition. Since you and I have not agreed upon a definition of faith, I'd like you to give me a precise definition. If we are using the word differently, there's no point in discussing this. So you tell me. What is faith?
Credulity is much easier to sustain when we've been taught that facts are things to be memorized and repeated, rather than sought out and discovered.
-- Me
faith is having a certain set of beliefs even though those beliefs may not have been proven right.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
Matt Dillahunty says:
I lack a belief in God based on evidence so what do you do? instead of providing the explaination, you simply claim "well you believe in no God based on no evidence so hahaha we're equally as stupid" No we're not! One is a faith based position, the other is a rejection of a faith based position
Velocity Eleven
They are. Ultimately, all you can trust is that in some form, you exist. This surpasses belief, however, as a fundamental truth, without which, all knowledge is impossible. However, beyond that fundamental truth, nothing can be believed, only accepted as apparent, and interacted with as if true (and only that because there is no option: you cannot interact with anything other than the universe you perceive as real).
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
You assume I assume, and you're wrong in that assumption.
A causer of causality is contradictory, therefore false. YEC and the ERV phenomenon are contradictory; thus, one is false and one is not; the ERV phenomenon is true; therefore, YEC is false. I have not come across sufficient evidence to justify accepting theism; therefore, there's insufficient evidence for me to justify accepting theism. These beliefs—the ones I listed earlier and to which you responded by saying they're based in faith—are deductively true, no faith required.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
My opinion is that not all theists hold the same beliefs even within certain denominations. For example, not all catholics are pro-life not all muslims wanna kill infidels. Belief systems tend to be a hodge podge of what we know and what we assume to be true. If someone says to me that god created everything in 6 days, lead the israelites out of Egypt, gave the law to Moses and came to Earth as a man to bridge the gap for man to be saved that is a set of beliefs. As an atheist I just deny these beliefs as I do any other god myths. Being a skeptic is not based on a set of dogmatic beliefs.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Okay, and your position is that there is a god (or gods), and you have not been proven right. My position would be that you're basing such beliefs on a tradition that you grew up with or were introduced to.
Saying there are no real leprechans before you're introduced to a two-foot-tall Irish gremlin is just being reasonable. There's no reason to believe that leprechans exist at all.
Truthfully, it's not even about a god. It's you I don't believe. When you say, "God exists!" I'd say, "produce what you're talking about or it doesn't exist." I think that's fair.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Sweet. Then, by your definition, my worldview isn't founded on faith at all. The scientific method has been repeatedly shown to be a reliable way of studying the world around us, evolution, natural selection and astronomy being some of the products of such scientific study.
This stands is stark contrast to your worldview, which has no evidence to support itself whatsoever.
You're gonna wake-up in a smoothie, Mutha' Ucker.
Whereas the evidence that Kevin is awesome is abundant.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is the state of lacking belief in a god. A lack of belief in God does not provide you with a metaphysics. A lack of belief in God does not provide you with an epistemology. A lack of belief in God does not provide you with an ethical system. A lack of belief in God certainly does not provide you with political beliefs. Atheism fits not one of the requisites for being called a worldview or belief system.
INDIVIDUAL ATHEISTS do have worldviews. There are Buddhist atheists, Objectivist atheists, Marxist atheists, and so on and so forth. But do not assume that the beliefs of any individual atheist constitute tenets that one must hold to be an atheist. Atheists do not have to believe in evolution (for example) to be atheists. Heck, atheists don't even have to believe in gravity to be atheists! Again, atheism only refers to the state of lacking belief in a god.
sapere cupe
Ok. As I suspected, we have different definitions of faith. Allow me to explain why your definition is insufficient.
As you are supposed to have read, logic is divided into two types: deduction and induction. Deduction moves from given statements to necessary conclusions. Induction is the process of making inferences (which are never 100% certain) about broad statements given specific individual statements.
Deduction:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
***
This formula is 100% certain if the premises are true. We say that this 'formula' is a valid deductive argument.
Induction:
All the cats that have ever been observed have brains.
Therefore: All cats have brains.
As you can see, the inductive argument is not necessarily true. However, it is very likely to be true, since we have observed millions of cats. Furthermore, inductive arguments, unlike deductive arguments, gain strength through accumulation. If I want to prove that all cats have brains within a reasonable doubt, the above argument may not be sufficient. However, I could add the following inductive arguments:
All observed creatures displaying intelligence have brains.
All observed cats have displayed intelligence.
Therefore: All cats have brains.
***
Now, I have strengthened my inductive case by adding another corroborating piece of evidence. In truth, if we compiled every single piece of scientific data giving strength to the argument that all cats have brains, we would have enough of an argument to fill a small library.
Here's a very important thing about induction. Sometimes an inductive argument is weak because there is conflicting evidence. For instance, there is a lot of inductive evidence that global warming is man made. On the other hand, there is some inductive evidence that global warming is part of a natural cycle, and has little or nothing to do with human activity. Because of this conflicting evidence, it is more difficult to say with near certainty that global warming is caused by humans. In cases like this, we have to weigh the evidence from each side and make a decision based on which side has more conclusive evidence.
Induction involves probability. We have a mathematical formula for dealing with probability. Since you haven't read the essays I suggested, I'll copy and paste from one of them:
As you can see, it is possible to determine with mathematic accuracy exactly how certain a given proposition is based on empirical data.
Now, here's the kicker. When there is no evidence for H (the hypothesis), guess what you get as a probability....
That's right. You don't get anything.