Attention Atheists: Validity Issues

[mr.guy]

They have faith that no form of God exists.

Then this could be said of anyone purporting to know anything. A confident dismissal is not a proclamation of faith.

 

[Halcyon]

Then this could be said of anyone purporting to know anything. A confident dismissal is not a proclamation of faith.

Quite.
However, weak atheists give a confident dismissal. Strong atheists assert that there is no possibility for God's existance. That is faith.

 

[Opethian]

However, weak atheists give a confident dismissal. Strong atheists assert that there is no possibility for God's existance. That is faith.

So what am I now? I think that there is a 0.000...1% chance for the existence of god (and the ... stand for a whole lot of zeros ), but in my view of reality, I dismiss this tiny percentage and live my life from the perspective that I am absolutely sure that no god exists. I know that I am not entirely, completely sure of this, because such a thing is impossible without irrefutable proof, but I find the amount of evidence I have come across and the results from my philosophising and debating about any divine or supernatural entities sufficient to dismiss the tiny percentage of uncertainty and act like I'm sure. Maybe this uncertainty is equal to the Heisenberg uncertainty of the kinetic energy of a few molecules in a certain pathway in my brains .

So, am I now a strong or weak atheist, or something else? If you need more information to make this decision, I can lift 130 kgs of weights at the gym .

 

[Halcyon]

So what am I now? I think that there is a 0.000...1% chance for the existence of god (and the ... stand for a whole lot of zeros ), but in my view of reality, I dismiss this tiny percentage and live my life from the perspective that I am absolutely sure that no god exists. I know that I am not entirely, completely sure of this, because such a thing is impossible without irrefutable proof, but I find the amount of evidence I have come across and the results from my philosophising and debating about any divine or supernatural entities sufficient to dismiss the tiny percentage of uncertainty and act like I'm sure. Maybe this uncertainty is equal to the Heisenberg uncertainty of the kinetic energy of a few molecules in a certain pathway in my brains .

Its quite simple to determine what you are, a simple experiment will tell you.

If you are in conversation with a theist and you say "There is no God, there is no evidence for one."
And they say "So, there's not the slightest chance that God exists?"
And you say "No, not the slightest chance."
They say "Prove it."
You look confused for a minute, then fall back on the old "The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you."

Then you know you are a strong atheist.

The last statement about burden of proof is, obviously, entirely incorrect. Both parties hold beliefs that can neither be proven nor disproven.

So, am I now a strong or weak atheist, or something else? If you need more information to make this decision, I can lift 130 kgs of weights at the gym .

Lol, i'm glad this is an online debate :run:

 

[mr.guy]

Quite.
However, weak atheists give a confident dismissal. Strong atheists assert that there is no possibility for God's existance. That is faith.

Not Quite.
I should now suppose anyone infringing upon what is "possible" will now be uttering faith professions.
The percentile one proposes/asserts on probability is not a measure of faith.

 

[Halcyon]

Not Quite.
I should now suppose anyone infringing upon what is "possible" will now be uttering faith professions.
The percentile one proposes/asserts on probability is not a measure of faith.

*sigh*

If you believe in the existance of God even without any evidence backing it up, that is faith, don't you agree?

This same is true for the reverse. If you believe 100% that God does not exist, without any evidence backing that belief up, it is faith.

Faith = believing in something without cooborating evidence.

 

[mr.guy]

This same is true for the reverse. If you believe 100% that God does not exist, without any evidence backing that belief up, it is faith.

Wrong. This is "tit-for-tat" logic by which atheists are only defined by the specified ontology they don't believe in; you're definition should label "faith" as any assertion where evidence can be doubted. An ultimate reciprocal argument like this should reduce everything to faith and absurdity. Good job.

 

[Defij]

I've said this in another thread, but I think it is valid here as well. This whole argument about "prove to me that God is real or prove that God does not exist" is absurd. Proof is not what historians (which is what we are when we deal with religious texts and such) deal with. We as historians only work with what is plausible and what is not plausible. But since nobody was around to actually see and record, i.e. the scientific method, what has happened in the past, we can't "prove" anything! I can not "prove" to you that George Washington existed! Of course, it is with a very high degree of plausibility that I would suggest he existed, but did he "never tell a lie"? Not very plausible.

And now, if you are discussing the existence of God or gods if you will, then you are on an even higher realm of what is plausible and what is not plausible. That is more philosophical, so it makes it "proof" even less applicable.

Just keep this in mind when debating this issue. Atheists, you will not nor can not, nor should you even expect to, get "proof" of anything pertaining to God. And believers, you will not, nor can not, nor should you even expect to, get any "proof" pertaining to the non-existence of God.

But don’t let me stop you from having fun trying! Go around and around with your circular reasoning all you like! Just make sure you don’t go swimming until 15 minutes after finishing an argument or you will get a cramp in the pool!

 

[Sunstone]

Wrong. This is "tit-for-tat" logic by which atheists are only defined by the specified ontology they don't believe in; you're definition should label "faith" as any assertion where evidence can be doubted. An ultimate reciprocal argument like this should reduce everything to faith and absurdity. Good job.

Good point, Mr. Guy. The argument would reduce a lack of belief in pixie dust to faith that pixie dust doesn't exist. That seems problematical.

 

[Halcyon]

Wrong. This is "tit-for-tat" logic by which atheists are only defined by the specified ontology they don't believe in; you're definition should label "faith" as any assertion where evidence can be doubted. An ultimate reciprocal argument like this should reduce everything to faith and absurdity. Good job.

Ok, wake up and read what i am actually saying.

I'm not saying that not having a belief in God is faith.

I'm saying that asserting that God does not exist (which is the same as 100% belief that there is no God, as 100% belief leaves no room for doubt) is faith because there is no evidence backing up your conviction.

Atheism when seen as a lack of belief in God is one thing, it doesn't deny God as a small possibility, it just says the individual has no reason to believe in ones existance.
But this is not the atheism in question. The atheism in question is strong atheism which positively asserts that there is no God. They are very different things.

 

[Halcyon]

Good point, Mr. Guy. The argument would reduce a lack of belief in pixie dust to faith that pixie dust doesn't exist. That seems problematical.

Argh, Uncle Sunstone! That's not even what i'm saying.

Surely you recognise the difference between a lack of belief in pixie dust and the complete denial of the slightest possibility of the existance of pixie dust?

 

[mr.guy]

Ok, wake up and read what i am actually saying.

The scary thing is, i know exactly what you're saying.

I'm saying that asserting that God does not exist (which is the same as 100% belief that there is no God, as 100% belief leaves no room for doubt) is faith because there is no evidence backing up your conviction.

Quibbling. Sorry, that's what it is.

The atheism in question is strong atheism which positively asserts that there is no God. They are very different things.

Now i'm starting to feel foolish regarding my negative stance regarding the positive assertions of unicorns. Guess you really woke me up.

 

[Halcyon]

The scary thing is, i know exactly what you're saying.

Quibbling. Sorry, that's what it is.

Now i'm starting to feel foolish regarding my negative stance regarding the positive assertions of unicorns. Guess you really woke me up.

Your faith is obviously very strong, so strong you have been blinded by your own dogma.
There is obviously no point in trying to get you to listen to reason.

Hopefully one day you will re-read what i have actually written, rather than replying to posts you have made up in your head.

 

[mr.guy]

Your faith is obviously very strong, so strong you have been blinded by your own dogma.

"Blinded by your own dogma". I wonder how i can tie this into the masturbation thread?

 

[Mathematician]

No one is 100% certain about anything. Some of just like to make that claim. We might come close, but there's always that second of doubt in our lives.

I wouldn't refer to strong atheists being only those of us who assert we're 100% sure, either. I don't consider a "strong theist" to only be those who assert they're 100% positive.

 

[mr.guy]

No one is 100% certain about anything. Some of just like to make that claim. We might come close, but there's always that second of doubt in our lives.

I agree. I don't know how ontological stances would define themselves if quantifiable doubt was the most insermountable "logic-trap".
One would assume any and all attempts to thusly and therein be futile.

 

[ikitikitembo]

You set up a silly strawman and then pummel it with the ostentatious pretense and certainty reminiscent of a Jr. High School debating class...Learn the difference between ontology and epistemology.

Not really, I'm simply trying to express what I believe is truth. All you're doing is commenting on how I write. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It has nothing to do with truth, even if it was ostentatious pretense.

What pompous and puerile nonsense! Note the counterposition of the terms 'faith' and 'claim'.

Sir, could you actually explain you're argument here. I have a feeling what it means but I don't want to make any assumptions, I'd rather here it from you. You're simply making comments but not putting forth any arguments.

I'm sure you have much more experience on this than I do, which is why it would be cool if you could actually post your argument, instead of mere commentation. I'm sure you have a logical position and I would like to here it. Looking forward to hearing from you!

 

[St0ne]

The same logic could be applied to all theistic religions ikititembo not just atheism which means we are all agnostic which just aint gonna work, in fact I'm going to remove agnostic from my profile because I'm as much agnostic as I am Atheist and Buddhist.

 

[ikitikitembo]

The fact that there is no evidence for a god, along with the fact that god originated as an imagination of the human mind (since it was used to explain things like fire and thunder, phenomena that are now perfectly explainable by science with no need for divine intervention ), along with the progress of science and the decline of things that cannot be explained by science, along with numerous other reasons (concerning things like "free will", "good" and "evil" etc...), leads me to be sure that there is no god. How sure am I? 99,999...%. Not 100%, because only irrefutable proof can cause me to be 100% sure, but on my life the 99,999...% has the exact same effect as 100%. I simply see no need at all to count the possibility of the 0,000...1% being true. Because in that case I might as well start revering the pink unicorn or imaginary dwarves around me. That's why I can say that I am a strong atheist, and am completely sure that there is no god, because the uncompleteness of my sureness is simply to small to be taken into account. You don't need irrefutable proof to know something for sure.

So someone who is 99,999...% sure there is no god, and chooses to dismiss the 0,000...1% in his view of the world, is a weak atheist?

Well, I still see myself as a strong atheist, although I don't like to say that I am 100% sure that there is no god, because such a thing is impossible. I'd rather say that I am 99,999...% sure and that I round it off to 100% .

Response: Alright, all this has to do with the definition of a strong atheist. This aspect of the argument has reached a point. In response to you're comment "You don't need irrefutable proof to know something for sure" Here's something I know for a fact: Yes, you do need irrefutable proof to know something for sure, that is 100%. I think that having 99.999...% surety isn't even to know for sure, because it's not 100%. That's where we differ. The point I'm trying to make here is that people with 99.999...% surety are still not completely sure. They may be more sure than the weak atheist, but my poin is: Why put athiesm into two subdivisions?: "More sure", and "less sure". I think that people who are "more sure" and "less sure" should be under the same category: Unsure. All I'm saying is, everyone "unsure" should call themselves either atheists or agnostics. It prevents a lot of confusion. So when someone asks them: What is your faith?, the more sure person will say: "Well, I'm an atheist/agnostic, but I'm pretty damn sure (or 99.999...%) there is no God. What will the weak one say? He could say: "Well, I'm pretty damn sure there is a God (99.999...%)" or "I'm sort of in the middle, there are reasons for both sides", or "I'm pretty sure (without the "damn" or maybe 70% sure) there is no God. See what I'm getting at?. Once you deal with "more sure" and "less sure", theres just too many possibilities. I'm just saying we should do away with trivial specifics when it comes to titling, and just make it one label. If you still disagree, as far as this point goes, I think we should just walk away and except our differences.

Why would we need knowledge of things outside of our own universe, if this universe is all that affects us? It is the only thing that defines our reality, and thus only it is part of our reality. If after discovering all the knowledge of our own universe, it would not be sufficient to explain its existence, then it would be another matter. But from what I've learned so far, the chances of this occuring would be rather small.

Argument: :no: It's not about whether we need the knowledge or not. That's not the issue. It's whether the knowledge exists at all. And of course it would be another matter, we would just have to except that we will never be able to find the answer (if there is one). Once again: it doesn't rule out the possibility.

That remains to be seen.

Argument: :no: It "doesn't remain to be seen" Science describes what the truth is about how the universe works...correct? The universe, that's it. It stops there. Unless of course there was a universe outside our own with the same laws, science could explain that, but even then, we have no way of knowing what a place outside would be like because all we can experience is what's within the universe. I think it's a legitimate conclusion that science doesn't go on forever, to explain everything. Sure, it can explain everything within our universe, but that doesnt't include what's outside it as well. Science will come to a stopping point (if we live that long). Period. We don't live in a universe with an infinite amount of laws. And even if we did, we would be infinitely discovering the laws within our universe, not anything outside of it. Once again, the fact that science will not close the gap does not "remain to be seen". And even...even if it was "remain to be seen", you could say the same thing for what you said earlier, which was you're surety that the gap will close. Well, that would "remain to be seen" as well.

Well the problem is, all human experiences are interpreted by the humans that experience them, so I have very little doubt that all "divine interventions" are misinterpretations by humans of unusual processes going on in their body, possibly intensified or even started by religious thinking in their (sub)consciousness.

You can't prove it this way either, because what some believers describe as communication with god is very likely to have a normal non-supernatural psychological and biochemical explanation. It's always been like this: people claim to witness supernatural events, until the point where a serious scientific experiment is held and provides a natural explanation. The opposite doesn't happen, so what can that make us conclude?

You can't prove god individually either, because personal bias in the subconscious can make you believe things that are not true, and interpret certain things as something entirely different as what they actually are. And no again, I don't know that it can't happen, but I just dismiss that tiny possibility from my mind because it serves me no use at all in experiencing reality.

Response::yes: Ok, here's where the turning point in this argument is. I now realize what your saying about the fact of proving whether God exists. Even if I saw some sort of giant figure in the sky yelling to me he is God, I would'nt know for sure that he is one. I could be 99.999...% sure, but not completely because I wouldn't have proof it wasn't just me hallucinating or some irregular jolts of electrical pulses in my brain. On that note, I can make only one conclusion: Every human being is an agnostic. Therefore, therefore I believe there should be three types of agnosticism: The Atheist-Agnostic: he who is believes there is no God, and doesn't know for sure (.000000001). The Agnostic: he who doesn't lean toward either side but is sort of in the middle, thinking it equally possible for both. and The Agnostic-Theist: he who believes there is a God, and doesn't know for sure (.000000001%) For the Agnostic-Thiest, I think that "thiest" should be replaced by their specific belief like: the Agnostic-Christian, or the Agnostic-Muslum, or the Agnostic-Buddhist. You would think that the "Agnostic" part of those titles would cancel out, since it could be assumed that they're agnostics, and just be called by their specific belief. But I'm not so sure if people assume this around the world. So, I think that the titles should be changed in the beginning, then over years as people would realize that the fact is they don't know for sure, perhaps cancel out the agnostic title, because then it could be assumed (you have to admit, there are many people out there who claim they know there is a God, and less, but some, who claim they know a God doesn't exist). I do realize that this probably won't work, that it's practically impossible to implement this sort of change. So in conclusion, this is just what I believe and it's just what's in my semantical fantasy. I thank you very much, Opethian, for giving me this new insight, and I look forward to debating on other religous topics.


I apologize about the lengthy posts, yet I must say when I respond, I'm not thinking at all about length, just what I have to say. So there is absolutley nothing I can do about it.

 

[ikitikitembo]

The same logic could be applied to all theistic religions ikititembo not just atheism which means we are all agnostic which just aint gonna work, in fact I'm going to remove agnostic from my profile because I'm as much agnostic as I am Atheist and Buddhist.

Alright, after debating with Opethian I have come realize that what you're saying is right. We are all agnostic. Now, could you explain to me what you mean when you say "which just aint gonna work"? Are you referring to the impossibility of re-configuring the labeling system? If you are, then I can say only one thing: Sure it would be very difficult to make such a change but the question is, do you still think that we are all agnostics? Difficulty in making the change doesn't alter the truth. In the early 1700's it would have been nearly impossible to change slavery. But that doesn't mean that the system wasn't wrong.