Let me be clear before I start my argument that I am an agnostic. I am not a religious person and I am not an atheist. I see no sufficient evidence to suggest that a God does exist or that a God doesn't exist. So lets begin. Now Atheists as individuals are people who make the claim that there is no God because there is no hard and sufficient evidence to prove the existence of such a being. The problem with this point of view is that it's a logical fallacy. Just because there is no hard evidence to suggest that there is a God with 100% certainty doesn't mean one doesn't exist it just means there no hard evidence for it. Another big problem I have with atheist's is that they criticize the religious for taking what someone else says and believing it out of blind faith, and yet they will take what scientists such as Stephen Hawking or Neil De Grass Tyson say and virtually take it as (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fact out of blind faith in the individuals scientific Knowledge. They could be wrong. I try to listen to both sides of the religious argument and try to analyze it and form my own opinion instead of what either side does which is just out right believe what they are told. I'm trying to say that I try to keep an open mind about things and I find atheists frustrating because, similarly to the religious, they don't.
No, atheism is de facto a denial of a positive assertion, it is incumbent upon the person asserting the existence of 'gods' to provide evidence for them, in the absence of evidence, I choose not to accept the assertion. Your argument is wrong. No, science is not synonymous with atheism. Science is a method for investigating the natural world that has proven successful, to deny this would be absurd, science is based upon justified belief NOT, faith. You clearly have not listened to atheists or you would not be repeating these kinds of theistic talking points. You want a discussion?
I make no claim, the very topic about God is terribly boring to me. I don't believe and that's that. That's all you need to know and I don't intend on arguing it because the argument is a dumb one. People will believe what they believe and so will I.
Two strawman fallacies. 1) You define atheists as "people who make the claim that there is no God because there is no hard and sufficient evidence to prove the existence of such a being". Some atheists may make such a gnostic claim. Others, not so much. Instead, they are simply skeptics. They say that they withhold belief in gods because of a lack of evidence. Or they reasonably insist that those claiming existence of gods provide evidence to support their claims. They make no gnostic claim themselves. Indeed, when questioned further, these folks will say that they would change their view should relevant empirical evidence be provided. As I am sure you are aware, there are subcatagories of atheist, i.e., strong atheist and weak atheist or gnostic atheist and agnostic atheist. Your attempt to paint all atheists as gnostic atheists is a strawman fallacy. 2) You claim all atheists "take what scientists such as Stephen Hawking or Neil De Grass Tyson say and virtually take it as (*)(*)(*)(*)ing fact out of blind faith". Just not in any way you can demonstrate. Some certainly do. Others, not so much. Some are quite ignorant of or take no interest in science. Others do understand the philosophy of science and, as critical thinkers, would never say a particular scientific theory is "absolutely" true with "100% certainty". Instead, they may say something like, "The [certain scientific theory - fill in the blank] is the best explanation of the available empirical evidence". Indeed, any valid scientific theory must be subject to falsification, and those well versed in science know this regdarless of whether they are atheists or not, Your attempt to paint all atheists as claiming science generates 100% certainty based on blind faith is a strawman fallacy. Try again.
You started another thread - Why Atheists and the Religous (sic) are Both Wrong - and then pretty much skipped out. Why are you starting another similar thread? Are you going to stay with this one or skip out again?
I'll repeat what I said in another thread: Atheism = "I don't believe you" in response to "There is a God"
First we take the Judeo-Christian God. That's one. Then take that away because the physical evidence says otherwise, and we get zero. We don't need to account for other Gods or 'gods' because they have long been discredited. So then there were none.
Because if you're not going to answer questions and engage in debate, either thread is a waste of time. The vast majority of atheists are aware of the concerns you bring up, you're not providing any new information or arguments. The only thing that can make this worth the time is if you follow up and resolve the issues others will bring up in response. This is a discussion forum, not a megaphone meant to be fired and forgotten.
In one sense, it does not matter. No one cares what you "believe". It is obvious from your OP that your understanding of the topic you addressed is flawed, myopic and in need of further research and reflection on your part. Whether you take the time to educate yourself is all up to you. No one cares whether you do or don't. Your beliefs are not important. On the other had, it does matter because you have published infantile nonsense and it may be important to identify such nonsense (which has already been done in this thread by myself and other posters). Whether you participate in that discussion does not matter. Again, your beliefs, flawed as they are, are not important. So...participate or don't participate. It's your choice.
It matters because, if you are not going to stick around and reply to comments addressed to you, why should anyone address comments to you? If you don't want to partake in a thread, don't bother starting one. So, I'll ask again ... Are you going to stay with this one or skip out again?
The OP isn't quite right. Steven Hawking and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are not atheists. They claimed that while they do not personally believe in god, and that science has proven that a god would not have been needed to create the universe, since everything that created it is part of nature, they do not considered it impossible that some sort of divine being or even a hyperevolved being from a previous universe (think Dr. Manhattan from the Watchmen), created or manipulated nature to cause the current universe to be created. This was also the view of Carl Sagen, Tyson's mentor, who claimed that he considered fundamental atheists to be just as ignorant as their theist counterparts.
If any conclusive evidence of god was ever found, we'd both switch, and vica versa. So what's the point of getting frustrated?
One question; how do you know on what I base my views and knowledge about scientific matters? How do you know that I, being a clear part of the group which you find "frustrating", blindly trust anything anyone says?
I am not an atheist, I am a Gnostic Christian, but most atheists I know do not phrase it in the way you put. They usually take the safer view and say there likely is no God. That aside, I do not agree that there is no hard evidence that God does not exist. Fact, your honor, God, if real and wishing to be relevant to man, would show himself. The religious are always spouting off about being created in God's image. Humans who wish to be relevant to those around them do not stay away from them. This is proof positive to non-believers that the Gods on offer by the idol worshiping cults like Christianity and Islam are false Gods and do not exist. They would show themselves if they were real. Do you have any facts of God's reality to put against my one piece of evidence against the notion of a real God? Regards DL
I see that some of the people posting here are pretending that their atheism is a function of "lacking a belief in a god." Yeah...sure!!! Nearly as I can tell in my many years of discussions with them, atheists, almost to a person, use the descriptor "atheist" because they have an active "belief" or guess that no gods exist. Use of the word implies MUCH MORE than simply lacking a belief in a god. I lack a belief that any gods exist. I also lack a belief that no gods exist. I wonder how many of the people who claim to be atheists and who claim it is a function of "not believing in any gods"...can truthfully say both those things.
You need to get to know more atheists before you make generalizations about what views we take. Better yet, don't try to talk for atheists at all. One short sentence containing a triple negative. Does the above mean... I do agree that there is hard evidence that God does not exist. I do not agree that there is hard evidence that God does exist. I do not agree that there is no hard evidence that God does exist. It's strange that a Gnostic Christian, or any kind of Christian would say that. Uh, what?
Me, for one. I am an atheist. I don't believe in any gods - or anything supernatural for that matter.
Well, I, for one. And, really, no human being can speak for the beliefs of anyone but themselves, so this is what you're getting. But honestly, the bit about "lack a belief that no gods exists" is just pointless quibbling. You know what people mean when they say they are atheists, and you ascribe opinions to them which they have not voiced at all. How about discussing things with me in person, rather than arguing against some nebulous amorphous blob of people that you imagine all share identical views?
There is some kind of a force that the desert wanderers of old sensed -- they either saw it, heard it, or erroneously believed that they did, or falsely claimed that they did -- that made them return to the village and say "I've been told who we are and why we are here." Now, I'd like to say they were either madmen or were hallucinating in the heat, and more often than not I incline towards the latter. But ... an element of what they were "told" in the desert by God was to behave in a moral manner. They were also "told" of a hereafter to which they'd gain admittance upon behaving well. Was this too a lie? I am inclined to believe it was not, though the "hereafter" is pretty clearly not a pink cloud in the sky. Joseph Campbell asserted that "ascending" into heaven was a spiritual state (echoed in "The kingdom of God is within you"), not a place, and that Jesus did not mean otherwise. So I don't know. On good days I respect the wisdom of the ancients and accept that there is a moral order in the universe which I am happy to call "God." On bad days I think that the elders conjured up this code over centuries in an ad hoc fashion for the sole purpose of insuring the security and integrity of the tribe. But were they really that smart? And were they all that cynical and dishonest? Or did a divine voice whisper it in their ears? You tell me....
Right, but do you affirmatively assert that there was no primordial cause (which people call "God") or do you just mean that you haven't seen evidence of it and remain open to the argument?
So you can TRUTHFULLY say: I lack a belief that any gods exist...and I also lack a belief that no gods exist. If you truthfully can...that is unusual for a person using the descriptor "atheist." I'd appreciate you saying it...specifically. You did indicate a lack of belief that any gods exist...but you did not say you lack a belief that no gods exist. By the way...IF THERE IS A GOD...the god would not be "supernatural." Anything that exists IS NATURAL. So, if a god exists, it is a part of what IS...it is a part of nature. And it should be noted that humans, the dominant life form on this tiny planet...MAY NOT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE TOTAL COMPOSITION OF NATURE. Or as Shakespeare suggested, when he had Hamlet say to Horatio: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
If you can truthfully say it...say it...and we can discuss it. It is??? On what planet? Here on Earth...and in this context...it is very important. There are people, Elcarsh, who have a "belief" that a god exists. I am NOT one of them. I lack a "belief" that any gods exist. There also are people who have a "belief" that no gods exist. I am NOT one of them either. I lack a "belief" that no gods exist. You indicate you are in that same position. So...say it. I am here to discuss with anyone. What makes you think otherwise? Why not get off the high horse...and actually discuss whatever you want to discuss.
Again, it's pointless quibbling. The two are the same thing. Lacking belief in something and having belief that something doesn't exist? They are the same thing, the difference is the phrasing, and that doesn't matter. It would be a different thing if people claimed to know for certain that no gods exist. That would take evidence. But I've never actually heard a person take that stance in my whole life, so I don't think we need to worry about that one. The important part is that no evidence exists for any god or gods, and the reasonable view to take is one of not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Do you believe that Hitler was a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln? Of course not, so there's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't believe that.
The two are NOT the same thing. I repeat what I said before: There are people who "believe" (or guess)...that there is a god. I am NOT one of those people. I do not believe there is a god. There are people who "believe" (or guess)...that there are no gods. I am NOT one of those people either. I do not believe there are no gods. They are NOT the same thing...and it is an important distinction. I lack a "belief" (or a guess) in either direction. So...you earlier, in response to my comment: I lack a belief that any gods exist. I also lack a belief that no gods exist. I wonder how many of the people who claim to be atheists and who claim it is a function of "not believing in any gods"...can truthfully say both those things. You wrote: Did you mean that...or are you backing away from it? You've not been around much, then. I not only have heard MANY people say it (post it on the Internet)...I have actually heard people assert that the existence of gods is AN IMPOSSIBILITY. I can offer many examples of this here in this forum and in others, but I hope I do not have to. Okay, we agree on part of that. I do NOT "believe" in it. And I have said so...several times. But there also is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that gods do not exist...that this thing we humans call "the universe" is not a creation of some sort...so the reasonable view to take is: I do not know if gods exist or not. Name anything...and I can say I do not believe it. I simply do not do "believing." I may guess that something is not so; I may estimate it; I may conclude it...but if I do, I will identify what I am doing as guessing, estimating, or concluding. I certainly do not "believe" that Hitler was a reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.
