Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In another (now closed) thread, this subject was raised. I find these three concepts very interesting. In interests of full disclosure, I strongly identify as agnostic.

Atheism and theism are, I believe, different sides of the same coin, with each belief system requiring a leap of faith in the face of a total lack of evidence to arrive at such a firm conviction.

Please share your thoughts, and keep Rule #1 in mind.

Atheism can have any number of logics behind it, but one of the most obvious is that an absence of evidence is itself evidence of absence. If there is no evidence that something exists, then it does not exist. This can come with caveats like the "there is no evidence yet therefore it does not exist as far as we know" but this is a completely different coin from a personal belief in something based in personal experiences or understanding. Atheism can be based in scientific reasoning, while most theism exists completely outside of it. That's getting into a debate about falsifiability more than anything, and that's just a giant black hole from which nothing comes back out.

I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.

I'd probably count as agnostic. The statement "God does not exist", to me, is meaningless, since there is no way of proving it. Equally, "God does exist" has no way of proving it. The end result I end up getting to answer the question "Does God exist?" is "Error: additional data required" ad infinitum.

I just don't believe.
Zero faith. Zero feths given.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd probably count as agnostic. The statement "God does not exist", to me, is meaningless, since there is no way of proving it. Equally, "God does exist" has no way of proving it. The end result I end up getting to answer the question "Does God exist?" is "Error: additional data required" ad infinitum.

Yeah, that's where I'm at. It feels like the question is "X plus X equals infinity. Find X"

Edit: Or, to paraphrase a half- remembered quote from school, it's like looking in the dark for a black dog without a flashlight. The Theist will say "there definitely is a dog" The Atheist will say "there definitely is no dog" and the Agnostic will say "until you give me a flashlight, I cannot say."

And what about Humanism?

 feeder wrote:
I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.

An absence of evidence is not zero evidence. I know the maxim "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has become quite popular, but it tends to be abused as though it were evidence itself.




An absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (this is abused almost as much as its contrary above, however it remains true nonetheless). EDIT: As far as evidence goes, it's pretty weak evidence on its own, but functionally if you test for something 500 times 500 different ways, and you still have no evidence to support its existence, it is safe to say it does not exist. Again, that just turns back to questions of falsifiability because I'm unaware of a test for God the divine, but that's still kind of beside the point.

Atheism does not require faith or anything approximating it. It can be reached as a scientific conclusion.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
And what about Humanism?

Ten seconds of googling tells me I am an agnostic humanist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.

An absence of evidence is not zero evidence. I know the maxim "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has become quite popular, but it tends to be abused as though it were evidence itself.



An absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence (this is abused almost as much as its contrary above, however it remains true nonetheless).

You don't think that if there was an all powerful deity, it would be trivial for it to conceal the evidence of it's existence?

I think that absence of evidence swings both ways, personally.

 feeder wrote:
You don't think that if there was an all powerful deity, it would be trivial for it to conceal the evidence of it's existence?

If god is all powerful, can he make a taco too hot for him to eat?

Both questions are pointless to ask, and have absolutely no bearing on whether one believes in the divine or doesn't. Religion is funny that way. It does not posit evidence at all. It needs no evidence. That's why it's faith. Atheism is fundamentally different. It can be reached using evidence.

 LordofHats wrote:

 feeder wrote:
You don't think that if there was an all powerful deity, it would be trivial for it to conceal the evidence of it's existence?

If god is all powerful, can he make a taco too hot for him to eat?

I thought it was microwave a burrito

Both questions are pointless to ask, and have absolutely no bearing on whether one believes in the divine or doesn't. Religion is funny that way. It does not posit evidence at all. It needs no evidence. That's why it's faith. Atheism is fundamentally different. It can be reached using evidence.

Only if you accept that no evidence is proof of no existence. It's circular logic that itself requires faith to accept.

 feeder wrote:

I thought it was microwave a burrito

There's a bunch of versions of the questions. A boulder too heavy to lift, A burrito/taco/whatever too hot to eat. etc. All are basically calling to a contradiction of the concept of being all powerful and they are rather pointless questions because they're completely beside the point.

Only if you accept that no evidence is proof of no existence. It's circular logic that itself requires faith to accept.

So you believe in dragons, mermaids, and jackalopes as well then? A common thought experiment is if I have a picture of Africa with no elephants in it, can I argue that elephants do not live in Africa? Yes I could argue that. The picture is evidence, but we all know that someone could easily disprove the argument by producing a picture of an elephant in Africa. On the other hand, with the same picture I could argue that there are no dragons in Africa. Until someone produces a picture of a dragon in Africa, this proposition can be held as possible, but not necessarily true because it is still possible a dragon might be in Africa somewhere. If no pictures of a dragon in Africa materialize after multiple attempts to obtain one and numerous tests trying to prove dragons do live in Africa, then is it still possible dragons live in Africa? Scientifically, we'd eventually conclude that dragons in fact do not live in Africa. If they did, we'd have found one by now. Where exactly can a giant fire breathing reptile capable of flight with a lust for gold and dwarf flesh possibly still be hiding at this point in time? Science would move on and stop wasting its time, because the continued absence of evidence has built up sufficiently for the evidence of absence to be sound.

God can be regarded as similar from the perspective of science. There is no faith involved (especially when science can produces models of creation and the universe that don't require a God to exist). Religion can always move its goal post of course. Any model of the universe existing with no need for a creator is just god working in mysterious ways or intelligent design or what have you. That's because religion doesn't rely on evidence, it relies on personal perspective.

The question then becomes where to draw the line, which is subjective and thus not actually science at all.

I believe something or somethings created the universe we live in. I do not believe that said thing or things are actively monitoring our world and require our love/devotion. I do not believe said thing or things are dropping pillars of salt on people or flooding the world.

It is possible said thing or things do not even exist anymore or just have better things to do than make sure we are doing exactly what they want us to do.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The question then becomes where to draw the line, which is subjective and thus not actually science at all.

How many different proofs that 2 + 2 = 4 are needed disprove 2 + 2 = 5?

There's nothing subjective about evidence. Evidence exists independent of our own perspective (that's why it's evidence). What evidence means, especially a set of evidence, does involve a degree of subjectivity but not really about whether or not the evidence exists but how strongly it supports a given conclusion. That's besides the point here. How strongly an given absence of evidence supports a proposed evidence of absence has no bearing on the reality that one can use it to support a position of atheism and that that conclusion would be scientific and devoid of any faith based reasoning. EDIT: In this sense, the difference between agnosticism and atheism has nothing to do with anything faith related, but how significant one considers the lack of evidence for anything divine.

I subscribe to basic empiricism. If I have not directly experienced it, I maintain that things may not be as I think them to be. And even if I have, I am open to the possibility of having been fooled.

For example, I am told the moon is made of a rock orbiting the Earth. Not having been there, and not being large enough to reach out and pick it up, I accept that this is the most likely case. But I don't /believe it to be the case. If it turned out I lived in a matrix world where the moon was imaginary, it would be mildly shocking, but I'm not completely wedded to the concept of the moon to the point where it would destroy my concept of reality.

Openmindedness is the key to mental flexibility. Take the world as it appears, but accept everything you know may be wrong, and just because something happened yesterday, it might not be the case tomorrow. Every generation believes they have the right of it, but who utilises phlogiston now?

I do not believe in a higher being. I believe that we are creatures of chance.

Throw enough poop (planets) at a wall (the universe) and eventually some will stick (life.)

Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.

And I think you're starting from a flawed premise here. The short and simple definition of atheism may be "there is no god", but the reason for saying that is "because the burden of proof lies on the side claiming that there is a god, and they haven't even come close to meeting it". Obviously we don't know absolutely for sure beyond any conceivable doubt, but at some point you just a round 0.000000000000000000001% chance to zero. We do it when it comes to every single other thing in our lives besides religion, so why should religion be any different?

Why would God hide His existence so thoroughly as to leave a lack of evidence...and then a couple times give us books and miracles that are supposed to be convincing? Just from a suspension of disbelief POV, most gods don't make sense.

 feeder wrote:
In another (now closed) thread, this subject was raised.

Well this subject has come up and gotten locked about every other month since OT was created so you'll have to be more specific.

Technically speaking, "there is no God" needs proof just like "there is a God." All claims require evidence. The difference the thread started missing is that one can produce evidence that there is no God in multiple ways, while evidence for God is fundamentally unobtainable short of God himself popping into the lab and saying "hello I'm God" and even then, you have to deal with the the whole being alpha and omega thing, which is just a long series of paradoxes as far as science is concerned.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Why would God hide His existence so thoroughly as to leave a lack of evidence...and then a couple times give us books and miracles that are supposed to be convincing? Just from a suspension of disbelief POV, most gods don't make sense.

I suppose if you are an all powerful deity you need something to do to pass the time.

Most atheists do not disbelieve in God as an act of faith, they do so because of lack of evidence. They don't go as far as to say God is an outright impossibility, just that no evidence means a position of disbelief is most logical. Even Richard Dawkins says this, as if evidence were to come along proving the existence of God, he would revise his opinion. It's simply nonsensical to say that if there's no evidence of something, then claiming that it exists is as logically valid as claiming it's not. You could equally argue that a species of purple elephants live on Pluto, because we've no real evidence to the contrary.

This is what saying 'atheism and theism are opposite sides of the same coin' suggests, but it's stating that both sides have equally logical basis for argument, they do not. It's a false equivalence. If you had a box you knew a mystery dog was inside that neither person had see, but that one person believed it would be white and the other person believed brown, then they are equally valid guesses, same logical substance to their belief or faith, same level of evidence. Brown and White believers have no evidence but are opposite sides of the same coin, so to speak.

If you had a mystery box of unknown content and one person said that as there was no evidence of any contents, they didn't believe it contained anything, while the other claimed they believed it contained a unicorn - well are those positions both valid? No, because one is based on a balance of available evidence or lack thereof, while the other has no basis in fact at all and no basis for creating complex arguments for its contents. Better still, with evidence being demanded the box is then weighed, and found to be very light. The person saying it was empty still has no evidence of any contents, so argues that with a furthering lack of evidence to the contrary, it's likely empty so they continue to believe it empty. The other person revises and complicates their opinion - it's actually a floating unicorn and thus the experiment did nothing to disprove it.

This is what arguing about God using scientific evidence is like, a waste of time because any lack of evidence is excused, and somehow atheists are told their position of not believing in stuff that doesn't have a credible basis or any supporting evidence, requires an equal basis in faith as believing in complex explanations of the supernatural. Rubbish.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Why would God hide His existence so thoroughly as to leave a lack of evidence...and then a couple times give us books and miracles that are supposed to be convincing? Just from a suspension of disbelief POV, most gods don't make sense.

Because if you help people they get lazy. 'God helps those who help themselves'.

 LordofHats wrote:
Technically speaking, "there is no God" needs proof just like "there is a God." All claims require evidence. The difference the thread started missing is that one can produce evidence that there is no God in multiple ways, while evidence for God is fundamentally unobtainable short of God himself popping into the lab and saying "hello I'm God" and even then, you have to deal with the the whole being alpha and omega thing, which is just a long series of paradoxes as far as science is concerned.

The claim against the existence of any god in particular is the same as the claim against any particular mythological creature. "There is no Loch Ness Monster because there is no evidence of a Loch Ness Monster" tends to be more compelling for the average person, yet there has been a lot more success debunking all of the 'evidence' that the J-C God exists.

Besides, any believer in a particular faith not only believes in their own God, but also 'believes' in "there is no God" for every other religion's Gods. Or rather, they are perfectly willing to accept the evidence of lack for every other God.

That just goes back to one of my earlier points; evidence has no bearing on faith. That's why I hate this illogical argument that theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin. Howard Treesong posits some good reasons for why this is a bad argument. I'd add another; the whole point of having faith is that you have no evidence (or even evidence to the contrary). That's not the opposite of science. It's completely outside of science.

Claiming that atheism and theism are both alike and therefor agnosticism is the only reasonable position is the sort of thing that insufferably smug no-nothings say. Agnosticism is not a reasonable position. It's a very unreasonable position. We don't live our lives walking around from moment to moment asking for proof of every little thing.
Our day to day lives depend upon evidence and precidence. Where there is a lack of empirical evidence we fill in the blanks by making unconcious assessments based on experience and knowledge. Saying "it's impossible to know, therefore we shouldn't make any decisions" is a philosophical and intellectual dead end. Completely devoid if intellect and contribution. It doesn't make anybody superior if they suggest that atheism and theism are the same therefor agnosticism is the only reasonable position. It doesn't make you look more intelligent or reasonable to be an agnostic. All it means is that you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously when difficult questions are asked.

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument requires some very heavy mental gymnastics to be accepted as a true statement. If you say to me that I cant prove that unicorns dont exist, you are not wrong, I cant definitely say that unicorns dont exist, but that dosent make the claim that unicorns exist any more true.

Im not trying to attack people's religious beliefs here, I just hate it when people try to use mental gymnastics like this to prove their point, for example one of my exes was convinced that I cheated on her but since she had no evidence she told me to prove that I never did.

 Peregrine wrote:
Atheism is a religion in the same way that "bald" is a hair color.

And I think you're starting from a flawed premise here. The short and simple definition of atheism may be "there is no god", but the reason for saying that is "because the burden of proof lies on the side claiming that there is a god, and they haven't even come close to meeting it". Obviously we don't know absolutely for sure beyond any conceivable doubt, but at some point you just a round 0.000000000000000000001% chance to zero. We do it when it comes to every single other thing in our lives besides religion, so why should religion be any different?

This basically. I can't say for sure that there is no god, but there are about fifteen light years of occam's razor between religion and atheism. As such, the logical thing to go with seems to be the latter, no?

If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?

Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.