Religion

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.

**d-usa**

Troike wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Do Atheists think that a god could exist and that we just haven't seen any proof yet, or do they outright reject the possibility of a god and of ever finding any proof?

That's actually two different types of atheism you've described. Weak atheism (we haven't seen any compelling proof yet, so I shall live my life as if there is not god) and strong atheism (god cannot exist, the concept is irrational).

So, it depends on the atheist.

Would you consider weak atheism to be closer to being agnostic?

**thetallestgiraffe**

That's actually two different types of atheism you've described. Weak atheism (we haven't seen any compelling proof yet, so I shall live my life as if there is not god) and strong atheism (god cannot exist, the concept is irrational).

Strong atheists are fooling themselves. As smug as it would make me I can never prove there is no god.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, they aren't agnostic, as for practical reasons they are basically saying that there is no god.

**d-usa**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
That's actually two different types of atheism you've described. Weak atheism (we haven't seen any compelling proof yet, so I shall live my life as if there is not god) and strong atheism (god cannot exist, the concept is irrational).

Strong atheists are fooling themselves. As smug as it would make me I can never prove there is no god.

See, that's where my "atheists have faith" statement is coming from. That this particular group of people have taken the lack of evidence to date and determined that they have enough faith in that to determine that there will never be evidence of a god and that he couldn't possibly exist.

Although generalizing that all atheists have that strong of a "there could never be a god" position like that is wrong on my part.

**Troike**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
Strong atheists are fooling themselves. As smug as it would make me I can never prove there is no god.

They tend to rely more on pointing out logical problems and such in a god existing, I think. So they would consider such points to be valid proof against the existence of a god.

**thetallestgiraffe**

I understand your statement, but faith requires no reasoning at all. It is a belief that comes from nothing.
We have such strong evidence that there is no god, namely that there is no proof, that to state that there isn't one period can be done so quite safely without requiring faith to carry you the rest of the way.

They tend to rely more on pointing out logical problems and such in a god existing, I think. So they would consider such points to be valid proof against the existence of a god.

They would but proof against something's existence doesn't rule it out entirely.

As far as i'm concerned the only problem with the idea of a god is that there is no proof. There is no inbetween state for me, only that which can logically be assumed to exist and that which can be logially presumed not to exist.

**d-usa**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
I understand your statement, but faith requires no reasoning at all. It is a belief that comes from nothing.

That's where I think that the problem is also that for some people the definition of faith has changed over time. Instead of "belief that comes from nothing" if has also come to mean "trust", so you can trust that because you have not found evidence to date you will never find any.

Of course this goes into meanings and definitions of words and how people use those words that can end up just like the baldness argument, and I admit I would be on the opposite side in the case of "faith" regarding how people use that word vs the textbook definition.

**thetallestgiraffe**

But with all this being said, I'd probably be annoying ALOT of philosophers, such as Descartes, who got really angry with the philosophers arguing that we can't be certain of anything. "I think therefore I am." It kind of goes against everything I've been saying. It is an absolute. Because I know I think.

And hell, if I don't point out my own flaws then I'd be an even bigger hypocrite then I pride myself on being

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should really start reading more about philosophers past the mid 1600...

**d-usa**

This particular discussion turned out better than I though it would when we started...

**thetallestgiraffe**

And look, whenever people try and say that because you can't prove there is no god you should just go with it just remember russells's teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

It just shows how invalid that argument is.

**SilverMK2**

d-usa wrote:
Riquende wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist".

There is a massive problem with that, it totally misrepresents the Atheist position (which is simply rejecting a god claim).

And why to they reject a god claim?

You dont require a positive to have a negative - that is part of it.

**poda_t**

Riquende wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist".

There is a massive problem with that, it totally misrepresents the Atheist position (which is simply rejecting a god claim).

No, there is no problem with that, actually. The only problem I see s the distinction between faith and Faith. I think it's a little dirty and underhanded, but, essentially, entirely correct. It's a bit of wordplay, so I have t concede the point that words can be used in interesting ways, but then words are malleable things who'se definitions can change with time which gets us in this stick to begin with. Trust is a different matter entirely. One I'm too sleepy as of right now to engage in.

**PredaKhaine**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
And look, whenever people try and say that because you can't prove there is no god you should just go with it just remember russells's teapot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

It just shows how invalid that argument is.

You have no idea how much I'd love to work out a way of getting a teapot into space and have it orbit the earth

However, Scientists believe in dark matter - they cannot prove it exists, only hypothesize it's existence due to gravity interactions with its surroundings.
Russells teapot would also seem to argue against that as well as religion...

wikipedia wrote:

Dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for a large part of the mass that appears to be missing from the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of Dark Matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe and 26.8% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]

Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, many other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies by Vera Rubin,[6] in the 1960s–1970s, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and more recently the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a not yet characterized type of subatomic particle.[7][8] The search for this particle, by a variety of means, is one of the major efforts in particle physics today.[9]

Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, there is no generally agreed direct detection of it. Other theories, including MOND and TeVeS, are some alternative theories of gravity proposed to try to explain the anomalies for which dark matter is intended to account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

**d-usa**

poda_t wrote:
Riquende wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist".

There is a massive problem with that, it totally misrepresents the Atheist position (which is simply rejecting a god claim).

No, there is no problem with that, actually. The only problem I see s the distinction between faith and Faith.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with having "faith" and having "a faith".

I think it's a little dirty and underhanded, but, essentially, entirely correct.

I don't mean it in an underhanded way, and I'm sorry if it comes across like that.

**SilverMK2**

d-usa wrote:
thetallestgiraffe wrote:
That's actually two different types of atheism you've described. Weak atheism (we haven't seen any compelling proof yet, so I shall live my life as if there is not god) and strong atheism (god cannot exist, the concept is irrational).

Strong atheists are fooling themselves. As smug as it would make me I can never prove there is no god.

See, that's where my "atheists have faith" statement is coming from. That this particular group of people have taken the lack of evidence to date and determined that they have enough faith in that to determine that there will never be evidence of a god and that he couldn't possibly exist.

Although generalizing that all atheists have that strong of a "there could never be a god" position like that is wrong on my part.

If someone makes claims that can be shown to be incorrect, and other claims which cannot be substantiated, one does not need faith to dismiss them.
As has been mentioned, the default position is that there is no god. If you have any evidence to support whatever claims you care to make then science would like to know.

As it is, many of the specific claims made about specific gods have been shown to be untrue, whilst the rezt is completely unsubstantiated - thus as we have simplu not been moved from the null position and thus have not had to have faith or lack there of in order to dispute those claims and reject them.

**d-usa**

SilverMK2 wrote:
As has been mentioned, the default position is that there is no god.

The default position is that there is no evidence for or against a god.

As it is, many of the specific claims made about specific gods have been shown to be untrue, whilst the rezt is completely unsubstantiated - thus as we have simplu not been moved from the null position and thus have not had to have faith or lack there of in order to dispute those claims and reject them.

Do you belief that there will never be any evidence that might proof that a deity exists?
Do you have evidence that there will never be any evidence that might proof that a deity exists?

There is a difference between "we have not seen any evidence so far that a deity exists" and "we will never see any evidence that a deity exists". The second statement requires a trust that the current lack of evidence means that we could never find any evidence in the future.

**thetallestgiraffe**

However, Scientists believe in dark matter - they cannot prove it exists, only hypothesize it's existence due to gravity interactions with its surroundings.
Russells teapot would also seem to argue against that as well as religion...

Isn't the big difference here though is that they are basing this on actual logic that can work with in the confines of sceince, and that russell's teapot is talking about something that is just illogical that we can't prove?

Russell's teapot doesn't say that just because we can't detect it it doesn't exist, just that we shouldn't automatically act on the premise that it does due to not being able to disprove it.

Like love and stuff like that

**Troike**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
They would but proof against something's existence doesn't rule it out entirely.

I think the point is that a strong atheist would view the concept of god as so logically flawed that it may as well be untrue, if that makes sense. It can't be ruled out entirely, but enough criticisms can be made that it's close enough.

**thetallestgiraffe**

I think the point is that a strong atheist would view the concept of god as so logically flawed that it may as well be untrue, if that makes sense. It can't be ruled out entirely, but enough criticisms can be made that it's close enough.

Exactly, this has been my point all along.

**SilverMK2**

quote=d-usa 524739 6242148 f9cd4bff8a1ce031142e85fae06da76c.jpg]
The default position is that there is no evidence for or against a god.

**Riquende**

d-usa wrote:
Riquende wrote:
d-usa wrote:
I don't really see the problem with saying "Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist".

There is a massive problem with that, it totally misrepresents the Atheist position (which is simply rejecting a god claim).

And why to they reject a god claim?

Because there isn't the evidence to support the belief in such a claim. 'Faith' doesn't come into it at all, the construct you've typed is simply an attempt to create a strawman atheist position so you can justify your own faith by ascribing the same to other people.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Troike wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Do Atheists think that a god could exist and that we just haven't seen any proof yet, or do they outright reject the possibility of a god and of ever finding any proof?

That's actually two different types of atheism you've described. Weak atheism (we haven't seen any compelling proof yet, so I shall live my life as if there is not god) and strong atheism (god cannot exist, the concept is irrational).

So, it depends on the atheist.

Would you consider weak atheism to be closer to being agnostic?

Agnosticism and Atheism are two seperate things entirely, the first deals with knowledge (which is a subset of belief) and the second deals with belief. It's entirely possible to be an Agnostic Atheist (and I think most Atheists would claim to be so if they're being intellectually honest) just as it's possible to be an Agnostic Theist.

It's not a sliding scale that runs Theist - Agnostic - Athiest, they're positions on two different questions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

poda_t wrote:

No, there is no problem with that, actually.

Well there is a massive problem, because the label 'Atheist' simply means rejecting a god claim. It doesn't actually make any reference to what that (or any other) Atheist does believe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

The default position is that there is no evidence for or against a god.

No. We take a default position on a single claim, one at a time. You tell me your claim for a god, and my default position is that it's not true until you've proved it (to my own satisfaction).

'Default position' does not mean 'in the middle'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

Do you belief that there will never be any evidence that might proof that a deity exists?
Do you have evidence that there will never be any evidence that might proof that a deity exists?

No to both questions. How would I be justified in having my belief on the first point?

I've said before (not here) that, as an Atheist, I don't go hunting for gods to disbelieve in. I wait until someone makes a claim, then jusdge that claim on its own merits. So far I've found every claim wanting.

**thetallestgiraffe**

Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate things entirely

I don't think that it's entirely true. I would say that it is closer Atheism, as I thought that atheism is not the belief in no god, just not the belief in a god? That would mean that the middle ground would be more towards atheism, wouldn't it?

And I've been to embarrassed to ask 'till now but screw it; how the hell do you make it so that when you quote someone it comes up with their name and profile pic? I just copy and paste what they said and put the quote text on either side.

**PredaKhaine**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate things entirely

I don't think that it's entirely true. I would say that it is closer Atheism, as I thought that atheism is not the belief in no god, just not the belief in a god? That would mean that the middle ground would be more towards atheism, wouldn't it?

And I've been to embarrassed to ask 'till now but screw it; how the hell do you make it so that when you quote someone it comes up with their name and profile pic? I just copy and paste what they said and put the quote text on either side.

There's the quote button at the top right of the post - hit that and it puts the chosen post as a quote.

Don't ask me about multi-quote though - thats akin to wizardy!

**thetallestgiraffe**

PredaKhaine wrote:
thetallestgiraffe wrote:
Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate things entirely

I don't think that it's entirely true. I would say that it is closer Atheism, as I thought that atheism is not the belief in no god, just not the belief in a god? That would mean that the middle ground would be more towards atheism, wouldn't it?

And I've been to embarrassed to ask 'till now but screw it; how the hell do you make it so that when you quote someone it comes up with their name and profile pic? I just copy and paste what they said and put the quote text on either side.

There's the quote button at the top right of the post - hit that and it puts the chosen post as a quote.

Don't ask me about multi-quote though - thats akin to wizardy!

How the hell did I not spot that?

Thanks a heap at any rate

**Riquende**

thetallestgiraffe wrote:
Agnosticism and Atheism are two separate things entirely

I don't think that it's entirely true.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in a particular claim about god or gods. It doesn't mean you believe no gods exist, it states a position on a single issue: "You make this specific claim about a god(s), I don't believe it to be true". There really is nothing else to it. You can even take an atheist position against some claims, but not others. For example, your average American Christian would be an atheist on the claim that the Viking gods exist.

On the other hand, Agnosticism is a position taken on the knowledge that something does or does not exist - NOT just belief, but 'knowing' it to be true. Many theists claim to 'know' god is real and exists (Gnosticism). There are certainly atheists who claim to 'know' that there are no gods, too (also Gnosticism).

**Evil & Chaos**

E&C, I am really interested in the proofs of your statements about the Mormons and Joseph Smith, Jr.
It would be interesting to have concrete facts to back the claims.

I've already given references in this thread, in particular a reference to his conviction for "glass looking" (a crime of fraud that involves looking into crystals and pretending to know mystical truths revealed therein - which just so happens to be the method he used to "divine" the truths of Mormonism years later).

On Atheism vs Agnosticism, I agree that they are distinct terms that address slightly different issues.

Atheism deals with whether or not one believes in a god or pantheon - a committed Muslim is an atheist as regards the Christian god and the Viking pantheon, technically speaking.

Agnosticism is a position that deals with the extent to which certain questions (often but not exclusively metaphysical in nature) are or can be known given our human limits on observation and knowledge analysis methods.

**richred_uk**

OK - so not sure if this has come up so far (not read 20 pages), but I've ticked non-religious, but the refined version would be

"Do not belive that any deities exist and were I to be conviced otherwise by incontrovertible evidence, I would conclude that they are in no way worthy of worship and, in fact, would be likely to conclude that they are malevolent and worthy of opposition"

**Evil & Chaos**

richred_uk wrote:
OK - so not sure if this has come up so far (not read 20 pages), but I've ticked non-religious, but the refined version would be

"Do not belive that any deities exist and were I to be conviced otherwise by incontrovertible evidence, I would conclude that they are in no way worthy of worship and, in fact, would be likely to conclude that they are malevolent and worthy of opposition"

That's pretty much stance too. Any omnipotent creator deity that does potentially exist is so clearly evil, it would be the moral duty for any rational individual to oppose that deity until it ceased its evil ways.

I mean, consider the abrohamic god...

What need would a merciful deity have of a hell?
And why withhold evidence of its existence if a simple manifestation in the age of cameras would instantly convert everyone (why choose illiterate Bronze Age Palestinian desert for your revelations, if you have all of time and geography to choose from?).
Why, if nothing can happen that is contrary to your Will, do you allow babies to be born with (and soon die of) painful eye cancer?
What kind of omnipowerful, omnipresent evil schmuck does those kinds of things?

**PredaKhaine**

Evil & Chaos wrote:
Why, if nothing can happen that is contrary to your Will, do you allow babies to be born with (and soon die of) painful eye cancer?

And he's back

**TheWildHost**

50 simple proofs

http://godisimaginary.com/

I suggest you read them

**thetallestgiraffe**

Evil & Chaos wrote:
richred_uk wrote:
OK - so not sure if this has come up so far (not read 20 pages), but I've ticked non-religious, but the refined version would be

"Do not belive that any deities exist and were I to be conviced otherwise by incontrovertible evidence, I would conclude that they are in no way worthy of worship and, in fact, would be likely to conclude that they are malevolent and worthy of opposition"

That's pretty much stance too. Any omnipotent creator deity that does potentially exist is so clearly evil, it would be the moral duty for any rational individual to oppose that deity until it ceased its evil ways.

I mean, consider the abrohamic god...

What need would a merciful deity have of a hell?
And why withhold evidence of its existence if a simple manifestation in the age of cameras would instantly convert everyone (why choose illiterate Bronze Age Palestinian desert for your revelations, if you have all of time and geography to choose from?).
Why, if nothing can happen that is contrary to your Will, do you allow babies to be born with (and soon die of) painful eye cancer?
What kind of omnipowerful, omnipresent evil schmuck does those kinds of things?

I thought that it was a judeo christian god?