Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Welcome. I do not believe a god or gods ever existed. As atheism is a choice, and not a concept. I try and steer clear of any discussion that talks about atheism as a concept or doctrine. That sort of misunderstanding is just plain stupid. Supernatural events/things have never occurred in all of human existence...and likely have never occured in all cosmological time, as it contravigns the natural laws that define our universe and reality. So, no gods. However, due to our limited data set on everything, we rarely can talk in absolutes. So, possibility, however astronomically unlikely, remains.
I agree. However, that does not mean, that an atheist who can only use the scientific method as the tool to determine reality at this time, is holding an rational position. We can only use the method we know of. Until such time as we have an alternative method for determining reality, the only rational position is anti-theist. Anything that we measure becomes natural by definition.
How can atheism be a choice? You can not chose to determine reality in any way you want. It is not a concept or a doctrine either. It is a method, of determining reality.
shiningone " that does not mean, that an atheist who can only use the scientific method as the tool to determine reality at this time, is holding an rational position."
A rational position by definition is one that adheres to the strict principles of validation contained within logic. It's odd that you invoke logic yet seem unaware that your claim below is based on the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam.
shiningone "If something is IMPOSSIBLE to prove it exists, it DOES NOT EXIST."
Something is not disproved through lack of evidence, nor is it proved through lack of contrary evidence. It's usually theists who invoke this fallacy. An unfalsifiable premise can be neither proved nor disproved, scientists often use the phrase "not even wrong" to illustrate a claim idea or belief that we can know nothing about and therefore learn nothing from.
This type of belief or claim is typified in unfalsifiable claims for the supernatural, and an agnostic position is what epistemology must demand, now I don't know about you but if I can't know anything about something I don't go ahead and believe it, and since the only other position is to disbelieve it, that is the position I take. I cannot know if a deity exists or not if it is defined as an unfalsifiable premise, thus I remain agnostic about such claims, and an atheist as I disbelieve anything for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated.
"A rational position by definition is one that adheres to the strict principles of validation contained within logic. It's odd that you invoke logic yet seem unaware that your claim below is based on the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam."
Yeah, I corrected that one, see other post. If something does not exist, it does not exist.
"Something is not disproved through lack of evidence.nor is it proved through lack of contrary evidence."
Correct.
What you are missing is, it is NOT a thing. There is NOTHING to prove or disprove.
"now I don't know about you but if I can't know anything about something I don't go ahead and believe it, and since the only other position is to disbelieve it, that is the position I take."
Wrong. Belief is, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. If you 'believe' something you accept it to be true without proof. If you dis-believe something, you except belief as real, but do not agree with the conclusion.
"I cannot know if a deity exists or not if it is defined as an unfalsifiable premise, thus I remain agnostic about such claims.."
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
We MAY at some point in the future be able to know. I do not agree with the agnostic position.
It IS unfalsifiable. Therefore it does not exist.
"and an atheist as I disbelieve anything for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated."
An atheist does not use objective evidence as a bases of disbelief. They use the concept of belief to justify their dis-belief. An anti-theist uses objective evidence to oppose belief and dis-belief.
shiningone: "Wrong. Belief is, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
Maybe you do believe in things without proof. I do not. Everything I believe can be backed up by proof.
If there is no proof, then I do not believe. And this is NOTthe same as your unfalsifiable assertion that "it does not exist." Huge difference and it astonishes me that you still fail to see the difference.
Once again, here are my four definitions of how I am ALL four of these:
As I said, I have no Burden of Proof as to why I am ALL four.
Here is a good example: Do unicorns exist? My official answer would be, "I do not believe they exist." I cannot prove they do not exist. My official stance is one of agnosticism. "I do not know."
rmfr
Hey arakish, I really appreciate you guys taking the time to debate with me.
"Maybe you do believe in things without proof. I do not. Everything I believe can be backed up by proof."
I think your trouble is in the understanding of what 'belief' means. That statement I made is the standard accepted description of what the word belief means.
I personally do not BELIEVE anything. I base my understanding on reality that has been proven to exist. Like you do. Using belief or believe is the wrong word to use. Belief is an opinion.
"If there is no proof, then I do not believe."
One has nothing to do with the other. You should say, If there is no proof, I do not accept it as real.
"Here is a good example: Do unicorns exist? My official answer would be, "I do not believe they exist." I cannot prove they do not exist. My official stance is one of agnosticism. "I do not know.""
Same situation. You keep adding 'believe' into the equation. Belief or believe does not exist in a rational based reality.
What we are talking about here is different ways of thinking. One is reality based, the other is opinion based. You can not mix the two. You can, but don't expect clarity after.
@ shiningone
I give up. You still do NOT get it.
rmfr
I believe, is not, I understand! When you see the difference you will see my point of view.
Btw, what does rmfr mean? Also, I like bonsai too.
@ shiningone
But to believe in something, you also have to understand it. Even if it is something that cannot be proven, one can still believe and understand it. Religion is the best example. But I do understand where you are coming from. Another good example is that I believe the Yellowstone Caldera will explode again sometime in the future. I believe this fact because I also understand imtimately how volcanoes work. Thus, I both believe and understand and know that Yellowstone will explode again. When? No idea. That is why we are monitoring it. However, if it did decide to explode, there are absolutely no contingencies in place to wheather such a catastrophic cataclysm. Well, I am wrong. There is one contingency. The Seed Vault up in Svarlbard, Norway.
rmfr = my initials. I have been signing posts with my initials even back in the days before there was a WWW. Remember, the internet has existed since 1969. The WWW did not exist until circa 1994. Ever heard of FidoNet and Bulletin Board systems? My first modem was actually an acoustic coupler. Watch the original War Games movie with Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy.
Kewl. I grow bonsais. Just started a new one about four months ago. It even almost died on me. The Japanese Maple you see in my avatar I have had for about 15 years.
rmfr
@ arakish
"But to believe in something, you also have to understand it."
Maybe, 'understand' was the wrong word to use. Conclude, might be better.
It seems this whole debate is in contention because of the word 'belief'. Everyone here seems to not understand what it actually means.
The English Oxford Dictionary has two definitions:
1) Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
2) Hold (something) as an opinion.
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Now, lets look at Wiki's definition of belief:
"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Therefore, theists 'believe' in a god ( without empirical evidence ). An atheist, dis-believes that belief, using the SAME criteria ( whether they know it or not. Dis-belief is waiting to believe. ). An anti-theist, opposes that belief and, the dis-belief of that belief, because a god can not be proven to exist using empirical evidence, which is the only way to determine what is real.
I am not saying a god can never be proven to exist, I am saying it can not be proven using natural science, because it is, natural, by definition.
I think most of you atheists are in actual fact, anti-theists but are just confused about the definition of belief.
"Another good example is that I believe the Yellowstone Caldera will explode again sometime in the future. I believe this fact because I also understand intimately how volcanoes work."
You can 'believe' the Caldera will explode again, but this is NOT a fact. You don't, know, it will explode. Because it may NEVER explode. The evidence may support the idea it will explode again, but it may just become completely dormant and all the lava underneath become solid. The point is, 'belief' does not include, certainty.
I thought about growing bonsai but don't like the idea they have to stay outside most of the time.
I am going to use a comparison. Oxforddictionaries.com versus Dictionary.com. Hopefully, you will see why I prefer the dictionary.com definitions. The definitions at dictionary.com are much better in my opinion.
oxforddictionaries.com (English)
believe
1) Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
1.1) Accept the statement of (someone) as true.
1.2) Have religious faith.
1.3) Feel sure that (someone) is capable of doing something.
2) Hold (something) as an opinion; think.
belief
1) An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
1.1) Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion.
1.2) A religious conviction.
2) Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).
dictionary.com
believe
verb (used without object).
1) to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
verb (used with object).
2) to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3) to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4) to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation.
5) to suppose or assume; understand (usually followed by a noun clause).
Verb Phrases
6) believe in,
a) to be persuaded of the truth or existence of.
b) to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of.
belief
noun
1) something believed; an opinion or conviction.
2) confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3) confidence; faith; trust.
4) a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith.
Trust me. I know what the word believe means. However, there also needs to be an additional definition.
That is my definition of "believe/belief" when I speak of ONLY MY beliefs. However, I also understand and know the other form of "believe/belief."
Believe me when I say I do know of the standard definition. In the years I have spent in college, I have seen so many intelligent yunguns drop out of college because of the "cognitive discordance" they suffer when they are actually confronted by evidence proving religion and its texts are nothing more than pure bullshit and horse hoowhee. This is why I am of the opinion that Federal Laws should be instituted that prohibits any religion from being taught to any person until the age of 21. I believe that religions should be taxed and told to shut the fuck up when trying to influence government. Then take the monies earned from taxing religion and give our youths a free college education up to a Baccalaureate. Hopefully by then, age 21, the person will have a Baccalaureate, been fully trained in critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought. Then, and ONLY then, may a religion speak to that person. And that person will have the mental faculties and tools to see through the bullshit and horse hoowhee of religion. Of course, this would mean that religions would practically die and the government would have to seek other tax revenues to give that free Baccalaureate…
"I thought about growing bonsai but don't like the idea they have to stay outside most of the time."
Actually they do not have to stay outside most of the time. They can be grown indoors and trained that way. You just have to use a tree that is good in medium to low light. As for my Japanese Maple, I keep it in a bay window that gets sunshine literally from sun-up to sun-down. Depends on what you want to grow as a bonsai. My latest is a juniper that is very slow growing. Thus, I won't have to keep trimming it as often as the Japanese Maple. If you do give it a try, expect to fail the first few times. I did. I think I failed on the first six or seven I tried. Don't be discouraged. As with anything, it takes practice.
rmfr
As I've said in other replies, I realise I was conflating belief with faith. I have revised my point of view, which was to pedantic to begin with.
I think priests and pastors should be locked up for extortion. Not to mention the entire Catholic church should be disbanded in shame from the paedophile scandal.
@ shiningone
With the 2nd paragraph, I kind of have to agree and believe you have a good point. ;)
rmfr
Re: "I think priests and pastors should be locked up for extortion. Not to mention the entire Catholic church should be disbanded in shame from the paedophile scandal."
Hot diggity-dog! I finally get to agree with Shingingone about something!
Considering there is no absolute truth for all things in all situations I gotta agree that the Dictionary , com is better. Science does not search for truth. It only attempts to describe what we see around us. When met with new information, science changes. Belief is proportional to a level of confidence and is not an all or nothing proposition. I believe there will be a sun tomorrow, that does not make it so. Solar flares could wipe out this planet, the sun could just stop for some unknown reason, a billion imaginary causes of the sun's collapse could be hypothesized but without facts or evidence we have no real reason to believe them. Everything points to the fact that the sun will probably be there tomorrow, however, this will not always be the case and we know it. What science called "Laws" are simply justified true beliefs. Like the sun's existence, they have withstood the tests of time and so we are very confident with our belief in them.
I actually think there may be one thing that IS, absolute, considering the definitions of said word.
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
2. viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative.
The universe itself.
This is just wrong. Even the dictionary definition qualifies belief without any evidence as not necessarily being the case.
Belief
noun
1.an acceptance that something exists or is true, ***especially*** one without proof.
The caveat placed in asterisks is preceded by the word especially, which shows that it is not a necessary condition of belief. What do you hope to gain by denying the dictionary definition when we all know you're misinterpreting it?
Especially
adverb
1.used to single out one person or thing over all others.
Ipso facto the word is singling out the category of beliefs held without evidence over all others.
You cannot claim to be unbiased and using objective proofs for everything you *BELIEVE If you start by wrongly defining basic word definitions.
shiningone,
"We MAY at some point in the future be able to know. I do not agree with the agnostic position.
It IS unfalsifiable. Therefore it does not exist."
Arguments such as this are basically a waste of time other than as exercises in arguing.
If the biblical God character does exist I would never worship him. So why should I be agnostic regarding him?
People who claim to be agnostics are simply gullible because they think that some ancient idiot's delusion has merit. It's too bad that they are living in the modern world instead of in a cave 5,000 years ago.
A theist might have a basis for believing in his favorite fairy tale so he might deserve some points for that. An agnostic is simply gullible.
"There is NOTHING to prove or disprove."
Then it can't be disproved or proved. Proof requires objective evidence, how can one cite objective evidence for a non existent thing, or for the non-existence of something?
" Belief is, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
Correct, and since it say **especially one without proof, it is clear that this is not a necessary condition for belief. Or the dictionary wouldn't say especially to single that category of belief out over all others.
----------------------------------------------
" If you 'believe' something you accept it to be true without proof. If you dis-believe something, you except belief as real, but do not agree with the conclusion."
It's accept, not except, and this is nonsense sorry. Firstly proof and evidence are not the same thing, second it's obvious from the dictionary definition you just posted that a lack of proof is not a necessary condition for belief, that's why the word especially is in the definition.
--------------------------------------------------
"Agnostic: a person who believes that ***nothing*** is known or ***can be known*** of the existence or nature of God.
We MAY at some point in the future be able to know. "
Wrong again, re-read the definition of agnosticism you posted, I've placed in asterisks where is states plainly nothing can be known...hence knowledge is impossible, this is true of all unfalsifiable claims and beliefs. You're making a claim for the possibility of a future event contradicted by your own assertion it is unfalsifiable. This is pure assumption.
--------------------------------
"I do not agree with the agnostic position."
That is probably because you don't properly understand it, as I have just indicated above. However this is not really relevant, as agnosticism is a position not limited to deities or religions, but is applicable to all unfalsifiable claims ideas assertions and beliefs.
-------------------------------------------
"and an atheist as I disbelieve anything for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated."
"An atheist does not use objective evidence as a bases of disbelief."
This is an axiomatically false statement, since I am an atheist, and just stated unequivocally that I cite the lack of objective evidence for any deities as my reason to disbelieve they exist. Why don't you stick to stating what you think, and stop trying to tell me what I think. This debate will trip along a lot better, trust me.
-----------------------------------------
"An anti-theist uses objective evidence to oppose belief and dis-belief."
An anti-theist is someone opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods. This does not require a claim or assertion that no deities exist, just atheism will do. If you think the atheists on this site have not considered such word definitions very carefully then you would be very wrong.
Belief is a claim, thus it carries a burden of proof, disbelief or the lack of it is not, thus it carries no burden of proof. If however you make a claim that no deities exist, then this carries a burden of proof. Belief and knowledge are subsets of each other, but one can hold a belief with or without sufficient evidence to justify that belief.
...that is axiomatic.
@ Sheldon
"I see you're broadening your use of logical fallacies, this is one is called an ad hominem fallacy. I am a reasonably patient man, but I am introducing a new rule, you get one warning to desist or I will respond in kind."
Am I not allowed to have a sense of humour? That's how I intended it. Granted you don't know me well yet, but I would NEVER be truly malicious in these debates. I apologise if you felt hurt by it.
I am going to copy and paste part of a response I gave arakish, I wrote it with this intention. Because I feel it to be the central issue of why we are not agreeing. Obviously you don't, have, to agree but it is nice when people do. If you completely disagree, that's fine also. My intention with OP was not to antagonise you all, or troll everyone's view point. It was a bona fide expression of a contention of mine. To some, it is irrelevant and inconsequential. I did not intended it to drag on needlessly. There are many more points to discuss and many theist's to dismember lol. I will end my position on this issue with some final words. Take them for what you will. Respond or don't.
It seems this whole debate is in contention because of the word 'belief'. Everyone here seems to not understand what it actually means.
The English Oxford Dictionary has two definitions:
1) Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
2) Hold (something) as an opinion.
Opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Now, lets look at Wiki's definition of belief:
"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case regardless of empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Therefore, theists 'believe' in a god ( without empirical evidence ). An atheist, dis-believes that belief, using the SAME criteria ( whether they know it or not. Dis-belief is waiting to believe. ). An anti-theist, opposes that belief and, the dis-belief of that belief, because a god can not be proven to exist using empirical evidence, which is the only way to determine what is real.
I am not saying a god can never be proven to exist, I am saying it can not be proven using natural science, because it is, natural, by definition.
I think most of you atheists are in actual fact, anti-theists but are just confused about the definition of belief.
@shiningone
"Until such time as we have an alternative method for determining reality"
I do not need an alternative, my present method works very well for me. My senses seem to be consistent, science is the best method for explaining the universe, and simple common sense does wonders.
Shiningone, what other method do you propose?
That's the point, I don't. Everyone else here seems to think there will be.
So you are proposing an alternative method you know nothing about?
Again. I did NOT propose it. Everyone else DID.
So you do not know of a more effective method in determining the truth but the scientific method?
No.
Hey there shiningone, welcome to AR I personally always welcome new people to join us an share their thoughts.
Dont fully agree with that, but lets see what you have to say to defend that statement. By the way, I operate as atheist = means not theist. As in one that does not believe in god(s.) Seems like a very rational position to me.
Looks like you stumbled upon one of many of the contradictions of religion. They say their god is "supernatural" as in not natural but above it. I agree. If they define their god as only supernatural then yeah we are never going to find evidence for god, never will, infact they just defined their "god" out of existence. But that does not bother the religious folks much. They had to position their god ideas as supernatural without really even understanding what that means. As science advances and god concepts are pigeonholed into "god of the gaps" issues, they had to retreat from parting of the sea, great floods, plagues etc all the way down to "god does not exist in the universe."
Of course then many religions go right on as if their god still does exist in this universe and is selectively, (for their arguments,) doing miracles, and wrath etc, being actually natural, instead of supernatural. Religions are full of contradictions, this is just one of many.
Yep, I was "preaching to the choir" with what I wrote above. Perhaps simply rewriting what you wrote in the above quoted passage. Yep it is irrational to expect natural evidence for the supernatural. As the theist defined their god as supernatural then try to evidence their supernatural god with the natural would be irrational for anyone to expect a rational explanation from theist about their gods as they already created their own giant contradiction.
Disagree there. I am anti theist and I am atheist. I am against religion and I do not believe in god(s). I do not believe in gods because the evidence is overwhelming that religion was made up by man. And I am anti theist because I feel religions do far more harm then good in this world and it is holding us all back as a human race to continue to advance and improve.
Fully agree.
I personally would rephrase it as: Theist have defined their gods to nothing. And expecting evidence for "nothing" is a silly endeavor. Which to me is why atheist is a very rational position, but so is anti theist.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Hi there, thanks for the welcome.
I'll ignore your copy and paste mistake for one of my statements lol, I know what you meant to paste.
I think we have different understandings of what atheist and anti-theist are. So I understand why you would disagree on one of my points.
The generally accepted term of atheist is, a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, until proven otherwise, because belief can be changed. The way an atheist determines that lack of belief is by looking at the evidence given for the existence of god or gods. That evidence has to be evaluated in some way. The ONLY method we know of to evaluate that evidence is the scientific method. Anything that can possible be evaluated by the scientific method is natural by definition.
The generally accepted term of anti-theist is, opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods. They do not, not believe, they assert that it is not possible to believe or not believe, so their position cannot change. There position cannot change, until, a new method of determining reality becomes available.
So, the position of atheist is irrational in respect that they are open to someone giving evidence that can be tested under the scientific method and still be supernatural. Which is impossible. This does not, discount future possibilities of another method of determining reality. But that has not happened yet.
This all may seem like a triviality to some. But the reasons many people don't believe or have stopped believing in a god or gods was because they prefer to live under rationality. The position of atheist has just not gone quite far enough.
'How can atheism be a choice? You can not chose to determine reality in any way you want. It is not a concept or a doctrine either. It is a method, of determining reality".
Ummmm no.
You fail in your understanding of what an atheist is.
Atheism is not a concept. Period. It is a choice. A choice to not believe in someone else's concept. So in fact anything written by an atheist is not conceptual, it is in fact discussing religion, and therefore religious in origin. Without religion, atheism does not exist.
Someone says gods exist. Based on their assertion, make the choice to disagree. I am atheist.
Theists lives matter! (only because they are the same species...lol). Because theists are real, their actions are real. This is how their beliefs manifest in reality.
Everyone has to deal with reality. Because our knowledge base of our reality is poor...we make choices based on incomplete data sets...therefore, we make wrong choices, have wrong beliefs, and fail at reason. Theists just happen to be excellent at failing to reason.
@ doG
"Ummmm no.You fail in your understanding of what an atheist is."
That comment I made was in a particular context and or, I did not explain my self adequately. Atheism is a choice in as much as we can chose to believe or dis-believe. It is not a choice in regards the method we use to make that choice. We use rationality to make that choice. We can not chose to change rationality.
I do understand what an atheist is. It is a dis-belief in a belief. That position of dis-belief is waiting for enough evidence to, believe. Belief and dis-belief are irrational positions.
Belief is, an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Dis-belief is a position of waiting to believe. Belief is an irrational way of understanding reality. Scientific understanding is knowing that nothing outside of our reality can be proven to exist.
Pages