Atheists: Why are you so sure of your non-belief?

[jtgain]

I guess this is a question, but it will quickly turn into a GD, so I'll just start it here.

I see many on the board who are proud atheists; there is no God/gods, afterlife or souls. I wonder how you are so sure. My first guess would be that since you have seen no evidence of such a thing, then you don't believe. Fair enough. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Would you not have to concede that if there were something supernatural "out there" that your human mind would not know of such a thing? I can understand agnosticism, but I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

[Skald the Rhymer]

:: takes off usual Athena-worshipper hat ::

Can I answer as a technical agnostic but practical atheist?

In the first place, the vast majority of the world's religions are incompatible with one another. Certainly the claims of, say, Pentecostal Christianity (the faith in which I was raised) cannot be reconciled with those of Sufism, Bahai, Islam, or even Catholicism when you get right down to it. Since they clearly cannot all be right, either all but one of them are wrong, or all of them are wrong. I see no practical way of determining which one is right in the first instance; it seems more parsimonious to assume the latter. There's no real evidence of the truth of any claim of the supernatural, so so why should any claim be given a bye? Why should I believe in Jesus rather than Thor?

In the second place--and here I'll specifically restrict myself to religions that claim that God is sovereign and beneficent*--there's plenty of trivially observable phenomena that seem to argue against it. You'd think that, if Jesus were real, he'd have looked at Rwanda in 1990, seen one group of his followers massacreing and raping another group, and said, "Oh, hell no. Fuck that shit. Time to put on my Aslan suit and go eat some evil-doers."

In the third place, in my judgment the emphasis of many religions on a blissful post-death existence compensating for the horrors and travails of this world seems utterly misguided to me. It's an excuse for the powerful not to care about the plight of the suffering, and an attempt to persuade the suffering to meekly accept their state. I see more evidence of a malign and hateful deity, or an incompetent one, than one who either benevolent or competent.

That's just off the top of my head. Now, if you'll excuse me, I will put my Athena-priest hat back on.


*No, I did NOT mean to write omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibevenolent.

[MeanOldLady]

How are you so sure that there are no unicorns?

[Leaffan]

Pink, invisible unicorns. That's right; they're both pink and invisible. You just need to believe.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by MeanOldLady

How are you so sure that there are no unicorns?

For all any of us know, when we die we go to a world populated with pink, invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe such a thing, but how can you definitely say that in another dimension (or whatever) that there is no such thing?

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I see many on the board who are proud atheists

How do you know they're 'proud'?

I wonder how you are so sure.

Some are sure because the usual claims of what defines God include things that are impossible such as breaking the laws of physics. Others are atheists without being sure of anything. You don't have to be sure no gods exist to be an atheist.

My first guess would be that since you have seen no evidence of such a thing, then you don't believe. Fair enough. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Okay? You just admitted we have no evidence for something that I'm guessing you understand is a fantastic claim. That's a reason not to believe. Should no evidence of absence now give us a reason to believe?

I can understand agnosticism, but I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

How do you define agnosticism? How do you define atheism?

You've been here for enough years to realize that no atheists here claim that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence. Don't make straw man arguments.

[ivan astikov]

If it's occuring in another dimension, unless you can flit between dimensions, it may as well be a fiction.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by jtgain

For all any of us know, when we die we go to a world populated with pink, invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe such a thing, but how can you definitely say that in another dimension (or whatever) that there is no such thing?

How certain are you, on a scale of 1-10, that there is no world populated by pink, invisible unicorns? Maybe a 9.9999? My guess is you wouldn't declare with absolute, air-tight certainty that there isn't, but you'd be willing to bet the ranch.

Edit: If we're going to get into what "atheism" is, I simply define it as lack of theism. If the answer to the question "Do you believe there is a god?" is anything but yes, I reckon you lack theism.

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by jtgain

For all any of us know, when we die we go to a world populated with pink, invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe such a thing

If you don't believe in such a thing then you are an a-pink invisible unicornist.

but how can you definitely say that in another dimension (or whatever) that there is no such thing?

I know of no atheists that make claims of absolute knowledge in anything other than maybe "I am."

[Tethered Kite]

Faith, whether it is in service of the unprovable or refutation of the unprovable remains a mysterious human quality.

A mind decided is no longer a rational mind. Doesn't science demand that we continue to remain open to possibilities? On both sides of the fence?

That's where I'm the most comfortable.

[MeanOldLady]

I'm open to the possibility of unicorns. As of now, I maintain my lack of belief that they exist.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by x-ray vision

How do you define agnosticism? How do you define atheism?

You've been here for enough years to realize that no atheists here claim that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence. Don't make straw man arguments.

I have always thought that agnosticism was a belief that we can't really be sure if there is a God/gods.

Atheism is an affirmative belief that there is in fact NOT a higher being(s).

I don't think that I am making straw man arguments. Over in the death/afterlife threads, the atheists are stating with certainty that this life is all we have; nothing before or after.

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by Tethered Kite

Faith, whether it is in service of the unprovable or refutation of the unprovable remains a mysterious human quality.

A mind decided is no longer a rational mind. Doesn't science demand that we continue to remain open to possibilities? On both sides of the fence?

That's where I'm the most comfortable.

To offer a second response:

Does science demand that we remain open to the possibility that there's an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage, and in the possibility that when we die, we go to a world filled with pink unicorns?

Are you the most comfortable with remaining open to those possibilities? Over, say, believing that there isn't an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage?

More importantly, what does "remaining open" mean? Does it mean anything other than what meanoldlady proposes?

Would you argue that it's rational or irrational to base any actual, real-life decision on the possibility that there's an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage?

[Tethered Kite]

Originally Posted by whorfin

To offer a second response:

Does science demand that we remain open to the possibility that there's an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage, and in the possibility that when we die, we go to a world filled with pink unicorns?

Are you the most comfortable with remaining open to those possibilities? Over, say, believing that there isn't an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage?

More importantly, what does "remaining open" mean? Does it mean anything other than what meanoldlady proposes?

Would you argue that it's rational or irrational to base any actual, real-life decision on the possibility that there's an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage?

MOL is sneaking up and tickling me. I have a recipe for her.

I think the best response to belief in the possiblity of something unquantifiable is not to narrow it with definitions. In other words, I doubt the unicorn is pink. Heh.

[x-ray vision]

Originally Posted by Tethered Kite

A mind decided is no longer a rational mind. Doesn't science demand that we continue to remain open to possibilities? On both sides of the fence?

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Richard Feynman

Originally Posted by jtgain

I have always thought that agnosticism was a belief that we can't really be sure if there is a God/gods.

Right. But it says nothing about belief.

Atheism is an affirmative belief that there is in fact NOT a higher being(s).

No, it's not. It's being without belief in the existence of God/gods.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutath...atheism101.htm

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by Tethered Kite

MOL is sneaking up and tickling me. I have a recipe for her.

I think the best response to belief in the possiblity of something unquantifiable is not to narrow it with definitions. In other words, I doubt the unicorn is pink. Heh.

So, what does it mean to remain open to the possibility that when you die, you go to a world filled with unicorns of unknown color?

Is there any difference between how someone would rationally act if

- she knew there was no unicorn-afterlife.

or if

-she chose to remain open to the possibility of a unicorn-afterlife.

[Sr Siete]

Sure abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.


It's just indicative of it.


Mostly, all of us, you, me, Skald, Carrot Top, whoever, go through life making assumptions based on the evidence at hand. You may not be completely sure that there isn't a million bucks that just appeared magically in your pocket until you actually check it, but you can be pretty sure that such a thing is laughably improbable.


Well, most of us are just baffled at the idea of people not just believing that they do have the million bucks without even patting their pockets, but are even making plans under the assumption that they are magical millionaires. That's all our problem.

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Would you not have to concede that if there were something supernatural "out there" that your human mind would not know of such a thing? I can understand agnosticism, but I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

If there's something "out there" yet is so subtle that it never actually does anything to affect us, then what does it matter what we believe? There's no use for religions or any sort of belief system to work around this so-subtle-as-to-be-invisible supernatural force. If it doesn't affect anything, who cares?

No, religions (aside from some weak deists maybe) aren't formed on the idea that there's some non-interventional magical force out there. They're built on the idea that there's a very specific force, and here's how he has shaped our world, and here's how he affects the world we live in, and these are his rules, and this is why you kill infidels, etc. etc.

So either the power out there is so vague and so non-interventional that it doesn't matter whether it exists, or there's a power out there that's specific and that some religion understands and that actively intervenes in our world - and actively intervening in our world would leave evidence. If the Earth formed spontaneously rather than having lots of lines of evidence for a very old, gradually developed planet, that would be evidence. If all the living creatures popped up suddenly at once in functional ecosystems, that would be evidence. If God healed all his loyal followers of all their diseases, that would be evidence. All of this stuff would be testable and observable.

So then we can rule out most forms of religion because they make these testable claims and yet fail (creation didn't happen like in genesis, etc). The things that these religions believe would be useful - they would tell us something about the world or something about how to live our lives - if they were true. But they aren't. So we're left with "uhhh but you can't prove there's some vague non-intervening power out there! GOTCHA ATHEISTS HAHAHAHA!". But what use is that? If something has no effect on our lives and doesn't have any effect on the natural world, why do you need a belief about it? What purpose does that belief serve?

Religious people like to proclaim some very specific things (this is who god is, here's his rulebook, etc) but when you start asking for evidence it becomes "hey, you can't disprove there's not some vague undetectable power out there! Can't prove a negative! THEREFORE MY SPECIFIC VIEW OF GOD IS CORRECT!"




God may exist. It's pretty clear that no religion I'm aware of describes him because they all make factually incorrect claims about the history of the world and nature. Leprechauns may exist. There's equal evidence and non-evidence for either. There's simply no reason to believe in either - that doesn't require a positive statement that they don't exist. In fact even the more militant atheists will often say "your specific idea of god almost certainly doesn't exist" rather than "certainly", and that's the more logically defensible position, although they're practically extremely similar.

[gonzomax]

Atheists just dismiss the god belief due to a long period of zero evidence. There is nothing to hang onto.
Those who actually claim to know are the religious people. They state that they know god exists .We atheist just dismiss it as totally lacking any proof whatsoever.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by jtgain

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Poppycock. Wrong. Trite. And unmitigated bullshit. Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence - when evidence should be present. As there should be for any deity put forward by the world's religions.

[Snarky_Kong]

I reject your premise.

I am exactly as sure that there's no god as I am that there isn't a unicorn behind me at the moment. Now, I wouldn't say that I'm 100% absolutely sure of either. I don't know of anybody that would. I don't know that I'm typing this post with that certainty. However, if I started a thread asking "why are typists so sure that they're posting to a message board. I mean sure, there is evidence for it, but 100% sure? That's so arrogant. How do you know you're not dreaming?", well that would be silly, right?

[Tethered Kite]

Originally Posted by whorfin

So, what does it mean to remain open to the possibility that when you die, you go to a world filled with unicorns of unknown color?

Is there any difference between how someone would rationally act if

- she knew there was no unicorn-afterlife.

or if

-she chose to remain open to the possibility of a unicorn-afterlife.

I'm unsure of why you are asking me these questions. I have trouble with the magical and unicorn references since they weren't referenced in my framework.

What I said was that I feel most comfortable remaining open to possibilities of all sorts. In my sixty-some years I've seen many rationally unexpected things happen.

As I age I have a growing mass of evidence that what I have believed to be true has a way of revealing itself to me as not being so frequently enough that I'd venture with care to try to tell someone else what their "god" was all about.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Would you not have to concede that if there were something supernatural "out there" that your human mind would not know of such a thing? I can understand agnosticism, but I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

It is certainly possible that there are things out there beyond our current perception or understanding. But that does not make them "supernatural".

What I take exception to is this notion that all organized religeons seem to have where what you have an ability to influence what happens to you either in life or after death through your actions and behaviors. Or that some supernatural being takes an interest in the results of events in your life.

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by Tethered Kite

I'm unsure of why you are asking me these questions. I have trouble with the magical and unicorn references since they weren't referenced in my framework.

I realize that they weren't referenced in your framework; that's rather the point I'm making. I'm trying to figure out two things: first, whether you're consistent in applying your framework, and second, what it means to "remain open" to something.

As an aside, we could debate these questions endlessly (and I'm sure we will), but they don't strike me as overcomplicated; so to help me understand your argument, I hope you can just answer the questions.

What I said was that I feel most comfortable remaining open to possibilities of all sorts.

So, to repeat my first question, do those possibilities of all sorts that it makes you feel most comfortable to remain open to include the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage? Does it include a heaven populated by unicorns?

My point is to see if you're being consistent in your framework. I want to see if you're trying to draw some sort of line, or if you'll apply your framework to other things that there is no empirical evidence for, such as invisible dragons, or unicorn heaven.

If you don't, you're being inconsistent in your argument--your "framework" isn't really what you state it to be, but you're instead making judgments between different kinds of belief, remaining open to some and dismissing others based on the circumstantial evidence for that belief. I can get behind that--but I'd suspect we'll strongly disagree on how much circumstantial evidence is necessary not to dismiss something.

If you do, on the other hand, remain open to the dragon in my garage, I'd argue there's a problem with your framework, as it makes you remain open to the existence of an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

I'd also argue that "remaining open" has no real meaning, if you read it to mean that you must remain open to all possibilities, regardless of how little evidence. You'd have to give equal credence to the IFBD in my garage and to the belief that it's not a dragon, but a invisible fire-breathing gibbon, and it's not in my garage, but in my living room.

That is also why I'm asking you what "remaining open" means you do. I'll repeat my second question.

Is there any difference between how someone would rationally act if
- she knew there was no unicorn-afterlife.
or if
-she chose to remain open to the possibility of a unicorn-afterlife.

If "remaining open" means you act no differently than if you have knowledge of non-existence, I'd ask why it matters to remain open.

If, on the other hand, it means you do act differently, then what, specifically, do you think should I do while going to get my car?

As I age I have a growing mass of evidence that what I have believed to be true has a way of revealing itself to me as not being so frequently enough that I'd venture with care to try to tell someone else what their "god" was all about.

So, are you going to venture with equal care not to tell someone else what the invisible fire-breathing dragon in his garage is all about?

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by Tethered Kite

Doesn't science demand that we continue to remain open to possibilities? On both sides of the fence?

Only to the extent that you are willing to change your mind if sufficient evidence is presented that contradicts your current understanding. Until such evidence presents itself (and the phrase "until hell freezes over" seems relevant here), the only reasonable conclusion is that the gods do not exist.

[Lynn Bodoni]

I see many on the board who are proud atheists; there is no God/gods, afterlife or souls. I wonder how you are so sure. My first guess would be that since you have seen no evidence of such a thing, then you don't believe.

If there really is a god or goddess in charge of this planet, s/he has been very lax in the Smiting department for the past couple of millenia. Milleniums. Whatever. Seriously, even though there are people who claim that the Haiti Disaster is the result of a Pact With The Devil, I don't see much happening around here that needs a supernatural cause. If there IS a god/dess, why isn't s/he a lot more active? Why did s/he think that it's amusing to abuse Job's kids, in order to test Job's integrity? If a god/dess does exist, then s/he has a nasty streak, and no sense of fair play at all.

On the other hand, I DO see evidence of scientific facts about me every day. In many cases, I can perform experiments on my own, to test the theory of gravity, for instance. On the other hand, if I say the same prayer for the same thing, maybe my prayer will seem to be granted. Maybe not. And if my sister prays for the same thing, using the same words and other rituals, maybe her prayer will appear to be granted, or maybe not. It's possible that both of us are performing or not performing a vital element in the prayer (maybe we need to have our pinkie fingers extended or curled, for instance), but the fact of the matter is, prayer doesn't do anything for nonbelievers, and I contend that any effect it seems to have on believers is merely a placebo effect.

If there really were an active god/dess, then prayer and faith would have a consistent effect, unless we've got a bipolar diety on our hands. And I don't even want to think about the theological issues that would bring up. Not unless I get a lot more caffeine in me, at any rate.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Originally Posted by jtgain

For all any of us know, when we die we go to a world populated with pink, invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe such a thing, but how can you definitely say that in another dimension (or whatever) that there is no such thing?

Should I assume that there is a possibility that the guy standing next to me in the bus queue is a kiddy diddling serial killer Commie Nazi and act accordingly? It might be true in an other dimension and you can't be too careful these days.

[Tethered Kite]

Originally Posted by whorfin

I realize that they weren't referenced in your framework; that's rather the point I'm making. I'm trying to figure out two things: first, whether you're consistent in applying your framework, and second, what it means to "remain open" to something.

As an aside, we could debate these questions endlessly (and I'm sure we will), but they don't strike me as overcomplicated; so to help me understand your argument, I hope you can just answer the questions.



So, to repeat my first question, do those possibilities of all sorts that it makes you feel most comfortable to remain open to include the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage? Does it include a heaven populated by unicorns?

My point is to see if you're being consistent in your framework. I want to see if you're trying to draw some sort of line, or if you'll apply your framework to other things that there is no empirical evidence for, such as invisible dragons, or unicorn heaven.

If you don't, you're being inconsistent in your argument--your "framework" isn't really what you state it to be, but you're instead making judgments between different kinds of belief, remaining open to some and dismissing others based on the circumstantial evidence for that belief. I can get behind that--but I'd suspect we'll strongly disagree on how much circumstantial evidence is necessary not to dismiss something.

If you do, on the other hand, remain open to the dragon in my garage, I'd argue there's a problem with your framework, as it makes you remain open to the existence of an invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

I'd also argue that "remaining open" has no real meaning, if you read it to mean that you must remain open to all possibilities, regardless of how little evidence. You'd have to give equal credence to the IFBD in my garage and to the belief that it's not a dragon, but a invisible fire-breathing gibbon, and it's not in my garage, but in my living room.

That is also why I'm asking you what "remaining open" means you do. I'll repeat my second question.


If "remaining open" means you act no differently than if you have knowledge of non-existence, I'd ask why it matters to remain open.

If, on the other hand, it means you do act differently, then what, specifically, do you think should I do while going to get my car?



So, are you going to venture with equal care not to tell someone else what the invisible fire-breathing dragon in his garage is all about?

Okay. I understand better where you are coming from now.

[Cyningablod]

Originally Posted by jtgain

[...]
I see many on the board who are proud atheists; there is no God/gods, afterlife or souls. I wonder how you are so sure. My first guess would be that since you have seen no evidence of such a thing, then you don't believe. Fair enough. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Would you not have to concede that if there were something supernatural "out there" that your human mind would not know of such a thing? I can understand agnosticism, but I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

Someone might already have explained the following to the OP (I haven't read through all the responses yet), but I'm going to post anyway.

I wonder how you are so sure.

It's not about being "sure". It's about making the best possible inference from the information available. Atheism, at least the sort of atheism that I think most of us hold to, is not an insistent dogma that there CANNOT be anything beyond the material. It is simply a carefully measured disbelief in the theistic claims to which we have thus far been exposed. I'm an atheist, and I happily admit the possibility of a god's (or gods', plural) existence(s). But given what I know, I find it extremely unlikely. I don't need to be "sure".

So before you ask atheists why they're "sure" that gods don't exist, you might ask yourself why you're "sure" that there isn't actually a fifth terrestrial planet in our solar system, located between Venus and Earth. The answer is, you aren't "sure". But your disbelief in such a thing is the best epistemic match for the available information.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Theists misuse this maxim all the time, without realizing the logical consequence of employing it to argue against atheism. If we follow the "AoEisnotEoA" argument to its conclusion, then we'd pretty much have to believe in EVERYTHING, simply because most claims could not evidentially be entirely ruled out. This would be a hopelessly schizophrenic and unproductive state of affairs.

So a better maxim to follow, instead of "AoEisnotEoA", would be, "Whenever and wherever a consequential claim on one's cognitive allegiance is being made (i.e., whenever you're being asked to believe a non-trivial proposition), accept only those claims that have corroborating evidence." THIS is what atheists do, and it's a very useful, non-circular epistemic maxim.

Would you not have to concede that if there were something supernatural "out there" that your human mind would not know of such a thing?

No, not necessarily, at all. Take the Judeo-Christian God. Supposedly he is both supernatural and interacts with humans. So we would CERTAINLY have a way of experiencing him in a cognitively meaningful way. But most of us atheists have been forced to conclude, based on reason and evidence from psychology and sociology, that these "experiences" are ambiguous and unreliable, at best.

It is indeed possible that there exists a god, whom we cannot "know" with our minds or experience in any meaningful way...but then, why would its existence be at all important to us? What possible good is a completely unknowable god??

I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

Again, this is not what most atheists assert. Most atheists simply say, "I don't believe in X," NOT that "X absolutely doesn't exist."

If plausible evidence of a god's existence were forthcoming, I'd happily become a theist.

[Mr. Kobayashi]

Can't be 100% sure and completely certain of anything. For all I know I'm a brain in a vat. But for practical purposes, I'm 'sure' of my disbelief in deities for the same reason I'm 'sure' that there are no fairies, unicorns, and so on; I've seen no evidence that they do exist.

This also goes to the differences/similarities between the labels of atheist and agnostic. I favour the definition where theism is a statement of belief, or faith, whereas gnosticism is a statement about knowledge. So someone who's sure there is a god would be a gnostic theist, I call my self an agnostic atheist - I can't know god doesn't exist, but I don't believe he/she/it does.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Atheists just dismiss the god belief due to a long period of zero evidence. There is nothing to hang onto.
Those who actually claim to know are the religious people. They state that they know god exists .We atheist just dismiss it as totally lacking any proof whatsoever.

Well, it sort of depends. If you think that the supernatural has been scientifically proven to not exist (as some folks on this very board have stated they believe), then wouldn't that mean you believe, by extension, that God has been scientifically proven to not exist? Or replace "the supernatural" with "major tenets of religion X".

[whorfin]

Originally Posted by Tethered Kite

Okay. I understand better where you are coming from now.

Now that you understand me, would you mind answering my questions so I can better understand you and your framework?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Would you not have to concede that if there were something supernatural "out there" that your human mind would not know of such a thing?

No, I don't. I have no reason to think that the supernatural would be any more unknowable than quantum mechanics. And this whole "the supernatural is unknowable" routine is nothing but a tool for use in arguments like this; the believers only bring it up when defending the nonsense they believe in. As soon as they aren't, they suddenly "know" quite a bit about the supernatural.

Originally Posted by jtgain

I can understand agnosticism, but I can't grasp how one could say definitively that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence.

If by that you mean an afterlife or gods or magic, I can say there definitely aren't any because such claims violate physical laws and the evidence.

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Poppycock. Wrong. Trite. And unmitigated bullshit. Absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence - when evidence should be present. As there should be for any deity put forward by the world's religions.

It's also evidence of absence when the entity claimed to exist violates known physical laws. Which most or all versions of gods do.

Originally Posted by Leaper

Well, it sort of depends. If you think that the supernatural has been scientifically proven to not exist (as some folks on this very board have stated they believe), then wouldn't that mean you believe, by extension, that God has been scientifically proven to not exist? Or replace "the supernatural" with "major tenets of religion X".

It's been proven not to exist as far as science proves anything, which is as good a proof as you'll get short of proving it logically impossible. There's just no room for the "supernatural" in the known laws of physics. And there's no real evidence for the supernatural, nothing worth taking seriously; just empty assertions and other baseless claims. Which means there's no reason to think science is wrong on this.

Arguments like the OPs revolve around demanding that the supernatural be given a special intellectual privilege. It is trying to insist that supernatural beliefs shouldn't be called untrue unless they can be shown to be absolutely logically impossible, which is usually possible only in mathematics. That's not how we use terms like "prove" and "disprove" for other subjects; no one starts ranting about how I can't really prove it if I claim to not believe in Sauron or to not believe that I can fly by flapping my arms.

[Fear Itself]

I do not believe in the absolutism that is necessary for religious faith. Facts are knowledge that is supported by empiric evidence; if new evidence arises, the facts change. This does not mean I must allow for the possibility for the existence of things for which there is as yet no empiric evidence. By my definition, if there is no empiric evidence, it does not exist. If that evidence arises at some point in the future, then it does exist.

Faith based absolutism has a problem with that. They live in an immutable world where knowledge is fixed and finite, and is either known or unknown. When I suggest that what is true in the morning may not be true in the evening, their heads asplode. When facts and reason collide, the relativist sacrifices his facts; the absolutist sacrifices his reason. As a relativist, I value reason over facts.

The fundamental difference between relativism and absolutism can never be reconciled so long as both sides remain convinced of the validity of their positions. The reason I choose relativism is because I believe the universe is knowable, and empiric evidence is the means for separating knowledge from myth. If I must change my beliefs from time to time to fit the evidence, that is far preferable to changing the evidence to fit by beliefs.

[Little Nemo]

Imagine a Christian and an atheist discussing their beliefs.

C: "I'm certain that there is no such thing as Ahura Mazda, Allah, Amma, Baha'u'llah, Baiame, Buddha, Byelobog, Cao Dai, Coyote, the Daghda, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Laozi, Luonnotar, Marduk, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Rama, Raven, Ta'aroa, Tenri-o-no-Mikoto, Thor, Tohan, Vishnu, Xenu, and Zeus."
A: "And I'm certain that there is no such thing as Ahura Mazda, Allah, Amma, Baha'u'llah, Baiame, Buddha, Byelobog, Cao Dai, Coyote, the Daghda, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Jesus, Laozi, Luonnotar, Marduk, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Rama, Raven, Ta'aroa, Tenri-o-no-Mikoto, Thor, Tohan, Vishnu, Xenu, and Zeus."
C: "Why are you certain there's no such thing as Jesus?"

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by jtgain

For all any of us know, when we die we go to a world populated with pink, invisible unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe such a thing, but how can you definitely say that in another dimension (or whatever) that there is no such thing?

That's not the atheist position. They just think that without any evidence of something, and without a clear definition of what that something does, or what it is, or the belief that that thing can be known at all, then it makes sense to go about you business without the belief that the thing exists.

It is certainly possible that everything you own is replaced every night by something identical. Do you waste time considering that possibility? If so, do you consider that it might happen twice a night, or 100 times a night, or might be done by bright pink fairies? And note that in these cases, the "thing" and what it does is much better defined than God.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Leaper

Well, it sort of depends. If you think that the supernatural has been scientifically proven to not exist (as some folks on this very board have stated they believe), then wouldn't that mean you believe, by extension, that God has been scientifically proven to not exist? Or replace "the supernatural" with "major tenets of religion X".

You can not scientifically prove that the supernatural or god ,does not exist. Our ability to perceive and measure things with science has gotten better and better. But it has nothing to do with proving god does not exist. Nor can it prove the Easter Bunny does not exist. You can not subject something supernatural to scientific methodology. That is why it requires faith. Faith is the ability to believe something you can not know anything about, and still believe it is there. It is a leap that many can not make. I can think of no reason to try.

[Indistinguishable]

Nevermind about other dimensions and all that; we can illustrate the point more mundanely.

How sure are you that I'm not a dog? After all, it is conceptually possible that, in fact, I am a most unusual dog who is conversant in English, able to type, and with access to an Internet connection, even if no one has ever actually witnessed such a thing.

So how can you be certain that I'm not a dog?

As I see it, you can be certain that something isn't the case, and still acknowledge that it is conceptually possible for that thing to turn out to surprisingly be the case after all. Though you may object, I am willing to consider this "certainty". Indeed, I am hardly inclined to postulate any other kind of certainty; at any rate, this is, in fact, the kind of certainty that pervades almost all of our daily life...

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

You can not subject something supernatural to scientific methodology.

Well sure, you can measure effects even if you don't understand the mechanism.

If someone could lift objects with their minds, or predict the future, or heal cancer with their touch, we could very much observe and confirm this scientifically. It's only when you have beliefs that stuff happened yet it's so subtle that it can never be measured that it's untestable.

If God regularly intervened in the world and altered things in a supernatural way, it would very much be subject to scientific investigation. It's inconvenient for these people that nothing supernatural actually ever happens.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Well sure, you can measure effects even if you don't understand the mechanism.

If someone could lift objects with their minds, or predict the future, or heal cancer with their touch, we could very much observe and confirm this scientifically. It's only when you have beliefs that stuff happened yet it's so subtle that it can never be measured that it's untestable.

If God regularly intervened in the world and altered things in a supernatural way, it would very much be subject to scientific investigation. It's inconvenient for these people that nothing supernatural actually ever happens.

Exactly. The supernatural is "unknowable" because it never actually happens. It's only because science, cameras, religious freedom and so forth have made it harder to make claims of such things happening without skeptics demanding real evidence that we even hear so much about the supernatural being unknowably subtle in the first place. It's clearly a defensive claim, not one that believers actually take seriously or they wouldn't then turn around and go into so much detail about the "unknowable".

[DanBlather]

What drives me nuts are people that reject religion, but hold on to some ill-defined, untestable supernatural something. If something is outside of our universe, and it can not be observed or measured in any manner, and it has no real effect on anything in our universe, and one can make no predictions based on it's existence, and it wouldn't really have any effect if it did exist, then I think one can make that one last leap and say it's existence is indistinguishable from not existing.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

What drives me nuts are people that reject religion, but hold on to some ill-defined, untestable supernatural something. If something is outside of our universe, and it can not be observed or measured in any manner, and it has no real effect on anything in our universe, and one can make no predictions based on it's existence, and it wouldn't really have any effect if it did exist, then I think one can make that one last leap and say it's existence is indistinguishable from not existing.

It does however allow you to refrain from uttering the dread words "I'm an atheist."

[jtgain]

So the consensus seems to be, "With all of the available data at my disposal, I have not seen evidence of the existence of a God/gods, therefore I do not believe there is one/any"

How is this different from agnosticism?

[Lobohan]

In response to the OP, I'd say that I'm sure there is no evidence for the existence of God. What other stuff with no evidence should I believe in? Zombies, Vampires, Space Ninjas? Are Space Ninjas a belief you'd be willing to admit are as likely as God? If not, why not? We know ninjas existed. We know space exists. We, however have never seen any evidence for immaterial beings. Believing in one is an act of self-delusion.

Given that there is equal evidence for God and Cthulhu, why should I choose God? The whole concept of plunging your hand into the infinite vat of possible Gods and choosing one is utterly stupid.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

If something is outside of our universe, and it can not be observed or measured in any manner, and it has no real effect on anything in our universe, and one can make no predictions based on it's existence, and it wouldn't really have any effect if it did exist, then I think one can make that one last leap and say it's existence is indistinguishable from not existing.

This is why, rather than taking up theism, agnosticism, or atheism, I've wholeheartedly embraced apatheism, also known as the who-gives-a-shit philosophy.

I was so very disappointed when I found that Wikipedia page. I was certain I was the first person to come up with apatheism.

[Snarky_Kong]

Originally Posted by jtgain

So the consensus seems to be, "With all of the available data at my disposal, I have not seen evidence of the existence of a God/gods, therefore I do not believe there is one/any"

How is this different from agnosticism?

Atheism is not mutually exclusive from agnosticism.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Originally Posted by jtgain

So the consensus seems to be, "With all of the available data at my disposal, I have not seen evidence of the existence of a God/gods, therefore I do not believe there is one/any"

How is this different from agnosticism?

When I say agnostic, I refer to someone who asserts that that the question of the existence of God or gods is something humans can never answer with any degree of certainty. In other words, he's saying that the question itself cannot be answered. To give a somewhat silly analogy, consider this question: what was the first thing Abraham Lincoln had to eat on the day of 19 June, 1852? He was alive that day; it's likely that he ate that day. But since he kept no diaries, and we hve no means of time travel or reasonable belief we ever will be able to travel through time, I am agnostic as to what he ate that day.

Contrariwise, when I say atheist, I mean a person who is willing to positively assert, based on either the lack of evidence or for philosophical reasons, that neither God nor gods exist. Continuing the previous example: I am entirely certain that, on 19 June 1852, Mr. Lincoln did NOT have a microwave burrito. The microwave was decades from being invented after all. Now, while it's conceivable that he had access to one via time travel, or because the ancient Egyptians had invented the microwave and requisite power structure, brought same to America, and hidden them where he had access to them, I am certain that neither is true, and unless I was given extraordinarily strong evidence I will disbelieve them.

As I wrote upthread, I am a technical agnostic but practical atheist. Philosophically, I have to call the matter of God's or the gods' existence unsettled, but I can imagine them existing. But practically speaking, I know of no mythological deity that could exist, and I see no reason to think I'll be proven wrong. It's obvious that Yahweh, Zeus, Wotan, Krishna, Superman, and so forth are only fictions.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by jtgain

So the consensus seems to be, "With all of the available data at my disposal, I have not seen evidence of the existence of a God/gods, therefore I do not believe there is one/any"

How is this different from agnosticism?

It's not as cowardly. Agnosticism is about sucking up to the believers; it's about being unwilling to simply say "I don't believe" the way you would about other ridiculous beliefs. People don't say they are "agnostic" about unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters or Sauron; it's religion that gets that treatment because it panders to the believers by pretending their nonsense deserves to be taken seriously.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Skald the Rhymer

In the first place, the vast majority of the world's religions are incompatible with one another.

What if they all have it wrong. What if we are all two dimensional blind men trying to describe a 3 dimensional elephant?

You'd think that, if Jesus were real, he'd have looked at Rwanda in 1990, seen one group of his followers massacreing and raping another group, and said, "Oh, hell no. Fuck that shit. Time to put on my Aslan suit and go eat some evil-doers."

It might be hard for 2 dimensional blind men to understand the motives and behaviour of a three dimensional elephant.

In the third place, in my judgment the emphasis of many religions on a blissful post-death existence compensating for the horrors and travails of this world seems utterly misguided to me. It's an excuse for the powerful not to care about the plight of the suffering, and an attempt to persuade the suffering to meekly accept their state. I see more evidence of a malign and hateful deity, or an incompetent one, than one who either benevolent or competent.

This is the part that I have trouble with too. Does that mean you have less objection to religions like Buddhism?

Originally Posted by x-ray vision

You've been here for enough years to realize that no atheists here claim that there is nothing beyond our mortal existence. Don't make straw man arguments.

I'm pretty sure there are at least some posters that think that claim that when we die thats the end. No part of us survives death, there is nothing beyond the physical universe as we know it.

Originally Posted by ivan astikov

If it's occuring in another dimension, unless you can flit between dimensions, it may as well be a fiction.

This is a good point. And many religions make it relevant by saying that there is some sort of cause and effect between what happens here and what happens there.

Originally Posted by MeanOldLady

How certain are you, on a scale of 1-10, that there is no world populated by pink, invisible unicorns? Maybe a 9.9999? My guess is you wouldn't declare with absolute, air-tight certainty that there isn't, but you'd be willing to bet the ranch.

I think some people get a lot of comfort from the fact that so many other people seem to think its plausible. Perhaps religions just fills some basic psychological need that most of us have and that account for the large number of people with faith but most people have more faith in religion than pink unicorns.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Atheists just dismiss the god belief due to a long period of zero evidence. There is nothing to hang onto.

And I think that is a reasonable position but on this board it seems to be open season on anyone who is religious. I am a fairly rational person and I realize that my religious faith is not grounded in facts but I believe nonetheless, I can't help it. A lot of people in the world feel the same way, are we all suffering from an incredibly prevalent psychosis?

We atheist just dismiss it as totally lacking any proof whatsoever.

Its more than dismissing it as lacking proof, its actively saying that those who have faith are fooling themselves and might as well believe in pink unicorns.

If plausible evidence of a god's existence were forthcoming, I'd happily become a theist.

I take it you don't believe the stuff they say in the bible, huh? It would certainly qualify as one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

You can not scientifically prove that the supernatural or god ,does not exist. Our ability to perceive and measure things with science has gotten better and better. But it has nothing to do with proving god does not exist. Nor can it prove the Easter Bunny does not exist. You can not subject something supernatural to scientific methodology. That is why it requires faith. Faith is the ability to believe something you can not know anything about, and still believe it is there. It is a leap that many can not make. I can think of no reason to try.

If only faith could be had for the trying.

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Well sure, you can measure effects even if you don't understand the mechanism.

If someone could lift objects with their minds, or predict the future, or heal cancer with their touch, we could very much observe and confirm this scientifically. It's only when you have beliefs that stuff happened yet it's so subtle that it can never be measured that it's untestable.

If God regularly intervened in the world and altered things in a supernatural way, it would very much be subject to scientific investigation. It's inconvenient for these people that nothing supernatural actually ever happens.

Science frequently requires reproducable results. We understand how lightning works but are usually unable to predict exactly where lightning will strike, we are unable to predict when earthquakes will occur. I think its a bit arrogant to believe that we understand enough about the way things work to rule out something that man has believed almost since he could think.

Originally Posted by DanBlather

What drives me nuts are people that reject religion, but hold on to some ill-defined, untestable supernatural something. If something is outside of our universe, and it can not be observed or measured in any manner, and it has no real effect on anything in our universe, and one can make no predictions based on it's existence, and it wouldn't really have any effect if it did exist, then I think one can make that one last leap and say it's existence is indistinguishable from not existing.

Some religions say that what you do in this world has consequences in the other.

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

It might be hard for 2 dimensional blind men to understand the motives and behaviour of a three dimensional elephant.

Well, perhaps my understanding will never be good enough by somebody else's standards, but it's all I've got. Once we admit "Eh, who knows. This reasoning looks sound, but I could be wrong about it. I could be wrong about everything. Why bother thinking?", all reasoning goes out the window ("Is 25 * 32 equal to 800? Eh, it looks like it is, but perhaps I'll just never understand the subtle flaw in my argument."). So, fine, you can consider such a possibility, if you like, but moving past it is not defective reasoning; it's the only reasoning there is...