Ask The Atheist Guy

In My Humble Opinion
21

I would say you are incorrect. :slight_smile:

Good question. Here is the difference in a nutshell:

Agnosticism: There may or may not be a god, I don’t know.

Atheism: I do not believe in god.

A subtle, but important different. Of course, there are things like “strong” and “weak” atheism which can blur the distinction further.

Glad you asked. “Strong” atheism is an explicit denial of the existance of Gods. This is more in line with what King Rat and Webster’s are calling atheism. It is my experience that most people who call themselves atheists subscribe to the “weak” form of atheism, which is what I have been describing thus far.

It is important to make the distinction between knowledge and belief. Knowledge is gained through direct experience, such as gaining knowledge from your senses or being given knowledge by another person, or a book. Belief is, specifically, something that occurs without knowledge. Atheism has only to do with the lack of belief, it says nothing about knowledge.

A few points:
First, I did not put this thread in GD for a reason. It is not a defense of atheism or an affront to religion. It is for people who have questions about what atheists believe and think. If you want to debate the merits and possibilities of it, then go open a thread in GD.

Second, your assertion that I can not be an atheist if I can not arrive at conclusions is entirely false. Re-read the definitions of atheism, and “strong” and “weak” that I gave above.

Webster’s, simply put, is wrong. Dictionaries are not a special, magical source of correct information. Webster’s definition applies only to “strong” atheists, which, according to my experience, are a minority.

Option C is a definition of “strong” atheism. It is not a definition of atheism in general. To disbelieve something is to have a belief.. Most atheists simply do not have a belief.

[quote[
So what is your evidence to persuade me that I should adopt position c. over position b.? [/QUOTE]

It is not my goal to “pursuade” you in any way. I don’t care what you believe.

Again, this is not GD. I’m going to try to stay away from the debate aspect of this from this post further.

22

Well, let’s see. There was the Big Bang. But what was before the Big Bang? I don’t know, you don’t know either, and in fact nobody knows. And I feel that just making up an answer and calling it “God” is silly. And if we cannot answer what created the Big Bang, theists equally cannot answer what created God. Sure, you can say that God “always existed”, but I could say the same thing about the conditions that existed “before” the Big Bang.

Nowadays physicists are pretty sure that this question cannot be answered by science. Since the Big Bang created time, it makes no sense to talk of a “time” before the Big Bang…because time didn’t exist yet.

So, I’m comfortable with the answer “we don’t know, and it looks like we can’t know”. Where is it written that human beings will be able to understand everything in/about the universe?

23

Give me a definition of “God” and I’ll tell you if I disbelieve in the existence of such an entity. I disbelieve in the existance of a whole raft of “gods”…Yahweh, Osiris, Zeus, Thor, Amaterasu, Shiva, Ahura Mazda, Quezalcoatl…

If you define “God” as “the natural universe and the underlying principles and processes that it reveals”, like Einstein did, then we might say that I believe the natural universe exists and it has underlying principles and processes. But I wouldn’t therefore say I believed in God, since it would simply confuse people. 99.9% of the people out there wouldn’t know my idiolectic definition of God, and so when I used the word they would think I meant something else. Why not call the universe “the Universe”? What do we gain by calling it “God”?

Again, there comes a point when your redefinition of “God” stretches the word to the breaking point. I mean, if your cat had kittens in the oven you wouldn’t call them biscuits, would you?

24

I can assure you I had no intention of offending you.

I was trying to point out the difference between Agnosticism and Atheism.

Your thread title was “Ask the Atheist Guy” and I therefore presented you with a number of questions regarding Atheism.

I personally think your position is quite hard to justify and I was therefore putting points to you in order to see what your response would be in order that I could understand more about the Atheist position.

If I am wrong in any factual way, please feel free to correct me.

You say that Atheism is “I do not believe in god”. This means disbelief. If you actively disbelieve in the existence of god then you must have a positive disbelief. Therefore you must have some proof that entitles you to hold this position.

Otherwise you are an Agnostic, who believes that there is not enough evidence either way to make a reliable judgement.

I think I basically dont understand what makes your brand of atheism any different from my brand of agnosticism.

Words might as well mean something rather than nothing.

I agree that dictionary definitions are merely mirrors of an ever-evolving language but they are the only frame of reference we have regarding the use of language.

Its best if we agree to use them so that we are at least talking about the same thing!

25

The fact that I wrote in my post “non-belief” instead of “disbelief” in defining atheisim supports this. But I am cautious to start saying that we are right and the dictionary is wrong. Britannica says the “critique” and “denial” of metaphysical beliefs in Gods or spiritual beings. My old 1959 Britannica is quite clear that it is the denial of supreme objects of reverence, etc. So I asked myself if I would have a problem substituting “disbelief” instead of “non-belief” in my post. I would not. It’s just that “nonbeliever” rolls off the tongue easier than “disbeliever”. That’s all. I am a disbeliever. It is possible to have this “belief” (disbelief) because dogma is a system, not just a single belief.

26

Yes, as measured by an EEG, or electroencephalograph. Electrical energy, same as that which courses thru a toaster to heat it up. Nothing mysterious about what it is. The mystery is in how it works to make the brain function, and all that. But when one dies, electrical activity ceases, in the brain as well as the rest of the nervous system.

I don’t mean to be pedantic here, I would just suggest that you not try to use the argument that “energy can neither be created or destroyed” to advance the assertion of the persistance of individual human consciousness after death. From a scientific standpoint it does not advance your cause.

Qadgop, MD

27

AS a fellow atheist, I simply MUST know; what is the most common question you hear from people you meet…ummmm…in the “real world” (not here)?

28

Good question. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what the most common is. I rarely talk about atheism unless I’m asked directly what my religion is, and then I often don’t get too many questions (this may simply be due to the fact that I live in a very liberal and diverse place.)

I have had at least five exchanges that went something like this, though:

Person: So, what religion are you?
Me: I don’t have a religion.
Person: But do you believe in God?
Me: Nope.
Person: Oh.

29

I also rarely talk about atheism. Only if I’m asked a direct question. I’m not going to try and convert anyone, so I see no need to cause controversy/start arguments.

The most common question I get is “…well…do you believe in the devil?” :rolleyes:

Today, someone asked me “Well what DO you believe?” Could that possibly be any more vague???

Many religious people are absolutely convinced that morals can only come from faith. Some are convinced that is simply not possible that one could have no faith.

30

No offense taken.

I think I have done my best to explain my opinion on the matter. Here’s a much better summary by Austin Cline. (I wish I could explain some of this stuff as well as he; I find it difficult sometimes to put abstract stuff like this to words.).

I shouldn’t have tried to approach this from the angle of “disbelief” and “belief” like I did before. Rather I will try to explain it another way, which I heard somebody else say once:

Disbelieve that a proposition is true is not the same thing as a belief that the proposition is false.

“disbelieve” can be defined as either denying a belief or not having a belief. I am talking about the latter definition (the OED agrees with me here, not sure about Webster’s.)
Otherwise you are an Agnostic, who believes that there is not enough evidence either way to make a reliable judgement.

I think I basically dont understand what makes your brand of atheism any different from my brand of agnosticism.

[/QUOTE]

Like I said, the line can blur easily between weak atheism and agnosticism. Agnosticism comes from the root gnosis which means (roughly) “knowledge.” You are right that if you think there is no evidence either way, you lack knowledge. You are therefore an agnostic.

Agnosticism and atheism are NOT mutually exclusive

One is a statement about the lack of knowledge, the other about the lack of belief. It is quite possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist.

Every individual atheist and/or agnostic has a different opinion about this, of course. You will have to ask each one. If you ask me, I would say, “yes,” I am both an agnostic and an atheist.

31

What qualities would a deity have to have to fit into the
category? Would it have to be all-knowing, all-powerful,
and everlasting, or would you consider belief in something
less than that still a belief in a god?

What evidence would you require to believe in a divine being?

32

Another point regarding the distinction between atheist and agnostic: Although I don’t know how many self-identified agnostics actually hold to this position, I have seen agnostic defined as someone “who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God” (as in here). A “weak” atheist may simply think there is no evidence to support belief in a particular definition of God, without saying it would be impossible to ever be presented with evidence for the existence of that particular definition of God.

Also, one person may be an agnostic or “weak” atheist with respect to some definitions of God, simply finding there is no evidence to support belief in a God as defined by those definitions, and a “strong” atheist or positive disbeliever with respect to other definitions of God, regarding them as clearly untrue on grounds of logical impossibility or internal contradiction in the definition, conflicting with known factual evidence, being blatantly absurd, etc.

33

Good question. One thing that can make discussion about atheism difficult is that no one ever defines what a “god” is anyway. If you’re talking to a Christian, he might think you do not believe in the Christian god, when in fact the Christian god holds equal weight with all other type of deities under atheism. I often find it clearer to talk about theism rather than God or gods. I think of theism as a belief in something that wilfully created the Universe and/or Life and/or Humanity. Atheism, then, is simply the opposite of that.

I would require direct knowledge of the being. Of course, once direct knowledge is obtained, belief is unnecessary. As for what would constitute “direct knowledge” I can’t really say. I find it impossible to imagine what direct knowledge of that sort would be like.

34

i like the line from the movie “contact”
jodie foster plays an athiest :

they were arguing the existence of god. she wanted proof he existed.

matthew McConaughey: “did you love your father?”
jodie foster :“of course”
matthhew : “prove it”

do you love your mother? if so, could you prove it?

35

Hey, friedo, I’m an atheist and an agnostic, too!

As an atheist, I don’t believe a god exists, the same way I don’t believe in the existence of the Tooth Fairy or ghosts. xanakis, you are also an atheist; I just believe in one less god than you do.

As an agnostic, I believe that I can’t know for certain if a god (or the Tooth Fairy, or ghosts) exists. These things, if they exist, occupy a supernatural realm while I exist exclusively in the natural world. As far as I know, my imperfect senses can only detect physical phenomena which must then be interpreted by my imperfect brain before I can perceive them.

Technically, I can’t know anything at all for certain, but I’m reasonably sure of the basic things that get me through the day. For example, I’m fairly sure I exist and that I must consume food, water, and oxygen to live. I can assume these things because I have plentiful evidence that they are true. I have no evidence of any god or other magical being, though.

However, maybe enough evidence of the existence of (say) ghosts will be collected. If ghosts can be detected, predicted, and measured scientifically, (and incidentally proven to be part of the natural- not supernatural- world) I would likely begin to believe in them.

I really wish somebody could prove that ghosts exist, especially. Wouldn’t it be cool if they did?

36

Also a favorite of mine. I have the DVD. :smiley:

Yes, and no, I can’t. This is an important point though. A lot of people who don’t really understand atheism think that atheists try to prove that God does not exist. As I explained above, that’s generally not true (except for extremely “strong” atheists.)

37

I like Lemur’s answer better than friedo’s.

Lemur says

Yeah, I hear that. I don’t say it either, except under unusual circumstances, for exactly that reason. (I certainly don’t believe in God in the same sense that they do!).

OTOH, I think it could be misleading to describe myself as an atheist. friedo conceptualizes “atheist” as one who “does not believe in God”, rather than “one who believes God does not exist”. I think that confuses people, especiallly as that is what most people think of as the description of an “agnostic”. Which doesn’t make friedo wrong…just potentially confusing :slight_smile:

[pseudo-hijack] A similar problem of nomenclature comes in if you add gnostics to the discussion. A gnostic is a person who does not believe something they don’t know. (None of this “faith” stuff for the gnostic!). In the absence of first-hand knowledge (e.g., burning bushes and whatnot, I suppose), the gnostic is going to say “I do not know”, but would deny being an agnostic. “An AGnostic”, the gnostic would say, “is someone whose believes are not based on what they know”. Which is, if you think about it, a description most accurately applied to the majority of people who claim to believe in God.

So the weak atheists who are agnostic are really gnostic, but most believers are agnostic, and the strong atheists who aren’t agnostic generally are.

Happy to have helped clear that up…
[/pseudo-hijack]

38

Xanakis:

You assert that since we can’t know whether God exists or not, then we should not disbelieve in God. But, there are an infinity of potential entities for which there is no proof or disproof.

The classic example of this is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. There is no evidence that Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, but there is also no evidence that they don’t exist. But, do we say that we must be agnostic about the existance of Invisible Pink Unicorns?

An atheist simply takes Occam’s Razor to the proposition that there is no evidence for or against the existance of God. If there is no evidence for or against ANY entity, I hold that we therefore should disbelieve that such an entity exists, otherwise we will be forced to entertain an infinity of unprovable things. So, until there is evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist, I don’t believe they exist. Until there is evidence that friendly leprechauns exist, I don’t beleive they exist. Until there is evidence that Santa Claus exists, I don’t believe Santa Claus exists. Until there is evidence that Quetzalcoatl exists, I don’t believe Quetzalcoatl exists. I am not agnostic about any of them. For the same reason, I am not agnostic about the existance of God/gods.

Likewise, I am not really impressed about the distinction between “I do not believe God exists” and “I believe God does not exist”. Both are semantically equivalent to me. It depends on the definition of “believe”. I do not believe Invisible Pink Unicorns exist, and I believe Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist. Same thing. Saying that I believe that God does not exist doesn’t mean that I have commited myself to that position for all eternity, and that I have undertaken to never change my mind no matter what happens. It simply means that, given what I know, it doesn’t seem like God exists. Or, to put it more formally, I do not believe that an entity that falls under the definition “God” exists.

That doesn’t mean that I feel I am privledged with metaphysical knowledge beyond the ken of mere mortals. It simply seems to me that such an entity is not out there, and Occam’s Razor suggests that I not complicate things needlessly. There are no phenomenon that require “God” for an explanation. God is not required to explain anything in the Universe, therefore, why should I believe in such a thing? And since I should not believe in such a thing, I do not believe in such a thing.

Pretty simple.

39

How do you feel about interfaith services, like those that have been happening in response to the September 11 attacks?

Though I’ve found comfort in them, along with many others, it seems that they all have a strong Theistic (and Monotheistic) theme. I always wonder how they play to our Atheist-Americans.

Bill

40

I think it is wonderful that people of many religions come together to participate in them. It is a good thing that religion isn’t (usually) causing so much divisiveness these days. I don’t particularly see any distinction between an interfaith service and a service for a particular religion. They are both theistic.