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

[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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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?? :dubious:

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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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”.