Oh, come on. It’s fine if you want to say that atheism and agnosticism are not “spiritual beliefs,” but they are certainly beliefs about spirituality. As long as it’s understood that they’re generally not faith-based beliefs in the same way that theism is, why should anyone care if they are described by that particular turn of phrase?
It will be argued precisely as many times as someone insists that his or her preferred usage is the obviously correct one.
I would contend that a belief that there is no Gods or supernatual entities is certainly a belief about the spiritual realm.
I think though that of the two forms of atheism that you present, I would only say that the second is true atheism. To say that you lack any evidence for the existence and non-existence of God I woudl say is really more a form of Agnosticism. Without proof you are in essense without knowledge, which is the very meaning of agnosticism.
I guess this whole argument bugs me, more because it involves poor logic than anything else. There is misconception amoungst many that a lack of proof of a statement means that the statement must be false. This is not true, if there is no proof of a statement then its truth value is undetermined. There is no “default answer” or whatever in logic. If there is no proof then nothing can be said for certain either way. There are many statements we lack the ability to prove that are nevertheless true.
Many atheists use the “there is no proof of God therefore they do not exist” argument. This is in many ways a poor argument, not least of which because absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absense. I would say that without a logical argument as to why God cannot exist, then someone is technically an agnostic.
Bob.
I won’t argue with your thesis as stated in the quote, badchad; in fact I’ll heartily agree with it. What I take issue with, however, is your use of the word “brainwash.” It is inaccurate–no, an outright lie–as well as being needlessly inflammatory and distracting. Moreover, you could just as easily have written “indoctrinated.” Such behavior demonstates a desire to pick a fight, not a desire to change anyone’s mind.
Except that permitting something ‘undetermined’ status might be more credit than it desrves; I can offer you no proof of the existence of the tiny orange mushroom-people; is it safe to say therefore that their existence is undetermined? Assuming something is false until otherwise demonstrated is not an unreasonable way to live, in fact it’s the way all of us (except perhaps a handful of residents of mental institiutions) live. If we were to accept every concievable thing as ‘undetermined’, we would be paralysed by indecision - should you step onto the doormat? Be careful before you answer, because the status of the vengeful killer doormat-protecting worm is as yet undetermined.
Could you give us a few examples that relate to phenomena outside of the human mind?
Because it lumps people who think rationally in with people who don’t, that’s why. You can drink invisible coffee from your invisible mug that only you can see, but until you can find a way to prove that there is such an invisible mug then my declaration that there is no mug is not a belief.
The only reason an atheist can make any statement about god is because theists bring it up. I don’t disbelieve an invisible coffee mug until someone claims there is one. But if I do happen to imagine an invisible mug, I know it is just in my mind and my imagination. I don’t go out to prove that it doesn’t exist because there is no reason to. If you believe on faith (that is it is in your mind without proof), then how should I prove that you are wrong? And why should I as you are the one making the claim?
Does this mean that you personally are therefore agnostic on the existnece of Thoth, Ganesh, and Wodin? How about the deities of the Cargo Cults? Obeah? Fetish cults where the god is the object?
How do you view the beliefs of Scientologists? How about if I make up a religion here and now, as others have done in this thread - does my postulating the new religion suddenly force you into the position that you have to declare my beliefs “undecided”?
Someone once likened the existence of god to having my house painted. He said that a painter wouldn’t just walk in and paint my house…I’d have to ask him to.
I told him if I was going to hire a painter, there’d have to be one to hire. If there wasn’t one, and I wanted to change the color of my house, I’d have to paint the house myself.
Ahhh, the old chestnut of “all religions are equivalent to believing something ludicrous”. Although I do give you credit for the originality of the entity 
Anyway what I would say that depending on what you do affirm about the world around you many things are demonstrably false through the use of logical contradiction. If something is true then that means that everything that is contradictory to that must be false. So in the example of the tiny orange mushroom people, from my Christian perspective I would say that I know that the vengeful killer doormat protecting worm doesn’t exist. I know this because the existence of such a thing is inconsistent with the existence of God, which I accept as true, and therefore through logical contradiction it cannot exist.
For the things that you can’t discount through contradiction you do have to make an assumption as to how you are going to live with that uncertainty. However you should never confuse your assumption with proof, and without proof you have to be open to the possibility that you may be wrong. Many (not all) of the “no proof of God” atheists I know are using their assumption of the non-existence of God as their proof and are completely dismissive of anything that contradicts it.
A good example is the platypus, which really is a Dr Suess like animal. It is quite unique in much of its physiology, so much so that when it was first found by the English and stuffed samples were sent back to England, they were checking to see of the duck-like bill was stitched on. If you would have asked most Europeans prior to 1788 if such an animal existed, you probably would have gotten that same answer of “No, because there is no proof”. Irrespective the platypus continued to exist in Australia, oblivious to the fact that people didn’t know or believe in its existence.
Beliefs change, new facts come to light, ect. The truth is always the truth, we just may not be able to see it.
Bob.
Well, ok, but please recognize that you’re the one who’s using the word “belief” in an exceptional way. The word “belief” is commonly used to refer to positions on matters which are much more settled than the existence of god – e.g., it is my belief that the sky is blue and the holocaust really happened, and in no way am I using that word incorrectly. If you intend to use the word only when referring to positions that are unsupported by logic or evidence, then you will need to point that out in the future if you wish to avoid misunderstandings.
Simply, through contradiction. You can prove that God doesn’t exist if the existence of God is inconsistent with something else that you accept as true.
No, I don’t believe other religions are true because they contradict the Christian belief I hold to be true.
Bob
You can sugarcoat it all you want, but brainwashing is precisely what’s going on:
Children generally don’t come to religion on their own. They’re coerced by their parents and the church to believe something that, under other circumstances, would be considered incredible. It’s extremely difficult to get a lifelong free-thinker to buy into the concept; that’s why they get 'em young. I’d venture to guess that most believers who were indoctrinated in their youth have never had a revelation (at least not one in which the seeds weren’t pre-planted by church or family) and were never offered another option by the people they’re supposed to trust the most in this world. The pressure to please one’s parents is a very strong motivator.
So in effect we could use the old saw about us both being atheists, but me happening to believe in one fewer gods than you. Otherwise, your argument is overwhelmingly circular.
Out of interest, what do you think of people raised by atheists who hold the same beliefs as their parents, are they brainwashed too? Secondly, what do you think of people who reject the belief of their upbrining and freely choose a different belief as an adult, are they being brainwashed as well? I am interested in just how far you see this brainwashing happening.
Bob
Logical contradictions, as methods of proof, aren’t all that great. There is no logical contradiction in this statement “The cow jumped over the moon.” She didn’t, however. It’s not a logical impossibility. It’s a physical impossibility.
For those who accept Zeus to exist, God cannot exist. No proof here, either.
What contradicts the assumpton that God has not been proven to exist?
You were asked for an example of a statement that “we lack the ability to prove.” Whattya mean “we”, paleface? Surely the folks living around the platypiousses had the ability to prove it. For that matter, Europeans did not “lack the ability.” They just lacked access.
And are thusly totally unjustified in making statements about it, until it comes to light.
I think that old saw is a poor argument. I don’t disbelieve other religions because of lack of evidence. I disbelieve them because I cannot logically believe them and Christianity.
Secondly I fail to see how my argument is circular. I believe Christianity not just because of some nebulous “faith”, but because I am convinced that Jesus really lived and he really did rise from the dead. That is the evidence that I accept that makes me believe that Christianity is true. You may not accept that as evidence as valid, but my belief is based on more than just some wish for it to be true.
Bob.
You should pay closer attention; I have already stated that I am not an atheist; the statement to which you responded above was saying nothing of the sort; it was describing the logical conclusion of accepting everything as undetermined in the absence of proof.
I think that’s a pretty poor example; given that the means to verify the existence of platypuses actually existed.
But you say there are many such examples. Pick another.
What is the nature of said evidence?
It still makes you an atheist with respect to any religion other than Christianity. It doesn’t matter why you disbelieve. Simple disbelief is sufficient.
If they weren’t encouraged to weigh the evidence and were simply taught a flat statement that god didn’t exist, then yes…they were brainwashed. I would think those cases would be rare considering most, if not all, atheists I know were taught to explore the validity of everything. The fact that they come to the conclusion that there is no god is usually based on that exploration.
In response to your second question, I think there is a large degree of social brainwashing and short or extended instances of intellectual weakness (due to, say, illness, down-on-your-luckism, marital or peer pressure) that persuade a lifelong atheist to believe. If a person drops, say, catholicism for methodism, I think that’s more a matter of cherry-picking. Methodism just feels better; it fits their particular lifestyle better, so they go over the wall.
And I disbelieve them because I cannot logically believe them or Christianity.
To you, Christianity is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. To me, it’s just another in a whole load of contradictory beliefs.
I believe in Christianity, therefore Ganesh doesn’t exist, because he is inconsistent with my belief in Christianity (etc.). That’s a circular argument if ever I saw one.
Which to me sounds like nebulous faith. Your passion and belief, which I do not doubt for a second, are held equally strongly by adherents of dozens of other religions, who might use exactly the same argument that you do. That you happen to be a Christian doesn’t mean jack to me - to me you look just like a passionate Hindu or a Buddhist does. Why should I listen to them and not you? Or more to the point, I ignore them all.
We this this fairly often here. I understand the concept but it lacks something. The God concept relates to some perennial questions about us in a way that Orange Mushroom people, IPUs etc do not. There is little reason to give them any consideration. For many there is some reason to give those perennial questions consideration. More importantly, for many people their belief springs from some powerful personal experience. Something that is internal and subjective. You are free to call that experience emotions or brain chemistry or whatever, just as I am free to call it a spiritual experience.