Does being atheist mean you [B]believe[/B] with utter certainty that all religions are false?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Yes, and while some might argue that remaining neutral on the matter is a perfectly safe and reasonable thing to do, there’s a little thing called skepticism.

Most people have it to some degree. Most people don’t automatically believe everything you tell them.

For example, if I told you that if you prayed to me, you could fly by flapping your hands, and literally run through walls, your first reaction should not rationally be to run headfirst into a wall, after kneeling before me in prayer.

Such are the sorts of claims made by the Jesus of the Christian Bible.

Test them, and you’ll find that these claims aren’t true.

I have yet to see even one true believer take off by flapping his arms, or run through solid walls.

That’s kind of why it seems more rational to me to remain skeptical of extraordinary claims without even the slightest shred of even ordinary evidence, let alone extraordinary proof.

Perhaps I have dug an extremely large basement for it to dwell in. Ignore the usual skeptical questions and focus on the only important one: How likely is it that I have a 900 foot dragon that billions of people worship, and yet, no one has ever actually seen before?

Just take that one and try it on for size.

Now there are invisible things which affect our world, some which have been discovered and understood, some which have not. It is not reasonable to assume that simply because something is invisible, that does not mean it is not there.

However, the other invisible forces which affect our world have at least been independently verified and are testable and repeatable.

The very nature of the deity (or deities) which are claimed by religious people always work around the fact that no actual skeptic can be offered any shred of evidence of their existence. The proof is always personal.

I saw a vision, I had a dream, I heard a voice, I felt the spirit within me, and so on. I saw an easy forgery on a slice of toast and lack the imagination to think someone might be tricking me.

That would at least BE something.

I’m telling you my dragon exists, however, I cannot let you inside my house to show you the dragon. I will not let even my own followers inside my house to see the dragon. I will show you none of the scales that he sheds, nor point out which trees he burns down at night when he flies around (invisibly, of course) breathing invisible fire. I will not take a video camera and record myself invisibly flying the seven headed dragon. I will not even show you the vast quantities of untraceable food that he ravenously devours.

Furthermore, my dragon is holy and can see into the future. He can predict what happens and when. He is all knowing.

Yet I do not use him to thwart terrorist attacks. I do not use him to avoid being hit from behind by a text-n-driver. I have never publicly announced any prediction that has ever turned out to be accurate. His divine gift of future sight has never once been adequately demonstrated. But I will also insist that you believe he can see into the future.

That’s not all.

I’m also telling you that this dragon has the ability to perform extraordinary feats of astounding magic, and that he can take life, and bring the dead back to life. I literally have in my den a magic seven headed dragon which could end the AIDS virus this very moment. I could make all of the dinosaurs come back to life, and make them vanish just as suddenly. I could turn the moon into a gigantic ball of blood, and make frogs rain from the sky. But I will refuse to demonstrate these various miracles.

Now me personally? I’ve seen the dragon, and witnessed all his miracles, by myself, in my own private space, when no one else was around. I feed him every night and even scratch him behind the ears to help him calm down and go to sleep. And then I wash all DNA evidence of the creature off of my hands, ritualistically, making sure there is no possible way direct evidence the creature exists is stolen from me.

Also, if anyone breaks into my house, the invisible seven headed magic dragon will vanish, using his holy foresight, and will make it appear as if he was never there. It will be an ordinary house that a 900 foot dragon couldn’t possibly fit in.

But these are all tricks. My dragon works in mysterious ways. He prefers you believe in him without evidence, because that’s the only true form of faith, in his holy reptilian wisdom.

Now, at this point, you should be more than a little skeptical of my dragon’s existence. Because I have rendered it literally impossible that you could ever verify the existence of said dragon, by sheer coincidence.

Everything else in the universe is just there to be discovered. The thing I want you to believe in shrouds itself with an infinite number of layers of mystery that cannot ever be penetrated, conveniently preventing you from even accidentally or on purpose verifying any of my claims.

By now, your skepticism meter should be at maximum. Your bullshit alarms should be ringing.

If I were to ask you if you believe or disbelieve in my dragon’s existence, you would tell me that it’s completely and utterly unreasonable for anyone to believe the dragon is real.

Even though a truly “open minded” person would not make a judgment as to whether or not it exists, I’m sure. Such is agnosticism.

Well, maybe you’ll leave yourself some wiggle room.

Maybe you say you doubt my specific dragon exists, but leave open the possibility of other, equally magical, equally dubious invisible seven-headed dragons, just to play it safe. Now you’re a *weak *a-dragon-ist.

Me personally? I’m willing to go as far as to say not only does my seven-headed dragon not exist, but no seven headed dragons exist. Ever. Anywhere.

And I think that’s a perfectly reasonable position to have.

Show me your seven headed dragon, and then perhaps I’ll believe in one.

42

Come on Askthepizzaguy, get off that bloody fence! :smiley:

43

Well, that’s going to depend on the atheist, of course.

Whenever I run across this “close-minded atheists vs. open-minded agnostics” (and implicitly or explicitly lumping the atheists in with the religious believers) argument, I always reflect on the very first definition for “agnostic” from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Nothing can be known of immaterial things. Skipping over whether or not a 900-foot dragon is an “immaterial thing”, just according to the dictionary it’s the agnostics who will never, ever believe in the dragon–or rather, will never, ever believe in God. It’s the agnostics–not the atheists–who, if you had them experience a thousand years of perfect paradise on a millennial Earth, no war or poverty or want of any kind, complete with some glowing bearded guy sitting on a great big white throne in Jerusalem, and lions literally frolicing with lambs (vegetarian tigers! whee!) and no one dying or getting sick or growing old–it’s the agnostic who would (if he’s going by the strict dictionary definition) have to shrug his shoulders and say “Gee, I dunno–it could be Sufficiently Advanced Aliens! Or maybe I’m a brain in a jar and this is the Matrix!”

Whereas the OED definition of atheist is merely:

Well, hey, just because I disbelieve it now doesn’t mean I’ll still disbelieve in the existence of God after a thousand years of divinely ruled paradise. (Or alternatively, “when I’m burning in hell!” as certain Christian evangelists like to put it.)

I realize real-life people who self-identify as agnostics may not actually use the word in accordance with the strict dictionary definition, and in fact there are multiple definitions, including “In extended use: a person who is not persuaded by or committed to a particular point of view; a sceptic. Also: person of indeterminate ideology or conviction; an equivocator” for “agnostic” and “One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man” for “atheist”. (And also other dictionaries may given different definitions.) But I do find this “close-minded atheists vs. open-minded agnostics” argument slightly irritating.

There are other issues, of course. I don’t believe dragons exist, but I don’t consider them a logical impossibility, and maybe not even a physical impossibility–I’ve seen some pretty ingenious essays about how you could semi-plausibly get large-ish creatures that breathe fire, and maybe even fly (or sort of, float, really–living Hindenburgs).

But some definitions of “God”-- not just “a First Cause or an Intelligent Designer of the Universe”, but some of the things in Christian theology–seem to me to involve logical impossibilities, not just “lack of evidence.”

Is the OP absolutely, 100% certain that there is not a single four-sided triangle anywhere in the Universe? Is there no proof or evidence or argument that could convince you that 2 + 2 = 5, or perhaps 3? (Maybe for sufficiently large values of 2?)

For me, a being who “has neither beginning, nor end, nor duration by way of sequence or succession of moments” and has “no past or future…only an eternal present” and who “possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things…knows everything possible as well as actual” and yet who was also “incarnated” as a human being:

Such a being I put in the category of four-sided triangles, not fire-breathing dragons (or even hypothetical First Causes or Cosmic Intelligent Designers).

44

Pretty much my definition.

I’m apathetic, agnostic, and atheist. Don’t care. Don’t know. Don’t believe. Most of the atheists I know are in this category (also some just call themselves “agnostics.”)

45

If a fire-and-brimstone type believer asks me my beliefs, I will likely say I’m an atheist. I am very confident that the vengeful-God-in-the-sky-fable came into place through humans wanting to control other humans. I came to this conclusion studying history. So, I’m answering that person’s question: “No, I don’t believe in what you’re probably thinking of when you say ‘God’”.

Such believers often think that only certain categories of believers - which, curiously, they always happen to belong to - are looked on favorably by God, which strikes me as equally absurd. To quote *Homer, “And what if we’ve picked the wrong religion? Then every week, we’re making God madder and madder”. The ‘jealous God’ is another obvious (to me) vestige of earthly power struggles.

OTOH, if a more tolerant believer asks the same question, I’ll probably describe my beliefs as agnostic. I’m not 100% certain that there is no supreme intelligence in the universe, but I haven’t seen sufficient evidence thereof. A person who acknowledges the humanity of good people in other faiths is IMO more likely to be onto something. This allegedly Supreme Being did, after all, create the whole universe, not just the part you grew up in.

There’s a quote I’ve tried digging up, which I think was attributed to Socrates, telling a dogmatic believer, “I don’t claim to know what happens after death. But I’m very sure that you don’t either”.

*Simpson

46

Well, there’s a skeptic’s creed:

47

Not necessarily. It could also be The Doctor having his fun.

48

As they say (someone else :rolleyes: ) Heaven for climate, Hell for company.

49

I generally don’t call myself atheist or agnostic. I prefer non-religious because religion doesn’t intrude on my life and rarely enters my thoughts. Pretty much the only time I comment on it is on the board.

I guess you can call me an agnostic. I reject that only atheists can be certain and agnostics are wishy-washy. I believe with 100% certainty the all religions are false. They are stories the primitive cultures used to explain their world and for some reason we have not been able to shake it. It is bafflingly illogical to think that believing in a Christian God is more correct than believing in Zeus or Odin. But I also believe that there may be something that is not dreamt of in our philosophy which may fundamentally change the way we view the universe. Its just not anything like any of the religions we have made up for ourselves.

50

Being 100% certain about anything is the hallmark of faith. I don’t have faith in anything, really, and don’t feel qualified to say whether or not there are gods, faeries, or Loch Ness Monsters. That said, organized worship of deities almost always results in someone lining their pockets through someone else’s faith, and in persecution of defenseless minorities. Religions, I can say with confidence, are bullshit of the highest order and are the greatest abomination man has wrought on itself. You got a god speaking to you, well fantastic–enjoy your privileged status and keep it to yourself. A truly omnipotent being doesn’t need puny little you to do it’s dirty work. It doesn’t need a starship.

51

I am 100% certain that the Seahawks won the last Superbowl. It is possible to be 100% certain without relying on faith.

52

Atheists do not need to “believe” anything. Neither the existence or non-existence of the noise-form ‘god’ is falsifiable; therefor, both questions are meaningless.

53

Balls–Donkeys lost it. In fact, Denver’s performance was so uncharacteristically piss-poor I’m not even certain it was they who showed up in New Jersey! Only mostly joking there.

I guess certainty is relative. Funny how too much (faith) or too little (paranoia) can start to look the same. Trick must be to find a happy place solidly in the grey inbetween. And not to start pulling at threads.

54

Oh, for god’s sake. Can’t we keep this thread on-topic?
:smiley:

55

I’m agnostic. No one knows if a god of any kind exists, but any religion who tells you one does is a lie.

56

Just once, I’d like to see this perennial discussion move past semantics. I think that can only be done by assigning metawords to the categories, so that attention is paid to the content and not the baggage. Otherwise, you end up with fifty posts arguing subtleties of what they think the two or three key words “mean” and not as much what each individual “believes.”

The OP appears content arguing things semantically and from a position of innate faith (that is, we all “believe” something and those believes are equal in weight). Not a good foundation to get any further than the last dozen threads…

57

It is on topic. Given the amount of money I had on the game the outcome proves that god does not exist.

58

What do you mean by “believe?”

59

To put it in fewer words.
The atheist would make sure it is not a hologram - and then say “cool, let’s study it. Get dna samples, stool samples, figure out how the fire works, figure out how that big a thing could be supported by an internal skeleton.”
On the other hand, if the theist walks into an empty house in which he believes a dragon lives, he’d say “it was here yesterday, it will be here tomorrow, it just isn’t here today. How does it fit? It’s a miracle. If something falls off a table, the dragon did it - things that don’t get smashed show the dragon is careful. It eats invisible food and it poops invisible poop. And don’t call me irrational!”

Theists are those who believe that any doubts about God and his characteristics can be answered by saying that God is infinite and unknowable, while at the same time saying that they know precisely what god thinks about our sex lives.
Claiming that atheists refuse to face facts is insulting.

60

My view is that I don’t know exactly what it is that is out there, but that I am as confident as can be that anyone who tells you what it is that is out there is wrong.

There are a lot of questions that science is (as yet) unable to answer concerning such thing as the nature of consciousness, the question of why there is something instead of nothing, etc. and I am willing to accept that the answers to such questions may delve into realms that outside current science and so could be called supernatural. But given what I have seen of the known laws of the universe, it is clear to me that the answer will be to be some fundamentally basic and broad law of nature rather than something as complicated and specific as a anthropomorphic god.