Fundamentalist Atheists equivalent to Fundamentalist Theists

[JoeMonocle]

Atheists believe that Gd does not exist. Most atheists believe that it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims in support of the belief that Gd exists, and that this purported impossibility supports their atheism.

In fact, belief that G*d does not exist requires precisely the same type of faith as does theism, namely, a belief for which it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims.

Most atheists will point to the fossil record, or will raise theological objections to theism, such as for example the problem of evil (if G*d exists and is all loving, then why does “he” allow suffering?).

However compelling such evidence or arguments may be, for atheists, nonetheless they supply only empirical evidence or theological arguments.

Gd by definition, at least the Gd of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for starters, exists outside of this universe and so is, in principle, unobservable. Now, given the latest findings in quantum physics, and allowing for quibbles and concocted cases, I’m sure that what I’ve said is disbutable, however the nature of such disputes will serve to underscore the ease of comprehensibility and the general good sense of what I’m saying. Please bear in mind that this is a brief chat board posting, not a treatise.

At the end of the day atheists try to distinguish their non-empirical faith by appeals to probability, parsimony, and other scientific standards, however all such appeals serve to conceal the circularity and emptiness of empirically based arguments that G*d definitely doesn’t exist.

So far, the best accounts of the origin of the universe trail off into “something happened”. As great as the appetite of atheists may be to close the file, it remains open. Some varieties of theological doctrine can be and have been discredited. That, however, is doctrinal repudiation, not proof that G*d does not exist.

Atheists in general would like to advance their religion (I call it a religion, taking perhaps polemical license), claiming the same intellectual legitimacy that underpins Agnosticism. Empirically grounded scepticism however cannot drive a compelling case for a knowledge claim that G*d does not exist. And the rest is just more theology.

There’s a reason why “theism” appears in “atheism” – atheism is a theistic belief.

[Inner_Stickler]

I would love for you to apply your atheism is a form of theism logic to the word anorexia or anaerobic.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Voyager

Hell, figuring out the best way to get home from work some days must be philosophy also. I think that definition is so broad as to be useless. Science has gone to an area philosophy cannot go now, which is testing hypotheses by experiment.
This isn’t to knock philosophy, because there are some problems (like good and evil) which are hard to test. But if you read ancient writing about the atom, you’ll see even when they got it right they got it right for the wrong reasons.

As an aside, if there were a god theology could be just like science. If you have a hypothesis about good and evil, or what god would want us to do in a given situation, you could ask him. But in our universe, theology is kind of like the study of ghosts. No matter how often you shout “Casper, what is the afterlife like bubbie?” you get no answer.

Okay.

What happens if you don’t know something that you want to know? “Oh crap. I have a problem. How the F did that happen in history?”

You may theorize on it. But you are limited by your previous knowledge.

So what do you do? Logic. Philosophy. Some kind of philosophy because you are bound by your own human precepts.

For example: Take the “neandertals never breeded with humans” fight. Well, turns out scientists were probably wrong. It doesn’t mean they couldn’t think straight. Both groups of scientists were basing their claims on behaviorist theory, linguistic relativity, anthropology.

Science is relatively useless without soft sciences. It’s limited without human experience. If you didn’t have goofballs like me to study linguistics or like Dr. Jane who is a paleontologist or Dr. Joe who is a historian on Ancient Greece, what are you going to do all day? Math? See what blows up in the lab?

When you take something like evolution, you have to go backwards to understand the present. But since you can’t test things that happened a long time ago, you utilize other areas and that’s where weenies like us come in handy.

Science is science. Whatever will be, will be. But the study of science will always be limited by humans.

Someday, maybe we’ll achieve that all knowing god - or at least know enough to satisfy our curiosity. Science will be a matter of maintenance and geeky futuristic NASA programs.

Then philosophy and moral study will begin anew, because humans will always question everything.

“God” is a way of saying “x”.
Solving for x may be a matter of simple math.
If you are a quantum physicist, solving for x may require some conceptual thinking before you even start.

(: Science wouldn’t get very far if we didn’t have some motherfn imaginations.

I’m not equating religion with science. But everyone should stop acting as though people who are religious (theists or no) can’t accept science. And stop acting like being a scientist doesn’t require any bit of imagination, sense of wonder, humility, or any such human characteristic.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Inner_Stickler

I would love for you to apply your atheism is a form of theism logic to the word anorexia or anaerobic.

(:

I think what the poster is trying to say is that you can’t have atypical without typical.

Or abnormal without normal.

anorexia or anaerobic doesn’t fly.

If there were no theists in the world, scientists probably would’ve come up with it and tried to test the idea.

Theism is actually good for science - it forces scientists to move beyond what is comfortable.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@JoeMonocle

Atheists believe that G*d does not exist.

No atheists lack a belief that gods do exist. It’s an absence of belief, not a negative belief.

Most atheists believe that it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims in support of the belief that G*d exists, and that this purported impossibility supports their atheism.

it supports the null hypothesis.

In fact, belief that G*d does not exist requires precisely the same type of faith as does theism, namely, a belief for which it is impossible to advance respectable knowledge claims.

Nope. atheism is not a belief. As much as theists would like like this canard to be true. It’s still a canard,

Most atheists will point to the fossil record

No they don’t. The fossil record has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of gods.

or will raise theological objections to theism, such as for example the problem of evil (if G*d exists and is all loving, then why does “he” allow suffering?).

A “theological objection to the existence of God” is a contradiction in terms. You’re referring to logical contradictions. Yes, the Problem of Evil logically constradicts the existence of an omnimax God. And…?

However compelling such evidence or arguments may be, for atheists, nonetheless they supply only empirical evidence or theological arguments.

They point at lck of evidence and logical contradictions, both of which support the null hypothesis which does not need to be proven.

At the end of the day atheists try to distinguish their non-empirical faith by appeals to probability, parsimony, and other scientific standards, however all such appeals serve to conceal the circularity and emptiness of empirically based arguments that G*d definitely doesn’t exist.

Atheism is not a belief and requires no faith. It is the logical default assumption. It’s also not a belief that “God definitely doesn’t exist.” It’s just a lack of belief that gods do exist.

So far, the best accounts of the origin of the universe trail off into “something happened”.

Um…no…this isn’t true at all, but even if we didn’t know anything, it still wouldn’t eb evdience for your sky fairy.

As great as the appetite of atheists may be to close the file, it remains open.

What file?

Some varieties of theological doctrine can be and have been discredited. That, however, is doctrinal repudiation, not proof that G*d does not exist.

This is such a tirtesome and meaningless argument. Yes, it is impossible to prove that sky gods don’t exist. It is also impossible to prove that smurfs don;'t exist, and they have exactly the same amount of evidence.

Atheists in general would like to advance their religion (I call it a religion, taking perhaps polemical license), claiming the same intellectual legitimacy that underpins Agnosticism.

Atheism contains no beliefs and contains no characteristics whatsoever in common with religion. Trying to pretend that atheism is a faith belief is just adesperate, fearful attempt by theists to make themselves feel like they’re on some kind of level ground. They’re not.

Empirically grounded scepticism however cannot drive a compelling case for a knowledge claim that G*d does not exist.
[/quote

Nor does it claim to.[quote]
And the rest is just more theology.

I don’t think you know what the word “theology” means.

There’s a reason why “theism” appears in “atheism” – atheism is a theistic belief.

I don’t think you know what the word “theistic” means.

[Inner_Stickler]

I’ve got the “therefore religion fulfills a human need.” What’s missing is the first part, Citizen. You need to explain why imagination means we need religion.

[Inner_Stickler]

@CitizenPained

(:

I think what the poster is trying to say is that you can’t have atypical without typical.

Or abnormal without normal.

anorexia or anaerobic doesn’t fly.

If there were no theists in the world, scientists probably would’ve come up with it and tried to test the idea.

Theism is actually good for science - it forces scientists to move beyond what is comfortable.

I am atrollist. I don’t believe in the existence of trolls. My creation of that word however, has not magically populated the undersides of bridges with hairy, rude goat-eaters any more than the existence of the word theism means there must be a god. There can be an idea of a god but there can be ideas of lots of things that don’t actually exist.

[Farmer_Jane]

@CitizenPained

Okay.
For example: Take the “neandertals never breeded with humans” fight. Well, turns out scientists were probably wrong. It doesn’t mean they couldn’t think straight. Both groups of scientists were basing their claims on behaviorist theory, linguistic relativity, anthropology.

eta: Meant to say “maybe wrong” in light of new finds. there were two main camps on that one, and recent data put a check in the “mated” camp.

oops!

[Farmer_Jane]

@Inner_Stickler

I am atrollist. I don’t believe in the existence of trolls. My creation of that word however, has not magically populated the undersides of bridges with hairy, rude goat-eaters any more than the existence of the word theism means there must be a god. There can be an idea of a god but there can be ideas of lots of things that don’t actually exist.

Atheism came about as a term for a reason. But anyway. The inverse of anything is nothing, I suppose.

You’d be a different person if the idea of god had never existed. That’s the point. You have been shaped by theism.

To a lesser degree, by trolls. Or rather, I hope a lesser degree. :dubious:

[Inner_Stickler]

I certainly was shaped by theism. Growing up in a catholic family, going to 12 years of parochial schooling and benedictine university will do that to you. Doesn’t mean god exists though.

edit: and a lot of who I am today is in spite of my religious upbringing, not because of it.

[Farmer_Jane]

[QUOTE=]
**Diogenes the Cynic **

A “theological objection to the existence of God” is a contradiction in terms. You’re referring to logical contradictions. Yes, the Problem of Evil logically constradicts the existence of an omnimax God. And…?

[/QUOTE]

Theological objections are supposed to be logical.

Atheism is not a belief and requires no faith.

You don’t believe that you are ‘without a god’?

It is the logical default assumption.

Um. No. Look at all of recorded history.

It’s also not a belief that “God definitely doesn’t exist.” It’s just a lack of belief that gods do exist.

That’s a broad generalization, but OK. You are an atheist because you object to theism.

Um…no…this isn’t true at all, but even if we didn’t know anything, it still wouldn’t eb evdience for your sky fairy.

Don’t be a jerk.

This is such a tirtesome and meaningless argument. Yes, it is impossible to prove that sky gods don’t exist. It is also impossible to prove that smurfs don;'t exist, and they have exactly the same amount of evidence.

Okay, in a fawaway land on the other side of the moon, there is a tribe of people called the umbiotoo who eat cheese.

Am I an anti-umbiotoo-ist because I don’t believe you?

No. You’re one person. Not billions. There’s no history behind umbiotoo-ism. umbiotoo was never a concept to begin with. If that were the case, then there are an infinite amount of words that describe you that never existed and can’t exist until you place meaning on it. And if you can’t name something, it has no meaning. If you do name something, it therefore has a meaning.

Is a child who is a year old an agnostic? No. The child isn’t anything.

I don’t think you know what the word “theology” means.

I don’t think you know what the word “theistic” means.

Do you? Sorry, but you’re arguing about things that philosophers came up with. Are you incapable of thinking outside the box without your measuring spoon? :eek:

[Farmer_Jane]

@Inner_Stickler

I certainly was shaped by theism. Growing up in a catholic family, going to 12 years of parochial schooling and benedictine university will do that to you. Doesn’t mean god exists though.

edit: and a lot of who I am today is in spite of my religious upbringing, not because of it.

No one said it meant that god existed.

We’re saying that it means the concept of god exists and is natural to humans since this has been going on for all of recorded history.

[Inner_Stickler]

The concept of a lot of things has existed for very large chunks of time. That doesn’t mean they’re worth my time. You still haven’t made a case for why religion and theology are necessary.

[Farmer_Jane]

Look at it this way. According to Dio:

Theism is a positive belief to theism. 1x1=1
Atheism1 is an not having a positive or negative reaction to theism; it is an unknown but you are aware of the concept. (0) x 1 = 0.
Atheism2 is having a negative reaction to theism. (-1) x (+1) = - 1. Atheism 2 requires a stronger grasp of the concept of god.

That’s basically what you said, right? It’s just on a continuum?

Does that make atheist 1 a moron?

A person who has never thought of god because they were born severely autistic? Nonsensical. It’s like putting “pink” into the equation. There’s no concept.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Inner_Stickler

The concept of a lot of things has existed for very large chunks of time. That doesn’t mean they’re worth my time. You still haven’t made a case for why religion and theology are necessary.

because they are natural.
it’s part of the human mind.

neurologically speaking, you use the same parts of the brain that you use when developing a hypothesis about particular events that may have happened 100 million years ago.

omg philosophers knew that 500 years ago and brain science just exploded! :eek:

[Inner_Stickler]

@CitizenPained

Look at it this way. According to Dio:

Theism is a positive belief to theism. 1x1=1
Atheism1 is an not having a positive or negative reaction to theism; it is an unknown but you are aware of the concept. (0) x 1 = 0.
Atheism2 is having a negative reaction to theism. (-1) x (+1) = - 1. Atheism 2 requires a stronger grasp of the concept of god.

That’s basically what you said, right? It’s just on a continuum?

No. What you are posting is simply nonsense. Because they are natural is not an argument, it’s an assertion.

Your second to last sentence also makes no sense; the only way I can parse it is mind-numbingly obvious. “I use the same parts of the brain that I use when developing a hypothesis about particular events that may have happened 100 million years ago.” What does that even mean when it’s at home? You need to learn how to write.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Inner_Stickler

No. What you are posting is simply nonsense. Because they are natural is not an argument, it’s an assertion.

Your second to last sentence also makes no sense; the only way I can parse it is mind-numbingly obvious. “I use the same parts of the brain that I use when developing a hypothesis about particular events that may have happened 100 million years ago.” What does that even mean when it’s at home? You need to learn how to write.

Philosophical reasoning is linked to the human mind or Theory of Mind concept.
Requires inductive reasoning. Requires a degree of abstract thought. It also requires a degree of probability.

How do you evaluate “how the F did that happen?” ?
What do you know? What is your brain capable of? What’s the/a logical conclusion? Science needs deductive reasoning, but deductive reasoning is not a total rejection of concept or inductive reasoning, since most shit is conceptual. So either both are valid, both are invalid, or they are not reflective of each other.

If that is the case, the definition of both are wrong.

So neither idea exists.

But both ideas have to exist.

If they don’t, neither idea exists.

Therefore, they must be mutually intelligible.

Hume probably suffered some headache.

[Sandwich]

For this atheist, the statements “I do not believe in any gods” and “I believe there are no gods” involve a distinction without a difference. The English language is not as precise as logic tries to be. It should be easy to understand that my belief that “there are no gods” is different from the Pope’s belief that “Jesus is the son of God”.

If you don’t get this, then that illustrates the fundamental difference between my atheism and your theism. They really are different perspectives on reality. Trying to tell me that my thinking is somehow meaningfully equivalent to a Christian’s is absurd. (If you have an urge to argue about the definitions of ‘thinking’, ‘meaningfully’, ‘equivalent’, ‘Christian’. or ‘absurd’ then don’t bother, it won’t convince me I’m wrong in this context).

If you consider yourself a theist, and want to understand this atheist’s perception of your belief, think about the things you believe. Now repeat them but substitute James Bond or Harry Potter for God. That’s what you sound like to me. You can’t prove that Harry Potter isn’t real. Whoopee doo, that’s not a great insight.

[Farmer_Jane]

@Inner_Stickler

No. What you are posting is simply nonsense. Because they are natural is not an argument, it’s an assertion.

Your second to last sentence also makes no sense; the only way I can parse it is mind-numbingly obvious. “I use the same parts of the brain that I use when developing a hypothesis about particular events that may have happened 100 million years ago.” What does that even mean when it’s at home? You need to learn how to write.

No. Religion is natural to humans is a statement of highly probable fact because it has been observed for as long as we can remember. It is also how scientists quantify homo sapiens from other homo, since rituals are reflective of abstract thought.

We have no way of testing. It doesn’t mean it is false, nor does it mean it is unlikely. It does not mean that all humans believe in a deity. It doses suggest that all typical human beings will have considered the concept.

All scientific assumptions -or statements- are based on what we know as humans (i.e., empiricalism).

If science was devoid of philosophical reasoning and subjective human experience, then* all conclusion by scientists would be the same when developing a theory for an unknown.*

We know that is not the case.
I can’t spell it out for you. Sorry; I was trained in abstract thought. It’s SO OBVIOUS.

[Miller]

@CitizenPained

It is also how scientists quantify homo sapiens from other homo, since rituals are reflective of abstract thought.

No, that’s not how scientists quantify homo sapiens. For one thing, there’s much more obvious differences, such as bone structure or the shape of the skull. Also, it’s simply untrue. Neanderthals performed burial rituals, and there’s some (controversial) evidence for religious practices that date back even further than the rise of homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis.

We have no way of testing.

Actually, we do. The problem is, religion keeps failing all the test we throw at it. The concept that the metaphysical is somehow unknowable or unprovable is a relatively modern innovation. Prior to the development of rigorous and reliable testing methods, most people took it for granted that the existence of the supernatural was trivially easy to demonstrate. As science disproved more and more supernatural claims, proponents of the supernatural continually shifted the goal posts further and further back, until we arrived at the idea that the existence of the supernatural is inherently unprovable.