Thought of a better way to say what I’m getting at. I posit that the characteristics of god we’re talking about, that are important to distinguish “god” from “alien”, are the “infinite” ones, e.g. “all-knowing”, “omniscient”, etc. Just like we can’t write out infinity (but rather approach it through proofs), the best we can do empirically is demonstrate that an Entity is “very powerful, but finitely powerful.” But this isn’t “close enough” for the ultimate end. Googol may be close enough to infinity for many practical purposes, but it’s not close enough - by an infinite amount - to “prove” that the essential qualities of infinity exist.
As the Friendly Giant used to say, “Look up, waaaay up.” See the threat title?
Don’t fight the hypothetical? How about don’t fight your own thread title?
Atheists: people who who do not affirm the proposition “at least one god exists.” Note that does not preclude an atheist’s opinion being changed upon sufficient evidence being put forward and rigorously tested to prove the assertion that there is a god or gods. That is one of the key differences between atheism and religion. Religion is based on faith/belief. Atheism is not. It is the lack of faith/belief, and instead the reliance on facts and logic, that distinguish Atheism from religion. When an atheist says “There is no god,” that is not a statement of faith/belief, but rather is a rejection of an unproven belief/faith of there being a god or gods.
Think of it this way: just because someone does not share your belief in God does not mean that they have a belief. All it means is that you have not satisfactorily proven to them that what you believe in is true. For you to assert that they too have a belief, albeit one that is contrary to yours, is no more than an attempt to equate your entirely irrational belief system with their rational refusal to accept such an entirely irrational belief system. By doing this, you are trying to drag them down to your level of irrationality.
What then are agnostics? Agnostics: people who may be atheist or may be theist or may me sitting on the fence, but who neither accept nor deny with* reasonable* (note that weasel word reason-able, for it is very important) certainty the proposition that “at least one god exists” because for them the burden of proof has not been met either way, although it may lean one way or the other for them.
I’m pretty sure my definition is both clear and matches to how we use the word “atheist.” The word is virtually never used to describe a cowrie shell, but Kevbo’s definition means that all cowrie shells are atheists. That’s a weird, and imprecise, definition.
Most atheists I know don’t say, “I believe Yahweh doesn’t exist, but I have no opinion on a different omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe–say, Jed the Magnificent.” There’s a more-or-less defined category of entities called “deities” that most atheists have thought about and said, “Yeah, probably not.” It’s thinking that “probably (or definitely) not” that distinguishes atheists from lampshades.
That’s when an atheist might become an agnostic, either atheist-agnostic or theist-agnostic, depending on how cute the alien/god is, for the nature of the alien/god in your hypothetical is that there would not be enough evidence to decide one way or the other.
You are asking me to judge evidence that hasn’t even been described to me. Give me a specific example that falls within the parameters I have previously described.
Gotcha. I still think that evidence for gods is particularly difficult to come by.
My favorite example of something that would be persuasive is pi. IIRC, if you theoretically built a circle as perfect as possible, the size of the universe, out of the smallest particle known to humans, pi taken to thirty-two digits would be sufficiently precise to describe the ratio of the diameter to the circumference. You want to prove you’re God? Fix the universe so that any derivation of pi ends after thirty-two digits.
Well, I don’t think it was phrased very well but pi is one of the biggest enigma in math/geometry. While used all the time, Its exact value is unknown. Despite being calculating to billions of decimal points, no pattern has emerged. So a suddenly exact and functional pi would be altering our universe in a god like way, unlike most other magical demonstrations.
Do all these anecdotes support each other and point to the existence of any particular god…or do they conflict with each other and point towards different “god” concepts?
If I met an atheist who said he doesn’t believe in that outdated God stuff but who professed belief in souls, an afterlife, reincarnation, or astral powers, I might think this guy is technically an atheist, but he’s doing it wrong. Lots of people engage in magical thinking about luck, fate, anthropomorphism, and arguably free will, so maybe it’s a matter of degree.
I don’t care if people call atheism a religion or not. Bald is a hair style, black is a color, zero is a number, and if an employer never hires atheists or some nutter goes out and murders atheists they’re engaged in religious discrimination. If someone asks me my religion I say I’m an atheist. Big whoop.
If someone asks me what card game I am playing as we pass on the street, do I create a name for the “game” I am playing by not playing a game, or do I say “I am not playing a game at all”?
My baseline was not to believe. I never believed. I was raised Jewish and I still practice Judaism, but the concept of “G-d” was never something I believed in. I also never considered the possibility there was an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, unicorns etc.
It was not a “look at the evidence and come to a conclusion that g-d doesn’t exist” situation. I started with no belief and nothing ever changed my mind.
For that analogy to work, there’d need to be a word for the person who’s playing no game at all. Do we have a word for that? Do you ever identify yourself as such?
I believe you’ve identified yourself as an atheist. If I’m wrong, please correct me; but if you’ve made such an identification, you find the word useful.
Look, I’m not really a sports-fan. Create a word for that, and I’m fine with that identification. But I’m not a sports-fan because when I’ve watched games of sports, they don’t do much for me. Someone says, “Hey, there’s this new sport, you should watch it!” I’m pretty confident I won’t much enjoy watching it.
I’m not really a fan of Botswanan cuisine. Create a word for that, and I’m uncomfortable with the identification. I’ve never tasted Botswanan food. Someone says, “Hey, there’s a Botswana restaurant in town, you should eat there!” I have no idea whether I’ll like it.
The difference between having considered and rejected something, and never having considered it at all, is a huge difference in nearly every field of human experience. Atheism in normal usage refers to the former, not the latter, variety of experience.
Cuisines. I’m neither a fan of West African cuisine nor Botswanan cuisine. I’ve tried the former but not the latter. While my lack-of-fandom of both has remained constant since birth, my lack-of-fandom of the former is more informed, more solid, more coherent, and less likely ever to change. My lack-of-fandom of the latter is just ignorance.
My lack-of-belief in God has undergone tremendous change, even though I lacked belief as an infant and I lack belief now. My lack as an infant was mere ignorance; it was very possible it’d change by mere exposure to the idea. My lack now is informed, and is unlikely to change.
Yes, that’s why I said nothing has changed my mind.
As I said, I’m a practicing Jew, so I engage with concepts of the divine all the time. Nothing I have been exposed to from a young child until the most recent time I was in services has caused me to feel any differently, and honestly, at this point of my life, I’m cool with where I stand. If something new comes up, I will always consider it, but I don’t need to wrestle with demons at this point to be comfortable with where I stand.
My point was that my lack of belief was how I started, it wasn’t a conclusion. It doesn’t mean I don’t give it any thought.
