You are incorrect about this. They are not equal statements. As a matter of fact, atheism is no statement at all. “God exists” is a statement. The null hypothesis is that God does not exist. That’s the way logic works. Atheism is not a statement that “gods do not exist,” merely a lack of any statement at all.
Just because you can make a hypothetical statement about something does not mean that the null hypothesis then automatically becomes equal to the hypothesis. That’s not how it works. The presumption is that X does not exist until it can be proven to exist. If I say smurfs exist, it does not mean the presumption that smurfs do not exist is now an equal hypothesis requiring the smae amount of evidence for the hypothesis that they do. That would be asinine, and that’s not how either science or logic works.
Atheism is a flat out statement that there is no god. Which means atheism is a belief based on no proof at all, the same as pretty much any religion. Perhaps you should google ‘agnostic’ sometime if you want the default logical position of someone who makes no statements of religious belief without proof.
I have only have one living close relative and he largely agrees with me so the subject doesn’t really come up. And I have no interest in having religious friends since I neither trust nor respect the religious.
Of course it does; Since it is flatly impossible for logically inconsistent things to be true that most certainly helps bolster the atheist position of disbelief.
You presume that the phrase “higher truth” even has meaning. Physics describes the way the world works; that’s “truth” right there.
Of course not, physics has nothing to say about nonexistent, impossible beings. Physics talks about the real or about things that could be real - not impossibilities like gods.
First, I like to argue. Second, religion is a destructive force in the world and should be opposed whenever practical. Third, they won’t leave everyone else alone; like cancer or a virus, religion if it can grows relentless and destructively, insinuating and destroying. That is its nature. And fourth, it helps keep the idea in the air that yes, there ARE people who don’t buy into religion.
If atheism is a belief, then talking favorably about your religion with someone you know to be an atheist says that you have a mean streak in you, right?
You are misinformed. Atheism is simply an absence of theistic beliefs. There are two kinds of atheism, typically called “Weak atheism” and “strong atheism.” Weak atheism is the absence of belief without a positive assertion or belief in non-existence. Strong atheism is a subset of atheism, but is not the definition. Even Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist. The word, atheist," as it is used academically, means simply a lack of theistic belief. We’ve had this argument many times on this board, and it’s tiresome.
Who says there has to be an ending point? If the hypothesi is successful, the proof of the hypothesis would be the ending point. If not, then it never went anywhere.
Thanks for linking me to the exact same thing that I already linked to you. I appreciate it since I suddenly lost the ability to click on my own links. In case you missed the first two sentences of that article, let me quote them:
“Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”
How exactly does this support your claim that atheism is not a statement that gods do not exist?
As for questioning your stated beliefs, isn’t this the very thread where some are arguing that someone who is happy, but wrong, should be corrected?
No, but it’s a standard religious tactic that serves multiple purposes. They try to equate religion and atheism, the old “you’re no better than we are” bit. It distracts the conversation from the baselessness of their beliefs. And it functions as “divide and conquer”, encouraging the already minority unbelievers to further subdivide into smaller and thus weaker factions arguing among themselves.
I’ve mellowed out in my years as I’ve gotten older. Can’t say I’ve ever been looking for converts, but enjoyed it when people wanted to hear what I had to say on religious matters when they were so different than theirs.
I think many of us were militant atheists at some stage, especially when we started to realize what lengths that creationists/fundamentalists/evangelicals will go to. I still find it hard to watch today, and find it just as repugnant to see these types spreading the same misinformation, and using the same fallacious arguments and downright lies.
One of my favorite critical thinkers today though was once a former fundamentalist, so there is hope. He name is Michael Shermer, and man has he came a long way!
No wonder your world-view is different than mine. I have more than a dozen very close relatives, and they run the gamut from extreme atheist to extreme orthodox. We get together often for family events and there is no animosity among us. It’s just not a big deal. People are different – so what?
You mean the part that says “While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism, most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.”
Yeah, that sounds pretty much the position I’ve been arguing from. Did you have a point?
While ad hominem is nice and all, and certainly simpler than thinking, I’m not overly religious. In fact, I’ve been agnostic since I’ve been old enough to have a choice in my religion. About the only time I have religious experiences is when I tell door to door religion salesmen that I don’t believe the bible is moral because I’ve actually read it, and quote Psalms 137:9 as an example. So while your paranoid ‘anyone who dares say something I don’t agree with must be a religious wacko out to divide and destroy us’ is amusing to watch, it ain’t true.
Agnosticism is not a statement about belief, but a statement about the ability to know. It is distinct from atheism. You should take an introductory philosphy class so you can understand what these words actually mean.
A) I have taken several philosophy course. In fact, instead of dicking around on here, I should be writing my paper arguing that Kantians violate the second formulation by treating Kant as nothing but a means to their end of developing their ethical beliefs.
B) Which doesn’t really matter because philosophy classes aren’t really needed in order to read a dictionary entry on the word ‘atheist’.