Have you read the Bible and Qu’ran? Why don’t you answer the question on what the punishment for apostasy in Islam is? Here’s just one gem from the Bible teaching how to treat a loved one that tries to get you to convert to another religion:
I feel really dumb, but I don’t understand this. The rising of the sun is a hypothesis?
Sure! For many if not most Christians I know, that’s essentially the name of the game. No atheists in foxholes and all that.
Nah. I don’t want to sound condescending, but I look at it as a crutch. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not something I need or want. I’m OK with “things happen, and they mean what we put into them”. It works better for me–no God to blame or supplicate to. I don’t begrudge that of others, though.
So’s gravity.
ok, that’s not really an answer, and Gravity is a theory. But ok. Not wanting to hijack this thread so I’ll go ask somewhere else about science.
Strong atheist here, late to the party. Similar answers to most:
- yes, most definitely
- Not really
WRT 2, at times I think who is happier than the idiot in the padded room who doesn’t know his situation. And it would be easier to be in line with the majority of folk who accept this element of irrationality. But IME a good number of “believers” are hypocrites, ignorant, and otherwise unpleasant, such that I’m not dying to belong to that club. And I prefer embracing my reason rather than an appealing fiction.
As others have noted, drinking, drugs, and other crutches can provide similar (at least short-term) solace.
A very well-confirmed one, but yes, a hypothesis.
You SEEM to see the sun rise every morning, but perhaps you’re living in a virtual reality simulation. Or you’re trapped in an extended hallucination. Or in some sort of Truman Show-like ruse. You can’t be *absolutely certain *that the sun did indeed rise. You can only hold that belief with a high degree of confidence.
Our day-to-day life is based upon a set of well-supported hypotheses about the nature of the world around us. All knowledge is provisional. We believe things because they correspond with the evidence of our senses, but there’s always a slight chance that we might be wrong, even about things as concrete as the sunrise.
Agnosticism is a form of special pleading because it applies a standard of proof to theological ideas that is different than the standard of proof that we use for other things.
This morning you saw light; you might have looked into the sky to see the sun. But in principle a great many causes could have led to that effect. That the sun “rose” (in the sense normally understood) is just one hypothesis. The point is that agnostics tend to apply their epistemological criterion to one subject (whether or not gods exist) and not to others (e.g., whether the sun rising this morning explains its presence in the sky).
This thread is already looking pretty much hijacked to sheol and back.
How do you know that gravity will work on the next object you drop? How do you know that the sun will rise in the morning? How do you know there even is a sun? The answer is that you’ve observed stuff, with your senses, and the senses have been reporting raw information to you that you can assemble into an image of, for example, a sun in the sky. If you hang around for a while you’ll observe this image of a sun crossing the sky, pulled by winged horses with a god riding on it. (For the last you have to squint.) Observe this long enough, day after day, and you’ll eventually conclude that there’s a pattern there, and start to expect the sun to trace it’s daily course.
Do this long enough, and you’ll decide that this sun-moving-thing is the only way things could be - you’ll “know” it’s what’s happening. But this “knowledge” is merely the accumulated opininions you’ve developed from observing the evidence - it’s the elevation of anecdotal evidence to data. Which as we all know is fallacious - you can’t achieve absolute certainty from anecdotes, unless you have observed all possible outcomes. And since we’re talking about the future here it’s impossible for you to have observed it. So absolute certainty is by definition unmerited - in theory the sun could suddenly start doing figure eights in the sky tomorrow for no apparant reason. This may force us to seriously rethink our astrological models, but it could, in theory, happen nonetheless. Technically.
Similarly, people tell us when I drop a rock over my foot, it’s not going to do me the courtesy of floating in midair to save me pain. But that doesn’t mean that the rock won’t decide to buck the trend. Sure, it would be unprescedented, as it would deviate from what’s suggested by all the observations to date, but it could, theoretically happen.
Similarly, all the observations to date suggest there is no god. Absent special pleading, we can think of the god question the same way we do about the floating rock question - with absolute statements based on consistent and compelling past information, despite the possibility that future information might prove us wrong.
Yes, I have read the Bible, all the way through, more than once, but the Bible is not religion. Religion is decided upon by the members of that religion. Remember Jesus said “Love your enemies.” All religions teach positive love others, but the members don’t always care what is being taught. I don’t know any Christian that would follow every sentence in the Bible. If they did they would be jailed.
No I don’t think it’s their beliefs in gods that bring them solace, strength or comfort. There are too many who find no comfort, solace or strength in their beliefs in gods and too many who find the same without god beliefs. I think therefore it must be something else, as correlation does not always mean causation.
As an aside, I was envious for years because I didn’t know how to find my own comfort and solace without relying on outside sources. I’m learning though, that it can only come from within.
I’m sorry if I’ve repeated something already said. I sometimes only respond to the OP.
This I can grasp. And Begbert. Thanks!
You’re the one that doesn’t seem to care what’s being taught. You’re ignoring the overwhelming majority of the Bible that teaches you to kill just about everything that moves in favor of a few lines about love.
The answer to that would depend on the agnostic in question no doubt. But the fact is, by being an agnostic that’s what they are doing; they are taking a position towards religion that would be considered bizarre for most subjects with the same lack of evidence. People don’t take the agnostic position towards Sauron or Darth Vader being real; they are flatly called fictional characters. But there’s no reason to take the claims of gods being real any more seriously than a claim that Sauron or any other fictional character is real.
Does anyone in this thread know that there is no deity?
Yes, me. But I’m not unwilling to change my mind given evidence.
What definition of “know” are you using?
Are you sure about that? Absolutely certain? Don’t feel the need to stick a qualifier in that sentence? “I think that some number of people who might be atheists or might be theists or might be agnostics may be stating their position, or not, as a fact, opinion or belief, or it may be that something else is happening, possibly, we can’t be sure.”
You seem mighty sure of yourself for someone who criticises others for the certainty of their beliefs. 
Either way, there are no gods.*
Sandwich
- anyone should feel free to redefine any of these words to mean something they feel more comfortable with, or to generate a meaning which is clearly untrue, if that would make them feel better. Just don’t expect me to care. And there still won’t be any gods.
Added later: posted before reading the previous two posts!
It depends which definition of know you’re talking about. If it’s one of absolute certainty, I don’t think you’ll find that there are many atheists that believe they can be absolutely certain of anything.
I know that there isn’t a God in the same way that I know there isn’t a Tooth Fairy and in the same way that you know the Sun is a ball of flaming gas and that you know that there isn’t a pit bull on your bed.
- Do you, as a non-believer, accept the notion that many believers acquire some degree of strength, comfort and/or solace from their faith?
Yes.
- If you answered ‘yes’ to question one, are you willing to acknowledge any measure of feelings of envy toward those who reap such benefits of their faith?
No.