It’s a question. It’s actually a good question. What does it have to do with not beiang able to please a “fundamentalist” atheist? Do you know what fundamentalist means?
Returning to the OP (remember that?), ISTM the question is whether "I believe in no God"is the same as “I don’t believe in God.” What’s curious is that the OP says s/he’s an atheist, but pins this on lack of evidence. Well, by most people’s definition, that’s atheism of the second stripe. (Which, by the way, is my own.) Indeed, all modern atheists I’ve noticed are of the Russell type (quoted in Post #161). That is, we don’t claim to be able to prove God doesn’t exist, but without good reasons to believe, we don’t. Just as we don’t believe in astrology, homeopathy and the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Give us evidence and we’ll reconsider. Without it, we don’t believe.
And this is the crucial point. As a skeptic, atheist, agnostic or whatever (call me a skeptical agnostic if you like), I don’t accept that I have the burden of proving God doesn’t exist. If you want me to believe, you have to give me reasons. They don’t even have to be compelling. But something. Faith isn’t something.
It gets better. You have to be a weak atheist because you can’t be certain that Apollo doesn’t have any attributes of godhood, but they can be strong Christians because they can be sure that Apollo doesn’t have any attributes of godhood.:dubious:
Please no. I dont want to hear any more of their “reasons”. I can go to church if I ever do.
I think you all mean “Evangelical” atheist. I’ve been called that many times by challenging religion without being provoked. Of course, these terms only come from theists, those who are taught how to segregate others-- 'cause the bible tells them so… (sung)
You didn’t explicitly. But I detected an underlying assumption that in order to be an atheist one had to have a better explanation than the theistic one, that an explanation of some sort is needed. It doesn’t work like that of course.
If I’ve seen something that isn’t there then fine. If we agree that the universe doesn’t need a meaning and purpose then no problem. However, when you question…
I think perhaps we aren’t on the same page at all as this is the core principle right here.
If someone makes a positive claim it is for them to try and prove it.
I am making no claim about the existence or non-existence of god. The theists most certainly are.
If they can muster no evidence I am justified in rejecting it out of hand and carrying on as if god doesn’t exist.
I can come up with a belief shared by all atheists: that it isn’t their job to prove that God doesn’t exist, but for you to prove that he does. This is stupid, because as soon as you’ve entered an argument with a theist (which is the only time they would need to prove anything), you are trying to convince them that what you say is true. Both sides have to prove their point, or else it isn’t an argument, it’s just two people making opposite assertions. Or, to put it in Doperese: It’s just contradiction.
Now, if you want more on this subject, you have to pay up.
Either it is the inerrant word of god or it isn’t. If it is you have no good excuse for ignoring or interpreting what is in there.
If it isn’t the bible has no more authority than any other book with good intentions.
Age doesn’t confer wisdom or correctness on a line of reasoning.
As for context? A reasonable interpretation would be that a bronze age tribe were trying to give reason to the world as they experienced it. They were ignorant of science in general and did they best they could. The next few thousand years is post-hoc rationalisation.
I don’t doubt you are a good person, most people are. Fact is that you would most likely be a good person without adhering to any religion at all.
You are considering context and justifying interpretations in order to make a fictional, ancient text of story, poetry and prose fit into your own innate sense of morality and ethics. Fine, knock yourself out.
You’ve boiled down christianity (based on an omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural being) to an essentially meaningless Barnum statement that anyone searching for meaning can sign-up to. it is inoffensive and it means you’ve detached yourself from scriptural integrity.
But hey, that is a good thing. I hope more religious people follow your path as it leads them away from fundamentalism.
It is also pretty much the Anglican church in a nutshell and I can’t recall the last time there were suicide bombings at a harvest festival.
“I don’t believe in God” is not a claim nor an assertion. The only “truth” to be shown here is the self-evident fact that it is a position I hold.
I don’t have to prove anything or provide any evidence for this.
If someone claims there is a god it is definitely up to them to provide evidence. If they can’t…dismiss their claim out of hand. No argument necessary (or even possible)
Incorrect. That simply isn’t how reason works. The person making the assertion that something exists is the one that has to at least provide evidence that it is possible, and evidence that it actually exists by preference. It is not the job of the skeptic to prove a negative, especially given how theists have the habit of making unfalsifiable claims. What you are in essence doing is demanding that atheists cave in; in your scenario the atheist would remain silent while the theist simply made up lie after lie.
Actually, it wasn’t an underlying assumption. I said it explicitly:
That’s not the same as saying that that the universe has to have a meaning and a purpose.
In another post, you come close to what I meant:
At what point in history did the absence of god belief become better than the “best they could”?
As for this:
Why did you specify “positive” claim? Actually, why does anyone have to “try and prove it”?
And you say this:
Fine. But this thread is more than just:
Poster A: I don’t believe in God.
Poster B: I don’t believe in God.
Poster C: I don’t believe in God.
Poster D: I believe in God.
Poster E: I don’t believe in God.
Poster F: God exists.
Poster A: Please provide evidence for your claim.
In the first quote of this post, you say: “It doesn’t work like that of course.”
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Logic fail.
How about pointing out the errors in BigT’s argument?
Or is “Logic fail” just a pointless contradiction?
You have to pay extra for a real argument.
You talked about “explaining the world and my role in it” if that isn’t relating to meaning and purpose then we have no conflict.
“better” is a meaningless concept here. But the need for god was negated at the point when scientific enquiry explained the natural world more completely, which BTW, is still happening and god retreats further from being a causal and tangible agent in the world.
if it helps, I don’t mean positive in terms of something being “good” or “right”. merely that it is a claim for the presence of something.
and no-one has to prove it. But if they can’t or won’t then I disregard what they say or claim as irrelevant. It is the only sensible option.
This thread is about atheists insisting that atheism is a non-belief. That was cleared up very quickly and conclusively so now I think we are free to roam.
And when I say “It doesn’t work like that of course.” I refer to the concept that any physical entity, whether universe or hurricane, can be said to have a meaning or a purpose. The default position is that it doesn’t.
Whenever you claim the existence of something, it becomes, in principle, part of the observable reality. Therefore, anyone can easily challenge your claim with a simple “evidence?”
Otoh, when you claim that something does not exist, it is consequently from this pov not part of the observable reality.
Anyone can challenge this stance to – but he has to do so by pointing to an observation that supports the existence of the phenomenon, because the other party cannot show you what does not exist. I can’t point to the pink dragon and tell you, “See, it’s not there.”
You might also challenge his denial by asking, “how, then, does he want to explain this and that?” – but then you still point to observations (big dragon trails in my garden, for instance) to challenge the claim that a phenomenon is non existent.
It’s logically not possible for anyone to show evidence for the existence of the non existent, it’s only possible to show evidence for the existence of something - or a lack of consequences of an assumed existence.
The last one is a major driver of scientific progress; when we don’t find evidence of the existence of an assumed phenomenon, where it should be according to the theory, we suspect that something is wrong with our assumptions. And if we find evidence that contradicts our assumptions, we know something is wrong.
But every time we need observable facts: either the ones that support our view of reality or the other kind that lead to disillusionment.
Novelty and Der did a better job than I could have.
How about pointing out the logical error in “Logic fail”?
Or was your post just a pointless contradiction?
Playing devil’s advocate, it’s true that there are certain philosophies that tend to be associated with atheism.
For example, a poster upthread (somewhere…), asserted that the universe has no meaning or purpose. That’s a “positive” claim, and it’s the kind that atheists are more likely to make.
But this does not impact on what atheism itself is.
Just as if theists are more likely to be Republican, that wouldn’t make theism itself Republican, nor make arguments like “The problem with Christianity is its support of the Bush tax cuts…” make any sense.
No. It’s not.
Asserting that the universe has meaning or purpose is a “positive” claim.
Not all atheists agree with these statements, but in general I find that atheists believe:
-there is an objective reality
-that we can apprehend in part (albeit not always correctly) through our senses
-and that operates according to logic
-and reason.
Although I’ve seen people try, I’ve never seen a convincing proof that any of these beliefs are objectively true: generally attempts at such proofs assume the truth of what they’re trying to prove.
I’ve also seen people argue that one needn’t believe these things are true in order to act as though they are, and that’s fine, but I think that’s a rather rarified position held by few people. I suspect even the people who argue it’s unnecessary to believe these things still believe them.
Note that not all religions agree with all four of these statements.
If you’re talking about what atheists believe, saying they believe there is no God isn’t terribly significant: although God’s existence might be hugely important to the person who believes in God, it’s not at all to the person who doesn’t. But it might be significant to say that most atheists, or at least a large subsection of atheists, believe in an objective, logical, rational reality that we can partially perceive.