Ask an Atheist Anything

[Strungintandum]

With the immense disinformation floating around about who atheists are and what they believe, I thought it might be nice for me to start a thread dedicated to answering the questions of the curious. I am versed in the teachings of various religions with Christianity being my strongest point of study, so don't be afraid to ask me my take on specific scripture. This is not to suggest that I speak for all atheists or even any atheist besides myself, but I do have a good understanding of general atheist viewpoints and can answer pretty much all of the common criticisms and questions most commonly associated with atheism. This thread is not meant to provoke anyone to anger and I will be honest and frank about my beliefs (or lack of belief) on various religious, supernatural and moralistic questions. So, if you are interested, please feel free to ask an atheist anything!

[Xenophile]

If rain isn't angel wee, then what is it?  ???

[Inkidu]

Atheism is easy to understand. It's the belief in disbelief. ;)

[Strungintandum]

Certainly, and yet we are inundated with claims that atheism is antithesis of morality. Atheism is in no way hard to quantify, but I think that a great number of people have a very hard time understanding it. This is not simply due to misunderstandings about what atheism actually is but also an inability of those with theistic views to understand why we don't believe. Being that I am as yet unapproved, I figured this might be a good place to get some discussion started and possibly provide useful information to the curious.

[Xenophile]

Yiu use the word "we" very casually. I am going toa ssume you live in the USA, and there exists a very strong political and religious debate. I can understand tat in that nation, there actually exists places where people make the Atheist-Immoral connection.

Though, some of us on the Internet have never encountered that discussion anywhere besides the Internet. I know I haven't, and I have to thank my very secular nation-of-birth for that.

I'll just a little bit informative myself and share that, in Sweden, this isn't even an issue. Religious people get laughed at here.

[TheVillain]

Just wanted to officially say that in another thread I jokingly refer to this one as "purposeful poo kicking". This is just a bit of tongue-in-cheek on my part, nothing serious meant.

[Sure]

Well, since you volunteered. As I understand, Atheism not merely lack of belief in a God but a belief that there is no God and no analogous being exists (if I am wrong here, please correct me).

What I'd be curious to hear is exactly what evidence you have that God doesn't exist? The lack of evidence for the existence of God, or a God, or anything really, is enough to propel one to Agnosticism, which is the assertion that one doesn't know. However, Atheism is the assertion that you know that God doesn't exist, and that requires evidence (at least from a logical/scientific viewpoint, which most Atheists I am aware of tend to claim to ascribe to).

Or do you ascribe to this belief in non-existence dogmatically? That is to say, you don't believe in God in the same irrational way that others believe in God? (Using irrational to mean lacking a logical reason rather than as an insult). In that case, you don't believe in nothing, you believe in a manner exactly the same as religions, only in something wholly different.

I'd also be curious as to what you'd tell people who feel enlightenment, or close to God, or whatever their equivalent is, they are feeling? Just some strange reaction of the brain?

By the way, the idea that atheism is the antithesis of morality is a holdover, or a reality in certain areas, from the times when there was no division between religious and secular. Without this division, the rejection of religion became the wholesale rejection of society and many of its rules. In a secular society, rejecting religion simply does not lead to the same amount of disengagement, but in one that isn't secular rejecting religion would be like someone arguing that every single institution of society, political, moral, and otherwise should be abolished. It is much easier to see why this person would be rejected and villainized. It's also a convenient "Us vs Them" with one side saying, "They're religious nuts over there!" and the other going "They're immoral and impious!" for certain parties who shall remain unnamed.

As to those who don't understand why Atheists exist... there are people like that everywhere, who don't understand why anyone believes anything differently from them. They also tend to be the sort who can't understand why those stupid people over there don't just bow to their beliefs. I've met Atheists who portray their beliefs that way, as well as those who are religious, and many who have a similar attitude in some secular affair.

[Xenophile]

People with a scientific outlook on life, who would consider the existence of a God, would most likely do it in a objective and empirical manner. To be very simple in my example, a person with a scientific mindset would say this: "If something exists, prove it" and not: "Prove to me that this doesn't exist".

It's a basic concept in scientific investigation. You need to prove something before you can disprove it. Atheists observe and conclude that there exists no evidence for the existence of a God. With the scientific method fresh in mind, we can conclude that in a scientific theatre, the Atheists does not need to prove his conclusion form his observation, because there exists no facts to support the theory that a God actually exists.

In short, proof must be presented to support a theory (the existence of God in this context), to actually be defendable. If no proof exists, it will be discredited. This is what the Atheist does, discrediting what he perceives as a unsupported theory.

[Sure]

A scientific mindset would say, "Prove this to me." with no qualifiers. If you could not prove it, whether a negative (God not existing) or a positive (God existing) then it would not be accepted.

The idea of a default state against which an argument must be made (God must be proven to exist or God doesn't exist) is actually based on legal logic. That is a lawyer's outlook on life. Innocent until proven guilty or, in this case, non-existent until proven existent. You even betrayed that in your language, 'proof' is the legal way of putting and the scientific equivalent is 'evidence'.

[Strungintandum]

@ Xenophile - Yes, I am from the United States and this is a question that comes up constantly. It affects our political climate to such a great degree that I find it to be a topic worthy of discussion. I realize that many other nations do not have this issue and must say I am a bit envious of it.

@ Sure - Some atheists identify as "I do not believe" and others identify as "No god exists." This is a common misunderstanding on both the aprt of atheists and theists that has been difficult to eradicate. Theism is a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is therefor a lack of belief. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, not belief. An individual can be both an Atheist and an Agnostic at once and I believe you would find that most athiests are also agnostic. To sum up my position. I do not know if a god or gods exist and I also do not believe that any do. This is the same as saying I do not actually know if unicorns exist, but I do not believe they do. I do not believe in a god or gods becauses there is no reason for me to believe just as there is no reason for me to believe in unicorns.

There is nothing dogmatic about this view as it can be wholly changed by the addition of information. If we do find strong evidence for the existence of a god, then I will believe it to be true. However, most of the claims about gods that I have seen do not allow for any acceptable evidence to be gathered. As for atheists that claim "no god exists", in my experience, they simply mean they have no good reason to believe it is true, so they assume it isn't. If there is an atheist who is proclaiming absolute knowledge that know god exists, I would say that individual needs to pony up the proof or re-think his stance.

As to enlightenment from a feeling of closeness to god, I would tell them that I do not know why they feel that way and am not qualified to tell them why they do. All I could reasonably say to them is that other explanations for those feelings seem more likely to me than the god hypothesis. It is entierly possible that the feeling they have has no actual link to a god, and to me it seems far more plausible that their feelings are coming for a source that isn't a diety. It seems to me that having a feeling and ascribing a source to that feeling that you have no way of scientifically investigating is a bad idea.

The idea that atheism is the antithesis of morality may be a holdover, but is still extraordinarily prevalent in a great number of churches and books. It also seems that the likely cause of people not understanding how others can believe differently than they do stems from a total misunderstanding of what belief is and how it functions. I don't know how many times I've heard people utter the phrase "They just believe that because they want to" when in fact, the main component of belief is not choice at all. Belief is automatic and is informed by experience it is not simply "chosen".

[TheVillain]

Actually, the Burden of Proof applies to any field in which a default state can exist. In Science, the default state is the state which is set by previous conclusions arrived from all scientific evidence. The initial arguments against Einstein's General Relativity were Burden of Proof arguments- the difference here is that Einstein pointed out that Newtonian Mechanics can't account for Mercury's Orbital Precision while General Relativity can. A few tests confirmed this, and Einstein's General Relativity met it's Burden of Proof.

In this case the default conclusion is "There is no God" because God is unnecessary for our understanding of the universe and Occam's Razor tells us that if something has been shown to be unnecessary for our understanding of the universe it most likely doesn't exist.

This however also means that all the theists need to meet their Burden of Proof is a single piece of Empirical, Unbiased evidence that god exists. The fact that they have failed to produce a single piece of Empirical, Unbiased evidence that god exists since the beginning of scientific inquiry is no fault of the scientists.

[Xenophile]

I get the feeling that I have given a argument, and you, Sure, completely disqualified my point and argument because it could be equated with despicable and immoral lawyer practice.

A scientist must prove his theory. If someone in a scientific arena debates about the existence of God, His existence must first be established in order for a legitimate discussion to even be considered. If a scientist says "the horse shoe crab nebula is made out of farts" and presents no proof, there will of course NOT be a massive investigation that will try to disprove that scientist's claims. That is simple scientific method.

[Sure]

@Villain: Burden of proof arguments? No, they weren't. Burden of proof arguments presents no counter evidence but demands that the other side prove something. There is a default state assumed to be true. Einstein's theory was attempting to explain data and managed to explain it in a more accurate, elegant, and precise way than other theories and so was adopted. At no point did either side attempt to prove the other side's theories wrong, simply their own more capable of predicting outcomes in an elegant, accurate, and precise manner.

Occam's Razor tells us that the most elegant solution is preferable. It does not argue that if we cannot prove something it doesn't exist. A large problem with applying science to this is that science is meant for measurable phenomenon. God is not a measurable phenomenon but that is not grounds, scientifically, to assert non-existence. Irrelevance to science would be something you could assert using Occam's Razor.

Religion has no burden of proof to scientifically prove itself because science does not shift burden of proof or even have the concept. If neither side can provide evidence for its theories then neither side is accepted and no comment is made on the matter. And I would point out that the Atheists have failed to produce a single piece of evidence God doesn't exist. That lack of evidence is not proof that God exists. Nor is the lack of evidence proof that God does not exist. Scientifically the lack of evidence is proof of nothing at all. But it does mean that the Atheists have no better argument about God's existence than Theists. From a scientific point of view, there is no grounds to make any claim.

@Xeno: Really? I hold no particular ill will against lawyers. It is just a sort of logic, and my point was that you're using a different system of logic than a scientific one and disqualifying it in that sense, yes.

A scientist must prove his theory, yes. But asserting the non-existence of God is a theory in the same way asserting the existence of God is. So either must be proven. There is no default state of non-existence. A scientist believes in nothing until evidence is presented, a scientist does not believe that something is untrue until evidence is presented.


Ultimately, though, I think science fits poorly into this debate. We're dealing with beliefs here, and Atheism is in my opinion a belief, not science nor backed by science. Your arguments, by the way, are sound from certain logical viewpoints, just unscientific.

[Strungintandum]

A scientific mindset would say, "Prove this to me." with no qualifiers. If you could not prove it, whether a negative (God not existing) or a positive (God existing) then it would not be accepted.

The idea of a default state against which an argument must be made (God must be proven to exist or God doesn't exist) is actually based on legal logic. That is a lawyer's outlook on life. Innocent until proven guilty or, in this case, non-existent until proven existent. You even betrayed that in your language, 'proof' is the legal way of putting and the scientific equivalent is 'evidence'.

The problem here is, as Xeno pointed out, there are literally infinite numbers of things you cannot prove or disprove because tehre is no information available. The scientific mindset does not automatically accept or deny anything for which there is no information (Ise use information here instead of proof because it fits better I think). But this is why it is of no use to discuss the existance or non-existance of god. A more useful discussion covers whether the belief in a god is justified or even useful. That is something we can gather information about and we can discuss. The scientific mindset would say that, because tehre is no information, tehre can be no knowledge. Hence, agnosticism. The scientific mindset can also say becase there is no information, there is no justifyable reason to believe. Hence, atheism.

Any comparison to legal proofs is not useful because science and the justice system have two different goals. The position alloted a defendant is given extra weight because the purpose of the system is to incarcerate as few innocent people as possible. THis has the consequence of letting bad people go free. Science does not allot extra weight to any position because the rules and goals of science are not the same as the justice system. Conflating the two is useless.

[Strungintandum]

Sure - it is literally impossible to prove the non-existance of something. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist or that clocks don't actually work because of tiny invisible watch demons. What's more, saying that "unicorns don't exist" isn't a hypothesis. A hypothesis must come from observation. Since you can't observe something not existing, you can't form a hypothesis about its non-existance. This is why science specifically deals with the observable and why, as you pointed out science does not apply to the god question. The question isn't "does god exist", the question is, "is there any reason to believe that he/she/it/they does".

[Jude]

Sure - it is literally impossible to prove the non-existance of something.

That's not true in many instances.  Mathematics for one, but there are certain things which are logically impossible or impossible if we accept the natural laws science has discovered.

I think you can prove and disprove specific instances of god, but not the generalized concept of a higher being.

Obviously if the "religious system" set up is self-contradictory, that version of god cannot exist.

[Strungintandum]

That's not true in many instances.  Mathematics for one, but there are certain things which are logically impossible or impossible if we accept the natural laws science has discovered.

I think you can prove and disprove specific instances of god, but not the concept of a higher being.

Obviously if the "religious system" set up is self-contradictory, that version of god cannot exist.

I used the term observe because we were referencing science. If you shift the context to math, then replace observe with quantify. Speaking in a more all-encompassing context, you cannot prove what you have no information for. You cna disprove specific gods because you now have information about those gods. What Sure was saying was that science has to prove that a being it has no information about does not exist. That is impossible. It would have been different if he would have said that we had to prove the god of the bible does not exist. That we could do in a heartbeat.

[TheVillain]

For the Record, Sure, there is a Burden of Proof definition that does apply directly to Philosophy- of which Science uses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

And for more reading, Sure, here's a little bit on the Scientific Method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Sure]

Why, thank you, Villain.

Philosophic Burden of Proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

Epistemic (which means philosophical, if you weren't aware). Not scientific.

Oh, and there's even a little graph on the page showing how you do have burden of proof in order to prove fairies don't exist! So you would still need to present the proof. Wonderful little thing for what I was saying about how neither side had evidence and so neither side could make claims. The same graph even has no burden of proof for someone who says they don't know... which is what I'm saying I understand perfectly, it is only those who take it a step further and say they know there isn't a God I am questioning here.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Neither side has observable, empirical, measurable evidence. Therefore neither side has a scientific method of inquiry. In other words, what I said.

[Strungintandum]

Sure - This only applies if your claiming that an undefined god exists, which is itself illogical. The moment you begin making claims about said god, then we can begin the process of inquiry. The god of the christian bible, for instance, is logically impossible and we can therefor rule out his existence. This is handled on a logical level because it cannot be handled on a scientific level. Saying that science has to prove an undefined god's non-existence is nonsensicle, that is why the burden of proof exists in this argument, because in order for us to reach the level of science you have to meet your burden of proof. If you can't meet your burden of proof about a claim, invoking science's inability to deal with said claim is laughable. But that isn't even really important. If the god claim does not even pass the mustard of logically possible, there is no reason to bring science up at all. And as I said, claiming the existence of an undefined unknown is itself illogical.

[Sure]

Logically impossible? How is that, exactly? You'll need to back that assertion up.

I'm saying science has to prove God's non-existence if you want to say science supports Atheism in the sense of saying there is no God. I am not that science's inability to deny God's existence is proof of God's existence. Really, if anything, my argument is approaching true Agnosticism because I'm increasingly arguing Atheists are wrong because you cannot know in either the positive or the negative, rather than a Theistic argument.

I have no burden of proof in any inquiry into God's existence since I have made no claim in regards to God's actual existence.

[TheVillain]

A bit of a backslide compared to what you said before but it's into territory that's closer to right so I won't push it.

My point was that Science leans in favor in there being no god- as there's no evidence for the existence of god and there's no sign that god is necessary. Logically speaking, if there's no proof something exists and it doesn't seem necessary for the universe to function then odds are good that it doesn't exist until something about that changes. I have no proof that there's a Frenchman with Red Hair and there's no reason to believe a Frenchman with Red Hair is necessary for the universe to function so logically odds are good it doesn't exist. Show me evidence that a Frenchman with Red Hair does exist and I am forced to change my position.

Science is in the same position. There is no proof that god exists and no reason to assume a god is necessary for the universe to function, therefore odds are it doesn't exist. Show us proof and the position will change. If Atheism also follows a similar line of reasoning it's not so much that Science supports Atheism as they haven't been shown to disagree- unlike Science and, say, Christianity.

The Burden of Proof still lies with the theists though. Show some evidence and you Christians will get an invite to the big boys table.

:P

[Sure]

And I would say we've left science behind by the point you mentioned and have moved into philosophy. Your argument makes sense but is unscientific. Perhaps it's just a debate about what is philosophy and what is science, specifically.

"you Christians"? Whoever said I was a Christian or a Theist? Perhaps I just like playing devil's advocate and debating. >:)

[Strungintandum]

Logically impossible? How is that, exactly? You'll need to back that assertion up.

I'm saying science has to prove God's non-existence if you want to say science supports Atheism in the sense of saying there is no God. I am not that science's inability to deny God's existence is proof of God's existence. Really, if anything, my argument is approaching true Agnosticism because I'm increasingly arguing Atheists are wrong because you cannot know in either the positive or the negative, rather than a Theistic argument.

I have no burden of proof in any inquiry into God's existence since I have made no claim in regards to God's actual existence.

Again, atheism does not go to knowledge, it goes to belief. Theism is defined as a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is the opposite of that position, it is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Atheism is not the knowledge that no god or gods exists and anyone who defines it that was is mistaken. So why does science back up atheism as a belief? Science is based on observation, which leads to experience, which leads to belief. There is no credible evidence that a god or gods has ever been observed. Therefore, there is no credible evidence that anyone has ever experienced a god or gods. Therefore there is no credible reason to believe in a god or gods.

Now, I asserted two gods as logically impossible so I'm not sure which one you wnated me to back up. The undefined god is illogical because you can't build a logical sylligism on no information. The christian god is illogical because it is logically impossible for a being to be all powerful and all knowledgeable at the same time. If god knows you are going to do something, and is unable to stop you, he is not all powerful. If a god knows you are going to do something and has the power to stop you, he has invalidated that knowledge. So he either knows everything and cannot change anything or he is all powerful and does not have all knowledge. This does not even go into other contradictory statements such as his being all powerful but unable to be around sin or his being all merciful but also wrathful. There is ample biblical evidence that the christian god cannot logically exist.

You are correct in that if you assert no god you have no burden of proof. What we are saying is that those who do assert a god have a burden of proof. But, to repeate the mantra, science's inability to disprove a god isn't really important to anything, the important question is, "is there any justifyable reason to believe a god exists?"

[Jude]

It's perfectly scientific and logical to disprove something by assumption of truth.  You simply show that errors arise from it; it's called proof by contradiction.  Religions can be picked apart by similar means,  not all, but most.

Deism is one of the few that are logically sound.  Christianity has more holes in it than ozone layer.

[Farmboy]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a burden of DISproof. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the person who makes the assertion has the burden. The one who asks for the proof has no obligation to prove that a proof is required.

[mannik]

I don't believe there is such a thing as a burden of DISproof. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the person who makes the assertion has the burden. The one who asks for the proof has no obligation to prove that a proof is required.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....as my science teacher used to say. That goes both ways. If I walk up to the Jahova witnesses down the street and say, "There is no god!" I will be required to prove that claim, the same thing occurs when they come to my door shouting "God exists!" (Which incidently happens far more often) And then it is their responsibility to provide the proof.

What needs to be proven is not that something exists or does not exists, but rather the valitity of a given statement.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Science does not lean toward God or away from God.  Were science to take a position on the truth, then it would no longer be science.  The discipline of science is one that does not claim to know the answers to question and does not even claim to verify what we “believe” to be true.  All science does is offer a systematic way to understand the observable world around us.  Taking what we know and taking what we observe, science struggles to merge the two into a working theory.  Yet even that can fail and science does not care because it has no bias.

Also it is very presumptive to say that God is unnecessary.  Nobody knows whether God is necessary or not.  Simply stating that if science cannot prove something exists, then it does not exist is rather foolish. 

[WhiteyChan]

Science does not lean toward God or away from God.  Were science to take a position on the truth, then it would no longer be science.  The discipline of science is one that does not claim to know the answers to question and does not even claim to verify what we “believe” to be true.  All science does is offer a systematic way to understand the observable world around us.  Taking what we know and taking what we observe, science struggles to merge the two into a working theory.  Yet even that can fail and science does not care because it has no bias.

This.

I count myself as an Atheist, and I'm doing a physics degree. From previous arguments, one would therefore assume that I think God, in whatever form or forms S/He takes, does not exist. This is not the case, however. I do not believe in a higher being, a deity per say, but I do think that there is the possibility that one exists. I don't say that I am an Agnostic, because I am sure that I do not believe, and I am sure that there is a slim possibility (note my wording there, I'm sure there is a possibility but not a certainty) that one does exist. Science in its current form - looking at the Standard Model, and explanations for the creation of the universe, have too many holes in them. It is entirely possible that some god at some time decided to create the universe - not in the way explained by religion (eg the 7 Days of Creation), but by putting together the necessary conditions in a singularity, then causing the singularity to expand infinitely (aka the Big Bang).

The thing about me, as a scientist, and probably most other scientists as well, is that if the existence of a god is proved in a logical, scientific manner, then I will just go, "Oh, ok, we were wrong - guess there is a God". I highly doubt that if the existence of a deity is disproved in a logical, scientific manner, then Theists will just go, "Oh, ok, we were wrong - guess there isn't a God". Science always evolves, taking in new discoveries and discarding incorrect ones, always looking for ways to improve on itself. Religion doesn't - and that is one of the main reasons why I am not religious. Among many others, I hasten to add.

[Strungintandum]

@ pumpkin - Science does not lead to or away from an undefined god, but it certainly provides backing for the disbelief in gods. The process of science and the discoveries it brings provide us with an experience that informs our beliefs. Certainly science provides no experience that leads to a justified belief that lightning bolts come from Thor, or that man was created 6,000 years ago in his current form. I have yet to see any specific god claim that is not either just a rebranding of existance (the God is everything argument) or logically or scientifically without sound premise. It is therefore fine to say that science and logic provide a backing for the disbelief in said god claims. I am not sure what you mean by "lean toward" or "away from", but if you mean to say that science does not provide evidence that discedits specific god claims, I disagree.

@ whiteychan - Being an agnostic only means that you do not know if a god exists or not. Since there is no proof that a being that might be deemed a god does or does not exist, I don't believe anyone can claim that knowledge with authority. I would therefore suggest that we are all of us agnostics whether we believe in a god or not or believe in the possibilty or not. Agnosticism goes to what we know, not what we believe.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

That has more to do with your own personal bias than with any thing scientists have done.  Your beliefs regarding God or the belief in gods is tainting how you view science and the results attained.  For instance, your lightning example is completed covered in bias.  Simply because there is an understanding of how lightening works, does not mean there is not an entity absent in determining where the lightening strikes or that perhaps that entity takes a natural occurrence such as lightening to dole out punishment.  Science merely states a theory for how the lightening is made and behaves, but does not postulate a reason for why some people are struck or where the lightening is going to fall.

While you may indeed say that science provides the backdrop for your own arguments, I disagree entirely.  Science has lead me to a deeper feeling that there is a God and that we are struggling to understand what was given to us by that entity.  So where you view science as proof that God does not exist, I view it as proof that God does exist.

[Strungintandum]

The mythology surrounding Thor in no way meshes with our understanding of how lightning works. I don't see how one can argue that on the one hand we know that lightning is a discharge of electrons from one charged body to another and simultaneously claim that we do not know that it isn't caused by a fully manifesting god from Valhalla literally throwing the electrons from one place to the other. Your suggestion about us not knowing there isn't an entity behind where it strikes does not obsolve the rest of the myth from being demonstrably untrue. I cannot prove that lightning isn't directed by an intelligent force but I can prove that it is not being tossed around by a fully manifested diety in the clouds being pulled around on a chariot by a couple of rams. I cannot prove the a diety didn't create the Earth, but science has done nothing but re-confirm through various methods that it was not created 6,000 years ago. This isn't me being biased, this is parts of the stories themselves being demonstrated as wrong using science. The moon is not actually a wolf and the sun is neither travelling around the Earth nor is it pulled by a horse-drawn chariot.

Also, I never once claimed that science proved there is no god and I do not view science as proof a god does not exist. Actually, I have claimed the opposite on several occasions. What I said was that science and logic disprove certain god claims and that the discoveries made by scientists (as far as I know) in no way contradict the atheist belief. The lack of proof is why I've said time and time again that this subject isn't about what we can and cannot prove but what we believe and why. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Because we've found no scientific evidence to suggest such a being exists, it is reasonable to believe that there are no gods. Unlike my examples at the top, you can infact postulate a diety that is logically sound and that we have no way to disprove its existence but the unfalsifyable god has just as reasonable as the idea that the universe was created by unicorn farts. All unfalsifyable claims have equal validity so if you're going to accept one such claim you cannot have logical reason to reject any other.

So, my question to you is this, do you believe in a falsifyable diety? If so, what characteristics does this creature posess and what test can we apply to falsify it? If you believe in a god that is not falsifyable, do you also believe in invisible universe creating tyrannisaurus/unicorn cross breeds that play poker? If you do not believe the second unfalsifyable claim, why do you believe the first?

[Farmboy]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....as my science teacher used to say. That goes both ways. If I walk up to the Jahova witnesses down the street and say, "There is no god!" I will be required to prove that claim, the same thing occurs when they come to my door shouting "God exists!" (Which incidently happens far more often) And then it is their responsibility to provide the proof.

What needs to be proven is not that something exists or does not exists, but rather the valitity of a given statement.

No, I'm talking about the RULE called Burden of Proof, not just seeking opinions. I think that the burden of proof falls to the one who makes an assertion. It's a Logic question. I think the rule is a matter of fact. There is no burden of proof of doubt. Doubt is the default case. If one can not prove that which is subject to doubt, but wishes to continue to believe the unprovable, that is called faith. Faith is basically the escape clause from the burden of proof. That is what separates faith from hope or expectation. In my book, faith is unacceptable. I have an expectation of the fidelity of my spouse, and I am certain she lives up to it, but I've been alive too long to call it faith.

this might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

[Farmboy]

Further, and unrelated to what I wrote above...

I think that the universe is a whole, but I realise that this is due to the language (uni = one) I have spoken for all my life that has shaped my thought. In fact, the universe might be a multiverse, or may be infinite to the extent that it has no boundaries and is therefore undefinable. But I think of it as one, and I think of it as alive, and I think of my "self" as an illusion of separation from this universe which I am a part of. I think of all "self" as superstition.

And I don't believe in the soul, either. The soul was originally a concept used to maintain an elite. Divination was accomplished in ancestor worship societies by contacting a spirit on "the other side" who would posess your body to convey important information about crops and such. Then the priest class came about as those who had this posessing spirit. Eventually, as religion evolved to democratic levels, everyone had a soul. But back in the day of the Emperors of China or the Pharaohs of Egypt, the idea that commoners had such souls would have been ludicrous. That's why you see no such discussion of the soul until the Gnostics.

These are superstitions. People didn't even have standards of argument like logic. They asserted their personal conclusions based on guesswork and used brute force to back up the ideas. Just like monkeys trying to type a speech by Hamlet, once in a while they got a few things right. But mostly, it is debris from a time when "truth" was meted out at the end of a sword, and it must all be re-assessed, in my opinion. I do not allow myself the concept of faith. For me, that would be a cop out.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I assume you refer to whether I must admit that my God and belief system could be wrong?  Of course I have to admit that I could be wrong about the entire situation.  Any time a belief is held, whether about who created the universe or which café has the best coffee, there must be acceptance that the belief can be wrong.  My views on the afterlife, on the soul and on the human condition could be entirely misplaced.  God may be nothing more than a figment of my imagination, a desire for something higher than me.  Yet I do not believe this is so and cannot postulate a definitive argument that would disprove God’s existence to me.  I would like to think that if such a day came to pass, I would accept the truth but obviously cannot say for certain.

Also I do not dispute your ability to make a reasonable claim that God does not exist.  I do not dispute anyone’s claim that many gods exist, that reincarnation is a possibility or that unicorn farts from time before time created the universe.  I do dispute science being a good partner to those claims, because science makes no claims at all.  I do not like watching science become a religion, used to back a belief system rather than understand the observable world.  As was stated before, science is a systematic method of testing a hypothesis.  People do try to force science and religion into conflict, but I do not believe them to be such vile enemies.  At one time it was thought that understanding the world around us would lead to a greater understanding of God.  Like an anthropologist studying the tools of a particular culture to better understand them, we work to unravel God’s creation in order to understand.

[Doomsday]

Strungintandum, you seem to represent what most atheists don't want. I'm an atheist. I'm not interested in a church of Atheism, or atheists united. I don't think the lack of belief should be a belief in itself. Not all Atheists share a moral code, we're united by nothing.

[Farmboy]

The reason why science and religion cause conflicts within the person who wants both is simply that they use different methods. Religion, as the root (religare "to bind") implies, is about attaching one's self to a concept and holding on against all different concepts, while science is supposed to be about not attaching your self to any of the concepts, but rather leaving things open to debate. The threat of "science becoming religion" happens, therefore, when people attach themselves to concepts like the Big Bang Theory. And it is true that the pure scientist doubts the Big Bang Theory, because she must doubt everything. But the pop scientist defends theories as if they are facts, and this is how they tie themselves (religare "to bind") to concepts and thwart the real purpose of science.

Note: some say religare means a binding contract between man and God. And I also have it that Cicero gives the root as relegare, to re-read, but I don't buy that.

Anyhow, I try not to tie myself to things. I try to stay unattached, except by choice. With attachment comes a desire to control, and I struggle with that, so I have to make myself not try to control, and the only way to do that is to let things be. As you can see, then, for me, religion is an error, though spiritual thought is a great pleasure. Big different. I guess I should start a threat called "Ask an a-religio-ist anything"! LOL! :)

[Silk]

Well, since you volunteered. As I understand, Atheism not merely lack of belief in a God but a belief that there is no God and no analogous being exists (if I am wrong here, please correct me).

You are wrong here, Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, like how theism is a belief in gods. There are Atheistic religions such as Scientology as there is no god to speak of.

Atheism is as varied as Theism in regards to it, the only link to those is a belief or lack of in a god.

It takes as much faith or belief there is no god is the same ammount to not believe in dragons/faeries/santa/Flying spaggetti monster/Evil monkey in the closet/hobbits/A sane scientologist... None whatso ever

The main cause between scientific and religious dispute is the different methods within the two work. E.g. Creation vs evolution are two contradictory ideas.

What can be proved without evidence can be disproved with equal validity. However much of what was "gods work" in the past has now been explained within natural processes (demon possession = mental illness, gods wraith = earthquakes = Tectonic plate shifts) As mystery shrinks, so does supernatural belief.

"The universe had to be created"
"So who made god?"
"God has always been"
"So can't the universe have always been?"
My general take on the matter, gonna be keeping a eye on this one.

[Farmboy]

Hey Strung, they probably won't approve you until you interact on your welcome thread with more people. I think you've got to interact with 3 to 5 mentors before approval, though there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rule. You should probably go there and answer the outstanding questions they gave you so you can get approved. You'll find there are a lot of different thinking people here. It sounds like you belong here, too. So take some time to answer the questions in your introduction thread. One of the mentors, the one in the long flowing gown, put her questions in light blue. It looks like you didn't see them. You might want to ask for writing prompts, too, if you like to write. That's what I did. The silly questions thing doesn't make sense to me but it seems to be fun for other people, so I asked for writing prompts instead. YMMV

I would have sent this note via PM, but you don't get PMs until you get approved. And I hope you get approved soon.

Good luck, man. :)

Aislin

[Vekseid]

I split the more general discussion to this thread, since this seemed to revolve more around Strung's views specifically.

[Kate]

pity I thought my post would help a resolution being reached here

[Farmboy]

Can I get two of my posts on this thread moved to the discussion on the other thread, please?
2830157
2832287

p.s. Kate, I thought your input was great, but since it's on the other thread, see you there. :)

[Silk]

WiseMonkey #3: atheism

This should help sort out the misconceptions about some parts of atheism :)