Honest Question for Atheists

[SpontaneousAbortion]

Sir, I'm going to make this as quick as possible.

I'm 15 and will stand behind my atheism out look, 100%

To me, religion is just an escape from what lies ahead in death.

Nothing is a word that can be thrown back and forth now, but if you imagine NOTHING after death, it scares some people ****less.

Christianity and this Jesus thing is something to cushion the blow.

I, myself, am not afraid of death. I am, though, afraid of whatever pain I might go through to get there. That's it, death is a relief for me, it won't be peaceful, won't be scary, it'll be nothing and I look forward to nothing.

- Tionna C.

[mklsgl]

You can't airlift quotes out of the bible that speak to the unknowableness of God, and then at the same time ignore all the actual details, descriptions, historical fraud, lies and other conflicts that definitively prove that the biblical God does not exist.

I am not sure why people continue to pretend that the biblical God is some mystery. It is not any more of a mystery than Zeus would be. Is there another version of god out there? Perhaps. But the biblical God is not true. If you want to talk about another God, then please at least somewhat outline what you are talking about. Stop switching back and forth between the biblical God and the unknowable mystery God. They are not the same thing at all.

Ignore what "actual details, descriptions, historical fraud, lies, and other conflicts...?"

How am I "switching back and forth between "iblical [G-d] and the other mystery [G-d]?"

What are you talking about: "But the iblical [G-d] is not true[?]" You can prove otherwise?

Rabbi Singer quotes Job in order to show that questions are all we have; it's a form of Aristotelian argumentation. Airlifting quotes? The entire basis of Judaism can be argued and seen as one long quote (The Torah) posed as a question regarding the sublime essence of [G-d].

[Tiggs]

So, when you state you see no compelling evidence for any 'relationship with god', you aren't discussing "non-relationships"?

No.

I'm discussing relationships, and in particular, that the necessary evidence for a claimed relationship for God is not evident.

I had always considered someone who acknowledged a god might exist as being an agnostic?

An atheist is someone who believes no god exists. Not that no god defined by a religion, or faith, exists, but that no god exists. If we were to consider the definition as being someone who believes no defined god exists, then this still leaves the possibility of some undefined god - which is not atheism, but agnosticism.

Or has the definition of atheism been arbitrarily co-opted by some agnostics because they believe that atheism is 'the opposite of theism and so, rational'?

No.

As discussed earlier, your definition of atheism applies solely to strong atheism, a position which evolved from weak atheism over a period of 200 years.

Also - the agnostic position is more complicated than the rather simplistic acknowledgement that a god might exist. You might want to talk to a few and ask them what they think it means.

In general, people's beliefs are much more complicated than sound-bite definitions. They're not all just black and white, however much you'd like them to be. Most of us lay somewhere in the grey area in-between the two opposite ends of the fundamentalist and strong atheist spectrum.

Technically, I'm a strong atheist in respect of certain categories of Gods, a weak atheist in respect of all other claimed Gods and an agnostic when it comes to any remaining unclaimed Gods.

I self-describe as an atheist as that is the label which most broadly covers the position I will take concerning conversations involving claimed deities. The number of conversations I get involved in discussing unclaimed deities are fairly few and far between.

You may wish to claim that I'm an agnostic, given my beliefs as per unclaimed Gods. However, if I were to self-describe as an agnostic, people would get confused when I claim that their deity does not exist, as they connect that with being an atheist viewpoint.

You may wish to claim that I'm a strong atheist. However, given my position on unclaimed Gods, that also leads to confusion, as you've just evidenced.

So. Weak atheist with occasional strong atheist tendencies is how I'd generally describe myself (given that weak atheism encompasses the agnostic viewpoint regarding unclaimed Gods).

Or Atheist, for short.

Quite honestly, however, you can paint me with whichever label you wish. My position remains rational, regardless.

Edited December 26, 2010 by Tiggs

[Leonardo]

No.

I'm discussing relationships, and in particular, that the necessary evidence for a claimed relationship for God is not evident.

With all due respect to the studies you mentioned previously which claimed that the incidence of answered prayer is no greater than chance would dictate, how can you claim no evidence for someone else's subjective experience?

If, by evidence, you wish to claim that a god, if it exists, cannot do something (such as appear to operate according to the probability of chance), then you are defining god in such a way to allow yourself to discredit that definition.

No.

As discussed earlier, your definition of atheism applies solely to strong atheism, a position which evolved from weak atheism over a period of 200 years.

Also - the agnostic position is more complicated than the rather simplistic acknowledgement that a god might exist. You might want to talk to a few and ask them what they think it means.

In general, people's beliefs are much more complicated than sound-bite definitions. They're not all just black and white, however much you'd like them to be. Most of us lay somewhere in the grey area in-between the two opposite ends of the fundamentalist and strong atheist spectrum.

Technically, I'm a strong atheist in respect of certain categories of Gods, a weak atheist in respect of all other claimed Gods and an agnostic when it comes to any remaining unclaimed Gods.

I self-describe as an atheist as that is the label which most broadly covers the position I will take concerning conversations involving claimed deities. The number of conversations I get involved in discussing unclaimed deities are fairly few and far between.

You may wish to claim that I'm an agnostic, given my beliefs as per unclaimed Gods. However, if I were to self-describe as an agnostic, people would get confused when I claim that their deity does not exist, as they connect that with being an atheist viewpoint.

You may wish to claim that I'm a strong atheist. However, given my position on unclaimed Gods, that also leads to confusion, as you've just evidenced.

So. Weak atheist with occasional strong atheist tendencies is how I'd generally describe myself (given that weak atheism encompasses the agnostic viewpoint regarding unclaimed Gods).

Or Atheist, for short.

Quite honestly, however, you can paint me with whichever label you wish. My position remains rational, regardless.

There never has been a 'weak atheism' until some people a couple of centuries ago decided to confuse atheism with agnosticism. When atheism was first recognised in 16th century Europe, the atheist denied the Christian God existed. Given that 16th century Europe was solely Christian, this is not the equivalent of today's 'weak atheism' which allows for some undefined god to exist (which is, in fact, agnosticism), but the equivalent of the 'strong atheist' position which allows for the existence of no god.

Atheism, from it's conception, has always been the position "no god exists". As cultures spread, exchanged ideas and intermingled, it became obvious that many different 'versions' of deity existed in different cultures. However, much of the philosophical and theosophical ideas arising from that era (the late 16th and 17th centuries) from our perspective, arose in Europe, where the Christian God was paramount. This 'weak atheism' arose from the Eurocentricity of those philosophers and scholars and it is a term tied to a specific culture, rather than being acultural as "atheism" is.

Because the Christian God was inextricably part of Western European culture, the idea that this definition of god did not exist among many other possible gods became the basis for this 'weak atheism'. Eurocentricity meant the 'weak atheist' scholar did not really give credence to other culture's god(s) possibly existing, but did allow for some undefined 'god'. The whole idea of 'weak atheism' is a misapplication of what atheism was (and still is), however.

'Weak atheism' is agnosticism and 'strong atheism' is atheism.

[Leonardo]

Sorry to butt in on your conversation...

I consider myself an Atheist but since I cannot completely rule out a god I am to some people an Agnostic Atheist. I except myself being called by either of these names but really prefer Atheist.

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they claim not to know or be able to know whether any deity exists.

Agnostic atheism

I appreciate the explanation, Euphorbia, but I maintain that atheism and agnosticism are exclusive beliefs and that the 'agnostic atheist' (or 'weak atheist', as some call it) is using the 'atheist' tag because of some belief that it somehow provides some 'validity' or 'certainty' about their belief, as well as being seen as the opposition of theism.

I cannot say whether a deity exists, I have no evidence of such and do not see other's experiences as warranting a claim of being 'evidence'. I can certainly argue that specific defintions of god are extremely unlikely to exist, and so discredit those definitions (which include those made by the world's major religions) from being 'true'. However, I cannot say whether a god does, or does not exist.

The latter would indicate the position of agnosticism, while discrediting specific definitions from being 'true' does not grant the position of atheism - atheism is the discrediting of any god from being 'true' (even undefined). There is no 'atheistic agnosticism' nor is there a position of 'agnostic atheism'. There is agnosticism and there is atheism (and theism, of course).

Edited December 26, 2010 by Leonardo

[The Silver Thong]

If you've proven without a doubt He doesn't exist why are you posting about it here (without actually presenting any proof) instead of being out in the conference circuit making $ with your proof?

Oh my, this again. Can you explain how ones goes about proving that something doesn't exist when there is no proof that it even exists in the first place. This goes back to the old claim I have a pink unicorn in my basement, now prove I don't.

Now wait, you could prove I don't have a pink unicorn in my basement right. However I can not disprove your god or the thousand other gods because there is no way to do so. Ones claims that there is a god are just that, claims with nothing behind them.

There is nothing to disprove when it comes to a biblical god, nothing. Until you can offer something tangible to disprove what would be the purpose of trying to disprove a want a desire a need. I can't disprove personal desire.

[The Silver Thong]

I appreciate the explanation, Euphorbia, but I maintain that atheism and agnosticism are exclusive beliefs and that the 'agnostic atheist' (or 'weak atheist', as some call it) is using the 'atheist' tag because of some belief that it somehow provides some 'validity' or 'certainty' about their belief, as well as being seen as the opposition of theism.

I guess thousands of years of dogma will inherently force some to believe in such a deity however it is not a belief to say there is no such thing as the god we are taught in the bible. How does one defend one god over another with out also saying all gods must be real. We have nothing to go on Leo except ones needs nothing more. I can not make myself believe in anothers wants or wishes.

[Euphorbia]

I appreciate the explanation, Euphorbia, but I maintain that atheism and agnosticism are exclusive beliefs and that the 'agnostic atheist' (or 'weak atheist', as some call it) is using the 'atheist' tag because of some belief that it somehow provides some 'validity' or 'certainty' about their belief, as well as being seen as the opposition of theism.

I cannot say whether a deity exists, I have no evidence of such and do not see other's experiences as warranting a claim of being 'evidence'. I can certainly argue that specific defintions of god are extremely unlikely to exist, and so discredit those definitions (which include those made by the world's major religions) from being 'true'. However, I cannot say whether a god does, or does not exist.

The latter would indicate the position of agnosticism, while discrediting specific definitions from being 'true' does not grant the position of atheism - atheism is the discrediting of any god from being 'true' (even undefined). There is no 'atheistic agnosticism' nor is there a position of 'agnostic atheism'. There is agnosticism and there is atheism (and theism, of course).

I understand your position Leonardo. Like I said, if I have to put a label on myself, it would be Atheist. Just pointing out that not everyone likes to put it as black and white as you.

I do not believe in the Christian god or any other god, but I certainly can't disprove any god either, as much as I would love to have the matter settled.

People like to label people. That will more than likely never change. And as long as they're going to label people, they will always break it down into many different levels. You will always have the ability to label yourself or not, but will never have control of how others label you.

If there wasn't belief in god, the Atheist label wouldn't exist...

Edited December 26, 2010 by Euphorbia

[Tiggs]

With all due respect to the studies you mentioned previously which claimed that the incidence of answered prayer is no greater than chance would dictate, how can you claim no evidence for someone else's subjective experience?

The studies were based on mortality rates. Mortality - not particularly subjective.

If, by evidence, you wish to claim that a god, if it exists, cannot do something (such as appear to operate according to the probability of chance), then you are defining god in such a way to allow yourself to discredit that definition.

Actually - it's Theists that define their God in that way.

There is no measurable effect due to prayer, Leo, even though theists believe that there should be. You can attempt to word-lawyer it as much as you wish, but that fact still remains.

There never has been a 'weak atheism' until some people a couple of centuries ago decided to confuse atheism with agnosticism. When atheism was first recognised in 16th century Europe, the atheist denied the Christian God existed. Given that 16th century Europe was solely Christian, this is not the equivalent of today's 'weak atheism' which allows for some undefined god to exist (which is, in fact, agnosticism), but the equivalent of the 'strong atheist' position which allows for the existence of no god.

Atheism, from it's conception, has always been the position "no god exists". As cultures spread, exchanged ideas and intermingled, it became obvious that many different 'versions' of deity existed in different cultures. However, much of the philosophical and theosophical ideas arising from that era (the late 16th and 17th centuries) from our perspective, arose in Europe, where the Christian God was paramount. This 'weak atheism' arose from the Eurocentricity of those philosophers and scholars and it is a term tied to a specific culture, rather than being acultural as "atheism" is.

Because the Christian God was inextricably part of Western European culture, the idea that this definition of god did not exist among many other possible gods became the basis for this 'weak atheism'. Eurocentricity meant the 'weak atheist' scholar did not really give credence to other culture's god(s) possibly existing, but did allow for some undefined 'god'. The whole idea of 'weak atheism' is a misapplication of what atheism was (and still is), however.

'Weak atheism' is agnosticism and 'strong atheism' is atheism.

The word Athiesm was coined in France which is in Europe. Thus, that it has a Eurocentric definition is of no surprise.

Weak Atheism is universally accepted as a subset of Atheism. Clue's kind of in the name.

Regardless of how much you may wish otherwise, Leo - the world is not going to change it's definitions in order to accommodate your ability to make unsupportable sweeping ad hominem statements.

[IamsSon]

Oh my, this again. Can you explain how ones goes about proving that something doesn't exist when there is no proof that it even exists in the first place. This goes back to the old claim I have a pink unicorn in my basement, now prove I don't.

Now wait, you could prove I don't have a pink unicorn in my basement right. However I can not disprove your god or the thousand other gods because there is no way to do so. Ones claims that there is a god are just that, claims with nothing behind them.

There is nothing to disprove when it comes to a biblical god, nothing. Until you can offer something tangible to disprove what would be the purpose of trying to disprove a want a desire a need. I can't disprove personal desire.

Seems like your issue is with pickletoes not me. She's the one who claims she's proved the Biblical God doesn't exist. Those anti-Christian glasses are really screwing with your perception, Bud.

[mklsgl]

Seems like your issue is with pickletoes not me. She's the one who claims she's proved the Biblical God doesn't exist. Those anti-Christian glasses are really screwing with your perception, Bud.

Agreed, IamsSon (Merry Christmas!). pickletoes asserted the claim! And, I'd use the term 'anti-Biblical [G-d]' instead of anti-Christian, since the asserted claim was in reference to the post about Rabbi Singer's view on defining [G-d].

[OrdinaryClay]

In my case it is not a matter of wanting to believe there is nothing because I would like to believe that there is an afterlife and a creator but I see no evidence for it.I think that when your dead that is the end and belief in the afterlife is just a comfort zone for people who can't face the prospect of etenal darkness

Or maybe belief in annihilation after death is psychological comfort for those who can't face the prospect of eternal judgement.

We'll all know the definitive answer sooner or later.

[IamsSon]

Agreed, IamsSon (Merry Christmas!). pickletoes asserted the claim! And, I'd use the term 'anti-Biblical [G-d]' instead of anti-Christian, since the asserted claim was in reference to the post about Rabbi Singer's view on defining [G-d].

Thank you for the correction, sir. Although the anti-Christian glasses I was referring to are the ones Thongy keeps putting on, not the ones truethat, I mean pickletoes seems to also be wearing.

I hope you and yours had a wonderful Hanukkah! We had a great Christmas, thank you.

Edited December 26, 2010 by IamsSon

[mklsgl]

Thank you for the correction, sir. Although the anti-Christian glasses I was referring to are the ones Thongy keeps putting on, not the ones truethat, I mean pickletoes seems to also be wearing.

I hope you and yours had a wonderful Hanukkah! We had a great Christmas, thank you.

Really? truethat = pickletoes? Interesting...

Agreed that anti-Christian (or anti-Islam) is 'okay' but anti-Jewish is not.

[IamsSon]

Really? truethat = pickletoes? Interesting...

It's my theory.

Agreed that anti-Christian (or anti-Islam) is 'okay' but anti-Jewish is not.

Well, I must admit I was being a bit (just a bit ) overly focused on how the view addressed Christianity, but given that usually the comments refer to the "Old Testament" they are anti-Jewish just as well. Edited December 26, 2010 by IamsSon

[fullywired]

Or maybe belief in annihilation after death is psychological comfort for those who can't face the prospect of eternal judgement.

We'll all know the definitive answer sooner or later.

There is no eternal judgement to face ,just death

fullywired

[Leonardo]

I understand your position Leonardo. Like I said, if I have to put a label on myself, it would be Atheist. Just pointing out that not everyone likes to put it as black and white as you.

I do not believe in the Christian god or any other god, but I certainly can't disprove any god either, as much as I would love to have the matter settled.

People like to label people. That will more than likely never change. And as long as they're going to label people, they will always break it down into many different levels. You will always have the ability to label yourself or not, but will never have control of how others label you.

If there wasn't belief in god, the Atheist label wouldn't exist...

Well said, Euphorbia. We do indeed like our labels.

I appreciate that not everyone, as you put it, "likes" to define themselves into a particular group. Those who label themselves 'atheistic agnostics', or 'weak atheists', might do so because they perceive agnosticism as "wishy-washy" and they prefer a clearer vision for how they define themselves. Or maybe they see atheism as 'having been proved' by those who have argued the case that theism is irrational. Perhaps it is a perception that the arguments against theism are very intellectual or 'scientific' and the 'denier-of-their-own-agnosticism' wishes to associate themself with that.

I do not say it is wrong to label yourself as you wish, I am simply pointing out that doing so is simply misusing the language for a reason that does not appear to be based on rational thought and/or 'scientific or evidence-based reasoning'.

I have never said that atheism is 'wrong', because I do not know that. All I have said through my argument is those who label themselves 'atheist' - whether it be of the 'strong' or 'weak' variety - do so because of a reason that appeals to them in an egoistic sense.

The studies were based on mortality rates. Mortality - not particularly subjective.

Actually - it's Theists that define their God in that way.

There is no measurable effect due to prayer, Leo, even though theists believe that there should be. You can attempt to word-lawyer it as much as you wish, but that fact still remains.

The word Athiesm was coined in France which is in Europe. Thus, that it has a Eurocentric definition is of no surprise.

Weak Atheism is universally accepted as a subset of Atheism. Clue's kind of in the name.

Regardless of how much you may wish otherwise, Leo - the world is not going to change it's definitions in order to accommodate your ability to make unsupportable sweeping ad hominem statements.

I have made no ad homs in my argument, as far as I know, Tiggs. If you are referring to my statement that "atheism is an ego-based belief", then that is my argument and so cannot be an ad hom - which is a personal attack endeavouring to divert the debate opponent from the topic, or an attempt to besmirch the opponent and so invalidate their argument via a perception of their 'unreliability'. My statement did neither, and neither has my subsequent argument in support of it.

[The Silver Thong]

Seems like your issue is with pickletoes not me. She's the one who claims she's proved the Biblical God doesn't exist. Those anti-Christian glasses are really screwing with your perception, Bud.

Why do you need to be condescending. I agree with Pickle. There is nothing to disprove except dogma and that can be done right here and now. There is nothing to suggest a god, any god there for there is nothing to disprove. It is up you to prove it and you can't not in any way shape or form. With out anything to disprove there is only dogma.

I'm not anti Christian, I'm anti religion.

Edited December 26, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[IamsSon]

Why do you need to be condescending. I agree with Pickle. There is nothing to disprove except dogma and that can be done right here and now. There is nothing to suggest a god, any god there for there is nothing to disprove. It is up you to prove it and you can't not in any way shape or form. With out anything to disprove there is only dogma.

How is it condescending to point out pickletoes made the assertion that she has proof the Biblical God does not exist? Give me a break.

If I had asked her to prove God doesn't exist you might have a leg to stand on, but I didn't, she made the assertion all by herself. She has asserted she has proof that the Biblical God does not exist. I've merely asked that she post her proof.

I'm not anti Christian, I'm anti religion.

Fair enough. Whichever it is though, it's messing with your perceptions. It's making you jump without really reading what is on the post you think you're responding to.

[+Sherapy]

Why do you need to be condescending. I agree with Pickle. There is nothing to disprove except dogma and that can be done right here and now. There is nothing to suggest a god, any god there for there is nothing to disprove. It is up you to prove it and you can't not in any way shape or form. With out anything to disprove there is only dogma.

I'm not anti Christian, I'm anti religion.

I don't think her argument is unfair in the context she is framing it . From a academic scholarly posit and that is what she said specifically. She has been very clear that she is addressing the bible g-d character only.

She can argue, quite successfully that from a literary perspective there is no g-d character in the bible as defined by Christianity as an actual being, other then via faith . and be sound , especially if you are addressing the OT.

"Just sayin"

Edited December 26, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Tiggs]

I have made no ad homs in my argument, as far as I know, Tiggs. If you are referring to my statement that "atheism is an ego-based belief", then that is my argument and so cannot be an ad hom - which is a personal attack endeavouring to divert the debate opponent from the topic, or an attempt to besmirch the opponent and so invalidate their argument via a perception of their 'unreliability'. My statement did neither, and neither has my subsequent argument in support of it.

From your perspective.

From mine, calling anyone's belief system ego-based is an attempt to invalidate the basis on which they have arrived at their beliefs, and hence, as you'd describe it, an invalidation of their argument via a perception of unreliability.

[+Sherapy]

From your perspective.

From mine, calling anyone's belief system ego-based is an attempt to invalidate the basis on which they have arrived at their beliefs, and hence, as you'd describe it, an invalidation of their argument via a perception of unreliability.

Exactly, the argument itself was framed as a ad hom.

Good pull, Tiggs.

[The Silver Thong]

How is it condescending to point out pickletoes made the assertion that she has proof the Biblical God does not exist? Give me a break.

Ok I will forward this as proof your god is not the one and only. This is proof not just make believe as believers wish.

Proof your god does not exist is the fact that there are other gods. Simple as that. Now you have to prove to me there is no other god or admit your god is as true as all others. You can not do that hence proving your god as false as all the ones before him. If you can not prove that all other gods are false you can not stand there and say with a straight face that your god is the one true god. In order to say your god is real you have to make the claim all others are lies. Can you make the claim all other gods are lies.

Edited December 26, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[IamsSon]

Ok I will forward this as proof your god is not the one and only. This is proof not just make believe as believers wish.

Proof your god does not exist is the fact that there are other gods. Simple as that. Now you have to prove to me there is no other god or admit your god is as true as all others. You can not do that hence proving your god as false as all the ones before him. If you can not prove that all other gods are false you can not stand there and say with a straight face that your god is the one true god. In order to say your god is real you have to make the claim all others are lies. Can you make the claim all other gods are lies.

As I keep pointing out, your issue is with pickletoes who made the claim she has proof the Biblical God does not exist. As I have also pointed out several times, since the real and necessary limits of science make it an invalid tool for examining any evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural event or being, I do not claim I can scientifically prove the existence of God.

[The Silver Thong]

As I keep pointing out, your issue is with pickletoes who made the claim she has proof the Biblical God does not exist. As I have also pointed out several times, since the real and necessary limits of science make it an invalid tool for examining any evidence for or against the existence of any supernatural event or being, I do not claim I can scientifically prove the existence of God.

No my issue is not with Pickletoes as I agree with her. I just gave you proof that god does not exist as you had asked or claimed PK did. Do you have a rebuttal to my proof that your god does not exist or do you want to back peddle again