Atheism is just silly.

Originally posted by satron
Above, you mentioned that atheists know that God doesn't exist. Now you're saying that no one knows. You need to consider what you are saying.

Where do I say Atheist's know that God doesn't exist?

How many times must I post: LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY?

Are there Atheists that claim "God doesn't exist"? Yes - I'm sure there are. And if you pin them down - - they will state it is because there is no proof.

Believers claim unequivocally the existence of God. Their claims of proof are without merit.

No one knows. Neither can be proven.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by satron
Above, you mentioned that atheists know that God doesn't exist. Now you're saying that no one knows. You need to consider what you are saying.

Where do I say Atheist's know that God doesn't exist?

Oops, a slight misunderstanding on my part.

But atheists don't know if it can be proven or not, that's silly. Theists don't know, even if they can't admit it.

How many times must I post: LACK OF BELIEF IN A DEITY?

Until you I elucidate you that atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

Which reminds me. Why do you not believe in God, Annee?

Are there Atheists that claim "God doesn't exist"? Yes - I'm sure there are. And if you pin them down - - they will state it is because there is no proof.

Maybe that is what they'd say, but how do you know for sure? There could be other reasons in there. What's yours?

Believers claim unequivocally the existence of God. Their claims of proof are without merit.

They won't do a good job convincing anyone without proof, anyone that believes them on their word is a fool.

No one knows. Neither can be proven.

Maybe, but are you sure? Can you prove that statement? Maybe that is just your belief.

Lol this again,

Atheism is not a belief, I don't even know which retarded decided to add the -ism to it(probably someone with a belief who can't believe someone can be without religion).

Default = No belief, nothing, not even thought of a "God", this stays the same even after "God" is created.

Belief came on after which created a "god" and since its human mind to assume since there is "good", there must be "bad", thus Satan is born.

Now we have people saying Atheist is a person who doesn't have a belief in god, which doesn't make sense because an atheist belongs to the default, they don't have a belief in god because they never believed in the invention of god to begin with.

Phew...

Originally posted by luciddream

Default = No belief, nothing, not even thought of a "God", this stays the same even after "God" is created.

I think you've thought a lot about God in this thread alone.

Now we have people saying Atheist is a person who doesn't have a belief in god, which doesn't make sense because an atheist belongs to the default, they don't belief in god because they never believed in the invention of god to begin with.

Not merely a non-belief in God, but the belief that God doesn't exist. You have to at least believe in the concept of God, because you've been exposed to it. Your brain has processed the information and it spit out a conclusion for you: God doesn't exist. But that is your belief because you can't prove it.

Let me guess, you just came out of the womb

Phew...

If you just accepted that your notion of atheism is wrong, you could breathe a sigh of relief.

EDIT. What is your reason for being an atheist???

I agree... where did this grand idea of oneness with the human self and the human is god theory come from in the first place?

yeah it's kinda hard to get around when the whole history of western and eastern civilizations are based on theism, including the very imprinting on our language and nearly every word we speak from our lips.

Originally posted by satron
What is your reason for being an atheist???

What is your reason for not being an Atheist.

Or - what is your reason for whatever you believe - do not believe?

(sorry again - my focus can't be here enough right now to give you an in-depth and truly thoughtful answer)

reply to post by satron

I think you've thought a lot about God in this thread alone.

I was referring to early human mind when god did not exist, meaning an atheist was alive before someone with belief came along.

Not merely a non-belief in God, but the belief that God don't exist. You have to at least believe in the concept of God, because you've been exposed to it. Your brain has processed the information and it spit out a conclusion for you: God doesn't exist. But that is your belief because you can't prove it.

Just because a concept is exposed don't mean the initial thought had to change, for example if i say I belief in Santa Claus, and would you say someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus would be someone who just doesn't have a belief in Santa Claus? or simply that person doesn't believe in him?

Let me guess, you just came out of the womb

yup, 5 yrs old and already have couple of bachelors !

If you just accepted that your notion of atheism is wrong, you could breathe a sigh of relief.

Nope, still believe a God is an excuse for weak human mind.

What is your reason for being an atheist???

I simply don't want to believe in things that don't have any effect on my life.

atheism is born of theism, theism is born of philosophy, and philosophy also gave birth to science.

atheism on the other hand one can look at it like a genetic mutation of philosophy, usually only making sense to the youth whose rebellious nature it appeals to and few adults like Dawkins who are capitalizing off of it.

as with any mutation it is usually weeded out via natural selection and not artificial selection, though we are making advances on a cellular level... when it comes to the living biome it takes a little more time.

Increases in population has not increased the percentage of atheist but only the theist who believe in a judgement that is greater than their own.

choose life...

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
atheism is born of theism, theism is born of philosophy, and philosophy also gave birth to science.

Atheism comes first.

Atheism is the default.

by 2050 I think it is estimated there will be 8.9 billion people on the planet in which only around 2% will still consider themselves "atheist"

reply to post by Annee


you are absolutely wrong...

look into the Inuit and what they come to naturally... look at Egypt and where their philosophy come to "naturally"

the Eskimos created a raven god to quell their loneliness and to give answers, all ancient civilizations (and civilization is the key word here) have come to it naturally... it is a natural extension of the human brain.

I guess you skipped the classes on Carl Jung?

"Jung is considered the first modern psychiatrist to view the human psyche as "by nature religious"

Jesus IS the man-GOD!

the greatest idea ever... it has empowered us and given us these advances in the last 200 years alone... the Puritans stole the word from the Catholic church, we now call ourselves "Christians"

atheism is running about 2500 years or more behind with their revolutionary idea...

lol!

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
atheism is born of theism, theism is born of philosophy, and philosophy also gave birth to science.

That's a good point. How in the world can someone exclaim that they are atheist without the theist position. As you have seen, some atheists have tried to hijack the minds of of newborns as to belonging to their view, when this isn't the case at all. If a newborn could talk, and you asked it if it believed in God, it's answer wouldn't be "Yes", it would be "Huh?"

Because it has not been exposed to the notion of God, newborns cannot be atheists.

Babies are atheists. This is truly an absurd concept, one that can't be attributed to theism, for once.

atheism on the other hand one can look at it like a genetic mutation of philosophy, usually only making sense to the youth whose rebellious nature it appeals to and few adults like Dawkins who are capitalizing off of it.

I wouldn't say atheism is a mutation, like it's not natural. It's natural because it is some people's position, and it's fine to hold. But their are some notions about it that are absurd (babies are atheists), but that's not atheism, that's the people that believe it. You can't hold their misunderstanding against atheism.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by Annee

 

you are absolutely wrong...

look into the Inuit and what they come to naturally... look at Egypt and where their philosophy come to "naturally"

You honestly believe early humans were in a social grouping with language?

Maybe you should go back further.

Originally posted by luciddream
I was referring to early human mind when god did not exist, meaning an atheist was alive before someone with belief came along.

So you can readily admit that you've thought about God enough to come to a decision on what your belief is rather than saying that you have a non-belief. Your brain has processed it enough, I'm sure. Don't go telling me that you don't have a brain now!

Just because a concept is exposed don't mean the initial thought had to change, for example if i say I belief in Santa Claus, and would you say someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus would be someone who just doesn't have a belief in Santa Claus? or simply that person doesn't believe in him?

I never said that, I said that you have to make a choice what to belief about it once you've been exposed to it. I've already said that people can be religious, to being atheist, to being agnostic, and whatever else in whatever order, THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES! There is no such thing as non-position after you've been exposed to the idea.

Silly and absurd rolled into one.

yup, 5 yrs old and already have couple of bachelors

!

Yet the concept that atheism is a position of non-belief in God, rather than the belief that God doesn't exist, escapes you.

Nope, still believe a God is an excuse for weak human mind.

Those who think that babies are atheists and that atheism is a non-belief have a undisciplined mind.

I simply don't want to believe in things that don't have any effect on my life.

How do you know that they don't? Can you prove it? Are you saying that you are gnostic in that God doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by Annee

 

you are absolutely wrong...

look into the Inuit and what they come to naturally... look at Egypt and where their philosophy come to "naturally"

You honestly believe early humans were in a social grouping with language?

Maybe you should go back further.

we need to go back no further than the advent of Jesus and the events that have taken place after...

Jesus was the first God that was of the common man, before then it was royalty or animals.

worship your fellow man and try to act a little more like Jesus then you may get an inkling of God-like power that the atheist so demand and act.

reply to post by satron


This must be the 7th or 8th time you've asserted in this thread that an atheist must "believe in the concept of god". It still isn't true.

You have to at least believe in the concept of God, because you've been exposed to it.

No, we don't. It's very simple. I do not believe in the concept of god as thoroughly as I do not believe in the actuality of god. God is an idea created in the mind of man. A fabrication. A piece of fiction. It is a fictional character just as much as, like I've tried to point out previously, Winnie the Pooh or Spiderman. I've been exposed to all 3 characters in my lifetime. Why is it I can reject the concept of 2 but not the other?

Must I believe the concept, because I've been exposed to it, that there is a yellow anthropomorphic lazy bear that only eats honey, wears a red tee shirt, and speaks to a pig that walks upright and wears clothes? No, I do not. I can quite clearly see that it is fictitious.

Must I believe the concept, because I've been exposed to it, that there is a man dressed in pajamas climbing walls and swinging from the buildings of New York because he was bitten by a radio-active spider? No, I do not. This, also, is clearly fictitious.

But when it comes to god? There's just no way I can not believe in the concept apparently. Must I believe the concept, because I've been exposed to it (which I have, growing up in an evangelical home), that there is some all-powerful being that has created everything there is and knows everything that can be known? No, I do not. I clearly see this as fictitious.

You keep misrepresenting this as a belief that god doesn't exist. Call me a rationalist, but for me to believe, as you say, that god doesn't exist I would first need evidence that it does. From the investigation of the evidence I could make my determination on whether to believe said evidence, or not believe. Perhaps I see the evidence as evidence for some other process or object. In this instance I would have chosen to not believe in god. This isn't the situation we find ourselves in. We find ourselves in a universe devoid of evidence for god. Devoid of evidence for Spiderman. Devoid of evidence for Winnie the Pooh. I don't believe in any of the three, or their concepts. Belief does not enter the thought process. There is evidence for none.

Just because we are discussing god does not change the rules. It doesn't get a special set of requirements or think-type. I know there is no Spiderman. I know there is no Winnie the Pooh. With this same process, I know there is no god. If ever there were evidence I could reassess what I know, and perhaps I could say "maybe there's a god", or "I see this evidence but I don't believe this has to do with god". But this isn't the case. There is no evidence to make me question. In this instance, if there were evidence and I rejected it, I could claim "I do not believe in god".

This is not an either/or situation. At least in my case. Some simply claim "I don't know, so I don't believe in god". I am not one of these people. I say there is no god. That's all. There's nothing complicated going on. No evidence - no god. I understand the concept of god, but it has nothing to do with evidence. It is unrelated to whether there is a god or not.

I like this response to this story the best:

forums.randi.org...



OK, this is me back. This little scenario is all very well and makes the Christians all smug and self-satisfied, because the second Christian really put the old atheist professor in his place.

But let me tell you something. The professor must have been only newly converted to atheism, because he gave all the wrong answers! It's a good thing he was a philosophy professor and not a science professor, because with answers like that he would have flunked high school!

Let's have a look at this then shall we? I'm not a professor of any kind, but I'm going to elaborate here on the things that I would have done differently.

First of all, I feel that it is extremely rude to attack someone's religious faith in this manner, regardless of what you feel about what is true or not. The professor, having recently lost his brother to cancer, is lashing back at the Christians in the class because he feels that he was betrayed by God, and he is being inexcusably rude about it, too. It is a classic transferrence of anger, and the poor professor needs grief counselling. So in the first place I would not have begun a philosphy class with the express purpose of trying to destroy other peoples' faith. Their faith is not my concern. When they publicly preach falsehood, I tend to want to speak up. In this case, neither of the Christians were publicly preaching falsehood. In fact the second Christian probably had a better grip on reality than the professor did.

OK, so let's see where the professor went wrong after this. Any science professor should know that cold is an absence of heat and darkness is an absence of light. I knew that in third grade. For all his upholding of scientific principles, this professor also should have known that science relies as much on deduction and scenario-modelling as it does on direct observation. If observation were all there was to it, then the entire scientific corpus would consist of only what any particular student observed. I did not observe Vesuvius erupting. According to the Christian in this story, that means that it didn't. But someone did. His name was Pliny the younger, and he wrote down what he saw. I trust an eyewitness account.

Now, in science, the emphasis is on experiment. You don't just write down what you observe. You contrive a set of circumstances to answer a particular question about something you observe. Then you write down the results of your experiment, and (this is the crucial bit) see whether anyone else observes the same thing.

So in essence, the argument about not observing evolution and not observing the professor's brain is flawed, because science does not solely rely on direct observation. Of course, observation is an important part of science, and the position that only what can be observed exists is called positivism. The professor in this story is obviously a positivist, and the second Christian points out the flaws in this philosophy quite effectively. But positivism is not science.

Okay, next bit. The professor "goes toxic" when someone questions his philosophical standpoint. This is in a philosophy class right? Isn't part of the point of philosophy to question one another's worldview? This professor shouldn't be in science, and if he "goes toxic" at the first sign that a student can think independently, then he doesn't belong in philosophy, either! For me, that student would be well on the way to an 'A'.

Then, after going toxic, he also bridles. "As a philosophical scientist," he says, "I don't view this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

Here his stance is also deeply flawed. He describes himself as a "philosophical scientist". This is a delusion. For reasons discussed above he cannot call himself a scientist in any sense of the word, philosophical or not. He claims to be a realist, but describes a positivist. He should also deny the existence of electrons and protons, because they are not observable either. Recently we have been able to observe atoms (with scanning tunneling electron microscopes), but never their constituents. However, the theory predicts certain things, and what can be observed supports the results that are predicted. The theory agrees with observation. To doubt the existence of electrons because they can't be observed casts doubt on a large number of scientific principles, some of which agree with observation to a startling degree.

Here's another way to look at it. Can you observe air? No. This doesn't mean that air doesn't exist. You can't smell sarin gas, either. But sarin gas can kill you.

So far I have been kind of supporting the Christian against the professor, because to me the Christian's stance makes more sense than the professor's. However, the Christian makes one major fundamental mistake, which tells me that he really has absolutely no understanding of what science is or what it is about. The professor's answer to this loaded question is wrong in every significant detail.

The Christian asks "Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

This is such a tired old argument that all Christians should know it by now if they didn't choose to see evolution in a flawed light. The 'correct' answer (which the professor failed to provide) is "No, I do not teach my students that they evolved from a monkey. I teach my students that they and monkeys had a common ancestor, which was neither a monkey nor a student. The observed evidence supports this."

But Christians (not all Christians mind you) do not accept the true definition of evolution, and continue to argue against the principle that people are descended from monkeys. They ask "if people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

The Christian in the story asks "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" and again, the professor answers the question badly (as of course suits the Christian author of the scenario).

The 'correct' answer to this question is "Have you ever observed love with your own eyes? Have you ever observed faith? Have you ever observed the Resurrection with your own eyes? Just because we don't observe something with our own eyes doesn't mean that we can't accept evidence from other sources. Your Bible tells you that the Resurrection occurred. The fossil record, amongst other evidence, tells us that evolution occurred."

This will only get the Christian going though. If you ever answer this question in this way, be prepared to answer all of the other questions that invariably follow about transitional fossils, polystrate fossils, and if it gets that far down the track, radiometric dating.

The Christian in the story states "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena" then goes on to 'disprove' the existence of the professor's brain. The professor is dumbstruck in the light of the Christian's brilliant observation. Yet more evidence that he is not fit to be a science professor, since he doesn't have the answer to the obvious ploy which is provided as a clinching argument.

The 'correct' answer is: "Okay, so you hypothesise that my brain doesn't exist. How are you going to go about proving it? Hypothesis without experiment is not science. The best way to prove your hypothesis would be to open up my head and have a look. But that would in all likelihood kill me, which is against the law and against your Christian ethic. So you'll have to find another way to prove it. But before you spend a lot of time (and probably money) doing so, I might point out that in dissecting cadavers, surgeons and anatomy students have never opened up the head of a dead human and found no brain. So Occam's Razor tells us that your hypothesis is incorrect to the point of reasonable doubt. The counter-hypothesis that I do in fact have a brain fits the observed reality (that I am here, walking, talking, breathing and speaking to you) much better than your hypothesis does."

This clearly demonstrates that while science is correctly described as the study of observed phenomena, it doesn't work just to draw direct conclusions from what directly hits your senses. You have to question what you observe. Although science is the study of the observed phenomena, the Christian in the story stops at 'observed phenomena' and skips the 'study' part. If science could be reduced to a single question, it would not be "what?" as the Christian in the story seems to think. It would be "how?"

Science cannot disprove God. The mistake (or rather, one of the mistakes) that the professor made in the story is in assuming that because God cannot be observed, God doesn't exist. This is not a good basis for atheism, because as you can clearly see from this story, it is a very weak foundation. It is indeed a flawed philosophy. The basis for atheism is much more complex and subtle.

The Christian in the story falls into massive overgeneralisation by his statement "Science too is a premise which is flawed..." No. What is flawed is the professor's stance on science. The reason the professor's stance on science is flawed is that the whole story was written by a Christian, whose own stance on science was flawed. Just like the second Christian in the story, the author overgeneralises his/her own belief in science as the real thing, and sets up a massive strawman which of course is only too easy to defeat. It was designed to be argued against, so of course it is. If the author had understood science better, the story could never have been written in this form.

All of the characters in the story are reflections of the author's self. The first Christian is the author at a young age, looking for affirmation of his or her faith and not receiving it from an uncaring, antagonistic world.
The professor is the personification of all these doubts. He is the personification of the author's own flawed understanding of science and its purpose.

The second Christian is the author after going out and reading some books by Kent Hovind and Phillip Johnson. The author after reaffirming his/her faith, who now has all the answers. Unfortunately he only has the answers to the questions he himself poses. The professor knows no more about science than the author does - how could he? This is why the professor is ultimately humbled and embarrassed in front of the whole class. It is satisfying to Christians because they see their attacker fall and crumble like the walls of Jericho.

Perhaps the whole story is part autobiography, part wish-fulfillment. It is possible that the first half of the story actually happened to the author, and the second half is what the author would have said and done had he/she had the answers at that stage of life. Perhaps. If so, the two halves of the story probably occurred years apart in the author's life.

It seems more likely to me that it was a Christian trying to teach other Christians how to have more faith in their beliefs, despite having them attacked mercilessly. It does that, at the expense of flawed argument and flawed understanding. The purpose behind telling the story is sound - Christians should indeed be prepared to defend their faith and provide reasons for it. But the reasons given in the story are not good ones.

The story perpetuates the myth that science is bunk. That science is somehow contrary or opposed to faith. That all of science is built on a flawed philosophy.

The first thing that some Christians seem to be unable or unwilling to understand is that science cannot disprove anything. It can only prove things. And it can only prove things on a provisional basis. Nothing is final, because it's always possible for more evidence to come in.

Christians always try to attack science by asking for certain, definite proof that God doesn't exist. Science cannot provide that, and they then leap on that inability as evidence that science is flawed. Well, that's just comparing apples and oranges. It is like relying on the Bible to tell you how to service your car. The Bible can't show you how to change a spark plug? Aha! The Bible is built on a flawed premise!

They also leap on the incompleteness of science. Since science does not have all the answers, it can't possibly be right. The more amazing belief among some Christians I have encountered is the more epistemological view that science simply has it wrong. It asks the wrong questions and comes to the wrong conclusions. It makes a flawed basis for understanding the world because it is simply erroneous. This is totally weird to me, because at its basis, science is built upon finding verifiable explanations for observed phenomena. The Scientific Method is the closest we can come to finding the truth about something.

I hope you can see now why I don't like this story. It perpetuates a flawed and incorrect stereotype - that of the atheist who constantly attacks the faith of good Chrisians - and demonstrates an insufficient method of defence against it. It was written by a Christian for other Christians, but the author's understanding of the subject matter is so incomplete that all it does is perpetuate the incompleteness to others. It does not teach anything of worth, except for the fundamental purpose - to encourage Christians to be able to justify their faith.

The moral of the story - always have an understanding of what you are arguing against, or be prepared to accept when someone points out the flaws in the understanding you do have.