Demilich
Remember
And the illusion of a higher authority justifies their strict enforcement of very, very stringent morals. I'd agree with the above post almost entirely, except that I cannot prove or claim to know that Jesus/God do not exist.
Howcome so many people still believe in God?
- Thread starter Mikobass
- Start date
Discovery
Member
- Dec 28, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
I'd like to point out that the real definition of atheism is not "The denial of the existence of god(s)". The prefix a- in the word actually means "without". So an atheist would be someone who is "without god". You could say animals are atheists since they haven't the capability to think about such concepts. To me there is a difference between that and denying god's existence. Which is really a stupid and meaningless thing to argue and is not what atheism really is about.
derek
Grey Eminence
Theist actually does not mean God though, if etymology is what we are getting into - it means a belief in God. In that respect the "a" prefix thus means without a belief in God.
To me that seems to be denying the belief in a God, and ergo its existence.
To me that seems to be denying the belief in a God, and ergo its existence.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
derek
Grey Eminence
Discovery said:
In a personal respect, saying you do not believe in god would equate to saying you believe said god does not exist.
I think we'd be getting into semantics if we were to try and draw out a distinction. Not believing in god is, at heart, just the belief that god does not exist.
Care to flesh out what you mean any further?
Discovery
Member
- Dec 28, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
I don't really know how to explain the wording better. But an atheist is one who sees no evidence for god and therefore does not believe in him. He does not deny his existence since he has no evidence for this either. Note that this is not the agnostic stance, which asserts that God cannot be known.
If you read any book on atheism one of the first things that is discussed is the theist argument against atheism that goes something like "You cannot prove god doesn't exist, so therefore your argument fails." But in fact the atheist does not hold this view. Certainly there are those who call themselves atheists who deny the existence of god, but their argument can't be proven so it's just a waste of time.
If you read any book on atheism one of the first things that is discussed is the theist argument against atheism that goes something like "You cannot prove god doesn't exist, so therefore your argument fails." But in fact the atheist does not hold this view. Certainly there are those who call themselves atheists who deny the existence of god, but their argument can't be proven so it's just a waste of time.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Discovery said:
And yet if you read most books on the subject the author(s) will inevitably spend a great deal of time talking about why God cannot/does not exist.
crazy666 said:
I was reading Bertrand Russell's Unpopular Essays last night, and I came upon this passage:
"There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action. Plato intended his Republic to be founded on a myth which he admitted to be absurd, but he was rightly confident that the populace could be induced to believe it. Hobbes, who thought it important that people should reverance the government however unworthy it may be, meets the argument that it might be difficult to attain general assent to anything so irrational by pointing out that people have been brought to believe in Christian religion, and, in particular, in the dogma of transubstantiation" (Russell 93).
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
The argument from evil is almost always invoked by atheists to prove that God does not exist.Discovery said:
It seems like the more people talk about the denial of God, they simply cause more debate. I guess you can equate this to like the parental advisory sticker, people are gonna buy it just to see what its about. If people try to find proof of the non-existence of God, then they're simply causing everybody else to get into the discussion and disprove God even more, and as a result of that, nobody ever truely forgets God (which would be the point of non-existence anyway) and they merely keep talking about it. I mean its like a vicious cycle even. I guess its one of those things thats fruitless, like argueing on the internet, you can't sway everybody toward one side, people are always going to have different opinions.
NeverIsForever said:I agree very much with this sentiment...but it's agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism is the complete denial of a god's existence, and as such is no more "provable" than religion IMO. That's what I was attempting to say earlier
Sorry, but this isn't accurate.
I'm an atheist simply because I simply don't believe in any super-beings. Period. It doesn't take "faith" to not believe in them. If it did, it would imply that god(s) existences are accepted fact - which is wholy unproven, at this time.
For example, does it take "faith" for me not to believe that you are from another galaxay, have 3 heads, don't breath oxygen and are 3,493 years old? Of course not. If there's no proof for something, you simply don't have reason to believe it's true. To say I need 'faith' to be an atheist is the same as me saying "gee, I really, really hope that NeverIsForever isn't an alien....". It's just not logically accurate.
Or another analogy: a male doesn't need faith to accept that he's not female.
atheist (small A, of course)= without belief in gods, deities, or immortal super-beings. Nothing more, nothing less.
The issue here is that it is merely impossible to prove that something does not exist. There is no tangible evidence since what you are trying to prove does not exist. For example try to proof without doubt that Santa Claus does not exist, I'm sure you will find tons of circonstancial proof, but never a tangible one.
On the other hand, it is rather easy to prove something that really exist. For example gravity. You cannot touch it, see it, smell it, sense it or taste it; yet it is rather easy to prove and to measure because it does exist.
So in the absence of proof, it is logical to assume that something does not exist.
Then, some people say science is inadequate to measure the "reality" of god. I disagree. We are humans and science is the tools by which we judge what is real and what is not, it's not perfect but it's all we have. Faith does not explain anything therefore cannot be of any help. You can have faith in Jesus, Holy Spirits or even Santa Claus if you want, it will not make them "real".
On the other hand, it is rather easy to prove something that really exist. For example gravity. You cannot touch it, see it, smell it, sense it or taste it; yet it is rather easy to prove and to measure because it does exist.
So in the absence of proof, it is logical to assume that something does not exist.
Then, some people say science is inadequate to measure the "reality" of god. I disagree. We are humans and science is the tools by which we judge what is real and what is not, it's not perfect but it's all we have. Faith does not explain anything therefore cannot be of any help. You can have faith in Jesus, Holy Spirits or even Santa Claus if you want, it will not make them "real".
Mikobass said:
You've hit the nail on the head, thanks.
The problem with humanity, in general, is that it's ego is tremendous, and simply can't accept the fact that a supreme being isn't "looking out" for us or "loves us", etc.
Russell
__
SoundMaster said:
And to take this a step further, if non-belief in a diety was 'faith' - and thus religion, then Christians would belong to the "no belief in Islam/Buddhism/Scientology/whatever" religion, which is clearly not the case. Hence it stands to reason that atheism can't be considered a religion as Chritianity, for example, is.
Russell
__
Mikobass said:
I am tempted to disagree with this. In my view, science is by definition naturalistic; it's just a set of rules and observations concerning the composition and behaviour of the natural, material world. As such it is constrained to just that - the material world, not the supernatural. Sure, you can use the findings of science to influence your on views on whether or not there is a god (and counter specific religious claims, such as creation, which clearly cross over into the natural world), but - in its truest form - science can saying nothing about the extistence or otherwise of a diety.
Demilich
Remember
I agree with Russell. Science is constrained by dealing with the world only in the sense of what is observable. We cannot disprove the existence of that we cannot observe, so to say that there is nothing science cannot explain is pretty shortsighted.
Similar threads
