Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I think there is enough known to draw a definite conclusion at this time. Unless by "definite conclusion" you mean we must have a metaphysical certitude, like we can prove 1+1 = 2. But I think there is at least clear and convincing evidence that there is no supernatural God.
Second, the burden of proof is on the theist. If I make a extraordinary claim, the burden is on me to prove it, and I must offer extraordinary evidence to prove it. So if I said "Santa is real", you should be able to say "no he's not" based solely on my inability to provide extraordinary evidence of the same. That's not the same thing as having faith.
Faith is an emotional, not logical choice. Choosing to believe the argument best supported by the evidence is not faith. It's just being rational.
Not really, we barely have any understanding of our own galaxy much less a knowledge of the whole universe which could conclude that such a being doesn't exist. Second the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. If you make a claim such as there is no God you better have sufficient evidence to prove such, otherwise you claim is based on faith. And yes without metaphysical certitude any absolute claim is based in part on faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
You can't know there are no unicorns on earth. They could be living underground or they could be living in the areas of the Congo that are impossible to get into or they could be invisible. Since there's no definitive evidence that there are no unicorns on earth then why not believe the that whether or not they exist is currently unknowable. I could also apply this logic to Santa Claus. You can't be one hundred percent sure there is no Santa Claus on earth. There's just no evidence that they exist so people don't believe in their existence. If there is no evidence that proves that a given claim is true, then the logical position is disbelief in that claims truth. You may never be able to tell with absolute certainty that something is or is not true, that doesn't mean it is logical to say that whether or not the claim is true is unknowable. There may be a degree of uncertainty of whether or not the claim is true, that doesn't mean it takes faith to not believe that a particular claim is true when there is no evidence that the claim is true. For example, most people don't believe in the existence of unicorns because there's never been any evidence that proves they exist. That doesn't mean that there is absolutely no evidence for their existence, since one day someone may discover evidence that proves there are unicorns on earth, although since there has never been any evidence that proves there are any unicorns on earth, then people profess disbelief in their existence.
I will agree that invisible Unicorns would be impossible to prove or disprove though my original point stands. Whether it be for God, Santa Claus, invisible unicorns, or an etherial, invisible, weightless pink monkey that lives on everyone's shoulders. If it cannot be proven or dis-proven one cannot logically can make an absolute claim, implying 100% certainty, it does or does not exist without faith. That does not mean it does exist, or it has any relevance to how we live our lives it just means it is something that is not testable and cannot be subject to an claim on existence or functionality.
To go one step further in demonstrating this let me ask you a simple question. Does my hair exist? Since I am likely in another part of the country or world and you likely do not know who I am outside of my screen name you wouldn't know. I could have hair or I could have a shaved head. Making a claim either that I A: absolutely have hair would be illogical because you have no proof that I do not have a shaved head. B absolutely that I do not have hair would be illogical because you have no prove that I do not have a full head of hair. Making absolute claims about an divine creator that could or could not, in theory, live in a galaxy unknown or barely know to us is just as illogical.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-20-2009 at 05:36 PM..
Key words are "I believe there is most likely not a god" I am not saying you should call your self an agnostic. In fact if you do indeed "believe" there is no god you are an atheist. However, you also have faith in that belief because there is not enough evidence available to draw a definite conclusion on whether god does or does not exist.
Sorry randomstudent but "most likely" isn't a definite conclusion. I've yet to meet an atheist who is 100% certain that there is no god.
Nah, hah, I follow the "Great Floppy Eared one " whose name shall not be uttered, the only one true supernatural being ! Satan is for people with too much Christian baggage !
Sorry randomstudent but "most likely" isn't a definite conclusion. I've yet to meet an atheist who is 100% certain that there is no god.
Yet when you identify as an atheist according to the definition of the word from Merriam-Websters you have a disbelief in God and or follow a doctrine that there is no God. How can you say well it is most likely God doesn't exist so I am going to assume he doesn't and then say that assumption does not require some faith to account for the most unlikely possibility that God does exist? The only purely logical thing to say with the evidence we have is it is most likely that God doesn't exist, however; there is currently not a way to test the existence of God so it cannot be said whether it does or does not exist.
Yet when you identify as an atheist according to the definition of the word from Merriam-Websters you have a disbelief in God and or follow a doctrine that there is no God. How can you say well it is most likely God doesn't exist so I am going to assume he doesn't and then say that assumption does not require some faith to account for the most unlikely possibility that God does exist? The only purely logical thing to say with the evidence we have is it is most likely that God doesn't exist, however; there is currently not a way to test the existence of God so it cannot be said whether it does or does not exist.
Atheism can be put into two different strands-weak atheism and strong atheism.
The weak position is defined as a lack of belief in gods(not believing there is a god, although accepting that there is still a possibility that there is a god.)
The strong position is how the dictionary defines atheism(the position that one 'knows' with one hundred percent certainty that there is no god.)
Agnosticism is the philosophical system that the existence or nonexistence of god is inherently unknowable so disbelief or belief are therefore irrational positions.
Yet when you identify as an atheist according to the definition of the word from Merriam-Websters you have a disbelief in God and or follow a doctrine that there is no God. How can you say well it is most likely God doesn't exist so I am going to assume he doesn't and then say that assumption does not require some faith to account for the most unlikely possibility that God does exist? The only purely logical thing to say with the evidence we have is it is most likely that God doesn't exist, however; there is currently not a way to test the existence of God so it cannot be said whether it does or does not exist.
You really need to be clearer because I am having a hard time understanding your argument.
Are you saying it takes faith to live life as if there was no god?
Atheism can be put into two different strands-weak atheism and strong atheism.
The weak position is defined as a lack of belief in gods(not believing there is a god, although accepting that there is still a possibility that there is a god.)
The strong position is how the dictionary defines atheism(the position that one 'knows' with one hundred percent certainty that there is no god.)
Agnosticism is the philosophical system that the existence or nonexistence of god is inherently unknowable so disbelief or belief are therefore irrational positions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
You really need to be clearer because I am having a hard time understanding your argument.
Are you saying it takes faith to live life as if there was no god?
No I am saying it takes faith to be what is described as a strong atheist. Essentially since the idea of God is untestable and there is no way of knowing whether it exists or not, placing any claim that God either does or does not exist would have to be based on faith.
Also in agnosticism there really is no claim as to something being illogical, it is just the belief that something such as god is unknowable, and as such they are not committed to believing in the existence or non-existence of god.
I have not really heard of the term weak-atheist, though it sounds like an agnostic. This is because the very act of stating that there is a possibility that God may exist seems to suggest a lack of committment to a dis-belief in God.
Not really, we barely have any understanding of our own galaxy much less a knowledge of the whole universe which could conclude that such a being doesn't exist. Second the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. If you make a claim such as there is no God you better have sufficient evidence to prove such, otherwise you claim is based on faith. And yes without metaphysical certitude any absolute claim is based in part on faith.
Do you know for certain that there are not 2 suns in our solar system?
I think we can conclude that there is not another sun based on the fact that it would be inconsistent with data we know to be true, - even if we don't know everything about the way our solar system works.
Similar, by definitiion, a supernatural God violates the laws of nature. We can conclude that he doesn't exist simply because the concept of a God is inconsistent with what we know to be true abotu physics, biology, logic, etc - even if we don't know everything about the way our solar system works, the inconsistency with things we know to be true allows us to discard the theory of a God.
Your definition of faith appears to be "to believe that which the evidence proves is true." Most people would consider that logic. Faith is believing in something despite the evidence, not because of it.
Yet when you identify as an atheist according to the definition of the word from Merriam-Websters you have a disbelief in God and or follow a doctrine that there is no God. How can you say well it is most likely God doesn't exist so I am going to assume he doesn't and then say that assumption does not require some faith to account for the most unlikely possibility that God does exist? The only purely logical thing to say with the evidence we have is it is most likely that God doesn't exist, however; there is currently not a way to test the existence of God so it cannot be said whether it does or does not exist.
In a civil trial in the united states, something is said to be proven true if we can prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, If I can show that something is most likely true, then we believe it is true.
In a criminal trial, for something to be proven true, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't absolutely have to be true. But there should no longer be any real doubt about the matter.
Rarely are people only allowed to believe in something, or against something, if they have metaphysical certitude. Instead, the standard of proof is somewhat less than that. We can disbelieve in a God if we think that it's more likley than not that these is a God. Or if we have no doubt that these is no God. Either of these are beliefs are atheism. And those beleifs are backed up by evidence, not faith.
Do you know for certain that there are not 2 suns in our solar system?
I think we can conclude that there is not another sun based on the fact that it would be inconsistent with data we know to be true, - even if we don't know everything about the way our solar system works.
Similar, by definitiion, a supernatural God violates the laws of nature. We can conclude that he doesn't exist simply because the concept of a God is inconsistent with what we know to be true abotu physics, biology, logic, etc - even if we don't know everything about the way our solar system works, the inconsistency with things we know to be true allows us to discard the theory of a God.
Your definition of faith appears to be "to believe that which the evidence proves is true." Most people would consider that logic. Faith is believing in something despite the evidence, not because of it.
No faith to me is making assumptions not entirely supported by evidence. Secondly I have met far too many astro and quantum physicists to assume that we know "the laws of nature" the principal of conservation of mass was recently proven wrong, in non-classical physics, and on top of that we only have a vague idea as to what 96% of the matter and energy in the universe really is (we call it dark matter and dark energy). Also it is clear that there is only one sun in our solar system as we know it because if there were multiple suns we would know it from gravitational and energy producing effects that is a metaphysical truth. Now you could say well maybe there is a star the you cannot see with no gravity which produces no light or heat, but if that were the case it would not be a star at all. What I am saying is that faith is not as you say "to believe that which the evidence proves true" your words not mine, but faith is the act of jumping to conclusions and believing in them with insufficient evidence.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-21-2009 at 11:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Satan is for people with too much Christian baggage ! 
