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.
Do you or do you not understand why we identify as atheists as opposed to agnostics? I must have said it about 5 times in this thread but it seems to fall to deaf ears. As I also stated earlier, people will actively try to define atheism as being 100% that there is no god(to the point that some even say "well true atheists are....." because it's easier to argue that it takes faith to have that position.
False dichotomy and grasping at straws. This isn't an all or nothing issue, there are levels of certainty, of confidence and you are right when you say that there is no way of knowing 100% one or the other which is fine because it is not our position
Here is one more issue from me, what do you think of the statement:
"I am a weak atheist but also I am a strong atheist"
Look it is not about weak atheism or strong atheism or whatever. Atheism no matter how you swing it is a disbelief in God, either that or you are defining words contrary to standard English. What I am saying is that if you make a claim on something that science cannot prove or disprove such as the existence of God, intelligent design, etc. that claim is based on faith no matter how you swing it end of story.
What I am saying is that if you make a claim on something that science cannot prove or disprove such as the existence of God that claim is based on faith no matter how you swing it end of story.
That's not what you've been saying. What you've been saying is that "if science can't prove God doesn't exist to a metaphysical certitude" then it's based on faith.
This is not the normal standard of proof in science. (Although that is legal jargon, not used in science.) We accept many things as true or not true with far less evidence that a metaphysical certitude. I would say the evidence provided by physics, biology, and logic all place the non-existance of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
Science disproves the existance to God, by the normal standards scientist use. It's only when you up the standard to a metaphysical from of proof that it becomes less clear.
Faith can also mean "complete trust" (Merriam-Websters dictionary) i.e. I have faith that John will win the city council election. If one is 100% certain of something then one can be said to have faith in it.
Even by that definition, atheist don't have fatih. We aren't trusting anything. We are making a statement based on the evaluation of the evidence. One doesn't have faith that 2 plus 2 equals four. Nor do they have faith that Washington DC is the capital of the U.S.
Atheist neither have trust, nor is it generally complete.
That's not what you've been saying. What you've been saying is that "if science can't prove God doesn't exist to a metaphysical certitude" then it's based on faith.
This is not the normal standard of proof in science. (Although that is legal jargon, not used in science.) We accept many things as true or not true with far less evidence that a metaphysical certitude. I would say the evidence provided by physics, biology, and logic all place the non-existance of God beyond a reasonable doubt.
Science disproves the existance to God, by the normal standards scientist use. It's only when you up the standard to a metaphysical from of proof that it becomes less clear.
Science does not get anywhere close to proving or disproving the existence of God. In order for science to work it needs a hypothesis and a means of testing it to draw a conclusion. There is no test for God, granted there are tests that can disprove certain elements of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc., but the concept of a deity in particular is of such a nature that it cannot be tested. Heck science no longer specifically backs the idea that we live in a purely mechanical universe, which for centuries, has been the basis of Atheism. Just ask any scientist worth their salt to conduct an experiment to prove or disprove scientifically the existence of God or intelligent design. Chances are they will laugh and say it cannot be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill
Even by that definition, atheist don't have fatih. We aren't trusting anything. We are making a statement based on the evaluation of the evidence. One doesn't have faith that 2 plus 2 equals four. Nor do they have faith that Washington DC is the capital of the U.S.
Atheist neither have trust, nor is it generally complete.
All of your statements thus far have been based on testable assertions, the watch at 5 o'clock, Washington DC being the capital of the US, 2+2=4 etc. God is not testable so all these conclusions are irrelevant and any finite answer is unknowable and thus any claim God's existence is based on faith in belief or disbelief.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-23-2009 at 05:44 PM..
Science does not get anywhere close to proving or disproving the existence of God. In order for science to work it needs a hypothesis and a means of testing it to draw a conclusion. There is no test for God, granted there are tests that can disprove certain elements of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc., but the concept of a deity in particular is of such a nature that it cannot be tested. Heck science no longer specifically backs the idea that we live in a purely mechanical universe, which for centuries, has been the basis of Atheism. Just ask any scientist worth their salt to conduct an experiment to prove or disprove scientifically the existence of God or intelligent design. Chances are they will laugh and say it cannot be done.
All of your statements thus far have been based on testable assertions, the watch at 5 o'clock, Washington DC being the capital of the US, 2+2=4 etc. God is not testable so all these conclusions are irrelevant and any finite answer is unknowable and thus any claim God's existence is based on faith in belief or disbelief.
If the God is an omnipotent and supernatural God, than he is claimed to be able to violate every known law of nature. The evidence that he doesn't exist is every measurable and testable piece of evidence that forms the basis for believing that the laws of nature are true. So any evidence that supports a principle within the body of scientific knowledge, stands in opposition to the notion that there is a being that is able to violate the entire body of science.
The concept of a supernatural, but non-ominpotent God violates a limited number of the known scientific principles and laws of nature. The evidence that he doesn't exist is the evidence which supports the law of nature that he is claimed to be able to violate. Any supernatural feat he is claimed to be able to accomplish, violates known and testable scientific laws. That is the defintion of supernatural - he is able to do things which science has proven to be impossilbe. So any supernatural claim that he makes, is disproven by the body of evidence that supports the scientific theory he is supposed to be able to violate.
If the God is not claimed to be supernatural, then he is not a God, by definition. That is just semantics. I guess you could call yourself a God, and then there would be no question that you are real. But it is dodging the issue.
Put differently, the question isn't whether you think God is real. The question is if you think science is real.
Because to believe in God is to disbelieve in the science that suggest a being can't do the supernatural things he claims he can do.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 04-23-2009 at 08:50 PM..
If the God is an omnipotent and supernatural God, than he is claimed to be able to violate every known law of nature. The evidence that he doesn't exist is every measurable and testable piece of evidence that forms the basis for believing that the laws of nature are true. So any evidence that supports a principle within the body of scientific knowledge, stands in opposition to the notion that there is a being that is able to violate the entire body of science.
The concept of a supernatural, but non-ominpotent God violates a limited number of the known scientific principles and laws of nature. The evidence that he doesn't exist is the evidence which supports the law of nature that he is claimed to be able to violate. Any supernatural feat he is claimed to be able to accomplish, violates known and testable scientific laws. That is the defintion of supernatural - he is able to do things which science has proven to be impossilbe. So any supernatural claim that he makes, is disproven by the body of evidence that supports the scientific theory he is supposed to be able to violate.
If the God is not claimed to be supernatural, then he is not a God, by definition. That is just semantics. I guess you could call yourself a God, and then there would be no question that you are real. But it is dodging the issue.
Put differently, the question isn't whether you think God is real. The question is if you think science is real.
Because to believe in God is to disbelieve in the science that suggest a being can't do the supernatural things he claims he can do.
You can believe in science as well as God. It seems like atheists end up using science as their religion. It doesn't have to be God vs. science.
Scientific principles and laws of nature are constantly changing. Things that were scientific "law" 50 to 100 years ago and farther back are being proven wrong. So how can you hold so tightly to those "laws" when the smartest people on earth are still trying to figure things out.
I have asked this before and I really don't want to get off topic but how much proof would you need that God exists? If he spoke to you personally, would you believe? Or would you just chalk it up to a hallucination? Proof is very subjective, on both sides of the fence. Science is no where close to proving there is not a God, because science as a whole is constantly changing.
Look it is not about weak atheism or strong atheism or whatever. Atheism no matter how you swing it is a disbelief in God, either that or you are defining words contrary to standard English. What I am saying is that if you make a claim on something that science cannot prove or disprove such as the existence of God, intelligent design, etc. that claim is based on faith no matter how you swing it end of story.
Randomstudent, nothing about the universe can be proven or disproven.
-We can't prove that the universe wont end tomorow so by your definition we take it on faith that we dont.
-We can't prove that the laws of physics will break down at any given moment so by your definition, you take it on faith that you wont fall through the floor every second of the day.
-You can't prove that your hand wasn't cut off, stolen by aliens and replaced by a replica so by your definition, you take it on faith that it isn't.
Do you see the problem here? You've changed the definition of faith from "a belief held in spite of the evidence" to "any belief" which is by all intents and purposes a pointless statement. I've already explain that we do not necessarily deal in absolutes (hence "strong" and "weak" atheism) so your point is moot.
Randomstudent, nothing about the universe can be proven or disproven.
-We can't prove that the universe wont end tomorow so by your definition we take it on faith that we dont.
indeed we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
-We can't prove that the laws of physics will break down at any given moment so by your definition, you take it on faith that you wont fall through the floor every second of the day.
A definite, though infinitely unlikely, possibility according to quantum physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
-You can't prove that your hand wasn't cut off, stolen by aliens and replaced by a replica so by your definition, you take it on faith that it isn't.
Asking a question like that is the same as invisible Unicorns. Yes it is possible, but does it really matter. Why not just say that is weird and highly unlikely and unprovable, but possible rather then say no it did not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin
Do you see the problem here? You've changed the definition of faith from "a belief held in spite of the evidence" to "any belief" which is by all intents and purposes a pointless statement. I've already explain that we do not necessarily deal in absolutes (hence "strong" and "weak" atheism) so your point is moot.
Nope not at all. All of those things are unlikely, but possible so making any claim to whether they can or did occur would be illogical and based on faith. I have also not changed the definitions on anything y'all have, but I have been going with Merriam-Websters this whole time. You need faith to believe in any statement for which there is insufficient evidence and according to what we know there is certainly neither metaphysical certitude for the existence or non existence of God nor is there even any compelling evidence. I am done with this discussion there is not much more I can really say if you want to believe you do not have any faith that is fine, but I cannot accept that based on my current knowledge of our lack of knowledge about the universe. Atheism falls under B:1 and B:3
Just as some fft here is the dictionary definition again.
"Main Entry:1faith Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\ Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bideDate:13th century 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person :loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially: a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"
Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-24-2009 at 09:43 AM..
A definite, though infinitely unlikely, possibility according to quantum physics.
Asking a question like that is the same as invisible Unicorns. Yes it is possible, but does it really matter. Why not just say that is weird and highly unlikely and unprovable, but possible rather then say no it did not happen.
Nope not at all. All of those things are unlikely, but possible so making any claim to whether they can or did occur would be illogical and based on faith. I have also not changed the definitions on anything y'all have, but I have been going with Merriam-Websters this whole time. You need faith to believe in any statement for which there is insufficient evidence and according to what we know there is certainly neither metaphysical certitude for the existence or non existence of God nor is there even any compelling evidence. I am done with this discussion there is not much more I can really say if you want to believe you do not have any faith that is fine, but I cannot accept that based on my current knowledge of our lack of knowledge about the universe. Atheism falls under B:1 and B:3
Just as some fft here is the dictionary definition again.
"Main Entry:1faith Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\ Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bideDate:13th century 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person :loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially: a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>"
You keep on claiming that atheists believe that the existance of a god(s) is impossible, we'll keep on telling you that most atheists don't think this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-W
1archaic:ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Has anyone else noticed that it seems to be the theists who insist that the atheist [u]must have faith, thereby making atheism a religion. It would appear that the theist just cannot conceive that anyone could possibly exist without being a part of some religion.
Not so, of course.
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.
