mymistake Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Would anyone say that you have no proof that cartoon characters are not real people? Does it take faith to believe that cartoon characters are not real people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted July 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 2, 2013 Mymistake has a point too. You ask if there's any evidence either way? The answer is yes concerning specific God concepts. In Genesis we find the Elohim who were a polytheistic pantheon of "Gods" who created man in "their image." They were thought to inhabit the upper atmosphere above the earth. The tower of Babel is about man trying to get up these Gods which were thought to be just above in the sky. Jacobs latter is about the same. We've gone all around the earth, there's no Elohim pantheon as described in Genesis. No El-Elyon nor the Sons of El hovering in a reachable region just above the middle east. lol So yes, there is some evidence that some God concepts are completely false. The Elohim of creation do not exist where the Bible places them. This can all be crossed off as false, debunked, wrong, etc. But of course this doesn't reach into the more sophisticated concepts of later periods and the transcendent doctrines of the east and so on. How do you disprove the transcendent? Not as easy as disproving the Elohim of Genesis. So it gets complicated. It turns into a yes and no answer when asked if there is "any" evidence either way. It depends on which concept we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 2, 2013 Author Share Posted July 2, 2013 There are no foxes in atheist holes. Or something like that. Seriously, I can't believe (see what I did there?) this "debate" continues decade after decade. Does anyone consult a dictionary these days? The word "asymmetrical" indicates only that the described item is not symmetrical; it doesn't indicate anything else. The word "atheist" indicates only that the described person is not theistic, that is, for whatever reasons, not a believer in gods. It doesn't address what the person does believe. Maybe the debate goes on decade after decade because there is no proof on either side, and both have to rely on faith? I guess I'm an atheist too, being agnostic. Agnostic, to me, means I don't know if there is or isn't a god, which of course means that I don't believe that there is one, but I can't say for sure that there isn't one either. I don't, in other words, know what to believe. According to the links in Joshpantera's post, there are atheist groups expressing a need to petition dictionary publishers to correctly describe the word "atheism". Consulting a dictionary then would give me a correct definition of atheism? What do believers in a god and people who believe there is no god have in common? I would say belief, or faith in their own respective points of view, neither of which have any proof. Did you find a flaw in my argument? The entire body of archeology and anthropology has unearthed a large sum of evidence showing that humans create gods. No, I agree that humans create gods in their image. That doesn't negate, nor does it prove the argument that there may or may not be one. Why do humans do this? Is it a distorted view of reality? Is it because of some other reason? That in itself could be a debate for which science has no answer, wouldn't you agree? If human science can't know human reasoning, how is it that anyone could think it could know anything that might be beyond human reason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No, I agree that humans create gods in their image. That doesn't negate, nor does it prove the argument that there may or may not be one. Why do humans do this? Is it a distorted view of reality? Is it because of some other reason? That in itself could be a debate for which science has no answer, wouldn't you agree? If human science can't know human reasoning, how is it that anyone could think it could know anything that might be beyond human reason? Every single concept of a god you can think up is a god that was created by humans. I'd say the reason humans do this has a simple answer that science already addressed. If you are not ready to become a hard atheist then don't sweat it. Really the hard atheists don't care if you join them in that conclusion. But most of them do not get there on faith. I doubt any of them get there on faith. "Anything is possible" is not a reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I guess I'm an atheist too, being agnostic. Agnostic, to me, means I don't know if there is or isn't a god, which of course means that I don't believe that there is one, but I can't say for sure that there isn't one either. I don't, in other words, know what to believe. If I had to guess, I'd say the only difference between what you'd refer to as agnostic here and a soft atheist like myself is that while I don't 'assert' there is no god, I don't think there is one either where as you can't for whatever reason think there is no god and default to the 'I don't know.' Neither position takes faith of any kind or faith as a term would be rendered meaningless. I also don't think there are goblins, fairies, unicorns and any other stuff of magical proportions found in fairy tales and legends. I don't know anyone reasonable who would assert it takes a degree of faith to disbelieve in these creatures. God seems to get a special pleading position even amongst some atheists and agnostics when they make the argument that there is some faith involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I don't believe in a 'god'. I believe the universe is a giant machine - unconscious, mechanistic, set in motion beyond time, space, or anything we humans can comprehend. Sure we can study it and even tweak it, but generally speaking this cosmic rube-goldberg-device just keeps ticking through the motions regardless of what we do or think about it. Does it take faith to not believe in my cosmic-machine concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. And, it's views like what you just posited that turn my stomach whenever I see an agnostic post garbage about us atheists. To me, agnostics are the cowards because they play it safe. Now, that by itself, isn't a problem. But the problem is when they poke their noses into OUR wars with the bible fundies and muddy up the waters. And no replies will be answered any longer because after I post this I'm cancelling my account. I haven't been over here for a while for some very good reasons: 1. Many of you seem to just like hearing yourselves talk - not all, but many 2. I, like my fellow 'militant' atheists are too busy elsewhere engaging the bible fundies that many of you seem so tolerant of. You remember those fundies doncha? They're the ones who would put BOTH agnostics and atheists in the same concentration camps if they had their way. 3. I think many of you, especially the know it all agnostics, ought to read some of the classic atheist writings or at least watch a few debates between them and your fundy friends. goodby, and good fucking riddance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 2, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted July 2, 2013 Raoul, don't you dare leave! You're obviously needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. And, it's views like what you just posited that turn my stomach whenever I see an agnostic post garbage about us atheists. To me, agnostics are the cowards because they play it safe. Now, that by itself, isn't a problem. But the problem is when they poke their noses into OUR wars with the bible fundies and muddy up the waters. And no replies will be answered any longer because after I post this I'm cancelling my account. I haven't been over here for a while for some very good reasons: 1. Many of you seem to just like hearing yourselves talk - not all, but many 2. I, like my fellow 'militant' atheists are too busy elsewhere engaging the bible fundies that many of you seem so tolerant of. You remember those fundies doncha? They're the ones who would put BOTH agnostics and atheists in the same concentration camps if they had their way. 3. I think many of you, especially the know it all agnostics, ought to read some of the classic atheist writings or at least watch a few debates between them and your fundy friends. goodby, and good fucking riddance. If you try to leave, a giant hand will reach out of the ground and grab you, just like the little blue emoticon. Lol, not really, but if you leave, you will be missed. I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. Though I agree with some of what you said, I still have to disagree with some of it. Atheists, in general, don't have a belief that no god(s) exist(s). Some atheists do think that, but certainly not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I don't believe in a 'god'. I believe the universe is a giant machine - unconscious, mechanistic, set in motion beyond time, space, or anything we humans can comprehend. Sure we can study it and even tweak it, but generally speaking this cosmic rube-goldberg-device just keeps ticking through the motions regardless of what we do or think about it. Does it take faith to not believe in my cosmic-machine concept? Probably depends on how well you define your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I don't believe in a 'god'. I believe the universe is a giant machine - unconscious, mechanistic, set in motion beyond time, space, or anything we humans can comprehend. Sure we can study it and even tweak it, but generally speaking this cosmic rube-goldberg-device just keeps ticking through the motions regardless of what we do or think about it. Does it take faith to not believe in my cosmic-machine concept? Probably depends on how well you define your beliefs. My point is that I could come up with any number of universe-models for which there is no proof. The ONLY thing distinguishing the god-hypothesis from any of these ideas I might pull outta my ass is popularity. So if it takes 'faith' to not believe in gawd- does it take faith to not believe in my cosmic machine? Or to not believe in the Aborriginies' dream-time tradition? Or to not believe that the universe was created by Space Ghost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I don't believe in a 'god'. I believe the universe is a giant machine - unconscious, mechanistic, set in motion beyond time, space, or anything we humans can comprehend. Sure we can study it and even tweak it, but generally speaking this cosmic rube-goldberg-device just keeps ticking through the motions regardless of what we do or think about it. Does it take faith to not believe in my cosmic-machine concept? Probably depends on how well you define your beliefs. My point is that I could come up with any number of universe-models for which there is no proof. The ONLY thing distinguishing the god-hypothesis from any of these ideas I might pull outta my ass is popularity. So if it takes 'faith' to not believe in gawd- does it take faith to not believe in my cosmic machine? Or to not believe in the Aborriginies' dream-time tradition? Or to not believe that the universe was created by Space Ghost? That's why I said it depends on how you define your belief in your machine. If I believe in a cosmological model that is as yet unproven, then I incorporate faith into my life. If I ponder a model but don't adopt a belief in it because there isn't enough evidence for me to lend my belief to it, I've not incorporated any faith into the mixture. It occurs to me we are both saying the same thing, but just approaching the elephant from different angles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt_Lemur Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I like being a Hard Atheist, but I call my doctor if it lasts more than four hours. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. And, it's views like what you just posited that turn my stomach whenever I see an agnostic post garbage about us atheists. To me, agnostics are the cowards because they play it safe. Now, that by itself, isn't a problem. But the problem is when they poke their noses into OUR wars with the bible fundies and muddy up the waters. And no replies will be answered any longer because after I post this I'm cancelling my account. I haven't been over here for a while for some very good reasons: 1. Many of you seem to just like hearing yourselves talk - not all, but many 2. I, like my fellow 'militant' atheists are too busy elsewhere engaging the bible fundies that many of you seem so tolerant of. You remember those fundies doncha? They're the ones who would put BOTH agnostics and atheists in the same concentration camps if they had their way. 3. I think many of you, especially the know it all agnostics, ought to read some of the classic atheist writings or at least watch a few debates between them and your fundy friends. goodby, and good fucking riddance. It seems I touched a nerve, even though I was careful to distinguish between making an affirmative assertion or not. By definition, a belief held without evidence is faith. I take particular exception to the assertion that agnostics (and specifically me) are cowards and do not object by whatever means are available to having religious doctrine forced on those who disagree with it. I have been quite vocal (including on this board) about how that is wrong and have even said I think that in the case of Christians doing so it goes against what is said about that in the New Testament. I not only express my opposition to this practice in the voting booth, but routinely write letters to the editor and speak up publicly when appropriate. I am tolerant of other people so long as they do not interfere with my basic freedoms. For example, I have no problem with people using the phrase "Merry Christmas" so long as it is not required to be used by those who do not believe in it. I will even say that to some Christians since I see nothing wrong with hoping my friends have a good time even if I do not think it is based on reality. But I certainly am not going to say that as a normal greeting to people, especially if I do not know them. I usually respond with "And a good holiday season to you, too." in response. Any law that would either prescribe, or proscribe, the phrase "Merry Christmas" or prescribe or proscribe attending a church would be wrong, and arguably immoral. I must add, the tone of the response above seems to differ little, if at all, in degree from one I would have received from a fundie had I said to one that there is no evidence for the "God" they believe in. (And to say that agnostics such as myself just love to hear ourselves talk is especially laughable. That sounds a lot like saying it is okay for hard-line atheists to post text and video since they know the truth, but anyone else is mistaken. Does that sound familiar?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. And, it's views like what you just posited that turn my stomach whenever I see an agnostic post garbage about us atheists. To me, agnostics are the cowards because they play it safe. Now, that by itself, isn't a problem. But the problem is when they poke their noses into OUR wars with the bible fundies and muddy up the waters. And no replies will be answered any longer because after I post this I'm cancelling my account. I haven't been over here for a while for some very good reasons: 1. Many of you seem to just like hearing yourselves talk - not all, but many 2. I, like my fellow 'militant' atheists are too busy elsewhere engaging the bible fundies that many of you seem so tolerant of. You remember those fundies doncha? They're the ones who would put BOTH agnostics and atheists in the same concentration camps if they had their way. 3. I think many of you, especially the know it all agnostics, ought to read some of the classic atheist writings or at least watch a few debates between them and your fundy friends. goodby, and good fucking riddance. Your 'new' cult programming is now complete. Go out and make atheist disciples of all nations, etc etc. :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I'm not sharing my concentration camp with those atheist types. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. And, it's views like what you just posited that turn my stomach whenever I see an agnostic post garbage about us atheists. To me, agnostics are the cowards because they play it safe. Now, that by itself, isn't a problem. But the problem is when they poke their noses into OUR wars with the bible fundies and muddy up the waters. And no replies will be answered any longer because after I post this I'm cancelling my account. I haven't been over here for a while for some very good reasons: 1. Many of you seem to just like hearing yourselves talk - not all, but many 2. I, like my fellow 'militant' atheists are too busy elsewhere engaging the bible fundies that many of you seem so tolerant of. You remember those fundies doncha? They're the ones who would put BOTH agnostics and atheists in the same concentration camps if they had their way. 3. I think many of you, especially the know it all agnostics, ought to read some of the classic atheist writings or at least watch a few debates between them and your fundy friends. goodby, and good fucking riddance. It seems I touched a nerve, even though I was careful to distinguish between making an affirmative assertion or not. By definition, a belief held without evidence is faith. I take particular exception to the assertion that agnostics (and specifically me) are cowards and do not object by whatever means are available to having religious doctrine forced on those who disagree with it. I have been quite vocal (including on this board) about how that is wrong and have even said I think that in the case of Christians doing so it goes against what is said about that in the New Testament. I not only express my opposition to this practice in the voting booth, but routinely write letters to the editor and speak up publicly when appropriate. I am tolerant of other people so long as they do not interfere with my basic freedoms. For example, I have no problem with people using the phrase "Merry Christmas" so long as it is not required to be used by those who do not believe in it. I will even say that to some Christians since I see nothing wrong with hoping my friends have a good time even if I do not think it is based on reality. But I certainly am not going to say that as a normal greeting to people, especially if I do not know them. I usually respond with "And a good holiday season to you, too." in response. Any law that would either prescribe, or proscribe, the phrase "Merry Christmas" or prescribe or proscribe attending a church would be wrong, and arguably immoral. I must add, the tone of the response above seems to differ little, if at all, in degree from one I would have received from a fundie had I said to one that there is no evidence for the "God" they believe in. (And to say that agnostics such as myself just love to hear ourselves talk is especially laughable. That sounds a lot like saying it is okay for hard-line atheists to post text and video since they know the truth, but anyone else is mistaken. Does that sound familiar?) Tolerance will only lead us to concentration camps, sir. :-) The slope is slippery and we are falling off. If we don't make these Christians know that Atheism is the True and Correct Way for them and all people, then they will never experience that freedom. :-) (Wow, that almost sounded like Xian apologist logic. lol) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I'm going to take the unpopular side and say yes, that to state beyond a doubt that there is no "God" takes as much faith as saying the opposite. The defining factor for me between agnosticism and atheism is whether one affirms in the positive that there is no "God" (or gods) or if one simply says "there is no evidence for a "God" or gods." By definition, if one "knows" something without proof then that "knowledge" is based on faith. The definition of "agnostic" is "doesn't know" which is quite distinct from either theism or hard-line atheism. And, it's views like what you just posited that turn my stomach whenever I see an agnostic post garbage about us atheists. To me, agnostics are the cowards because they play it safe. Now, that by itself, isn't a problem. But the problem is when they poke their noses into OUR wars with the bible fundies and muddy up the waters. And no replies will be answered any longer because after I post this I'm cancelling my account. I haven't been over here for a while for some very good reasons: 1. Many of you seem to just like hearing yourselves talk - not all, but many 2. I, like my fellow 'militant' atheists are too busy elsewhere engaging the bible fundies that many of you seem so tolerant of. You remember those fundies doncha? They're the ones who would put BOTH agnostics and atheists in the same concentration camps if they had their way. 3. I think many of you, especially the know it all agnostics, ought to read some of the classic atheist writings or at least watch a few debates between them and your fundy friends. goodby, and good fucking riddance. It seems I touched a nerve, even though I was careful to distinguish between making an affirmative assertion or not. By definition, a belief held without evidence is faith. I take particular exception to the assertion that agnostics (and specifically me) are cowards and do not object by whatever means are available to having religious doctrine forced on those who disagree with it. I have been quite vocal (including on this board) about how that is wrong and have even said I think that in the case of Christians doing so it goes against what is said about that in the New Testament. I not only express my opposition to this practice in the voting booth, but routinely write letters to the editor and speak up publicly when appropriate. I am tolerant of other people so long as they do not interfere with my basic freedoms. For example, I have no problem with people using the phrase "Merry Christmas" so long as it is not required to be used by those who do not believe in it. I will even say that to some Christians since I see nothing wrong with hoping my friends have a good time even if I do not think it is based on reality. But I certainly am not going to say that as a normal greeting to people, especially if I do not know them. I usually respond with "And a good holiday season to you, too." in response. Any law that would either prescribe, or proscribe, the phrase "Merry Christmas" or prescribe or proscribe attending a church would be wrong, and arguably immoral. I must add, the tone of the response above seems to differ little, if at all, in degree from one I would have received from a fundie had I said to one that there is no evidence for the "God" they believe in. (And to say that agnostics such as myself just love to hear ourselves talk is especially laughable. That sounds a lot like saying it is okay for hard-line atheists to post text and video since they know the truth, but anyone else is mistaken. Does that sound familiar?) Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boftx Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. Okay, let's get back to basics and go from there. Do we agree that by definition, belief without evidence is faith? I will stipulate that the formal definition of "atheism" includes a wide spectrum of disbelief in some form of deity or deities, including the assertion that a supreme deity or deities do not and can not exist. That is what I think we would agree is the "hard" atheist position. Will you agree that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence to assert that a deity (or group of deities) exists and the hard atheist position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted July 3, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 3, 2013 It's important to note that wording the claim as atheism is, or requires faith, is a blanket statement and very incorrect. A simple lack of belief can never constitute "belief without evidence." We're not talking about belief at all. There's no belief without evidence (faith) because we're not promoting a belief at all, hence atheism is not a faith... The argument for anti-theism as another version of faith is on better ground. But it's something to the left of atheism, a beast of it's own. anti-theism (belief, positive) < atheism (absence of belief, negative) > theism (belief, positive) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. Okay, let's get back to basics and go from there. Do we agree that by definition, belief without evidence is faith? Sure. Belief in spite of the evidence is also faith. I will stipulate that the formal definition of "atheism" includes a wide spectrum of disbelief in some form of deity or deities, including the assertion that a supreme deity or deities do not and can not exist. That is what I think we would agree is the "hard" atheist position. Will you agree that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence to assert that a deity (or group of deities) exists and the hard atheist position? Soft atheism concludes that there is no convincing evidence to believe in any god. Hard atheism concludes that there is evidence that all religion is fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I find it ironic when creationist try to demean atheism by accusing it of something they themselves hold up as a virtue. Think about it, they are attempting to lessen your position by making it sound more like theirs. Point that out or just turn it around on them. Ask, "So, are you suggesting faith is just reinforces a self delusion? " 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted July 7, 2013 Author Share Posted July 7, 2013 Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. Okay, let's get back to basics and go from there. Do we agree that by definition, belief without evidence is faith? Sure. Belief in spite of the evidence is also faith. I will stipulate that the formal definition of "atheism" includes a wide spectrum of disbelief in some form of deity or deities, including the assertion that a supreme deity or deities do not and can not exist. That is what I think we would agree is the "hard" atheist position. Will you agree that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence to assert that a deity (or group of deities) exists and the hard atheist position? Soft atheism concludes that there is no convincing evidence to believe in any god. Hard atheism concludes that there is evidence that all religion is fiction. Does hard atheism also conclude that the very concept of a god, or an intelligent designer, or a supreme being, or whatever one would call whatever came first, a fiction? That question would be an argument from the standpoint of a theist, wouldn't it? The answer of course, is that we don't know. Whatever was a first cause of all that is might be what from an atheist point of view? Nothing? Nature? No cause at all? Everything that ever was has always existed? "Nothing" never existed? Some other hypothesis? No one knows. Not theologians, not science, not atheists both soft and hard. If no one knows, then certainly I don't know, and that's why I remain agnostic. I do see design in nature, and I do see natural selection too. I really am learning from this thread. Despite raoul stopping in to shoot himself in the foot, I do appreciate what all of you are saying. Before this thread, I never would have said that I am by definition an agnostic atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Duderonomy- I'm glad you weren't run off by Raul's hissy-fit. Personally I think that the difference between agnostic vs. weak atheist boils down to little more than semantics. And I don't see any reason to make a big deal of it. We're all on the same side here. I agree with MyMistake: It's a cheap-shot to claim that atheism requires faith. And it's equally a cheap-shot to call agnostics cowards. Can we all try and pretend to be grown-ups here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 Calling agnostics "cowards" is a cheap shot. But calling atheism "faith" is also a cheap shot. I've mentioned the evidence in several posts and people still ignore it to assert that hard atheists believe without evidence. Unless your religion is believing that "cartoon characters are not real people" then atheism is not a faith. Okay, let's get back to basics and go from there. Do we agree that by definition, belief without evidence is faith? Sure. Belief in spite of the evidence is also faith. I will stipulate that the formal definition of "atheism" includes a wide spectrum of disbelief in some form of deity or deities, including the assertion that a supreme deity or deities do not and can not exist. That is what I think we would agree is the "hard" atheist position. Will you agree that there is a difference between saying there is no evidence to assert that a deity (or group of deities) exists and the hard atheist position? Soft atheism concludes that there is no convincing evidence to believe in any god. Hard atheism concludes that there is evidence that all religion is fiction. Does hard atheism also conclude that the very concept of a god, or an intelligent designer, or a supreme being, or whatever one would call whatever came first, a fiction? That question would be an argument from the standpoint of a theist, wouldn't it? The answer of course, is that we don't know. Whatever was a first cause of all that is might be what from an atheist point of view? Nothing? Nature? No cause at all? Everything that ever was has always existed? "Nothing" never existed? Some other hypothesis? No one knows. Not theologians, not science, not atheists both soft and hard. If no one knows, then certainly I don't know, and that's why I remain agnostic. I do see design in nature, and I do see natural selection too. I really am learning from this thread. Despite raoul stopping in to shoot himself in the foot, I do appreciate what all of you are saying. Before this thread, I never would have said that I am by definition an agnostic atheist. That conflict was unfortunate. Why do you think that what came first might have been a being? As we have investigated our world everywhere (that we make progress) we find that things happen due to natural forces. When the circumstances are right events unfold on their own. I think that is a good indicator that whatever happened before the Big Bang was also a natural process that happened due to circumstances. Why would there even need to be a first cause? Things might go back infinitely. There might have always been something in another form. I think the truth is stranger than religion because reality is far more complicated than human creativity can imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts