Do all atheists not beleive in a higher power, do they feel they are the highest

[che]

Paul Newman. Great actor.

Beautiful man

[Red Hook]

where?

there is no evidence (up to this point) that points to the existence of god.  And don't give us Descartes "I exist therefor god must exist" 

[The Scott]

Beautiful man

Yes, very handsome.  His wife was/is quite beautiful. 

[The Scott]

GOD = DOG

It is fitting, is it not, that the one animal that loves mankind with such an unconditional nature would be the dog?  Without the domestication of the dog, early man would have been a lot worse off.   

Perhaps that is why "dog" spelled backwards is "god".   I think that it is quite the honor for our four legged friends.

[avxo]

It is about proof of god.

Proof is a strong word... Is it a proof based solely on logic and without any fallacies or unproven assertions or assumptions?

His quest to find the true religion comes AFTER his incident in the hospital(the part i asked you to watch). He becomes Muslim after searching and researching, he discribes that in the second part...hence why i said skip to 3:05 -13:50, the part about his daughters heart problem...He dosent even talk about his becoming Muslim until much later...

Ahh... So something bad happens, and during that "bad" period he decides that he needs to search for and find a deeper meaning to life, the "something more" that will maybe provide him with a broader context. You will forgive me if I say that he was never an atheist; he merely convinced himself he was one.

I very much doubt that his proof is based on logic an would bet money that it contains at least an appeal to emotion.

No ones forcing you to watch the video, I just wondered how an atheist will explain what happens in the video @ 3:05-13:50...

Of course nobody is forcing me. My question was why I should bother to watch it. It's conceivable (unlikely but conceivable) that his monumental proof of god is rational and undeniable, but the chances of that are "almost exactly" nil.

With that in mind I will be frank: given the odds, watching it simply doesn't seem like a good investment of time on my part.

[NordicNerd]

 because newton and descartes and socrates and others were unintelligent.  

Hehe, of course not, but all these men lived in a time where they had to publicly accept religion or face the consequences. Newtons religious ramblings and alchemy were not exactly the high points of his career.

It's a strange phenomenon that the "a priori" assumption should be : these is a "god". You also subscribe to that notion when you ask for proof of there NOT being a "god". "Proof" is needed for positive statements about reality, but inductive proof is not really proof of anything..., or proof is needed for falsification (according to Popper), but that requires that what should be falsified is portrayed in a way that makes falsification possible. How does that relate to your idea of "god"?

Another point: one should distinguish between the concept of a personal "god" and the belief in some more abstract higher principle or power. Very few of todays nobel prize winners subscribe to the idea of a personal god, as portrayed in christianity.

NN

[WOOO]

power?

just wondering if theyve ever considerd macro-entities

power is irrelevant in the eyes of time

we're all worm meat

[snx]

Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher power. So they do have a belief system.

Agnostics choose to believe that mankind does not possess the ability to prove or disprove the presence of a higher power. They believe there may (or may not) be something out there, but until there's proof, they'll just sit on the fence.

Theists believe in a higher power.

I guess, if you don't like being proven wrong and you want the safest row to hoe, then be an agnostic. You don't have to believe in (or disbelieve in) the presence of a higher power. Just say "I don't think we have all the facts to prove or disprove it". It's a very PC approach to deities, and is an oft used belief system by scientists and rational thinkers.

To be a theist or atheist, you have to be pretty sure of yourself and committed that you know a truth. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't go around waving a flag selling your belief system (I would say agnostics waving their "belief" system flags are as obnoxious as staunch theists and atheists).

The safest belief system is one you can hold as your own. And when you do find it, do us all a favor and shut the hell up about it. No one cares to hear another person's feckless meanderings on the topic of faith, beliefs, and religions. That is, if we don't count the weak-minded slack-jawed mouth-breathers of society who are easily taken in by the hucksterish behavior of faith peddlers (be it theism, atheism, or agnosticism).

Just be your own person, find your own belief system, and keep it to yourself. You'll find out soon enough if you were right, when you're dead. If you're a theist, and you're right, then you can praise Jesus/Allah/Vishnu/Other for eternity. If you're an atheist and you're right, then you won't know you're right, because you're dead and you won't even know you're dead....you'll just be dead. If you're agnostic and you're right, then you get to find an answer who/what this power is (and if there isn't, you'll never know, because you'll be dead, and therefore, won't be able to know anything, because you're dead).

[King Shizzo]

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius

I fucking love that quote.  It is utter truth.

[avxo]

Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher power. So they do have a belief system.

That depends on what you mean by belief system, but generally speaking it's a mockery of language and logic to claim that the absence of belief is, itself, a belief; it's like claiming that the absence of hair is, itself, hair.

To be a theist or atheist, you have to be pretty sure of yourself and committed that you know a truth. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't go around waving a flag selling your belief system (I would say agnostics waving their "belief" system flags are as obnoxious as staunch theists and atheists).

Nonsense. To be an atheist all one needs to say is that "the entity you describe as god is logically inconsistent and not rationally possible." It requires no belief. Just logical deductions.

[snx]

That depends on what you mean by belief system, but generally speaking it's a mockery of language and logic to claim that the absence of belief is, itself, a belief; it's like claiming that the absence of hair is, itself, hair.


Nonsense. To be an atheist all one needs to say is that "the entity you describe as god is logically inconsistent and not rationally possible." It requires no belief. Just logical deductions.

Atheists aren't absent of belief. Rather, they choose to believe that there cannot be a god/higher power, because the belief in such a higher power is inconsistent with what they perceive to be the facts of the situation they're faced with. But an atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He simply chooses to believe that god does not exist, because he has seen no rational proof to the contrary. It is, thus, a belief system. I'm quite sure that, were god to show himself with conclusive proof to the world to the satisfaction of the scientific method (to atheists and theists alike), then atheists would become theists, since they believe in the rationality of what can be proven using the scientific method.

Of course, it's easier to use the scientific method to prove god does not exist than it is to prove he does exist. But as an atheist, I choose to believe that the things we cannot explain will be eventually explained using the scientific method. Theists believe this is where god steps in.  

But let's be rational here: there is no proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof he does exist. There is simply a lack of proof to satisfy the atheist that he does exist and all testing methods we know of today do not produce a god. So the atheist believes in the strength of the scientific method to prove his theories correct/incorrect. But is still a belief system - the belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to prove/disprove theories. There's nothing wrong or weak about a belief system...perhaps that's where my language hasn't been clear?

By the way, I'm an atheist. But I also recognize the holes in atheism, as most atheists eventually or already do. Atheism cannot conclusively be proven to be correct, because we have no certainty that all forms of scientific testing have been applied, that all forms of logical thinking have been exhausted...we only know what we've done and what we believe we know how to do. We don't know everything. But I refuse to believe in something magical just because I don't know everything yet. We'll figure it all out, and when we do, I believe we'll find that there is no god. Just random chance, the mystics of quantum mechanics and atomic theory, and a strange universe that does not always behave as we on earth think it should, when we get to the outer or inner reaches of it. And that's where our theories will break down, and we'll need new ones. And that's why I find brash atheists to be myopic...their staunch belief that it's impossible. They are as fundamentalist as hardline theists in their beliefs...unwilling to question their own belief systems. And that's just what they are. But we can argue over the semantics of linguistics all night here...

If there's a god, he gave me this ability to think this way, as christians would have me believe he created me in his image and gave me free will. I deny his existence until he proves it to me, in which case, I'm happy to recognize him. But I won't believe in a god just because some book, and some men, say I should. That sounds ludicrous. I'll choose not to believe in a god, because my brain believes what has been proven using the scientific method, and so far, no dice on the whole god thing. I will never be sure in my lifetime on this earth, but that's what I know and believe right now.

[avxo]

Atheists aren't absent of belief. Rather, they choose to believe that there cannot be a god/higher power, because the belief in such a higher power is inconsistent with what they perceive to be the facts of the situation they're faced with. But an atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He simply chooses to believe that god does not exist, because he has seen no rational proof to the contrary. It is, thus, a belief system. I'm quite sure that, were god to show himself with conclusive proof to the world to the satisfaction of the scientific method (to atheists and theists alike), then atheists would become theists, since they believe in the rationality of what can be proven using the scientific method.

You are confused. Why would atheists be responsible for disproving the existence of an entity that others believe in? That's just ludicrous.

Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.

Of course, it's easier to use the scientific method to prove god does not exist than it is to prove he does exist. But as an atheist, I choose to believe that the things we cannot explain will be eventually explained using the scientific method. Theists believe this is where god steps in.

It's easier to prove something doesn't exist versus proving it exists? Really? Challenge accepted. Please prove to me that a talking link unicorn doesn't exist.

But let's be rational here:

Yes. Let's.

there is no proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof he does exist.

So... Let me get this straight, you consider the statements "I can't prove potatoes that talk exist" and "I can't prove potatoes that talk don't exist" to be equivalent and equally strong? And here I thought you wanted to be rational!

There is simply a lack of proof to satisfy the atheist that he does exist and all testing methods we know of today do not produce a god. So the atheist believes in the strength of the scientific method to prove his theories correct/incorrect. But is still a belief system - the belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to prove/disprove theories. There's nothing wrong or weak about a belief system...perhaps that's where my language hasn't been clear?

No. No belief is required.

By the way, I'm an atheist. But I also recognize the holes in atheism, as most atheists eventually or already do.

Far be it from me to tell you what you are or aren't. But it seems to me that your idea about what atheism is, philosophically, is flawed.

Atheism cannot conclusively be proven to be correct

But there's nothing to prove...

[snx]

You are confused. Why would atheists be responsible for disproving the existence of an entity that others believe in? That's just ludicrous.

Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.

It's easier to prove something doesn't exist versus proving it exists? Really? Challenge accepted. Please prove to me that a talking link unicorn doesn't exist.

Yes. Let's.

So... Let me get this straight, you consider the statements "I can't prove potatoes that talk exist" and "I can't prove potatoes that talk don't exist" to be equivalent and equally strong? And here I thought you wanted to be rational!


No. No belief is required.


Far be it from me to tell you what you are or aren't. But it seems to me that your idea about what atheism is, philosophically, is flawed.


But there's nothing to prove...

You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.

I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.

So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.

[avxo]

You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.

I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.

So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.

Yikes. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the the bed.

Take care.

P.S.: I know what you mean about posting in religious threads...

[OTHstrong]

Atheists aren't absent of belief. Rather, they choose to believe that there cannot be a god/higher power, because the belief in such a higher power is inconsistent with what they perceive to be the facts of the situation they're faced with. But an atheist cannot prove that god does not exist. He simply chooses to believe that god does not exist, because he has seen no rational proof to the contrary. It is, thus, a belief system. I'm quite sure that, were god to show himself with conclusive proof to the world to the satisfaction of the scientific method (to atheists and theists alike), then atheists would become theists, since they believe in the rationality of what can be proven using the scientific method.

Of course, it's easier to use the scientific method to prove god does not exist than it is to prove he does exist. But as an atheist, I choose to believe that the things we cannot explain will be eventually explained using the scientific method. Theists believe this is where god steps in.  

But let's be rational here: there is no proof that god does not exist, just as there is no proof he does exist. There is simply a lack of proof to satisfy the atheist that he does exist and all testing methods we know of today do not produce a god. So the atheist believes in the strength of the scientific method to prove his theories correct/incorrect. But is still a belief system - the belief in the infallibility of the scientific method to prove/disprove theories. There's nothing wrong or weak about a belief system...perhaps that's where my language hasn't been clear?

By the way, I'm an atheist. But I also recognize the holes in atheism, as most atheists eventually or already do. Atheism cannot conclusively be proven to be correct, because we have no certainty that all forms of scientific testing have been applied, that all forms of logical thinking have been exhausted...we only know what we've done and what we believe we know how to do. We don't know everything. But I refuse to believe in something magical just because I don't know everything yet. We'll figure it all out, and when we do, I believe we'll find that there is no god. Just random chance, the mystics of quantum mechanics and atomic theory, and a strange universe that does not always behave as we on earth think it should, when we get to the outer or inner reaches of it. And that's where our theories will break down, and we'll need new ones. And that's why I find brash atheists to be myopic...their staunch belief that it's impossible. They are as fundamentalist as hardline theists in their beliefs...unwilling to question their own belief systems. And that's just what they are. But we can argue over the semantics of linguistics all night here...

If there's a god, he gave me this ability to think this way, as christians would have me believe he created me in his image and gave me free will. I deny his existence until he proves it to me, in which case, I'm happy to recognize him. But I won't believe in a god just because some book, and some men, say I should. That sounds ludicrous. I'll choose not to believe in a god, because my brain believes what has been proven using the scientific method, and so far, no dice on the whole god thing. I will never be sure in my lifetime on this earth, but that's what I know and believe right now.

This is the most unbiased, honest, rational and "void of any agenda post" I have ever read.

You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.

I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.

So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.

OUCH, sorry avxo but he just gave you an owning of V-board proportions, lol.. and I thought it would be someone who believes in God that would set you straight, NOPE I was wrong.

[Skeletor]

You know what I just discovered? I strongly detest interacting with you on the internet. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, what with your perjorative, pedantic and pedestrian arguments. And your examples lack logic, so much so in fact, that I simply don't care to get into it with you.

I should have known posting in a religious thread was going to be the ruin of me, and I'd have to suffer fools. Shame on me.

So, in summation, kindly fuck off and bother someone else.

LOL

[tbombz]

Hehe, of course not, but all these men lived in a time where they had to publicly accept religion or face the consequences. Newtons religious ramblings and alchemy were not exactly the high points of his career.

It's a strange phenomenon that the "a priori" assumption should be : these is a "god". You also subscribe to that notion when you ask for proof of there NOT being a "god". "Proof" is needed for positive statements about reality, but inductive proof is not really proof of anything..., or proof is needed for falsification (according to Popper), but that requires that what should be falsified is portrayed in a way that makes falsification possible. How does that relate to your idea of "god"?

Another point: one should distinguish between the concept of a personal "god" and the belief in some more abstract higher principle or power. Very few of todays nobel prize winners subscribe to the idea of a personal god, as portrayed in christianity.

NN

  my belief in a high probability of a creator is not a priori. although born to believers and raised being brought to church, I can remember being a toddler and thinking how "stupid" belief in god was and that religion was obviously just a place for those fearful of death to hide.   

I came to thinking a creator exists after reading Descartes' "Meditations" and after being exposed to the cosmological argument in a philosophy class.  nothing a priori about that.

as for making a distinction between a personal god and an abstract higher power, I don't see why they are mutually exclusive 

[tbombz]

Saying "the entity that you describe as your god is inconsistent with the facts of reality and therefore cannot exist" involves no belief.

what about the idea of a god is inconsistent with which facts about reality?

[snx]

Yikes. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the the bed.

Take care.

P.S.: I know what you mean about posting in religious threads...

You're right. That was harsh. I think I just got a test rage there. Apologies for being a douche. I can recognize when I'm being a prick and will own up to my bullshit. Still, no more religion/deity talk for me. I think I'll leave that up to the experts, lest I become what I detest (a guy who talks incessantly about religion and god, or lack thereof, or whatever in between).

Peace.

[avxo]

This is the most unbiased, honest, rational and "void of any agenda post" I have ever read.

You must not have read many rational and unbiased posts. Granted, on the Internet they are hard to come by. With that said, I don't think the post that I responded to was horrible. We simply have a disagreement about details - or at least that's how I see it.

 

OUCH, sorry avxo but he just gave you an owning of V-board proportions, lol.. and I thought it would be someone who believes in God that would set you straight, NOPE I was wrong.

*shrugs* I personally, don't see the "ownage" there, but hey, if it makes you happy then just keep seeing it my friend.

You're right. That was harsh. I think I just got a test rage there. Apologies for being a douche. I can recognize when I'm being a prick and will own up to my bullshit. Still, no more religion/deity talk for me. I think I'll leave that up to the experts, lest I become what I detest (a guy who talks incessantly about religion and god, or lack thereof, or whatever in between).

Peace.

No worries - I don't get easily offended. In fact, I just don't get offended, period. Threads about religion and politics can get heated fast and even the coolest of heads will reach temperatures way past "BOIL".

P.S.: This is getbig... you don't tell people to "kindly fuck off". You tell them to "FUCK OFF OR I WILL USE YOUR SKULL AS A SPITTOON AND YOUR RIBS AS TOOTHPICKS" followed by a stream of expletives and insults about one's parentage. Get with the program

[NordicNerd]

  my belief in a high probability of a creator is not a priori. although born to believers and raised being brought to church, I can remember being a toddler and thinking how "stupid" belief in god was and that religion was obviously just a place for those fearful of death to hide.   

I came to thinking a creator exists after reading Descartes' "Meditations" and after being exposed to the cosmological argument in a philosophy class.  nothing a priori about that.

as for making a distinction between a personal god and an abstract higher power, I don't see why they are mutually exclusive 

That is interesting, I only know one person who became a christian by "the intellectual route". Most people I know who are christian, grew up in a christian home and the religion is more of an emotional bond, not an intellectual issue.

Personally, I never really understood the cosmological argument, as one can just as well say that the cosmos is eternal as one can say that "God" is eternal. But if I ever were to become religious, I guess that the two would pretty much be one and the same. I kinda like pantheism/monism :-).

NN

[OTHstrong]

You must not have read many rational and unbiased posts. Granted, on the Internet they are hard to come by. With that said, I don't think the post that I responded to was horrible. We simply have a disagreement about details - or at least that's how I see it.

 
*shrugs* I personally, don't see the "ownage" there, but hey, if it makes you happy then just keep seeing it my friend.


No worries - I don't get easily offended. In fact, I just don't get offended, period. Threads about religion and politics can get heated fast and even the coolest of heads will reach temperatures way past "BOIL".

P.S.: This is getbig... you don't tell people to "kindly fuck off". You tell them to "FUCK OFF OR I WILL USE YOUR SKULL AS A SPITTOON AND YOUR RIBS AS TOOTHPICKS" followed by a stream of expletives and insults about one's parentage. Get with the program

You are not being very honest with yourself believing that your response to people who believe in God is not biased. The very fact that you do not agree with another atheist that you can not disprove God 's existence is extremely naive and biased, not to mention silly.

[avxo]

You are not being very honest with yourself believing that your response to people who believe in God is not biased. The very fact that you do not agree with another atheist that you can not disprove God 's existence is extremely naive and biased, not to mention silly.

The fact that I do not agree with another atheist only proves one thing: that different people have different reasons for being atheists. Unlike a religion, which usually has a rigid belief system, atheism has no such system.

To use a broad brush, atheists can be divided into two groups: those who adopt the position that the existence of certain gods is impossible (e.g. the Christian God, or Allah, or Thor) and those who adopt the position that "deities" are impossible.

I suspect that snx is in the former group and I am in the latter, but he can speak for himself if he's so inclined. Also please note that the core of our disagreement seems to be about whether science and logic require faith; he claims they do, I claim they don't.

As for your "biased" comment, I guess it depends on what you mean. I do not believe in your God. If fact, I claim he doesn't exist and, based on what I know, could not exist. That doesn't make me biased. I'm open to being convinced otherwise if new facts merit a reconsideration.

You can argue, of course, that anyone who holds a position is biased, but that definition would result in everyone being biased, which makes it useless.

As for disproving God's existence, I don't have to. If you assert God exists, the onus is on you to prove it. Proving a negative is, in the general case, impossible. Let's assume that we both agree that a certain thing does not exist. Can you prove it doesn't exist? Arguments based on logic aside, you can maybe prove it doesn't exist in your house, or maybe even an entire city, but you can't prove it doesn't exist.

[OTHstrong]

Your own words contradict themselves. see you say you know "that my God does not exist" then you say if something valid comes along you may reconsider. If you admit a possibility, even if it is only 0.0000000000001 % then that means you could NOT know to begin with. Because to know is to be 100% certain. That is why I think you are not being honest and are biased cause you claim to know something when in reality that something you claim to know is not possible for you to know. My English may suck but you know what I mean 

[NordicNerd]

...
To use a broad brush, atheists can be divided into two groups: those who adopt the position that the existence of certain gods is impossible (e.g. the Christian God, or Allah, or Thor) and those who adopt the position that "deities" are impossible.

No. I am an atheist but I fully accept the possibility of gods. The christian god is perhaps problematic, especially the problem of evil, omnipotence and omniscience.

I simply don't believe in any gods. But I will believe if shown positive evidence that I can reproduce.

NN