Does Ath*ism have a future? NO!

[REASON]

As an aside try inserting a different hypothesis, any hypothesis but God, perhaps one like, "there is other life in the Universe". You will find people at two extremes that will believe with absolute certainty that such life does or does not exist. Now reverse the hypothesis to say, "there is no other life in the Universe" and you will still find people, the same people, at the two extremes which believe with certainty that such life does or does not exist and their position relative to the hypothesis' truth is simply reversed. Can you say that either of the groups at the extremes has faith that they are right and not the other group? That one group has faith in the belief according to how the hypothesis was stated the first time and the other where the hypothesis was simply reversed, even though their actual belief on the existence or non-existence of life is the same? How can both group believe they are right with certainty and one has "faith" they are right and the other does not?

 

I completely understand your point here but the difficulty I see with this analogy is that those who may believe there is life elsewhere in the universe can base that presumption on the fact that life exists here. The evidence shows that life can develop in the universe so it is not with absolute faith that one believes that there is life in some form elsewhere, even as we have yet to find any beyond this planet. On the other hand, to claim there is no life elsewhere in the universe is to do so despite the existance of life here, and often the motivation is based in the principle that we are chosen by god and thereby singularly unique as opposed to the fact that we have yet to find evidence of life elsewhere.

 

I think that the belief, or lack thereof, in god(s) is motivated by two general priciples - desire and evidence. Those who believe there is a god do so out of desire. They prefer the prospects of a universe and an existance that includes a god and the promise of an afterlife, and since there is no evidence to support the notion, they simply have to rely on faith. They do not allow the lack of evidence to get in the way of their preferred view of the world. Those who do not believe can accept a universe that doesn't contain these things, and the fact that there is no evidence is what they use to reinforce that position, but faith in the lack of evidence is not what typically motivates their beliefs. What they desire for the universe is inconsequential to what the evidence implies and faith is an unnecessary component.

 

See, this is what I find more interesting in this discussion - what the factors are that lead to a belief/non-belief orientation with this subject, and how are they perpetuated in society. In this analysis, I think it is likely to become clearer that as our scientific understanding of the nature of the universe increases, the ability to maintain beliefs based in superstition and faith will become more difficult, and the percentages of those who claim to be athiests will increase. But there will always be those who's desire will continue to dominate their perspective despite mounting evidence to the contrary, and some will continue in their efforts to undermine science in protection of their world view, if for no other reason, than because faithful thinking is part of what it means to be human.

[freeztar]

In this analysis, I think it is likely to become clearer that as our scientific understanding of the nature of the universe increases, the ability to maintain beliefs based in superstition and faith will become more difficult, and the percentages of those who claim to be athiests will increase. But there will always be those who's desire will continue to dominate their perspective despite mounting evidence to the contrary, and some will continue in their efforts to undermine science in protection of their world view, if for no other reason, than because faithful thinking is part of what it means to be human.

 

Yep. But remember that we always receive more questions than answers. :rolleyes:

 

You don't go the the Science museum and get handed a pamphlet on electricity. You go to the Science museum andyou put your hand on a metal ball and your hair sticks up straight...and you know science. :phones:

[C1ay]

I completely understand your point here but the difficulty I see with this analogy is that those who may believe there is life elsewhere in the universe can base that presumption on the fact that life exists here.

 

I just picked that as an example. Insert any unprovable hypothesis you wish. At the extremes one side believes with certainty the hypothesis is true and the other, with the same certainty, that it is false. Both sides believe they are right and the opposite side is wrong. It is nonsensical to claim one side has faith that it is right and the other side doesn't.

[coldcreation]

And right there is the quandary, you want to treat all atheists as the same regardless of their variation of belief or disbelief. You flat refuse to acknowledge that there is any variation from one atheist to another. There are atheists that fit into both of these categories. Those with a firm belief that the existence of god(s) is false and those that lack belief in any god(s). One is not the same as the other, they are both atheist. Linguistically the term atheist simply means not-theist and you cannot just group all non-theists together as one and the same because they are not.

 

Quite the contrary: I acknowledge that there are many variations from one atheist to another.

 

 

There are those at the extreme ends of the scale, [...] Mr. Dawkins has said, "that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty...". At the extremes one has a belief that God does indeed exist with certainly and one a belief that God does not exist with certainty, both with the same conviction and the same lack of proof to support their position. Both believe their position to be absolutely true, to "know" they are right. How can you say that one has faith that he is right and the other does not? Does one have less belief in the certainty of his position than the other?

 

In fact, and to set the record straight, this is what R. Dawkins had to say on this topic, in context:

 

Contrary to Huxley, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Even if hard to test in practice, it belongs in the same TAP or temporary agnosticism box as the controversies over the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions. God's existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice. If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument, noisily and unequivocally, in his favour. And even if God's existence is never proved or disproved with certainty one way or the other, available evidence and reasoning may yield an estimate of probability far from 50 per cent.

 

Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. [...]

 

[Edit by CC: Here Dawkins introduces the seven category scale]

 

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has devoted inhabitants. [...]

 

The God Delusion

 

Dawkins goes on to quote Bertrand Russell's parable of the celestial teapot (see the link above). And continues:

 

The point of all these way-out examples is that they are undisprovable, yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence. Russell's point is that the burden of proof rests with the believers, not with the non-believers. Mine is the related point that the odds in favour of the teapot (spaghetti monster / Esmerelda and Keith / unicorn etc.) are not equal to the odds against.

 

__________________

 

 

IMO, the lowest quantity of faith in one's certainty of the existence or non-existence of god(s) is in the middle of the scale, those with no particular belief that God does or does not exist. At the extremes where there is certainty claimed that god(s) do or do not exist faith is highest that one's position is true and the other is not.

 

This is at odds with what Dawkins writes. There is less and less faith involved as one tends towards 7: "Atheists do not have faith".

 

 

___________________________

 

 

A final point on Dawkins' statement that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other". In his review of The God Delusion David L. Brooks writes:

 

The point is that if god messes about with nature, then it ought to be possible, at least in principle, to detect such messing about. A god who regularly violates the laws of nature--to make the sun stand still, to answer prayers, to smite the wicked or to reward believers--should leave his fingerprints all over the place. Such fingerprints, if we can think of a way to detect them, would be evidence for, and their absence would be evidence against, the existence of that god. Some scientific work has been done in this area (Dawkins discusses a prayer experiment). [...]

 

It has long been the case that religion is treated as if its field and science are entirely distinct and of equal respect. But if the existence of god is susceptible to scientific investigation, then god, and everything that flows from the presumption of his existence (that is to say, all of religion) is a subject of science. There is nothing special about theistic religion which prevents science investigating the question of the existence of its deity; and there is no reason to defer to theologians on matters that they claim are the sole province of religion. The existence of god, the divinity of Jesus, the sojourn of the Jews in Egypt and the subsequent exodus, and all and sundry, are matters science can investigate (and some investigation has been made, e.g., there is no historical or archaeological evidence for the exile in Egypt or of the exodus). In short, science can say to theology, "All your bases are belong to us!" Source

 

I think I've done more than enough to prove my point, by analyzing in context the meaning and intentions behind the words used by both Dawkins and Jung, and need say no more on the topic of faith, or upon whom lies the burden of proof.

 

I do think it would be fun (and very interesting) to delve further into the idea that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other".

 

 

CC

[Boerseun]

You get good carpenters and bad carpenters. There's a sliding scale of the quality of work delivered by a carpenter who might be anywhere on the scale from "good" to "bad".

 

But what about someone who have never touched a saw, planer, mallet, or any of the tools in a carpenter's workshop, and have no inclination to ever build something out of wood? Someone with no interest in the carpentry business, at all - will they be labelled "bad carpenters"? How could they be, when they are no carpenters at all? The scale from "bad" to "good" carpentry simply do not apply.

 

And the same with people who live outside the trappings of religion.

 

I'm completely with Tormod on this one. There is no scale. There is no way that any religious concept can have any bearing in my life, simply because I exist outside of it. I can't be labelled as someone with a particular degree of religion (or lack of it) because I exist in a universe where it simply doesn't exist and simply doesn't matter.

 

It's really as simple as that. And there is no need in my world for elaborate arguments to either prove or disprove the existence of God. I have considered the hypothesis, found it to be ludicrous and moved on. If I have to keep every failed hypothesis in consideration and pin myself to any scale from 0% to 100% on whatever that failed hypothesis might be and what it might entail, then I will not be doing anything else for the rest of my life but measure myself against sliding scales of ridiculousness. I actually have better things to do. But if you want to get sidetracked and discuss the particular cut and the pros and cons of pinstripes on the Emperor's invisible magic coat, by all means - go for it.

[C1ay]

I think I've done more than enough to prove my point, by analyzing in context the meaning and intentions behind the words used by both Dawkins and Jung, and need say no more on the topic of faith, or upon whom lies the burden of proof.

 

You've made your claim quite clear, that there are no atheists of any kind, no possibility of any atheist of any kind, that has faith in their belief that there are no god(s). That some minute level of uncertainty exists for even the most staunch of atheists which claim to believe there are no god(s). That they do not have faith that they are right and Jung is wrong. You certainly haven't proven that though.

[coldcreation]

You've made your claim quite clear, that there are no atheists of any kind, no possibility of any atheist of any kind, that has faith in their belief that there are no god(s). That some minute level of uncertainty exists for even the most staunch of atheists which claim to believe there are no god(s). That they do not have faith that they are right and Jung is wrong. You certainly haven't proven that though.

 

Atheists don't have faith in a "belief that there are no god(s)."

 

I don't think, either, that people have faith that they are right or wrong. In the case under study here, and looking at the two extremes, (1) believers have faith that a hypothesis is true, that god exists, and (2) others disbelieve the hypothesis (e.g., because of the failure to pass any tests). In another way, they don't have faith that the hypothesis is true (that god exists).

 

They don't have faith that they are right. Nor do they have faith that others are wrong.

 

Some people have faith in god, in the message of Christ. Others don't. You wouldn't say of the latter group (e.g., atheists) that they have faith that the message of Christ is wrong, or that they have faith that those who believe the message are wrong. They might simply say that the origin of the message is highly doubtful (with its baggage of immaculate conception, Holy Spirit, transubstantiation, divine revelation, a truth revealed by God, and so on), and so do not believe the message of Christ.

 

 

I, for one, don't have faith that Jung was wrong. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. I simply claim that it is not possible to "know" god exists (in the Jungian sense, or in any other sense of the word "know"); something Jung was well aware of, at least from an epistemological viewpoint.

 

I share to large extent the perspectives of Tormod and Boerseun: we live in a universe where god doesn't exist and doesn't matter, since it doesn't appear to be intervening anywhere. I will add too that I think the concept of god is a human invention, a concept created by human thought. As such it could be argued that god 'lives' only in the mind of those who believe. And if it helps them live their day to day lives then so be it. Others don't need the god concept in order to live their lives. It is not, for me, a viable source of any received wisdom. Yet, somehow, I manage to retain a system of values in the absence of a Divine order. This is not only the rejection of a belief, it is the rejection of absolute values themselves, the rejection of a universal moral law binding upon all individuals, it is the rejection of the concept of god.

 

I believe, as Nietzsche did, there are positive aspects for not believing in god. Relinquishing the belief in god opens the way for human creativity, imagination and inspiration to fully develop. The Christian god, wrote Nietzsche, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. Source: Wiki

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

Atheists don't have faith in a "belief that there are no god(s)."

 

I don't think, either, that people have faith that they are right or wrong....

 

They don't have faith that they are right. Nor do they have faith that others are wrong....

 

So no one ever has faith that they are right or wrong? You claim that there is not even one single person with such certainty about anything that they have faith that they are right or wrong?

 

I, for one, ...

 

I share to large extent the perspectives of Tormod and Boerseun...

 

I believe, as Nietzsche believed, ...

 

Who said this is limited to what "you" or ""Tormod" or "Boerseun" or myself or anyone else? You need to think outside that box.

 

Consider 2 hypotheses:

 

A. There is a God.

 

B. There are no Gods.

 

People whom tend to think hypothesis A is true are theists. Everyone who is not theist is atheist by definition. They need only have doubt that hypothesis A is true to be non-theist or atheist. Some believe A is true without a doubt, they claim with certainty that it is true beyond any doubt and we say they have faith in that belief. We say they have faith in that belief because it is a belief that is unprovable.

 

All of the theists that believe "A" is true believe "B" to be false. Most of t he atheists that believe "A" is false tend to believe that "B" is true but some of them have their doubts. Then there are some that believe "B" is true beyond any doubt, they are certain of it. They too have a firm belief in something that is unprovable but you claim they do not have faith in their position, none of them. Does that mean you claim they all have a doubt to some extent? That it is impossible for any of them to believe "B" true faithfully?

[Pyrotex]

So no one ever has faith that they are right or wrong? You claim that there is not even one single person with such certainty about anything that they have faith that they are right or wrong?... ?

You gotta be careful how you use words!

 

If you are going to use "faith" as merely another synonym of "belief" and "certainty" and "knowing" then it's going to be impossible to make a clear case of your point.

 

There are people who have faith without certainty. There are people who believe without faith. Etcetera, etcetera.

 

Anyone want to take a shot at defining these terms in some kind of mutually exclusive way?

[coldcreation]

[snip]

Consider 2 hypotheses:

A. There is a God.

B. There are no Gods.

[snip]

All of the theists that believe "A" is true believe "B" to be false. Most of t he atheists that believe "A" is false tend to believe that "B" is true but some of them have their doubts. Then there are some that believe "B" is true beyond any doubt, they are certain of it. They too have a firm belief in something that is unprovable but you claim they do not have faith in their position, none of them. Does that mean you claim they all have a doubt to some extent? That it is impossible for any of them to believe "B" true faithfully?

 

No one is saying that they believe "B" is true "beyond any doubt," or that they are "certain of it." Dawkins only added that type of atheist to the list for symmetry, remember? How could anyone be certain of "A" or "B" when there is absolutely no evidence to confirm or falsify either or?

 

Atheists simply have a firm disbelief in something [god]. That the concept is unprovable does not ameliorate the situation. They do not have faith in their position.

 

So, do "strong atheists" have doubts that evidence will one day present itself in favor of the god concept? Sure, just as they have doubts that ghosts, demons, devils, phantoms, angels, werewolves, fairies, and other exotic, paranormal or supernatural entities will someday manifests themselves to the masses. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

You gotta be careful how you use words!

 

I made it clear early in the thread I was not using the word faith as used to describe religious faith. Only as it is defined something that someone believes without proof.

 

No one is saying that they believe "B" is true "beyond any doubt," or that they are "certain of it."

 

Prove it. Prove there are no atheists that claim with certainty that there are no Gods. That there is no one that claims "B" is true. Ask the owner of NOgods.org what he/she thinks.

[coldcreation]

I made it clear early in the thread I was not using the word faith as used to describe religious faith. Only as it is defined something that someone believes without proof.

 

And yet earlier in this thread you wrote:

 

[snip]They are different than strong atheists which claim to believe there is/are no god(s) but they are still atheists none the less. FWIW, I do view strong atheism as a position of faith much like theism is.

 

And I've argued that the atheist (and/or strong atheists) position is not at all a position of faith like theism.

 

 

And then you wrote:

 

[snip]Another set, strong atheists, claims that there is no possible way that any deities could exist. They exhibit a belief, a claim, that the existence of a deity or supreme being is not even possible and have nothing but faith to base such an affirmative conclusion on. [...] I think those that have an affirmative belief that there are no deities have nothing but faith to rest that conclusion on.

 

It seem that the first phrase in bold would require some kind of source to back up that supposed claim.

 

"Nothing but faith"? Nonsense.

 

"Affirmative conclusion"? It's the exact opposite. The conclusion is that god does not exist. That is a negative conclusion, a disbelief.

 

 

[snip] I would challenge anyone that claims to be a 7 to prove how they can "know" there is no god(s) with any proof other than faith. [...] Position 7 is one of faith for it cannot be proven in any way.

 

Everyone knows the concept of god cannot be proven. No faith-based initiative required.

 

 

And then in post 55, for the first time, you define what you mean by Faith:

 

[snip] Then again, faith is not always a negative thing. I have faith that I will not float off into outer space. That gravity will continue to work even if we can't prove how it works. I also do not consider my faith in gravity to be a religion

 

Well, it wasn't really a definition, but at least you vacated the religious conotations. Thanks for that!

 

But "faith in gravity"? You must be joking. :Alien:

 

 

Subsequently, you wrote:

 

[snip] For the sake of complicating the matter further [...] I believe the whole debate is basically meaningless until someone comes up with a definition of god that everyone agrees on. How can you talk about "what" does or does not exist if you don't define the "what" to begin with. Over in India they think cows are gods and if that's the definition one wants to use then you could label me a gnostic-theist because I don't just believe cows exist, I know they exist

 

I will agree with you on that point. Faith is a pretty straight forward word, but no one has defined "god". And I doubt that definition is forthcoming any time soon. In that sense a strong atheist (depending on how he or she defines god) might as well be justifies in claiming "I Know..." since he/she will define god in any which way is convenient: exactly what C. G. Jung did.

 

Note too, though, after that you wrote:

 

[...] I've not said they have a belief system or that they are anything but atheist BUT that those that hold an affirmative belief that there is no god do so on "faith" and nothing else. That there are people which have faith that there is/are no god(s).

 

Here I agree that strong atheist do not have a 'belief system'. But then you write "faith" in quotes as if it means something different from the standard dictionary definitions (or for some other reason), again with the same claim about faith in no gods.

 

 

IMO, anyone that makes an affirmative claim that anything does or does not exist carries a burden of proof with that claim. Believe what you want but if you're going to tell me you "know" then be prepared to back up your claim.

 

There is nothing affirmative about the claim that something doesn't exist, that there are NO gods. The burden of proof resides on those that claim something does exist (or that a hypothesis is true).

 

 

Finally, before you posted #77, you went to the Webster dictionary and looked up "faith" and highlighted your definition in bold:

 

2b(1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof

 

The problem is, of course, that throughout this dialogue you've been writing that both groups of extremes (the 1 and 7 on Dawkins' scale) have "faith" that what they believe is true without differentiating between two distinct (if somewhat overlapping) meanings of the word 'faith.' Now you claim the theists have religious faith (which adheres to a system of religious beliefs) and the others not.

 

The key point is that strong atheists don't have a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. They have a very firm DISBELIEF in something for which there is no proof. That indubitably falls outside the definition of faith (any of them).

 

 

Now, to finish up on the topic of your last post:

 

No one is saying that they believe "B" [there are no Gods] is true "beyond any doubt," or that they are "certain of it."

 

Prove it. Prove there are no atheists that claim with certainty that there are no Gods. That there is no one that claims "B" is true. Ask the owner of NOgods.org what he/she thinks.

 

Actually I was mistaken. No one had made the claim that strong atheists believed there are no gods "beyond any doubt" or that they were "certain of it" except for you.

 

If you look hard enough you may find someone else foolish enough to make such a claim. As perhaps Jung was foolish to make his infamous claim. But as Dawkins pointed out they are nothing more than a hand full (if that). And all they are doing is voicing their denial, disavowal, refusal, refutation of the concept of god. That is hardly an affirmative stance. So really, we are literally arguing over nothing.

 

En passant, I noticed there was no mention in your above link of "beyond any doubt" or "certain of it."

 

 

Interestingly enough, we don't ask of hard core theologians to prove god exists. Nor had anyone ask Jung to prove how he "knows," why should we ask of strong atheists to prove god doesn't exist?

 

 

 

_________________

 

 

Perhaps I should have followed Alexander's philosophical vow: never to talk about religion. We should put atheism on the list of things not to debate. Though it was interesting, kind of. This is actually the first discussion I've ever experienced where atheists are battling it out over technical nonsense. It's almost as if that's exactly what the lunatic that started this whole thread wanted to see: kind of like when you pit Republicans against one another. Division of the ranks is always advantageous to the Dems (in that example). Well, if that's the case his/her wish came true.

 

 

I will argue that is was a healthy debate, and all the more so since it was heated, at times. There's nothing more boring than a debated within which everyone agrees on all the issues, especially atheists.

 

My wish though, is that we can place our differences on these matters (of faith, knowledge, belief and lack of...) aside in the hopes that Hypography will continue to maintain its keen edge over other science fora, with its reputation as an open platform that promotes the exchange of divers ideas founded on the methods of science; a place where you learn something everyday and have fun at the same time!

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe there are atheists that not only disbelieve, they actively claim there is no god, no heaven, no angels, no hell. They are not that hard to find, I gave you a link to one. For someone to make such a claim, without proof, to believe it true, is no different than the extremists at the other end in that they have faith in what they believe.

[coldcreation]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Oh, I don't think we need go to that extreme.

 

 

I believe there are atheists that not only disbelieve, they actively claim there is no god, no heaven, no angels, no hell. They are not that hard to find, I gave you a link to one.

 

True, at least that's what someone wrote on a website. Of course that webpage is not a good reference, at all. Not on par with Jung in any case. Edit: First, it doesn't support your assertion, and ( it's just a series of quotes by people, some famous (e.g., George Carlin, Marilyn Manson) and some unknown, with a touch of philosophy about moral law. Did you even explore what's inside that link? In addition, you will likely find no one that makes such a claim in a reputable journal, BBC interview, magazine or other publication of any kind. Just like Dawkins wrote: I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7.

 

That link is not an example of "strong" atheism, that's simply atheism. Claiming "no god, no heaven" etc., is not the same as what you wrote: that "B" is true "beyond any doubt," they are "certain of it," there are no gods.

 

That, you will most certainly find nowhere.

 

 

For someone to make such a claim, without proof, to believe it true, is no different than the extremists at the other end in that they have faith in what they believe.

 

Again, you're the only one making that supposed claim. And, your still mixing up two definitions of faith. One religious and the other not. The fact is, one group has faith that god exists and the others disbelieve the assertion that god exists.

 

Strong atheists don't claim to believe anything true, they believe something false, for a wide variety of reasons, one of which is the lack of proof, i.e., there is no physical evidence to support the claim. It's really that simple.

 

Even if "strong atheists" made the claim you accuse them of, the position is entirely different from that of the opposing camp. One has faith that god exists, the other does not. One has faith that the god concept is true, the other thinks it's false. That is the diametrical opposite (it's not some other kind of faith).

 

 

 

Notwithstanding, you may still have an exit strategy:

 

All you need to do now is either (1) retract your statement that strong atheists claim it is true there are no gods "beyond any doubt," that they are "certain of it," or provide the source(s) upon which you base your claim.

 

And (2) you can retract your initial claim that "strong atheism" is a "position of faith much like theism is," or back up your claim: elaborate precisely on the extent to which you think the diametrically opposed position of atheism is "much like theism" and the extent to which the positions are dissimilar.

 

 

 

CC

[A23]

God is eternal, but God is a universal consciousness,

hence God knows it exists itself,

hence God cannot be an Atheist.

Since God is unique and eternal, there will remain only a theist being.

[C1ay]

Oh, I don't think we need go to that extreme.

 

Why not? The difference between us is this. For you the axis of theistic belief runs from 0 to full belief, from a total lack of belief to complete belief. For me it runs from belief to belief. You believe the strongest of atheists simply lack belief in gods totally, that there is no one, not one person, that "believes" there are no gods. I believe there are people whom not only claim to believe there are no gods, they claim to know it. For them atheism is not a belief system but their belief that there are no gods is still that, a belief. An unprovable belief.

 

We could go back and forth for hundreds of pages and you would not convince me these people don't exist so we might as well agree to disagree.

[coldcreation]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Oh, I don't think we need go to that extreme.

 

Why not? The difference between us is this. For you the axis of theistic belief runs from 0 to full belief, from a total lack of belief to complete belief. For me it runs from belief to belief. You believe the strongest of atheists simply lack belief in gods totally, that there is no one, not one person, that "believes" there are no gods. I believe there are people whom not only claim to believe there are no gods, they claim to know it. For them atheism is not a belief system but their belief that there are no gods is still that, a belief. An unprovable belief.

 

 

Well, the good news is you've dropped the concept of "faith" from your discourse. So now you agree with Dawkins when he writes, "Atheists do not have faith." On that at least we can agree.

 

The good news, too, is that you've retracted the claim that strong atheists know god does not exist, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that they are "certain of it." I can only conclude that you are without a source to back that claim. :confused:

 

 

The bad news, though, is that you've replaced the word faith with the term believe. An "unprovable belief" even. One cannot prove or disprove a belief. A person has a belief or she doesn't. One proves or disproves a proposition, a premise, or hypothesis. Belief is simply a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition, premise or hypothesis to be true.

 

The bad news, too, is that you still seem to misunderstand Dawkins' spectrum of probabilities, about the existence of God between two extremes of opposite certainty. One extreme believes that god exists, with certainty. The other group (however small in number they might be) disbelieves that god exists, with certainty to some extent.

 

 

I also note, in another thread, on the definition of god, you wrote:

 

"God" is a meaningless term since it means something different to everybody....

 

And:

 

[snip] There are thousands of religions and thousands of definitions for 'God'. IT IS NOT A CONCISE TERM....

 

It follows from your 'definition' of god above that strong atheists are entitled (as everyone else) to interpret the meaning of god as they see fit, or as they please. There is nothing, then, that prevents them form drawing a conclusion that the god of their own devise does not exist, and to "know" that to be the case: to perceive directly, to have direct cognition, that this god is not operational anywhere, and so has a very strong probability of being nonexistent (just as the tooth fairy: insert your pet supernatural entity). That is not a belief. Nor was it for Jung.

 

[Edit]: In another way, based on your "God" is a meaningless term link, any stance of the type "god does not exist" is made with respect to a particular concept of what one claims to consider "god" to represent. It follows, the expression "I don't believe god exists" need not be based on a belief. [End edit]

 

So it seems your term "believe" in lieu of "faith" is equally as indefensible. :D

 

 

[Edit 2] In sum, it is an error to equate a lack of belief with a belief. Disbelief in the veracity of a hypothesis is not equivalent to the "belief" that the proposition is false, or that the opposite is true.

 

Strong atheism is nothing more than an effective and categorical disbelief, or complete lack of belief in the existence of god(s). [end edit]

 

 

 

We could go back and forth for hundreds of pages and you would not convince me these people don't exist so we might as well agree to disagree.

 

 

“Compelling reason will never convince blinding emotion.”

(Richard Bach)

 

 

 

CC