Does Ath*ism have a future? NO!

[A23]

For my criticizer, Well I didn't know some people were taking this seriously.

 

Sometimes a belief is like words put together looks like a proof ?, why do you say it is a 'proof' when all claims inside are beliefs, since 'GOD' were 'not accessible in a sensitive/ible experiment', like in the Kantian approach ? (Except if for some people God is this set of banks, insurances and several companies, with a lot of army people inside, there we don't see uniqueness and eternity...of course)

 

Then I could understand that if someone is chief (in the sense rich) of let say Bank of (sthg), that some people will take this one as God, and this will maybe become an atheist. ??

 

Of course no human could see a power above this, humanly..so, it defends itself as a concept.

 

This we see in Europe, when two Gods fight in the US, the weaker one, let say coded by G7,.,,lands somewhere in old Europe, or somewhere...else..we could see GOd landing in Switzerland and even making windows break, and people getting mad.

 

This why in Europe we could be afraid of God, because we already wonder what the new will be this time.

[CraigD]

For my criticizer, Well I didn't know some people were taking this seriously.

I don’t think your post in this thread has any critics yet, A23, so I’ll be the first

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.

The argument that at least one (conscious) being is a theist (believes one or more gods exist) because one eternal God that is a “universal consciousness” exists, and thus must know of His existence (with the same certainty that any being knows it exists), ultimately after all non-eternal beings no longer exist, is true only if it’s assumed that this God exists. If He doesn’t exist – which I and other atheists believe – the argument is false. So while the argument is a clever affirmation of the original posts rather weird and wierdly asserted claim that atheism has no future – or, more precisely, only theism have an ultimate, eternal future, it’s as unsupported as any claim of the certain existence of God.

 

This thread, rambling and free-form as it’s been, hasn’t wandered into the old theological territory of the question of the existence of God, but rather has been mostly about how to label individual humans with terms like “theist”, “atheist”, “gnostic”, and “agnostic”. I think we’d be wise to keep it that way.

[A23]

I received pm that was calling the stuff a wrote a 'proof', normally for this we receive the qualification "word salad". ?

 

The problem is maybe because between a human and God, there is this "chief of the human group", like trusts written before.

 

Normally people admit we meet God again only after death.

[CraigD]

The bad news, too, is that you (C1ay) 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 don’t think C1ay, or many of us that have been involved in this thread, misunderstand Dawkins’s spectrum of theistic probability. In it, as in most of his book The God Delusion, Dawkins is trying to present his ideas clearly, in a way understandable to the broadest possible audience. The spectrum, with its numbered “milestone”, is simply a precise statement, with relevant terms thrown in, of the common-sense “some people are certain God exists, some less certain, some more certain that He doesn’t exist than that He does, and some certain He does not.”

 

CC, I think we’re at risk of overcomplicating the term “believe”. How is the statement

Alice disbelieves that Bob has her bicycle.

different than

Alice believes that Bob does not have her bicycle.

or

Alice does not believes that Bob has her bicycle.

?

 

Absent an implied subtext (or “metacontext”) of Alice being concerned with the surety of her own knowledge (eg: “Alice neither believe nor does not believe that Bob has her bicycle, because she lacks enough information, and wishes to avoid believing a false statement”), I don’t believe these 3 statement are semantically different.

 

Theists, whatever their nearest milestone on the spectrum of theistic probability, believe god(s) (by whatever definition is agreed upon in the context of the question) exist. Atheists believe god(s) do not exist. This dichotomous definition is independent of which of these two positions is correct, which is best supported by evidence of any particular kind, or whether it’s possible to decide either of these questions.

 

I’m an atheist and a Bright, so I believe god(s), as described in religious and supernatural literature, do not physically exist, and that the totality of the best evidence and analysis supports my belief. Though some, I think, share my belief because of careful analysis of evidence, and though I have carefully considered evidence and arguments for and against the physical existence of god(s), as a gnostic atheist (my own term – see Oh, the terrible nuances), my belief is due mostly to a strong, emotionally-driven sense of knowing outside of the scope of conscious reasoning – gnosis, by that or any other name – of which I became suddenly consciously aware upon waking from a emotionally gripping dream (which I describe is slight detail in A personal account/an invitation to compare transpersonal psych to embodied realism).

[coldcreation]

I don’t think C1ay, or many of us that have been involved in this thread, misunderstand Dawkins’s spectrum of theistic probability.

 

There is clearly a misconception, expressed by C1ay, and Alexander (earlier in this thread), that strong atheism is just as untenable a position as theism. That misconception is embodied in the argument that the nonexistence of gods cannot be proven, and that to positively hold a position 'no god exists' requires some form of faith or belief "much like theism" or "no different than the extremists at the other end in that they have faith in what they believe" (to quote C1ay).

 

The quote to which you refer above, CraigD, had to do with C1ay's statement...

 

...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.

 

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

 

That is a misconception regarding the larger definitions of each category and the way the scale was intended, by Dawkins, to be understood.

 

 

CC, I think we’re at risk of overcomplicating the term “believe”. How is the statement

Alice disbelieves that Bob has her bicycle.

different than

Alice believes that Bob does not have her bicycle.

or

Alice does not believes that Bob has her bicycle.

?

 

The difference is one of terminology.

 

I understand your point. And you are doing the right thing in bringing that to attention. The difference is minimal, especially when considering Alice's bicycle. You could just as well replace believe with think, e.g., Alice thinks that Bob does not have her bicycle. Ot trusts, e.g., Alice trusts that Bob does not have her bicycle.

 

However, when the discussion is one of theism, or atheism, that terminology takes on an entirely different connotation. One has to be very careful about how words like belief and faith are used. For example, had C1ay wrote 'strong atheists think god does not exist' or '...don't think god exists' his point that there is no difference between strong theism (or #1 on the scale) and strong atheism would have been entirely lost. To make his point the words belief and faith had to be employed.

 

That, to me, is either disingenuous, faux-naïf or just plain naive.

 

 

My point throughout this thread has been to clear up this misconception. To do so it had to be made the distinction between 'believing' in something and not believing, having 'faith' in something and not having faith. To claim strong atheists believe or have faith that something does not exist, and so are extremists too, is ridiculous.

 

 

For the atheist it is question of confidence not faith or belief.

 

 

Interestingly enough the arguments of the type made by C1ay and Alexander (earlier in this thread) are usually made by theists (not agnostics) in an attempt to place atheism and theism on the same footing by arguing that neither theists nor atheists can prove that god exists, or does not exist. But this claim relies on the erroneous assumption that all hypotheses are created equal. It is an attempt to displace the burden of proof from those actually making the claim (that something exists) upon those who simply claim something does not exist.

 

Strong atheists merely refuse to accept the theist claim that God exists, i.e., they deny it. Thus the burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is not willing or able to provide sufficient reason to accept the existence of god, it is unreasonable to expect an atheist to construct a disproof—or even care much about the claim to begin with.

 

 

To set the record straight, disbelief in god(s) does not require faith, and disbelieving in the existence of gods is not another kind of dogma.

 

Strong atheism quintessentially takes the viewpoint that we live in a universe where existence is determined rationally through the method of science, by empirical evidence. Therefore, the default position of many strong atheists is that things which cannot be observed, tested and shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt simply do not exist.

 

The strong atheist position is that it is no more reasonable to believe the existence of gods than the existence of ghosts, goblins or allegorical winged unicorns. This is a refusal to grant the idea of god(s) special consideration over any other supernatural entity. They are all on equally weak footing. The strong atheist merely denies the supernatural, and does so confidently:

 

Nothing to do with belief or faith.

 

 

CC

[Boerseun]

my belief is due mostly to a strong, emotionally-driven sense of knowing outside of the scope of conscious reasoning – gnosis, by that or any other name – of which I became suddenly consciously aware upon waking from a emotionally gripping dream .

Amongst religious folk, this might be termed a "vision".

 

The active belief that there are no gods is not the same as the active disbelief in the entire concept. When you disbelief the concept, then it matters no whit how many gods there are or what the colour of their eyes might be. You do not pass the threshold of consideration in order to worry about the degree in which you don't believe it.

 

The atheist stance is, in my book at least, the default stance. Consider a guy living in isolation on a remote desert island. He's never had any contact with society. He's never even heard of the concept of "God" before. Where, on the 1-7 scale should he be put, for his disbelief in something he's never even heard of? It simply does not feature in his life. He does not belief in God as much as he does not belief in an orbiting circus tent around Pluto, complete with pink elephants and juggling midgets. By default, we do not believe in above-mentioned orbiting circus tent, because its at odds with everything we know of the natural world. Whoever made the claim that such an orbiting circus tent exist, complete with elephants and midgets, have taken the responsibility of proof upon themselves.

 

Also, I think a bit of perspective may be required here. In the theist/atheist debates, the theist position is always held as "reasonable", as if the mere fact that the majority of Earthlings believe a particular story lends any truth to it. Truth is, after all, not a democracy, and religion had thousands of years head start on the atheist naturalist movement, promising lollipops and cookies to its adherents - with the small caveat that they have to die first. I put it to you that atheism is the default, and that the theistic stance is as bizarre and indefensible as they come. The fact that the majority of Earthlings happen to believe it, is besides the point - the majority of Earthlings are still trapped in the 13th century. The average Earthling's opinion should be rather medieval.

 

Proposing that disbelieving God's existence is also a position of faith is ludicrous. Us atheists didn't invent the idea, and have actually no reason at all to invent things in order to disbelieve them. If disbelieving God's existence is a position of faith, is disbelieving the existence of a circus tent giving discount shows in orbit around Pluto also a position of faith? Is disbelieving the claims of a man in London saying he saw a doughnut-powered trans-dimensional flying sofa land in his front garden which then proceeded to uproot his daisies a position of faith? No, in both cases. Because it's at odds with the Laws of Nature. And we're not believing then in the truth of the Laws of Nature, either - because those Laws can be demonstrated time and time again. The Laws of Nature is simply not the same as the Laws of Moses, so to speak.

 

Short and to the point, religionistas have made the claims, religionistas must back it up. There is no point or profit in discussing to which degree atheists disagree with the absolute insanity that is the source of the biggest chunk of the Earth's population's ethics and morals.

[REASON]

I think it's important at this point to clarify what I understand C1ay's point to be. It is not an issue of believing or disbelieving, it is an issue of claiming to have knowledge - I know there is/are god(s) vs. I know there is/are no god(s). His argument is that to make such a claim without evidence or proof, to which in this case there can be none, relagates both claimants to a position of faith to support their claim.

 

CC, I think you have made a thorough case that it does not require faith to disbelieve something. But it may require faith to claim to know something which you can't support empirically.

 

Maybe the difference is somewhat moot. But around here, it is claims that require supporting references. Beliefs are more often challenged on their philosophy or reasoning, or simply ignored as purely subjective.

[coldcreation]

I think it's important at this point to clarify what I understand C1ay's point to be. It is not an issue of believing or disbelieving, it is an issue of claiming to have knowledge - I know there is/are god(s) vs. I know there is/are no god(s). His argument is that to make such a claim without evidence or proof, to which in this case there can be none, relagates both claimants to a position of faith to support their claim.

 

CC, I think you have made a thorough case that it does not require faith to disbelieve something. But it may require faith to claim to know something which you can't support empirically.

 

Maybe the difference is somewhat moot. But around here, it is claims that require supporting references. Beliefs are more often challenged on their philosophy or reasoning, or simply ignored as purely subjective.

 

 

 

You bring up a very important point REASON, albeit it's not one we haven't yet discussed. Much hinges on what exactly C. G. Jung meant by "I know, I don't need to believe, I know" when asked if he believes in god: since Dawkins refers specifically to him in the spectrum of probabilities linked many times in this thread. In short, Jung had stated that he does not believe, he "knows" based upon his own personal experience from a life lived within the core of his own "psyche." It was a subjective god, one that could be 'found' only within the unconsciousness of an individual. It was not an external god as is often postulated in divers religions. So not only was his god controversial (even to theologians), but exactly how one would go about "knowing" that god exists, without "believing" remains a mystery.

 

Perhaps Dawkins should have explained that better, or omitted the inclusion of Jung into his argument.

 

Even so, I see no reason why we should not expand the definition of 'know' to all of its other definitions and subdefinitions.

 

Lets look at the Merriam-Webster definitions for example:

 

Main Entry: 1know

Pronunciation: ˈnō

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): knew ˈnü also ˈnyü; known ˈnōn; know·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cnāwan; akin to Old High German bichnāan to recognize, Latin gnoscere, noscere to come to know, Greek gignōskein

Date: before 12th century

transitive verb

 

1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with

intransitive verb

1 : to have knowledge
2 : to be or become cognizant —sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

— know·able ˈnō-ə-bəl adjective

— know·er ˈnō-ər noun

— know from : to have knowledge of <didn't know from sibling rivalry — Penny Marshall>

 

First let me start off by saying that no one really knows god exists or not, i.e., everyone knows that it is unknowable. It is a known unknown, or an unknown unknown.

 

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know." (United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld).

 

 

There is no evidence either way. That is why no one seriously makes the claim of 'knowing' on either end of the spectrum.

 

That hasn't prevent people from trying to find proof. As in this example that I've linked before: THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE

 

Flashback: Where Lemaître was vague on just how the origin of the universe was to be defined or discussed, Pope Pius XII was obscure but not vague. For him it was possible to articulate explicitly the way in which the universal was embodied in the transcendental Creator. A paper was presented and printed in the world’s leading journal of physics, the year was 1952, the publication was Physical Review, and the author of the paper was George Gamow. A bad practical joke though it may have appeared to the subscribers, the paper nevertheless created a precedent upon which the big bang opposition would not fail to grab hold. In the paper was introduced a long drawn out citation by the pope in which he unequivocally and in no ambiguous terms officially accepted the big bang picture of creation as a rational support for the [irrational] doctrines of the Bible. The pope embraced the scientific community for having definitively proved the Church’s long-standing doctrine—giving new credibility to an old commandment, let there be light, is just a confirmation of what many had suspected from the start and served only as fuel to the fire in a controversy between cosmology and spirituality.

 

“Indeed, it would seem” explains the pope, “that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux, when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies. Thus with the concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a creator. Therefore, God exists.” (see Kragh, H. 1996, Cosmology and Controversy, The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe).

 

The pope had done more than just read about the big bang: He inhaled it.

 

Of course all one has to do is read that papal encyclical to arrive at the conclusion that it is nonsense, not proof at all.

 

 

 

The best summary I've read on the debate from both sides can be found here: Existence of God.

 

Arguments from the atheist viewpoint "aim at showing either that a particular subset of gods do not exist (by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts) or that there is insufficient reason to believe in them."

 

Strong atheists are likely well aware of most of these arguments. That is why no one makes the claim that they "know" god(s) do not exist. At least no one has provided a reliable source to that effect.

 

In this context the definitions above for "know" are kind of redundant. As far as epistemological knowledge, here what the Wiki article says:

 

Epistemology

 

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy which studies the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge. One cannot say that one "knows" something — or that the something is true — just because one believes it. Knowledge is, from an epistemological standpoint, distinguished from belief by justification.

 

Knowledge in the sense of "understanding of a fact or truth" can be divided into a posteriori knowledge, based on experience or deduction (see methodology), and a priori knowledge from introspection, axioms or self-evidence. Knowledge can also be described as a psychological state, since in a strict sense there can never be a posteriori knowledge proper (see relativism). Much of the disagreement about "proofs" of God's existence is due to different conceptions not only of the term "God" but also the terms "proof", "truth", and "knowledge". Religious belief from revelation or enlightenment (satori) can fall into either the first category, a posteriori knowledge, if rooted in deduction or personal revelation, or the second, a priori class of knowledge, if based on introspection.

 

 

 

The atheist (or strong atheist) position can be summed up as follows, in one word: Science.

 

That is the method from which they derive their knowledge.

 

 

Anyone else care to take a stab at it?

 

 

CC

[Boerseun]

There is no such thing as "God", or, at least, the Abrahamic God with all the bells and whistles attributed to him. And I can prove it. There's no "agnostic" or "We don't know and can't know" pussyfooting about here:

 

God is said to have been around in the time of Jesus. According to Islamic scripture, he was last seen around the time of Muhammed. Keep in mind that this is the same God, the God of Abraham.

 

He has the following attributes:

1) He is omnipotent,

2) He is omniscient.

 

This raises an issue. Being Omnipotent, being all-powerful, implies having access to infinite energy. Having infinite energy implies being of infinite mass, seeing as energy and mass is one and the same thing. According to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc², the only way for E on the left to be infinite is for m on the right to be infinite - seeing as c² stays constant.

 

Thus, if God was last seen during Muhammed's tenure in the Arabian world, roughly 1400 years ago, he can't be further away from Earth than a sphere with a radius of 1400 light years. And being of infinite mass to supply him with infinite energy, if God exist he would be the biggest black hole in the history of the universe. If stories of modern miracles are true then God is still close by, and we sure would have known about it. A black hole of the size implied by God's attributes will be pretty hard to miss, especially if that "miracle" happened any time in the recent past.

 

So......... it should be pretty clear that God's existence should be pretty obvious to anybody with a telescope, or he simply doesn't have the attributes assigned to him by superstitious humans. Which would kinda remove the "omnipotence" required to create the entire universe from scratch. Which would make this particular God pretty useless, and not remotely similar to the God that billions of Christians, Muslims and Jews worship.

 

There's my proof. There are no black holes within 1400 light years of Earth. There's no God. None of this spineless "agnostic" pussyfooting, here.

[C1ay]

That is why no one makes the claim that they "know" god(s) do not exist. At least no one has provided a reliable source to that effect.

 

Again, that is the difference right there in what you and I believe. Again and again you want to say these people do not exist and yet you've provided ZERO proof of that claim. Now if you want to claim as a fact over and over that these people DO NOT EXIST, then PROVE IT. That's what it boils down to right there, your repeated, unsubstantiated, unprovable claim that such people do not exist.

[coldcreation]

Again, that is the difference right there in what you and I believe. Again and again you want to say these people do not exist and yet you've provided ZERO proof of that claim. Now if you want to claim as a fact over and over that these people DO NOT EXIST, then PROVE IT. That's what it boils down to right there, your repeated, unsubstantiated, unprovable claim that such people do not exist.

 

All I find are people (e.g., strong atheists) NOT making the claim you accuse them of. That seems to be evidence enough that this brand of atheist exists, but that they are NOT claiming to "know" god does not exist (with certainty, or beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

I would think that Google, for example, would come up with at least one reputable link to such an assertion. Of course I've looked. Like Dawkins, I'd be surprised to ever meet a person (or even read the writings) of a person that makes such a claim. That's probably because everyone knows (strong theists and strong atheists alike) that such a claim is nonsensical. No one can know since there's no proof. And I repeat, the only reason Dawkins added that category 7 to the list was for symmetry.

 

Once more, I have yet to find evidence that these so-called strong atheists are claiming to "know" god does not exits, beyond a reasonable doubt (or not even). Until good evidence emerges that confirms such, I will assume that either no one is making the claim, or that these people are not publishing there views online.

 

Even if you could find a couple of claims of that nature online (besides the anonymous hit and run posters on public fora) you would still have to go to great lengths to demonstrate your claim that belief or faith is responsible. As you know now, Jungs claim has nothing to do with either faith of belief. Why would any one else's? And how would you go about proving the faith-belief-based intension anyway?

 

I have an idea :D. Since you made the claim that these people exist, and seeing as it's at the very core of your hypothesis (that strong atheism is subject to faith and/or belief, just as strong theism), why don't you find a reliable source and present it here in this thread. That way anyone can examine in detail what is meant by such an assertion, if anything at all.

 

I don't know C1ay. It seems like your position is a no-win situation. Why not just give up the ghost. I've done my best to highlight your misunderstandings and misinterpretations regarding the more confident atheists are how their views may be defined and interpreted. If you feel my contentions are amiss or that I misunderstand you, please provide the adequate sources that support your hypothesis (as I have done to support mine, with in-context quotes of the relevant material by R. Dawkins and C. G. Jung amongst others).

 

Anything else, unfortunately, is just hand-waving.

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

All I find are people (e.g., strong atheists) NOT making the claim you accuse them of. That seems to be evidence enough that this brand of atheist exists, but that they are NOT claiming to "know" god does not exist (with certainty, or beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

Because you can only find people that don't make an affirmative claim you take that as evidence they don't exist? We haven't found life elsewhere in the Universe either, does that mean it doesn't exist? Does it?

 

All I've said is that I "believe" people exist that have an affirmative "belief" that there are no god(s) and if these people do exist then their affirmative belief in a truth that cannot be proven is one of faith, the one word in the English language that is defined to mean a belief in something for which there is no proof. This is not a claim that they exist a claim that their belief is one of faith if they do exist. The fact that they would also be atheists like all other atheists does not extrapolate into any claim that this would be true for all atheists either, only those with an affirmative belief that god(s) do not exist, the group you claim over and over not to exist at all.

 

Now post after post you want to claim that these people do not exist and your only proof is that you can't find them. Sorry, the fact that you can't find something is no evidence at all that something does not exist. If you want to claim they DO NOT exist then prove it. Show with an observable, repeatable, verifiable method that this group of people absolutely does not exist and remember, I didn't say they do, only that their belief is one of faith if they do.

[CraigD]

The active belief that there are no gods is not the same as the active disbelief in the entire concept. When you disbelief the concept, then it matters no whit how many gods there are or what the colour of their eyes might be. You do not pass the threshold of consideration in order to worry about the degree in which you don't believe it.

I don’t believe disbelieving in all concepts of god(s) is sensible. It’s analogous to not believing the Russell's teapot analogy – that is, neither believing there is or is not a china teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars, but rejecting the possibility that there could be – or claiming not to understand what is meant by the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. One can, as I do, certainly and reasonably conclude that all concepts of god(s) (with the arguable exception of ones like Spinoza’s God, which simply posits the use of the term “God” for “the overall character of physical reality”, or conclusion such as Jung’s that gods and other supernatural entities are consequences of human psychodynamics) are not physically real, but the concepts, are, depending on how one wishes to consider them, either real non-physical entities, or, as I prefer, consequences of physically real brain chemistry and anatomy.

 

Repeatedly in this thread, I sense reluctance to use the term “believe” in the context of affirming non-supernatural propositions, because of its association with religion (“believers”) and fringe science and supernaturalism (“I want to believe”). I think this aversion is counter-productive: “believe” is a short, well-known word, commonly used to indicate agreement with propositions of many kinds, in my experience more often ordinary than supernatural.

 

Proposing that disbelieving God's existence is also a position of faith is ludicrous.

I agree, and think that statements like this point to an obvious distinction between theism – believing god(s) exist and explain the observed universe – and what I’ll avoid assigning the negative definition term atheism in favor of the positive term naturalism – believing natural processes explain the observed universe: Theism requires an act of faith – believing despite being contradicting by natural evidence, while naturalism, does not, as it isn’t contradicted by natural evidence.

 

For the role of faith in atheistic belief to be strongly similar to the role of faith in present-day theistic belief, it would be necessary for the general hypothesis that the universe can be explained by natural processes to be regularly contradicted. For example, if stereotypical gods and other supernatural beings were regularly seen to violate the laws of nature – creating worlds, parting seas, being in many places at once, smiting the unrighteous, etc – atheist would be a faith-based belief system. Atheists in such a world might make statements such as “I have faith that these seemingly supernatural events have natural explanations, which the gods refuse to explain or actively conceal from us humans.”

 

This brings up an idea I’ve long subscribed to: that for much of human prehistory and history, and for many present-day people, theistic beliefs were and are not faith-based. Before sufficiently detailed, well-experimentally supported physical theories explained everyday experiences, theories of an inert physical universe animated by supernatural processes – many of them “smart” enough to be considered at least minor gods – were supported by the best “science” (what’s usually now called “pre-science”). Even today, even in countries with mandatory free public science education, many people have little understanding of science, so with no need for acts of faith, find supernatural explanations of the universe – which they better understand – more convincing than natural ones – which they neither understand, nor trust when promoted by scientific authorities. Past and present theists of this kind don’t need faith, because the supernatural, including worldviews including their favored god(s), seems to them a rational explanation of the reality.

[coldcreation]

[snip] All I've said is that I "believe" people exist that have an affirmative "belief" that there are no god(s) and if these people do exist then their affirmative belief in a truth that cannot be proven is one of faith, the one word in the English language that is defined to mean a belief in something for which there is no proof. This is not a claim that they exist. [it is] a claim that their belief is one of faith if they do exist. [snip]

 

Sorry, the fact that you can't find something is no evidence at all that something does not exist. If you want to claim they DO NOT exist then prove it. Show with an observable, repeatable, verifiable method that this group of people absolutely does not exist and remember, I didn't say they do, only that their belief is one of faith if they do.

 

 

In retrospect, I probably should have accepted your "agree to disagree" conclusion. But that seemed somehow too easy, too extreme.

 

But then after reading your post above, several times, I noticed your stance has once again changed, it has changed for the better, despite the tone. I think we finally found some ground upon which we don't have to agree to disagree.

 

And I accept your current revised claim that "if" they existed (and you are not saying they do) and "if" they did believe with certainty (and claim they "know"), that their belief could be considered one of faith, since there is no proof.' Though I add that it would not be a kind of faith similar to that of a theist. I wouldn't call it faith but that's a technical issue that is not insurmountable, at least from my end; unless of course the untenable comparison is made with the faith of theists. It simply is too dissimilar for that. Especially considering the subjective leeway in actual definitions of god(s) which may vary not only from group to group, but from person to person.

 

 

You obviously must have searched, like I did, for strong atheists that claim he/she "knows" god does not exist and came up empty handed (again, as I did).

 

So we seem to agree and conclude that there are not many (if any) that would claim such a thing. And that if they did, there is no way the claim could be proven, since by definition, god is unverifiable, and so any assertions that claim gods exist, or not, and "I know," are doomed to failure.

 

The question remains: would the maintenance of such a claim be considered faith. On that answer, as we have seen, we still disagree. It depends e.g., on how one defines god.

 

 

On the score of your post above, it is a bit of a stretch to exclaim that these people would have an "affirmative belief that there are no gods," or an "affirmative belief in a truth" that cannot be proven. The former would be like saying theists have a negative doubt that god exists. And the latter would be like saying they have a negative distrust in the falsehood of god. That is a byproduct of mixing negative statements and affirmative statements in the same sentence. Only the highly dubious cogency of the argument remains within reach.

 

I have a feeling, anyway, that no matter how many links I provide that refute your claim you will persist in believing that there will always be other links (that I have not seen yet) which validate your assertion that strong atheists claim to "know" god exists not. So I have not compiled an extensive list. I have though provided a few examples of the strong atheism position (see below).

 

Evidently there are strong atheists out there, but they are NOT claiming to "know" god does not exist. And again it seems you haven't found any either or you would have posted them.

 

Oh, and asking people to prove "with an observable, repeatable, verifiable method that this group of people absolutely does not exist" is rather silly. To prove anything absolutely does not exist would be quite an endeavor. It would be much more productive to find evidence for the existence of entities or phenomena that can in principle be observed empirically. It is safe to say simply that certain things are highly improbable: like finding an atheist who claims she "knows" god doesn't exist.

 

 

Here are some references for whatever they're worth; non of which argue that strong atheists "know" god doesn't exist:

 

StrongAtheism.net - Your Number One Stop for Atheistic References - Arguments and Discussions

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strong Atheism Gods Atheists God Belief Exist Weak Atheist

Atheism is Based on Faith? Atheism Myths: Atheists Can't Disprove God & Have Faith in God's Nonexistence

Agnosticism / Atheism - Search Results

 

None of the other link I found make the claim "I know" either.

 

 

Finally, if fundamental intuition leads to sixth sense adherences we should better perhaps rely on experimental and observational data to guide us.

 

 

"God is a relative word" (Isaac Newton 1692)

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

None of the other link I found make the claim "I know" either.

 

So! Since you keep saying it over and over I'll ask again. Are you saying that just because you can't find something it doesn't exist?

[coldcreation]

 

None of the other link I found make the claim "I know" either.

 

So! Since you keep saying it over and over I'll ask again. Are you saying that just because you can't find something it doesn't exist?

 

Negative.

 

What I am saying is that none of the other links I found make the claim "I know" either. And until I find evidence that a person or group of people is/are making that claim the I will assume that your claim is unsupported, and therefore weak. Notice, I still leave open the possibility that you may find a reliable (or semi-reliable) source that makes the claim.

 

What I am saying, too, is that had you found someone claiming "I know god exists" you would have posted it long ago.

 

All of the online publications on the topic I have found so far define "strong atheism" as a term popularly used to describe atheists who claim that the statement "There is at least one god" is false.

 

Strong atheism (or positive atheism) is the position that no gods exist, and they assert that position explicitly:

 

Some strong atheists further assert that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible, for example claiming that the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (for example: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of such a god is a priori false. Source

 

Faith has nothing to do with the claim

 

 

These people—is contrast to weak atheists who simply state that they don't believe, rather than state the concept of god is false—provide logical proofs and empirical evidence (or lack of empirical evidence) to support their claim(s). Obviously, that would not have been possible had they claim to "know" god not to exist. So their stance is perfectly justified.

 

Thus the argument that they are victims of some form of belief or faith similar (or identical) to theists is erroneous, untenable. They merely don't belief in something for which there is no proof, and prefer a naturalistic approach to explain the events and phenomena that transpire in the physical universe.

 

They assume the concept of god is false pending empirical evidence to the contrary. They are more than skeptical about the god concept, and they are confident to a very high level of probability that empirical evidence confirming or corroborating the idea that deity (or deities) exist is not forthcoming, i.e., these are people for whom the probability of the nonexistence of god (the probability that god does not exist) is very high.

 

Their claim is that gods (and all subsets thereof) do not exist since there is insufficient reason to believe in them—by showing them as inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific evidence or historical facts. (See Arguments against the existence of God)

 

Until empirical evidence emerges that transubstantiates :) their stance they will remain skeptical, i.e., they will continue to hold that the god-godess-concept is false. [Though I would be willing to accept the latter. I see Godesses every day. ;)]

 

As you can see for yourself—if you study the relevant literature—that stance is not one of faith (as you chose to define the term, or as anyone else defines the term), nor is it one of belief (in the sense that theist 'believe' god exists).

 

See for example:

 

Martin, Michael (1990).

Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

. Temple University Press. p.*26. ISBN*0877229430.

 

Maritain, Jacques (July 1949).

On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism

. The Review of Politics 11 (3): 267–280. doi:10.1017/S0034670500044168.

 

Dawkins, Richard (2006)

The God Delusion

pp 50-51

 

Kenny, Anthony (2006).

Worshipping an Unknown God

. Ratio 19 (4): 442. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.2006.00339.x.

 

 

 

 

Those and other arguments presented in this thread pretty much seem to render lame—pending evidence to the contrary—the entire premise upon which you C1ay and Alexander base your opinion.

 

 

 

CC

[C1ay]

What I am saying is that none of the other links I found make the claim "I know" either. And until I find evidence that a person or group of people is/are making that claim the I will assume that your claim is unsupported, and therefore weak. Notice, I still leave open the possibility that you may find a reliable (or semi-reliable) source that makes the claim.

 

What claim? The claim that an affirmative belief in something for which there is no proof is a belief of faith? That's the only claim I made. I did say that I "believe" there are such people but that is not a claim, it is simply a belief. It's beginning to look like your "claim" that they don't exist is one of faith though since you have no proof they don't exist except the fact you can't find any.

 

Maybe I should make a another claim though. Perhaps that anyone drawing a conclusion that something doesn't exist only because they can't find evidence to support it's existence is a conclusion drawn in faith, an unproven belief in their own conclusion. Do you have faith that there is no one among the 7,000,000,000 people on Earth that claims to "know" there is no God?