Atheism is Theism
Offline Greetings sirs and madams of this fine internet forum, it is currently two-oh-seven in the AM on the east coast, and I have to wake up at six tomorrow.
Disregarding my insomnia, I would like to present to you a fine idea which I'm sure some of you would agree with, and perhaps disagree with. I, myself, am agnostic; that is to say, I accept ignorance. This idea is, I am sure, by far not an original one - mostly I want to read your responses, and what you think of the idea. I am, of course, speaking to the atheists; those who I believe are just as wrong as the most die-hard Catholic.
The problem with modern Religion in general is that most people assume we must believe in a binary state - in electronics, digital, in probability theory, a bernouli trial - that is, it can only be a 1 or a 0, on or off, truthful or false, correct or incorrect. But in reality there is a middle ground - simply stating that human ignorance stretches too far for us to ever know anything, and thus, we should accept ignorance instead of assuming correct or incorrect, truth or false, a 1 or a 0. We simply do not know, and we never will, so why make assumptions?
My understanding is this: one of the stipulations of the word "atheism" is that God does not exist. All of my thought is based on this - how can you just state that God does not exist? One has just as little evidence to prove God's existence as one has to disprove God's existence. I have always found it interesting to imagine - perhaps God exists in a dimension outside of our four, perhaps the fifth or sixth or seventh. Perhaps time is not applicable - perhaps he is omniscient. Who are we to speculate?
So, perhaps, answer me this: Can you disprove the existence of God?
- Login to post comments
Can I get a "not this crap again" pic over here?
Seriously, I just saw a dozen people convinced this was an equally astonishing revelation. Lurk moar, and come back when ya got something.
It took quite a while for me to find that well-hidden "reply" button. Pfah!
And sir, perhaps, instead of blatantly insulting my writing you could simply point me into the direction of a resource which will solve this problem and tie it up in a neat little bow.
We could... or we could wait for "Deludedgod" to come in here and post his answer.
Which would take you about a week to read, and 3 more to understand...
What Would Kharn Do?
It's not my problem you're too lazy to get the lay of the land, so don't get snippy.
Am I Agnostic or Atheist? (right in the sidebar, BTW)
Confusion Regarding What it Means to Be an Atheist
Dispelling Etymological Myths, Version 1.5 . . .
This just in:
Atypical is typical !!
Who knew ?
In a binary proposition, is it n00b or n11b?
The problem here is really your lack of understanding of what the words atheist and agnostic actually mean.
Atheist does not neccessarily imply a denial of the existance of god, but more accuratly a disbelief in the existance of god due to one of many reasons (ignorance, no justification for belief etc).
The stance of Atheist or Theist is simply a stance on whether you do believe in god. If you are not sure, then you do not believe (aka you disbelieve) in a god and are therefor an atheist.
Agnostic is has nothing to do with the existance of god, but is rather a topic about the knowledge of god.
Most people on here are Agnostic Atheists including all the core members of the RRS, as well as myself. It is not possible for anyone to disprove the non-existance of something, which is why we are agnostics. That said, we believe that based on the total lack of evidence it is extremely unlikely and does not justify a belief in god.
I don't want you to make this out to people trying to make you feel bad. The response yo uare seeing here is because of how immensly common this comes up. The definitions of the word Atheist and Agnostic are hands-down the most common misconceptions out there and is something that we are activly trying to correct.
Please read this: Am I Agnostic or Atheist?
The fact that this is so common is why there is a link to that page in the menu on the left.
It's about religion, not GOD. god is a word , a word is not GOD.
LMFAO .... then I cry .... over and over
Atheism Books.
Google "burden of proof"
Are you agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster?
Can you disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?
Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy?
Can you disprove the existence fo the tooth fairy?
I hope you're getting the drift.
You're an atheist.
You've been shizzled...
I love this guy's "checkmate smugness"...LOL
Hahaa awesome kitty! My fiirst thought also...
I know one thing for certain, "Goddesses" exist!
Dude, you seriously need to get laid
>.>
or neuter'd...
What Would Kharn Do?
Heck, getting laid just makes it worse .... neuter'd ...? then I would be really frusturated with no relief at all
Atheism Books.
It is not possible for anyone to disprove the non-existance of something, which is why we are agnostics.
This is a common misconception. Have you never heard of the IPU (invisible pink unicorn), for example?
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Of course. What is the misconception? It is extremely unlikely but I can not say with certainty that a god does not exist, but that I don't believe them to exist. There is no misconception there.
The misconception is that you cannot prove that something doesn't exist. The IPU is an example, because you can prove it doesn't exist by virtue of the fact that it's not possible (well, depending on your definition of invisible). I've yet to see a coherent/valid (and useful) definition of god.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Correct...but where is my misconception? I can't prove that it does not exist, so I can not deny it's existence with certainty. That is the stance of most agnostic atheists which make up the majority of atheists.
Well, you didn't just say that you can't prove it doesn't exist. You asserted that it was not possible to prove, which is a common misconception.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
I'm not seeing the difference here. I can't prove it because I don't believe it possible to prove the non-existence of something. Could you please explain to me how one would go about proving the non-existence of something.
As I said:
"The IPU is an example, because you can prove it doesn't exist by virtue of the fact that it's not possible (well, depending on your definition of invisible)."
The IPU isn't the best example, because you can argue about what is meant by "invisible," but if something is defined such that the definition contradicts itself, it's not to hard to prove it doesn't exist. People are generally thinking more along the lines of, say, disproving the existence of fairies. There could be fairies that have evaded detection, or that exist on other planets or some such. The argument is that you'd basically have to be omniscient to know that there are no fairies. You don't need to be omniscient though to prove there are no square circles...
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Well then if that is the case, a supernatural god such as the christian, muslim.....and well practically all gods that can suspend the natural laws of this universe are by virtue not possible. Hence the reason I do not believe in any gods, because by of their characteristics, it is impossible for them to exist in this reality at all, and therefore cannot affect this universe or it's reality, because to affect it they must be part of this reality and universe, and are govern by the natural laws within it. It makes it impossible for them to defy these laws.
You're right; the various religious gods are basically defined out of existence, but I have seen attempts to argue the contrary. One thing I can point out that should be made clear to avoid certain arguments is that there are the laws of nature as we know them (as discovered by science), and the laws of nature as they actually exist, regardless of whether we know them or not. Something may defy the laws of nature as we know them, but nothing can defy the laws of nature as they actually exist.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Not only can I not prove that there is no unmeasurable entity, I also cannot prove that there are no unmeasurable entities. You're also right that there is just as little proof to prove God's non-existence as there is proof for his existence. There isn't any. So ... what were you talking about again?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Oh shit, all this was over semantics...sorry, I figured I'd give people the benefit of the doubt that they would know what I was getting at. I guess there always has to be someone that has to take everything 100% literal and argue the semantics. I apologize for the assumption.
Uh, just what were you getting at then? If you agree with me then it seems you weren't saying what you meant, but most people do mean that when they make that statement. It's not just a matter of taking it literally. Saying it cannot be proven is entirely different from saying you don't see how it could be proven.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
*sigh*
I was speaking specifically of deities in this case or things that we have no evidence for...but fuck it...
You have no evidence that circle is not a square somewhere. By our definition those things contradict, but can you prove that our laws about what those are defined as are relative to all possible existences?
No circle-squares exist within our reality, but can you prove that they do not in all realities?
And if you are wondering, yes, this is my ass talking.
"Can you disprove the existence of God?"
Burden of proof lies with the claimer. Atheists have little interest in disproving something which has provided no evidence of it's existance. It can be likened to disproving unicorns.
Right, but on the other hand I can prove god exists by simply defining god as all there is and all that is not ! , God = All. Religion is dirt dumb.
Atheism Books.
You can prove a negative.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
"Lack of evidence is proof of non-existence" is essentially what I am seeing there. I don't agree with the conclusion.
No. You're right; lack of evidence is not necessarily proof of nonexistence. The point is, you can prove a negative. That means it's not impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. The very claim "there is no proof of the nonexistence of god" is a negative itself, and would therefore be unprovable by that reasoning.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Saying atheism is a religion, is like saying off is a TV channel.
Saying atheism is theism, is like saying off is actually on
atheism and theism are mutually exclusive. the word atheist (a-theist) literally means "Not theist"
Congratulations, you're also an atheist! Sorry, I didn't prepare a cake.
Theism is the BELIEF that there is a god, atheism is the lack of this BELIEF. The agnostic term refers to not having KNOWLEDGE (gnosis). By accepting ignorance on the topic of the existence of god, you also obviously do not also BELIEVE in that god. Remember, theism BELIEVES in a god (regardless of knowledge), "don't know" then exists in the "DO NOT BELIEVE" set.
One might claim we can't have absolute KNOWLEDGE other than accepting the fact that we exist somehow as a self. Claiming we cannot have absolute knowledge, however, doesn't help our day-to-day functioning. This is what you might call reasonable knowledge or practical knowledge. Whether or not the world is ACTUALLY as we perceive it is irrelevant, if we're all reasonably certain the world is as we think it is. We function daily on this knowledge. Do you sit and wonder if your car is really there, or do you hop in and drive it? On some quantum level, maybe it could be that the car isn't exactly as we perceive it, but it remains practical that we expect that car to do what we think it will do.
We can be reasonably and practically certain that most claims to a god are without merit, so we can practically know that many of these claims are simply fantasy and made up. Most of us don't claim we have absolute knowledge and know that it all areas of the universe "no god" is true. However, from testing the countless claims for gods that are without real backing, it seems very likely that the stance "no belief in god" and "not god" are pretty close to converging.
Hopefully I cleared this stuff up above for you. You're confusing knowledge and belief and which one belongs to atheism.
This isn't our question to answer. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim for a god. We're simply evaluating those claims and going "nope, that doesn't add up. we'll continue to not believe that claim." Google around for 'burden of proof' and see what you can see.
We're all lucky court doesn't work like this. You'd simply have to accuse someone of something and then tell them to prove it didn't happen. Then the possible number of accusations would be nearly infinite, and you'd be wasting everyone's time. Doesn't it seem natural that if someone is declaring something to be true, that person needs to be the one with the evidence.
Also, nevermind the others. They get a little grumpy because we see the same arguments so often. Most of what you've said has been discussed and countered ad nauseum elsewhere on the site.
The questions you're asking are the building blocks for understanding this stuff, and I don't mind walking people through it. It'd be like a first grade teacher going all crazy because they have to teach the SAME alphabet to every damn class every year.
Have you posted this to the slogan suggestions? I like that one.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
There's slogan suggestions?
I prefer the better known quote, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color" by Don Hirschberg.
----
Faith is not a virtue.
Well I would say this. The concept of god was bred from early humans who had no way to explain anything, so rather than NOT have an explanation, they made up a story/stories to give the things around them meaning. They wrote books about these stories. These books can be verified as fallible, inaccurate and downright fiction. So if you can accept that none of the books representing this deity are correct, what are you left with? What reason do you have to reasonably think such a being exists when you discover that every book claiming to specifically know the true nature and will of the being is wrong?
Maybe just maybe it's possible it's out there and started all this, but until there's something that would LEAD me to believe that there's no reason to.
The more you know about the world around you, the less you have to make up.
Atheism, for me, is a tentative postion that states "there is no God". In other words I simply do not have any evidence towards there being a god. If some form of evidence were to fall out of the sky I will then change my position, but as of now no such thing has happened.
Imagine if your entire life were based on what was written down in your day planner, date book, organizer, or otherwise. One appointment is missed or something has to be improvised during the course of this rigidly re-planned 24 hours, and now you are utterly broken because your preconclusions have been shattered. Well, the way you think of atheism is much the same way. You seem to have this desire have certain knowledge, and so the best you can do is to accept you have none at all. I'm afraid progress doesn't really enjoy that type of 'certainty of uncertainty' you have to pick a direction and be open to being wrong. I've decided, based on what I can gather, that there exists no god in any heaven, if I am wrong I am willing to correct myself... but I would rather try and fail then never try at all.
I've been in the twilight of your mindset, sir, and all I can say about it is that staying still never solves anything. Experiment, consider, educate your self, and remember there is no shame in experimenting with new ways of looking at things.. who knows.. you may even one day find truth.
I now want to finish with intense phycobabble.
Can you not disprove the nonexistence of God? If so, then can you prove the disproof of the nonexistence of the God that does not exist? Perhaps you can identify the nondescript identidy of the nonexisting God that may or may not exist depending on what day it is?
Alright, all out of my system.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
This seems like a good place to make a first post since it is a re-hashed topic
I like the stance of "Unconvinced Atheist" you put forth. This is how I feel. I am a scientist/medical student and rely on data. I am not so arrogant to ass-u-me that I know everything about the world and its existence or non-existence of deities. I know enough to know that I dont know enough. Thus, this means that I am open to evidence and will continue to maintain a malleable position. Currently I find the evidence for the existence of god to be very wanting which dictates my position that, so far as I know, there is no god.
Agnostics, IMHO, are as described above - without knowledge of a god, but they can still be spiritual and believe in a "force" or forces like the Jedi or the Wiken. It would be my feeling that an atheist would be most understood to believe in nothing spiritual (perhaps not the Websters version, but the colloquial version).
Nice place you have here, glad to be a member
Mike in the rural bible belt of PA.
Closer to apes than most
Welcome to the forums, Dr. Evil.
Dr.Evil... so help me, you better do that name justice >.>
hehe
No worries there. I am a "damned soul cursed to eternal hell fire" and about 15mo away from earning my MD
Mike in the rural bible belt of PA.
Closer to apes than most
Wait! Then wouldn't that make you INTERN EVIL?
Not that I'd know. I've never done the MD thing. Everything I know about it came from the one episode of Scrubs I watched a couple of years ago.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Nope, interns are doctors, too. I am not an intern yet, just a student, but I have bestowed upon myself an honorary doctorate of mischief
Mike in the rural bible belt of PA.
Closer to apes than most
I don't need to disprove god. the theists do a pretty good job disproving god themselves. you would think that if they believed it they would hate life. if the government installed cameras in your house to watch you 24/7 and it was law would you ever feel like living that. of course not.
See there are not enough theists killing themselves for having no personal time. therefore they disprove gods just by living. maybe slightly conduluted thinking but its a solid arguement.
If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..