Atheism - Shadows of Doubt

[DaShi]

Originally posted by loinburger

It's statements like this that spawn invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters.

It's statements like this that spawn nonsensical debates. I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that aetheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, and thus must believe that he doesn't to remain aethiest. Religionistas must do the same but in vice versa.

[Lorizael]

You can't prove a negative. Cannot prove that God does not exist.

And a good atheist shouldn't try to.

A good atheist should go, I have seen no evidence that God exists, therefore I will not take God into consideration when determining my actions; as far as my life is concerned, God does not exist.

Atheism does not have to involve belief or faith.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DaShi
It's statements like this that spawn nonsensical debates. I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist. I'm simply stating that aetheists can't prove that God doesn't exist, and thus must believe that he doesn't to remain aethiest. Religionistas must do the same but in vice versa.

Nobody should need to "prove" anything -- the religionistas have faith, the atheists have doubt, and that's all that's really needed.

The problem with bringing proof into the picture is that nobody can prove that invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters don't exist (hence the reason I said that your statement spawns IPU's and FSM's, as these are common responses to the "atheists can't prove God doesn't exist" statement). The reason that IPU's and FSM's are irrelevant is because nobody has faith that IPU's and FSM's exist, whereas plenty of people have faith that God / gods exist. "Why do you have faith in God / doubt God's existence" is a valid question to ask a theist/atheist, whereas "prove that God exists / doesn't exist" is just going to get a bunch of idiotic ontological proofs or invisible pink unicorns.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lorizael
You can't prove a negative. Cannot prove that God does not exist.

Exactly, we take things on faith that they don't exist because we can't prove that they don't.

And a good atheist shouldn't try to.

I agree.

A good atheist should go, I have seen no evidence that God exists, therefore I will not take God into consideration when determining my actions; as far as my life is concerned, God does not exist.

A good religionistas would go, I have perceived evidence that God exists, therefore I will take God into consideration when determining my actions; as far as my life is concerned, God does exist.

IMO, you're both crazy.

Atheism does not have to involve belief or faith.

Yes, it does, unless you suffer from a mental disorder.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger

Nobody should need to "prove" anything -- the religionistas have faith, the atheists have doubt, and that's all that's really needed.

except many "religionistas" have doubt as well. I have doubts about G-d, and also doubts about a universe without G-d. So I live in a state of contingency, in which I wrestle with G-d, and try to seek Her, with the tools that my tradition gives me. Im not assured of what I will find, and my faith is not in any theology, but that the search is worthwhile. That would seem to make me "not religious" by the definition of the christian fundies, a definition you apparently share.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by loinburger

Nobody should need to "prove" anything -- the religionistas have faith, the atheists have doubt, and that's all that's really needed.

The problem with bringing proof into the picture is that nobody can prove that invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters don't exist (hence the reason I said that your statement spawns IPU's and FSM's, as these are common responses to the "atheists can't prove God doesn't exist" statement). The reason that IPU's and FSM's are irrelevant is because nobody has faith that IPU's and FSM's exist, whereas plenty of people have faith that God / gods exist. "Why do you have faith in God / doubt God's existence" is a valid question to ask a theist/atheist, whereas "prove that God exists / doesn't exist" is just going to get a bunch of idiotic ontological proofs or invisible pink unicorns.

Originally posted by DaShi
I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DaShi
A good religionistas would go, I have perceived evidence that God exists, therefore I will take God into consideration when determining my actions; as far as my life is concerned, God does exist.

This isn't enough, though. The burden of proof is on the person trying to assert the existence of something.

I've seen lights in the night sky that I couldn't explain. This is evidence of UFOs and aliens. Therefore, I will take aliens into consideration when determining my actions.

But this is crazy. There's no proof here. It is illogical to base your decisions or actions off of something you cannot prove. It is not illogical to not base your actions off of something you have no proof for or against.

IMO, you're both crazy.

Yes, it does, unless you suffer from a mental disorder.

I probably do suffer from some mental disorder, but I'm no atheist.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
That would seem to make me "not religious" by the definition of the christian fundies, a definition you apparently share.

I never said that having faith/doubt was an either-or proposition -- the religionistas have faith, but that doesn't mean they can't have doubt as well. Come to that, the religionistas who don't have any doubt tend to scare the hell out of me.

I guess if I were asked to pin down the difference between an atheist and a religionist (without resorting to meaningless statements like "a religionist has a faith/doubt ratio in excess of 3/5"), I'd say that the religionist has sufficient faith that he has or will arrive at some metaphysical truth (be it G-d, Nirvana, etc.) that he seeks out that truth, whereas the atheist has sufficient doubt that he cannot find such a metaphysical truth (either because it is beyond his grasp or because it doesn't exist) that he doesn't attempt to seek it out.

Originally posted by DaShi
I'm not asking anyone to prove that God does/doesn't exist.

The problem is that you're equating faith with doubt, i.e., doubting a statement is the same as having faith in the opposite, which is crap. If I say "I doubt that it will rain tomorrow" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that it will not rain tomorrow." If I say "I doubt that God exists" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that God does not exist." Even if you take out the "absolute" qualifier the statements are still quite different. Plus, when you consider LOTM's post above, equating faith with doubt would mean that LOTM has faith that G-d exists and also has faith that G-d doesn't exist, which is silly.

[Nostromo]

except many "religionistas" have doubt as well. I have doubts about G-d, and also doubts about a universe without G-d. So I live in a state of contingency, in which I wrestle with G-d, and try to seek Her, with the tools that my tradition gives me. Im not assured of what I will find, and my faith is not in any theology, but that the search is worthwhile. That would seem to make me "not religious" by the definition of the christian fundies, a definition you apparently share.

There's something about that in the show. It would seem that some theologians formulated strong sceptical arguments just to test their faith.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lorizael


This isn't enough, though. The burden of proof is on the person trying to assert the existence of something.

What burden of proof? There is none.

I've seen lights in the night sky that I couldn't explain. This is evidence of UFOs and aliens. Therefore, I will take aliens into consideration when determining my actions.

Originally posted by DaShi
It's statements like this that spawn nonsensical debates.

But this is crazy. There's no proof here. It is illogical to base your decisions or actions off of something you cannot prove.

That's the unpredictability of life and is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is not illogical to not base your actions off of something you have no proof for or against.

What? So it is illogical? Anyway, irrelevant.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DaShi
What burden of proof? There is none.

That's the unpredictability of life and is irrelevant to the discussion.

What? So it is illogical? Anyway, irrelevant.

I like pie. Birds are pretty but they don't taste good. Oh look a butterfly!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lorizael
It is illogical to base your decisions or actions off of something you cannot prove.

We do this all the time, though. I can't prove that it's going to rain tomorrow, but I'm going to bring an umbrella anyway. I can't prove that the dissertation committee is going to pass me, but I'm going to try to finish my dissertation anyway. I can't prove that my parents are still going to be alive in fourteen days, but I bought them christmas presents anyway. It's impossible to function without basing some (if not all) of your decisions/actions on your unproven beliefs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by loinburger

I never said that having faith/doubt was an either-or proposition -- the religionistas have faith, but that doesn't mean they can't have doubt as well. Come to that, the religionistas who don't have any doubt tend to scare the hell out of me.

I guess if I were asked to pin down the difference between an atheist and a religionist (without resorting to meaningless statements like "a religionist has a faith/doubt ratio in excess of 3/5"), I'd say that the religionist has sufficient faith that he has or will arrive at some metaphysical truth (be it G-d, Nirvana, etc.) that he seeks out that truth, whereas the atheist has sufficient doubt that he cannot find such a metaphysical truth (either because it is beyond his grasp or because it doesn't exist) that he doesn't attempt to seek it out.


The problem is that you're equating faith with doubt, i.e., doubting a statement is the same as having faith in the opposite, which is crap. If I say "I doubt that it will rain tomorrow" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that it will not rain tomorrow." If I say "I doubt that God exists" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that God does not exist." Even if you take out the "absolute" qualifier the statements are still quite different. Plus, when you consider LOTM's post above, equating faith with doubt would mean that LOTM has faith that G-d exists and also has faith that G-d doesn't exist, which is silly.

to extend your metaphor, if i say "I believe it will rain tomorrow", so that, even lacking any proof it will rain, I want to walk the fields in search of atmospheric hints of rain, not even knowing what shape those will take (since ive never seen a cloud) and someone else says that their sense of things is that its NOT worth walking the fields, are they any LESS basing their lives on faith than I am? And if they mock me, by saying perhaps I should seek hints that green spaghetti flavored koolaid will drop from the skies, are they seriously engaging me? Are they perhaps missing the point?

All the spaghetti monster jokes seem to do that.

If I say X has a certain lack without Y, and Y could be Y1, Y2, Y3, etc, my statement justifies a search for Y, and perhaps positing the existence of Y as a working hypothesis, even though positing any given Y1 is absurd.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by loinburger
The problem is that you're equating faith with doubt, i.e., doubting a statement is the same as having faith in the opposite, which is crap. If I say "I doubt that it will rain tomorrow" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that it will not rain tomorrow." If I say "I doubt that God exists" then that's hardly the same thing as saying "I have absolute faith that God does not exist." Even if you take out the "absolute" qualifier the statements are still quite different. Plus, when you consider LOTM's post above, equating faith with doubt would mean that LOTM has faith that G-d exists and also has faith that G-d doesn't exist, which is silly.

1. I'm not equating faith with doubt. I'm equating belief with doubt.

2. I'm arguing about aetheism, not agnosticism. Aetheism doesn't allow doubt.

Sometimes I think the most interesting thing about debating on s'poly is that people are often arguing about what they want to rather than what the topic is actually about.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Lorizael


I like pie. Birds are pretty but they don't taste good. Oh look a butterfly!

Yes, that's spot on to what your responses have been looking like to me.