There Is No God

Hooray atheistic religions. And slade, what exactly is your point that is proved? That each religion is different? I'm confused.

Ok, I agree that it is unlikely that if there is a god that it is exactly as one religion describes it. So you're saying the fact that a large amount of people don't believe in any sort of god (Buddhists) further proves this point? That makes sense.

Disbelief is not a belief. It's the lack of one.

This debate about agnostic vs. atheist has popped up (and dragged on) several times on Newsvine already. Needless to say, not everyone thinks that the definition of agnostic should preclude being an atheist at the same time.

I.e., to some people (including me), "atheist" means "does not believe in god", while "agnostic" means "the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven". It's still possible to both disbelieve in god and know that it cannot be proven.

I think this sums it up quite nicely.

It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. However, for all those agnostics of the more theistic persuasion, I believe it unfair to equate being agnostic to being atheist.

@Adam Kemp

I think you're kind of mixed up in your use of these terms. Agnosticism is not merely the idea that:

"the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven"

Many believers and non-believers would agree that proving one way or the other is not possible. Rather, Agnosticism reaches the conclusion that since the existence of God cannot be proven, the idea of God is irrelevant.

And about Atheism, according to Wikipedia,

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically include only those who assert the nonexistence of gods, excluding non-believing agnostics and other non-theists. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

For those particular Atheists who assert the claim, "There is no God" I would argue that they are engaging a kind of faith, since again, I do not think it is possible for you to prove that a Creator God does not exist.

Tim, again, this has been argued over and over. There's more than one definition. I'm not going to argue based on a difference of definitions. So long as we make it clear what the term means when we use it, then it doesn't matter what the "real" definition is. The only important thing is that you know what someone is talking about. In this case, we've given you the definition we're using so that you can understand what we're talking about. When slade says "agnostic", he's using the definition I gave above (a very common one if you ask around among the non-believers).

As for your "faith" comment, one does not have to prove that someone does not exist to lack a belief in it. I don't believe in unicorns either, but I'm not going to try to prove to you that they don't exist. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you also don't believe in unicorns, and that you also cannot prove they don't exist. Am I right? Is that by faith, or is it because there's no reason to believe in something for which no evidence exists?

I guess Adam and Slade see Agnostic as a adjective while I see it as a noun. I would still contend though that going about proving god's non-existance doesn't fit with any use of the word agnostic.

If you are an agnostic atheist under that definition it would mean you don't believe in any god and you don't think you can prove it either, yet this is an attempt at proving it.

Most things in life are already belief based because we lack the ability and time to prove them all personally. So you end up believing in the credibility of other people who tell you something and you believe them or not. Some people will tell you God talks to them, and many people find them incredible. Other people tell you energy leaks out of black holes, and many people find them incredible too :)

What's the difference? I couldn't tell you how to go about finding a black hole much less how to prove energy leaks out of it and yet I find Professor Hawking credible and believe it when he tells other people that tell me anyway.

So I see Agnosticism as a way of life in all things not just religious things, I personally know and experience a handful of things and I make logical deductions about the credibility of what other people tell me about everything else religion included.

As to this article's point that God can't exist because there are evil people. Well I just don't see how that is any better proof than the people who tell me God exists because there are good people.

If this article is supposed to be "proof" that God doesn't exist, then it fails miserably. No offense, slade. :)

That's just not true. You can prove that a proposition P is false. I'm not saying you can disprove God, I'm just being picky about logic.

So long as we make it clear what the term means when we use it, then it doesn't matter what the "real" definition is.

My point regarding your definition of the word agnostic was that it didn't distinguish much given the fact that both believers and non-believers can agree with the statement, "the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven."

The only important thing is that you know what someone is talking about. In this case, we've given you the definition we're using so that you can understand what we're talking about.

If your real concern is that other people understand what you are talking about, I think it does help to use the "real" definition of a word.

As for your "faith" comment, one does not have to prove that someone does not exist to lack a belief in it. I don't believe in unicorns either, but I'm not going to try to prove to you that they don't exist.

I'm not sure how Unicorns are relevant to the topic at hand, but I think you only managed to demonstrate my point. Proving the non-existence of something (whether that be God or Unicorns) is a pretty difficult task given how little of the Universe is under our purview.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you also don't believe in unicorns, and that you also cannot prove they don't exist. Am I right? Is that by faith, or is it because there's no reason to believe in something for which no evidence exists?

In your last sentence you suddenly equate a provable reality to evidence. Sneaky how you made that word switch! The two are not the same and if we were arguing about evidence, that would be a Unicorn of an entirely different color! (Sorry, I couldn't help myself!)

But, I'll let it go and respond as if you were still using the word "prove" as used in the original context of the discussion. You are right, I don't believe in Unicorns. But not because "there's no reason to believe in something [you cannot prove] exists." I don't believe in them because there is no rational reason to believe in them. Yet, there are plenty of rational reasons to believe in God. If a Unicorn exists somewhere out there in the Universe - okay. But it doesn't matter much does it? But if it is true that a loving God exists and wants to have a relationship with me, well then, that does matter. The impact of these two potentials to my daily living simply cannot be equated.

"atheist" means "does not believe in god", while "agnostic" means "the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven". I

Adam, you forgot apatheists. They don't care. My housemate got me a cute button that says, "Agnostic, apathetic, isolationist: I don't know. I don't care. GO AWAY!"

My point regarding your definition of the word agnostic was that it didn't distinguish much given the fact that both believers and non-believers can agree with the statement, "the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven."

Plenty of believers, and some non-believers, do believe it can be proven. That's the distinction it makes.

The reason I put "real" in quotes is because there is no "real" definition. There are multiple definitions, two of which are very commonly used. Among the non-believers, the one I've used is very common. Perhaps you haven't been exposed to that definition much, but I have. From my experience, non-believers tend to use my definition, while believers tend to use yours. I think the reason for that is that your definition makes it seem like an agnostic lacks an opinion at all, and many believers take that as meaning that someone just hasn't thought about it enough. In some cases this is true, but in many cases it's not, and so they make a distinction.

The point of bringing up unicorns is that no one ever says that it takes "faith" to disbelieve in unicorns. I have never had someone challenge me when I say there's no such thing as a unicorn. Not once has anyone said that I should prove it first. In the case of God, though, people make this odd argument that it takes faith to not believe in God. Even though there's absolutely no evidence (in my opinion) for the existence of God, I have to prove it for some reason. Why is there this difference between God and unicorns? Why does no one challenge the disbelief in unicorns as a "faith"-based statement, while so many people challenge disbelieve in God as "faith"-based. They make a special case for God.

I did switch to evidence, but that's because all we can do is go by evidence. If you can't prove that something doesn't exist, then you only have the lack of evidence to go by. Is it rational to believe that something exists if there's no evidence that it exists? What does it even mean to say that something exists, but you can't prove that it exists? I don't think that statement is even logical. In fact, I wrote an article about that a while back. This is a small quote:

To claim that something exists which, by its very nature, cannot be proven to exist is a meaningless statement.

So now when you answered the question, you've made a distinction between God and unicorns because you believe there are rational reasons to believe in a God. Maybe so, but that's not the issue here. The issue is whether it's rational to disbelieve in something if you don't believe there are rational reasons to believe in it. In other words, you can consider your rational arguments for the existence of God to be evidence for the existence of God. I reject those arguments. So the question is, if there is no evidence, is it still rational to believe in it? Does it require faith to disbelieve in something for which there is no evidence? No. It does not.

So if you're going to attack an atheist belief, you cannot attack it by claiming that it takes "faith" just because we can't "prove" that we're right. That's illogical. You first have to give us a reason to believe. You've basically changed your whole argument, which was "you can't prove there is no God, therefore your belief is based on faith" to "I think there is evidence for the existence of God, therefore your belief is based on faith". Neither one makes much sense as a logical argument, and when you switch to the latter then the argument changes completely.

You originally said: An agnostic is someone who believes the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven.

There are some believers and some non-believers who would agree with the above statement.

According to you, "Plenty of believers, and some non-believers" would disagree with the statement.

So then, we have some people from both groups (believers and non-believers) who agree, and some from both groups who disagree, with the statement you make in defining an agnostic. Which would mean, the label agnostic could apply to both believers and non-believers alike.

What exactly is the distinction you are trying to make?

All I was trying to do was clarify the term by taking it a step further: Agnosticism reaches the conclusion that since the existence of God cannot be proven, the idea of God is irrelevant.

Moving on...

The point of bringing up unicorns is that no one ever says that it takes "faith" to disbelieve in unicorns.

Perhaps this is because people rarely talk about Unicorns – they haven't yet gotten around to debating the technical philosophies regarding their existence or non-existence.

Even though there's absolutely no evidence (in my opinion) for the existence of God, I have to prove it for some reason.

You don't have to prove anything to me. Just go about your life and don't worry about it. However, if you want to engage in an open and honest discussion around the statement, "There Is No God," you can expect that a few people might challenge such an assertion.

To claim that something exists which, by its very nature, cannot be proven to exist is a meaningless statement.

Can you prove that you love your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/whatever? I would argue that you cannot prove it. Any evidence put forth can be assigned a different reason or motive than love. That does not make the statement, "I love you" meaningless. The person to whom it is being said will gauge its value based on the character of the one saying it.

In other words, you can consider your rational arguments for the existence of God to be evidence for the existence of God. I reject those arguments.

This is the heart of the matter – you do not consider rational arguments for the existence of God to be plausible evidence to the question. It is not that you have considered them as evidence, and then rejected the evidence as not being sufficient in support of the statement, "God exists," rather you do not accept there to be any evidence to support the existence of God. Am I wrong in my analysis of your position here?

So if you're going to attack an atheist belief... You've basically changed your whole argument, which was "you can't prove there is no God, therefore your belief is based on faith" to "I think there is evidence for the existence of God, therefore your belief is based on faith".

I wasn't aware that I had attacked anything. And no, I didn't change my argument. Upon re-reading my comments I don't even see where I said the latter.

But if it is true that a loving God exists and wants to have a relationship with me, well then, that does matter. The impact of these two potentials to my daily living simply cannot be equated.

Why does it matter?

If god wants a relationship with you she can contact you. Apparently she contacts others.

The existence or not of a god should have absolutely no influence on how you live your life. Your moral code, your ethics, your behaviour should be right and good for their own sake, not because of the threat of damnation or promise of paradise.

Any god worth worshiping on any grounds other than fear, wouldn't care either way whether you believed in them or not.

Any god worth worshiping on any grounds other than fear, wouldn't care either way whether you believed in them or not.

Right. And if your mother truly loved you she wouldn't care one way or the other if you decided to come and visit every once in awhile or if you decided to turn your back and ignore her for the rest of her life.

My mother isn't an omnicient, omnipotent, supernatural being above the emotions and failings of men.

Right. And if your mother truly loved you she wouldn't care one way or the other if you decided to come and visit every once in awhile or if you decided to turn your back and ignore her for the rest of her life.

Ah, so you made your god in your image? Do you REALLY want a god that behaves the way your mother does?

Tim, you misunderstood. I was responding to your statement when I said many would disagree. When you said that both believers and non-believers agree that the existence of God cannot be proven, that's something with which many people disagree with. Therefore, using the term "agnostic" to refer only to those who do believe it cannot be proven is useful, and does distinguish them from others. Perhaps you're getting at the point that some theists can also be called agnostic. That's true. With my definition, there can be both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. The terms are not mutually exclusive using my definition. I have known at least one person who primarily identified himself as as "agnostic theist" (meaning he did not call himself a Christian or a deist or anything else; he called himself an "agnostic theist"). I have known many who identified themselves, as I do, as "agnostic atheists".

The point I keep trying to reiterate is that my definition is just as valid as yours. It is widely used and widely accepted. I don't know why people try to insist that a word must have exactly one definition. That's not true of many words in any language.

I fully expect people to challenge my claim that there is no God. My only complaint was against your claim that it takes faith to disbelieve in God because it cannot be proven either way. That's a non sequitur. I'm not trying to make this into an argument about the existence of God. I'm only attacking that one illogical statement you made.

Certainly there are interesting rational justifications for a belief in God. There have been many different kinds of "proofs" of His existence. I think I'll leave it up to slade whether this is the proper place to debate those in detail. However, I certainly don't reject them out of hand. I don't reject rational arguments as a type of evidence. I was saying that every supposedly rational argument for the existence of God that I have heard so far has been based on false or unsupported premises. Therefore, they're not rational. Since every argument I've heard for God's existence so far has failed as a logical argument, then that leaves me with no evidence in favor it God's existence. Therefore, I don't believe in God.

To bring that back to the original topic, it doesn't take faith for me to disbelieve in God if no real evidence exists. If every potential piece of evidence ends up being an illogical, fallacious "proof", then there really is no real evidence. So belief in God at that point is equivalent to belief in Unicorns, in that both have an equal amount of evidence (none).

Let me try to summarize this discussion so far so you can see why I'm saying this argument has shifted. Your original statement was:

For those particular Atheists who assert the claim, "There is no God" I would argue that they are engaging a kind of faith, since again, I do not think it is possible for you to prove that a Creator God does not exist.

To paraphrase: Atheism requires faith because they cannot prove there is no God. That's what I said was illogical. You then responded by saying (not a direct quote): "yes, but there are reasons to believe in God". At that point, your argument had changed from "Atheism requires faith because there is no God" to "Atheism requires faith because there are reasons to believe in God". That's a different argument. That is why I addressed them separately.

My mother isn't an omnicient, omnipotent, supernatural being above the emotions and failings of men.

That doesn't change the lack of character in the man who turns his back on his Creator. Not only do you demand the right to ignore God, you demand He love and accept you fully back into His presence if it turns out you made the wrong choice.

Ah, so you made your god in your image? Do you REALLY want a god that behaves the way your mother does?

I was assuming that a loving mother would be sad and disappointed in a child who turned his back on her – not that she would lash out in anger or something. This was the parallel I was drawing in my example.

That doesn't change the lack of character in the man who turns his back on his Creator. Not only do you demand the right to ignore God, you demand He love and accept you fully back into His presence if it turns out you made the wrong choice.

I turn my back on no creator and demand nothing at all from him. I don't think He exists.

Separate to that, I also don't think this supposed perfect God would succumb to such human emotions. To say he would diminishes him and necessarily leads to his succumbing to more of our mortal failings.

@Adam Kemp

Perhaps you're getting at the point that some theists can also be called agnostic. That's true. With my definition, there can be both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.

Bingo. Your definition allows for a broader swath of people to be labeled agnostic – me for example. Perhaps you are used to dealing with the many Christians who get caught up in the "God is provable" argument without realizing their doctrine probably doesn't support such a premise. There are plenty of directives in the Bible that people exert faith. This isn't to say faith is devoid of reason, but it does not require provability as defined by most secular modernists.

As to my original claim that Atheists "are engaging a kind of faith," let me take a stab at explaining that in a more expansive way.

Allow me to make a couple of assumptions about you. Of course, correct me if I am wrong in any of them:

1. You are not omniscient. That is you do not know all there is to know. Whether we constrain this statement to current human knowledge (that which is already known by humanity) or future knowledge isn't critical.
2. You can only see the visible realm in your immediate surroundings. Those "things" that exist in other dimensions are invisible to you.
3. You have not traveled across the expanse of the Universe. Nor have you moved through all the possible dimensions, spatial or theoretical, that exist.

I also believe that these statements are not only true about you now, but they will always be true about you throughout your life.

You will never know all there is to know. Throughout your lifetime, you will be able to consider many arguments. But you will never be able to consider all the possible arguments for or against the existence of God. Throughout your lifetime, you will not be able to travel to all the places in the Universe to see what is or isn't there or move through all the possible dimensions to establish the sum total of all existing "things."

Given what you do not know, what you have not seen and where you have not been, AND because the statement "There Is No God" is a declarative statement, it does strike me that you must take on faith certain propositions in order to believe what you believe:

• You must believe without the ability to prove it, that no piece of knowledge you will ever encounter or could possibly encounter would prove the existence of God.
• You must must believe without the ability to prove it, that there is no place within the Universe where you would encounter the being of God or some evidence of His existence.
• You must must believe without the ability to prove it, that every possible dimension, spatial or theoretical, does not contain the being of God or some evidence of His existence.

Given the vast, and possibly infinite number of unknowns in this scenario, it does seem to me that you must have some kind of faith to be able to say, "There Is No God."

I don't think He exists... I also don't think this supposed perfect God would succumb...

How is it that you have opinions regarding the character of a being you say does not exist?

Remove God, from your argument and replace it with Zeus, Thor, Ra or some other equally fantasic character. Unless you're going to argue that they're as likely to exist, you're argument falls apart. If you are prepared to argue that they're as likely to exist that undermines your god.

Again, the definition of "agnostic" I use is more broad. I don't dispute that. I'm only trying to tell you that it is commonly used, and that it's not "wrong". It's just a different definition. I'm glad we've cleared that up. :)

I want to again emphasize the difference between these two statements:

1. "There is no God."
2. "I do not believe there is a God."

The first statement is what you're address. It is a positive assertion which cannot be proven. It can properly be compared to the statement "There is a God." Both cannot be proven, and so both require "faith", in your words.

The second is simply a statement of belief. You cannot properly compare "I do not believe there is a God" with "There is a God", since they're not really the same kind of statement.

What you want to do is to compare "I do not believe there is a God" with "I do believe there is a God." Neither statement demands proof, since we're only talking about beliefs here. We're talking about opinion. All you have to compare them with is the available evidence to support each belief. For the sake of argument, let's say there is no evidence for the existence of God (I realize you disagree, but just assume for the moment that you're wrong). Given that fact, is it more rational to believe there is a God or to believe that there is no God? Obviously it's the latter, or else we would have to consider belief in Unicorns to be just as rational.

This is a subtle point, because most people misunderstand the word "atheist", because it also has multiple meanings. Most people think that atheists assert positively that "there is no God", as if it's a certain fact. The truth is that most atheists do not make such a claim. Most atheists simply do not believe in a God. They don't know there is no God, nor do they assert as a fact that "there is no God." They simply lack a positive believe that a God exists. This is called "weak atheism" (or "agnostic atheism", but you dislike that ;). The alternative, "strong atheism", is when someone says positively "there is no God." This is rare. Very few atheists will say positively, without a doubt that there is no God. I've known maybe 2 or 3 out of about a hundred.

So really I think this all boils down, again, to a difference in definition. We're arguing different points. I contend that the belief that there is no God is more rational than the belief that there is a God. You're arguing that the positive assertion "there is no God" is just as much a "faith" statement as "there is a God", and I can agree with that.

One thing that points more towards the fact that there is no god: There is nothing else that we have seem or even hints at the supernatural, of which god is. We have nothing that shows even the slightest hint of anything supernatural existing or having occured. If there was atleast the hint of something it would bolster the god arguement.

If there was a god who was the end all, be all that people make him out to be, he would not need our worship. He would see the situation we are in and understand why people wouldnt believe. After all, why do people 2000 years ago get to see great miracles but since them we get nothing. If he existed and wanted to be actively involved, you would think he would have done something since then. Something that would give little doubt (like parting the red sea).

1. You are not omniscient. That is you do not know all there is to know. Whether we constrain this statement to current human knowledge (that which is already known by humanity) or future knowledge isnt critical.
2. You can only see the visible realm in your immediate surroundings. Those things that exist in other dimensions are invisible to you.
3. You have not traveled across the expanse of the Universe. Nor have you moved through all the possible dimensions, spatial or theoretical, that exist.

Tim,

Your assessment, while logically sound, is not useful. I can say "You are not omniscient," "You can only see the visible realm in your immediate surroundings," and "You have not traveled across the expanse of the Universe," therefore you cannot disprove that the catalyst of the universe is a stick of butter.

I challenge you to dispute that claim, Tim, even though I know that you cannot. And even though you can't dispute it, we both know that it is not true. In fact, if you met someone who subscribed to this belief you would likely assume they were delusional.

Richard Dawkins' newest book addresses this very topic.

ScooterDMan,

Actually, I think the argument is quite useful, and your example demonstrates why.

...you cannot disprove that the catalyst of the universe is a stick of butter.

I agree. And neither can you prove that it is.

And even though you can't dispute it, we both know that it is not true.

Actually, neither of us knows one way or the other. We believe one way or the other.

...if you met someone who subscribed to this belief you would likely assume they were delusional.

You're right. I would think they were delusional. But not because the absolute truth of this statement is known or provable, but rather because there aren't any rational arguments lending evidence to support the idea.

The point of my post was to demonstrate the limited faculties of man. The sphere of our knowledge is tiny in comparison to the vastness of the Universe. What we can know or prove is extremely limited. Some might argue that what we can prove only exists within fully boundaried systems, such as non-theoretical mathematics.

In this sense, our statements of truth or knowledge are no more than beliefs. Beliefs that are based on our ability to evaluate rational arguments and come to a conclusion whether they are likely to be true or not. Herein is the element of faith I contend is necessary for much of human "knowledge."

Websters defines faith as such:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

First, I contest that definition. I think the word "proof" should be changed to "evidence". The reason is that faith is not the same as experience. We don't have proof that gravity will pull us down when we jump in the air. We have thousands of years of experimental evidence to support the conclusion that this will happen, but we cannot prove that it will happen the next time. So is it faith that tells you that you're going to come back down? Of course not. That would be a terrible abuse of the word "faith". We "know" we're going to come back down based on experience (read: evidence), not "faith".

Second, disbelief is not the same as belief. The terms are confusing, since it's much less awkward to say that we "believe there is no God", but when we say that we're really saying that we lack a belief in God^*. Until you can demonstrate that there is sufficient reason to belief, then it doesn't take any more "faith" to not believe in God than it does to not believe in any other imaginary being.

^* Technically, the statements "I believe there is no God" and "I lack a belief in God" (or "I disbelieve in God") are different. My point here is not to say that they are truly equivalent statements, but rather that in most cases when someone says the former, he really means the latter.

Actually, I think the argument is quite useful, and your example demonstrates why.

...you cannot disprove that the catalyst of the universe is a stick of butter.

I agree. And neither can you prove that it is.

And even though you can't dispute it, we both know that it is not true.

Actually, neither of us knows one way or the other. We believe one way or the other.

See, this is where Western Philosophy, in my opinion, falls short of critical analysis. Popular, apologetic philosophy built up these arguments because they are structurally sound. But beyond structure, they do not tell us anything.

My atheism isn't derived from playing with words. My atheism is derived from evidence (not PROOF as Adam points out above) I can observe.

Beliefs that are based on our ability to evaluate rational arguments and come to a conclusion whether they are likely to be true or not.

What rational arguments alllow you to reach this conclusion? (If your answer is an Argument from Design, that's fine, but then I think it would be more useful to start an article about "How we know what we know" and then start this conversation all over again...)

You're right. I would think they were delusional. But not because the absolute truth of this statement is known or provable, but rather because there aren't any rational arguments lending evidence to support the idea.

I would like to hear any rational arguments supporting the idea of the Judeo-Christian God, or any other specific interpretation of a higher being for that matter.

First off, citing the inherent Truth of any religious text is not a rational argument, for there is no support for such a notion besides "I feel like it" and "the book itself says it's true." The first is entirely subjective and self-contained thought, whereas the second is a tautological fallacy. It's just as easy for Tolkein to say "and this entire trilogy is absolute Truth, told to me by the son of God." I doubt you'd then automatically accept it is Divine Truth of the Universe.

So, if you say that the Universe coming from a stick of butter is a delusional thought due to lack of rational supporting arguments, what rational supporting arguments are there in support of any version of the god concept? You want to make this distinction, but have not yet shown anything to support it.

So, if you say that the Universe coming from a stick of butter is a delusional thought due to lack of rational supporting arguments, what rational supporting arguments are there in support of any version of the god concept? You want to make this distinction, but have not yet shown anything to support it.

I don't want to speak for Tim, but we've been going back and forth on this for a few days, and I can guess how he might answer you, Jack. His rationale for god's existence will be an argument from design, which in simple terms says: "The world is too complex to have occured naturally or as a result of chaos, so therefore someone must have designed it."

From reading Tim's responses over the past few days, it seems to me that he more aligned with a Deist philosophy, moreso than a Judeo-Christian one (Am I right about this, Tim?) To support that sort of worldview, he would then suggest that at one point there was nothing, and then there was something, so there must have been an initial cause or Prime Mover.

While I am not compelled by Deism, I do think that in terms of worldviews, it is not a destructive one by any means, unlike Judeo-Christian and other organized religions.

Adam,

First, I contest that definition.

On what basis? What authority do you have to dispute the established meaning of an English word? Look, in order to have a discourse such as this, there has to be an agreement to accept the definition of words and the precise application of those definitions to an argument for it to be worthwhile. Otherwise, there is no point in continuing this discussion with you. Anytime you do not like the logical outcome of an argument, you can simply say, "Well, I contest the definition of this word or that word," in an immature attempt to derail the argument. The meaning I am using here is not only an accepted vernacular definition, but it is validated by an authoritative 3rd party, aka the dictionary. As it is, evidence is not equal to proof, faith is the "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" and my argument stands.

ScooterDMan

See, this is where Western Philosophy, in my opinion, falls short of critical analysis.

Agreed. Science has ushered in an age where suddenly everything must be proven. Because Science attempts to limit itself to "boundaried systems" it has established proof as a burden for stating truth. The problem is that this approach simply cannot adequately deal with the whys behind the whats with which humanity often finds itself preoccupied.

My atheism isn't derived from playing with words. My atheism is derived from evidence (not PROOF as Adam points out above) I can observe.

No doubt. And my belief in God is also derived from evidence and not proof. We simply draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

Me: "Beliefs that are based on our ability to evaluate rational arguments and come to a conclusion whether they are likely to be true or not."

You: "What rational arguments alllow you to reach this conclusion?"

The rational argument that the dictionary is an authoritave source of meaning for the words of the English language:

Belief is defined as the "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" (again via Websters)

"The world is too complex to have occured naturally or as a result of chaos, so therefore someone must have designed it."

The following addresses this simplified argument only: I find this argument rather arrogant and self-absorbed. If you were to use such as justification for belief in God, then you can never say that God definitely exists, if you want your level of conviction to be consistent with such a statement.

This is once again nothing more, and nothing less, than the "God is in the gaps" philosophy. This is much more consistent with the Deist perspective you mention than any organized religion. But, it still seems to be a logically very tenuous ground, as it banks on a belief that it is impossible to fully understand the Universe (and its creation), and such beliefs have forced God to take an ever-smaller active role in our world, due to our ever-increasing understanding of our universe.

Why bank on the inadequacy of humanity?

I gave you the grounds on which I dispute the definition. It doesn't fit the usage of the word. What's more important: the definition you find in a dictionary, or the accepted meaning of the word as it's used? It seems like you're trying to use a dictionary as a crutch to support your argument. I'm trying to tell you that a definition of "faith" which would imply that we use "faith" when jumping in the air is a bad definition. It doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, I want you to understand exactly what I'm trying to argue. If I'm trying to convince you that faith is not required to be an atheist, then I first have to tell you what I mean when I say "faith". Otherwise, we're arguing different points. If I use your definition, then perhaps it does take "faith", but so does every single other action you can possibly imagine. Since nothing in science is ever "proved", then that means every single scientific theory is "faith". That's ridiculous. The definition of a word needs to match how it's used. You can't just find a dictionary that uses a definition which favors your argument and then proclaim that it's the correct definition. That's basically an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.

So let me ask you this: Does it take faith when you jump in the air to know that you'll fall back down? If not, then you need to reevaluate your definition. If you think it does, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

then that means every single scientific theory is "faith". That's ridiculous.

Of course it is ridiculous to say every single scientific theory = faith. That doesn't even make sense, and nowhere in my comments do you see me saying anything remotely close to that. The problem here is that you apparently do not remember what I originally said:

For those particular Atheists who assert the claim, "There is no God" I would argue that they are engaging a kind of faith... (see comment #5.4)

My point wasn't that the entire claim is based on faith, or even that an atheist doesn't have rational arguments or evidence in support of his position. My point was that due to the vast number of unknown variables, it is impossible to prove the statement, "There Is No God." Where your evidence and demonstrated observations about [insert-object-or-idea-here] end, a gap of some measure can be found. It is here where some measure of faith is engaged when the original posited statement is declarative.

The more demonstrated observations and evidence exist about an idea, the smaller the gap. Obviously with gravity, we have a lot of evidence and experience to allow us to rely on its persistent effect and therefore any measure of faith necessary would be incredibly small.

You can't just find a dictionary that uses a definition which favors your argument and then proclaim that it's the correct definition. That's basically an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy.

It is absurd to argue that using the definition of a word as found in the dictionary is a logical fallacy because it is an argument from authority. This is a complete misapplication of the rules of logic. To use an argument from authority is to say, "This must be true because so-and-so says so and so-and-so is an authority on the subject."

If I'm trying to convince you that faith is not required to be an atheist, then I first have to tell you what I mean when I say "faith"

In trying to define words in whatever way you want so that you can "convince" me, you are doing nothing less than treating yourself as the authority on the meaning of words. In evaluating the competing authorities in this case... I'll take the dictionary.

So you do believe that some amount of "faith" is required when predicting that you will fall down after jumping? Again, if that's what you're saying, then we're just not going to agree. I think using that definition is completely out of line with the way the word is actually used. If you ask anyone on the street if he has faith that gravity will work, or if he just "knows" it will work, then I can guarantee you that he will answer the latter.

My point about relying in the dictionary to support your argument is that the dictionary is meant to reflect the usage of the language, not the other way around. If the dictionary has a definition that doesn't fit what the vast majority of people think it means, then the dictionary is wrong, not the people. That's how language works. You want to insist that the meaning of this word is different than how everyone uses it because the dictionary says so. That is a logical fallacy. Dictionaries don't decide what words mean. People decide what they mean, and the dictionary records that. In this case, the dictionary got it wrong. For the record, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it like this:

faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (Source; emphasis added)

At least we seem to have reached a common ground on "weak" vs. "strong" atheists, though. I do agree that a strong atheist is making an assertion that is not based on evidence, but there are very few strong atheists.

This is a subtle point, because most people misunderstand the word "atheist", because it also has multiple meanings. (your comment #5.24)

In your comment #5.24, you made the above statement. Now you want to appeal to the argument that "anyone on the street" will respond to your casual question about gravity in a way that supports your arguments in this discussion? Even though they lack the context of this discussion and the precise definitions used herein? You can't have it both ways. You cannot appeal to the authority of the "masses" when it suits you and dismiss it when it doesn't it.

...then I can guarantee you that he will answer the latter.

You cannot guarantee any such thing. Again, you refuse to accept that there are unknowns that affect the predictability of an outcome. You confuse probability with provability.

And lastly, "material evidence" is a legal term meaning, "evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis."

I don't dismiss the authority of the masses. I acknowledged that the word "atheist" has multiple, subtly-different meanings. I also said the same of agnostics. Most people only consider one meaning because they either don't understand the difference, or don't care. Atheists themselves do care, though, so they do make a clear distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism.

And lastly, "material evidence" is a legal term meaning, "evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis."

If you really think that this dictionary was using a legal term for a definition that had absolutely nothing to do with legal issues, then you're really confused. You once again seem to think that a word (or phrase in this case) must have exactly one meaning.

I don't dismiss the authority of the masses.

The masses believe in God. You reject that idea.

Most people only consider one meaning because they either don't understand the difference, or don't care.

My post #5.27 clearly indicates that the word faith has multiple meanings. It is a proper usage to use the word to describe a body of belief, such as the Christian faith or the Muslim faith. It is also a proper usage to apply the word to a particular concept.

If you really think that this dictionary was using a legal term for a definition that had absolutely nothing to do with legal issues, then you're really confused.

Prove to me you know this to be true. What, you think it refers to physical evidence?

Now you're really confused. I never said the majority decides truth. I said the majority defines language. I think you're really stretching here in an attempt to somehow salvage your argument.

My post #5.27 clearly indicates that the word faith has multiple meanings. It is a proper usage to use the word to describe a body of belief, such as the Christian faith or the Muslim faith. It is also a proper usage to apply the word to a particular concept.

Yes, but even within the same context a word can mean two subtly different things (like in the case of "atheist" or "agnostic"). As further evidence, polytheists used to call monotheists "atheists", and monotheists would call pantheists "atheists". Were they wrong? No, they just had a different conception of what atheism was. Just like many people might say that I'm not really an atheist because I'm not a "strong atheist". They would call me an agnostic instead. To them, "atheist" means "strong atheist". I never said they were wrong, though. I just said that they're using a different definition. By your argument, though, one of us must be wrong. Why is that?

Prove to me you know this to be true. What, you think it refers to physical evidence?

I think you're trying to over-analyze the exact wording of a dictionary definition in order to buy your argument some credibility. Your arguments are becoming asinine. You're nitpicking the exact dictionary definition of a word while completely ignoring the fact that it's not used that way.

You apparently dispute the fact that the people who speak a language define what the words mean by how they use them, and that a dictionary only records the meaning (although you never actually addressed that point). Maybe it would surprise you to learn that definitions even change over time. How could that be possible if whatever is written in the dictionary is the correct definition and usage?

Adam,

I think that you are the one who is stretching this discussion out into absurdity. You have never dealt with the material arguments that I presented in my comment #5.21. Instead you have attacked my usage of the word faith, alternately appealing to another (ironically identical) definition from another dictionary and then to your assertion of its vernacular usage.

Your argument of this latter premise is deeply flawed for several reasons: A) Any person off the street could be wrong in their understanding, and B) You simply cannot show that these persons would respond as you assert they would. Not to mention that is the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Your arguments are becoming asinine.

I guess we will have to part ways here. I've done my best to maintain a spirit of civility throughout this discussion. Without it, there isn't any point of continuing going back and forth with you.

One last rebuttal:

You apparently dispute the fact that the people who speak a language define what the words mean by how they use them, and that a dictionary only records the meaning

I never disputed that we (the global English speaking we) define the meaning of words. I just argued that the dictionary is a valid source to use in understanding what "we" meant. Your own quote here supports that idea as well:

A) People define the meaning of their own words
B) Dictionaries record this meaning
C) Therefore, dictionaries are a source to discover the meaning of words

I responded to your comment #5.21 by explaining that most atheists don't say "there is no God" (or don't really mean it that way if they do). They say "I do not believe there is a God". That statement does not require faith. I pointed out the difference between "strong" atheism (what you are arguing against) and "weak" atheism (what most atheists really believe), and even conceded that strong atheists could be said to use "faith". I don't know what more you want. I wouldn't have expected you to disagree with that post (it's #5.24 if you want to read it again).

Appeal to authority is actually not a fallacy when you cite the majority usage of words in a language, because the way words are used is what they mean. It's like saying "apples are red" and supporting your argument by showing that most apples are, indeed, red.

I said (or at least meant to say, if I wasn't explicit enough) that dictionaries are supposed to record what people think words mean, not that they always do so accurately.

I am tired of this entirely tangential argument about words and definitions. Do you really disagree with the rest that I said in 5.24? Especially this part:

We're arguing different points. I contend that the belief that there is no God is more rational than the belief that there is a God. You're arguing that the positive assertion "there is no God" is just as much a "faith" statement as "there is a God", and I can agree with that.

Look you two... Atheism is no more rational that spiritualism/religious faith in a God. God is has an unknown truth value thus there is no judgment to make on way or the other and an atheist is engaging in as much belief as the spiritualist (as long as the spiritualist accepts science and does not try to ascribe God's divine hand in natural and explained systems.

Belief is the not the same as faith. Its takes belief to hold any opinion about anything. It takes faith to hold views that are unknown. You do not believe in god unless someone informs you of his supposed existences and teaches you to believe in him. Lacking anything even close to supernatural actually existing, which might cause you to even consider the idea of god, you would not believe he exists. Not because of the facts that says he does not, but because there was nothing that shows you he does.

Atheism is rational. There are no rational facts that point to the existence of god. Nothing supernatural that we know of exists, we are given witness to no miracles, no angels, and nothing in any way shape or form that can be unequivocally, or even close, labelled as the work of only [insert your particular] god. So in absence of any facts to tell us otherwise, it is perfectly rational to take the position there is no god.

Adam,

I am tired of this entirely tangential argument about words and definitions.

So am I.

For the record, I never responded one way or the other to your comment #5.24.

It was you who began this ridiculous conversation about the meaning of the word faith by responding to my comment #5.27, which was addressed to one of ScooterDMan's comments, with this introductory sentence:

First, I contest that definition.

If you really think that the statement,

"there is no God" is just as much a "faith" statement as "there is a God"...

then why have you gone on and on trying to dispute the usage of the word faith as applied?

The title of slade's article is "There Is No God." This was the only statement I attempted to deal with in my post #5.21. This was my concluding sentence:

Given the vast, and possibly infinite number of unknowns in this scenario, it does seem to me that you must have some kind of faith to be able to say, "There Is No God."

Can we let this die now?

Behind My Screen, as FL said, your statement simply isn't true. Replace God with Zeus or unicorns in your statement and see if you still believe it.

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. Thus it is not rational to claim that there is no God. The rational stance in this would be "I don't know, but I lean in X direction"

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence. Thus it is not rational to claim that there is no God. The rational stance in this would be "I don't know, but I lean in X direction"

Once again replace God with Unicorns, Faeries, Zeus, Thor or any other supernatural beastie or god you can imagine.

Your argument just doesn't hold. We quite rationally and quite correctly, don't believe these things exist. Not because we have proof they don't, but precisely because there is no evidence giving us reason to even entertain the idea of their existence.

Again... the most rational position is "I do not know but it is lily that it is X"

You really do not now if fairies exist or Unicorns, etc. Nor do you know if they eve existed. Commonly we accept their non existence, but the true position of the rational person should be " I have no proof either way thus I can not be completely sure, but I will accept them as not existing".

You cannot KNOW that God does not exist... thus, by definition, an atheist makes a leap of faith as much as a religious person.

...but precisely because there is no evidence giving us reason to even entertain the idea of their existence.

You should also recognize that many people find that there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that God exists. You may look at the evidence and reach a different conclusion, but that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence at all.

At the risk of getting involved in another debate about definitions, the reason I got involved in this discussion is these kinds of statements:

Atheism is no more rational that spiritualism/religious faith in a God

That is false. Atheism in general is disbelief in God, not necessarily the positive assertion that "there is no God". I.e., most atheists don't know there is not a God, they just don't believe there is a God. As such, atheism does not require faith! Disbelief in something which has not been demonstrated to exist (to the person weighing the claim) is the rational conclusion, while belief in something which has not been demonstrated to exist is faith.

Summary:

"There is no God" (absolutely) => faith

"There is a God" (absolutely) => faith

"I do not believe there is a God" (without evidence) => not faith

"I do believe there is a God" (without evidence) => faith

Behind My Screen, that is absurd and I don't think you honestly believe it.

To turn things around a bit. You're a Christian; do you believe that Zeus, Thor, Ra, Shiva, and the thousands of other gods that are and have been worshipped, exist?

Whatever your answer: why?

No I do not believe that they exist. Since you can not prove a negative however, I cannot prove to you that they do in fact not exist.

Adam,

Agnostics are the "I don't know" folks.

But I will split the difference with you... an Agnostic with atheist leanings will say " I can not be sure but I think that god does not exist"

A full blown atheist that gets up in the faces of people and preaches the disbelief in god has made a leap of faith. When ever you decide on a definite answer in the face of something like proof of a negative you make a leap of faith.

And I'm trying to tell you, yet again, that most people who call themselves atheists do not think that they know there is no God. I have met maybe two atheists in my life who would say that they can prove there is no God. You can't reclassify 95+% of atheists as agnostic. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, not someone who knows there is no God. So "atheism" does not require faith, since it is only a believe (opinion), not a statement of certainty.

I only know one atheist in the "I know there's no god, so shut the hell up" category, and he's the most ignorant moron I've ever spoken to. Faulty logic and jumping to conclusions for no reason other then personal opinion and thinking that proves his point...much like a lot of fundamentalist religious types do from time to time. Annoys me greatly to think people put THAT type of stupidity in the same category as me a lot of the time. It's sorta like saying "That Phelps guy is Christian......Christians are all violent raving loonies!" It makes no sense to me....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Sorry, but your definition is wrong.

This really is an epistemological argument rather than a religious one. I say that one who claims there is no God is what one would consider an Atheist and also that such a claim is claiming an absoluteness of the statement. This is similar to the statement "There is a God" which is the theist standpoint.

An agnostic is really the only one that would be rational here because it is unknowable which stance is correct.

The statement "There is a god" is not comparible to "There is no god" because the second statement is based on a lack of evidence, not faith. So your definition isn't very accurate at all.

Behind: What part of this is confusing to you:

Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically include only those who assert the nonexistence of gods, excluding non-believing agnostics and other non-theists

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the value of certain claims as truthparticularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deitiesis unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.

It clearly does agree with me, at least in the sense that I've explained above, in which "atheist" has multiple meanings (and so does "agnostic"). I've tried to explain over and over again that the most common definition of "atheist" used by non-believers themselves is the broad one. The definition of "agnostic" is heavily debated even among non-believers, but a good chunk of them agree with the broader meaning of that as well.

I'm not sure why you linked to two wikipedia pages that clearly agree with me, and then asserted that my definition was "wrong". How are you interpreting those pages?

I accept the more narrow definition of atheism that you have quoted. I do not agree hat a simple non opinion counts as atheism. I linked to the wiki pages because they also agree with me. I was hoping that you would see that I am not just making my stuff up.

The fact that the broad definition of atheism overlaps with the accepted definition of an agnostic means, in my opinion, that the broad definitions too broad. The first definition of atheism adds ambiguity where as the narrow definition does not.

Fine lines are always important when you are attempting to get to the bottom of things. Perhaps you would be happier with my opinion if I said "atheists that say God does not exist ..." If so, then that is fine. I will so amend it.

Rukh,

logically, both are based on lack of evidence. Thus they are logically similar.

Behind My Screen, so you are atheist to all but one God, with apparently no good reason to be. You should be agnostic to all gods.

Isn't it more the case that there is no evidence to lead you to believe in any of these gods so you don't. You lump them in the category of fanciful imaginings by naive and ignorant peoples.

I merely include one more god in my fanciful imaginings bucket.

Isn't it more the case that there is no evidence to lead you to believe in any of these gods so you don't. You lump them in the category of fanciful imaginings by naive and ignorant peoples.

I merely include one more god in my fanciful imaginings bucket.

Arrogance is the underachieving sibling of intelligence.

Tim, I don't see how it's arrogant to point out an inconsistency in someone's beleifs.

Behind My Screen has stated that it is irrational to say his god doesn't exist. Yet he is willing to say all others don't. I want to know why? I want to know what makes him think his god exists and not the thousands of others that are and have been worshipped throughout history.

You are welcome to take offense at that. I'm questioning your faith as well. It doesn't change the fact that you are (presumably) atheist to all but your chosen god. I don't think it's too much to ask, why?

I claim that it is irrational to say either God does exist or that God does not exist. DO not confuse what I am saying with what you have just claimed I said. there is a HUGE difference in the implied meaning of each statement.

I am not claiming that it is more rational to believe in God.

So just to be clear and to generalise your argument away from religion:

You think it irrational to both believe in the supernatural and disblelieve in it. You think agnosticism the only rational belief.

Is that correct? If not, I'm having a very hard time following what you are actually arguing, and particularly given your own beliefs, why you hold that position.

From the above it seems you think the statements "There is no Zeus", "There is no Thor", "There are no unicorns" etc. Are irrational and not just that, but equally as irrational as "There is a Zeus", "There is a Thor", "There are unicorns".

I find that a very shaky footing. That logically extends to any absurd, but not directly falsifiable statement. It is simply just not rational to entertain the possibility of absurdities. We may disagree on what constitutes an absurdity, but that's a different argument.

I have been saying the whole time that there are two definitions (of both words), so I wasn't saying that your definition is wrong. I was just saying that saying mine is more common, and so the statement "atheism requires faith" is wrong.

The problem with the narrow definition is that it leaves almost everyone categorized as "agnostic". That would mean that theists would have to be called agnostic as well. Since we've already covered the fact that almost no one ever claims to have absolute certainty about the existence or non-existence of God, then using definitions of "atheist" and "theist" which would only include those very few people is pretty useless. Your definition would imply that you can't call many Christians "theist" because they can't prove there's a God.

When I tell someone I don't believe in God (in those words), then they know I'm an atheist. They don't ask me if I'm sure first, and they don't call me "agnostic". I think that's a pretty good indication that the broad definition is sufficient.

Ryan,

What you think or believe to be true is not an issue with me. It is your right to disagree about whether there is a God. I have no dispute there. Rather, it is the way you argue your disagreement that points to a certain superiority you seem to believe about yourself and/or your ideas.

You use phrases like,

fanciful imaginings by naive and ignorant peoples

and compare the concept of God to star-dust-dousing faeries. This strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to belittle anyone who believes in a higher being.

The alternative is that you sincerely cannot distinguish between the mainstream and the fringe when you continue to assert that there is no difference between arguments for the existence of God and arguments for the existence of faeries.

If that is the case, well then that is simply not true.

There is an enormous amount of intelligent thought on the topic of God; thousands of books containing philosophical conjectures, logical arguments and experiential corroboration for the existence of God. There are billions of people throughout history who have believed in God. For many people their belief in God is founded in personal experience; answered prayers, perceived divine protection or perhaps a profound sense of peace.

You disagree that this body of evidence is conclusive in establishing that God exists. Fair enough. However, it is either insincere or simply ignorant to say there exists the same amount of evidence arguing the existence of faeries.

By all means, engage the debate. But at least be sincere and fair in your comparisons.

You use phrases like,

fanciful imaginings by naive and ignorant peoples

and compare the concept of God to star-dust-dousing faeries. This strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to belittle anyone who believes in a higher being.

It is not a belittlement. It is an illustration of a point. God is in the same category as all other gods and supernatural beliefs now and previous. That is, they are all fanciful imagings, general born of ignorance. Gods are used to explain the unexplainable. To fill a gap in our ignorance of the natural world. Those explanations weaken over time and slowly all gods fade into obscurity.

The alternative is that you sincerely cannot distinguish between the mainstream and the fringe when you continue to assert that there is no difference between arguments for the existence of God and arguments for the existence of faeries.

Popularity of a belief has no baring on whether it is correct or not.

There is an enormous amount of intelligent thought on the topic of God; thousands of books containing philosophical conjectures, logical arguments and experiential corroboration for the existence of God. There are billions of people throughout history who have believed in God. For many people their belief in God is founded in personal experience; answered prayers, perceived divine protection or perhaps a profound sense of peace.

This is true for any god that has ever been worshipped. What makes you think yours is special?

Popularity of a belief has no baring on whether it is correct or not.

I do not disagree with you there. But that isn't what I said. I did not argue that because belief in God is more popular than belief in faeries it is more valid.

What I said was that there is a huge disparity in the amount of evidence put forth regarding the two subjects.

If you want to maintain that there is no conceptual difference between an omniscient Creator God and a faery, okay. That is your prerogative. I'll simply skip over your comments since you cannot be taken seriously.

Enlighten me to the difference then; and answer the other part of my comments that are continually ignored. Why should your god be taken more seriously then every other god that has ever existed?

Please also note that my "popularity" comment was directly responding to your comment regarding "mainstream" vs "fringe", not your comment regarding evidence.

In response to your comment regarding evidence, I asked (albeit indirectly) why your evidence is better than the same evidence that existed for all other gods.

Ryan,

Just because I say that belief in supernatural is irrational does not mean that I can not hold those beliefs. Lots of behaviors people have in life are irrational.

Adam... a theist would by definition claim to know that God exists. There are theist agnostics as well as atheist agnostics (in fact, the bulk of the american population is agnostic with either a theist or atheist bent)

Fair enough, Behind My Screen.

My question then is: If you know what you believe is irrational are you working towards remedying that?

Re your conversation with Adam, the way you're using theist, agnostic and atheist is just not the common usage of the words. The general population would count themselves theist, agnostic or atheist by Adams more broad definitions, not by yours. You can argue whether those definition are right until the cows come home. It doesn't change the way the words are used.javascript:void(postComment());

Gah!! That's what I've been saying the whole time!!

*head explodes*

Atheist and agnostic are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Nor are theist and agnostic. So, by definition, an atheist does not necessarily claim to "know" that there is no God, and so therefore you cannot say that "atheism" requires faith.

I know! I was off on a tangent re what BehindMyScreen believes/was saying. Now it's all back into one thread!

I'm not sure where that javascript nonsense came from. Looks like a newsvine error...

I think we have been arguing from two different point of views here Adam.

I don't think so. Whenever you are dealing with the non-provable, you are dealing in belief. Theists can prove God exists just as well as Atheists can prove God does not exist -- that is to say neither has any proof of their positions save for their own perception of the world around them. It's that belief which shapes their worlds and influences their actions. Therefore, it is a belief system.

Theists can prove God exists

Whoa whoa whoa... hold up. Show me.

Theists can prove God exists just as well as Atheists can prove God does not exist

Yes, philosophers have wasted their breath for thousands of years pondering this question. I quite like Bertrand Russell's teacup metaphor:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Sums it up quite nicely, I think.

Izhang: You should read the whole sentence before posting.

ErinK: It makes the most sense semantically to call atheism the lack of a belief, rather than a belief. It is the theist who has a belief that a God exists. An atheist simply doesn't hold this belief. A strong atheist (one who is certain there is no God) may have what can be called a "belief" that there is no God, but most atheists do not fit that description. They simply don't believe.

Even in the strong atheist case, it's a stretch to go from "a belief" to "a belief system". Strong atheism is a single belief ("there is no God"). A system of beliefs would be more akin to: "There is a god. He has these properties. He wants these things. He did these things in this way. Etc." I.e., a system of beliefs, or a set of inter-related beliefs. Not even strong atheists have a "belief system". That just doesn't make sense.

Adam - I see what you mean... and I have to agree. Thanks for the well-worded response.

ScooterDMan - I love the analogy. :-)

I was trying to be so obviously ridiculous that you might reply with a "ha ha." That you have replied in earnest leads me to believe that what I consider the most ridiculous statement one could make in regards to this discussion is actually more mainstream than I had believed.

Scary.

Here's how I sort out the God question.

I just don't understand how anyone can believe in God.

Really? I don't believe in a god, but I feel like I have a good understanding of why most people do. The god meme is a very powerful one, and it is usually transmitted to children at an age where they don't yet possess the critical thinking skills examine and question it.

Having grown up believing in a world view that includes a god, the patterns of that belief become cemented and hard to eschew, despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

I think it's rather fascinating.

I just don't understand how anyone can believe in God.

Can I ask why you care if other people believe in God?

I have problems with the influence organized religion leaders hold in this country, but that is a separate issue from this.

I just don't understand why some people get so upset over the God question. I don't know how some people can support certain football teams; I don't let it get under my skin.

I suppose I should point out, when I say "this country," that I live in America.

I just don't understand why some people get so upset over the God question.

The reason why questioning faith in god is more important than questioning faith in a football team is because, generally, people do not kill in the name of the Minnesota Vikings.

There are many people, like myself, and I'm guessing Slade, who firmly believe that a belief in god precludes a great majority of people on this earth from making rational decisions that are in the best interest human well-being and human health.

That doesn't answer my question.

Religion has been the cause of a great number of wars and deaths, yes, but I disagree with this:

belief in god precludes a great majority of people on this earth from making rational decisions that are in the best interest human well-being and human health.

In the Middle East, for example, if the majority of the people there firmly believe in something and are willing to die over it, than not believing in God is not what is in those humans' "best interests." Those peoples' deaths may be in vain to you, but not to them, their families and their fellow followers ... so again, my question: Why do you care? Perhaps a better question is, "Why is it any of your business?"

There are certainly unnecessary deaths to people not intending to put their lives on the line in war, but the problem that causes that is not belief in God by some people, but just people being idiots.

This goes back to a point I tried making to you in the discussion of another article, Scooter. Taking the extremes in a situation as evidence that an entire group of people (In this case, all religious people) are irrational, or stupid, or violent, or whatever the adjective is, is irresponsible on your part. Do you think the majority of people who believe in God would go to war over their beliefs? I'm a firm "No" on that question. And if the result isn't war and death, I don't see what business of yours their religion is.

And I think an irrational fear of God leads some atheists to be pretty damn illogical.

I live in a world where each day people are killed in the name of god. I live in a world where the differences between two groups (Muslims and Christians) will likely never be reconciled due to both groups' illogical, irrational and destructive belief systems.

Why do you care? Perhaps a better question is, "Why is it any of your business?"

It's my business because the consequences of these belief systems have the ability to impact my life and the life of my future family in the forms of terrorism and domestic policy, both of which of largely controlled by religious people.

Would an overall disbelief in god create a utopia of unity and unfettered benevolence? No, of course not. It would, however, create a world that was a bit more compassionate and rational. And it would ultimately lead to a world that was less violent.

I think the irrational decisions caused by religious beliefs go a lot further than just wars fought by extremists. You can look to a lot of American politics as an example of irrational religious beliefs taking over. Look at the gay marriage issue or stem cell research, for example.

That's at a national level, but I see examples of irrational decisions even at the personal level. I have a friend who was looking for an apartment a year ago. She had one picked out and said she was going to sign a lease the next day. I asked her the next day if she had signed her lease yet, and she said no, she changed her mind. For some reason she felt like God wanted her to be somewhere else. So she moved to another apartment, which she didn't like as much. I will never understand this. She made an important decision based on what she thought was part of some master, unknown plan, instead of based on reason. It may not have hurt anything in this case, but it boggles my mind that she can't make even a simple decision of where to live without involving God. That's just a single concrete example, but I have no doubt that millions of Americans make decisions like this, based on what they "feel" instead of what they know to be the right decision. That's a scary thought to me.

It's my business because the consequences of these belief systems have the ability to impact my life and the life of my future family in the forms of terrorism and domestic policy, both of which of largely controlled by religious people.

You've somehow managed to survive the first 24 years of your life coexisting. Coincidently, the world has survived for a few years in its own right with religion managing to not destroy it yet.

And personally, when I think of thinks like people planting bombs in the name of God, I don't react by saying "If that person didn't believe in God, that wouldn't have happened." I'm more inclined to think "If that person weren't such a complete dumbass, he wouldn't have done that."

I also think if people weren't fighting over religion, they'd be fighting over something else. Political leanings, Scrabble results, football teams, I don't know what. I don't believe in God but I still find plenty to argue about in a given day. And God knows (...) you make me want to get violent sometimes...

I think the irrational decisions caused by religious beliefs go a lot further than just wars fought by extremists. You can look to a lot of American politics as an example of irrational religious beliefs taking over. Look at the gay marriage issue or stem cell research, for example.

That's at a national level, but I see examples of irrational decisions even at the personal level. I have a friend who was looking for an apartment a year ago. She had one picked out and said she was going to sign a lease the next day. I asked her the next day if she had signed her lease yet, and she said no, she changed her mind. For some reason she felt like God wanted her to be somewhere else. So she moved to another apartment, which she didn't like as much. I will never understand this. She made an important decision based on what she thought was part of some master, unknown plan, instead of based on reason. It may not have hurt anything in this case, but it boggles my mind that she can't make even a simple decision of where to live without involving God. That's just a single concrete example, but I have no doubt that millions of Americans make decisions like this, based on what they "feel" instead of what they know to be the right decision. That's a scary thought to me.

This is an excellent point, and I can't really challenege it. You're absolutely right that no religious person is immune from making, in my opinion, silly, misguided decisions based on which way the wind blows (er, excuse me, what God is telling them).

But I think we all make silly, misguided decisions. If she wants to base hers on what she thinks her God wants, so what? Do you ever make decisions based on your first, uneducated impression of a person or place (which could easily be interpreted as "God telling you something")? I know I do. If you're immune to such behavior, than I may have to change my stance. I may have found God, and his name is Adam Kemp.

Every person is different. Personally, I don't see a difference between this hatred of religion and a general hatred of a group of people whose skin is a color different from yours.

I live with two people who attend church twice a week, read the Bible nightly and thank Jesus for good things in their life. Not only are they nonviolent and humble, but they also couldn't care less what I think of them or their religion. They're happy. They don't try to force anything on anybody. Who the Hell am I to rain on their parade because I don't understand their logic.

Why isn't this your stereotype of religious people? I'm not sure I'd be capable of disliking these people if I tried. They are harmless.

I think the irrational decisions caused by religious beliefs go a lot further than just wars fought by extremists. You can look to a lot of American politics as an example of irrational religious beliefs taking over. Look at the gay marriage issue or stem cell research, for example.

That's at a national level, but I see examples of irrational decisions even at the personal level. I have a friend who was looking for an apartment a year ago. She had one picked out and said she was going to sign a lease the next day. I asked her the next day if she had signed her lease yet, and she said no, she changed her mind. For some reason she felt like God wanted her to be somewhere else. So she moved to another apartment, which she didn't like as much. I will never understand this. She made an important decision based on what she thought was part of some master, unknown plan, instead of based on reason. It may not have hurt anything in this case, but it boggles my mind that she can't make even a simple decision of where to live without involving God. That's just a single concrete example, but I have no doubt that millions of Americans make decisions like this, based on what they "feel" instead of what they know to be the right decision. That's a scary thought to me.

And another example.

I have a friend, very much antireligion. He told me one night, and I'm convinced he was being completely serious, that he actually thought America's religious leaders were conspiring to build some huge, undescribed "machine" aimed at convincing the world that there was a god and scare them into reminging under said religious leaders' influence.

So do I sterotype all antireligious zealots as uber-paranoid, bat@!$%# insane freaks? Because the thought of people believing THAT drivel is hilarious.

First, I'm not stereotyping. I don't think that everyone who believes in God bases life decisions on what they think "He" wants. In fact, I think that's a minority of religious people. But the fact is that belief in God enables them to make bad decisions without justification.

You're right that we all make bad decisions, but rational people are able to tell after the fact that a decision was bad and learn from that experience. If you believe that your decision was "what God wanted", then no matter how bad it turns out you will not learn from that experience. You will simply accept that God wanted you to do that, no matter what the consequences, and continue on making similar bad decisions. You can't learn from bad decisions if you think they were really the "right" decision, based on an irrational belief about what "God" wants you to do.

This conversation is confused in all the same ways as most conversations I've ever witnessed about God and religion. Terms are being thrown around with wanton ambiguity.

Firstly, it's transmogrified into the simplistic question "do you believe in God?" In this form the question is not very smart. It's framed in a way that makes an intelligent answer unlikely. The questioner assumes a particular notion of God: the one in the mind of the questioner. A slightly smarter question would be "do you believe in a god?" At least this would acknowledge the possibility of many different understandings of the notion of a god, or divine being.

Everyone here who has argued against the existence of God has, it seems to me, been arguing against the most simplistic, facile, anthropomorphic, Christian God-notion. This is not surprising since that is the notion of God most prevalent in nominally Christian societies.

It's disappointing that a quick search of this page reveals among the 8,500 odd words written, there is not one instance of "spirit" or "spirituality" or "soul" or "divinity" or "sacred" or "numinous" or any other word that might allude to a valid reason for embracing the notion of a god or being a member of a religion.

It's disappointing that a quick search of this page reveals among the 8,500 odd words written, there is not one instance of "spirit" or "spirituality" or "soul" or "divinity" or "sacred" or "numinous" or any other word that might allude to a valid reason for embracing the notion of a god or being a member of a religion.

Why is it disappointing? How does discussing "spirituality" or "the soul" change this debate? Could you elaborate?

You're right that we all make bad decisions, but rational people are able to tell after the fact that a decision was bad and learn from that experience. If you believe that your decision was "what God wanted", then no matter how bad it turns out you will not learn from that experience. You will simply accept that God wanted you to do that, no matter what the consequences, and continue on making similar bad decisions. You can't learn from bad decisions if you think they were really the "right" decision, based on an irrational belief about what "God" wants you to do.

Adam, what you present happens, but it's not every Christian's attitude, neither is it the biblical teaching (from my perspective, anyway). A better approach to being guided by God is to recognise that God is perfect, but I am not, and that the path which leads to a greater knowledge of God is fraught with mistakes and wrong turns.

Someone who will argue that all their decisions were guided by God, and therefore right (no matter how terrible the results) is a fanatic, and not a good example of a disciple of the Lord Jesus. I know some atheists who will also never admit they made a wrong decision (though they don't blame God for it :-) It's caused by stubbornness, not faith.

You've probably noticed that Daniel belongs to a very, very select group in the Bible - those of whom no faults are mentioned. They are the exception, as most of God's greatest servants (Abraham, Moses, David, etc., etc.) failed (and their failures are not omitted from the Bible). The Bible teaches me to seek God's guidance for every day of my life, but to recognise that my inherent weakness will inevitably make me fail - thus I will need to constantly evaluate my decisions, and learn from them.

I'm not saying that they think they're infallible, or that every decision they make comes from God. I'm saying that many Christians (not all, or even most) make important decisions based on irrational beliefs, and I think that's bad.

I'm saying that many Christians (not all, or even most) make important decisions based on irrational beliefs, and I think that's bad.

I agree. But many non-Christians make important decisions based on irrational emotions, which I also think is bad.

1,367,009 – The number of violent crimes committed in the United States in 2004.

16,137 – The number of murders committed in the United States in 2004.

2,819 – The number of murders on 9/11/01 at the WTC committed by ideological fanatics acting in the name of their religion.

All of these numbers are tragic, and violence in the name of religion is still violence. But how rational is it to focus so much on religious violence when it is obviously a minority category among all violent acts?

Would an overall disbelief in god create a utopia of unity and unfettered benevolence? No, of course not. It would, however, create a world that was a bit more compassionate and rational. And it would ultimately lead to a world that was less violent.

ScooterDMan, for someone so vehement about the "irrational and destructive belief systems" of others, you seem to have convinced yourself that religion is responsible for all the world's woes. I don't think that is rational. Remove religion from the world and you also remove an overwhelming amount of good that is also done in the name of God. I'm not sure the scales would bear out your contentions.

You're only counting America, and you're only counting recent numbers. That skews the numbers a lot. Why not add up all of the religious wars in history, and all of the executions in foreign countries that are for religious reasons, and all religiously-justified terrorist attacks, etc. Will it be bigger than all other murders? Probably not. But it's still a huge number of deaths that are justified by religion. Pretending that it's insignificant is kind of crazy, if you ask me.

Adam - I limited my comment to the facts I had available. If you know the numbers, post them. I'm sure it would be interesting to see. If anything, I would expect that the percentage of violent acts commited in the name of (any) God would actually be getting smaller over time relative to non-religious violence.

Pretending that it's insignificant is kind of crazy, if you ask me.

Not sure where you got this sentiment from my comment, but that wasn't what I said, or even intimated. Rather, I was trying to point out the disproportionate blame being placed on religion for the ills of the world.

I don't have specific numbers either, nor do I think it's possible to get truly accurate numbers. I was merely pointing out how your numbers could be misleading.

I misunderstood your comment. If all you're saying is that religion gets blamed more, then perhaps that's true. But I think there are plenty of other causes for violence which get more blame. Poverty is one, for instance. The thing about religion is that it's a relatively definable concept, and it has a much more direct and obvious cause and effect relationship to the violence than many other causes. It's also easier to say "let's stop practicing these exclusive religions that put people against each other in the name of God" than to try to come up with a viable solution for poverty.

That said, I've always been of the opinion that religion is merely a catalyst for violence, not the original cause. I don't think violence will go away, or even decrease all that much, just by removing religion from the equation. This is one area in which I differ from many non-believers.

It's also easier to say "let's stop practicing these exclusive religions that put people against each other in the name of God" than to try to come up with a viable solution for poverty.

I disagree. I think it is a waste of time to try and get people to stop practicing their religions. If you are right, and there is no God, what harm will come because they lived their lives of faith? And, as you said yourself, "I don't think violence will go away, or even decrease all that much, just by removing religion from the equation."

On the other hand, here is a viable solution to poverty: "Sell everything you have and give to the poor" – Luke 18:22

A viable solution to poverty starts with each individual who is willing to consume a little less and give away a little more to those in need. You can even start that on your own. You don't need a government or church or any other institution to do it. Just go, wherever you live, and find a person in need and help them with their need.

That is certainly a more worthy cause than trying to rid the world of religion.

It's certainly a waste of time to try to get people to stop practicing their religions. By then, it's too late.

It's true that history remembers tragedies more starkly than triumphs, but that does not mean that you can simply say "Well, we only remember the Crusades, Manifest Destiny, the Spanish Inquisition..."

I agree that religion has often been used as a political excuse/justification for travesties with other original causes. But, religion provides an incredibly convenient and convincing justification for any such action.

This is the danger that religion poses. No one will say "F---! The Lakers lost their last three games! Avenge their losses with the blood of heathens (who conveniently own fertile land)!" No. With religion? Most major organized religions are constructed upon an edifice of guilt and a desire for absolution or redemption.

With this kind of ideology indoctrinated nearly from birth (and thus, blindly), and with this ideology giving itself the ability to remove itself from rational criticism ("God said so"), irrational actions, horrible actions, utterly inhuman actions can be twisted into things that look good in this particular framework.

This twisting, mangling, and utter vaporizing of rational thought is what makes organized religion so incredibly dangerous.

On the other hand, here is a viable solution to poverty: "Sell everything you have and give to the poor" – Luke 18:22

I really, really hope you're kidding.

Mogmich posted an interesting seed today related to faith as a cause of hate and war. Some of you might like to check it out.

I too have been touched by his noodly appendage.

saucy!

There was never proof that I was involved in the Noodle Incident

And based on that, you feel at liberty to ridicule the notion of God? Because many people are gullible, and many others are willing to exploit that gullibility You conclude that God does not exist? I honestly can't follow your logic here!

That's certainly a fair question to ask Slade. I understand why you may feel that his progression of logic doesn't not warrant his final conclusion.

But then I must ask you, Paddy, what sort of logical progression do you use that leads you to believe that a god exists?

But then I must ask you, Paddy, what sort of logical progression do you use that leads you to believe that a god exists?

Scooter, as I've stated elsewhere here on the Vine, I do not (and can not) prove my faith in God by logical progression. My criticism of Slade's article is that he attempts to use logic to arrive at a conclusion that logic can say nothing about.

Paddy, the whole thing feels like an ancient scam to me

No problem if that's what you think. My question still stands, however - how can your logic support your conclusion?

So I ask what I always ask people who profess to believe in God. Which one? And why that one? And what of the others?

Only faith can answer that question.

I am attempting to be logical. Attributing God or belief in God to "faith" is just a cop-out. Which God?

A cop-out is avoiding a commitment or responsibility. If you want to, you can throw out everything which does not adhere to strict logical laws, and continue to look for a rational explanation for everything (but I could call that a cop-out!). I cannot avoid the issues which I have faced in my life, and thus, even though forfeiting faith would be the simplest path, I will not take it. I believe in God based on faith, not logic. Call it a cop-out if you will, but that's how it is.

From that basic starting point, I can evaluate the evidence presented to me and seek to answer your second question: "Which God?" But the answer to that question also relies heavily on faith. So again, that's how it is. It's not something I can convince you of, neither will I try.

One little detail, however. You present the multiplicity of deities as evidence that God does not exist - I suppose you are aware that to many who believe in God, the multiplicity of deities is a confirmation of their faith, not an obstacle?

If I remember correctly Nietzche believed that religion was created by the romans to keep the slaves in captivity. Based on the assumption that they would remain docile and avoid overthrowing their captors if their religion forbade them from doing so.

OK, first of all, in Nietzsche's Zur Genealogie der Moral (Towards a Genealogy of Morals) he divides religion up into three stages. The first stage, corresponding to what he termed the "master morality," valued strength, nobility, etc. It primarily corresponds to the ancient religions, i.e. Greek/Roman, German, etc. This type of religion was superseded by the second type, corresponding to the "slave morality" (these terms should be translated loosely). This religion was created by those who suffered under the old religions. The adherents were weak (say, the poorest of the poor), but, through religion, they turned this weakness into strength. This religion corresponds to Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion, etc. The third religion is Nietzsche's projected next stage of morality, and so is beyond the scope of this discussion.

slade's article deals mostly with the religions of the slave morality, yet he has an opposite interpretation. Nietzsche viewed this new religion as the tool by which the "slaves" took power from the "masters," not as the means by which they were exploited and oppressed.

If you want more information on Nietzsche's interpretation of religious progression, you can read the e-text of his book here.

Arrr, admitedly, I am not an expert on Nietzsche's views, but I did not mean to suggest "all religion" only christianity. Sorry for the confusion.

Darkness, thanks for straightening me out, my source was an unreliable one, a friend of mine (graduate student in philosophy) and based on his personal views I can understand why he misinterpreted in such a manner. I suppose we all interpret the world in the way we best see fit. :-D

Still, I think that Nietzsche's view does coincide with Adams'. At least in relation to the "slave morality." They both saw religion as providing something that was lacking for people. Even if they both believed it does not exist.

Douglas Adams. I was confused too. :)

See the first comment in this thread.

Grandin it's all drivel to comment on drivel is a technical foul, the double drivel. I guess I'm guilty of the triple drivel with this post.

Normally if you add an "Obligatory Thread" comment, you can equal it out. Like this.

OBTHRD: One problem the scientists have explaining away God, which certainly exists as The Creator in almost all cultures, is that there is a very difficult-to-explain-away issue of creating matter and energy from no matter nor energy. Infinity is a tough one. Personally it's as easy as accepting there is a God, because there is Love, and it can't be any other way or any more simple than that.

Your pal,

TBone

Religion is not the problem. Dogma is.

Leon, good point.

Leon,

Religion is not the problem. Dogma is.

Despite the flippant response you got, this is probably the wisest comment in this whole conversation. Dogmatism, or fundamentalism is indeed the problem and it's not restricted to religion. People can be dogmatic about science, politics, economics ... it's a long list.

Religion becomes dogmatic when the believer has doubts that he won't admit. Then it's not enough for him to believe, he wants everyone else to believe as well. The same is true for dogmatic atheists, dogmatic capitalists and those who have a blind, uncritical belief that democracy is the best form of government (just to name three "faiths").

Im with you. I never understood the belief. I see it as mainly fueled by 2 things: momentum (being brought up in it so by the time you are old enough to critically decide for yourself you have been unduly influenced) and fear (mainly of death).

Especially for the twisted belief systems that most religions have, filled with contradictions, lack of critical thought and questioning, bizarred and dated rules, intolerance, and the ability to violate their gods laws in order to spread the glory of their god.

That's where Ian looked.

Ha yeah that is what I meant by recent. I figured, compared to the entire history of religion, that this was a rather recent thing.

I figured, compared to the entire history of religion, that this was a rather recent thing.

Lanka, your comment sparked my interest. What time-span are you considering for "the entire history of religion"?

Hmm well, when I made that comment I suppose I had forgotten how old Judaism is. I suppose the recent really only applies to Christianity and Islam, which have been around for about the last 2,000 years, while documentation of religion started creeping up about 2,000 B.C. (at least that's what my brief search of the internet has told me).

My point is the concept that there is only one true religion that can offer salvation is not true for all religions, many of the older religions can coexist with no troubling conflicts that the Abrahamic ones have (for example as I understand it according to Christianity a Muslim cannot be saved unless he/she converts and follows Jesus, while Islam says the same thing just backwards.)

Into which defintion of "religion" does atheism fit?

jpark, as an agnostic, I actually agree with a lot of what Slade says, though I find the "God, therefore, does not exist." conclusion faulty if we take "God" to be a very generalized and vague higher being.

If we take more specific versions of God, say, the Christian OT+NT God, then we find that -- between the politics, controversy, and self-contradiction (esp. in the OT, where contradictions are conveniently whiled away by "well, according to this interpretation" ex post facto hackery) through its history, archaeological/physical-law inconsistencies, and its self-referencing nature (The Bible is true because the Bible says so) -- the Book is probabilistically far from the Absolute Truth it so successfully claims itself to be.

Thus, as said above, faith and religion, as idealistic concepts, are not the problem: their exploitation through dogma and fear is.

The athiest's religion does not differ in this respect from the religion of Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, etc. It differs only in the athiest's denial that his religion has any power to impart to its believers.

The susceptibility to exloitation of said "religions" is a huge difference between atheism and organized theistic religions.

jpark, what's your religion? It seems that you lambast anything close to proselytization, but you're doing the same, albeit in a passive-aggressive manner.

Jack Huang,

I was raised protestant Christian. I do believe God exists. I am not actively a Christian.

I do generally point out the similarities between atheist proselytization and the proselytization of god based religions.

Belief without proof defines faith. Faith is an aspect of religion. It is OK to believe in a god or gods. It is OK to believe that no gods exist. But it is important to note that either belief is still a choice, not based on fact.

The agnostic has made no choice and does not proselytize. The atheist has made a choice and often does proselytize.

When the atheist points out the foolishness of the believer in god, that such a believer lacks proof, he should recognize that he also lacks proof of his chosen belief.

This whole conversation reminds me of one of my favorite E.E. Cummings poems, Pity This Busy Monster, Manunkind.

My favorite line from the poem refers to humanity playing "with the bigness of his littleness."

In a cosmos where "Earth is barely a speck of sand in a universe of billions upon billions of stars," the notion that we can somehow have things figured out is preposterous.

In a cosmos where "Earth is barely a speck of sand in a universe of billions upon billions of stars," the notion that we can somehow have things figured out is preposterous.

When the Atheist says, "There Is No God" – is he exempt from this criticism?

When the Atheist says, "There Is No God" – is he exempt from this criticism?

Of course he is. An atheist doesn't make claims about any type of First Cause.

C'mon, Tim. Go read a A Brief History of Time or an Introduction to the Cosmos textbook (or just go look at this labeled representation of the Milky Way), and then come back, look me straight in the eye and tell me which of these stories is not completely ridiculous.

Is that your defense? Kick up a cloud of dust and run in another direction? How do any of these topics innoculate the Atheist from the criticism that his claim is preposterous? That he has it all figured out? Is it not preposterous to say that the Atheist has surveyed the Universe and can unequivocally say:

"There Is No God"

It seems to me an amazing claim for a man to make:
– a man who will live but 70 or 80 years in a Universe that is billions of years old
– a man who can barely make it to the moon and back
– a man who is so delicate he can only survive in the unique conditions of our tiny planet
– a man who can only see as small pinpricks of lights the billions of galaxies that are 10s of thousands of light years in diameter

This man – the sack of bones and flesh with use of only a small portion of his brain is qualified to make such a claim?

I think you must be kidding me.

It seems to me an amazing claim for a man to make: – a man who will live but 70 or 80 years in a Universe that is billions of years old – a man who can barely make it to the moon and back – a man who is so delicate he can only survive in the unique conditions of our tiny planet – a man who can only see as small pinpricks of lights the billions of galaxies that are 10s of thousands of light years in diameter

Excellent. That's my point exactly. As long as you admit that saying "There is a God" is equally as ridiculous as "There isn't a God," then it seems we have come to terms.

The only problem is that one of the statements is true and the other is not. So, it seems the question is about which is more reasonable, or another way of saying it, less preposterous.

To say "There Is A God" recognizes that man is not the end-all-be-all. It is to see the world and Universe around him and come to the conclusion that it is too great, too beautiful to be simply a product of chance. It is to see man as a spiritual being, but recognizes that there is a greater power beyond himself at work in the Universe.

To say "There Is No God" is to see nothing more than chance and randomness. It is to deny the spirituality of man and see him only as an animal. It is to deny any natural order than that dictated by physical power and mental cunning. If man is merely a more advanced animal and not a spiritual being, what basis is there for morality, truth, right or wrong?

Because of these (and many other reasons), I find it more preposterous to say "There Is No God."

I don't think saying either "there is a God" or "there is no God" is the same as "figuring it all out". I'm not sure why anyone would think so.

To say "There Is A God" recognizes that man is not the end-all-be-all. It is to see the world and Universe around him and come to the conclusion that it is too great, too beautiful to be simply a product of chance. It is to see man as a spiritual being, but recognizes that there is a greater power beyond himself at work in the Universe.

To say "There Is No God" is to see nothing more than chance and randomness. It is to deny the spirituality of man and see him only as an animal. It is to deny any natural order than that dictated by physical power and mental cunning. If man is merely a more advanced animal and not a spiritual being, what basis is there for morality, truth, right or wrong?

Thank you for articulating your reasons for belief. You've articulated both positions well, but I do issue with a few points.

It is to see man as a spiritual being, but recognizes that there is a greater power beyond himself at work in the Universe.

It seems to me that here you refer to a First Cause. I don't have much to say about that other than I believe the force that is responsible is inconceivable, and not necessarily supernatural. In this regard, every organized religion in the world, both large and small, has failed miserably in explaining the origins of the universe. The closest I would come to fate or purpose would be that it is my observation that we as humans seem to be constantly moving toward a state of greater complexity.

To say "There Is No God" is to see nothing more than chance and randomness. It is to deny the spirituality of man and see him only as an animal. It is to deny any natural order than that dictated by physical power and mental cunning.

You do a fine job articulating my beliefs here. I do not believe in the soul or spirituality. I think both are wonderful inventions of our ever expanding imaginations. I see man as an animal, because, well, that's what he is. And in nature, we can directly and indirectly observe how physical power and mental cunning shape the natural order of things.

I do take issue with this, however.

If man is merely a more advanced animal and not a spiritual being, what basis is there for morality, truth, right or wrong?

The presupposition that moral and ethical codes are derived from religion is false. It is, in fact, quite the opposite, as it is religion that adopted useful, pre-existing morals, and codified and enforced them.

The Ten Commandments, for instance, contain morals, several that instruct humans how to interact with God, and several that instruct humans how to live their lives. Of the latter, (don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, don't betray Mom and Dad, etc) you find that there is nothing especially divine about those commandments; they are common sense laws that, when followed, generally result in longer lifespans.

In that way, we can view morals in terms of Natural Selection, in that the morals that are most useful to us (ie, they keep us alive) persist, while others fade away.

Now, granted you don't believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, and granted you accept that the rise of the modern human predates any recorded religion by millions of years, you surely wouldn't argue that those humans lived in utter chaos, without morals or laws, until God revealed himself? That, of course, would not make sense.

Now your argument for belief in God is an argument from design, which would mean you likely don't believe in evolution or natural selection (Please correct me if I am wrong). If that is the case, I am not sure we have much to argue about anymore, but I am interested in your response. If that's not the case, I am really interested in how you reconcile those beliefs.

Forgive me for not understanding your "simple" argument. Please explain how not believing in God is in any way related to "denying Love". I don't even know what it would mean to "deny Love".

Adam, it just means that all non-God-believers are heartless SOBs incapable of any semblance any compassion, pity, empathy, romantic love, familial love, etc.

Of course, if I'm wrong, TBone, please elaborate.

Being that love is basically a chemical reaction, I'm not sure what belief of ANY kind has to do with it....unless it's "I don't believe in love" or something actually involving the emotional or chemical response systems. But then, I can probably assume that I'm over thinking the statement :P

Fact is, you can explain Love as a chemical reaction, an electrical reaction, in mathematics and in prose.

What evolutionary goal does appreciation of a sunset or other natural beauty offer?

Section 3 of this link has a nice explanation of why an appreciation for nature, or what it might be indicating, might evolve.

First of all, atheism is not the same as evolution. I cannot stress that enough. If you're going to attack atheism, then you cannot do so by attacking evolution, Likewise, if you want to attack evolution then you cannot do so by attacking atheism (which some people do).

Second, evolution does not need to explain every nuance of human behavior. There's a misconception that with evolution every single trait must have a direct benefit. In reality, some traits are just the side effects of other traits which did have selective benefits, and some traits are just the result of random genetic drift. Asking an evolutionist to explain why we appreciate sunsets just shows an ignorance of how evolution actually works.

That's simply not true. I no more need faith and belief that there is no God, than I need faith and belief that Zeus or unicorns or fairies don't exist.

An atheist doesn't believe there is no god in the same way that a religious person beleives there is. Atheistic non-belief is not an active pursuit. It's not a belief in anything. Atheists put God or Allah in the same category as all other gods and mythical creatures. There is no good reason to be agnostic toward unicorns or Zeus, and in fact we would marginalise someone who is. The atheist thinks the same of God.

What I meant is that it takes leaps of faith to believe any of the theories as far as how us humans came into being.

Now you're moving into a different area. There is a proven explanation for our existence. It is called The Theory of Evolution and it is supported by a vast and indisputable body of evidence. There are many threads regarding this, and many sources of information. I wont rehash it here.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion, despite what anyone wants me to think. It no more disproves God than any other scientific discovery because once you figure out how we came into being as humans, you start tracking back further and further and further until you have to account for the initial spark, even if it's the one that caused the "big bang" to happen. Eventually, you end up at the beginning, and that's where it becomes a matter of faith.

I didn't say it did disprove God. You said:

...it takes leaps of faith to believe any of the theories as far as how us humans came into being.

That is simply not true.

Now if we jump back to the origin of life, we leave the territory of evolution, it has nothing to say regarding how life initially came into being. It deals only with what happened after that. The origin of life is more a question for physics and chemistry.

If we go back even further we get to the most perplexing questions: How did the universe start? Did it start or has it always been? etc.

You can chose to whack a "Made in heaven" sticker on it, at this point, but that's a hollow explanation that does nothing to answer those questions. It merely shifts them yet another step backward.

I think we're just arguing about my wording here. I was referring to those perplexing questions you're referring to. No matter what, we're talking about things that our minds can barely comprehend.

Ok. I certainly agree with you that they're perplexing, complicated, and interesting questions. I don't agree that "God did it" is a satisfactory explanation.

I agree. It does work against beliefs in "all-loving" and omnipotent gods, though.

Munzilla, isn't it rather curious that the broadest religious morality coincides very closely with socially derived biological morality, and that the smaller religious morals (like no-meat days or prohibiting pork) have been found to be strongly correlated with social and physical conditions at the time of those religions' creation?

THe things you bring up do not, of course, nullify the existence of God, but isn't it terribly and beyond-coincidentally convenient for religious morality to exactly fit objectively beneficial social moralities for the ancient societies that created said religions?

This says nothing about the existence of God, but seems rather curious in light of many religions' claims of being Timeless Absolute Truth.

It does. But not everything that was said in the Bible is applicable today, especially when you're talking about things as minor as food eating habits.

Where do you draw the line? How do you decide which bit of The Absolute Truth and Word of God is still The Absolute Truth and Word of God. The more bits you decide are no longer applicable, or allegorical rather than literal, the less reliable the Bible is as a source of anything.

Ryan hit the nail on the head.

I always find it absolutely incredible that, in the same breath, devout believers of some form of Christianity will profess the Absolute Truth of the Bible, yet disavow the applicability of some of its more socially absurd and nitpicking edicts.

I don't think we need to even ask "where do you draw the line?"

Can you, in any way consistent with your faith in the Bible, that you have any sort of right to declare parts of it null and void? Just as a nitpick, can anyone who believes that the Bible is the absolute Word of God actually fully justify throwing out "minor" parts of the Bible? Why is any part of the Word of God "minor" to the point of "negligible"?

We still have meat, fish, and vegetables on this world, and we still have the concept of a week. Thus, why doesn't the meatless-day divine rule apply more?

I would love to have unequivocal proof either way, even if I was wrong. The fact that I don't does not mean that I don't want the truth. We're merely taking what we consider to be the rational choice.

I can see that you must speak based on a very limited experience with actual atheists. I was involved in a decent-sized atheist/agnostic group when I was in college (about 30-40 people came to the meetings every week), and most of them explained that they had gone through a long and slow process of "deconverting". They did "look" for God in one way or another, and in each case they eventually came to the conclusion that there is no God.

There are atheists who disbelieve merely because they don't think it matters. There are also deists who believe in a generic God simply because they haven't given it much thought and that belief just kind of makes sense to them. I could easily argue that they believe in God because they haven't given it enough thought. It would be wrong of me to generalize that and claim that theists in general believe in God because they haven't thought deeply enough about it.

In most cases, the people who are most passionate (on both sides) have given it a great deal of thought. I personally have thought more about religion, god, the possibilities, and the consequences more in my life than I think most people do in their entire lifetime (and I'm only 23). I've thought about it that much. Still, I remain unconvinced that there is a god. That is because of how much I've thought about it.

You can see, then, why it would be annoying and frustrating to hear people claim that atheists don't put much thought into it, or simply haven't "looked hard enough". That's just pure ignorance.

the people who are most passionate (on both sides) have given it a great deal of thought

Agreed. The question is to those "less-passionate" people (on both sides, really) that have not given it a great deal of thought. I was not intending to imply that if you don't believe in a god that you haven't "looked hard enough" or don't want to know "bad enough".

The question is (I hope) a simple one that (I think) people should consider for themselves. Just like voting. It frustrates me to no end when religious people simply vote for their religious leader's candidate of choice. It seems like the same principle to me: think and make decisions for yourself.

I can easily find 30-40 people who have looked for love/a significant other/whatever and have since given up. Obviously that doesn't mean that I can't find it. I'm not judging them or saying they didn't do the "right things" to find love. The analogy isn't perfect, but I think/hope the point is clear: just because they couldn't find it, doesn't mean I can't.

And that's all the question really is: Do you care to know if god exists enough to look for yourself?

Which in your specific case, it sounds like you do and you have. Which is great. And if someone doesn't care, that's fine too. That's their choice to make.

But a lot (at least in my experience) of people — on both sides of the issue — care about the answer, but haven't done their own "looking" for the answer.

I know just as many "god-believing" people who don't know why they believe in god and simply "believe" because their family/friends do. Which, generally speaking, probably makes them no better off than those who do not believe.

Regardless of how civil any comments are at this point, this article was clearly meant to get people's ire up. Why else would he put it under the "bush" tag when it has nothing remotely to do with Bush?
Also, the snide, arrogant tone and phrasing he uses isn't far from bigotry. Way to go, Slade, let's try to divide us all even further because you think you know all the answers, when in reality, this article contains nothing new that hasn't been rehashed time and time again. There are extremely intelligent Theists and extremely intelligent atheists, so clearly this is an issue that transcends any of your haughty condescension. In the end, it comes down to a pointless debate in that neither side can prove the other is right or wrong.

@Adam —

I would love to have unequivocal proof either way, even if I was wrong ... I personally have thought more about religion, god, the possibilities, and the consequences more in my life than I think most people do in their entire lifetime ...

In all sincerity, I hope you're "looking" in the right places. If you're looking for unequivocal proof (as in absolute, scientific proof) you won't find much pointing to the Christian God (or most gods for that matter). It's been said elsewhere on Newsvine, and probably even on this article (haven't kept up with all the comments): you won't find God, and more specifically Jesus, without faith.

Hopefully this doesn't come across too preachy ... but the truth of God can not be found only through logic and reasoning — as hard as some people (on both sides) may try. It is only through the foolishness of faith. If you really want to know if the God of the Bible exists, you need to "look" beyond what you can understand with your mind.

Taking that step beyond what is considered rational is difficult. Which raises the earlier question of whether or not one really wants to know the truth of God's existence. Most people are unwilling to leave the realm of "reality" to look for God, and understandably so, for it conflicts with all that we can comprehend with our mind. In short, it's crazy and irrational.

(And for the record, having an irrational faith in God does not require one to cast an irrational vote for Bush. See here and here for more on that, if you're interested.)

Well said, landerson.

well said as a case against god IMHO

landerson:

Your first comment singled out atheists as people who generally don't put much thought into it. You didn't mention the apathetic theists at all. It seems like you've backed off of that now, but it is disappointing that you initially only put that blame on atheists. I think it shows some bias.

In your second comment, you said (basically) that it takes more than reason and evidence to find God. That's not going to cut it with me. You're not going to convince me of something by asking me to just "have faith". You're basically saying "if you want to find God, you first have to accept that God exists". I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I cannot simply "have faith" in something without a reason. It's not a lack of effort. It's an impossibility. I cannot believe something which I know is irrational. I cannot believe in something without evidence. I think it's ridiculous to ask anyone to believe something which is not rational. In fact, it can be dangerous.

I know just as many "god-believing" people who don't know why they believe in god and simply "believe" because their family/friends do. Which, generally speaking, probably makes them no better off than those who do not believe.

Landerson, I think you summed it up very well.

Cheers.