Atheism: what is it?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There is ZERO evidence that there is no God.

Sometimes I can't tell if Cali is being disingenuous or sincere or trying to be funny. This is one instance. This sentence is a howler. Now I'm suspecting Cali is an atheist who's having a good time with all of us.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Sometimes I can't tell if Cali is being disingenuous or sincere or trying to be funny. This is one instance. This sentence is a howler. Now I'm suspecting Cali is an atheist who's having a good time with all of us.

No, quite sincere. The non-existence of God is unprovable. As a result, there can never be any evidence of God's non-existence. If one chooses to believe that there is no God, it can never be a belief based on any evidence (and therefore must by definition be based on faith).

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, quite sincere. The non-existence of God is unprovable. As a result, there can never be any evidence of God's non-existence. If one chooses to believe that there is no God, it can never be a belief based on any evidence (and therefore must by definition be based on faith).

Do I understand you to say that if some proposiiton is unproveable that means there can be no evidence in support of the proposition? I don't follow that, as there can be evidecne in support of something without that something being proven, correct? For example (and I may regret jumping in here, especially on this sidce of it) isn't the fact that no one has a photo of God some evidecne on the issue?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, quite sincere. The non-existence of God is unprovable. As a result, there can never be any evidence of God's non-existence. If one chooses to believe that there is no God, it can never be a belief based on any evidence (and therefore must by definition be based on faith).

The problem with this argument is, the affirmative position is that there is a God, not that there isn't (cf proving a negative). Despite atheists who run around exclaiming, "There is no God" what they really mean is, "There is no proof of a God."

Were incontrovertible proof of God's existence to be demonstrated, honest atheists (those not too stubbornly prideful at having been wrong) would change their minds, and it would be consistent with their "belief" system.

[Archaea]

In many respects, atheists are logical nihilists, naysayers. German is "Nichtsager".

A pure atheist, pure to his core, will believe as Nietsche, that there is no knowledge, no valid perception, no beauty, no nothing that everything is deception. Anything beyond that is not a materialist in the purest sense.

However, most atheists are not noble in their pursuit of truth, just not willing to take active faith, requiring somebody else prove it to them. That's why I find atheism lazy.

It's an empiricist who refuses to look.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

All-American, Cali,

Seattle is not foolish enough (I hope) to try to argue with you over the dictionary definition or the historic etymology of atheism/agnosticism.

But these words are part of a living, evolving language and further, expressive of a dynamic belief system.

If you read the recent literature regarding unbelief, you will see that Seattle is correct: the terms are increasingly being used interchangeably. And I feel that it is the atheists' right as those within the system to define themselves and their terminology.

Both atheists and agnostics refuse to acknowledge the existence of god. Both feel that the empirical proof does not exist. Regarding your assertions that atheists act on a type of faith, I know no atheists who would suggest that god could never exist - that would require faith. They simply suggest that, like the celestial teapot, they have never seen him. This is, frankly, not any kind of faith - but rather the absence thereof.

If they're being used interchangeably, they're being used incorrectly. Those who you describe in the last paragraph are textbook agnostics. Should they assert that there IS no God, they are, by definition, atheists.

I don't particularly feel the need to argue this one; the words speak for themselves.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by creekster

Do I understand you to say that if some proposiiton is unproveable that means there can be no evidence in support of the proposition? I don't follow that, as there can be evidecne in support of something without that something being proven, correct? For example (and I may regret jumping in here, especially on this sidce of it) isn't the fact that no one has a photo of God some evidecne on the issue?

Have you heard the saying, "you can't prove a negative"? I believe he is basing his argument on that.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

The problem with this argument is, the affirmative position is that there is a God, not that there isn't (cf proving a negative). Despite atheists who run around exclaiming, "There is no God" what they really mean is, "There is no proof of a God."

Were incontrovertible proof of God's existence to be demonstrated, honest atheists (those not too stubbornly prideful at having been wrong) would change their minds, and it would be consistent with their "belief" system.

Along these lines: Joseph Smith taught that when Jesus came again, many would argue that it was just a comet.

But here it is again. To say that one has no proof of God's existence (or even more honestly, that he has no knowledge of any proof of God's existence), is, by the meaning of the word itself, agnosticism.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Along these lines: Joseph Smith taught that when Jesus came again, many would argue that it was just a comet.

But here it is again. To say that one has no proof of God's existence (or even more honestly, that he has no knowledge of any proof of God's existence), is, by the meaning of the word itself, agnosticism.

These labels come by way of outsiders seeking to define the group. It is an outsider's way of understanding what the insiders profess.

Although I'm not certain agnosticism and atheism really are that much different. Philosophically, I can see the distinction.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by All-American

Have you heard the saying, "you can't prove a negative"? I believe he is basing his argument on that.

Right but that it is not "proveable" doen't mena there is by definition no evidence, does it?